Don’t forget, for anyone reading the comments, that using Ex. Teleconverter option in the menu system makes this lens even more flexible. For example on my GH5S, shooting 1080p, I can get an extra 2.7x zoom reach. So essential this lens is a 10-121 f/1.7 but with a DoF with the teleconverter more around 2.8. Cheers!
I rented this lens last week to use for a portrait shoot as well as some general photography. The lens performed amazingly well with top notch image quality. Too bulky for street photography IMO. But that's not what it's for. I'll definitely be purchasing it for event and environmental portrait photography. Keep up the great work!
Thank you. Great video and very informative as usual. I wonder why Panasonic and Olympus don't make a lens like this with the zoom controllable from a camera body dial similar to the manual focus. ( sorry meant aperture dial ) It would be big but still smaller than the motorized video rigs.
Thanks - Im looking at this lens to go with the new Olympus OM1. PS: the 28 cm close focus distance is from the sensor - so its pretty good for near macro.
i wish there's a small version of this lens, with variable aperture maybe something like 10-30mm f2.8-f4 so that it can be practical for vlogging, that focal range is dream like ngl
Hi Matti. I bought a G9 around a month ago after watching your reviews. I'm a Canon shooter so I have plenty of good Canon and Sigma glass. As I didn't have Lumix lenses I bought a Viltrox adaptor (versión 1, no glass only electronic connections (not speedbooster) so it's fully compatible with EFS and EF lenses. Just wanted to share that the adaptor provides near native glass speed and accuracy. I'm currently using a Canon 10-18 for wide angles (20-36mm on m43) (it's a great and cheap lens on Canon bodies and works amazingly well on the G9) as you don't really need wide apertures for landscape, and the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS gives me excelente results as a walk around option. The point is that Panasonic is following the path as the other companies in the mirrorless field, in which size of lenses is getting larger, very similar to DSLR, so using bigger lenses and adaptors on larger bodies as G9 works perfectly OK.
@@youknowwho9247 may be cheaper but not a downgrade at all. Especially comparing a G9 to any Canon APS-C camera. I did the same thing. Still trying to sell my Canon glass, but its the best move I've made. I have other APS-C mirrorless. Pretty much any modern mirrorless will smoke a Canon APS-C.
@@Princeton_James Generally speaking, going down in sensor size is a downgrade. If one invest the same amount of money into aps-c or mft, the aps-c solution will always provide noticeably better image quality. In case of the G9 - it costs about as much as an X-T3, a6400 or M6 II. All three of those options are much better cameras than the G9.
@@youknowwho9247 I'm using a Caon APS-C (200D) too and I'm thinking of changing to M43. I shoot both videos and photos, but Canon has no reliable 4K options apart from the R5 or R6. The EOS M has a 2.56 crop, EOS R has a 1.6 crop I think. With no autofocus. So at that point, I might as well buy M43 with the smaller lenses and much better weather sealing and autofocus. Nearly nothing in the APS-C lineup is weather sealed. Body maybe but it's extremely rare for Canon APS-C lenses to be weather sealed. Also, looking at noise comparisons between M43 and Sony APS-C, I think it's safe to say Panasonic M43 sensors are a bit better than low end Canon DSLR sensors. I was looking at the XT-4, probably the best APS-C right now, but their lenses are waaaay too expensive. They cost roughly the same as EF L glass. (I don't use anything slower than F2.8 on APS-C). Comparing a full kit of lenses for XT-4 and the R6, the XT-4 is about 70% of the full-frame cost. So I'm going to invest in 2 systems gradually. M43 for my travel/food/product shoots and full frame when I really need the low light or bokeh.
Thanks for this review, Matti. You confirm my feelings: superb lens, but heavy and expensive. I love to travel light... I'm selling my Olympus 7-14 2.8 for the same reasons. Especially after noticing I use it on its widest angle anyway. So instead I use a 7.5mm f2 prime lens.
I suggest you try Viltrox EF-M1 (no speed booster). It works excellent on my G9. Of course there's no focal reducer, but you can use EF and EFS lenses, and Canon offers the magnificent 10-18 for $250 (even cheaper second hand), and the Viltrox works efficiently even with third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Youngnuo).
I'm considering this lens in combination with the (second hand) GH5, G9 or EM1-3, and I wonder about the focus behaviour in stills AND video mode, which lens and camera combination gives the least 'focus wobble' or 'pulsing' ? - I've not found this information yet, but I do know that the GH5 with the older firmware had a hard time focussing this lens in video.
I want to get a CPL (Kaeseman) with an ND (Firecrest superslim) stacked on top of that for this lens. At 10mm, will I get vignetting with 77mm filters or should I get the 82mm filters then step up to it?
I only have one 77mm variable ND filter and that does not cause vignetting at 10mm. If you want to stack filters I recommend you try first, if that is possible.
