I'd give it to the F1.4 on weight, it's like a bantamweight against a heavyweight. In my bag it will replace the 17 and 25mm f1.8 lenses. So lighter and weather sealed light beats heavy and weather sealed every time. It's why I bought into m 4/3rds.
If you already own either the 17mm or 25mm Pro (or both) I can imagine the need to get this 20mm F/1.4 isn't particularly big (not to knock either one of the lenses involved, because it seems Zuiko has delivered the goods when it comes to quality of the lenses, both the existing 17mm and 25mm Pro's and the new 20mm Pro) unless you want the best of both worlds in one, more compact still prime lens. For me personally however, this is a very interesting candidate to compliment my Pro Zooms with a weather sealed fast prime. Lack of the MF-Clutch and Fn-Button are no biggie for me personally as I rarely use them. Being able to slam a weather sealed and versatile fast prime on my weather sealed camera body however, is very appealing indeed.
Nice original presentation, Peter. I’d give the 20mm 2 extra points for size plus 2 extra points for weight. Even clearer winner! Focus clutch is too easy to move in my experience.
I generally don’t care too much about the weight/size of a Len’s on my camera. However, when it is in my bag, I do care. Either of these lenses would be a second lens to the 12-40 f2.8 and mostly live in my bag. The usability would be balanced for me on those grounds. The size/weight advantage for the 20mm against the manual clutch + L.Fn button. As a landscape photographer, f1.2 vs. f1.4 doesn’t really matter, so would be a tie. The £300 price difference is considerable and would probably be a 5 to 8 (leaving some room for the f1.8 lenses to fill 9 and 10). The versatility of needing only one Len’s rather than both, 17 and 25mm weighs very heavily towards the 20mm.
I had the Panasonic 20mm. It's focus hunting, especially in slightly dim light, drove me nuts. Their 25/1.4 was better I then tried the terriffic little 17mm f/1.8, which for used s lost more. Sold 'em both and upgraded to the superb 17mm f/1.2. No regrets. Some days and especially evenings, I carry only it, and the 45 f/1.2 on another body. Nirvana, an excellent pairing! Loved the comparison format, mate!
I also didn't love the Pana 20mm -- and I really wanted to for it's size/price! It wasn't a good performer on the GX-85 and even worse on the E-M5 III.
The 20mm, effective 40mm lens is one of the most useful lenses you can own. This was a wise choice for OM Systems to start. And on LUMIX cameras, you simply flip the switch on the body to manual focus, so the clutch issue doesn’t matter…
Very interesting and I agree with the results! But, I would choose the 20mm f1.4, because of the versatility (between 17mm and 25mm), small size and weight and because of the price! And… I have already the Nokton 25mm f0.95 and the Oly 25mm f1.8 ;)
I have the 25, but I ordered the 20. My goal is to have a small but bright travel companion for city scenes. The 9 pana will also go into my bag. So I will take 12-100, 20 and 9 on to my journeys.
I think the new 40mm is a conscious budget decision for photographers who cannot or do not want to buy both the 25 and 17 pro lenses. As I already have the 25 (and love it), it's more appealing for me to get the 17 pro. Somebody who has neither lens and only wants to spend on one of them, the 20mm is a great option.
Thanks for this round-by-round summary of the 20mm f1.4 vs 25nn f1.2 fight. It must have been quite a battle. I envy you for having ringside seats. I realize that licensing agreements precludes your showing us the actual footage of the fight, but hopefully they will release that at some time in the future :-)
Yes small size and weight makes 20mm a clear winner. About the missing MF clutch, it would be a nice feat for sure, but I don’t miss it because EM5 mk iii (and some other bodies too) has this awesome fn lever. It can be used to toggle between AF and MF - and it’s right under your thumb. Brilliant!
@@ForsgardPeter Also - and this took me a while to notice - you can make practically every button to switch between AF/MF. It is very confusing ”AF area select [home button]”. You just have to register the ”default AF area home” as MF first in the menu. After this you can have any AF method you want, and after pressing the button which is configured to ”AF area select [home button]” it goes MF and back.
Even though when filming with MFT I use the GH5 with a speedbooster, the only native MFT lenses I own are the Oly 7-14 and 40-150 Pro. It is the manual clutch that is totally important to my way of shooting so even though the new 20 1.4 Pro is obviously optically in the same league as the others in the range it is a deal breaker for me with the lack of that manual clutch! If Olympus do produce this mythical Wow camera or the GH6 is superb,I shall buy all the 1.2 Pro lenses to add to my MFT kit, until then I eagerly await my FF Nikon Z9!🥳🙏🏾
Hello Peter, what do you think of the Amazon Spain offer of 25 1.2 for €762? plus €200 cashback from olympus, leaving the lens at €562? I think it's irresistible. I would like to try the 20 1.4 and compare but the 25 at that price could not escape. a greeting
If you get the 25mm pro lens for762€, it is a good deal. I think the cash back is only valid if you buy the lens from OM SYSTEM webstore. Check that before you buy.
Thank you, Peter! Very informative and funny way to compare both lenses. My only question is about the quality of the bokeh at min 4:50 - I'm afraid the titles above the two images are swapped. The 25 mm lion's head should be bigger than the 20 mm. And the bokeh of the image in left is much pleasing, as you said. Excuse me, if I'm wrong.
If I started from scratch with zero lenses, my choice would depend on whether I needed the manual clutch in my shooting. If I don't need the manual clutch, I would go for the 20/1.4. A "normal" lens has historically been defined as focal length = sensor diameter. For m43 sensors, that would be some 21-22 mm, I believe. (For FF, it is around 42 mm).
Yes! No wonder I always felt that 50mm was just a bit too tight. 40mm gives me more breathing room while still feeling like a “normal” perspective. I find that with the 3x4 aspect ratio of MFT it is beneficial to have slightly wider focal lengths than on 2x3 sensors. For this reason I chose to go with 9mm as my wide, 15mm as my moderate wide, 20mm as my normal, and 45mm as my portrait lens.
