1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

20 1.7 vs 14 2.5

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by sin77, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    Which one is sharper?
     
  2. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    the 20
     
  3. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    Look up MTF charts. The 20 is insanely sharper than the 14. It shows really well in the corners.
     
  4. robertro

    robertro Mu-43 Veteran

    223
    Apr 22, 2010
    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.
     
  5. speltrong

    speltrong Mu-43 Veteran

    338
    May 8, 2011
    Northern California
    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.
     
  6. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    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.
     
  7. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    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.
     
  8. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    Thanks. My choice is clear now. Will be buying 20 1.7.
     
  9. zucchiniboy

    zucchiniboy Mu-43 Regular

    135
    Oct 13, 2010
    San Francisco
    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).
     
  10. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    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.

    Fred
     
  11. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    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.
     
  12. supermaxv

    supermaxv Mu-43 Veteran

    273
    Sep 20, 2011
    Agreed. I don't see the point at all in comparing the sharpness of utterly completely different lenses.
     
  13. zucchiniboy

    zucchiniboy Mu-43 Regular

    135
    Oct 13, 2010
    San Francisco
    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.
     
  14. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    Limited budget. Can only get one lens. Hence looking for value for money
     
  15. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    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.
     
  16. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    If you can only have one lens I would say the 20 is the most versatile of the two
     
  17. supermaxv

    supermaxv Mu-43 Veteran

    273
    Sep 20, 2011
    ... 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.
     
  18. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. st3v4nt

    st3v4nt Mu-43 Veteran

    317
    May 26, 2011
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    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.
     
  20. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    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.