>>4263492>Panaleica 25mm f1.4>OM system 20mm f1.4These are larger, more expensive, and slightly slower than their f2.5 full frame equivalents, and significantly less sharp. Literally, these are $600 lenses! Do not waste your money on this scam shit cork sniffer glass OP. f1.7 is fine, it's hardly even a whole stop. f2.8 vs f3.2 equivalent. The only big difference here is that if you want gh5 like video specs on full frame, you also get way better autofocus and spend 2x more money. Compare to nikon's plastishit kit lens and they're way slower, and more expensive, and softer. Want proof?
Cheaper and lighter: Sony 40mm f2.5 wide open, center crop. Recorded at approximately 65 lp/mm.
https://www.lenstip.com/upload2/255453_son40roz1.jpgOlympus 20mm f1.4 "pro" wide open, center crop, recored at approximately 62 lp/mm.
https://www.lenstip.com/upload2/264696_om20roz1.jpgThat doesn't LOOK like a 3 lpmm difference, it looks like a 30 lp/mm difference, but the smaller pixels have also enlarged some aberrations giving the appearance of less sharpness.
Sony at f4, 70 lp/mm:
https://www.lenstip.com/upload2/255454_son40roz2.jpgOlympus at f4, 80 lp/mm:
https://www.lenstip.com/upload2/264697_om20roz2.jpgIt still looks hazier. It's an aberration fuckfest. garbage lenses! You can't expect top of the line, $1000 prime lens sharpness out of this baby sensor format. Even on 62mp sony, which is like four 18mp MFT sensors stuck together in terms of pixel size, very small issues with mount/sensor/lens alignment are visible. It's extremely demanding of optics and you would find yourself spending $600, then $1000, then $2000 trying to get a lens that is as tack sharp as a budget fast prime on FF.
If you want super sharp huge print bokeh pics just sell that shit and buy a camera with a larger sensor. Trying to make MFT perform even as well as APS-C is a fools errand. MFT is what you buy when you are a creative on a budget who wants their content be in front of their image quality.
