Crazy amounts of CA with Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f 1.7 II

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
I know that Panasonic's 20mm f 1.7 is quite an ancient optical design (wonderful design still) with very heavy reliance on software CA correction AND that Olympus sensor design is very different from Panasonic's when it comes to optical correction both physical (as lens design) and software ... but sometimes it still boggles my Brian (aka brain) on the crazy amounts of CA it can still produce:
1617372532113.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

While some lenses measure from a few pixels of CA up to 10 or even 15 pixels wide ... this looks like over 25 pixels. It was so intense that I had to use +20 CA magenta removal AND an overlay of +100 Defringe with an Adjsutment Brush to remove it. And it did not come at little to no cost (as some people say about removing CA), there's quite a large gap of missing colour information now though it's only noticable on the tree trunk.

There has been plenty of well documented reports on Panasonic lenses producing very dificult or costly (sometimes even impossible) amounts of CA on Olympus cameras (lenses like Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f 4 ASPH, Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f 1.7 I & II ASPH, Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f 1.4 ASPH). Personally I had some frustrations with even their highest of high end lenses: Panasonic Leica DG-Vario Elmarit 50-200mm f 2.8-4 ASPH Power OIS ... giving me very deep blue and yellow CA if the subject was not perfectly in focus and pin sharp as a needle.

I do hope Panasonic will take more consideration their lens design with Olympus camera compatibility (maybe stronger CA software profile correction or better optical design?) as OM-D Corp. has fewer shackless of the "old managment".
By no means does it make it not worth using Panasonic lenses on Olympus cameras, it's still a very per case situation of how much CA it can produce, for a lens that costs me 140 £ I won't be crying a river for having to deal with "this" ... on a lens that's 500 £ or even 1.500 £ might make me feel a bit differently though.

(PS: I can bring examples from Panny 50-200mm as well if peeps want.)
On a lighter note, at full view of the picture it's still noticeable but less "painful":
1617373409977.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
413
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
Mike Peters
That seems pretty extreme, and the situation is ideal for showing CA being heavily back lit against fine detail in the corner of the image. I'm not sure that there are many lenses that would fare much better.

I use the 20 quite a bit and CA or fringing has never been an issue with this lens at any aperture, for me. I've looked but cannot find any examples among my images that show CA to be a problem. That said, I shoot it pretty much exclusively wide open where CA is less of an issue than it is when stopped down.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
Never mind the CA, look at the contrast veiling with that lens wide-open. Do you have a filter on that lens? It's not an uncoated UV Tiffen, is it?
No filter on the lens, only a 46 to 52mm step up ring to fit a standard 52mm Panasonic lens cap (that's how the lens came with from CEX).
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,956
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
Looking at the before and after indicates really how much software in involved these days in getting us good IQ, thought I don't place the blame on the optics, I think a lot of it rests on the sensors. Lens design is always a series of compromises, maybe, but they have to make an awful lot (and then compensate for them after the fact) with MFT sensors.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
Looking at the before and after indicates really how much software in involved these days in getting us good IQ, thought I don't place the blame on the optics, I think a lot of it rests on the sensors. Lens design is always a series of compromises, maybe, but they have to make an awful lot (and then compensate for them after the fact) with MFT sensors.
Some optical corrections are happening alongside the sensor quality: vignetting is fixed in software by pushing the shadow exposure up around the edges where the optical profile has trouble with even exposure (but this requires a decent quality image from the sensor to make up for the extra noise in that area), as well as diffraction in lenses (which in-laws of physics it happens in the same in all the lenses when the conditions apply: very small apertures BUT) where cheaper lenses it can show up sooner because of higher compromise in build quality and design for lower cost (physical aperture design, less corrected light path that can scatter light easier at very small apertures for example) and on higher-end lenses it can be more resilient (but they will still be affected eventually) from fewer compromises made ... in this situation a sensor designed with low or no optical pass filter can help combat this issue (to a certain extent).

BUT for CA and LoCA it's almost exclusively optical lens design and software correction either on the processing unit of the camera (TruePic) or in editing software (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc). Over the years (from reading amazing articles from Imaging Resource and Rober Cicala as some of the best resources) I have learned more about the compromises it has to be done to design, build and sell lenses (the good as well as the bad). Lenses like Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f 1.7 has some serious limitations to keep the size this tiny, the cost is cheap through a simpler:
1617430346432.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

7 elements in 5 groups design with 2 ASPH elements for smoother rendition of the background but which introduces more CA in the lens. Olympus uses more ED lenses for less CA but these elements makes the background blur less smooth and more nervous. (A visible difference in this design can be seen between Olympus ED 40-150mm f 2.8 Pro and Panasonic X 35-100mm f 2.8 ASPH).
Panasonic decided to combat CA through a thicker sensor assembly design with a filter on the sensor for CA correction when the light is bent on the edge of the lens ... Olympus cameras lack this assembly so the issue is not corrected an shows more intense.

