Fuji Fuji X100 compared to Olympus E-PL2 plus 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens.

Here's what DPReview's Andy Westlake had to say in response to the question, "Wide open is the X100 lens any better or worse than the Panasonic 20mm F1.7?":

From what Andy is describing, the issue seems to be what is known as field curvature. The ray traces basically would show that the center of the lens focuses on the film plane but the outside edge ray traces focus in front of the film/sensor. That makes the edges of the frame look out of focus or blurry. Keep in mind that this is different than coma, astigmatism, or other forms of spherical abbertions. Typically this can be solved with a field flattener, allowing more of the image circle to properly achieve focus across the entire sensor/film plane. If this is truly the case, it can be solved by adding an extra element or two to the lens. Of course, if it is other issues at the edge of the lens, that is a different story. Again, we are talking about increasing the size and cost.

What I see is basically a 600 dollar camera with a 4-500 dollar fixed lens. I don't really see any problem with that. Fuji can improve it down the road for more money. With all the R&D into the OVF/EVF, it is no suprise that something had to give in the design. Thats the sad part about fixed lens cameras, if it is the lens, it can't be swapped out.
 
From my results I do actually prefer the 20mm wide open. The Fuji is a little soft, and as most reviews point out, at f/2, it gets softer the closer you get. Stopped down the Fuji lens improves dramatically and around f/4 to f/8 there's virtually nothing in it. That is just for sharpness however, and there are other factors that influence how the files look. To be honest I'm glad I've got both, as both produce really gorgeous images. I've always really rated the 20mm and use it all the time. I've got a PanLeica 25mm f/1.4 as well, and while it doesn't have quite the "bite" that lens has, its a lot lighter and has much faster AF on m4/3.

The main reason for me getting the Fuji was its truly remarkable high ISO performance, which is obviously something m4/3 can't compete with, but in terms of lenses and sharpness, m4/3 more than holds its own.

From what Andy is describing, the issue seems to be what is known as field curvature. The ray traces basically would show that the center of the lens focuses on the film plane but the outside edge ray traces focus in front of the film/sensor. That makes the edges of the frame look out of focus or blurry. Keep in mind that this is different than coma, astigmatism, or other forms of spherical abbertions. Typically this can be solved with a field flattener, allowing more of the image circle to properly achieve focus across the entire sensor/film plane. If this is truly the case, it can be solved by adding an extra element or two to the lens. Of course, if it is other issues at the edge of the lens, that is a different story. Again, we are talking about increasing the size and cost.

What I see is basically a 600 dollar camera with a 4-500 dollar fixed lens. I don't really see any problem with that. Fuji can improve it down the road for more money. With all the R&D into the OVF/EVF, it is no suprise that something had to give in the design. Thats the sad part about fixed lens cameras, if it is the lens, it can't be swapped out.
 
Its a Panasonic lens on an Olympus camera. There is no camera software "treatment" whatsoever. That only happens for a Panasonic lens on a Panasonic camera and an Olympus lens on an Olympus camera.

there is a certain compatibility between those two makers, it's written in the m4/3 standards. It's not 100% but I remember (slightly) that there is a certain percentage of treatment (without CA? or compensation of barrel distortion?, but I don't remember well...)

Well, I found the statement which I rembered, it's from Photozone lenstests:

"Verdict

The Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH is an interesting little being. Its resolution capabilities are somewhat odd - instead of delivering a fairly even center to border quality (which would be more typical for pancake lenses) it has a very pronounced emphasis on the center portion where it delivers an image quality which is nothing short of phenomenal. However, the borders are only on a good to very good level but that's straight from f/1.7. The amount of vignetting is a bit on the high side at f/1.7 and you need to stop down a few stops to resolve the issue. Distortions and lateral CAs are very well controlled and not field relevant. The quality of bokeh is about average - the critical focus transitions zones can be a little rough if there're difficult structures here.
Now this is one truth but it is not the only one. Micro-4/3 cameras as well as Silkypix/Photoshop apply some image auto-corrections hidden from the user. This is desirable to some degree but it can have negative side-effects. It is likely that the distortion correction eats some of the potential border quality by stretching and interpolating the image for instance. The center to border difference isn't quite as pronounced when converting RAW images via LightZone. The principal CA characteristic is also worse and not really all that great for a prime lens.

The build quality of lens is excellent and we'd certainly like to see more of this in future lenses. The focus-by-wire approach (manual focusing) may be odd at first but you should be able to used to it in no time. The AF performance is very good.

We had much fun with the lens out there but we do also feel that it's a bit over-hyped especially considering its rather high price point and the need to correct some of its design problems via auto-correction during post-processing."

BTW I like this lens very much and I don't care the software corrections, even Habla is doing it...... ;-)
 
From my results I do actually prefer the 20mm wide open. The Fuji is a little soft, and as most reviews point out, at f/2, it gets softer the closer you get. Stopped down the Fuji lens improves dramatically and around f/4 to f/8 there's virtually nothing in it. That is just for sharpness however, and there are other factors that influence how the files look. To be honest I'm glad I've got both, as both produce really gorgeous images. I've always really rated the 20mm and use it all the time. I've got a PanLeica 25mm f/1.4 as well, and while it doesn't have quite the "bite" that lens has, its a lot lighter and has much faster AF on m4/3.

