Review of 20mm f1.7 lens

[Terry]

DPReview has their review up for the new 20mm pancake. They have results for both the GF1 and the Pen. Bottom line it is considered a must have lens for micro 4/3 :thumbs:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/

 

[jonoslack]

DPReview has their review up for the new 20mm pancake. They have results for both the GF1 and the Pen. Bottom line it is considered a must have lens for micro 4/3 :thumbs:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/

Thanks for the link Terry . . . I want one!

When do you get your GF1 . . . are you going to do a comparison with the EP1?

 

[Terry]

Thanks for the link Terry . . . I want one!

When do you get your GF1 . . . are you going to do a comparison with the EP1?

Jono - I'm in NY my GF1 is with my doorman in SF ... I will be back for about 8 hours on Sunday to grab the camera and a little bit of sleep before I leave on a business trip. The following weekend (3rd-4th) I was planning on going out and shooting all four m4/3 cameras together with various lenses. Should be a fun exercise.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono - I'm in NY my GF1 is with my doorman in SF ... I will be back for about 8 hours on Sunday to grab the camera and a little bit of sleep before I leave on a business trip. The following weekend (3rd-4th) I was planning on going out and shooting all four m4/3 cameras together with various lenses. Should be a fun exercise.

You need extra hands!
I'd offer mine, but they're too far away!

Good Luck

 

[Brian Mosley]

Yes, it's an excellent review - it's certainly convinced me the lens is worth having... looks extremely sharp, light and compact, and of course a nice fast aperture will be terrific!

Interesting line on Auto Focus performance :

"It's not as fast as the Panasonic 14-45mm or 14-140mm zooms, but it's not terribly slow either (obviously this depends to some extent on the specific body used, with the E-P1 feeling just a little bit slower than the G1 or GF1)."

At last, out goes the 'Lightyears ahead' hyperbole which others have used, and we have a more realistic description. :clap:

Cheers

Brian

 

[Bob]

This is what I ordered for my GF1 (and thanks for the assist Terry!)
It looks to be a promising little system.
-bob

 

[lambert]

What a terrific little lens. A quality lens lineup is the hallmark of a quality camera company and Panasonic seeming to be pulling out all stops. I enjoyed this quote from the review"

"Panasonic appears to be positioning the GF1 as the spiritual successor to the likes of the CL and the Contax G series - as a high quality portable camera system for serious photographers."

I have owned dozens of cameras over the years and the Minolta CLE was my all time favourite, particularly when partnered with the little Rokkor 40mm. The GF1 has some big shoes to fill. But if this lens is a sign of things to come, woohoo !!

 

[Vivek]

Here is a brief user take on this lens:

http://photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00UYG3

IMO, the prices of the m4/3rds are a bit on the higher side. I think it is reflective of the success of the system.

I hope that other players (Pentax, etc) will come in to the market. Leica lost a chance with the X1.

M4/3rds prime lens prices are almost on par with those of the Cosina RF lenses.

 

[Ranger 9]

Yes, the prices of µ4/3 lenses introduced so far are higher than those of "genericana," but I think it's important to remember that in many respects they are "premium optics."

Obviously a lot of attention is going into the optical designs, and the material choices (e.g. plastics) seem more for low weight than for cutting costs.

Recently one of our offices bought a new low-end Canon DSLR (I forget which model) with its bundled "kit lens," and asked me to look it over. I thought the camera body was okay, but I was a bit appalled by the lens: it had IS and a useful zoom range, and the online reviews said it was pretty sharp, but the thing was as loose as a goose. The barrel felt flimsy, the zoom action was gritty, and when extended all the way, the front barrel shifted noticeably whenever you touched the focus ring.

By comparison, the Pana 14-45 "kit zoom" feels like a much higher-grade lens, and there certainly hasn't been anything in its performance that I can complain about. I've owned the 45-200 only briefly and haven't shot much with it, but again it feels well-made and wobble-free. Other users seem to have commented similarly on the 14-140 and the two Olympus lenses to date.

It strikes me as pretty smart on the part of the two µ4/3 makers to realize that the whole format is going to gain or lose its reputation on the caliber of their initial offerings, and so far their lens choices seem to be emphasizing quality over quantity -- I'd rather have BOTH quality and quantity, of course, but it's hard to argue with this philosophy!