How significant is the 2mm difference at the wide end between the 10-25 and the 8-18? Trying to decide trade off between low light and wider. I have only budget for one at the moment and need to be using them equally indoors (video) as well as for landscapes (photos)
There is a distinctive difference between 8 and 10mm, but I can't say what it means for your photography. However I can say, that the 10-25 is really nice for video work and much better than the 8-18.
It depends on your own style. I have the Panasonic Leica 12-60, its very nice. However, I do often find I need to go a little wider than 12mm. I have just purchased, the Panasonic 8mm, it is good, and fills a gap. But sometimes doesn't have that sparkle you get from really high quality glass, I should have gone for the Olympus 8mm f/1.8. I have had a play with both the 10-25 and 8-18 in store, even there the 10-25 was amazing. For me, 1.7 would be great at the high end, less so on wide angle. I can't afford this less now. But will save up, and wait rather than compromise.
Hi, Matti, Rewatching this video. My feeling is that this lens doesn't fit in with mft. I shoot mft because of the compact size, low weight and reasonable cost. Just my humble opinion. I'm staying with my primes. Great review. Thanks!
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I guess this lens shows, that there is no free lunch. What I mean is, that fast high quality glass is always relatively large regardless of the format.
I've watched with the highest attention this video and understand the pro/cons. However, I'm wondering how a ND 5 stops NISI filter could be use with the hood since , from what I've seen on their website, there is a little metallic "pin" to rotate the filter..maybe that's removable ? Thans for your attention best regards
@@mattisulanto Hi, I wish you an happy Eastern. I've bought both the NISI filter and the 10-25 mm f1,7 ☺️ they arrived yesterday...May I ask you a question...since The GH5 and the 10-25 rae quite heavy, I will need a "table" tripod...any advice or experience with ? and Which kind of filter shoud I buy to protect the lens of the 10-25..Maybe I can send you a mail ?? Thankls anticipatively
@@christianlaurent5807 If you sign up fo my newsletter, you'll get my e-mail. So far I haven't shared it here. However, I have to say right away, that I can't give very extensive private tutorials or advice, because they would take all my time. But I can give some advice privately of course.
@@mattisulanto You're a very kind person, I did subscribed of course and I fully understand, I didn't really, really, wanted to pollute your amazing channel..I'll write to you sorry for the inconvenience..😌
I take photos at night in city as well as in country trouble with low light but has been improved with olympus 40 to 150 mm 2.8. I am also at a distance from my subject I keep spending $$$ on lenses looking for the best fit have been looking at the olympus 75mm 1.8 but I'm wondering if that's the best I can do. Any suggestions??? Thank you for any help it is much appreciated.
The Zuiko 75mm F1.8 is the fastest medium telephoto for MFT. You could get better low light performance form another system, but you'd have to buy everything new.
the metabones is in a different class in my opinion, I tested against amazon 'commlite' which is similar to viltrox, and it was wayyy different. the metabones adapter is optically perfect and even uses the center of the sigma so it's sharper, but no waterproofing + bad focus is the downside
hello, i had a nice experience with the gx9 using it with zuiko 300 mm f4. i know this sounds strange as the gx9 is not for wildlife. but i got nice results no issues at all with IS. now i am considering the Leica 200 mm f2.8 as i need that extra stop for early morning birds. but i will use it mainly with olympus. first i would like to hear about this lens form you. as not much about it in the youtube. and if possible how its ois works. thanks
Right now I have no plans to review the 200mm F2.8, but I’m working on the 50-200mm F2.8-4 review and I think that can be useful for you regarding the stabilizer. However, I’ll be using Lumix cameras, of course.
Don't forget the 12-60 if you are OK with F4 and starting at 12mm - I take mine with the 7-14 most days a;though like others sometimes the 8-18 only is good enough
Sure we can consider any zoom as an option, but the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 is pretty far already to be a real option, because it is so much slower and has a variable max aperture. Just my opinion, of course.
Definitely a unique range and aperture size. But if one can accept 24mm equivalent instead of 20mm at the wide end, and a stop slower at the tele end. The lens in the LX100 II is cheaper, lighter, smaller, and it comes with a free camera body :-)
for me personnaly I would prefer a 10-35 mm f 2.8 as 25 mm is too short for my kind of photography. Also f 1.7 is certainly nice, but it makes the lens a bit heavy, bulky and expensive for mft. But of course it all depends what other lenses you have. My only Leica/ Panasonic lens is the 8-18 f2.8 -f4, all the other lenses I own are from Olympus and Sigma.
There is no crop, it uses the full sensor width. Mine doesn't have any 2x crop either, I don't know what that is. Unless you mean the teleconverter mode, it uses the actual pixels and it's really handy if you need more reach then your current lens can do.
@@mattisulantoOh ok. I know with micro 4/3, say the 25mm f1.7 would be the equalivant to a 50mm on a full frame camera. I thought the g9 cropped in slightly in 4k30. I have two g85's I know they crop in when I use 4k30.
