Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by sin77, Feb 9, 2012.
Which one is sharper?
Look up MTF charts. The 20 is insanely sharper than the 14. It shows really well in the corners.
The two advantages of the 14 are that it's smaller and focuses faster; the 20 is sharper. They are very different angles of view and not really alternatives to each other.
20 also has the massive advantage (IMO) of being f/1.7, especially considering the relatively poor low-light sensitivity of the M4/3 sensor.
The 20 is definitely sharper, but as robertro says, they are completely different lenses that capture very noticeably different perspectives. Shop by desired focal length first, and then review the other criteria from there.
The 20 is a lot sharper than the 14. That said, the 14 is a terrific lens, focuses faster, is smaller, quieter and wider. I use them for very different things. If I am taking only one lens however it would be the 20.
Thanks. My choice is clear now. Will be buying 20 1.7.
According to this chart, the 20mm resolves slightly more, but it's very, very close.
Reviews: All tested lenses
At the same time, SLR gear says that the "14mm is technically sharper than the 20mm"
Panasonic Lens: Primes - Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 ASPH LUMIX G (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
I just got my 14mm a couple weeks ago, and I'll say this--the autofocus speed makes a HUGE difference to me, especially when chasing around small kids. And in the sharpness category, it's no slouch. Also, I find that the focal length is a little more what I'm looking for in general situations, although that could be the result of me almost exclusively using the 20mm since August of 2010! I might just be looking for a different field of view after so long...
On the flip side, I think the isolation that you get with the longer focal length (20 vs. 14) and the faster aperture could make the 20 look subjectively sharper a lot of the time. I also miss the f/1.7 sometimes in indoor situations where f/2.5 yields shutter speeds of around 1/15s to 1/20s at ISO 800.
Both great lenses in my opinion (thus far).
Whether the charts show it or not the combined wisdom of the web says the 20 is sharper.
BUT the 14 is a much better wide angle lens.
Well, if the combined wisdom went against empirically proven evidence, then the combined wisdom would be incorrect. However, I can find sources that show higher resolution figures for the 20mm.
Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 ASPH - Review / Lens Test Report - Analysis
Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH - Review / Lens Test Report - Analysis
So, I think we now have an argument as to who's more correct. From photozone, it appears that the 20mm resolves more. However, I still contend that it's a rather silly pointless comparison, as they are wholly different lenses. It's like choosing an airline based on what brand peanuts they serve you on a Transatlantic flight. It may be important to you, but there are other considerations that should be involving your attention.
Agreed. I don't see the point at all in comparing the sharpness of utterly completely different lenses.
Agreed. It's more about what lens will work for the kind of image you're trying to create...for me, I like having both.
Limited budget. Can only get one lens. Hence looking for value for money
Not comparable lenses. Only thing they have in common is being pancakes. FOV is much different. If you are new to m43, the 20/1.7 is a great place to start.
If you can only have one lens I would say the 20 is the most versatile of the two
... and I actually have the 14mm on my camera far more than the 20mm now for everyday shooting. It's smaller and focuses much faster. You can't quantify value simply by sharpness with two completely different lenses.
But, you can't compare value by asking about sharpness. For example, let's take two cars, a sports car and a pickup. Both get the same fuel mileage. You can't really ask, "Which is better?" Well, the sports car is faster and handles better, but the pickup truck can carry cargo, so you have to assess your own shooting style to make the decision. If your type of shooting favors wide angle photography, such as capturing architecture, large groups of people, or landscapes, then sharpness be damned, the 14mm is a better value for the money, because the 20mm won't be able to capture the same amount of information in the photo. Plus, if you do a sharpness/price ratio, I could argue that the 14mm will come out ahead, as its *slightly* softer, but it's $50 cheaper.
Do you have a 14-42mm lens? Put the lens to 14mm, and walk around shooting for half an hour. Then, put the lens to 20mm, and walk around shooting for another half an hour. Whichever style you like better is the one you want. If you don't have a 14-42mm lens, then go to a local Best Buy or other electronics store that has an m4/3 camera on display. Play with the lens at 14mm and at 20mm, see which tickles your fancy more.
I'm using both
The 20 in my EPL-1
The 14 in my GF-1
It's quite different lens, both have good quality and reasonable price-performance ratio. If you need all around lens and budget constraint I say go for 20.
I see. This is a great idea! I will try it. Thanks.
Ps: I am not impressed by 14-42 as it is quite soft for my liking.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.