Pany 25mm vs Pany 20mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Sophia5, Apr 17, 2012.

  1. Sophia5

    Sophia5 Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 17, 2012
    I am sure it was already discussed before but I would appreciate advice making the final decision. I already have Olympus 9-18, Pany 45 and 14-140. Waiting fo my e-m5 with 12-50 kit. So need help choosing 20 or 25 to use or low light indoor situations. Disregarding the price difference and size, which one would you choose based on performance
  2. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    There are quite a few threads on this already, but I will just say that I've had both the 20 and 25. I've kept the 25.

    Looking at your lens lineup, it would make more sense to get the 25, as the Oly 9-18 comes close to the same FoV of the 20, making it a little redundant.
  3. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 8, 2011
    25 1.4, faster, better optics, faster AF, says Leica on the front, maybe better bokeh?

    20 1.7, smaller, bit wider than the 25.

    That's pretty much it. If size wasn't a issue, I would go with the 25. I never used the 25, but the size of the 20 1.7 keeps me from upgrading.
  4. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I don't know about the optics of the 25 being better than the 20. Based on images that I've seen the 20 seems better at some focal lengths and the 25 at others. They 25 may indeed be better but I don't know if it's that big a difference.
  5. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Huh? Both these lenses have a fixed focal length! :confused:

    Or did you mean at some aperture stops?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Armanius

    Armanius Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2010
    Real Name:
    IMO, optically, they are both very close. AF speed and quietness, the edge goes to the PL25. So it comes down to price, size, and focal length. If I could only have one, I'd take the 20/1.7. Fortunately, I have both! But I use the 20 more often.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 8, 2011
    Usually the faster lens won't perform as well stopped down than the slower lens. But at 1.7, the 25 1.4 should be sharper and at 1.4, the 25 1.4 should be even sharper.

    The 25 also isn't a software corrected lens like the 20 1.7.
  8. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Cr*p..I MEANT apertures...sheesh, that's what I get for posting when I'm sleepy.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Let me put it differently (and without saying something stupid). Of the images I have seen they both seem to produce lovely results. I haven't seen anything that made me want to give up my 20 and pony up the extra cash for the 25.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. RussellOlaguer

    RussellOlaguer Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 12, 2012
    Paranaque, Philippines
    Real Name:
    Russell Olaguer
    I'm in the same dilemma before.

    I got to test both for a few minutes in my E-PL2.
    I chose the 20mm just because of the size difference.
    In my E-PL2 (and now on my E-M5), the rattling in the 25mm personally annoys me.
    I also love the 20mm because it's a little bit wider.

    My favorite focal length is 35mm (in FF) however the 17mm f2.8 olympus is not the best at the moment (in terms of image quality).
    • Like Like x 2
  11. duke

    duke Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 4, 2010
    Tulsa, moving to Houston
    Real Name:
    I've had both and just went back to the 20, they're really close optically. The 25 has a little smoother bokeh but has some CA wide open. The 20 doesn't focus that slow unless you're going from really far to really close or using a first gen body. I'm happy to have the 20 again because the smaller size makes it easier for me to want to bring my camera, but they are both great.
  12. starlabs

    starlabs Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2010
    Los Angeles
  13. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    I'd agree with this. I haven't used a 25mm but have had the 20mm for almost a year and half. Love this lens. I'd say get both and then return the one you don't like.
  14. Fred49

    Fred49 Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 24, 2010
    i have both , but couldnt part with one yet !

    if i am with a few lenses ( its usualy 12mm+25mm+45mm + sometimes the 14-150mm)

    if i go light for a small hike its only the 20mm
  15. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  16. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I think U wanted to say APERTUREs...
  17. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    So if we say overall photo quality of the two are close enough to factor out, then the advantages of the Lumix 20mm remain as portability and price. The advantage of the Leica 25mm Summilux is half a stop of brightness.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 8, 2011
    The 20 1.7, I believe focuses a bit closer than the 25. Also the 25 1.4 comes with the hood, if you are into hoods and comes with the center pinch cap enabling storage with hood and cap.

    The 20 1.7's front element moves, so using heavy filters or close up lenses can be a bit problematic.
  19. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin .

    Oct 9, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Real Name:
    I think that the difference between the 20mm and the 25mm is more fundamental than whether one lens is slightly faster, larger, heavier, or faster focusing. In practise the difference between the 20mm and 25mm focal lengths is larger than it looks on paper. If the 20mm was instead 18mm we wouldn't be making this comparison, but because it starts with a two and sits in the middle of two classic full-frame focal lengths the 20mm is often considered to be a standard focal length when it actually has a lot of the properties of a wide-angle lens.

    The 20mm gives you that extra breathing space compared to the 25mm for wider framing, and at any decent focusing distance it can be shot near wide-open and still maintain a large depth-of-field. It tends to be better in confined spaces and for larger group photos.


    On the other hand the 25mm allows for tighter framing, is capable of some finer depth-of-field control and is at a focal length that is just long enough for portraits.


    For me there was never really the thought of replacing the 20mm with the 25mm, but instead to use each in situations that play to their strengths.
    • Like Like x 10
  20. rgeorge911

    rgeorge911 Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 8, 2012
    I have both, and will going forward

    I have both lenses. I agree that the comparison for me is more about focal length (field of view) than other features. I recently chose the 25mm for a trip, leaving the 20mm behind. If I were going again today, I would probably grab the 20, for space sake.

    I always enjoyed the Minolta-Leica Summicron 40mm f2 (still do enjoy it, actually). So, a 40mm equivalent field of view works for me. In my mind the 25 (50 equivalent) really is substantially longer in actual shooting circumstances.

    I've written about this on my Lumix blog at:

    DMC-365 - My Year with Lumix Camera Equipment: Decisions, decisions... Or is it Just an Embarrassment of Riches?

    My Lumix Blog:
    • Like Like x 2