Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

The 25mm f1.4 is priced at $599 .... not $1100:

HX025 Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 Leica DG Summilux Aspherical Lens for Micro 4/3 System

Which is one hell of a great price.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

John, that is one heck of a price, and an amazing deal. Worth every penney. Wow is all I can say. By the time I have funds for it, no doubt it will be oversold, or at the least sold out.

This lens is phenomenal news, thanks for the link, and thanks again to Kevin for bringing it up.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

I'm hoping it will at least help drive the price of the 20mm back down and put it back in stock.


This topic had very interesting timing because I have also been debating which lens to get.

Reasons I am leaning towards the 14mm.

1. Faster focus - better for run and gun shooting
2. Deep depth of field - better for run and gun shooting
3. Actually in stock
4. on-camera light. on camera lights work better the closer you get to what you are shooting. It doesn't pay to use a light and stand 10 feet away from what you are shooting and zoom in. The 14mm forces you to get close which in effect will make an on camera light more effective resulting in richer looking footage.
5. My philosophy is if f2.5 is too dark then f1.8 is only going to help a little anyway and it is time to use a light. I would love to have 14mm at f1.8 but f2.5 is still a darn good lens.
6. Awesome for work with some sort of steadycam where you will be moving in and out of crowds of people. The extra wide range will help a lot for this type of shooting. 20mm is fine but can be a bit tight when you are dodging bodies such as people dancing in a nightclub.
7. Overall a better quality piece of glass from what I understand.

See for me my main purpose of the lens would be to use it to shoot crowds of people where I move around a lot through the crowd. It would also be used to shoot extreme closeup B roll footage. In both cases the 14mm helps a lot. Having very fast auto focus and deep depth of field helps a lot as well as it starts to behave more like a wide video camera for these types of shoots. For these types of shots I would use a light anyway so the f2.5 is not as much of an issue.

Just a few of my thoughts on the subject.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

I like both lenses equally well I think. Im actually getting the 20mm first but when I have the money I plan to also get the 14.

Cant go wrong with either one and both seem much better than the 14-42 kit lens.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

If you do not need 14mm, as has been said, the 20mm is much more flexible, and can be stopped down if necessary. F/1.7 is light years better than 2.5 for my work, but if you're shooting outdoors in brightly lit conditions, it is not as critical. I have a Canon F/2.5, and the difference in low light from the F/1.7 is significant.

I'm going to order a WA adapter for my 20mm, thanks to Kevin M, and I think that will be the best solution for me. Two lenses for the price of 1.25! That way I'll have the advantage of width, and low light. You can always stop down, but you cannot add stops!

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

yeah I think the 20mm can easily become my main lens for a variety of situations.

wish I had it in my hands right now.

That adapter will be sweet im sure. The only holding me back with the gh2 is lack of practice and also lack of money.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

Despite my debating in this thread of getting the 14mm instead of the 20mm I bit the bullet and just received my 20mm today. What a great lens! Although testing it out by setting it to f2.5 I didn't notice a huge difference compared to f1.7 so I think the 14mm would have been a nice lens as well. The better auto focus could have been nice. I'm very happy with my last minute decision however and will enjoy this new lens a lot. Combined with my LED light this camera can now shoot to kill.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

Agreed! I just had my first shoot with the 20mm, and was fighting with the autofocus the entire evening. It's a beautiful lens otherwise.

Plus, I was getting some strange glares with the lens -- reflections and stuff. I was ready to really go off about the lens in this regard, but realized that the previous owner (I bought the lens used) had put a crappy UV filter on, and I was getting light reflections off of it. Of course, I didn't realize this until after the shoot.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

The auto focus works fine, IMO. You use the AE/AF lock to stop it from hunting as needed, as has been reommended in the past in this forum, forget by whom. It works like a charm.

The auto focus is extremely fast, and why someone would need a millisecond faster would be a mystery to me.

Regarding f/stop: If you are shooting paid gigs, such as wedding receptions in dark venues, you will indeed notice a significant difference between 2.5 and 1.7. There are professional shooters who will not even use above 2.0 in a reception environment. I'm not one of them, but there you are.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

Chris, (Martyn) your post just showed up, glad to see you're back! I agree with your idea, the 14-140mm is a very flexible and sharp lens for the money, great for outdoors, as the 24mm would be. It would be nice to have them all!

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

Revisiting this conversation now that the price dropped hugely on the 14mm. Might be a good lens to add to quiver. There's so few good fast/fast-ish auto lenses that Lumix makes that this could be a steal at less than $175. I've got the 20mm, and it's so useful. The kit 14-140 for me is almost useless, but in some situations (fantastic good lighting) it still works.

I'm guessing the price dropped because of the rad 12-35mm Lumix lens, but that's $1100. For the price of 2 or 3 one week rentals at borrow lens of the 12-35, you can just buy the 14mm.

Re: 20mm 1.7 vs 14mm 2.5
 

I see it now as $529 also sold by/at Amazon :-)