Thanks for this interesting comparison, Peter. Even though it is a wonderful lens, my 25mm f1.2 has not been used very much. It is too heavy and too big as a MFT prime for me. My first prime when I moved to micro four thirds was the Lumix 20mm f1.7. I loved the perspective but hated its auto focus. I have ordered the OM System 20mm f1.4 and am selling the Oly f1.2. The back lever on my E-M1 III will take care of a quick change to manual focus. I won't miss the lens button because I never used it.
Hello, I am a fan of 28 and 40 mm focal lenght for street photography. I used the 40mm Canon pancake lens and the 27mm Fuji almost pancake lens and they are light, sharp, and very portable. I want to try this new 20mm from Olympus, sorry, OM digital and compare. With my Pen-F For street photography I usually take the Panasonic-Leica 15mm (near to 28mm equivalente) more than the Olympus 17mm I have; it seems that the 20mm have this features and could be a most one to own. Congratulations Peter, it was a very entertaining video!
Hi Peter, interesting video as always! I'm wondering what's your opinion on the competition between Panasonic-Leica 25mm F1.4 and OM 20mm F1.4, since the Leica lens is much cheaper and the largest aperture for both lens are the same.
Hi Peter, thanks for the comparison. I am also interested in a comparison with the 25mm 1.4 because I think it is awesome. Besides, the 20mm could replace my 15mm 1.7 and my 25mm 1.4, but I’m wondering if it is worth it. Did anyone else have a chance to compare?
Hi Peter, thanks for your video. I already own the 25mm, but I intend to buy the 20mm, smaller and lighter, more versatile to me, in my use. Anyway I guess nobody will be disapointed by both 😊
Fun video, Peter. :) The focal length part is so subjective, of course. Because one could also argue that the 50mm is more versatile because it's in between the 35 and 85. It all depends on what you're photographing, and what your style is. I also personally would put weight into the category of usability. I photograph weddings, and while the Pro 1.2 aren't heavy per say, 250 grams or so, paired with an EM1 Mark 2 or 3, is a wonderfully light combo. Another benefit of the 20mm 1.4 is that because of its weight, it's nicely paired with something like the Pen or the EM 10 series as well. :) Great vid! :)
Thanks Peter! I use 17 mm and 45 mm f/1.2 most of the events, 17 mm is also applicable for portraits. What I never use is manual focusing. For portraits wide open I rely on face-eye detection which is perfect on E-M1 mark III even for full body portraits. One cannot manually focus on eye wide open as precise as AF can. I suspect manual clutch intended for older cameras with less effective face detection such as E-M1 - top camera when f/1.2 primes have been introduced. What is really crucial is weather sealing. Not only raining. Now when temperatures are lower -30 the camera and lens accumulate frost from my breathing at very high amount, the camera becomes ice coated. So I can only use PRO lenses.
I use MF and clutch from time to time. It is a nice feature because you can disable AF+MF to avoid accidental changes and still be able to switch to manual focus almost instantly. It is more intuitive than buttons.
@@realniteart aye, I do actually find it useful for close up portraits to nail the eyes. Clutch focus with all the assists enabled (magnify+focus peak) is wonderful when precision focus is needed quickly.
Great comparison and thank you for the entertaining video! Just in specs, 20mm wins because size/weight ranks very high for me personally in MFT world. I have the 25mm f/1.8 and use it all the time (MUCH more than the 17mm f/1.8). The 25mm f/1.2 is too big/expensive for me, but if OMD made a 25mm f/1.4, I'd be tempted for weather sealing and slightly faster aperture..
Are there any noticeable problems with purple fringing on the 20mm? I really want something small with weather sealing that withstand rain and snow in the evenings. Thank you for the great work you do on this channel!
Hi, I currently have a pen-f that I love and 2 objectives sigma 30mm 1,4 and the 45mm 1,8 olympus. As a budget I have 1300/1700 Euros and I am looking for one or 2 "definitive" objectives for the meantime (later you will see) that are capable of doing different types of photography ranging from weddings such as portraits even in low light, football matches mainly during the day and occasional landscapes.I am looking for objectives that are unique as compactness, performance and versatility compared to all systems photographic (apsc, full, frame etc ...) if I stay in the micro 4/3 I'm interested and I don't see real alternatives to the Om system / olympus 8-25mm, 12-100mm, 20mm 1,4 and last probably also Om lenses 40-150mm f4 or sigma 56mm 1,4. I am confused because if the 20mm 1,4 can replace my sigma 30mm in all ways, even as a bokeh, I would take it with my eyes closed. 12-100mm and these would also be useful for taking medium and long distance portraits of the spouses.If I really have to keep my pen-f with a single lens I would think of the 20mm or 15mm leica or the announced 9mm leica 1.7 ... or also have a second no micro 4/3 body with other lenses also used? Thanks.
The 25mm focal length is closer to the 35mm so why wins the 20mm lens the focal lenght round while it’s closer to the 17mm ? What has 17mm to do with this contest? I don’t get these points 😂
Hi Peter. Good quick comparison but I have to disagree on one point. The minimum focus distance does of course matter. If the closest distance was the same then the 25mm would have seen the subject bigger in the frame which is surely what you want if using a longer lens. Saying you can get the same in the frame by using a longer length and standing further away is not a valid argument in my mind to turn over a better closest focusing distance. 20mm win in that case. Thanks
I don't get the need for the 20mm pro lens, when what's missing is a 12mm or 10mm pro lens. I hope one of those comes soon, because I'm not going to start building an OM system until then.
Although I have lenses with a clutch, I really don’t see the point when there is a quick and easy way of changing focus mode with a lever on the back of both brands of bodies. The Fn button is similarly hard to find a use for and seldom used in practice. There’s a big difference in the field of view between 20 and 25mm focal lengths. Many prefer the 25mm [50 full frame] but many, me included, prefer a 20mm which is nearer a 35mm full frame field of view. For me this lens replaces a Sigma 19mm f2.8 Art lens which has a noisy aperture.
