Lens Sharpness Test: Sony 16mm F2.8 vs Panasonic 20mm F1.7

by Chris Gampat on 09/05/2010

F2.8

And so the battle of the pancake lenses commences! In one corner, we’ve got the 16mm F2.8 on the Sony NEX 5camera. In the other, the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 on the GF-1Micro Four Thirds camera. Each camera was shot in aperture priority at ISO 200 and tested on a Home Depot flier. Further, each camera was also focused on the Husky Logo in the center. Let’s see how they did.

Just for reference: Sony is on the left and Panasonic is on the right for each image. Each lens was not tested at F22 because the Panasonic lens only goes up to F16. Each camera was shot on a tripod.

F2.8

F4

F4

F5.6

F8

F11

Please note that in no way is this a scientific test. Also keep in mind that only center sharpness is being tested.

Conclusions

F2.8- Panasonic has an edge.

F4- Panasonic has a slight edge and the Sony is starting the catch up.

F5.6- Pretty much even with the Sony now taking a slight edge.

F8- In my eyes, dead even.

F11- No idea what happened here. The Sony is starting to become problematic. The Panasonic is still holding strong.

Please Support the Phoblographer

We love to bring you guys the latest and greatest news and gear related stuff. However, we can’t keep doing that unless we have your continued support. If you would like to purchase any of the items mentioned, please do so by clicking our link and then purchasing the items as we then get a small portion of the sale to help run the website.

Tagged as: 20mm f1.7, camera, gf-1, lens sharpness, lenses, NEX-5 16mm F2.8, panasonic, reviews, sony

  • Pingback: Appareil photo hybride -Comparatif Sony E 16mm f/2.8 vs Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 | hybridcams.fr

  • http://www.ibinary.com Ken Nickerson

    I have both (Nex-5 & GF1) with Pancakes. Because of the sensor size, I thought and wanted the Sony to smoke the Panasonic in shot quality. Reality is the exact inverse. Of the two cameras, the GF1 is an all round, better back-up camera to the Nex-5. Shot quality is superior, built in flash is superior, software+settings superior… etc. It’s a better camera at the same price. Lets hope a Nex-6 is on it’s way with a full frame to give a similar set-up to say the Leica M9 (sensor size) and then with an M lens converter, I’d love to do that one as Panasonic and Olympus seem to be stuck in 4:3 world for now. Both are fine cameras, but if you can only have one, the GF1 is the way to go.

    • http://thephoblographer.wordpress.com Chris Gampat

      Agreed on the full frame comment. We all want that.

      • Spoorthy Vemula

        Imagine how much more a full frame lens would over way a tiny nex body. 

    • http://www.photoforum.ru/11012 Rostislav

      Ken,
      In your comment you have 2 arguments:
      1.Smaller sensor camera GF1 beats the larger sensor NEX in IQ, despite the sensor size diffrence.
      so the first argument conclusion is that the IQ is not affected directly by sensor size

      2.In order to get better IQ Your wishing for the next camera “NEX-6″ to have even bigger sensor then NEX-5,
      so the second argument claims that there IS a direct influence of sensor size to IQ,

      Those arguments partly cancel each other, which one would you like to stand behind?

      (i know that M9,5D blows GF1 out of the water, but im trying to make a point here, stuff for thought)

  • zebarnabe

    on the F11 test with the sony i think you hit the tripod … or shaken the floor…

    I’m glad i have chosen to buy panasonic and the 20mm f/1.7 :) NEX-5 might have an edge in ISO and DR … but ergonomics and lens (that are actually the most expensive thing) are better on panny… :)

    • http://thephoblographer.wordpress.com Chris Gampat

      Totally didn’t actually. It was set to delay shooting. No idea how that happened.

  • david

    Which is sharper at f/1.7 and f/2 ;-) ?

  • John Griffith

    You should have white balanced each so they match in contrast. In the one you are seeing black against gray and the other black against white. This will effect your perception. You don’t say whether these are OOC JPGs or converted from RAW but the Sony settings on JPGs are a little soft and will sharpen up in PP. Convert each from RAW with the same amount of sharpening set in LR3 and that might make for a better comparison.

  • mick

    We have the two extremes here. Magazine test show that the Sony lenses are not too clever. At the other extreme the Panasonic 20mm is one of the most respected lenses available today. No real surprises here.

    The GF1 uses the same sensor / engine as the G1, and I recall the test carried out by Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK.

    The G1 was able to record more fine detail than a Nikon FULL FRAME available at the time if used at low ISO settings. At high ISO the Nikon did show an advantage. In the same test the G1 beat a Nikon APS-C camera, not really a surprise.

    As a friend of mine has found the Sony is worth using for high ISO work, however, she uses either her G1 or GF1 for daylight use.

    For my part I will be staying with Panasonic µ4/3.

  • Pingback: Field Review: Panasonic GF-1 (Day 2) at The Phoblographer

  • Pingback: Review: Sony NEX C3 at The Phoblographer

  • Pingback: Who doesn't use video features? - Page 3 - Micro Four Thirds User Forum

  • GuestUser

    Are you comparing 24mm equiv (E 16) versus a 40mm equiv (P 20)?

    Such focal lengths are vastly apart and say nothing about each lens, rather it suggests that a longer focal length is a better choice for your test.

    Wide angle lenses have to deal with curvature and DOF issues that stretch to infinity.

    If this HD flier was the entire frame images, than this test is arbitrarily hard on any wide angle lens.

    Unless that was the intent – to prove that a narrow angle is better for flier photography.

    Try a landscape at 24 and at 40. How far did you have to walk back for the 40mm shot?

Previous post:

Next post: