Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 83

Thread: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan
    than this. Heck, even the slower Zuiko 25/2.8 (Olympus pen F) is not bad.

    After switching from a V1.2 cam to a V1.4 cam, the very noticeable barrel distortion is minimal and the focus is a teeny weeny bit faster.

    I am one of those who would appreciate small, compact, fast primes- but if this is the sort of prime lenses that Pana plans to bring out, they aren't for me.

    My suggestion to those who have manual focus primes- hold on to them!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan
    than this. Heck, even the slower Zuiko 25/2.8 (Olympus pen F) is not bad.

    After switching from a V1.2 cam to a V1.4 cam, the very noticeable barrel distortion is minimal and the focus is a teeny weeny bit faster.

    I am one of those who would appreciate small, compact, fast primes- but if this is the sort of prime lenses that Pana plans to bring out, they aren't for me.

    My suggestion to those who have manual focus primes- hold on to them!
    I am not sure sharpness and bokeh are easily trumped by the Xenoplan. One has to like that swirly bokeh and don't mind some bright rings with the Xenoplan (from the few samples I recall).

    What I am sure about is that a manual lens has its pros and cons. I would say one use the tool that fits the situation. So the Panny G20/1.7 is for me, sometimes. Heck, even for most of the time, I admit. Now I wouldn't mind having that Zenoplan lens, but I don't know if they are easy to find.

  3. #3
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Hmmm. Well, I don't have any C-mount lenses to compare.

    Yesterday, I took about 40 shots with the 20mm at f/2.0. I was very impressed with the results. While the kit lens is good at this focal length as well, It won't do f/2.0 at 20mm (not to mention 1.7). The Olympus 17mm that I have pales in comparison to the 20mm in every regard.

    While I routinely use manual focus lenses, I very much appreciate AF, too. The only shot where I was out of focus a bit yesterday was a "hurried" shot with a legacy lens (no opportunity for focus assist). Given the angle and the direction of the "action", I may well have been able to better the focus with AF -- even one as slow as the 20.

    So, will I venture into the world of C-mount or other wide options? Nothings impossible, but I think the Panasonic 20 will serve me well.
    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    I am not sure sharpness and bokeh are easily trumped by the Xenoplan. One has to like that swirly bokeh and don't mind some bright rings with the Xenoplan (from the few samples I recall).
    I am afraid, I do not have a clue about what you are talking about Jonas.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan
    than this. Heck, even the slower Zuiko 25/2.8 (Olympus pen F) is not bad.
    For me, the 20mm lens is already a bit too long for handheld street photography (I guess I like to get closer than most to my subjects) so even if there is a 25mm lens that outperforms it in every respect, this means nothing to me. Obviously, YMMV...

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by JBurnett View Post
    The Olympus 17mm that I have pales in comparison to the 20mm in every regard.
    Contrary to your experience, John, I have become more appreciative of the Oly-D 17/2.8, especially after having bought the Pana 20/1.7.

    Two thumbs up from me for the Oly-D 17/2.8. Super lens!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Vivek, does the Xenoplan cover the whole 4/3rds frame? have you posted samples here?

    Cheers

    Brian

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I was originally excited about the 20mm/1.7, but lately I've returned to the 17mm/2.8 because the 35mm focal length works better for me. For a fast lens I'd prefer a 50mm focal length.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Brian, I just put that (Xenoplan) name as one example. It covers APS-C completely (and some) at infinity.
    (Samples have been posted here by me and others)

    There are many other fast options for 25mm FL. Granted none are 20mm but the Oly-D 17/2.8 covers the wide (and even ultrawide if one would venture to add a Ricoh GW-1 0.75X converter).

