Dxomark (Click here) just tested the new Panasonic 20mm II lens and it’s a bit disappointing to see that the lens performs a tiny bit worse than the predecessor. Obviously the difference is negligible but Panasonic could have taken the chance to slightly improve the optical performance. DxO writes:
In reality, the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f1.7 II ASPH performs very slightly differently to the original. It’s still an excellent lens, but it’s not quite the performer of it illustrious forebear.
Links to both old and new version of the lens: [shopcountry 14796].
79 Responses
Which could just as well be a matter of sample variation.
This looks like sample variation error to me. Do they test more than a single copy of the lens or multiple copies and average?
I do agree with those that are not happy that AF speed was not improved. This lens would be an instant pre-order/purchase for me if it was faster focusing.
It is sample variation for sure!
You have to test at least 10 copies, possibly from different batches to have an average. Testing just one is simply lame: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens
And how do you know the number of lenses that DxO tested?
They have said they only test one camera and one lens for their reviews. It has been highlighted many times. Even by them, to get people to stop putting everything in on their numbers. This isn’t different from other review sites either. If Photozone gets a really bad lens, they will ask for a second. If that one is bad they mention it and mention if they got a third.
The only place that tests 10 or more is Lens Rentals. And that because they own more than one as it goes out for rentals!
WTF, Dx0 shouldn’t even publish this bullshit, what a misleading conclusion. fuck man, can i say your face is uglier because you wear a different cloth today?
Looking at the curves, the Original 20mm 1.7 is the highest resolution of all m43 lenses (at least at the 15% of the center frame).
Why did i susspect this to be the case… same loss of IQ when the 14-45 replacement came along…
why making it worse?
cost reduction because m43 gear doesn´t sell well?
Sample variation and I think a very good result for both.
Bravo, a sensible reply.
Still don’t get why they didn’t improve the AF speed on this guy while they were at it. It runs dog slow on E-M5 and banded at high ISO. Had to sell mine.
It’s a Panasonic, so it’s not optimized for AF speed on oly.
And what does the “banding” have to do with the lens? Sensor issue.
If the E-M5 and GH3 have the same sensor, why is the E-M5 the only one to show the banding problem?
banding in this instance is probably most likly down to the sonftare image corrections for distortion…. because obviously the lens and sensor dont produce banding… so its gonna be software!
So why does the GH3’s user manual actually mention that when used with high ISO levels and the 20/1.7 ‘striping’ can occur?
But but but there are pictures made with a GH3 at high ISO and that lens not showing such issues!
Most certainly, and there are E-M5 pictures showing the same. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen in specific conditions.
Poor darling, will you manage? While you recover from your loss, I go out and shoot with the 20mm.
I luv ya, Panny, but this seems like the answer to the question no one was asking.
WTH? You just could have improved the original 20’s AF abilities, no fuss, no muss, and called it a day.
Derp.
That’s pretty funny actually. Look folks, the original version of this lens rocks! Focus is slowER but good lord! The lens is a stud. Best lens going for M43! If it were a woman I would hold its hand, buy it something pretty, and treat it real nice. 2nd version? Why? AF is the same and they gave it that bizarre shiny front area that looks like turd. Stick with the original until they redo the sucker and make the AF faster! Even the. I may not upgrade because this is the best lens ever created in the history of lenses. If Cartier Bresson was still alive he would +1 this comment and let everyone know that he shoots with nothing but the original 20 and a GX1!
Actually, I shoot with the new version. It has better contrast and I love how it looks on my GX7.
Very poor result. After GX7 gets silver award. Tough day.
That’s because DP was hating.
+1000
Niggling and nitpicking.
Even though I love my GH2, the GX7 is the camera I REALLY wanted when I got into the M4/3 system. The GF1 with the clip-on EVF just didn’t cut it.
Personally I enjoy my GX7 a lot and what’s wrong with a ‘silver award’? Second best, excellent! Don’t be so pananoid.