BY NO MEANS DOES THIS MAKE PANASONIC LENSES LESS WORTH USING ON OLYMPUS CAMERAS ... it's worth learning of such situations so users can work around this to make the best of the gear they bought with their hard earn money. It's a very per situation case as well as personal opinion of how much/bothersome it can be.
 

ivanbae07

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
60
Location
BKL, ID
Real Name
I.B.
Yup, you're right about the panasonic 20mm f1.7 got a lot of CA (uncorrected pic). I always encounter them (CA) when i took a picture on a woodland, or when the sky is the background, and got some strong light or a really contrasty scene. When i'm on the peak of my laziness, i've always turn my back to that kind of scenes, so, i don't have to do some extensive CA cleaning later, haha.
But still, that lens is a really good one out there. For the price to performance, and the size, damn. I can't nominated other lens than the panasonic 20mm f1.7, so far.
ps: i have the mk1 version, nearly always mounted on my only milc (for time being), pen f
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,668
Hi Ovidiu, thought I'd chip in another round of observations.

I know that Panasonic's 20mm f 1.7 is quite an ancient optical design (wonderful design still) with very heavy reliance on software CA correction
As has been mentioned, that's veiling glare and not chromatic aberration.

The 20 1.7 measurements I'm aware of report 4.3 um of software chromatic aberration correction and a 2.2 um residual. For a 20 MP m43 sensor that's 1.7 pixels uncorrected.

Olympus sensor design is very different from Panasonic's when it comes to optical correction both physical (as lens design) and software
Olympus and Panasonic mostly buy the same 20 MP sensors from Sony (IMX269, IMX272). While I'm not aware of clear evidence confirming recent E-M1 series PDAF is a customization of the IMX272 it seems pretty likely. Thickness of the optical stack above the sensor is standardized in the m43 specification as that's required for basic lens interoperability. Within lens corrections of aberration are properties of the lens design, not the sensor. Software correction is applied to pixel values after ADC, again not the sensor.

I may be wrong about this but didn't Olympus address the purple blob issue by changing the hot mirrors in their more recent bodies to a sharper UV cutoff? (Regardless of whether they did or didn't, the hot mirror is a filter in the optical stack above the sensor and not part of the sensor itself. And the purple blobs are a form of lens flare, not chromatic aberration.)

less corrected light path that can scatter light easier at very small apertures
Please review the mathematics as this isn't how Fraunhofer diffraction works. Note that for any finite aperture the size of the Airy disc is greater than zero.

I think what you're developing is more an argument lower cost lenses can be more prone to veiling glare. I see it from time to time in images from the Panasonic 12-32 and 35-100 f/4-5.6 as well but it's unclear how much of this is attributable to baffling versus coating versus just the layout of the elements. I'm less familiar with the Olympus 12-50 and 40-150 R but haven't noticed the phenomena with them. For low cost Olympus primes I don't know. So, while the hypothesis seems plausible, I'm not aware of an adequate body of data to support or reject it.

for CA and LoCA it's almost exclusively optical lens design and software correction either on the processing unit of the camera (TruePic) or in editing software (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc)
Well, not quite. Definitely both optics and software for lateral chromatic aberration. I'm not aware of any software which intentionally corrects longitudinal chromatic aberration, though focus stacking can mitigate it.

Olympus uses more ED lenses for less CA but these elements makes the background blur less smooth and more nervous.
I'm not aware of any evidence use of low dispersion glasses has a consistent effect on bokeh.

My current tabulation of elements in the lenses for which the two manufacturers provide information gives an average of 13.6 elements in Olympus lenses (n = 29) and 12.7 for Panasonic (n = 33). I suspect this mostly just reflects Panasonic's overall tendency towards somewhat slower and lower cost lenses, though it's also Olympus not giving element counts for their body caps. Neither manufacturer provides element types for all of their lenses but first order corrected estimates are the average Olympus lens has 4 special elements and Panasonic 0.7. Since there's no apparent difference in things like MTF and CA between the two manufacturers some of the difference is likely due to Olympus marketing a number of lens element types—DSA, EDA, HR, HD, E-HR, SHR, UHR, and IIRC also UED—not found in Panasonic nomenclature as well as differences in design targets for aperture, size, weight, and price. While it's also possible Panasonic gets normal lens elements to do things Olympus doesn't there's no evidence to support this.