I don't have the Pen F, so I can't say. However, the Pen F is not the smallest camera and I think this combination could work. Besides, this is also a matter of taste. But, it would be best if you could try it for yourself before buying.
If you're looking for a kit lens with the same performance, you'd have to go full frame. Most cameras there come with a 24-105mm f/4 kit, which is equivalent in results to a 12-52.5mm f/2 on MFT.
@@protestagain That's correct in physical terms, but not in regard to the results the lens produces. An image taken at f/4 on full frame will look exactly like an image taken at f/2 on MFT, given identical field of view, shutter speed and resolution. Example Let's assume a hypothetical scene that calls for the following settings on MFT: 25mm, f/2, 1/60s, ISO 200. Assuming I had, in that same scene, a full frame that only opens up to f/4, I'd get the following settings on full frame: 50mm, f/4, 1/60s, ISO 800. Those two images would look identical in terms of field of view, motion blur, depth of field and noise. In other words the f/4 on full frame behaved exactly like the f/2 on MFT. Which was my original point. This Leica lens on MFT does exactly what a 20-50mm f/3.5 would do on full frame. It's got the optical performance of a kit lens with half the zoom range for four times the money.
Excellent review. I like the side-bit about setting the lens to 'A' and using a camera knob to set the aperture. Not always an obvious work-around. I got to play with this lens briefly and ALMOST bought it right there on the spot it was that good. I have the 42.5 Nocticron and this lens felt like a wide-zoom version of it. Stunning image quality and weight! It actually dwarfs my Nocticron in size. And that's already a big lens. This is pretty much a dream lens for me. Being able to shoot indoors without a flash at better than 6400 ISO and reasonably fast shutter speed would be amazing. Being able to do video equally well and, this lens is a bargain.
Thank you Matti! I do not agree with you. If (when....) I buy this lens I am not only going to use it on my GH5, but of course also on my Lumix GM1! Why? As Doctor Phil says, "Because I can". I can hear the questions with the GM1. What is that!!! Oh, BTW. Did I say that I am in love with the GM1....
also my use: I own the G9 and two GX80. Most time I mounted the lenses (max. the 50-200 mm) on one of the GX80 with Grip.With two GX80 no changing lenses necessary. The G9 is for special works or rainy days :-)
@@mattisulanto I have the GM1 and GM5. I have mounted it with several funny combinations with Metabones Speedbooster, as Nikkor AIS 300/2.8 ED and many more.
@@advancedmicrosystems4658 Because I picked it up at a stupendous prices through my employer's partnership with Panasonic and I needed money to buy my dream lens: the Panasonic-Leica 200 f/2.8 + both TCs :). Simply put, while the PL 10-25 f/1.7 is one of the best zoom lenses ever created, I can kind approximate it with primes and the PL 8-18. There is nothing that gets close to the PL 200 f/2.8 for m4/3.
There can be many reasons, but maybe they don't feel its size and weight fully support the MFT. Also the focusing system is optimized for a DSLR, after all. But, I'm only guessing.
I need the brightness, because I'm often searching for the aurealis borealis. Sometimes you just have to stop the car and run for the moment, without a tripod. Maybe its freezing cold out there, with minus 40 degrees, and then you might do it as fast you can. No, you don't get dew on the camera and the lens if you keep your stuff in the trunk, and just the batteryes in the warm. If I use a tripod, then I will use my 4X5" camera. My dream is to catch the aurealis borealis with black and white film. No, a digishot isn't the same.
Comparatively, this lens doesn't make much sense except it offers a wider than usual zoom. I often never compare to full frame, but this combo is sadly not up to par when compared to a Nikon z6. Panasonic g9 with Lumix 10-25 f/2.8 is 1350g together and roughly 2800$ Nikon z6 with z 24-70 f/4 is 1000g and 2700$ The Lumix is 10mm greater diameter and 40mm longer! Additionally g9 body is larger than the z6. In terms of cost, weight and size it's all lost here with this combo, unfortunately.
This lens delivers results equivalent to a 20-50 f/3.5 on full frame. It's literally only slightly wider and a third of a stop faster than a full frame kit zoom, except with half the zoom range on the long end - and for 2000 bucks. If a piece of kit ever proved that MFT is based on marketing tricks to justify ridiculous overpricing, it's this lens.
You are wrong with light amount... it's 1.7 , not 3.5 3.5 on FF only in bokeh things, but aperture is 1.7 which is really good. Do you see many FF 20 mm/ 1.7 lenses? Canon EF 16-35мм f/2,8L costs even more than panasonic 10-25 /1.7 and have almost 2 times less light coming through it
@@UnluckyNewbie You're simply wrong. Full frame sensors are four times the size of MFT sensors, meaning at any given aperture a full frame setup gathers two stops more total light than an MFT setup. While f/1.7 will meter the same regardless of sensor size, a full frame f/1.7 will indeed be two stops better in low light. Here's an example to illustrate: We're in the same scene with the same light and taking the same photo. On your MFT setup you're getting ideal settings of 25mm, f/1.7, 1/250s, ISO 200. If I shot, on full frame, at 50mm, f/1.7, 1/250s, ISO 200 I'd get two stops shallower depth of field and two stops less noise. Since I'm aiming to duplicate the result you got I need to stop down. At 50mm, f/3.5, 1/250s, ISO 800 I'll get the exact same field of view, depth of field and noise as you at f/1.7 on MFT. There you go. An f/1.7 lens on MFT produces the same results in terms of depth of field and low light performance as an f/3.5 lens on full frame. This is why I'm saying that MFT glass is way overpriced. Once you actually want decent low light and subject isolation capabilities, you need two stops faster lenses on MFT than full frame for the same results. That universally results in the MFT option being the same size and weight as full frame glass, but at a significantly higher price.
