Why would you choose this lens over the smaller and cheaper Panasonic 20mm lens?
346742
Its a faster lens and a different field of view. Two different lenses. The 25mm focuses faster in dim light. If you're trying to figure out which to buy, first figure out which FOV you prefer. Both are excellent. Also check out the oly 17mm, another fine lens if you are considering the 20mm, but with a slighty wider FOV, and focuses instantly.
346743
I have the 15mm leica m43 lens and the 35-100 f2.8 lumix as well as the 25 mm leica f1.4 and it is the sharpest lens I own with extremely good color rendition. I have not used the 20mm panasonic lens, but if you can afford it, I think you will be happier with the leica though with the 25mm lens the camera I use becomes larger than a pocket camera. I use my lenses on a Lumix GX7.
346744
I don't know anything about the Panny 20MM, but I can say that the images I have taken with the Panasonic/Leica 25MM have been superb. Sharp, wonderful in low light. This is one lens I plan to keep.
346745
Good question. The 20mm 1.7 has a wider field of view. But ultimately I went with the 25mm because it's faster at 1.4 then the 20mm at 1.7. I've never personally compared the two but I've heard from people that the 25mm is also a lot sharper. It is an amazing lens!
346746
F1.4 is a fast lens that's great at night or dark spaces. Good for capturing fast motion, very sharp. But my main reason was low lit area because I don't need flash.
2064281
I've owned Panny's 14mm, 20mm, and 25mm. The best bokeh is on the 20mm, followed closely by the 25mm. The 14mm is a distant third.
2235088
I was just debating the SX20 vs SX30, so I was really glad to find this discussion. I assumed the 30 would be an improvement, but it sounds from this discussion and many customer reviews that 20 is a better choice for image quality.
721915
For me, if I could only take one lens on a trip, it would be a choice between the Panasonic 12-35 and the 14-140. If I want better low light capability, I take the 12-35. If I know I will need greater zoom flexibility for sports or wildlife subjects, I will take the 12-35.
932391
I recommend the 20mm Lumix lens. It's very sharp. The only complaint I have is when it's in auto focus mode, it has difficulty tracking moving objects.
1380696
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6. Some say it doesn't take as sharp of pictures. I don't agree and the trade off for how much small and lighter it is, is well worth it to me. It is even lighter than my older 18-200VR. For a everyday lens that can take photos between 18 - 300, It is ideal for me. If I need sharper, I'll use a dedicated lens for that shot!
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
591605
the 20mm lens is a bit slower to focus but considerably sharper, I used them both with Cross Country action shots, and the 20mm blew the 17mm out of the photographic water so to speak.
2108414
This is an excellent wide angle lens. I also own the Panasonic 20mm lens which I've always thought gave better results on the the Olympus bodies vs. Panasonic, mainly due to the Oly in body stabilization. However, the better addition (I think) is the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. A fabulous lens that fills that "in-between" focal length that you currently don't have. But if your goal is a wider angle lens, the 12mm is a great choice.
464452
I have both lenses and use them differently. The 23mm I mainly use when street shooting. But since I got the 23mm, I've don't use my 18-55 as much.
1234809
I prefer the 19mm lens because I wanted a WA lens and the 19 translates to a 27 mm in the A6000 body. The 30 is the equivalent of a 45 mm lens, too long for WA work. Both come with hood and pouch
36983
I already had the 17mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8 which are great for low light. I decided to buy the 12-40mm f2.8 because it is weather sealed and a great workaround lens. If I had to decide I would choose the 12-40mm lens. Just be aware that you loose a little more than a stop of light when compared to the primes.
2198741
I would go with the 19mm... I've got both and the 30mm is a little bit too "long"... I use the 30mm for portraits and the 19mm for all yhe rest. :)
1773306
I have the Oly 45 and 75, and the panasonic 25 and 12. The 75 is regarded and one of the finest lens around, and its very sharp, but its $900, and the focal length isn't always practical. For the money, the 45mm is my favorite. Its inexpensive and very sharp. When you hold it in your hand, honestly, it looks a little cheep but the results are excellent.
461056
I returned this lens and can't help. If others can't answer, I recommend the Panasonic forum at dpreview.com where you can search for or post your question.
992070
It's also a smaller lens more in keeping with the idea of the compact camera. I ordered the kit with the 17mm since it includes the hotshoe finder so it's a better deal purchasing the 14-42mm lens separately than the other way around.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!