20/1.7 or 14/2.5, too close to call?...

The 14 is by no means a slouch. It performs great.
I made many fine images with it.
It is not close to the FOV of the 20.
You need both.
Don

 

I did try the 14mm but will not buy it. Despite Panasonic body software removing usual lens faults there was still a problem with purple fringing from this lens. Used at f2.5 the photos show soft edges.

 

I have both lenses and I love them both individually. I don't think one really replaces the other.

 

I found no serious issues with the 14.
It's a shame your not happy with it, it's a nice lens.

 

A consideration with the G1 is that the standard kit lens is very good indeed and produces excellent results at 14mm especially. I can't see that there's much value in having two additional prime lenses for focal lengths that are already covered. The 20mm lens is a visible improvement in terms of sharpness and low light capabilities, which together with its compactness are sound reasons to buy. I've not used the 14mm lens, but have yet to read a single report or test that places it in the same class. I would have thought the choice, if there is to be one, is pretty straightforward.

 

20mm is better all around lens. If you mainly shoot at 14 though it might be worth it.

 

A suggestion would be, if you do not have the kit zoom, then the 14mm and 20mm would complement each other. the advantage over having the kit zoom, would be that you have 2 very compact pancake lenses, that would cover most street/landscape needs.
Plus, you get to zoom with your feet, exercise is always good :smile:
From what I have read, the 14 is reportedly, not as sharp as the 20 wide open (shame if that's the case) as that sort of FL was going to be my next purchase (I have the 20mm only in m4/3).
It is normally the case that a prime is usually sharper/better IQ than a similar priced zoom as there are less compromises in build quality.

Anyone care to comment, real world use is always preferable to lab tests.....