My Pany 20/1.7 not so sharp?

Starred

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
134
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
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Oly 5.8
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



Pana 2.2
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Oly F4.2
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

khollister

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
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.
 

mauve

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,454
Location
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.
 

Starred

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
134
I didn't use a tripod (because I haven't got one yet).

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

twalker294

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
545
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.
 

khollister

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Keith
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.
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.
 

khollister

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
259
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Keith
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.
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.
 

x2h

New to Mu-43
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
5
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.
 
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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom