20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5

[Mike Leah]

looking into getting one of these and arent sure which one would be the better overall lens. I havent used either one and all i have right now is the 14-42.

Im leaning towards the 20mm for indoor video use but wanted opinions on the 14mm since it has a similar price and looks good also.

[Jeff Harper]

It depends on what you need. 14mm is a fine lens, I suppose, don't have it. If you need 14mm and don't need f/1.7 aperutre it would be the right choice.

Go to amazon and look at the reviews for both. But also keep in mind it is what you are shooting that is important.

They are like a phillips vs straight slotted screwdriver, different tools for different things.

The 14mm would be desireable for the extra width, but it is significantly slower. For outdoor or well lighted situations where you need wider it would be great.

Overall, the 20mm is much more popular, because it produces fine images in low light. I view the 14mm as a lens that would be nice to have, but I wouldn't choose it over the 20mm for my needs.

F/1.7 and F/2.5 are world's apart in low light. For outdoor portraits, closeups, I would love to have the 14mm, but it's too expensive for me to buy a lens I would use so infrequently.

[Bill Bruner]

Mike, Here are a couple of side-by-side comparisons that you may find useful:

Micro 4/3rds Photography: Comparison: Lumix 14mm vs Lumix 20mm pancake lenses

and

DVSLR - 24p shooter.: Panasonic 14mm f2.5 VS. 20mm f1.7

I'm probably going to go with the 14mm first, because of the faster & quieter autofocus -- and because the 20mm seems to be sold out everywhere. Ultimately, I'd like to buy both.

Cheers,

Bill

[Jeff Harper]

Yes, Bill the first review (didn't read second one) confirms my feelings about them. The extra width of the 14mm would be SO nice for to have in my kit, I could really use it. But I can't afford both lenses.

Thanks so much for the link, Bill.

[Dave Mercer]

I find f1.7 pretty essential for low light filming with the GH13. Maybe being able to crank the iso on the GH2 makes the 14mm more attractive, but for me I wouldn't trade the 20mm.

[Mike Leah]

thanks for the replies.

yeah i cant afford both right now. Its one or the other for the time being. I also want the 7-14 for wide but will have to save up for that one.

Plan to do some moving car footage soon and the 14-42 prob wont cut it for that.

Looking at the clips, both look much better than the 14-42 I currently have so looks like cant go wrong with either. I like the sharpness and low light capabilities of both especially compared to the 14-42.

maybe I can get both if my girl lets me pawn the necklace I gave her last christmas.

[Chip Thome]

I had both and sold off the 14mm within days. It is wide, but wide every which way there is. It's wide top to bottom. Its wide corner to corner, diagonal. It's wide side to side....... all at once. It's probably a nice lens if you are shooting within 10' of the subject. Further away than that, not so hot. The night I give it it's test run I was between 20 and 25' from the intended subject. I had lots of ceiling and wall space, lots of floor too. And oh yeah.....somewhere there in the middle was the reason I was aiming the camera that direction!

The 20mm right now is more expensive, but way so much more worth it, IMO. YMMV.

[Martyn Hull]

Having both IMO the kit 14-140mm is as good outdoors, between the the two pancakes I would take the 14mm for outdoors and the 20mm indoors.

[Graeme Hay]

I went with the 20mm, 14mm is nice but its slower and when you really think about it, its pretty wide (28mm equivalent).

[Kevin McRoberts]

Most 35mm lens lines include a 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 prime; these two just (kind of) fill those slots.

Personally, largely because I am somewhat cheap, I just screw an inexpensive 0.5x wide angle on my 20/1.7

[Jeff Harper]

Kevin, I looked into WA adapters, and got stuck with the choices. What kind of quality/light loss do you get with your adapter, and which one do you have?

I was looking at some by Raynox, but dropped the idea when I was too busy to keep researching it.

Graeme, I think the 20mm is a fine choice, and probably wide enought for most general uses.

[Kevin McRoberts]

Jeff, I have a no-name Chinese 0.5x adapter with a 52mm camera-side and 62mm filter-side thread. Handy for keeping filters identical with the 14-140. I bought it at a church yard sale last year (along with an identical non-branded 2x tele lens).

I don't notice much (if any) light loss. I've used it on the 20/1.7, Olympus 50/1.4, Oly 28/2.8, and a Leica 28/2.8 (is that even legal?). Generally, aberrations start to appear the wider-open you get. Quality stopped-down is actually pretty darned good. Wide-open, it's nifty to get 20mm-length shots with bokeh (aberrations be damned!)

Attached are some frame grabs from outdoor daylight and indoor low-light situations using the 20/1.7+WA combo

I also have a Canon 0.7x WA adapter (WD-58); vastly superior quality with true corner-to-corner sharpness, but much much heavier (I fear screwing it to the front of the 20/1.7 unsupported), less wide, and no means to affix a ND filter.

Haven't tried screwing on my HVX's 82mm 0.6x WA to the front of the 0.5x, but that might be a hoot...

(edit: just did try the 0.5x + 0.6x combo... I'll give it its own thread, though)

[Jeff Harper]

Pretty cool, Kevin, thanks for the pics, I will look further into this. Great examples, thanks again. Yes, the canon is nice, but is way heavy. I used to have one but sold it before I got these cams!

[Kevin McRoberts]

To further muck up your planning, the M4/3 Leica Summilux 25/1.4 is now supposed to be available in August

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/...o-four-thirds/

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks Kevin, for the link.

I am huge fan of fast lenses, but at $1100, there is no way. 20mm is a better width, so to speak, at least for me, at a cost of $600 to go from 1.7 to F/1.4? I couldn't do it. I admit, if I weren't cash poor it would be tempting!