    One has to keep in mind that none of the manual focus lenses get corrected for distortions, aberrations or light fall off- unlike the m4/3rds AF lenses.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii View Post
    For me, the 20mm lens is already a bit too long for handheld street photography (I guess I like to get closer than most to my subjects) so even if there is a 25mm lens that outperforms it in every respect, this means nothing to me. Obviously, YMMV...
    12.75mm f/2.8 is my standard lens now for street.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I really like the Xenoplan, it has very nice bokeh. But it is 25mm, not 20mm, and it's definitely slower at autofocusing. A bit of a challenge ergonomically but well worth it.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    25/1.9 Xeno @ 1.9

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I am afraid, I do not have a clue about what you are talking about Jonas.
    That happens to me as well sometimes. Here, the first thread showing up with a simple search.

  14. #14
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Contrary to your experience, John, I have become more appreciative of the Oly-D 17/2.8, especially after having bought the Pana 20/1.7.

    Two thumbs up from me for the Oly-D 17/2.8. Super lens!
    I always take lens tests with a grain of salt, but my two lenses (17 & 20) seem to parallel some of the tests I've read, with the 20mm ahead. OTOH, I seem to have lucked out with a 45-200 that performs better than most of the tests.

    Back in my "Canon" days, I remember reading many, many tests and opinions about each and every lens. About the only thing one could trust was a general consensus of opinion from a large number of photographers (like 200+) and the hope that you wouldn't get a "marginal" copy (i.e. within spec, but not great). I think the "duds" are more rare than people think, but they do exist. I got two among the many I acquired -- they didn't perform near so well as what the consensus was.
    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  15. #15
    ddk
    Guest

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Contrary to your experience, John, I have become more appreciative of the Oly-D 17/2.8, especially after having bought the Pana 20/1.7.

    Two thumbs up from me for the Oly-D 17/2.8. Super lens!
    Thanks for this Vivek, after reading dpr's review I was about to dump my Oly 17/2.8 for the Panny 20mm. Truth be told I'm underwhelmed with all my m4/3 lenses, its all the other glass that keeps surprising me.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Contrary to my experience too Vivek. The 17mm f2.8 has much more distortion and CA, and is nowhere near as sharp as the 20mm f1.7 I have.

    Cheers

    Brian

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I have both and prefer the 20--it seems to, as John says, parallel the test reviews I've read--- for me.

  18. #18
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I had both the 17 and the 20. The key word here is "had". The 17 went off to the great world of EBay. It's a really nice lens but no where near as good (in my personal opinion) as the 20. The 20 is sharper and has the indefinable quality of producing an almost 3D look to some of my photos.

    Jim

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul/Turkey
    Posts
    339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I have tried a lot of MF lenses on the GF1. These include Nikkor 50/1.2, Leica 35/2, Leica 35/1.4, Leica 50/2 etc. The problem is that 2X multiplier makes these useless for my purposes. Also an uncorrected 50/1.2 and Leica 35/2 did not perform as expected (by me).

    So, when it comes to street photos at night, the only lens suitable is the 20/1.7. With firmware correction by Panasonic, this is a very fine lens. Again the problem is the 2X multiplier. But I need the F1.7. Therefore, 20/1.7 is my lens.
    H3DII-31, 5DII, M8, NEX-3 and Camera collection
    http://seyhun.com
    Facebook Page

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    V1.2 firmware shows noticeable barrel from the Pana 20/1.7 while V1.4 shows minimal barrel distortions.

    Here is a hand-held shot from earlier today (G1 V1.4, ISO400, 1/15s, f/2 ~0.5m):



    this one from yesterday (G1 V1.2, ISO100, 1/100s, f/1.7, ~0.3m):


  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Vivek -
    I need some help here on the distortion you are talking about in the second shot. I'm used to thinking about the barrel distortion in terms of non straight lines. When I look at the shot the lines around the little medal he's holding seem pretty straight. Are you talking about his hands being closer to the camera and looking proportionately larger than what you would expect? Isn't that a trait of all wide angle lenses even well corrected ones?
    I didn't think that the firmware from 1.2 to 1.4 dealt with distortion.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Terry, You are pointing to the perspective distortion. The barrel (2nd image)- has already been corrected manually (forgot to mention it).