Thanks heaps for your very helpful comparison Peter. I've always found that 17mm was a bit too far back and 25mm a bit too close up for me so I actually just decided to purchase the 20m which si the perfect spot for me! 🙂 This will be my walkabout, street lens while my Panasonic Leica 10-25mm f1.7 will be my workhorse when I need ultimate performance. Love micro four thirds. Hope Olympus and Panasonic can keep innovating. Especially in regards to smaller sizes! (where's my GM10 Panasonic? 😅)
On my 12-40 I love the focus clutch, so I would miss it. But the size and focal length is a big point for me. 40mm is my all time favourite focal length.
Interesting comparison.... I am also an adept of the clutch on the pro lenses to switch to manual and use it very often but does it weigh so much if it's not present? If you have a body with the FN leaver you can assign this function to that lever and switch between 2 focus modes with the advantage that you can chose the focus modes yourself. I offenly use C-AF & S-AF this way > direct switching whithout passing in the menus or additional buttons. Add the clutch and you have direct acces to 3 AF modes
My little panasonic 20 mm F1.7 (I had to check 1.7 :lol:) lens would likely lose every round in that little squabble . However, for me it wins on size as basically the EM 1 + lens disappears into my hand when walking the streets. As you pointed out at the end ; in real life there is very little difference in the lens used . Wish I knew that 30-40 years ago :( .
Nicely done! In my opinion, the difference in usability is more than just 1 point. The 25 was on special offer for a similar price like the 20. I ordered one and am now happy that your battle didn’t prove me wrong 😊
That was a fun way to present it. What about the 20mm f1.4 Vs the 12-45mm f4? Both walkabout general purpose but one a zoom, one a prime... The next contest?
While I liked the more "feathered" bokeh of the 25 f/1.2 lens, the football shaped highlights around the edges is a big turn off. Looks like really quite bad coma. Great review. The ring battle was fun!
Thanks. I enjoyed the video very much and got lots of information. I do not have a 25mm. I found the one in your video a bit big and heavy and very expensive. I have the cheaper 17 and 45. From the two here, the winner for me is the 20. Smaller, cheaper, angle not very different. BUT! My 17mm has a manual clutch that I mostly use for street photography. At f8 or f11, it gives you a wide range between 2 and 8 meters. No worry that the AF picks out something less important and closer or further.The downsize of the 45mm is that it has no MC, although at that length, focussing is even more critical. 17mm and 20mm are close in angle. If I buy the 20 mm (weatherproof, but heavier), I have to let go of the 17mm, leaving me with no MC lens. I will wait and hope that I will become a bit richer. Even then, the 25mm will be too heavy and large.
Round 1 for the 20mm because to me it’s substantially smaller. Round two the 20mm is much more versatile because of the size and I would want to use it more
I don't have any 1.2 lenses. I have a 30mm 1.4 and a 17mm 1.8 so for me the 20mm 1.4 wins. I may ad to my bag. Bokah not as important as size and weight. Also manual focus is not something I do often. Pleasure shooting after retirement.
Had the 20 been an f/1.2, the choice would've been clear for my purposes. A 20/1.2 would have easily replaced my 17/1.2 and 25/1.2. It's more versatile as a walkaround single focal length lens.
Nice comparison, fun theme and enjoyable graphics. These can be hard to do because the objective measurable characteristics get weighted subjectively. Some may heavily value size and weight advantages, others larger aperture. A close or tie score should indicate that each is well-suited to its target market without a lot of drawbacks in the secondary characteristics.
The obvious winner is the 20mm. They are so close is every way, but the 20 is lighter, more compact, and half the cost. I'm not even sure why the 25mm exists considering the price.
Thank you so much for this video. I have the 25mm 1.2 and I absolutely love it. It's my day-to-day lens, but my main concern is its weight and its relative bulkiness with my E-M1III. In addition the 20mm focal length is quite interesting (I loved the Lumix 20mm but its AF was too slow for my kind of pictures). Therefore I'm seriously considering the new 20mm 1.4. This lens could be perfect for my taste. So, once again, thank you so much for this interesting video. It helped me a lot to make up my mind . Keep up the good work ;)
For landscape street and everyday shooting, the 20mm f1.4 should be a better choice but for portrait and events I would say the 25mm is still a much better option.
So size and weight are personal? How is a clutch not personal? If you never use it, it doesn't matter at all and if you shoot with a Panasonic I think you annot use it. So it seems pretty personal too. I also do not see the feathered bokeh difference at all. The decision would be. 247 vs 1,5 times that weight. Well we have a 20 mm f1.7 that weighs less than half what the 20 mm f1.4 weighs. So that one does not score a 10. It scores a 8. The 25 mm f1.2 weighs about 400 grams. So that is a 5. Usability is 8 vs 10. So it is 16-15. Focussing distance is 10 - 10. 26-25 now. AF speed 10-10. So 36-35. FL..I agree that 20 mm can be used a bit more than the 25 mm FL. So it is 10-8. 46-43. Fastest aperature. Indeed 9-10. So 55-53. Bokeh is a tie to me. I still do not like the the way the lamps are rendered but you probably can't have a sharp lens wide open without such a side-effect. But unsure. Let's say 9-9. 64-62. Price. I find this a much bigger difference. I'd give the 20 mm f1.4 a 8 (look at the Sigma F1.4 m43 lenses to understand why) an 8 and the 25 mm f1.2 a 5. 72-67 The IQ: you did not show a comparison pic so I can't judge. But I believe you: so 9 vs 10. Which means the total score to me (very subjective) is 81-77. Like some peopel said below...there is size and there is weight. For size I add an extra 2 points for the 20 mm f1.4 and 0 for the 25 mm f1.2. So it is 83-77. The 20 mm f1.4 is the winner.
Hey Peter you can't say Let's Get Ready To Rumble because it's copyrighted. The guy that owns it does not really go after people that don't know any better but there have been movies and TV shows saying it that had to pay up. The guy that owns it is the ring guy in boxing.
@@ForsgardPeter Michael Buffer won't make an issue out of it if it was a mistake. I heard he only really goes after Movies and TV shows. I just would not say it again. I heard Michael Buffer talk about it on Howard Stern. There is a old video with him and Howard on RUclips don't know if its that episode. Howard would have some people on his show a lot of times.
