[ Gadget ] - leica /pana 25mm 1.4

[vengels]

this is a pic i took when i was with my family watching Disney Live..

was at the front row therefore able to get up close to the characters..

but this lens is amazing..
i thought it was really sharp..

personally i am very satisfied with this lens..
prefer it over the 20mm.. mainly due the the extra 2/3 f stop and sharpness..

 

[nerfwings]

It's a combination of the sharpness, contrast and smooth bokeh.

Haha. IQ, would say, not there yet. The leica experience? No it's not there.

You will have to shoot with a leica before you say that.

Sometimes it's the form factor, the shooting process, the experience, being there and capturing it. That is photography really.

Getting sharp and good images is just a very small part of the deal.

Just got my 25mm from ms! Yeah! Ms has got a couple more in stock so people who are looking, look there.

 

[ZoomZ]

Wat is wierd?

Weird as this website says the resolution is good but not outstanding. Seems that the 20mm pancake achieved higher resolution. And the sharpest lens are 45mm 2.8 and voigtlander 0.95.

 

[plankoak]

Haha. IQ, would say, not there yet. The leica experience? No it's not there.

You will have to shoot with a leica before you say that.

Sometimes it's the form factor, the shooting process, the experience, being there and capturing it. That is photography really.

Getting sharp and good images is just a very small part of the deal.

Just got my 25mm from ms! Yeah! Ms has got a couple more in stock so people who are looking, look there.

How much did u buy?

 

[Oly5050]

Weird as this website says the resolution is good but not outstanding. Seems that the 20mm pancake achieved higher resolution. And the sharpest lens are 45mm 2.8 and voigtlander 0.95.

No, it says that the center sharpness at 1.4 is actually impressive. Better than the voigtlander wide open. Nothing wierd about that. This lens, by any measure is a very good lens with good resolution.

"In the case of fast f/1.4 lenses a situation when we get fully useful images already from the maximum relative aperture is rare indeed. Such a feat was accomplished by the previous model of Leica, the 1.4/25, designed for the 4/3 system and, as you can see on a graph above, the new Micro 4/3 version managed to repeat that success. At the maximum aperture we have a splendid result of almost 60 lpmm, so noticeably better than that of the Voigtlander, which, by f/1.4, is, after all, also stopped down by a bit more than 1 EV. It is a great performance indeed. The f/2.0 aperture is equally good, as the lens-plus-body system reaches the resolution level above 70 lpmm."

 

[Oly5050]

Some more shots as requested between the 50 mm f2 and the 25 mm f1.4 with more emphasis on the bokeh effect. But lets start off with some snaps first.

​

The difference in colour cast is not due to WB issues but because I chose to shoot without warmer colours on the EP3.

As you all can see, the DOF on the 50 mm is still narrower for nearly the same FOV. In addition, the 50 mm can shoot way way way closer than the 25 mm which has a focusing distance of 30 cm. I think the 50 mm being a macro can got closer than 5 cm. The type of photos that the macro can take is of course way more than what the 25 mm is capable of as you can see from the egg tart shots. BTW, these are all OOC JPEGS with no processing done whatsoever except for maybe very minor crops to remove extraneous objects.

 

[Oly5050]

 

[Oly5050]

​

All bokeh type shots were done wide open at f1.4 or f2 accordingly.

I learnt stuff doing these comparisons too.

I found that the 50 mm f2 is still king. It has smaller DOF, even though it is not shooting close to the object. Also, bokeh on the 50 mm is still better than the 25 mm. It is more blurred, and the balls of light are light 2 times larger. Is this a factor of the focal length? Is it expected? Whatever the case, it just tells me that the 50 mm is a far more capable lens that the 25 mm. It is better than the 25 mm in what the 25 mm can do, and it can do more than what the 25 mm can do. Get it?