    Here is a (random pick in terms of a manual focus lens) shot through Fujinon-TV 25/1.4 (@f/1.4).


  23. #23
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan
    I haven't tried the Xenoplan nor any of the manual focus lenses you've posted with, but I am very impressed with the Pana 20/1.7 compared to the other 35-50mm equivalent lenses I've purchased in the past couple of years (OM 40/2, ZM 50/2, M-Hexanon 50/2, OM 50/1.2, ZF 35/2, CV 35/1.4, Canon 50/1.4, Nikon 35/2, Nikon 35/1.8, M Zuiko 17/2.8, etc). None of those lenses easily trumps the Pana 20/1.7 in sharpness and bokeh from my standpoint (bokeh being subjective). Overall, considering all aspects of image quality, I'd say it stands with the best of them.

    The M Zuiko 17/2.8 is a very nice lens, IMO. Plenty sharp for me, and I like having an available 35mm equivalent lens to shoot. However, I agree with the majority of others in this thread that the Lumix 20 is generally superior to the Olympus lens.
    -Amin Sabet

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul/Turkey
    Posts
    339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I'm using the lens with GF1. There's no upgrade yet, and I assume that the present one includes a very effective correction. Did you try the lens with GF1 as well?

    This also applies to the 14-45mm kit lens, which gives outstanding results with the GF1, and surprises me everytime I use it. I never expect much good from kit lenses in general. The "system concept" seems to be working great with the GF1.

    (Note that on pixel basis, it's not the sharpest, but the overall quality, colors, distortions etc are all good)

    Unfortunately I have no experience with G1 or GH1. I wonder if there's a major difference.

    Seyhun

    [QUOTE=Vivek;156478]V1.2 firmware shows noticeable barrel from the Pana 20/1.7 while V1.4 shows minimal barrel distortions.
    H3DII-31, 5DII, M8, NEX-3 and Camera collection
    http://seyhun.com
    Facebook Page

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Vivek, you didn't have a clue about what I was talking about. Did the link help?

    If so I wonder if you can elaborate a little on how the tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan easily trumps the Panny 20/1.7 with regards to Sharpness, Bokeh, etc.

    Being underwhelmed is OK. Your statements need some clarifications.

    /Jonas

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Seyhun, I don't have a GF-1 neither do I plan to buy one, ever.

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Vivek, you didn't have a clue about what I was talking about. Did the link help?

    If so I wonder if you can elaborate a little on how the tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan easily trumps the Panny 20/1.7 with regards to Sharpness, Bokeh, etc.

    Being underwhelmed is OK. Your statements need some clarifications.

    /Jonas
    Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls. Did you see Robert's (Monza's) post in your link and the image he reposted here? If you are thinking about your past experience with the 25/1.4 Pentax, let me clearly say that there are c-mount lenses that are far far better than that one.

    I do not like the corrections on the lens through two aspherics (a bit over corrected is my feeling, I will check this out later if possible) and the in camera corrections.

    Hence the "not overwhelming" statement.

    BTW, the lens does need a hood. Lightsources even slightly outside the frame do show up.

    The Oly-D 17/2.8 (anyone who own these two lenses, just look at the front and the rear elements) has a nice flat front side in addition to the restricted aperture which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

    David, Yes, I agree.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    According to DPREVIEW the 20/1.7 produces no distortion of note once corrected:

    "Distortion is being corrected in software, with absolutely neutral results returned on both the G1 and E-P1."





    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls. Did you see Robert's (Monza's) post in your link and the image he reposted here? If you are thinking about your past experience with the 25/1.4 Pentax, let me clearly say that there are c-mount lenses that are far far better than that one.

    I do not like the corrections on the lens through two aspherics (a bit over corrected is my feeling, I will check this out later if possible) and the in camera corrections.

    Hence the "not overwhelming" statement.

    BTW, the lens does need a hood. Lightsources even slightly outside the frame do show up.