20mm all the way. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and almost indistinguishable IQ in use. At least that's what I told myself when I got it and after year I have no regrets. Plus it fits well on the Pen-F too.
i have the 17 1.8 the Lumix 20 1.7 and the Lumix 25 1.4 and I prefer the 20mm focal length. saying that I have to say that I don't like the new 20 1.4, the lens exterior style seems very different from any other Olympus lens. it seems cheap.
I do not think it has a cheap feeling. It looks and feels the same as the other Pro lenses. The on thing that is different is the lack of MF Clutch and L-Fn button.
@ForsgardPeter yeah I get it. I own the 20mm and like it. Used to own the 25mm and felt about the same. They are so similar, though even in mm, both can do both things. Personally, I feel it's just a money grab by OM. But they are a business after all, so I can't blame them.
Bit abstract the 1 point vers the 2 point in rounds. The speed, the focal length that really depends on what your looking for. But ultimately if you use the mf clutch it's a deal breaker. Why they didn't include it beats me. That aside it looks like a good quality option! Because of that omission, the 1.2 is the winner due to the contender having one hand tide behind it's back. Why limit it, the button is a miss too, but the clutch is a must have for me. What a pity
Don’t think I can do without the MF Clutch now that I have it on my two main lenses. So I’ll be looking at the 17mm 1.8 I think for my street prime and save a load of money.
Hi Peter, well of it was I the 20mm would have won. Simply because I think the apperture on both is so close, its effect on bokeh is negligible... I couldn't apprecciate over the other. That would give them a tie that round and as for all other rounds I agree with you, the 20mm would have won hehehe. All the best to you and your family
I do not understand why OM choose 20mm lens as its first release, if the 25mm is so close by with everything...I would rather see some marvelous 12mm for astro-photography etc, or like 150m f 2.8 also for astro and wild life photography...
That is true. I do no know why they made this. Maybe the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 is so popular? I agree that a 150mm f2.8 would closer to what the OMDS strategy is.
My biggest problem with the 20mm f1.4 is that it does not advance the range of OM Digitals offerings but rather fills an insignificant hole. Understand that this lens is a cut down version of the a lens they designed for full frame. 20mm is a great wide prime on full frame, not so useful on MicroFourThirds. Where are the lenses we need? We were promised a 100mm f2.8 macro but none appeared. We NEED a 10mm f1.8 Vlogging lens but again crickets from OM Digital. We should have a 25-75mm f2.8 (or better yet a 25-100mm f2.8) environmental portrait lens or a street photography 17-70mm f2.8 like Tamron makes for APS-C. Note these formulas ALREADY EXIST just need to be cut down like the 20mm, 24-70mm f2.8 for full frame very common and easily adapted to MicroFourThirds as can the 100mm f2.8 macro but native is better and weighs half as much.
![OM System M.Zuiko 20mm f1.4 Pro - [Hands On!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2kTdbHR_sh4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DfwnhP0szOo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Olympus 17mm vs. 25mm - [Which One Is A Better Travel Lens?]](/img/1.gif)
I'd give it to the F1.4 on weight, it's like a bantamweight against a heavyweight. In my bag it will replace the 17 and 25mm f1.8 lenses. So lighter and weather sealed light beats heavy and weather sealed every time. It's why I bought into m 4/3rds.
If you already own either the 17mm or 25mm Pro (or both) I can imagine the need to get this 20mm F/1.4 isn't particularly big (not to knock either one of the lenses involved, because it seems Zuiko has delivered the goods when it comes to quality of the lenses, both the existing 17mm and 25mm Pro's and the new 20mm Pro) unless you want the best of both worlds in one, more compact still prime lens.
For me personally however, this is a very interesting candidate to compliment my Pro Zooms with a weather sealed fast prime. Lack of the MF-Clutch and Fn-Button are no biggie for me personally as I rarely use them. Being able to slam a weather sealed and versatile fast prime on my weather sealed camera body however, is very appealing indeed.
Nice original presentation, Peter.
I’d give the 20mm 2 extra points for size plus 2 extra points for weight. Even clearer winner!
Focus clutch is too easy to move in my experience.
Loved the format of that Peter. Id take the 20mm as i prefer the smaller size and angle of view.
I generally don’t care too much about the weight/size of a Len’s on my camera. However, when it is in my bag, I do care. Either of these lenses would be a second lens to the 12-40 f2.8 and mostly live in my bag. The usability would be balanced for me on those grounds. The size/weight advantage for the 20mm against the manual clutch + L.Fn button. As a landscape photographer, f1.2 vs. f1.4 doesn’t really matter, so would be a tie. The £300 price difference is considerable and would probably be a 5 to 8 (leaving some room for the f1.8 lenses to fill 9 and 10). The versatility of needing only one Len’s rather than both, 17 and 25mm weighs very heavily towards the 20mm.
I love how you knocked down the 1.2 in the back ground when you were talking about price. Nice touch to the video.
Thanks! Small little trick and not very complicated to do.
Yes that was cool and subtle.
I had the Panasonic 20mm. It's focus hunting, especially in slightly dim light, drove me nuts. Their 25/1.4 was better
I then tried the terriffic little 17mm f/1.8, which for used s lost more. Sold 'em both and upgraded to the superb 17mm f/1.2. No regrets.
Some days and especially evenings, I carry only it, and the 45 f/1.2 on another body. Nirvana, an excellent pairing!
Loved the comparison format, mate!
Were you using olympus camera with the pana hunter? 🤔
Thanks.
I also didn't love the Pana 20mm -- and I really wanted to for it's size/price! It wasn't a good performer on the GX-85 and even worse on the E-M5 III.
The 20mm, effective 40mm lens is one of the most useful lenses you can own. This was a wise choice for OM Systems to start. And on LUMIX cameras, you simply flip the switch on the body to manual focus, so the clutch issue doesn’t matter…
Very interesting and I agree with the results! But, I would choose the 20mm f1.4, because of the versatility (between 17mm and 25mm), small size and weight and because of the price! And… I have already the Nokton 25mm f0.95 and the Oly 25mm f1.8 ;)
Thanks. I would also take the 20mm f1.4 over the 25mm f1.2 with this price difference.