I don't know of any measurements of bokeh so it doesn't appear practical to quantify differences between manufacturers or within specific classes of lenses. This makes it quite difficult, I think, to argue Olympus and Panasonic have distinct lens design strategies which produce differences in bokeh. Anecdotally, Fuji X lenses do seem prone to nervous bokeh but, from what I can tell, this is more Fuji being an outlier compared to Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, and Canon. Anecdotally, there also seems to be a tendency for zooms to have more nervous bokeh than primes. But this varies substantially on a lens to lens basis, as well as with zoom position, and I know of some modern zooms which compare favorably with some modern primes for smoothness of bokeh. Also anecdotally, there appears to be a positive correlation between OIS activity and nervous bokeh. So Olympus versus Panasonic claims around bokeh probably need to be controlled for Panasonic having more OIS lenses as well as body to body differences in IBIS since, at least on the G9, Panasonic has stated dual IS gives IBIS priority before engaging OIS.

Panasonic decided to combat CA through a thicker sensor assembly design with a filter on the sensor for CA correction when the light is bent on the edge of the lens
Citation needed. I suspect this might be an attempt to say something about the hot mirror but, if so, it's incorrect. And changing the height of the stack would violate the m43 specification.
 
Last edited:

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
Now I don't know what to say or think, I really don't want to slap labels on a product or a brand.
Last night I found a baby trolly abandoned on one of the footpaths I commute to work and it felt so eery and interesting that I needed to photograph, but given that it was pretty dark it would be better to shoot with Panny Leica 15mm f 1.7 for the extra light and since the subject is still I can benefit of extra IQ of HHHR. Just started editing the picture when I noticed the HUGE amounts of CA, once again, that is not something that would utterly ruin the image but it makes me feel like I'm using an uncoated 1960s lens.

(These are all screengrabs)
First, this is the "final" output compared to the imported and convertion to DNG file. It doesn't look all that bad or worrying doesn't it and even in the unedited DNG it doesn't look pretty bad:
1621263648454.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Now this is a bit different, after boosting the shadows and balacing the highlights, added some contrast (which directly affects CA as well) things started turning into NEON levels. They show up in the darn center of the frame so maybe it's not coma nor veiling problem? Given that it's purple and green CA it's more related to LaCA as an issue. It took CA with the eye dropper correction and 100+ CA brush adjusment correction to fix it:
1621264185117.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I really only want to learn more about this so anyone who can expand on this I would love really much to be educated:
1621264268757.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Here's a different frame with the eye-dropper on the green LoCA, on the top left corner of the preview window:
1621264445093.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

fransglans

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
1,315
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Gustav
I remember Canon 85mm 1.8, CA all over the place. But the photos it took was worth the pain, same as with the P20 imo
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
I remember Canon 85mm 1.8, CA all over the place. But the photos it took was worth the pain, same as with the P20 imo
It would be not very dissimilar from the "olden days" where optical design was a sacrifice of IQ, correction, speed, and price. Even though today we have a lot more effective technology (software and hardware) to improve/correct optics there's still a balance of sacrifice between IQ, size, and price. I do find it a bit odd that I don't see this level of CA at this focal length from the Oly 12-100mm f 4 Pro but given the price disparity, size comparison, and speed difference it should be expected? I still love this little bugger (Panny Leica 15mm f 1.7, as I replaced the Panny 20mm f 1.7 with it), just need to learn the quarks and how to shoot to get more out of it.
 

mfturner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
290
@archaeopteryx Fwiw, dpreview thinks the 0980 bcl is 5 element, 4 group, 2 aspherical, and the 1580 is 3 element, 3 group.

And my old EF 100f2.0, the big brother to the EF 85f1.8, had CA like that, but was worth the battle for its other qualities.

I haven't noticed objectionable CA with my p35-100 f4. I use it a lot with my 12Mpx PM1, which may hide it. Maybe I'll put it on the 20Mpx m5.3 tonight and see what I can see. Especially with the Canon 450 single element close up lens, that should show something.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
402
Location
Canada
Magenta bleed next to bright area, and notice in the first picture the purple/magenta is not uniform in width or direction or strength. I think that is purple fringing rather than chromatic aberration. There are twice the green photosites on a sensor compared to blue or red, so the light hitting one part of sensor bleeding into adjacent parts ends up with magenta hue. So a flaw of the sensor rather than of the lens. I noticed the same thing my E-M1 II and 12-100mm F4, especially along tree branches or around sunlight reflecting on the water, so I take greater care to avoid overexposure. You can also use a polarizing filter to reduce the reflection on water and leaves.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,668
dpreview thinks the 0980 bcl is 5 element, 4 group, 2 aspherical, and the 1580 is 3 element, 3 group
Thanks, I was able to confirm that for both BCLs by way of some of Olympus Asia's pages. Not sure why they didn't come up on previous searches.
 

mawz

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
224
Magenta bleed next to bright area, and notice in the first picture the purple/magenta is not uniform in width or direction or strength. I think that is purple fringing rather than chromatic aberration. There are twice the green photosites on a sensor compared to blue or red, so the light hitting one part of sensor bleeding into adjacent parts ends up with magenta hue. So a flaw of the sensor rather than of the lens. I noticed the same thing my E-M1 II and 12-100mm F4, especially along tree branches or around sunlight reflecting on the water, so I take greater care to avoid overexposure. You can also use a polarizing filter to reduce the reflection on water and leaves.