But, 50 mm is a specialty focal length for me. Only for portraits and macro. Definately not for landscape, group portraits which is what I do most of the time. So....I will still use the 25 mm more, because it is faster to focus than the 50mm, and it is in a smaller package. And I think I like the ability to shoot a little cooler than what I see from the E5. But if you shoot RAW, it is no biggie as you can adjust the colour cast post - but as you can see, I am a lazy bugger and cannot be bother to do any post.

Oh as for sharpness, I cannot fault either lens for being not sharp. Question is which is sharpER? Well, if I have to say, I would say that the 50 mm f2 is still sharper just by a hair and you really gotta spend quite a while to decide that it really is.

Comments from anyone?

 

[ZoomZ]

Think you didn't read the full paragraph. Voigtlander reached more than 80lpmm, just like the 45mm 2.8.

My new 25mm 1.4 reaches max 75 lpmm. It is just better when widest compared to Voigtlander when widest at 0.95. When voigtlander stops down to f2 and f2.8, it is the sharpest lens ever for m43, comparable to the 45mm macro lens.


In the case of this test it would be the easier to assess the Leica by comparing it to the Voigtlander Nokton 25 mm f/0.95, tested by us before. At the maximum relative aperture the Voigtlander exceeded slightly 30 lpmm, by f/1.4 it got to 53 lpmm and by f/2.0– 78 lpmm. The peak of its possibilities was reached by f/2.8, where it went a bit higher than 80 lpmm. Now let’s see how the Leica lens compares.

In the case of fast f/1.4 lenses a situation when we get fully useful images already from the maximum relative aperture is rare indeed. Such a feat was accomplished by the previous model of Leica, the 1.4/25, designed for the 4/3 system and, as you can see on a graph above, the new Micro 4/3 version managed to repeat that success. At the maximum aperture we have a splendid result of almost 60 lpmm, so noticeably better than that of the Voigtlander, which, by f/1.4, is, after all, also stopped down by a bit more than 1 EV. It is a great performance indeed. The f/2.0 aperture is equally good, as the lens-plus-body system reaches the resolution level above 70 lpmm. What’s interesting, on further stopping down we don’t see the lens breaking any resolution records because the results by f/2.8 and f/4.0 are placed near 75 lpmm – a level undoubtedly very high but definitely not record-breaking, unlike the performances of the Voigtlander or the Leica 2.8/45. Perhaps it is the price we have to pay for really brilliant results at the maximum aperture. I would like to add it is a price worth paying.

 

[Oly5050]

Think you didn't read the full paragraph. Voigtlander reached more than 80lpmm, just like the 45mm 2.8.

My new 25mm 1.4 reaches max 75 lpmm. It is just better when widest compared to Voigtlander when widest at 0.95. When voigtlander stops down to f2 and f2.8, it is the sharpest lens ever for m43, comparable to the 45mm macro lens.


In the case of this test it would be the easier to assess the Leica by comparing it to the Voigtlander Nokton 25 mm f/0.95, tested by us before. At the maximum relative aperture the Voigtlander exceeded slightly 30 lpmm, by f/1.4 it got to 53 lpmm and by f/2.0– 78 lpmm. The peak of its possibilities was reached by f/2.8, where it went a bit higher than 80 lpmm. Now let’s see how the Leica lens compares.

In the case of fast f/1.4 lenses a situation when we get fully useful images already from the maximum relative aperture is rare indeed. Such a feat was accomplished by the previous model of Leica, the 1.4/25, designed for the 4/3 system and, as you can see on a graph above, the new Micro 4/3 version managed to repeat that success. At the maximum aperture we have a splendid result of almost 60 lpmm, so noticeably better than that of the Voigtlander, which, by f/1.4, is, after all, also stopped down by a bit more than 1 EV. It is a great performance indeed. The f/2.0 aperture is equally good, as the lens-plus-body system reaches the resolution level above 70 lpmm. What’s interesting, on further stopping down we don’t see the lens breaking any resolution records because the results by f/2.8 and f/4.0 are placed near 75 lpmm – a level undoubtedly very high but definitely not record-breaking, unlike the performances of the Voigtlander or the Leica 2.8/45. Perhaps it is the price we have to pay for really brilliant results at the maximum aperture. I would like to add it is a price worth paying.