I have the 25, but I ordered the 20. My goal is to have a small but bright travel companion for city scenes. The 9 pana will also go into my bag. So I will take 12-100, 20 and 9 on to my journeys.
You made me lough so much with the battle on the ring!
Thank you, Peter, for this super-interesting match of 2 jewels of the image.
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it!
I think the new 40mm is a conscious budget decision for photographers who cannot or do not want to buy both the 25 and 17 pro lenses.
As I already have the 25 (and love it), it's more appealing for me to get the 17 pro. Somebody who has neither lens and only wants to spend on one of them, the 20mm is a great option.
Very creative!
It's clear which is the Muhammed OMD.
This is hilarious!
Thanks for this round-by-round summary of the 20mm f1.4 vs 25nn f1.2 fight. It must have been quite a battle. I envy you for having ringside seats. I realize that licensing agreements precludes your showing us the actual footage of the fight, but hopefully they will release that at some time in the future :-)
Yes small size and weight makes 20mm a clear winner. About the missing MF clutch, it would be a nice feat for sure, but I don’t miss it because EM5 mk iii (and some other bodies too) has this awesome fn lever. It can be used to toggle between AF and MF - and it’s right under your thumb. Brilliant!
That is a good tip.
@@ForsgardPeter Also - and this took me a while to notice - you can make practically every button to switch between AF/MF. It is very confusing ”AF area select [home button]”. You just have to register the ”default AF area home” as MF first in the menu. After this you can have any AF method you want, and after pressing the button which is configured to ”AF area select [home button]” it goes MF and back.
Thanks, I will look into this.
Even though when filming with MFT I use the GH5 with a speedbooster, the only native MFT lenses I own are the Oly 7-14 and 40-150 Pro. It is the manual clutch that is totally important to my way of shooting so even though the new 20 1.4 Pro is obviously optically in the same league as the others in the range it is a deal breaker for me with the lack of that manual clutch! If Olympus do produce this mythical Wow camera or the GH6 is superb,I shall buy all the 1.2 Pro lenses to add to my MFT kit, until then I eagerly await my FF Nikon Z9!🥳🙏🏾
Hello Peter, what do you think of the Amazon Spain offer of 25 1.2 for €762? plus €200 cashback from olympus, leaving the lens at €562? I think it's irresistible. I would like to try the 20 1.4 and compare but the 25 at that price could not escape. a greeting
If you get the 25mm pro lens for762€, it is a good deal. I think the cash back is only valid if you buy the lens from OM SYSTEM webstore. Check that before you buy.
@@ForsgardPeter I wanted to say that I already have the 25 1.2 for that price and the cashback. I have paid €562.57
Thank you, Peter! Very informative and funny way to compare both lenses. My only question is about the quality of the bokeh at min 4:50 - I'm afraid the titles above the two images are swapped. The 25 mm lion's head should be bigger than the 20 mm. And the bokeh of the image in left is much pleasing, as you said. Excuse me, if I'm wrong.
It is possible that it is the case. Cannot confirm it right now.
If I started from scratch with zero lenses, my choice would depend on whether I needed the manual clutch in my shooting. If I don't need the manual clutch, I would go for the 20/1.4. A "normal" lens has historically been defined as focal length = sensor diameter. For m43 sensors, that would be some 21-22 mm, I believe. (For FF, it is around 42 mm).
Yes! No wonder I always felt that 50mm was just a bit too tight. 40mm gives me more breathing room while still feeling like a “normal” perspective. I find that with the 3x4 aspect ratio of MFT it is beneficial to have slightly wider focal lengths than on 2x3 sensors. For this reason I chose to go with 9mm as my wide, 15mm as my moderate wide, 20mm as my normal, and 45mm as my portrait lens.
Thanks for this interesting comparison, Peter. Even though it is a wonderful lens, my 25mm f1.2 has not been used very much. It is too heavy and too big as a MFT prime for me. My first prime when I moved to micro four thirds was the Lumix 20mm f1.7. I loved the perspective but hated its auto focus. I have ordered the OM System 20mm f1.4 and am selling the Oly f1.2. The back lever on my E-M1 III will take care of a quick change to manual focus. I won't miss the lens button because I never used it.
Thanks. My pleasure!
Peter if you had to choose between a used like new in box 25mm F1.2 at £699.00 or a new 20mm F1.4 what would you go for?
That is tough call. With that price I would most likely go with the 25mm f1.2.
Hello, I am a fan of 28 and 40 mm focal lenght for street photography. I used the 40mm Canon pancake lens and the 27mm Fuji almost pancake lens and they are light, sharp, and very portable. I want to try this new 20mm from Olympus, sorry, OM digital and compare. With my Pen-F For street photography I usually take the Panasonic-Leica 15mm (near to 28mm equivalente) more than the Olympus 17mm I have; it seems that the 20mm have this features and could be a most one to own. Congratulations Peter, it was a very entertaining video!
Thank you.
Hi Peter, interesting video as always! I'm wondering what's your opinion on the competition between Panasonic-Leica 25mm F1.4 and OM 20mm F1.4, since the Leica lens is much cheaper and the largest aperture for both lens are the same.
I have not tested the Pana lens. So I cannot really say anything.
Hi Peter,
thanks for the comparison. I am also interested in a comparison with the 25mm 1.4 because I think it is awesome. Besides, the 20mm could replace my 15mm 1.7 and my 25mm 1.4, but I’m wondering if it is worth it.
Did anyone else have a chance to compare?
Hi Peter, thanks for your video. I already own the 25mm, but I intend to buy the 20mm, smaller and lighter, more versatile to me, in my use. Anyway I guess nobody will be disapointed by both 😊
Fun video, Peter. :) The focal length part is so subjective, of course. Because one could also argue that the 50mm is more versatile because it's in between the 35 and 85. It all depends on what you're photographing, and what your style is.