Only thing thing that needs fixing on this lens is the AF.
And the focal length! LOL! 40mm (equivalent)????
Got it as the kit lens on my GF1….
Now….
I have the p/L 25mm & the 17mm Oly….soooo with the SLOW autofocus and the awkward focal length of the 20mm I just stopped using it so I sold it.
If I need to go super-small pancake…I just use my Panny 14mm.
All my other lenses focus soooo fast and are classic focal lengths so I admit the 20mm is sharp but it just does not fit into my flow.
Why did panasonic make a version two????? 🙂
40mm might not be “classic”, but it’s a great all-rounder. If you consider “normal” to be the diagonal of a sensor, 40mm is closer to it than either a 35 or 50.
I prefer a 24-40-85 trio as opposed to the 24-35-50-85 quartet. Less switching.
There were rangefinders that used 40mm and 45mm lenses. I had a Konica Auto S2 that used a 45mm.
I carry the 24-35-50-85mm quartet + a 150mm for good measure… all equivalents, of course..
Oh, yeah… all manual lenses, too!
Yes, many rangefinders had 40mm lenses. Back then, both 40mm and 50mm were considered “standard” lenses….many said so because they were roughly equivalent to the human angle of view.
No…I have no problem with people liking the 20mm..for whatever reason…I just prefer the 17mm f/1.8 as an all-rounder and a 25mm with the speedy AF that I have become accused to. More range.
….but why did the 20mm lens get remade(?) without a fix to the AF?…betcha it would have sold like hot cakes…..
Yes – they missed a trick on this. The GX7 kit would have been that much more attractive if it boasted an improved 20mm.
Unfortunately, the market it so competitive you can’t rely on simply cosmetic changes. Look at what they managed to do with the 14-140 MkII. Better, lighter and smaller.
I am hopeful that the new 17mm will tick all the right boxes. Small, good IQ, fast and light. Fast and quiet AF as well.
Yes what kind of company would change the cosmetics of a lens and charge more lol Olympus 12mm black model anyone ?
James got it. The ideal focal length was equal to the film/sensor diagonal. Under was wide and over was tele. But a reasonable latitude covered the “standard” lens.
Ahh, the Konica Auto S2. Only recently got it and am actively using it now. Great lens.
Ahh, the Konica Auto S2 once more! I recently sold it though. Kept only the Canonet 17 QL GIII – 40mm: perfect focal length!
Except for 40mm actually being a pretty common ‘classic’ focal length. It was pretty common on rangefinders and fixed prime compacts like the Leica CM.
soooooo Slow, huh?
Wonder how you got by, using that lens. The uh, Most owned Lens, THE LENS of M43…
I absolutely love the 40mm equivalent field of view.
I thought DxO always test more than one lens and makes an average of the test results?…
Nope. Dxo is a bad as DPReview. Both have become a joke.
There are many photographers that can run circles around others when using a manual focus lens to their AF lens. The point is that its not all about fast AF, that does not make you a better photographer. One of my pro friends can out meter most cameras by eye and uses mostly manual lenses with astonishing results as a street shooter. Let’s not loose sight of taking photos.
Now back to bashing things in classic internet fashion.
That would be great if this lens had proper manual focus, but it doesn’t. You’re basically limited to its slow AF and, in low light, no AF. It’s a great lens for taking photos of stationary objects in decent lighting, which is basically what m43 was limited to when this lens came out. Times change.
Then buy a nice 20mm manual lens. There are many to chose from. I use the Voigtlander 21mm. set on f8 and point and shoot. Sharpest 21mm you can get just about. DOF. what’s that. I like to see what I take. The micro contrast is fantastic and it gives real depth to a shot without obliterating most of the shot with fuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
If someone runs circles around me, I ask him why.
Who needs a nifty-fifty, when you’ve got this sporty-fourty?!?
Still enjoying the original version, it even survived a standup drop from my camera bag onto brick!
Why did you do that?
It is for olduser’s highest price.