I did read it. But if I pay like $1000 over for a heavy MF lens that is 0.95 and I have to shoot it at f2 or 2.8 to BE sharper than my AF capable, lighter and more compact 25 mm at f 1.4, then why bother buying a 0.95 lens? The numbers that matter to me is how sharp are you wide open. In any case I dun think I can see that kind of difference in sharpness in my photos 75 ppm versus 80 ppm...can you?? Dun be too caught up in all these numbers. These numbers are just there for academic interest. What matters is how you like your photos. The numbers should be of secondary concern.

 

[NewbieInCS]

I learnt stuff doing these comparisons too.

I found that the 50 mm f2 is still king. It has smaller DOF, even though it is not shooting close to the object. Also, bokeh on the 50 mm is still better than the 25 mm. It is more blurred, and the balls of light are light 2 times larger. Is this a factor of the focal length? Is it expected? Whatever the case, it just tells me that the 50 mm is a far more capable lens that the 25 mm. It is better than the 25 mm in what the 25 mm can do, and it can do more than what the 25 mm can do. Get it?

Comments from anyone?

Nice comparison. Any people shot to see the dof at different subject distance?

I am looking at getting either this or the 20mm f/1.7. Do you happen to also own the 20mm f/1.7 to compare with the 25mm?

As for the DOF, I could be wrong, but I think focal length does not really affect it too much if the subject were framed equally. That is, at the same subject framing (magnification), a 50mm f2 will actually give more dof than a 25mm at f1.4. At the same time, the 50mm f2 might actually give more background blur due to the focal length. However, the difference is that for the 50mm lens, the subject distance is much longer than the 25mm for the same magnification and we might not have the space to go that far. That is why it is so easy to throw the background into blur with larger sensor and longer focal length, while maintaining the dof.

 

[ZoomZ]

I did read it. But if I pay like $1000 over for a heavy MF lens that is 0.95 and I have to shoot it at f2 or 2.8 to BE sharper than my AF capable, lighter and more compact 25 mm at f 1.4, then why bother buying a 0.95 lens? The numbers that matter to me is how sharp are you wide open. In any case I dun think I can see that kind of difference in sharpness in my photos 75 ppm versus 80 ppm...can you?? Dun be too caught up in all these numbers. These numbers are just there for academic interest. What matters is how you like your photos. The numbers should be of secondary concern.

Agree. Just explaining my point when you asked me why I said it's weird.

The scientific calculation seems to indicate that the Panasonic Leica 45mm macro lens and the Voigtlander 0.95 are the sharpest lenses available for the M43, and actual comparison seems to be accurate. Makes me a little moved to get the 45mm Macro lens.

Not that I am unhappy with my 25mm 1.4 though. Enjoying the nice bokeh and fast focusing. Just that it is quite similar in sharpness compared to my old 20mm pancake, and was trying to find out if there are more sharper lens available.

Thanks for sharing all the nice photos that you have taken though!

 

[Oly5050]

Nice comparison. Any people shot to see the dof at different subject distance?

I am looking at getting either this or the 20mm f/1.7. Do you happen to also own the 20mm f/1.7 to compare with the 25mm?

As for the DOF, I could be wrong, but I think focal length does not really affect it too much if the subject were framed equally. That is, at the same subject framing (magnification), a 50mm f2 will actually give more dof than a 25mm at f1.4. At the same time, the 50mm f2 might actually give more background blur due to the focal length. However, the difference is that for the 50mm lens, the subject distance is much longer than the 25mm for the same magnification and we might not have the space to go that far. That is why it is so easy to throw the background into blur with larger sensor and longer focal length, while maintaining the dof.