 

[Vivek]

Recently one of our offices bought a new low-end Canon DSLR (I forget which model) with its bundled "kit lens," and asked me to look it over. I thought the camera body was okay, but I was a bit appalled by the lens: it had IS and a useful zoom range, and the online reviews said it was pretty sharp, but the thing was as loose as a goose. The barrel felt flimsy, the zoom action was gritty, and when extended all the way, the front barrel shifted noticeably whenever you touched the focus ring.

The kitzooms of Canikons can be had for a pittance. You should have looked at the Olympus m4/3rds kitzzoom to compare. What is the list price of that?

 

[madmaxmedia]

Yeah, I think the M 4/3 lenses are on the high side too. The M 4/3 kit zooms are better than the Canon kit zoom, but cost a LOT more as well. The actual optics is less impressive when you take out the autocorrections too. I mean I think it's good the corrections are done, but that still reflects on the actual glass. To be fair, the G1 kit zoom is fast and silent at AF.

The new 20mm f/1.7 looks really nice, to a large extent I think the price premium compare to other fast normals is easier to accept since its a pancake.

I think Panasonic is pricing the system as a whole for early adopters who want to jump on. As time passes and the system grows in success, prices may come down- especially if Canon or Nikon comes out with a competing mirrorless system. Good for them- they took a risk to develop a new system, and are now reaping the rewards and covering their initial investment costs.

 

[iiiNelson]

I would say that the Panasonic offerings were overpriced at all - of course this is a personal decision too. I look at it this way. I bought a 2 lens G1 kit brand new for about $900 US give or take in March or April. That's less than I paid for my Digital Rebel in 2003 with just a kit lens (with my old discount mind you.) There's no question to me that the G1 can outperform it as well.

As for the lenses they are priced in line or at a fraction of what comparable lenses cost from the competition. The 14-140HD goes for about the same price as a Nikon 18-200 VR II. The Panasonic 7-14/4 is quite a bit cheaper than ultra wide angle lenses from other manufacturers who offer similar range and performance. The 20/1.7 isn't terribly expensive either and is close to what I paid for my CV 50/1.5 when you factor in the M bayonet adapter. It also autofocuses and doesn't require adapters.

I'd say all things considered they are priced pretty fairly in regards to competition and performance.

 

[OzRay]

Certainly in Australia, the Panasonic lenses have generally been more expensive than the Olympus ones, not always better and sometimes not even available for purchase as a separate lens. Then they gave up on 4/3s entirely.

In m4/3s, Panasonic has now thrown down the gauntlet to Olympus to see what they can do in return with their lenses. To that end, I wouldn't put down Olympus, they've shown that they can come back with a vengence and it's my guess that they're not about to accept second place in the m4/3s race.

And don't forget, since Olympus introduced 4/3s, they've come up with many 'solutions to problems' (as noted in at least one review forum); I think that there may be more to come.

Cheers

Ray

 

[iiiNelson]

Certainly in Australia, the Panasonic lenses have generally been more expensive than the Olympus ones, not always better and sometimes not even available for purchase as a separate lens. Then they gave up on 4/3s entirely.

In m4/3s, Panasonic has now thrown down the gauntlet to Olympus to see what they can do in return with their lenses. To that end, I wouldn't put down Olympus, they've shown that they can come back with a vengence and it's my guess that they're not about to accept second place in the m4/3s race.

And don't forget, since Olympus introduced 4/3s, they've come up with many 'solutions to problems' (as noted in at least one review forum); I think that there may be more to come.

Cheers

Ray

I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was putting down Olympus. I do like their color profiles although I'm not wild about their blacks and how sometimes the image isn't super crisp in shadows. Some prefer this and I imagine it's just the way they design their cameras to process because I've seen it in all of their SLR style cameras. Again to their credit I believe they make some of the best quality glass regardless of price.

While I don't care personally for the "race car" style marketing that Panasonic chooses to place all over their cameras (everyone will know you're shooting a Lumix product) I prefer their style of image output. I imagine I will continue to reach for the Panasonic versions of the 4/3 products because of this.