@@youknowwho9247 you are wrong... Browse internet about light gathering. Why you think that iso 200 on ff is much better than iso 200 m43? There is no proofs about it at all. All depends diff cameras. My G9 iso 200 is better than iso 200 on A7 and less noisy... Iso 800 on FF having much more noise than m43 200.. i think you just dont know what you saying.
@@UnluckyNewbie This isn't a controversial topic. ISO 200 on MFT looks like ISO 800 on a full frame camera of the same generation. Even several generations back this advantage persists. Your G9 has significantly more noise at any given ISO than even the old, original A7, let alone the new mark III. This is a generally accepted fact among knowledgeable photographers. Here's actual measured data of SnR, in other words noise performance, of MFT vs full frame. As you can see, this scientific test conclusively finds that the MFT camera produces about four times more noise at the same ISO than full frame: www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7-III___1149_1236 There's also a side-by-side comparison tool on dpreview's page that further confirms these findings for everyone to check and see: www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcg9&attr13_1=nikon_d850&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=nikon_d500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=400&attr126_0=1&attr126_2=1&attr171_0=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.6634075496131776&y=0.8331858999334762 As you can see there, ISO 800 on the D850 and a7 III indeed shows the same noise as ISO 200 on the G9. The aps-c D500 is still one stop cleaner than the G9, showing the same level of noise at ISO 400. And, again, this isn't even worth debating. It's not controversial among photographers that full frame is two stops better in low light than MFT. Its pretty much general knowledge. You should educate yourself on these things before making nonsense statements.
Don’t forget, for anyone reading the comments, that using Ex. Teleconverter option in the menu system makes this lens even more flexible.
For example on my GH5S, shooting 1080p, I can get an extra 2.7x zoom reach. So essential this lens is a 10-121 f/1.7 but with a DoF with the teleconverter more around 2.8. Cheers!
I rented this lens last week to use for a portrait shoot as well as some general photography. The lens performed amazingly well with top notch image quality. Too bulky for street photography IMO. But that's not what it's for. I'll definitely be purchasing it for event and environmental portrait photography. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for sharing.
Great review and important info about the aperture click.
Thanks!
What are you doing here? ;-) haha.
Thank you. Great video and very informative as usual.
I wonder why Panasonic and Olympus don't make a lens like this with the zoom controllable from a camera body dial similar to the manual focus. ( sorry meant aperture dial )
It would be big but still smaller than the motorized video rigs.
Thanks - Im looking at this lens to go with the new Olympus OM1.
PS: the 28 cm close focus distance is from the sensor - so its pretty good for near macro.
Thanks. The min focus distance is always from the sensor, if there is no other mention.
@@mattisulanto that was my point because the lens is fairly long I think its 6cm focal distance from the subject according to another video
Great video! keep on the great work!
Thanks!
i wish there's a small version of this lens, with variable aperture maybe something like 10-30mm f2.8-f4 so that it can be practical for vlogging, that focal range is dream like ngl
12-60 f2.8-4 ?
@@Chilloveque i want it to start from 10mm : p
I think olympus has a 8-25 f4 in the works. Should be compact like the 12-45 f4.
@@iak706 i just heard about it a few days ago! Amazing stuff i cant wait to see it!
Hi Matti. I bought a G9 around a month ago after watching your reviews. I'm a Canon shooter so I have plenty of good Canon and Sigma glass. As I didn't have Lumix lenses I bought a Viltrox adaptor (versión 1, no glass only electronic connections (not speedbooster) so it's fully compatible with EFS and EF lenses. Just wanted to share that the adaptor provides near native glass speed and accuracy. I'm currently using a Canon 10-18 for wide angles (20-36mm on m43) (it's a great and cheap lens on Canon bodies and works amazingly well on the G9) as you don't really need wide apertures for landscape, and the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS gives me excelente results as a walk around option. The point is that Panasonic is following the path as the other companies in the mirrorless field, in which size of lenses is getting larger, very similar to DSLR, so using bigger lenses and adaptors on larger bodies as G9 works perfectly OK.
Adapted lenses make sense for somebody like you who uses two systems.
Why would you downgrade to MFT from APS-C? Staying with the native Canon system would give you better results, likely at a cheaper price.
