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

Yes, one of those O25 versus PL25 threads yet again.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by dissembled, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. dissembled

    dissembled Mu-43 Veteran

    285
    May 2, 2013
    NJ
    A. Quia
    I own the Olympus 25 at the moment but am considering switching to the Panasonic Leica camp as I love the Leica's rendering, gauging from the photographs from the Panasonic 25's samples thread.

    I know, I know. The Leica is bigger and has a longer minimum focus range than the Olympus.

    I wonder though whether an aperture of f1.4 produces noticeably more bokeh than with an aperture of f1.8? I adore shallow depth of field, you see. Is there an evident difference between the two lenses?

    To those who switched camps, have you regretted it in any way? I'd like to know your opinions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016
  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I've never owned the Oly 25mm 1.8, but I did own the PL 25. I think where the PL 25 shines is in creating creamier atmospheric shots (not clinically sharp, but more organic) and also creating low light shots with nice star-like light points. Though I eventually switched back out to the Pan 20mm, due to size and being a better general use lens for my use.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
  3. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    I own the Leica 25mm version and also the 45mm version. Yes, it's creamier and more organic (bokeh) and it does better shallow depth of field thanks to the f/1.4 as least with my 25mm. Just to get the technical terms correct; bokeh is a description for the quality of blur. Depth of field is a description for the quantity of blur.

    if you adore more shallower depth of field and can't afford the Nokton, the Mitakon 25mm "Pan cake" 0.95 will be a cheaper option than the Nokton and supposedly provide similar optical performances. @$499, it seems to be a steal especially when looking at the samples. I have experience using Mitakon optics and while they have some dogs crap, they also have some jewels too.
     
  4. dissembled

    dissembled Mu-43 Veteran

    285
    May 2, 2013
    NJ
    A. Quia
    Thanks for the replies. Regarding the Mitakon, howevr...Sadly I'm dependent on AF. I'm crap at manual focusing.
    Admittedly, I haven't tried focus peaking yet though. Maybe I'll consider it. I can't find the Mitakon 25 in the BH website. Do you mean the 35 instead?
     
  5. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    The P-L 25 gives you a little (and I emphasize little) more shallower DOF and the bokeh is a little "creamier". But I think the difference maker is what people refer to as rendering, or simply "the look". I think some people notice the difference in look much more than others, and some of those people really prefer it. If you think you fall in to that group I'd say go for it. But I would not go for it just because of the bokeh and more shallow DOF.
     
  6. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    Check another thread here under Mitakon 25mm pancake. It was just announced recently. I never used focus peaking on my E-P5 because it is unreliable for such shallow depth of field. Instead I used magnifier with touch pad to select AF point to manual focus on. I use my Mitakon lens turbo focal reducer if I want more shallow dof with my full frame lenses.
     
  7. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    940
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    The P25mm is my third favorite lens...behind the 75mm and the 12-40. I can't think of a moment where I was disappointed in using it. It maybe larger, but it's not heavy. It balances nicely on my EM1
     
  8. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    Vincent Versace own 7 lenses of the same focal lengths just for their different bokeh or rendering. Bokeh is not depth of field like some people confuse of. Bokeh is the rendering, or if you are a painter the brush quality of your paint brush. It's ok to own 2 to 7 lens for that. I own 2 of each of my main focal lengths because sometimes razor sharp is appropriate for some photos and soft creamier is appropriate for others.
     
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I ran both for a while but eventually decided the IQ differences were vanishingly small so I kept the Oly since it's smaller and cheaper. The difference in DOF is very small and talk of creaminess etc can easily be created in PP, if indeed you can see any difference at all.
     
  10. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    ^This. The differences are so minute between the two lenses that it's not even worth worrying about. I owned the O.25, and currently own the PL.25, and to be honest, before I saw the size of the recently announced P.25 (no different than the PL.25), I was going to switch to it simply for its faster AF, and working better with the DFD AF system on my GH4's.

    Any subtle difference in tonality of the images can be created via a preset in LR and applied to any image you like. The Bokeh on the O.25 is very good, and it is much smaller (though not much lighter). If you want to own the PL25 simply to own it, by all means go ahead, but don't expect any significant differences in the way the images looks. Also, making the switch will like cost you ! $100-125 (sell the O25 for $275, -3% for PP feels, -$15 for shipping, puts you at $250 net. Then you buy a PL25 for $350-$375). IMO, it's not worth the cost of "upgrading", but it's not my money either.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I'm very curious to see what the Panasonic 25/1.7 looks like in the end. It doesn't seem like it's anything special, but could be an even-cheaper counterpoint to the 25/1.8 and given the size (i.e. in between the Oly and PL25) and MTF charts it will probably have very good optical performance
     
  12. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    The new P25 is barely smaller than the PL25 (2.5mm shorter, and 2.2mm smaller in diameter, so for all intents and purposes, they're the same size). However the MTF charts show the new P25 being sharper across the frame than the PL25, which is what we see with the O25 vs PL25 already.

    [​IMG]
    Photo taken from another user who showed it in the P25 announcement thread.
     
  13. rozowykubek

    rozowykubek New to Mu-43

    3
    Aug 24, 2015
    if you care about rendering / look why not wait for Panasonic 25 1.7 :) ?
    it will hit shelves in October, might be cool lens with that "look" or at least similar, moreover is bit faster than Oly:rolleyes-38: and for sure cheaper than PL - 299$
     
  14. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Yeah, it's only a little smaller. And the Oly 25mm/1.8 is 5mm smaller in diameter and 11mm shorter. It's a difference, sure, but if size was my ultimate priority here I'd just get the 20mm/1.7. I mostly just want to see the samples.
     
  15. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Good for Vince. I never said bokeh is the same as DOF, nor did I say you should not own two or more lenses of the same FL. I was trying the answer the OPs question, not pontificate.
     
  16. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    While the 20mm does offer incredible IQ for the size, it still leaves a lot to be desired. The AF definitely leaves a lot to be desired in low light situations, and the lens simply won't do C-AF. Both of those are non-issues with the O25. I think if size is important, but low-light AF speed and C-AF are not, the P20 is the way to go. If you need low-light AF or C-AF but still want small size, the O25 or O17 are the way to go, and if you don't care too much about size then look at either one of the Panasonic lenses.
     
  17. Dramaturg

    Dramaturg Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Jun 7, 2013
    Ukraine
    Yevgen
    It's been tested on this forum with side by side pics. The difference in DOF is more noticable on the full body shots, while there is almost no difference on close up shots. So yes, PL25 produces more shallow DOF which is rather visible.
     
  18. Jfrader

    Jfrader Guest

    I love the PL25 IQ and speed. Since I shoot outdoors a lot and am a fanatic about using lens hoods, I do NOT love the non-reversible, oddly shaped hood for the PL25. I use it but it is clumsy to store and takes up too much room in the bag. That is the only negative I can find.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I own both. I use Olympus bodies, an E-M1 and an E-M5. I prefer the Olympus lens.

    The Olympus and Panasonic senosors are slightly different, and their lens coatings are also different. I find the Panasonic PL25 produces a slightly cool blue/green colour cast in my images that I have never been able to fix to my satisfaction in processing but I never have that problem with Olympus lenses. That's my only complaint about the PL25 and it is not a problem with the Olympus 25 which gives me colour results I really like. The colour cast isn't bad, as I said it's slight, but it annoys me intensely even though I have rarely seen anyone else comment on it.

    Apart from that I think they're both great lenses. There are other differences but none of them are an issue for me. I'd be happy with either if it weren't for the colour cast issue.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Jfrader

    Jfrader Guest

    I wonder if it is your copy. I have never noticed that problem.