[thxbb12]

I just purchased the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 lens for MFT ($499 new at Unique Photo!).

Compared to other f/1.4 lenses I had tested before, the IQ is quite impressive (except for the Sigma 35 f/1.4 that is very sharp all over the frame).

It's really a joy to use this lens on MFT :-)

 

By curiosity I wanted to see how it fares compared to the Fuji 35 f/1.4 as they are both 50mm equivalent (well 53mm for the later). I realize DOF is not equivalent though (2.8 equiv for MFT and 2.1 for Fuji).

 

Looking at the sharpness graph for both lenses, the Pana is clearly much better, at all apertures (even when looking at the absolute numbers), especially in the corners. It also features better chromatic aberration resistance as well as subjectively better bokeh (from what's said in the review). Distortion is less when factoring auto correction (which is a practical reality). Build quality seems similar and they are priced similarly too ($569 for the Pana vs $599 for the Fuji - Adorama prices).

 

My question is why does the Pana get 3 stars form price/performance while the Fuji gets 5.5 stars?

Given their respective optical performances you would think their IQ scores would be different too.

The Pana seems superior optically while costing less... That rating doesn't make sense to me.

Can you explain your rationale?

 

Thanks :-)

[Brightcolours]

I just purchased the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 lens for MFT ($499 new at Unique Photo!).

Compared to other f/1.4 lenses I had tested before, the IQ is quite impressive (except for the Sigma 35 f/1.4 that is very sharp all over the frame).

It's really a joy to use this lens on MFT :-)

 

By curiosity I wanted to see how it fares compared to the Fuji 35 f/1.4 as they are both 50mm equivalent (well 53mm for the later). I realize DOF is not equivalent though (2.8 equiv for MFT and 2.1 for Fuji).

 

Looking at the sharpness graph for both lenses, the Pana is clearly much better, at all apertures (even when looking at the absolute numbers), especially in the corners. It also features better chromatic aberration resistance as well as subjectively better bokeh (from what's said in the review). Distortion is less when factoring auto correction (which is a practical reality). Build quality seems similar and they are priced similarly too ($569 for the Pana vs $599 for the Fuji - Adorama prices).

 

My question is why does the Pana get 3 stars form price/performance while the Fuji gets 5.5 stars?

5.5 stars?  :o 

Given their respective optical performances you would think their IQ scores would be different too.

The Pana seems superior optically while costing less... That rating doesn't make sense to me.

Can you explain your rationale?

It always has been that way, the ratings at the end of the reviews are highly subjective and you can find many comparisons that show a slight or less than slight discrepancy in scores. The sores are not based on any metrics, just the impression of the reviewer at that time, basically. Also ratings can differ from reviewer to reviewer.

Thanks :-)

[popo]

Had a quick look... on optical quality, the Fuji is rated as 3.0 to 3.5, whereas the Pana is 3.5, so that is roughly consistent with the general results.

Agreed the price/performance is harder to explain at 4.5 vs 3.0 respectively. Best UK street price for both are near enough the same. I can only speculate, perhaps the Pan/Leica was much more expensive at the time the review was written? Or maybe something more subjective in perceived value plays here, as MFT has a much stronger presence in the low end, and Fuji is only slowly working their way from the top down.

[Guest]

Well i think this is tough to call. A larger format is going to be more difficult to design (more expensive). Then again there are many quality 35-50 designs in existence; so I don't know. Perhaps some of it was the price relative to the not so bad 20f1.7 (micro 4/3); these things are tough to cage. For the fuji lens one could look at the range finders 35 (zeiss and voigtlander) and perhaps the price is quite decent relative to them; I'm not sure. These things are very subjective. 

 

To be honest I'm not quite as overjoyed with the 25f1.4 rendering as other people; and I think the overall rendering of the fuji is a little nicer (though I would like to see the fuji's transition on the focus plane with the zeiss touit punch).