There is an ad on tv
A girl has her hair coloured. She says ” I like my hair when I colour it” I got a good laugh from the crowd (wife etc) when I said “I like your hair as well…….. I just don’t like the colour you use”
Seems lens test, colour, usage Oly, pany and whatever is the same. Each to his own.
How wise you are indeed grand master Wong.
Panasonic tried to fix wrong thing on this lens. Only problem was bad AF and they didn’t fix that.
I used to have the first version but I sold it because of bad AF. Now using Sigma 19mm, that thing is in a different planet! But only f/2.8..
I don’t think they fixed anything, only the casing, if we’re to believe the comments surrounding it and this test. I wouldn’t know. This 2nd version is the first I owned so I can’t really test them side by side.
They fixed the low contrast.
And the looks!
In my opinion it’s not just a sample variation.
What we see is normal in these days the replacement product is not better then the previous one (especially when the predecessor is a very popular product). The new lens is designed to save costs. In deed this does not mean it has the better quality and performance. The companies think they can earn more money because people will always think the second is better then the first one.
So buy the first version when you need that lens.
Not its not, I have them both. But you will notice the diff only in a lab test.
I have them both, the old one is a bit (I mean a bit) sharper.
Little sharpening in CS solve the issue.
I have both lenses and the contrast is better with the new lens. It’s very obvious.
Strange advise. Buy the one you want. The new on looks a lot better and from what I’ve seen it has better contrast.
As a physicist, I would not take any of their data seriously without seeing the systematic error bars of their measurements and the standard deviation of different copies.
What about reviewing their whole methodology?
And who’s going to review that review?
That applies to every single “test” or review site on the net not one of them would stand up to rigorous scientific methodologies
A very over rated lens at this price.
What? No it isn’t! 275,00 euro is not expensive for a decent fast standard pancake prime.
DxO again. Instead of saying the differences are within their measurement error, which they are, they blaming it to the lens. Bullshit. We’ve measured more than ten copies, old and new, and they are all within the same systematic error margin = no differences. I wonder if the old version is now hyped for it’s better optical performance *lol*
It is also possible that slight variations between samples can account for such a small difference. There is plenty of evidence around to demonstrate that there are some variations in absolute performance between lenses of the same model.For any test to be viable they would have to be testing multiple copies of a lens as far as I know only Lensrentals does this and they also have flaws in their testing methodology
They should have used a black model instead of the silver. It would have changed the results dramatically.
I suspect that the only way to make it focus faster would be to increase the depth of the lens, using a bigger motor.
Or they could simply have used a step motor like every modern mft lens. They are very small, but the internal design had probably be changed and pana did not want to afford this. Only cosmetics.
I don’t need it to focus faster.
Its the exact same lens, how stupid do they think we are?
Next they will test Olympus primes in both black and silver, and claim the ones that come in silver are better??
There are always variations in mass produced items and the difference is well within the range of such variables
so how many samples did they test?
and yes really a missed opportunity with the not improved af, banding and also no weather sealing, both would have made me buy the lens over again.
Looking at the design, specs and charts on the Panasonic website http://www.panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/index.html
there should not be any difference in optical performance – perhaps the differences DxO record are due to sampling variations or variation in calibration. I understood that the II version of the lens was to improve the AF through an improved drive system (the first version tended to “hunt”). No worries, I’ve ordered the new one anyway.
The second version also hunts. No improvement here. It does have better contrast though.
i’ll just hold on to my mk1 anyway. pretty fun lens otherwise that really needs improved af.
I have both, I agree with the tests. the old one is a bit sharper, but just a bit. If you don’t search for diff, you will never notice it.
One more thing, looks like the old version is a little wider.
Look at the sharpness diff, hard to see, but the old one is a bit sharper.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/547/5bqw.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/tlvl.jpg/
I have both lenses and the new version has significantly better contrast. So the lens is improved. I chose better contrast, you can choose higher sharpness if you like.