I'm looking for a fast M4/3 prime in this range. Any recommendations? I know the Pany 20 is very small but I'm more interested in overall image quality and bokeh than size. Is the 25 that much better and worth the extra dollars?

I'm currently using an Oly PL2 w/ plans to get an OM-D next year.

thanks,

jeff

The PL25 is definitely worth it.

ShadowWalker wrote:
I know the Pany 20 is very small but I'm more interested in overall image quality and bokeh than size. Is the 25 that much better and worth the extra dollars?


Yes.

I had the 20mm, bought the 25mm, then sold the 20mm. The 25mm is not sharper than the 20mm, to my eye, but it definitely has better bokeh and I can see a different "sparkle." The 20mm may actually be sharper, more clinical, though the 25mm is sharp across the entire frame when stopped to f4 +

I will likely buy the 20mm again, however, because the focal length is quite different, to me, than that of the 25mm -- wider perspective, though I may get the new Oly 17mm instead.

The autofocus speed is another big factor in favor of the 25mm.

Another way to consider going if dollars are very important to you is to get the 20mm and, perhaps in the future, the 30mm sigma. The 20mm vs. 30mm fov will be quite different.

A Pany 20mm was my first m43 lens. It was a competent lens that made decent photographs, and was a convenient size on the GF1 I used at the time. The 25mm was my third m43 lens (after the Pany 45mm) and I was immediately impressed by the charactor of photographs it produced on the GF1. This became even more evident when I started using the G3 and later the OM-D E-M5. When I found that I was carrying the 25mm all the time in spite of its larger size and weight, and the 20mm remained on a shelf, I sold the 20mm and have no regrets. If I were to be forced to give up all but one of my m43 lenses, the 25mm would be the one I would keep.

The differences are subtle, but they're there - Both great lenses - I can see room in my roster for each, though I went with the 25mm first.

25 ya

Both are great in different ways. 25 is better.

It is subtle. They are just as sharp as one another. The 25 has much better bokeh (and more blur, due to the longer focal length and the faster aperture), but the biggest difference is the subtle differences in rendering. The 20, as mentioned above is very clinical. It's sharp, with solid contrast, but there's no real 'it' factor to the images. The 25 has a beautiful rendering to it. It's subtle, but the overall effect is much larger than the individual differences in each rendering component.

Jman13 wrote:
It is subtle. They are just as sharp as one another. The 25 has much better bokeh (and more blur, due to the longer focal length and the faster aperture), but the biggest difference is the subtle differences in rendering. The 20, as mentioned above is very clinical. It's sharp, with solid contrast, but there's no real 'it' factor to the images. The 25 has a beautiful rendering to it. It's subtle, but the overall effect is much larger than the individual differences in each rendering component.

+1
also would like to add that choosing between 20 and 25 depends on if you have the 45 1.8, at least for me. When i owned all 3 i seemed to pick 20 and 45 instead of the 25 and 45. Imo there is not enough bokeh and rendering difference to make the 25 an obvious choice. If you don't have and don't plan on owning the 45 maybe go for the 25 to get the slight edge. hope that helps

...

httivals wrote:
The autofocus speed is another big factor in favor of the 25mm.

+1

It's the icing on the cake.

Happy shooting,
Yakim

Be aware that there are reports that the 20mm causes banding on the newer cameras (e-m5 and gh3) for some reason (probably electronic interference of some sort).

Thanks Carsten, I fixed my finger-slip ...

25

Jman13 says the 25 has much better bokeh. I can't agree about that. If you do some controlled checks they are more or less the same; in some cases the 25mm produces smoother bokeh but the opposite is also true.

I guess the main reason for people to prefer the 25mm bokeh simply is down to the differences in focal length.

A recent DPR thread, check the first reply - I guess the poster tries to say the difference in focal length is not negligible.

I have owned both. For me the 20mm was too wide. For many years a 50mm lens was my only lens so that is now the way I see the world. I also appreciate the rendering, the faster focusing and the size. But it is far from a perfect lens... The 25mm also guarantees quite some LoCA with green fringe in the background, the focusing ring moves too easy and I would say the bokeh is about average.

I think people like the lens for its rendering wide open where the contrast and resolution is good for fast normal, a relatively large portion of the frame is usefully "sharp" wide open.

So, for me it is the 25. If you actually prefer a little wider normal the 20mm is better. The deciding factor here should be the FOV, in my opinion.

This has to be the most often asked lens question in MFT.

20mm: Toyota Corolla
25mm: Jag E-Type

Corollas are way more reliable than E-Types I don't think this is a good comparison.

I sold my 20 and bought 25, I think it is worth it.

20: very sharp, very contrasty, but the drawing is a little flat and the bokeh is not as smooth
25: probably as sharp, very nice color and have a dimensional look that I think is absent in 20, probably due to the difference in focal length. Bokeh is also smoother I think.
The much faster focusing of 25 is a plus, the 20 is probably one of the slowest focusing lens on m4/3 lineup.

So unless size or focal length preference is a must, I think you will do better with the 25.

Thank you everyone for your great replies. It looks like the 25 is the way to go.

jeff

If I am not too late to the party, then I also second the 25. I bought the 25 and it 'draws' that much better in my opinion. It is sort of glued to my Panasonic G3 pretty much full time.
Mirza