@@youknowwho9247 may be cheaper but not a downgrade at all. Especially comparing a G9 to any Canon APS-C camera. I did the same thing. Still trying to sell my Canon glass, but its the best move I've made. I have other APS-C mirrorless. Pretty much any modern mirrorless will smoke a Canon APS-C.
@@Princeton_James Generally speaking, going down in sensor size is a downgrade. If one invest the same amount of money into aps-c or mft, the aps-c solution will always provide noticeably better image quality. In case of the G9 - it costs about as much as an X-T3, a6400 or M6 II. All three of those options are much better cameras than the G9.
@@youknowwho9247 I'm using a Caon APS-C (200D) too and I'm thinking of changing to M43. I shoot both videos and photos, but Canon has no reliable 4K options apart from the R5 or R6.
The EOS M has a 2.56 crop, EOS R has a 1.6 crop I think. With no autofocus. So at that point, I might as well buy M43 with the smaller lenses and much better weather sealing and autofocus.
Nearly nothing in the APS-C lineup is weather sealed. Body maybe but it's extremely rare for Canon APS-C lenses to be weather sealed.
Also, looking at noise comparisons between M43 and Sony APS-C, I think it's safe to say Panasonic M43 sensors are a bit better than low end Canon DSLR sensors.
I was looking at the XT-4, probably the best APS-C right now, but their lenses are waaaay too expensive. They cost roughly the same as EF L glass. (I don't use anything slower than F2.8 on APS-C). Comparing a full kit of lenses for XT-4 and the R6, the XT-4 is about 70% of the full-frame cost. So I'm going to invest in 2 systems gradually. M43 for my travel/food/product shoots and full frame when I really need the low light or bokeh.
Thanks for this review, Matti. You confirm my feelings: superb lens, but heavy and expensive. I love to travel light...
I'm selling my Olympus 7-14 2.8 for the same reasons. Especially after noticing I use it on its widest angle anyway.
So instead I use a 7.5mm f2 prime lens.
Thanks.
I will stick with my sling bag of small primes for my G85. Portability is king when bike riding. Nice video, thanks.
Thanks! Primes have their place, definitely.
Thank you so much, very useful video
Thanks!
Hi Matti totally agree with you about adaptors great review as always
Thanks for commenting.
I suggest you try Viltrox EF-M1 (no speed booster). It works excellent on my G9. Of course there's no focal reducer, but you can use EF and EFS lenses, and Canon offers the magnificent 10-18 for $250 (even cheaper second hand), and the Viltrox works efficiently even with third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Youngnuo).
Boris Pradel thanks but no thanks I only use native lenses I really don’t like using any form of adaptors
all i want now is a 10 - 50 1.7 and then im set for life
that'd be 2kg heavy haha
@@AiurMediaindeed, the closest thing is a FF 24-105, but missing 20-24 and gathering a bit less light
Looks amazing. Any idea if this works with Starry Sky Autofocus on the Olympus M1iii?
Thanks. I’m afraid I don’t know that.
Thank you! Perfect description
Thanks!
My dream lens
I'm considering this lens in combination with the (second hand) GH5, G9 or EM1-3, and I wonder about the focus behaviour in stills AND video mode, which lens and camera combination gives the least 'focus wobble' or 'pulsing' ? - I've not found this information yet, but I do know that the GH5 with the older firmware had a hard time focussing this lens in video.
I want to get a CPL (Kaeseman) with an ND (Firecrest superslim) stacked on top of that for this lens. At 10mm, will I get vignetting with 77mm filters or should I get the 82mm filters then step up to it?
I only have one 77mm variable ND filter and that does not cause vignetting at 10mm. If you want to stack filters I recommend you try first, if that is possible.
How significant is the 2mm difference at the wide end between the 10-25 and the 8-18? Trying to decide trade off between low light and wider. I have only budget for one at the moment and need to be using them equally indoors (video) as well as for landscapes (photos)
There is a distinctive difference between 8 and 10mm, but I can't say what it means for your photography. However I can say, that the 10-25 is really nice for video work and much better than the 8-18.
It depends on your own style. I have the Panasonic Leica 12-60, its very nice. However, I do often find I need to go a little wider than 12mm. I have just purchased, the Panasonic 8mm, it is good, and fills a gap. But sometimes doesn't have that sparkle you get from really high quality glass, I should have gone for the Olympus 8mm f/1.8. I have had a play with both the 10-25 and 8-18 in store, even there the 10-25 was amazing. For me, 1.7 would be great at the high end, less so on wide angle.
I can't afford this less now. But will save up, and wait rather than compromise.
The images look really good, something close to a prime.
I'd say the technical quality is very close to a prime.
Hi, Matti, Rewatching this video. My feeling is that this lens doesn't fit in with mft. I shoot mft because of the compact size, low weight and reasonable cost. Just my humble opinion. I'm staying with my primes. Great review. Thanks!
