LUMIX 20mm vs Leica 25mm ... color, sharpness, FOV - (with Pictures)

[@ljwaugh1]

In your comparison of the two self portraits (6:24) I notice that the 20mm image is properly focused on the eyes whereas the 25mm Leica image is focused on your eyebrow! This makes the eyes look less sharp in the 25mm image and therefore gives the general impression that the image is less sharp. This raises two issues : 1 - its harder to achieve correct focus when the depth of field is smaller 2 - if the depth of field is too shallow its hard to achieve a sharp looking portrait overall (only parts of the face are in focus). You could probably stop down the 25mm lens to f1.7 to achieve an equal impression of sharpness. On the other hand, it could be argued that the f1.7 lens (wide open) provides an ideal depth of field for achieving good (sharp) portrait images overall without straying into the 'excessively' shallow depth of field of the wide open 25mm lens. Thanks for the review - very interesting.

[@DA-jw6nm]

you don't know where the lens were focused and drawing that conclusion from images is delusional. in fact, the argument you go on to make regarding DOF differences would actually support the different results. Maybe you begin to see why lens sharpness comparisons are most useful when a standard image designed to analyze it. in this video a simple real life approach was applied and I feel produced useful results that would lead most people to conclude the 20mm is sharper.

[@Luigiz28]

The Panny 20mm f1.7 is an absolute gem and SHARP as heck. I've taken random pics of my wife and dogs and the level of detail is incredible and this was shooting on an "old" Em10 Mk I. The autofocus is slow for fast moving objects but for stationary objects, and for the price, the 20mm f1.7 is a must own for M43 shooters. Great video!

[@mfreider]

I was looking for nice match for EM5mkIII and weatherproofing was a must for me, I do have PRO primes and they are golden standard for me but for EM5MKIII need something smaller. So I got PanaLeica 25/1.4 gen II (which is weather sealed) . When I did first shots using it , I had exactly same feeling - soft?! Soft wide open?! Leica?! After short panic attack, I took deep breath and grab it with me for short , two day trip to some city, just EM5MKIII and this lens. I put away my expectations and just enjoyed trip and some city shooting. I didn’t care about technical aspects - sharpness, flare etc - only compositions, light, dof and my subjects. When I came home and did not expect anything but just some technically inferior pictures - I was blown away. Yes, at 1.4 it is not razor sharp as my 17/1.2 PRO, yes it does have some CA (occasionally and very tiny) but ! But I LOVED what I saw , it was like my old Zeiss Planar 50/2 ZM on Zeiss Ikon. Kind of old fashioned, pleasantly old fashioned, not rusty and antic. Sharp enough and not super modern sharp. Exactly as I wanted it from Leica. When you stop down it to 2 or 2.8 it is different beast. It became modern, ultra sharp F1 racing car. High micro contrast , sharpness. Open it up and again - nice and pleasant little bit dreamy feelings. Not sure if it lens for everyone, for pixel peepers - definitely not. For me - yes. I ended up paring EM5MKIII with 12-45/4 for hiking and using 25/1.4 for evening, cities and other occasions where F/1.4 and classic rendering will match ideally. So, bottom line - give it a chance, it may surprise you;)

[@massimilianotebaldi2137]

I have both too and I can confirm everything. I would also add my lumix 20mm f1.7 has a little lower - I would call it - "overall contrast" and colder colours. In some way with the leica 25mm blacks are blacker and microcontrast more pronounced, all of these only if you stop it down beyond f2.0. Great lenses with different characters.

[@slows728]

I tried some different copies of the 20mm f1.7II and the 25mm f1.4. Each time the 20mm was sharper, even when both were at f2 or f2.8. Some people said the contrast was better on the 25mm, but again each time I compared them the 20mm had better contrast (maybe they compared the old version of the 20mm ?). The AF is faster (but not more accuracte) on the 25mm yes, but overall the 20mm is a better lens.

[@androidgameplays4every13]

Good to know

[@artistjoh]

The Panasonic/Leica is based on the Four Thirds version which was a legendary lens. Personally I don’t think it is as good as it’s ancestor. It is not in the same class as the 12mm 1.4 or the Noct. I think it is better than the 45 macro. As to comparing the 20 and the 25, they are such different lenses that I don’t think about their individual qualities. The pancake I use when I want a discrete walk around lens and look touristy so no one notices me, but I prefer the longer focal lengths generally, and these days I am more likely to use the 30mm Sigma than the Pana-Leica. I seem to remember that the 20mm 1.7 was the first lens I ever got after the 14-140 kit lens as soon as the GH1 was first released. I seem to remember that only the 45 macro and the 7-14mm were available in the shops for most of that year. There were very few MFT lenses in those first year or two of the system - lots of promises but it took time to get manufacturing up to speed

[@daysofgrace2934]

For portraits generally top photographer focus on the bridge of the nose as most wrinkles are usually below the pupil, the eye bag area, you focus on the eye then manual focus to where the eye brows would meet; for portraits also when you use a 50mm position the camera at breast height to reduce lens distortion, 85mm at face height, a 35mm at waist height. For 50mm it's face + chest, 85mm is least distorting so you can cover all portraits but need the distance. In the film days you would just out some vaseline on the uv filter on a lens, when first digital was used in PS you would add a slight blur and mask out the eyes and mouth. The Lumix 42.5 f1.7 is a good portrait lens...25mm has more compression than 20mm, check out the Oly 75mm f1.8, it has cinematic compression for full length portraits at f2.5-f3, you get nice background...

[@steadicamwalker]

The issues of sharpness are actually from the flaw in Af which is always a bit off. If u use manual focus both of the lenses are very sharp.

