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

My Pany 20/1.7 not so sharp?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Starred, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. Starred

    Starred Mu-43 Regular

    134
    Aug 7, 2010
    I sometimes have the idea that my Pany is not so sharp as the ones the reviews rave about. When I compare it to for example my Oly 14-150 (which is not considered to be a very sharp lens), then I don't see that much differences.
    Is it possible that some lenses within one serie are just as sharp as other ones?

    I took some quick shots to compare the Pany with the Oly.

    Pana 5.8
    Pany2.

    Oly 5.8
    Oly2.


    Pana 2.2
    Pany3.

    Oly F4.2
    Oly3.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. khollister

    khollister Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Sep 16, 2010
    Orlando, FL
    Keith
    Even with the smallish images you posted, the 20mm is clearly sharper to my eye (look at the sticker on the kiwi fruit). The 20mm shots are sharper and have a little more contrast than the zoom.

    I would not expect a huge difference since the 14-150 seems to be well thought of based on the comments I have read (I do not own it). I think there is a difference in your photos, but it is a lot more subtle than you might have been expecting. Were these taken on a tripod? If not, your experiment is flawed based on the EXIF info showing slow shutter speeds (1/25 s on the one I looked at).

    Try this with either a tripod or arranging a subject so you can rest the camera on a table or stack of books so you are not depending on you or the IS to eliminate motion blur.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I'm with Khollister ; your pictures are indeed proof of the superior contrast and sharpness of the 20/1.7 (although the 14-150 performs well enough).

    The effect is certainly more subtle than you expected, but the 14-150 pictures look more 'flat' than those made with the 20.
     
  4. Starred

    Starred Mu-43 Regular

    134
    Aug 7, 2010
    I didn't use a tripod (because I haven't got one yet).

    There's also a difference in color. Why is that?
     
  5. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    543
    Aug 18, 2010
    What you are referring to as a difference in color is actually a difference in contrast -- the 20 has better contrast than the 14-150, which is desirable.
     
  6. khollister

    khollister Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Sep 16, 2010
    Orlando, FL
    Keith
    Agreed - the color balance (or "color timing" in motion picture speak) is the same. The contrast, which also changes the perceived color saturation, is different. Quite common with lenses.
     
  7. khollister

    khollister Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Sep 16, 2010
    Orlando, FL
    Keith
    Agreed - the color balance (or "color timing" in motion picture speak) is the same. The contrast, which also changes the perceived color saturation, is different. Quite common with lenses.
     
  8. Starred

    Starred Mu-43 Regular

    134
    Aug 7, 2010
    Can I conclude that there is probably nothing wrong with my lens?
     
  9. khollister

    khollister Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Sep 16, 2010
    Orlando, FL
    Keith
    That would be my conclusion - go take some pictures :smile:
     
  10. x2h

    x2h New to Mu-43

    5
    Sep 5, 2010
    to me the 20/1.7 picture seems to be always 0.5 stop less exposed than the 14-150 Oly, in your examples. if you really want to compare them, use a good tripod, and the same exposure (same aperture and speed, same camera), and use the self timer. then blow it up to 100% and compare. from your photos, I can tell the 20/1.7 is more contrasty (which is a good thing), but can't tell more than that.