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I guess this lens shows, that there is no free lunch. What I mean is, that fast high quality glass is always relatively large regardless of the format.
That lens is everything I don't like to have. Thanks for other excellent reviue. 👍
Thanks for your comment.
Awesome t-shirt!
Thanks!
Hi, Thanks for the review. How do you thing this lens would do in astro photography on an Olympus body?
Thanks. I have not done any astrophotography on that lens, so I can’t really say. However, I don’t think it’s the worst lens for that😀
I've watched with the highest attention this video and understand the pro/cons. However, I'm wondering how a ND 5 stops NISI filter could be use with the hood since , from what I've seen on their website, there is a little metallic "pin" to rotate the filter..maybe that's removable ? Thans for your attention best regards
You need to remove the hood.
@@mattisulanto Thanks so much...the best and simpliest solution...take care and shoot nice photos for us
@@mattisulanto Hi, I wish you an happy Eastern. I've bought both the NISI filter and the 10-25 mm f1,7 ☺️ they arrived yesterday...May I ask you a question...since The GH5 and the 10-25 rae quite heavy, I will need a "table" tripod...any advice or experience with ? and Which kind of filter shoud I buy to protect the lens of the 10-25..Maybe I can send you a mail ?? Thankls anticipatively
@@christianlaurent5807 If you sign up fo my newsletter, you'll get my e-mail. So far I haven't shared it here. However, I have to say right away, that I can't give very extensive private tutorials or advice, because they would take all my time. But I can give some advice privately of course.
@@mattisulanto You're a very kind person, I did subscribed of course and I fully understand, I didn't really, really, wanted to pollute your amazing channel..I'll write to you sorry for the inconvenience..😌
Thanks for wise analysis .
Thanks!
@@mattisulanto Cheers for responding .
I take photos at night in city as well as in country trouble with low light but has been improved with olympus 40 to 150 mm 2.8. I am also at a distance from my subject I keep spending $$$ on lenses looking for the best fit have been looking at the olympus 75mm 1.8 but I'm wondering if that's the best I can do. Any suggestions??? Thank you for any help it is much appreciated.
The Zuiko 75mm F1.8 is the fastest medium telephoto for MFT. You could get better low light performance form another system, but you'd have to buy everything new.
the metabones is in a different class in my opinion, I tested against amazon 'commlite' which is similar to viltrox, and it was wayyy different. the metabones adapter is optically perfect and even uses the center of the sigma so it's sharper, but no waterproofing + bad focus is the downside
I just bought, it’s very good lens😊
Very good indeed.
on my gx8 its the best lens I ever field looks great feels great good balance i love it and i want it
hello, i had a nice experience with the gx9 using it with zuiko 300 mm f4. i know this sounds strange as the gx9 is not for wildlife. but i got nice results no issues at all with IS.
now i am considering the Leica 200 mm f2.8 as i need that extra stop for early morning birds.
but i will use it mainly with olympus.
first i would like to hear about this lens form you. as not much about it in the youtube.
and if possible how its ois works.
thanks
Right now I have no plans to review the 200mm F2.8, but I’m working on the 50-200mm F2.8-4 review and I think that can be useful for you regarding the stabilizer. However, I’ll be using Lumix cameras, of course.
Don't forget the 12-60 if you are OK with F4 and starting at 12mm - I take mine with the 7-14 most days a;though like others sometimes the 8-18 only is good enough
Sure we can consider any zoom as an option, but the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 is pretty far already to be a real option, because it is so much slower and has a variable max aperture. Just my opinion, of course.
Can you compare 10-25 1,7 with Oly 17/1,2 ?
Thank you..
Maybe in the future.
Thank You,
Very., god. tips for me..
Thanks.
Definitely a unique range and aperture size. But if one can accept 24mm equivalent instead of 20mm at the wide end, and a stop slower at the tele end. The lens in the LX100 II is cheaper, lighter, smaller, and it comes with a free camera body :-)
That's quite a few ifs there and the LX100 lens can only be used on the LX100, but an interesting thought anyway😀
for me personnaly I would prefer a 10-35 mm f 2.8 as 25 mm is too short for my kind of photography. Also f 1.7 is certainly nice, but it makes the lens a bit heavy, bulky and expensive for mft. But of course it all depends what other lenses you have. My only Leica/ Panasonic lens is the 8-18 f2.8 -f4, all the other lenses I own are from Olympus and Sigma.
Rom Meyer Ex. Teleconverter and you have it. Cheers
How much more of a crop does your g9 has in 4k 30 than the two times crop already.
There is no crop, it uses the full sensor width. Mine doesn't have any 2x crop either, I don't know what that is. Unless you mean the teleconverter mode, it uses the actual pixels and it's really handy if you need more reach then your current lens can do.
@@mattisulantoOh ok. I know with micro 4/3, say the 25mm f1.7 would be the equalivant to a 50mm on a full frame camera. I thought the g9 cropped in slightly in 4k30. I have two g85's I know they crop in when I use 4k30.