    The Oly-D 17/2.8 (anyone who own these two lenses, just look at the front and the rear elements) has a nice flat front side in addition to the restricted aperture which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

    David, Yes, I agree.

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    My experience parllels that of most others in this thread. The 20 Pana lens is substantially better than the Olympus 17, and not easily bettered by various Leica lenses (certainly not in that focal length range). I find the performance of the 20/1.7 more than the sensor can make use of, if anything.

    I haven't noticed flare to any degree, but I'll check. I got a nice little hood from heavystar, but as much to keep my fingers and rain off as anything.

    On the G1 I didn't notice any difference in distortion going from 1.2 to 1.4. That's one area I'm usually quite fussy about as it impacts my work.

  30. #30
    retnull
    Guest

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I also own the Schneider Xenoplan 1.9. The resolution is impressive: in my tests it outresolved the G1 14-45 lens in the center of the frame. The lens has only a hint of vignetting on the G1.

    But...(and this is where it gets subjective)....the Xenoplan bokeh is the least pleasing of any lens I own (which include Leica, Angenieux, and Panasonic). Also: the Xenoplan's color rendition seems very cool, cooler than any lens I've ever used. Caucasian skin tones seem pale or almost bluish.

    I do not own the Panasonic 20 1.7, but will get it soon. There are definitely times when having auto-focus is a huge advantage. I don't feel that using manual focus exclusively, as a matter of principle, would make me a better person. Manual focus won't get me into heaven. Really, who cares about the tools, it's all about the image.

  31. #31
    Subscriber Member Streetshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Maybe I just have a lucky copy of the 17 but I love this lens.
    The 20 is nice but the FOV is no good for me.
    I tried my friends 20 and it's nice.
    What I see is the resolution is just a tad better than the 17 but the contrast more pleasing on the 17. Color rendition is slightly more natural on the 17 and that with the contrast lends itself to nice B&W conversions.

    I don't claim to be any more than a shooter but my eyes see what they see and that's how I see it.
    With the IS on the Pen, the 2.8 works fine.
    Shooter

  32. #32
    terryc
    Guest

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by henningw View Post
    My experience parllels that of most others in this thread. The 20 Pana lens is substantially better than the Olympus 17, and not easily bettered by various Leica lenses (certainly not in that focal length range). I find the performance of the 20/1.7 more than the sensor can make use of, if anything.

    I haven't noticed flare to any degree, but I'll check. I got a nice little hood from heavystar, but as much to keep my fingers and rain off as anything.

    On the G1 I didn't notice any difference in distortion going from 1.2 to 1.4. That's one area I'm usually quite fussy about as it impacts my work.
    Henning, 'substantially better' implies you have or had the Olympus 17 for a period of time to make this definitive evaluation. I am confused I thought from previous posts you have stayed away from Olympus and are firmly a Panasonic m4/3 user. Interesting as all this is I think the Panny 20mm is getting a little overblown in terms of what it can delivery. For what it is worth I have both.

    Best regards, Terry.

  33. #33
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    my thoughts...talk (typing on t' worLd wiDe web) is just that, hearsay, with out supporting visual evidence...as evidenced by Monza and Vivek's posts...thank you guys...



    regards Hudson

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls.
    I see lots of weird swirls in the photo you posted just above this.

  35. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by terryc View Post
    Henning, 'substantially better' implies you have or had the Olympus 17 for a period of time to make this definitive evaluation. I am confused I thought from previous posts you have stayed away from Olympus and are firmly a Panasonic m4/3 user. Interesting as all this is I think the Panny 20mm is getting a little overblown in terms of what it can delivery. For what it is worth I have both.

    Best regards, Terry.
    Hi Terry,

    I'm not anti-Olympus or pro-Panasonic. As you know I'm a long time Leica user and will probably continue to use it's products for the rest of my life, but with respect to other equipment I'm fairly agnostic. I'm happy to try almost anything to see if it works for me. So far the EP-1 and its lenses haven't swayed me (like the Pen F and FT did when they came out). I'd love to have a camera body with sensor based IS, but the EP-1 isn't it for me.

