So, in case you're wondering how the good 'ol 20mm f/1.7 stacks up to the new 25mm f/1.4 DG Leica lens, here's a quick and dirty comparison. I'll let you guys come to your own conclusions.
One of the things that surprised me was how much wider the 20mm lens is. Yes, I know it's 10mm in real life equivalent, but it's a big difference. Also, I found the bokeh of the 25mm was significantly better. Beyond that, I'll let you guys decide. Everything was shot wide open on a GF1. Files were straight RAWs with no editing, converted to JPEG with Lightroom 3.
Top photo is the 25mm f/1.4
Bottom photo is the 20mm f/1.7
millsart wrote:
Biggest difference between them (because they are both good optically really) is the huge difference in AF speed.
PL25 is near instant , 20mm f1.7 is a bit slow and noisy in comparison.
AF speed is better on the 25, yes. And yes, the 20mm is a magnificent lens already. To some, what might be a deal killer is the size of the lens. The 20mm is a tiny pancake design whereas the 25mm is literally the length of three 20's stacked on top of each other, and if you take the hood into considerations, you're talking about FIVE 20's stacked together...
h00ligan wrote:
The 25 and only 12 are two lenses that keep me considering mft..those lenses are great.
You forgot the Oly 45mm f/1.8. At $400, it's the best bargain of the three, IMO. Those 3 lenses are the ultimate m4/3 kit.
Thanks for posting these, The 25mm sure seems enticing!
However can you also do some tests where you adjust the distance to match the focal length difference. i.e. setup the shots so that the main subject is same size in both. While the bokeh from the 25mm indeed seems superior it is currently also being helped by higher degree of blurring due to longer focal length and faster aperture.
curious80 wrote:
Thanks for posting these, The 25mm sure seems enticing!
However can you also do some tests where you adjust the distance to match the focal length difference. i.e. setup the shots so that the main subject is same size in both. While the bokeh from the 25mm indeed seems superior it is currently also being helped by higher degree of blurring due to longer focal length and faster aperture.
Ill borrow the lens again over the next few days to do some quick shots.
I like the field of view of the 25mm but not it's price. Not a focal length I use a lot so I'll wait and see if Olympus comes up with something in that range (with a nice design and price like their 45mm f1.8), Sigma has also announced that they will be coming out with a 30mm, so I'll wait.
I don't have the 12/2, but I have the 25/1.4, and 45/1.8, and they are stellar. Truly awesome lenses. And I think the 45/1.8 might be the best of them all...its just an amazing lens. The 25/1.4 just has a beautiful rendering as well...and SHARP.
Sam N wrote:
Does anyone use the 14 and 20 together? Do you find they're too close in FL?
I use the 14 and 20 together (and also the 25). The focal lengths are not all that close being 28mm and 40mm (in 35mm equivalent focal length). I generally use the 14 for landscape and group shots. The 20mm is a great walk around lens that can double as an environmental portrait lens.
About the holy trinity, I think we can add a lens and make it a holy quartet; the Olympus 75mm f/1.8. It would have been nice if the subject was kept the same size in the test photos of both lenses. Also, these small compressed samples are useless for evaluating and comparing the sharpness of both lenses.