 

[rover]

And don't forget, since Olympus introduced 4/3s, they've come up with many 'solutions to problems' (as noted in at least one review forum); I think that there may be more to come./QUOTE]

Except for fast primes. The E-P1 and GF-1 beg for a fast small prime be mounted, the 17/2.8 is good match for the E-P1, nice focal length, but not fast.

 

[OzRay]

I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was putting down Olympus. I do like their color profiles although I'm not wild about their blacks and how sometimes the image isn't super crisp in shadows. Some prefer this and I imagine it's just the way they design their cameras to process because I've seen it in all of their SLR style cameras. Again to their credit I believe they make some of the best quality glass regardless of price.

While I don't care personally for the "race car" style marketing that Panasonic chooses to place all over their cameras (everyone will know you're shooting a Lumix product) I prefer their style of image output. I imagine I will continue to reach for the Panasonic versions of the 4/3 products because of this.

Everyone has a preference for image output, that goes way back to the days of film, so what's one person's cheese, is another's rotten milk. I own a Panasonic LX2 and have really liked it's image quality (JPG), but not the way it delivers RAW files (why, oh why, does it have to apply noise reduction to everything, including RAW?). :thumbdown:

So as you may have guessed, I'm a RAW shooter (even when I shoot sports for my newspaper) and, to that end, all I want are unadulterated RAW files. I don't care at all what the engineers factored into their JPG algorithms, I simply don't shoot JPG, at all (except with the LX2). I prefer to manipulate the final image outcome, just as I did in the darkroom days, but now I don't have to suffer the effects of photochemicals anymore. :thumbup:

Panasonic have upped the ante and it's now time for Olympus to respond.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Vivek]

I think Pana would kill Oly. Eventually.

 

[OzRay]

And don't forget, since Olympus introduced 4/3s, they've come up with many 'solutions to problems' (as noted in at least one review forum); I think that there may be more to come./QUOTE]

Except for fast primes. The E-P1 and GF-1 beg for a fast small prime be mounted, the 17/2.8 is good match for the E-P1, nice focal length, but not fast.

True, but I never felt that there was a need for primes when it came to the 4/3s DSLRs, the zooms are simply excellent in their own right. But with m4/3s, I think it will be essential to produce prime lenses, if the format is to fully succeed and grow.

Weird turnaround for me and even weirder that I've bought so many M mount lenses and relegated the standard zoom to the 'not interested' bin. Honestly, I never thought that I'd be interested in prime lenses, let alone purely manual focus lenses, until the Pen came out.

Cheers

Ray

 

[iiiNelson]

Everyone has a preference for image output, that goes way back to the days of film, so what's one person's cheese, is another's rotten milk. I own a Panasonic LX2 and have really liked it's image quality (JPG), but not the way it delivers RAW files (why, oh why, does it have to apply noise reduction to everything, including RAW?). :thumbdown:

So as you may have guessed, I'm a RAW shooter (even when I shoot sports for my newspaper) and, to that end, all I want are unadulterated RAW files. I don't care at all what the engineers factored into their JPG algorithms, I simply don't shoot JPG, at all (except with the LX2). I prefer to manipulate the final image outcome, just as I did in the darkroom days, but now I don't have to suffer the effects of photochemicals anymore. :thumbup:

Panasonic have upped the ante and it's now time for Olympus to respond.

Cheers

Ray

I NEVER shoot JPEG and to be honest the first Panasonic I owned personally is the G1 (unless you count the Leica D-Lux 4 variant of the LX3 too.) I don't think they do anything to those RAW files outside of lens correction info and I'm pretty sure noise reduction is only applied to JPEG where they are both concerned... Again... I never shoot JPEG though.

 

[OzRay]

I think Pana would kill Oly. Eventually.

Unlikely. Panasonic lost their commitment to 4/3s, after the dismal failure in sales of their 4/3s gear and Leica has given up on them as well. But I do hope that they keep their commitment to m4/3s, as it's essential to keep the momentum going, and m4/3s really is a great innovation in digital photography.

I'm not even sure that Panasonic could buy out this part of Olympus digital imaging, to give them some legs, as it has remained profitable to Olympus despite the many naysayers. Panasonics Achilles' Heel will be its ability to source lenses, even though they have done well so far in m4/3s; however, Olympus has remained true to the entire system.

Where did I read that the only lens manufacturer that Leica was ever worried about was Olympus?

Cheers

Ray