    I had the 17 for nearly a week to try. 'Substantially better' means that I can see the difference pretty consistently. That's partly because the cameras I was using (G1 and GF1) keep the lens wide open mostly on program, and when not in program, in the last while wide open has been the most useful aperture . I'm not sure the 20 is getting overblown; this is a discussion about technical lens quality and in that regard it wins over the 17 as far as I can tell. As I said I don't have any other lenses in this range which are really comparable, but it provides enough resolution to provoke moir at times, which indicates quite high performance.

    I generally prefer the focal length of the 17, but in other respects I like the 20 better. Now if a fast 12mm lens were available....

    Regards, Henning
    Last edited by henningw; 17th November 2009 at 00:19.

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls. Did you see Robert's (Monza's) post in your link and the image he reposted here?
    Yes, I saw his image, then and now again. It is nice.
    But you have yet to see any swirly bokeh? milapse's first image in the same link is this one, reposted here (too many links already, I hope milapse understand):

    That's swirly bokeh to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    If you are thinking about your past experience with the 25/1.4 Pentax, let me clearly say that there are c-mount lenses that are far far better than that one.
    I quote myself here about the Pentax lens. Why do you mention that lens in this context?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    I decided to give the Pentax 25/1.4 a try:
    (...)
    It is too small, fun, sharp in the center, smeary at the borders, badly corrected, does pretty well with a hood attached, nice bokeh, cheap, vignettes and doesn't really cover the sensor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I do not like the corrections on the lens through two aspherics (a bit over corrected is my feeling, I will check this out later if possible) and the in camera corrections.

    Hence the "not overwhelming" statement.
    As I said, I don't mind the topic title. Anyone having tried, or used for longer periods, many lenses isn't easily impressed.

    My problem Vivek is that you started the thread with a couple of bold claims:
    Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan
    than this. Heck, even the slower Zuiko 25/2.8 (Olympus pen F) is not bad.


    I have asked for clarifications on this. In what way(s) does the Schneider, with ease, beat the Panny with regards to "sharpness". In what way(s) does the Schneider, with ease, trump the Panny with regards to bokeh? In what way(s) is the Schneider better than the Panny with regards to "etc"?

    Please note, I am not saying the Pannycake is a super lens. I just think it is a good lens and in many ways it makes good sense for most 4/3 owners to buy it if the price doesn't put them off. That's the context here and you have to be prepared to stand behind your words. Starting with "yet see any swirls" is a start but doesn't cover your claims.

    regards,

    /Jonas

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Jonas, As I said, I have been using this lens (actually it precedes the G1s in my possession) and in my use, I do not have any problems with "swirly" bokehs.

    Schneider has full data on this lens including MTF data at f/1.9, f/4 and f8 (unlike Oly-D or Pana 20/1.7 which do not state what those MTFs are for).

    Check it out.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Jonas, As I said, I have been using this lens (actually it precedes the G1s in my possession) and in my use, I do not have any problems with "swirly" bokehs.
    I didn't say you had. I just commented on your claim that the Xenoplan easily trumps the Panny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Schneider has full data on this lens including MTF data at f/1.9, f/4 and f8 (unlike Oly-D or Pana 20/1.7 which do not state what those MTFs are for).

    Check it out.
    I tried. Not available. I tried at their American and their German sites, found some other MTF curves but not for this lens.

    Maybe it is you that should be prepared to back up your first post rather than send out repliers for endless searches. Maybe you have the MTF sheet available somewhere. Or maybe it doesn't matter if you find the MTF hard to compare.

    Why? Because you posted something you should have been prepared to get a few comments on. When a lens is said to easily beat the new and very well received prime of a system we all use it is something people will read and think about. If it then, in the end, is nothing but personal preferences one can question the point with starting the thread.

