Panasonic 25/1.7 vs. PanaLeica 25/1.4

dirk

CI-Founder
Hi,

I use currently the Panasonic 25/1.7, but I find it is lacking a "bite" which I can see with my Panasonic 42.5/1.7. Since I like small lenses (this is why I bought into MFT), I am looking now for alternatives, which are not too big & heavy.

The Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 gets mixed reviews on the internet. Some say it is significant sharper/better @ F1.4 than the Panasonic 25/1.7 @ F1.7, others say that there is no difference.

What is your experience? Did anybody use both?
 

dirk

CI-Founder
I just wanted to update this thread. I went to a dealer last week and made in the shop compariosn shots between my Panasonic 25/1.7, another Panasonic 25/1.7 of the shop (to avoid sample variations) and the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 of the shop.

Looking at the results on my computerscreen with 50% and 100% enlargements in LR6, there are no differences, which are worth reporting here. It is the same. Somtimes I find the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 in a few images in specific areas marginally better, sometimes the Panasonic 25/1.7. In all cases, you will not see the difference if you do not crop heavily.

What I find the most disappointing though is, that the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 has no aperture ring like the Panasonic-Leica 15/1.7 or the Panasonic-Leica 42.5/1.2. If that would have been the case, I would have bought the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 even if there is no image quality advantage. Just for the aperture ring on the lens alone. I just love the possibilty to change apertures on the lens itself.

But the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 is an old design. Hopefully there will be soon a successor with similar size, maybe better optical quality and above all an aperture ring :z04_nic_0075:
 

dirk

CI-Founder
I upload here a few images I made in that shop. First the side by side overview in Lightroom with settings for the PanaLeica @F1.8 and @F1.4 to make it a fair comparison to the Panasonic 25/1.7

(All shots made with the Panasonic GX80/GX85)

P25_1_7_vs_PL25_1_4_at1_4.jpg

P25_1_7_vs_PL25_1_4_at1_8.jpg


and here the jpegs for a better analysis. Images are not edited. I imported the RAW file into LR6 and exported it with 1200Pixel on the largest side and 500KB maximus file size. But even if you zoom-in in the RAW file within LR6, you will not see anything meaningfull differently.


Panasonic 25/1.7:

web-1040656.jpg



PanaLeica 25/1.4 @ 1.4

web-1040657.jpg


PanaLeica 25/1.4 @ 1.8

web-1040659.jpg


You have to be logged in to see the images bigger and have access to the EXIF data.


And this is where I focused always:

web-1040659_focuspoint.jpg
 
Last edited:

dirk

CI-Founder
Everybody has to decide himself, whether these differences are worth it to pay a multiple and carry a heavier lens around. Again. I would buy the PanaLeica immediately, even with no difference in IQ, if it would have an aperture ring... :z04_menno:
 

petersm

Member
I've had two of the Summilux versions, and eventually sold both and have kept the f1.7 version. At 1.7 they are indistinguishable, and the focus of the 1.4 is so slow compared to the 1.7. And matched with the 15 and 42.5 1.7, they are a nice light trio to carry around. I also had the 42.5 Noctricron and sold that too, as again at 1.7 they were undistinguishable. The size/weight differential wasn't worth it.
 

dirk

CI-Founder
The Panaleica 25/1.4 is an old design. AF is loud and not that fast. No aperture ring etc. I hope that Panasonic will update this lens, without making it bigger/heavier or more expensive.

I do not need F1.2. Even F1.4 is for me personally not necessary with a 25mm MFT lens. I would be happy with a F1.7 lens, better AF, better IQ and aperture ring. That would be a homerun...
 

petersm

Member
I don’t have much love for the aperture ring. They move too easily and frankly with digital I’m used to the front dial for aperture. And since I mix brands liberally, it would just be confusing. So, I tape the aperture ring on my 15 on A. When I use manual focus lenses I can make the adjustment, but when I do I’m only using manual lenses, not mixing.
 
Top