I also personally would put weight into the category of usability. I photograph weddings, and while the Pro 1.2 aren't heavy per say, 250 grams or so, paired with an EM1 Mark 2 or 3, is a wonderfully light combo.
Another benefit of the 20mm 1.4 is that because of its weight, it's nicely paired with something like the Pen or the EM 10 series as well. :)
Great vid! :)
Thank you.
Thanks Peter! I use 17 mm and 45 mm f/1.2 most of the events, 17 mm is also applicable for portraits. What I never use is manual focusing. For portraits wide open I rely on face-eye detection which is perfect on E-M1 mark III even for full body portraits. One cannot manually focus on eye wide open as precise as AF can. I suspect manual clutch intended for older cameras with less effective face detection such as E-M1 - top camera when f/1.2 primes have been introduced. What is really crucial is weather sealing. Not only raining. Now when temperatures are lower -30 the camera and lens accumulate frost from my breathing at very high amount, the camera becomes ice coated. So I can only use PRO lenses.
You might be right that the MF Clutch is not that much needed anymore. The AF has gotten a lot better since E-M1 was launched.
I use MF and clutch from time to time. It is a nice feature because you can disable AF+MF to avoid accidental changes and still be able to switch to manual focus almost instantly. It is more intuitive than buttons.
@@realniteart aye, I do actually find it useful for close up portraits to nail the eyes. Clutch focus with all the assists enabled (magnify+focus peak) is wonderful when precision focus is needed quickly.
Great comparison and thank you for the entertaining video! Just in specs, 20mm wins because size/weight ranks very high for me personally in MFT world. I have the 25mm f/1.8 and use it all the time (MUCH more than the 17mm f/1.8). The 25mm f/1.2 is too big/expensive for me, but if OMD made a 25mm f/1.4, I'd be tempted for weather sealing and slightly faster aperture..
Thanks.
Are there any noticeable problems with purple fringing on the 20mm? I really want something small with weather sealing that withstand rain and snow in the evenings. Thank you for the great work you do on this channel!
Not hat I noticed and would be a concern.
Is the 20mm f1.4 pro the only lens that fits the mark IV?
No. Every m4/3 lens that is available can be used with E-M10 Mark IV.
Well done! Thanks for this and all your other videos you've been kind enough to share. Happy Holidays!
Thank you too! Happy Holidays.
Hi, I currently have a pen-f that I love and 2 objectives sigma 30mm 1,4 and the 45mm 1,8 olympus. As a budget I have 1300/1700 Euros and I am looking for one or 2 "definitive" objectives for the meantime (later you will see) that are capable of doing different types of photography ranging from weddings such as portraits even in low light, football matches mainly during the day and occasional landscapes.I am looking for objectives that are unique as compactness, performance and versatility compared to all systems photographic (apsc, full, frame etc ...) if I stay in the micro 4/3 I'm interested and I don't see real alternatives to the Om system / olympus 8-25mm, 12-100mm, 20mm 1,4 and last probably also Om lenses 40-150mm f4 or sigma 56mm 1,4.
I am confused because if the 20mm 1,4 can replace my sigma 30mm in all ways, even as a bokeh, I would take it with my eyes closed. 12-100mm and these would also be useful for taking medium and long distance portraits of the spouses.If I really have to keep my pen-f with a single lens I would think of the 20mm or 15mm leica or the announced 9mm leica 1.7 ... or also have a second no micro 4/3 body with other lenses also used? Thanks.
Many thanks Peter. It is a video that I expected :) What about the battle between 20mm 1.4 and 17mm 1.2 ?
That might come in the future.
1:55 - I think you have been very generous to the 20mm on usability - for me the lack of clutch on the 20mm means it can't score more than a 7.
The 25mm focal length is closer to the 35mm so why wins the 20mm lens the focal lenght round while it’s closer to the 17mm ? What has 17mm to do with this contest? I don’t get these points 😂
Hi Peter. Good quick comparison but I have to disagree on one point. The minimum focus distance does of course matter. If the closest distance was the same then the 25mm would have seen the subject bigger in the frame which is surely what you want if using a longer lens. Saying you can get the same in the frame by using a longer length and standing further away is not a valid argument in my mind to turn over a better closest focusing distance. 20mm win in that case. Thanks
I see what you mean. Good point.
I don't get the need for the 20mm pro lens, when what's missing is a 12mm or 10mm pro lens. I hope one of those comes soon, because I'm not going to start building an OM system until then.
10 and 12mm pro lenses would be good. I totally agree.
Although I have lenses with a clutch, I really don’t see the point when there is a quick and easy way of changing focus mode with a lever on the back of both brands of bodies. The Fn button is similarly hard to find a use for and seldom used in practice.
There’s a big difference in the field of view between 20 and 25mm focal lengths. Many prefer the 25mm [50 full frame] but many, me included, prefer a 20mm which is nearer a 35mm full frame field of view. For me this lens replaces a Sigma 19mm f2.8 Art lens which has a noisy aperture.
I totally agree that MF Clutch is the best solution.
Thanks heaps for your very helpful comparison Peter. I've always found that 17mm was a bit too far back and 25mm a bit too close up for me so I actually just decided to purchase the 20m which si the perfect spot for me! 🙂 This will be my walkabout, street lens while my Panasonic Leica 10-25mm f1.7 will be my workhorse when I need ultimate performance. Love micro four thirds. Hope Olympus and Panasonic can keep innovating. Especially in regards to smaller sizes! (where's my GM10 Panasonic? 😅)
On my 12-40 I love the focus clutch, so I would miss it. But the size and focal length is a big point for me. 40mm is my all time favourite focal length.
I totally agree that MF Clutch would be great.
Interesting comparison.... I am also an adept of the clutch on the pro lenses to switch to manual and use it very often but does it weigh so much if it's not present? If you have a body with the FN leaver you can assign this function to that lever and switch between 2 focus modes with the advantage that you can chose the focus modes yourself.
I offenly use C-AF & S-AF this way > direct switching whithout passing in the menus or additional buttons. Add the clutch and you have direct acces to 3 AF modes
Thanks for sharing. That sounds like a great tip.
nice one, peter, i laughed at the 25mm 1.2 getting floored in the background. thanks for the vid!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you very much , Peter... 👌👍👍🙏
Greetings... "SALUDOS... 👋🙋😃 "
You are welcome.
