[ Gadget ] - leica /pana 25mm 1.4

[Oly5050]

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

I thought so too. But it was a requested comparison so I lugged the 50 mm and my E5 out together with the EP3 to do it. It was an interesting exercise even for me and I think I learnt more stuff about my gear than if I were not to do the comparison. Definately, the 50 mm and the 25 mm have vastly differing capabilities. But I think portraits would be something that both could do. Macro for sure is something that the 25 mm would never be able to do. The iphone shots eg, are done to more or less show the capability of both lenses for "portrait" type shots and to see the bokeh behind the subject. So, if you want more bokeh, if you had a choice, you should go for the 50 mm f2. The 50 mm at f2, still gives better bokeh than the 25 mm at f1.4. I think this is important to know. Now, I wonder, given the same portrait framing, how a 150mm f2 bokeh would look compared to the 50mm f2??!! Hahaha! Some would ask for the voig 50mm f.95, but that lens at 0.95 apparently is not that sharp and only becomes sharp at f2.5 or so. So its still worse off compared to the 50 f2. I would not bother unless you are going for a soft dreamy effect to the portrait.

 

[wonglp]

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?

Thanks for the comparison too.

Ye the ZD50 is a super sharp lens, and good for (some) portraits, can be too harsh at times But the AF is too slow and it's difficult for me to get use to MF it.

DOF is a function of focal length, sensor size, aperture size, sensor to subject distance. DOF becomes shallower when you are closer to the subject, with everything else same. Vice versa.

 

[wonglp]

I thought so too. But it was a requested comparison so I lugged the 50 mm and my E5 out together with the EP3 to do it. It was an interesting exercise even for me and I think I learnt more stuff about my gear than if I were not to do the comparison. Definately, the 50 mm and the 25 mm have vastly differing capabilities. But I think portraits would be something that both could do. Macro for sure is something that the 25 mm would never be able to do. The iphone shots eg, are done to more or less show the capability of both lenses for "portrait" type shots and to see the bokeh behind the subject. So, if you want more bokeh, if you had a choice, you should go for the 50 mm f2. The 50 mm at f2, still gives better bokeh than the 25 mm at f1.4. I think this is important to know. Now, I wonder, given the same portrait framing, how a 150mm f2 bokeh would look compared to the 50mm f2??!! Hahaha! Some would ask for the voig 50mm f.95, but that lens at 0.95 apparently is not that sharp and only becomes sharp at f2.5 or so. So its still worse off compared to the 50 f2. I would not bother unless you are going for a soft dreamy effect to the portrait.

I would think you had mixed up depth of field, DOF and background blur vs bokeh. Bokeh is the quality of the background blur, and this is subjective topic. ZD 50 gives a shallower DOF, and more background blur due to it's focal length. The voigt 25/0.95 (i think that's what u mean) gets sharp by 1.4, at 0.95 the DOF is so shallow that it's sometimes difficult to use, results though if in focus can be enchanting. To be able to use the lens at 0.95 which is more than 1 stop than PL25 is a bonus and that's something that can't be measured as an advantage it really depends on the individual needs. Fully manual focus is a plus for some a bane for many, i wish it had AF at times, though the thought that i can possibly keep this lens much longer than any of my AF lenses is nice, plus the mfd of 0.17 makes it a very useful macro lens, not as good as ZD for sure, but it's enough for my needs.

Feel free to check out my voigt set on flickr

that's not to say i'm not keen of the PL25, the size, AF and the sharpness is still very tempting, just can't find a strong reason to dump the voigt at this pt in time

 

[nerfwings]

Thanks for the comparison too.

Ye the ZD50 is a super sharp lens, and good for (some) portraits, can be too harsh at times But the AF is too slow and it's difficult for me to get use to MF it.

DOF is a function of focal length, sensor size, aperture size, sensor to subject distance. DOF becomes shallower when you are closer to the subject, with everything else same. Vice versa.

Yes that is right. Oly5050, if you are confused, then the short answer to your question is yes.

Think of it this way, keeping everything else constant (aperture, focal length, sensor size) if you stand 5m away from the subject the dof will be deeper than when you stand 50cm from the subject. (should be easy enough to imagine)

 

[Oly5050]

I would think you had mixed up depth of field, DOF and background blur vs bokeh. Bokeh is the quality of the background blur, and this is subjective topic. ZD 50 gives a shallower DOF, and more background blur due to it's focal length. The voigt 25/0.95 (i think that's what u mean) gets sharp by 1.4, at 0.95 the DOF is so shallow that it's sometimes difficult to use, results though if in focus can be enchanting. To be able to use the lens at 0.95 which is more than 1 stop than PL25 is a bonus and that's something that can't be measured as an advantage it really depends on the individual needs. Fully manual focus is a plus for some a bane for many, i wish it had AF at times, though the thought that i can possibly keep this lens much longer than any of my AF lenses is nice, plus the mfd of 0.17 makes it a very useful macro lens, not as good as ZD for sure, but it's enough for my needs.

