My final piece of equipment for my m43 system has now been tested. The item in question is a Panasonic Lumix 20/1.7 lens. A large aperture lens with a 40 mm equivalent focal length should be fairly versatile, and I don't currently see a need for anything else.
The bokeh at f2.8 is not the best possible, but not entirely bad either.
Better at f1.7.
Now this is not the scene that you would photograph with f1.7, but it is a good test. The image is sharp at the (very short) focal plane, but there is some bleeding of blue and violet along the branches against the sky. Not too bad, though, and it is probably mostly due to the overexposure and not really chromatic aberrations.
Again, f1.7 is not the right choice, but there is nothing wrong with the sharpness.
Now this is where you need the large aperture: ISO 400, f1.7 and 1/3 s. I took a bunch of pictures with the wireless remote and got a few sharp ones.
The bokeh is quite nice at f1.7.
Having fun with the shallow DOF at f1.7.
The 20/1.7 is pretty close to what I imagined. The lens is sharp and small, and as expected, the AF speed is on the slower side. I think for most occasions it will replace the 14-42 zoom for me because of the possibility for a shallow DOF and the low light performance.
My camera system now consists of the following items:
- Canon Powershot S90, a very small and capable pocket camera.
- Olympus PEN E-P2 small system camera.
- Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 Mk II.
- Olympus 40-150/4-5.6.
- Olympus 9-18/4-5.6.
- Panasonic Lumix 20/1.7
- E-VF2 add-on electronic viewfinder.
- Olympus Macro converter lens.
- Three tripods of different sizes.
- Wireless remote release.
I will not bring everything with me every time I'm out, though the weight penalty for that would actually be pretty small. M43 gear does not weigh much, even the 40-150 mm (80-300 mm equivalent) zoom only weighs 190 g.
Cool to see you using the m43 system with a fast pancake lens – it looks like a neat and powerful package. It was a bit odd that the bokeh looked more busy at f2.8 than f1.7, but I suppose that's better than the other way round.
ReplyDelete