I think you are right regarding DOF. Its the same at whatever distance u shoot it at. However, it does look like the DOF of the 50mm f2 is actually smaller than the 25 mm at f 1.4? What do u guys think?

As to 20mm versus 25mm, I think the key thing is size and bokeh. If u want small, 20 mm. If u want bokeh, then 25 mm. I think IQ is nearly equivalent to the naked eye.

 

[AbsolutKev]

Wow...!

 

[AbsolutKev]

For me, both 25s r diff animals... Both r hav pros n cons. Its a matter of style n preference.

That said, at 0.95, the voi is soft but to me, usable. Im not fussy bout sharpness, im jus a casual shooter.
Check the voi out at
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/absolutkev/sets/72157627183955340/

 

[ZoomZ]

Anyone has all 3 lens to shoot and compare: 25mm 1.4, 25mm 0.95 and 45mm 2.8?

Maybe I can try to borrow from friend later to test out...

 

[nerfwings]

bought at 799

Did not bargain at all. I think camera dealers must make money too. So long as they don't cheat and con... I do want them to make a healthy margin.

How much did u buy?

 

[nerfwings]

All bokeh type shots were done wide open at f1.4 or f2 accordingly.

I learnt stuff doing these comparisons too.

I found that the 50 mm f2 is still king. It has smaller DOF, even though it is not shooting close to the object. Also, bokeh on the 50 mm is still better than the 25 mm. It is more blurred, and the balls of light are light 2 times larger. Is this a factor of the focal length? Is it expected? Whatever the case, it just tells me that the 50 mm is a far more capable lens that the 25 mm. It is better than the 25 mm in what the 25 mm can do, and it can do more than what the 25 mm can do. Get it?

But, 50 mm is a specialty focal length for me. Only for portraits and macro. Definately not for landscape, group portraits which is what I do most of the time. So....I will still use the 25 mm more, because it is faster to focus than the 50mm, and it is in a smaller package. And I think I like the ability to shoot a little cooler than what I see from the E5. But if you shoot RAW, it is no biggie as you can adjust the colour cast post - but as you can see, I am a lazy bugger and cannot be bother to do any post.

Oh as for sharpness, I cannot fault either lens for being not sharp. Question is which is sharpER? Well, if I have to say, I would say that the 50 mm f2 is still sharper just by a hair and you really gotta spend quite a while to decide that it really is.

Comments from anyone?

Wow! Seriously thank you so much for all the effort taken to do these comparisons. Yes the balls of light from the 50mm will be double the size. That is called compression. Longer focal length lens tend to compress the distance between subject and background. Thus the background look bigger, thus bigger balls of light.

The 50mm definitely able to get thinner dof. Firstly, it focuses closer, larger magnification means thinner dof. Secondly it is a longer focal length, longer focal length, shallower dof.

Which lens is better? It depends on what you are shooting. 25mm is a normal lens 50mm is a tele lens.

 

[NazgulKing]

Comparing a 25mm against a 50mm is rather apples and oranges?

 

[Oly5050]

Wow! Seriously thank you so much for all the effort taken to do these comparisons. Yes the balls of light from the 50mm will be double the size. That is called compression. Longer focal length lens tend to compress the distance between subject and background. Thus the background look bigger, thus bigger balls of light.

The 50mm definitely able to get thinner dof. Firstly, it focuses closer, larger magnification means thinner dof. Secondly it is a longer focal length, longer focal length, shallower dof.

Which lens is better? It depends on what you are shooting. 25mm is a normal lens 50mm is a tele lens.

To all the guys that thanked me, you are most welcome!

Thanks for explaining it to us. I think I get it, regarding the balls of light. Haha.

One point though, although u call 50 mm a tele relative to the 25 mm but in reality, it is also a fantastic macro lens, isn't it. So the 50 mm is a tele, a macro, and a portrait? Hahaha!

Ok, about DOF, if you are closer, the DOF is thinner? But if you are further, does the DOF remain the same or become thicker?