The main reason for me getting the Fuji was its truly remarkable high ISO performance, which is obviously something m4/3 can't compete with, but in terms of lenses and sharpness, m4/3 more than holds its own.

The High ISOs do look fantastic, along with the tonal quality.
 
The High ISOs do look fantastic, along with the tonal quality.

Yeah, I do, but I can't see the kinds of differences you folks see. They all look good to me. The X100 looks better at 100% crop to me, but I don't know where the lens leaves off and the sensor begins. I was very happy shooting various m43 bodies with the 17mm lens, despite the various criticisms of that lens. I'm happier shooting the X100 because of the way I can shoot with it and in really low light - in terms of the resulting images I generally wouldn't bother to see the difference except in very low light. Here are a couple I took with the 17mm on a gf1 not long before I got the X100 - these are not shots that really stress IQ in the processing except maybe the first, but that's the way I tend to use these cameras...

-Ray

View attachment 36527

View attachment 36528

View attachment 36529
 
I guess that in case of the Oly/pana combo much more in-camera-sharpening had happened. We all know that the optical drawbacks from the m4/3 lenses are 'treated' by camera software. Fuji seems to have a more conservative thinking as f.e. Nikon has versus Leica.

The Oly camera applies barrel distortion correction to the Pana lens file, and this actually introduces softening. It is true that the Oly JPEG engine is good at showing detail, and the Fuji JPEG engine may be less aggressive with sharpening. All of this affects results. However, what Andy W commented about - that the Fuji lens is soft at close range and wide open - has been analyzed to death on many sites and has nothing to do with software treatment. It is an limitation of that lens' optical design.

From what Andy is describing, the issue seems to be what is known as field curvature.

I haven't seen any conclusive tests demonstrating field curvature as responsible for the decreased corner sharpness, nor have I seen any evidence of substantial focus shift as an explanation of the softness at close focus wide open. The former issue is to me a non-issue, because most people say that the lens is very sharp across the frame by f/4. The second bit, softness wide open at close focus distances, could be more of an issue for me, but this is all probably splitting hairs.
 
The Oly camera applies barrel distortion correction to the Pana lens file, and this actually introduces softening. It is true that the Oly JPEG engine is good at showing detail, and the Fuji JPEG engine may be less aggressive with sharpening. All of this affects results. However, what Andy W commented about - that the Fuji lens is soft at close range and wide open - has been analyzed to death on many sites and has nothing to do with software treatment. It is an limitation of that lens' optical design.

HI Amin
Of course, this is true, and Fuji recommend shooting at f4 and above in macro mode . . . . . but limitations can be ugly . . or they can be an asset.

_DSF0489.jpg

this was shot as close as possible with the X100 at f2 with the ND filter - you can criticise the photo, but I think the lens has come up trumps.

To be honest I'm not totally convinced by the fuji lens in all circumstances . . . .but there are very few lenses I could say that about (Leica summilux 50 f1.4 maybe?)

The good thing about the Fuji lens is that it's rarely anything other than charming. Something which could also be said of the panasonic 20 and to a lesser extent the Olympus 17 (strangely I find, looking in my cupboard, that I own both of these lenses, despite having no m4/3 cameras!).

all the best
 
HI Amin
Of course, this is true, and Fuji recommend shooting at f4 and above in macro mode . . . . . but limitations can be ugly . . or they can be an asset.

_DSF0489.jpg

this was shot as close as possible with the X100 at f2 with the ND filter - you can criticise the photo, but I think the lens has come up trumps.

To be honest I'm not totally convinced by the fuji lens in all circumstances . . . .but there are very few lenses I could say that about (Leica summilux 50 f1.4 maybe?)

The good thing about the Fuji lens is that it's rarely anything other than charming. Something which could also be said of the panasonic 20 and to a lesser extent the Olympus 17 (strangely I find, looking in my cupboard, that I own both of these lenses, despite having no m4/3 cameras!).

all the best

Sounds like you ought to be keeping the X100! :rolleyes:
 
Beautiful image, Jono. I agree that the Fuij lens seems to have a charming personality and would add that those lenses in your cupboard are for your next Micro 4/3 camera, of course! Rumor has it that we'll see new cameras from both Olympus and Panasonic announced next month. While neither is likely to be weather proof, both are likely to have the new G3 sensor, and I'm hoping one will be very small, boxy, and have an integrated EVF with no hump.
 
As Jono mentioned, Fuji has been clear from early on that the Fujinon is meant to be shot at f4 if close focusing in Macro mode. Anything outside of say 1-2ft will give very pleasing looks at f2.

But when shooting at the extreme of close focus, f4 is certainly shallow enough for me with a DOF that looks to be fractions of an inch and a classic bokeh look. I understand where you might want more light gathering capability but in terms of the rendering at f4, it doesn't feel like a limitation to me. There are other things on the X100 that unfortunately do :(

Both of these were shot at f4. The first one has an insane amount of detail in the original. Insane! :)

web.jpg


web.jpg
 
123compact!, I finally used the Macro mode yesterday while visiting a friend's garden and if the picture turns out reasonably well, I'll be sure to post it.

This one of your butterfly is quite dreamy and lovely. The background in each looks good to me!
 
Back
Top