Feel free to check out my voigt set on flickr

DOF and depth of field is the same thing right. No lar, I do not mix up DOF and bokeh. I know that some lenses have very thin DOF, but the bokeh is not nice. But in general, lenses with thin DOF tend to have more background blur and more bokeh although that does not speak anything about the quality of the bokeh. I know but thanks for clarifying. But I was not sure about was how DOF was affected by focusing distance and both you and nerfwings clarified it for me very well thus explaining what we observed in the photos. Thanks!!

 

[leicauser]

Can a kind samaritan pls do a Nokton f0.95 vs Pana f1.4 test?

I shoot in low light quite a lot, so the f0.95 is definitely a winner. Nonetheless, a test would be interesting and instructive

 

[nerfwings]

Hmm just my 2 cents.

What is more important is that the Nokton is MF and Pana is AF.
This feature alone should be enough to help most people decide between both lenses.

If you shoot children or subjects that tend to move around. Then however sharp or well performing the Nokton you should pick the pana!
What for consider the nokton on optical speed, sharpness, bokeh, etc etc. When your focusing can't even catch the subjects?

My advise is buy what is suitable...not what is superior.

 

[AbsolutKev]

True true... I try to take pics of my son on mf, 4/10 keepers only on the average.

Hmm just my 2 cents.

What is more important is that the Nokton is MF and Pana is AF.
This feature alone should be enough to help most people decide between both lenses.

If you shoot children or subjects that tend to move around. Then however sharp or well performing the Nokton you should pick the pana!
What for consider the nokton on optical speed, sharpness, bokeh, etc etc. When your focusing can't even catch the subjects?

My advise is buy what is suitable...not what is superior.

 

[AbsolutKev]

Can a kind samaritan pls do a Nokton f0.95 vs Pana f1.4 test?

I shoot in low light quite a lot, so the f0.95 is definitely a winner. Nonetheless, a test would be interesting and instructive

Any sponsors? Im willing!

 

[zan82]

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.

Sorry this is bought at which dealer again?

 

[nerfwings]

sorry this is bought at which dealer again?

ms @ amk

 

[vengels]

anyone out there using this lens with EP3?

i am using it with the GF2..
thinking of changing to the EP3..

but i wonder if the AF is slower with EP3 or not..
cause i read the EP3 AF is fast with kit lens but when paired with other lens it is slower..

 

[tomcat]

anyone out there using this lens with EP3?

i am using it with the GF2..
thinking of changing to the EP3..

but i wonder if the AF is slower with EP3 or not..
cause i read the EP3 AF is fast with kit lens but when paired with other lens it is slower..

You read too much into what others said.
What they meant was that the EP3 is very fast with the kit lens but cannot achieve the same AF speed as that for the kit lens when used with other lenses... not that it is slower than EP2, EPL2, or even GF2 with the same lenses.
I'm using it with the EP3 and the AF speed is definitely faster than when used on the EP2 or E-PL2. The very fact that only the new Pens have Full-time AF will make coming into focus much faster than earlier versions without this feature most of the time.

 

[vengels]

I see I see..

Now just considering whether to change my GF2 to EP3..

No chance to handle EP3 yet..

 

[cannedpineapples]

Personally the real difference between the two will not be AF speed, IMHO. Consider whether you need IBIS (for eg if you love shooting with legacy glass), and whether you want to shoot with the touch screen. Both of these might be factors for getting the EP3. Another factor will be video work, this time in favour of the GF2.

 

[tomcat]

Personally the real difference between the two will not be AF speed, IMHO. Consider whether you need IBIS (for eg if you love shooting with legacy glass), and whether you want to shoot with the touch screen. Both of these might be factors for getting the EP3. Another factor will be video work, this time in favour of the GF2.

GF2 also have touchscreen though the response is not as fast as that of the EP3. The other factors to consider are image quality and colours. Images from the GF2 tend to be softer than those from even the E-PL2 because of the GF2's stronger anti-aliasing filter when the same lens is used for both. I also prefer the more but not overly punchy colours of images from the Pens over those from the GF2. For all these reasons and tthe IBIS, even though I like the built and design of my GF2, I seldom ever take the GF2 along for shoots.

 

[vengels]

Personally the real difference between the two will not be AF speed, IMHO. Consider whether you need IBIS (for eg if you love shooting with legacy glass), and whether you want to shoot with the touch screen. Both of these might be factors for getting the EP3. Another factor will be video work, this time in favour of the GF2.

I do have legacy glass but seldom shoot with that ever since i have gotten the Panny 25mm F1.4..
but i would think my shivering hands could do with some help with the IBIS..

actually GF2 can shoot with the touch screen too.. which i use quite often..

i dun do video with my GF2..
just occasional candid of my daughter..
so video is not a deal breaker for me..

any idea where i can mount this lens and try out the EP3?..

 

[rocketatw]

anyone knows where still have stock for this lens?

 

[nerfwings]

I last saw AP SLS have stock.

 

[rocketatw]

I last saw AP SLS have stock.

when was it? this lens current out of stock in Singapore.