"And my clear winner is the 25mm f1. 8"
My little panasonic 20 mm F1.7 (I had to check 1.7 :lol:) lens would likely lose every round in that little squabble . However, for me it wins on size as basically the EM 1 + lens disappears into my hand when walking the streets.
As you pointed out at the end ; in real life there is very little difference in the lens used . Wish I knew that 30-40 years ago :( .
Nicely done! In my opinion, the difference in usability is more than just 1 point. The 25 was on special offer for a similar price like the 20. I ordered one and am now happy that your battle didn’t prove me wrong 😊
If the price is very close, then I would choose 25mm f1.2 over the new lens.
I would add some points to the 20mm for less weight. But most of all because I just got my 20mm in the post today.😎
Nice! What are going to photograph with it?
@@ForsgardPeter I'm planing to use it for street photography.
Good comparison, thanks!
Thanks.
That was a fun way to present it. What about the 20mm f1.4 Vs the 12-45mm f4? Both walkabout general purpose but one a zoom, one a prime... The next contest?
It would be interesting to compare a prime to a zoom. Need to think about that.
I’m thinking about acquiring both as a combo. One for low light, the other one with a broader range.
While I liked the more "feathered" bokeh of the 25 f/1.2 lens, the football shaped highlights around the edges is a big turn off. Looks like really quite bad coma. Great review. The ring battle was fun!
Thanks. I enjoyed the video very much and got lots of information. I do not have a 25mm. I found the one in your video a bit big and heavy and very expensive. I have the cheaper 17 and 45. From the two here, the winner for me is the 20. Smaller, cheaper, angle not very different. BUT!
My 17mm has a manual clutch that I mostly use for street photography. At f8 or f11, it gives you a wide range between 2 and 8 meters. No worry that the AF picks out something less important and closer or further.The downsize of the 45mm is that it has no MC, although at that length, focussing is even more critical. 17mm and 20mm are close in angle. If I buy the 20 mm (weatherproof, but heavier), I have to let go of the 17mm, leaving me with no MC lens. I will wait and hope that I will become a bit richer. Even then, the 25mm will be too heavy and large.
Round 1 for the 20mm because to me it’s substantially smaller.
Round two the 20mm is much more versatile because of the size and I would want to use it more
Very clever production! Nicely presented! 👍
Thanks.
Great and fun way to compare these.
Glad you enjoyed it
I don't have any 1.2 lenses. I have a 30mm 1.4 and a 17mm 1.8 so for me the 20mm 1.4 wins. I may ad to my bag. Bokah not as important as size and weight. Also manual focus is not something I do often. Pleasure shooting after retirement.
Very good video, for me it is clear, that since they are so even, I would take the 20mm and save some money (for more lenses😊)
This is was very fun and informative video!!! I loved it!
Thanks.
Had the 20 been an f/1.2, the choice would've been clear for my purposes. A 20/1.2 would have easily replaced my 17/1.2 and 25/1.2. It's more versatile as a walkaround single focal length lens.
Comparison between the two lenses when it comes to the portrait photography would be great. It's a very similar conclusion that I came to overall.
Both could be quite for portraits.
Nice comparison, fun theme and enjoyable graphics. These can be hard to do because the objective measurable characteristics get weighted subjectively. Some may heavily value size and weight advantages, others larger aperture. A close or tie score should indicate that each is well-suited to its target market without a lot of drawbacks in the secondary characteristics.
Yes I know that it is subjective. I give my opinion and then it is up to the viewer to decide what are the things that matter for them.
@@ForsgardPeter You always do very well in that regard.
Thanks.
The obvious winner is the 20mm. They are so close is every way, but the 20 is lighter, more compact, and half the cost. I'm not even sure why the 25mm exists considering the price.
Thank you so much for this video. I have the 25mm 1.2 and I absolutely love it. It's my day-to-day lens, but my main concern is its weight and its relative bulkiness with my E-M1III. In addition the 20mm focal length is quite interesting (I loved the Lumix 20mm but its AF was too slow for my kind of pictures). Therefore I'm seriously considering the new 20mm 1.4. This lens could be perfect for my taste. So, once again, thank you so much for this interesting video. It helped me a lot to make up my mind . Keep up the good work ;)
Thanks.
I do wish all Olympus lenses had aperture ring. Never get used to change the aperture on the camera
If the camera has two dials, there is not really a need for me. More important for me is an AF/MF-clutch.
I also like aperture ring, but now I am so used to using control wheels on the body.
The bokeh balls on the 40 are more round than the 25. Tie?
I agree. I thought the bokeh balls were better on the 20mm.
That is subjective matter. I think the 25mm f1.2 renders better feathering.
For landscape street and everyday shooting, the 20mm f1.4 should be a better choice but for portrait and events I would say the 25mm is still a much better option.
I agree.
Knockout video Peter. Love it.
Thank you.
I'm holding out for the 22.5mm f/1.3 :-)
So size and weight are personal? How is a clutch not personal? If you never use it, it doesn't matter at all and if you shoot with a Panasonic I think you annot use it. So it seems pretty personal too. I also do not see the feathered bokeh difference at all. The decision would be. 247 vs 1,5 times that weight. Well we have a 20 mm f1.7 that weighs less than half what the 20 mm f1.4 weighs. So that one does not score a 10. It scores a 8. The 25 mm f1.2 weighs about 400 grams. So that is a 5. Usability is 8 vs 10. So it is 16-15. Focussing distance is 10 - 10. 26-25 now. AF speed 10-10. So 36-35. FL..I agree that 20 mm can be used a bit more than the 25 mm FL. So it is 10-8. 46-43. Fastest aperature. Indeed 9-10. So 55-53. Bokeh is a tie to me. I still do not like the the way the lamps are rendered but you probably can't have a sharp lens wide open without such a side-effect. But unsure. Let's say 9-9. 64-62. Price. I find this a much bigger difference. I'd give the 20 mm f1.4 a 8 (look at the Sigma F1.4 m43 lenses to understand why) an 8 and the 25 mm f1.2 a 5. 72-67 The IQ: you did not show a comparison pic so I can't judge. But I believe you: so 9 vs 10. Which means the total score to me (very subjective) is 81-77. Like some peopel said below...there is size and there is weight. For size I add an extra 2 points for the 20 mm f1.4 and 0 for the 25 mm f1.2. So it is 83-77. The 20 mm f1.4 is the winner.
really good review, would be cool to see how the sigma 16mm compare to them
That would be interesting. Not sure if I can get a hold of the Sigma lens.
@@ForsgardPeter ok. I plan to buy next year the 16
hahahahahahahah made my day Peter!! the fight scene LMAO :D :D :D
I happy that you liked it.
Hey Peter you can't say Let's Get Ready To Rumble because it's copyrighted. The guy that owns it does not really go after people that don't know any better but there have been movies and TV shows saying it that had to pay up.
The guy that owns it is the ring guy in boxing.
I did not know that. Lets hope that I do not have take down this video...
@@ForsgardPeter Michael Buffer won't make an issue out of it if it was a mistake. I heard he only really goes after Movies and TV shows. I just would not say it again.
I heard Michael Buffer talk about it on Howard Stern. There is a old video with him and Howard on RUclips don't know if its that episode. Howard would have some people on his show a lot of times.
Comparison between amazing lens and amazing lens, the result was to be expected...
Yes it was.
20mm all the way. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and almost indistinguishable IQ in use. At least that's what I told myself when I got it and after year I have no regrets. Plus it fits well on the Pen-F too.
The M.Zuiko 20mm F1.4 Pro is my go-to lens on my OM-5.
Hahaha, I love the finnish humor, so dry and unagitated! 💜
Thank you! 😃
i have the 17 1.8 the Lumix 20 1.7 and the Lumix 25 1.4 and I prefer the 20mm focal length. saying that I have to say that I don't like the new 20 1.4, the lens exterior style seems very different from any other Olympus lens. it seems cheap.
I do not think it has a cheap feeling. It looks and feels the same as the other Pro lenses. The on thing that is different is the lack of MF Clutch and L-Fn button.
No clutch. That’s all what is important. The 20 mm is closer to 17 but is is not a 17 or a 25. The 50 and 35 fov is a lot better in my opinion
A tie I feel would make the 20mm win. All comes down to wasting couple hundred more on a lens that practically does the same.
These are always a matter of opinion. I have used them both quite a bit. The 20mm F1.4 for street and the 25mm F1.2 for portraits.
@ForsgardPeter yeah I get it. I own the 20mm and like it. Used to own the 25mm and felt about the same. They are so similar, though even in mm, both can do both things. Personally, I feel it's just a money grab by OM. But they are a business after all, so I can't blame them.
Bit abstract the 1 point vers the 2 point in rounds. The speed, the focal length that really depends on what your looking for. But ultimately if you use the mf clutch it's a deal breaker. Why they didn't include it beats me. That aside it looks like a good quality option! Because of that omission, the 1.2 is the winner due to the contender having one hand tide behind it's back. Why limit it, the button is a miss too, but the clutch is a must have for me. What a pity
Don’t think I can do without the MF Clutch now that I have it on my two main lenses. So I’ll be looking at the 17mm 1.8 I think for my street prime and save a load of money.
Hi Peter, well of it was I the 20mm would have won. Simply because I think the apperture on both is so close, its effect on bokeh is negligible... I couldn't apprecciate over the other. That would give them a tie that round and as for all other rounds I agree with you, the 20mm would have won hehehe.
All the best to you and your family
For you the 20mm f1.4 is the new champion! You have good point about the aperture. Thanks and you too.
I even find the bokeh on 20 mm better ( see the round lights)
Cool Video!
Thanks!
I have the 17mm and enjoy it, but the lighter weight of the 20 is compelling. The MF clutch may be a deal breaker though.
haha, really funny made, good Job!
Thanks!
I do not understand why OM choose 20mm lens as its first release, if the 25mm is so close by with everything...I would rather see some marvelous 12mm for astro-photography etc, or like 150m f 2.8 also for astro and wild life photography...
That is true. I do no know why they made this. Maybe the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 is so popular? I agree that a 150mm f2.8 would closer to what the OMDS strategy is.
I would always choose the Olympus over the Panasonic. Fly by wire focusing is not anywhere as good as the Oly.
My biggest problem with the 20mm f1.4 is that it does not advance the range of OM Digitals offerings but rather fills an insignificant hole. Understand that this lens is a cut down version of the a lens they designed for full frame. 20mm is a great wide prime on full frame, not so useful on MicroFourThirds.
Where are the lenses we need? We were promised a 100mm f2.8 macro but none appeared. We NEED a 10mm f1.8 Vlogging lens but again crickets from OM Digital. We should have a 25-75mm f2.8 (or better yet a 25-100mm f2.8) environmental portrait lens or a street photography 17-70mm f2.8 like Tamron makes for APS-C. Note these formulas ALREADY EXIST just need to be cut down like the 20mm, 24-70mm f2.8 for full frame very common and easily adapted to MicroFourThirds as can the 100mm f2.8 macro but native is better and weighs half as much.
All the lenses you mention are good ones. I would be very interested in a 25-100mm f2.8 lens.
I would LOVE a rectilinear 10mm f/1.8 with good C-AF performance for vlogging and pov style video
hahaha great theme vid ...
Thanks.
You should start doing this seriously! 😁 Toons for photographers 🤣😂 very creative 💪
Not sure if I could, but maybe I will try something similar in the future.
@@ForsgardPeter reminds me of celebrity death match from mtv, if you remember those? 90s and early 2000s comedy 😊
I do not. Watched pro wrestling and pro boxing back in the days.
Actually, I'm watching Rocky 4 in the TV 😅
5:13 lens go to sleep.. :D
Hey Peter, you really need to compare it with the Panasonic 20mm f1.7
Yesss, please!
I will try to get a hold of one so that I can test them side by side.