It's definitely purple fringing, not CA.

This has been a known issue with some Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies since the E-P1. There's some combo of the sensor toppings, rear element coatings and the in-camera lens corrections that just really interact badly. The 20/1.7 and 7-14/4 are the two usual problem children.
 

mfturner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
290
I don't know if it's the same thing with the P20, but the green and magenta fringing on the old Canon EF 100f2 was simply longitudinal CA. I could use it to help adjust focus if I paid attention. I haven't noticed it on the olympus 45f1.8, maybe I will add that to my experiments when the sun comes back out long enough to make some contrasty subjects.
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
292
Location
CZE
There has been plenty of well documented reports on Panasonic lenses producing very dificult or costly (sometimes even impossible) amounts of CA on Olympus cameras (lenses like Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f 4 ASPH, Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f 1.7 I & II ASPH, Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f 1.4 ASPH). Personally I had some frustrations with even their highest of high end lenses: Panasonic Leica DG-Vario Elmarit 50-200mm f 2.8-4 ASPH Power OIS ... giving me very deep blue and yellow CA if the subject was not perfectly in focus and pin sharp as a needle.

(PS: I can bring examples from Panny 50-200mm as well if peeps want.)
On a lighter note, at full view of the picture it's still noticeable but less "painful":
1. There is a very good article about this topic, 2A or 2E filters are recommended.
2. I almost sold the Summilux 25mm F1.4 and then tried Capture One v8 that time, the auto correction for purple fringing/CA were much better than what Lightroom 5 could do with base lens profile. I recommend to try C1 or anything else than Adobe product.
3. There definitely were/are more CA issues with 16MP Oly cameras (the E-M5i in my case) when Lumix lenses are attached than it is now with 20MP OMDs. CA is still there but less noticeable, only visible when pixel-peep. My latest observations and screenshots are valid for the E-M1ii + Lumix 35-100mm F2.8 version I + C1 v11. This zoom was not part of the black list though.

#1, 1:1
1621368251015.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


#2, 1:1
1621368465035.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


#3, 1:1
1621368934438.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

4. I have suspicion that the 3rd gen Lumix lenses (as I call it) represented by F2.8-4.0 zooms and @Mike Peters' darling PL10-25mm F1.7 are almost CA free (paired with the latest Oly bodies). David Thorpe talked about it in his PL8-18mm review and was very satisfied, because his Lumix 7-14mm F4 suffered from CA even on Lumix bodies.
5. You're the first brave man who talks about CA related with the PL50-200mm lens, David Thorpe's review is very possitive on this topic. There are some photos which shows very little CA, see the girl's white vest around shoulder area. This should equals to my samples above.
 
Last edited:

mfturner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
290
@L0n3Gr3yW0lf I don’t know if this anecdote will help, but the sun came out so I did some initial testing of a dead tree across the street with p35-100, o14-150, o75-300 and o45f1.8, with both 12mpx PM1 and 20mpx m5.3. All zooms were at their longest FL, and wide open aperture.

I accidentally left both in Art bracketing mode, which taught me a lesson, if you want to accentuate CA, use pop art.

Next observation, the m5.3 corrects CA very well, I couldn’t find anything I would bother PP for CA in vivid or milder picture modes. The PM1, not so much. Whether it is a sensor difference, or internal PP I don’t know yet, I’ll save some raw images of both with the 14-150 to see if I can tell in dcraw.5

Which leaves me with another observation, with the PM1, CA followed the zoom range, the 14-150 has strong CA, the other 2 zooms have mild CA, and I couldn’t find any in the 45mm but it may not have been a great subject to stress CA for that lens.

None of that speaks to the p20, sorry I don’t have one.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
413
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
Mike Peters
On my Lumix bodies I find the P20 remarkably free of CA and LOCA. I have a whole set that I shot with it here: https://www.mikepeters-photography.com/Personal-Work-sets/061717-NYC-SI-Ferry



There are a bunch of lenses that can have this issue, the Sigma 16 and 30 f1.4’s, and to a much lesser extent the PL 25 f1.4. My PL zooms seem free of this, as does the inexpensive 14-140ll. I’ll have to go back and check other lenses and see if I’m missing something
 

Attachments

  • AA321562-0428-48ED-8100-010F89C15BE6.jpeg
    AA321562-0428-48ED-8100-010F89C15BE6.jpeg
    482.9 KB · Views: 9
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom