I have compared some lenses on the GH-2. I wouldn't dare to call this a test
, but it should give an indication on sharpness. I hope to compare bokeh and flare later. Please feel free to share your experiences. Not all my sample phots are uploaded yet, but some can be found at:http://flyalf.wordpress.com/category/photo-talk/leica-versus-pana-on-gh-2/
And here is my first experiences:
As the Leica and Leitz M lenses can be used with by an adapter on my Panasonic GH-2 I wanted to compare. A good background article can be found at:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica_m9_second_body_alterantives.shtml
Handling and usability:
In general the M lenses are surprisingly easy to focus manual on GH-2 on largest aperture
- Leitz 18/4: Difficult, couldn’t recommend it.
- Leica 28/2,8: Easy, recommended
- leica 50/2: Very easy, recommended
- Leica 90/4: very easy, recommended
Comparing photos taken these lenses on the GH-2 and compared to the Pana 14-140 and 20/1,7 ASPH.
The setup was done on a moderately stable tripod set on concrete, with an el-cheapo Hong-Kong adater, with manual focus and exposure, on RAW and imported in LR3.4. In lightroom all setting were put to neutral and all synchronized with same color balance, and 100% crops were taken from corners and centers. The files were exported without sharpening.
The first part of my “test” was done in cloudy low-contrast light to compare among other sharpness. Please note there are other equally important parameters that have not yet been “tested” by me, such as bokeh, flare, etc… Also the sharpness has not yet been tested in high contrast light.My main learning is that the Panasonic lenses impresses on the GH-2! The 20/1,7 are as good or better combo with the GH-2 as the Leitz 18/4 looking upon sharpness in corners.
The Pana 14-140 set on 48mm was approximately as sharp on full aperture (but being only a modest 5,5,) as the Leica 50/2 on f/2.
And on f/8 the Leica 50/2 might be a bit sharper, but its of little or no practical value. On f/16 both are a bit softer due to diffraction, but again little impact in real life photograph.
Comparing the Leica Macro 90/4 to Pana 14-140 set at 99mm (sorry) I must say that the Leica is sharper at full aperture f/4 than the Pana at f/5,8. At f/8 the Leica is also noticeable sharper. But this is comparing a fixed to zoom, so the Pana actually impresses me.