[@samwang5831]

There is possibly focus shift in the 25mm- the subject is focussed at the largest aperture, but the focus shifts as the aperture is closed down to take the shot. To avoid this, take the pic at the largest aperture. Normally it is obvious within a couple of stops above biggest aperture. After that the the DOF may cancel it out.

[@malmedia]

I know some lenses can get out of calibration. Maybe try manual focusing to see if the sharpness difference is still an issue.

[@dj.paulieb]

Leica 25mm is known to be a bit soft wide open. Also "portrait" profile on Olympus adds global softening to the image rather then to the skin tone alone. Therefore portrait profile will always be softer compared to other picture profiles. BTW, I like your channel.

[@ericrjennings]

Good stuff. Thanks man.

[@dj.paulieb]

@@ericrjennings No problem. We all learn something new from each other.

[@sdhute]

There is some hidden gems if you do not mind converter glass. Sigma 17-50 2.8 and also sigma 18-35 1.7 amazing glass that can be converted with viltrox speed booster lenses above are ef-s however commonly used by mft users. I've been eyeing the 17-50 since it's only 298 on Amazon.

[@WhoIsSerafin]

Looking at your older video here, I’ve had the opposite from everyone, I have the water resistant version of Leica 25mm. I found the 25mm much sharper and the 20mm frustratingly soft. I think I got a bad version of the 20mm. I’ve tempted to try it again because of its size.

[@MichaelCozineSounds]

Wow I loved the 20mm Lumix so much more than I thought I would.

[@zacredacted2137]

I think maybe the 25mm is front focusing some? Hard to tell on my iPhone, but it looks like the focus is on the bridge of your nose instead of your eye, and that would explain the issue in sharpness. Just my two cents.

[@ericrjennings]

I actually think you’re right on this

[@zacredacted2137]

I wish I could be more help. I’m not sure how you go about calibrating a Panasonic lens. I know Sigma and Tamron have PC interfaces, but not sure about Panasonic. Good luck!

[@dunsunyt]

Your focus is off on 25mm 1.4. By the way I own both these lenses + Oly 25mm 1.8 + Oly 25mm 1.2. My favourite is Leica 25mm 1.4. I like that it's small but has a character. Cheers

[@levscape]

The 25mm f/1.4 has shallower depth of field so the slightest mis-focus will be more obvious when compared to the wider and slightly slower 20mm f/1.7. I wonder if the newer Mark II version will focus better? It’s supposed to have improved autofocus, as well as weather sealing.

[@sdhute]

Good content I was looking 14mm originally at 2.8 however I think that 20mm at 1.7 is better.

[@howardrollinson3819]

Hello I have the 20mm F1.7 and find it very good on all my five Olympus and my Panasonic GX7 although it is a little slow at focusing at times still good for the money

[@petegleeson1]

Thanks really useful and as I am actually thinking about buying one of these lenses - very helpful. Pete

[@bavideomaker29]

When did you get back into MFT? I thought you were keeping the Nikon Z for 2020. Do you still have the Nikon FF? I’m still MFT, G9 and E-M10 ii, I haven’t been shooting much these days. My last real photography was January during work trip to India.

[@ericrjennings]

a few months ago. I want all three :-) ... I love Olympus, Fuji, and the Nikon Z was great. For what I do now, M4/3 is perfect although I do crave full frame at times. Focusing on documenting and photo projects.

[@keithvlogs1]

the 20 f.17 might be a tad sharper yes... But the fundamental of comparing an f1.4 to a f1.7 lens becomes off... the moment they're are different aperture. Also ofcouse the Depth of fiend would have also been a bit shallower... the fact portrait shot of you, is almost at minimal focus distance. Thanks for the video however, I do think you're right that the 20 mm is sharper... but pleaseee... next time dotn compare at different aperture and compare them as apples and apples... rather apples and oranges perhaps

[@kosmidts]

Agree. DOF is so small wide open at f/1.4. I tiny movement and you are out of focus!

[@paulthomas8986]

The Leica has more of the vintage low contrast look, but the out of focus area look very nice and smooth. I wonder if it’s a minimum focus softness or as another commenter mentioned the focus might be off. I hope you follow up because I’m looking at a 25mm prime to add to my Olympus. Do you have the Olympus 25mm f1.8? I wonder how that compares.

[@ericrjennings]

Could be

[@ulfjonsson2122]

Very nice video! I have them both and love them

[@oddsman01]

Someone else probably already mentioned it, but the 25mm 1.7 has a noticeable amount of focus shift. Camerahoarders covered this topic in a couple videos a few years back.

[@petepictures]

All faster lenses do become softer at wide open , and I am speaking from experience, i have a lot of lenses.

[@anups7958]

How does F1.4 become F2.8? I thought focal length does not change irrespective of sensor size…

[@ericrjennings]

In terms of DOF, 1.4 on m4/3 is like 2.8. For light gathering there is no difference. The fov changes based on sensor size. A 25mm lens on m4/3 will have a 50mm fov on FF

[@walterzannoni]

Hi. I have the leica 15 mm. I'm uncertain. In your opinion is 20 mm too close to 15 as a focal length? Thanks

[@imagenatura]

How does the 20mm do in video c-af with the e-m5 iii? As good as other Olympus lenses?

[@martindemanable]

Yeah me too I was thinking of the same combo

[@steadicamwalker]

20 17 doesn't support caf. It's the main weakness of 20 17

[@imagenatura]

@@steadicamwalker I got it and it has awful CAF performance. It's not a modern "HD" style lens. However, for SAF video performance, it's still excellent.

[@androidgameplays4every13]

7:07 deal breaker.

[@1957PLATO]

Maybe Oly lenses are better on Oly bodies than Pany lenses.

[@huamei1562]

hey

[@ericrjennings]

Hey