Ok, that crop. G9 does not have any crop from MFT in 4k video, it's different from other G series cameras.
@@Began2011 i know this is very late but the GH5, GH5S, G9 don't have 4K crop. Even at 60 fps.
@@thatsreallyamoon 👍🏼
is it parfocal?
I'm not sure if it's optically parfocal, but it keeps the focusing distance through the zoom range.
I want, I want!
Would this be too heavy for the Pen-F?
I don't have the Pen F, so I can't say. However, the Pen F is not the smallest camera and I think this combination could work. Besides, this is also a matter of taste. But, it would be best if you could try it for yourself before buying.
Hope that lens will come as a kit lens for a new Panasonic camera.
Would be awesome!
If you're looking for a kit lens with the same performance, you'd have to go full frame. Most cameras there come with a 24-105mm f/4 kit, which is equivalent in results to a 12-52.5mm f/2 on MFT.
@@youknowwho9247 All of my cameras, also mFT cameras are FullFrame. They all cover the hole frame.
@@youknowwho9247 No, an /4.0 lens is a /4.0 lens, it don't change the aperture when changing to another body.
You will still need light as a /4.0.
@@protestagain That's correct in physical terms, but not in regard to the results the lens produces. An image taken at f/4 on full frame will look exactly like an image taken at f/2 on MFT, given identical field of view, shutter speed and resolution.
Example
Let's assume a hypothetical scene that calls for the following settings on MFT: 25mm, f/2, 1/60s, ISO 200.
Assuming I had, in that same scene, a full frame that only opens up to f/4, I'd get the following settings on full frame: 50mm, f/4, 1/60s, ISO 800.
Those two images would look identical in terms of field of view, motion blur, depth of field and noise. In other words the f/4 on full frame behaved exactly like the f/2 on MFT.
Which was my original point. This Leica lens on MFT does exactly what a 20-50mm f/3.5 would do on full frame. It's got the optical performance of a kit lens with half the zoom range for four times the money.
Excellent review. I like the side-bit about setting the lens to 'A' and using a camera knob to set the aperture. Not always an obvious work-around.
I got to play with this lens briefly and ALMOST bought it right there on the spot it was that good. I have the 42.5 Nocticron and this lens felt like a wide-zoom version of it. Stunning image quality and weight! It actually dwarfs my Nocticron in size. And that's already a big lens.
This is pretty much a dream lens for me. Being able to shoot indoors without a flash at better than 6400 ISO and reasonably fast shutter speed would be amazing. Being able to do video equally well and, this lens is a bargain.
Thanks for your comment.
I use a Lumix 12-35 2.8 and I like the wide end plus I get a bit of telephoto on the long end......Oh and it's smaller and cheaper....
Thanks for your comment.
@4u2seevideos I'd love to see comparisons of BOKEH...
@4u2seevideos at 35mm f2.8 the bokeh would be similar to 25mm f1.7. Basically big expensive wider faster lens VS. Smaller cheaper longer slower lens.
Thank you Matti! I do not agree with you. If (when....) I buy this lens I am not only going to use it on my GH5, but of course also on my Lumix GM1! Why? As Doctor Phil says, "Because I can". I can hear the questions with the GM1. What is that!!! Oh, BTW. Did I say that I am in love with the GM1....
Thanks! By all means, mount it on your GM1. Or should I say mount your GM1 on the lens😀 The GM1 is a great camera.
@@mattisulanto LOL When the time comes, I will mount the GM1 to the lens!
also my use: I own the G9 and two GX80. Most time I mounted the lenses (max. the 50-200 mm) on one of the GX80 with Grip.With two GX80 no changing lenses necessary. The G9 is for special works or rainy days :-)
@@mattisulanto I have the GM1 and GM5. I have mounted it with several funny combinations with Metabones Speedbooster, as Nikkor AIS 300/2.8 ED and many more.
@@rudolfabelin383 When it's possible, then it's just an opportunity to try it.
Thanks!!
Thank you!
@@mattisulanto 👍👍
Great t-shirt!
Thanks!
Yes, yes it is the best zoom lens ever. I ended up selling it, but it's still one of the best lenses ever created.
Why did you sell it?
@@advancedmicrosystems4658 Because I picked it up at a stupendous prices through my employer's partnership with Panasonic and I needed money to buy my dream lens: the Panasonic-Leica 200 f/2.8 + both TCs :). Simply put, while the PL 10-25 f/1.7 is one of the best zoom lenses ever created, I can kind approximate it with primes and the PL 8-18. There is nothing that gets close to the PL 200 f/2.8 for m4/3.
Why Sigma doesn't make a 18-35 1.8 to M43? Why? Whyyyyy?!!!
There can be many reasons, but maybe they don't feel its size and weight fully support the MFT. Also the focusing system is optimized for a DSLR, after all. But, I'm only guessing.
Why would sigma start to invest in a dying system?
For me: the better choice ist the Leica 8-18 mm and the 12 - 60 mm for the same price.
You get more reach with those two and they both are great lenses.
I need the brightness, because I'm often searching for the aurealis borealis. Sometimes you just have to stop the car and run for the moment, without a tripod. Maybe its freezing cold out there, with minus 40 degrees, and then you might do it as fast you can.
No, you don't get dew on the camera and the lens if you keep your stuff in the trunk, and just the batteryes in the warm.
If I use a tripod, then I will use my 4X5" camera. My dream is to catch the aurealis borealis with black and white film. No, a digishot isn't the same.
Who needs 1.7 on wide angle?!
Its better to buy panasonic s1 than this combo
It really depends on what you do and if you already have MFT cameras. DPReview had a very good article about this, please check it out.
@@mattisulanto Could you share a link to the article?
Looks like a fabulous lens, unfortunately too much for my needs and bank account.
It is a nice lens. You can always get one, if your needs or bank account get bigger😀
Comparatively, this lens doesn't make much sense except it offers a wider than usual zoom. I often never compare to full frame, but this combo is sadly not up to par when compared to a Nikon z6.
Panasonic g9 with Lumix 10-25 f/2.8 is 1350g together and roughly 2800$
Nikon z6 with z 24-70 f/4 is 1000g and 2700$
The Lumix is 10mm greater diameter and 40mm longer! Additionally g9 body is larger than the z6. In terms of cost, weight and size it's all lost here with this combo, unfortunately.
Good point, but if you already have a MFT system and you need a good video lens, this makes sense.
This lens delivers results equivalent to a 20-50 f/3.5 on full frame. It's literally only slightly wider and a third of a stop faster than a full frame kit zoom, except with half the zoom range on the long end - and for 2000 bucks.
If a piece of kit ever proved that MFT is based on marketing tricks to justify ridiculous overpricing, it's this lens.
You are wrong with light amount... it's 1.7 , not 3.5
3.5 on FF only in bokeh things, but aperture is 1.7 which is really good.
Do you see many FF 20 mm/ 1.7 lenses? Canon EF 16-35мм f/2,8L costs even more than panasonic 10-25 /1.7 and have almost 2 times less light coming through it
@@UnluckyNewbie You're simply wrong. Full frame sensors are four times the size of MFT sensors, meaning at any given aperture a full frame setup gathers two stops more total light than an MFT setup. While f/1.7 will meter the same regardless of sensor size, a full frame f/1.7 will indeed be two stops better in low light.
Here's an example to illustrate: We're in the same scene with the same light and taking the same photo. On your MFT setup you're getting ideal settings of 25mm, f/1.7, 1/250s, ISO 200. If I shot, on full frame, at 50mm, f/1.7, 1/250s, ISO 200 I'd get two stops shallower depth of field and two stops less noise. Since I'm aiming to duplicate the result you got I need to stop down. At 50mm, f/3.5, 1/250s, ISO 800 I'll get the exact same field of view, depth of field and noise as you at f/1.7 on MFT.
There you go. An f/1.7 lens on MFT produces the same results in terms of depth of field and low light performance as an f/3.5 lens on full frame.
This is why I'm saying that MFT glass is way overpriced. Once you actually want decent low light and subject isolation capabilities, you need two stops faster lenses on MFT than full frame for the same results. That universally results in the MFT option being the same size and weight as full frame glass, but at a significantly higher price.
@@youknowwho9247 you are wrong... Browse internet about light gathering. Why you think that iso 200 on ff is much better than iso 200 m43? There is no proofs about it at all. All depends diff cameras. My G9 iso 200 is better than iso 200 on A7 and less noisy... Iso 800 on FF having much more noise than m43 200.. i think you just dont know what you saying.
@@UnluckyNewbie This isn't a controversial topic. ISO 200 on MFT looks like ISO 800 on a full frame camera of the same generation. Even several generations back this advantage persists. Your G9 has significantly more noise at any given ISO than even the old, original A7, let alone the new mark III. This is a generally accepted fact among knowledgeable photographers.
Here's actual measured data of SnR, in other words noise performance, of MFT vs full frame. As you can see, this scientific test conclusively finds that the MFT camera produces about four times more noise at the same ISO than full frame:
www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7-III___1149_1236
There's also a side-by-side comparison tool on dpreview's page that further confirms these findings for everyone to check and see:
www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcg9&attr13_1=nikon_d850&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=nikon_d500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=400&attr126_0=1&attr126_2=1&attr171_0=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.6634075496131776&y=0.8331858999334762
As you can see there, ISO 800 on the D850 and a7 III indeed shows the same noise as ISO 200 on the G9. The aps-c D500 is still one stop cleaner than the G9, showing the same level of noise at ISO 400.
And, again, this isn't even worth debating. It's not controversial among photographers that full frame is two stops better in low light than MFT. Its pretty much general knowledge. You should educate yourself on these things before making nonsense statements.
This is a Leica not a Lumix brand!!
Cristi Gandulescu it says Leica and lumix both on the lens