    This far I have seen nothing showing us much better bokeh, much better "sharpness" or much better etc from the Schneider lens. I don't doubt it is better in one aspect or another (and I guess we aren't talking handling now), but in what way and how?

    /Jonas

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    BTW, the lens does need a hood. Lightsources even slightly outside the frame do show up.
    I second this! To that end, below is the photo I promised a while back showing the extent of vignetting that occurs at f/2.8 (as far as I could open the lens given the E-P1's max shutter speed!) when using the 18mm deep Contax GG-3 lens hood originally intended for use with the G1's 90mm lens. IMO, for most situations, this is acceptable to me and using a hood this deep really, really helps when you're photographing in the bright Arizona sunlight (or at night, under streetlights).


  40. #40
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Jonas, I don't know what your problems are. I can not teach you how to spell Xenoplan nor can I assist you in finding and interpreting MTF graphs available on the web.

    Even if you latch on to some selective words and phrases in my posts, I ask, so what?

    Why the heck should I back up my words to your satisfaction without knowing what pleases you or what you understand or do not understand?

    If you are very curious, seek (elsewhere) and ye shall find.

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii View Post
    I second this! To that end, below is the photo I promised a while back showing the extent of vignetting that occurs at f/2.8 (as far as I could open the lens given the E-P1's max shutter speed!) when using the 18mm deep Contax GG-3 lens hood originally intended for use with the G1's 90mm lens. IMO, for most situations, this is acceptable to me and using a hood this deep really, really helps when you're photographing in the bright Arizona sunlight (or at night, under streetlights).

    Thanks! Very useful!

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brampton, ON Canada
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii View Post
    I second this! To that end, below is the photo I promised a while back showing the extent of vignetting that occurs at f/2.8 (as far as I could open the lens given the E-P1's max shutter speed!) when using the 18mm deep Contax GG-3 lens hood originally intended for use with the G1's 90mm lens. IMO, for most situations, this is acceptable to me and using a hood this deep really, really helps when you're photographing in the bright Arizona sunlight (or at night, under streetlights)...
    Thanks for this. I've been using the Contax GG-2 hood on the 20/1.7, but I never thought of even trying the GG-3. I just assumed that a hood that deep would cause significant vignetting.

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by CVickery View Post
    Thanks for this. I've been using the Contax GG-2 hood on the 20/1.7, but I never thought of even trying the GG-3. I just assumed that a hood that deep would cause significant vignetting.
    I stand corrected: The GG-3 Contax replica hood I'm using measures 32mm in depth, not 18mm as I wrote above. I must admit that I'm surprised it works as well as it does...


  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Hi Vivek,

    let me return your s**t right back. I don't know what your freak'n problem is. Why is it you can't show us that your claims hold true? Why should I have to read replies from you like "I am afraid, I do not have a clue about what you are talking about Jonas.", also aftet having given you a link showing what I mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Jonas, I don't know what your problems are. I can not teach you how to spell Xenoplan nor can I assist you in finding and interpreting MTF graphs available on the web.
    As I said; I get some search results when searching for xenoplan but not the one for this particular xenoplan. I obviously spelled something the same way Schneider does.

    Are you insinuating I don't know how to interprete a MTF chart, or do I just misunderstand you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Even if you latch on to some selective words and phrases in my posts, I ask, so what?
    You don't understand that?
    Because I don't like the idea of a forum where some people think they can post claims and then expect everybody should be happy and take their words for it. If the lens easily trumps another lens, and you have both of them, how hard would it be to show us the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Why the heck should I back up my words to your satisfaction without knowing what pleases you or what you understand or do not understand?
    Why the heck should you start that sentence with Why the heck? You don't need to know what pleases me, or what I understand. Regardless of that knowledge it would have been decent to show something at all, to give a link to the MTFs, to show bokeh samples and to explain what the heck, lol, "etc" is.

    Then when actually having at least tried to back up your claims you could draw a conclusion about if that did please the readers, or if some of them understood anything.

    All you have given me, or us, is a lame thing about never having seen the swirly bokeh and that the bokeh is fine for your personal use. Yada.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    If you are very curious, seek (elsewhere) and ye shall find.
    Or you stop posting threads like this one?

    Now you know what pleases me. Tell me:


    Do you want this to be a forum where anyone can post claims, and suggestions linked to those, without even being prepared for questions or opinions on this?

    Or:

    Do you want this to be a forum where one can post claims and/or opinions, but when doing so also be prepared to discuss, or show why?

    /Jonas

  45. #45
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I like to say, "swirly bokeh."

    It's fun. Swirly bokeh. Try it. Come on, you know you want to...

    (just trying to lighten things up)

  46. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Well,

    to go back to the title - I also now find the 20 mm underwhelming - and also the GF1 sometimes leaves me feeling a little - hmmm. Maybe the worst part is not the camera but my post processing .. I cannot put my finger on exactly the issue - the high ISO is a disappointment, but I barley go over 400 anyway .. the ergonomics are ok, but i do keep hitting the click on the scroll wheel thus changing the Aperture control into an over/under exposure compensation. I have used and owned better lenses, but at the price it is nether bad or exceptional.
    BUT.
    I'll keep the both as the combination can be (and is) carried in my pocket as I leave the house and it has meant me taking pictures when otherwise my D700 would have been sitting on the shelf, or in my back pack ...
    I have a Leicatime wrist strap from my M8, and I walk about with it dangling from my wrist, for that it is perfect, light, unobtrusive and low key.
    I have tried my older AF-D prime lenses and I keep an eye out for a bargain fast wide prime, but whilst I generally prefer the old glass results - its the Panny 20 that keeps getting put back.

  47. #47
    ddk
    Guest

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Because I don't like the idea of a forum where some people think they can post claims and then expect everybody should be happy and take their words for it. If the lens easily trumps another lens, and you have both of them, how hard would it be to show us the difference?
    Jonas
    There are times that you take another member's or reviewer's comments on faith based on their past posts. I guess its easier if you have common tastes or share a common understanding and philosophy when it comes to subjective matters.

    IME side by side tests are limited and generally a waste to time and prove very little if anything without expanding the scope of the test to personal experience and opinion. Of course its all moot if you have no commonality with the person making the claims, with or without side by side examples.

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    Jonas,

    You have seen one post (by someone else and you had the audacity to link that person's image (presumably) without permission) on swirly bokeh and you are saying that my experience on bokeh of the said lens is yada. Nada. I am not prepared to discuss milapse's post or that shot.

    Is the sample posted by Robert right here not visible to you?

    If you can't find the MTF data on that Xenoplan there is little I can do. I was being charitable to give you hints to get some data.

    I would repeat what I said in my first post:

    My suggestion to those who have manual focus primes- hold on to them!


    There is no Xenoplan (or as you think sometimes, "Zenoplan") in that sentence.

  49. #49
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    I'm going to echo Jonas' comments on this thread. The initial post basically says that the 20mm lens is outperformed by other lenses and there is noticeable barrel distortion and talks about the bokeh. When asked you haven't shown anything uncorrected from the 20mm lens. It would be nice if you are going to start a thread to have this discussion to show examples of what you are talking about. Show examples from the Schneider lens, show examples of the problems with the 20. Show why you think the 25mm Oly is better. I don't really feel any more enlighted 49 posts later.

    terry

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

    All reposts for the benefit of the questioners (why not show what you have got- your own shots?):

    Swirly bokeh?!



    not sharp?!



    Just for a good measure, (another repost), the lowly Computar-TV 25/1.3 (a lens that is capable of swirly bokeh in the right hands):



    I can keep posting as I did a Fujinon-TV 25/1.4 sample above that has been conveniently overlooked to latch onto Xenoplan and Swirly bokeh.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •