It is my favorite MFT lens by a wide margin. It has a superb rendering. To me better than the 17mm f1.2 pro and 45mm f1.2 pro. I have an 8 x 10” large format camera, the look of my B&W 20 x 25 cm prints from the 25 f1.2 pro reminds me the look of the contact prints I do from the 8 x 10” negatives taken with my Schneider 355mm G Claron lens. I would say the 25 f1.2 is a very analog lens instead of a digital ultra sharp lens.

Just a note about using these lenses on Lumix cameras: 1) In case the autofocus doesn't work, check the clutch ring before returning it. 2) The manual focus using the clutch in the lens doesn't open the focus magnification - something that I particularly like. When setting the Lumix to autofocus the magnification gets enabled. Obs: all this based on the 17mm f1.8 I bought recently.

I love using this lens on my EM1 Mark III!!

I have the 45mm and17mm from the same range, and together they are almost all I need for very high quality work. I shoot a lot of gigs in very low light, and these give great action shots with subtle artistic flair. I don’t think I need the 25mm (to complete the set) because the 17 is so good, I can crop-down the images and still find great detail and subtlety in the results .

I bought it for cheap so I don't know. The bokeh is beautiful but you need to get good distance between your subject and your background ( it's only 50mm f2.4/f2.5 equivalent). The 45mm f1.2 is defintely better for portrait both for perspective and amount of blur. Sharpness is very weak wide open (this can be see seen as a drawback or a benefit), but get much better at f1.4, and the size of the lens is huge for a 50mm f2.4 equivalent. So why buying a lens that is not very sharp wide open and pretty big for the equivalent full frame aperture ? Because the rendering is special, microcontrast is high even wide open despite the softness, giving some depth to the pictures. I recently bought the 25-50mm ans it also has high microcontrast and in my opinion better colors, this lens is more versatile and very sharp, so I struggle to use my 25mm Pro now, but to be honest each time I use it, I really like the output !

Love your channel Bart, and the comments by your subscribers 👍 Subbed 👍

Nice review. I have the PL 25/1,4 and the Olympus 25/1,8. Always use the Olympus!

This lens seems like a Nocticron with a more useful focal length - the percect prime!

I hardly ever use my 25mm pro because for me it‘s usually too big and heavy. I prefer the PanaLeica 25mm. But I‘m not good at pixelpeeping and many say the Olympus is better. I even bought the 12-45 f4 because I rarely liked to use the 12-40. That‘s different if I use these lenses for commissioned work. After watching your video I‘ll give the lens another go for daily photography. Veel success met de KZfaq-kanal. (Sorry I never learned to *write* dutch).

What's your opinion about using protective filters. Mr. Verhoef? Thanks! (i always use them because I can't afford to have the lenses damaged - they are expensive here in Brazil)

50mm the best and only focal length for life

Anyone try this for indoor sports?

Nah. You would buy 20mm f1.4 instead 😉 40mm is the new nifty fifty

25mm 1.2 sounds fancy until u remember it's micro 4/3

Used Oly for a while but micro 4/3 is just not worth it. A disaster in low light especially if you live in a country where winter is long. Found Oly build quality not up to scratch, too many moving parts and flimsy metal. Bought a Fuji and the difference is night and day in every single aspect. Don`t waste your money, 4/3 is not worth it.