Dragos
This is an interesting thread because the other day I decided to go out and test my Lumix 20/1.7 at wide open apertures. My reason for doing this is that I have felt since acquiring the lens that it has a signature close to that of a Leica Summicron (f2.0), although its maximum aperture is perhaps closer to that of a Leica Summilux (f1.4). We all know that Panasonic and Leica have been in a commercial collaboration seeing Leica branded lenses on Panasonic cameras. It is surprising that Panasonic did not repeat this with their m4/3rds lenses as it could have been (and could still be) the USP which gives them a competitive advantage in the market place.
The first shot is not a m4/3rds one but an exemplar of the 'leica' glow that appears at wide apertures with the Summilux. It is one of my favourite Cherry Blossom shots, with a dreamy look to it. This was shot with my 35/1.4 ASPH on a now dear-departed Epson R-D1
(oh why, oh why did I sell it?) wide open at iso 200.
With this shot in mind, and as it is the Cherry Blossom season again where I live, I sought out the exact same tree and armed with my G-F1 and Lumix 20/1.7 decided to have a go at creating something to compare with the orignal shot. This is the result, at iso160 and f1.7:
I did post this elsewhere in the forum but I think it is interesting to have it here again for comparison purposes.
It is a matter of taste but it is hard to top the Summilux shot. On the other hand the Lumix 20/1.7 is imho very lovely and has many of the features of a wide open Leica lens. For one, the draw of light is very similar between the two lenses, especially the colouration of the subject. Secondly, both have a sharp plane of focus, smoothly transitioning to a softer surrounding area in front and behind and from there to a smooth out of focus area.
There is still something intangible to me in the Summilux shot which may be more to circumstances than the quality of the lens. On the other hand it is hard not to get pleasure from a lens like the 20/1.7 which can create such a pleasing result for approximately one-tenth the cost of its 35mm competitor. And on top of that, I see no need to try and capture the same images with the 35/1.4 mounted via a bayoner adapter. The result of the Lumix 20/1.7 is certainly good enough for many purposes.
I hope you find my musings and comparison of interest. Your examples are very good indeed.
LouisB
