Verdict is out ----
Verdict is out ----
The accompanying text seems to imply the latter (though the true meaning might be masked by Google's inept translation):We must also say in his defense that, by mounting the camera on a tripod for static macros, use the manual approach and aided by the loupe feature that magnifies the image on the screen, the results are accurate and comparable to any SLR.And, although the lens appears to be impressively well-constructed (as one would expect from Leica), it dwarfs the GF1 (and would be equally huge on a G1). If one is going to be working on a tripod anyway, an APS-C or full-frame DSLR will deliver superior results at the cost of not a lot more bulk. Which, I guess, is what you mean by your reference to sensor size.
Image stabilization is always appreciated, and more on a goal like this. The tripod is the best ally of sharpness in macro photography, but if we are shooting handheld, the stabilizer is always welcome. Precisely for these images to pulse, the external electronic viewfinder-and optionally the GF1 is helpful because it allows us to enjoy greater support and thus prevent the occurrence of tremors in the picture. The macro picture framing with the LCD is, except that we work with a tripod-very complicated.
The reality is that myself (and likely others) are just asking for/expecting too much. It is what it is...
I am willing to bet the lackluster images in the review were either not properly captured or not properly processed... ANy way you slice it, I want one of those lenses
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
This is good news! Maybe it really will be available in November. I've pre-ordered it. It will be a good companion to the 20mm f/1.7.
You could put the 20mm in one pocket (winter coat, not pants), the 45mm in another and the 14-140mm on the camera. Pretty lightweight kit. With airline handheld travel/luggage restrictions, it's hard to carry the comparable Nikon gear along with a laptop and have any room for other stuff.
Looking forward to seeing more about this lens.
It is on my list as well.....come to think of it what hasn't been on my list??
I'm looking forward to finally having a macro lens as well.
Well, using this with the E-P1 - I don't need OIS but was looking forward to Leica quality... unfortunately, these images don't do the lens justice - noisy and poor imho.
Has anyone seen any place but Amazon taking preorders for the 45 f/2.8? I've wavered on this but now believe, esp. with the 20, that this would suit my shooting a good bit of the time.
Diane J&R has it as well.
Given the good vibes everyone has has with Samy's coupled with the fact that they seem to be getting gear rather quickly, you could also give them a try.
Got the lens today... Santa came early I guess.
This lens is simply outstanding. Superb portrait lens, incredible macros.
That's what I'm gathering. The GF1 with this (or the 14-45mm)and the 20mm make for a good walk around kit. Almost like a poorer man's "Leica M-lite" but smaller with AF.
Here's another shot.
Last edited by iiiNelson; 21st December 2009 at 20:12.
Thanks. I'm gonna try sticking to this an the 20mm for Christmas photos during house hopping but I will take the 14-45mm just in case.
I also bought this lens a couple of weeks ago, it is a high quality lens with images that approach the "Leica look", however the 14-45 also delivers very nice images at 45 mm, not too different from the 45 2.8.
I see many comments about the cost of the 45 2.8, what is the cost of the least expensive Leica lens ?
The real question on price comparison should be between the 45mm and the 14-45mm. Is the 45mm $600 better? The size of the two lenses is comparable, so that's not an issue. Sure the 14-45mm is slower, but for most situations it's probably adequate, and it offers the advantage of the wider range. The 45mm is expensive because it's a macro lens. I'm guessing another fast-ish prime when Pana hopefully comes out with one would be less expensive than the 45mm macro.
Personally when traveling light I'd take either my GH1 w/ 14-140 + 20mm (once I get it), or if traveling super-light, my wife's G1 w/ 14-45 + 20mm.
Well, my regular GF1 or G1 travel kit would be this:
7-14, 14-140, 20mm, 45mm
With this kit I get everything I need and the 45 macro gives me a faster lens for portraits and macro.
This kit very easily fits (along with mobile phone wallet etc) in a small bag or my North Face waist pack that also has a (detachable) shoulder strap.
After a bit of personal debate I bought the 45mm F2.8 lens. I was picking-up a couple of things yesterday and low and behold the camera store I deal with had two copies - now one. It is pricey but well built and I love the lenshood. Considering the fact it is a 1:1 macro lens I am impressed with how fast it focuses on the GF1.
I haven't yet spent a lot of time with it to this point - but price aside what I have seen so far makes this a must have lens for m4/3. I have feeling it won't becoming off the camera anytime soon.
I was just a little buffaloed by the dpreview - review of the lens and that slowed me down purchase wise - my advice is take that review with a grain of salt.
On another topic - if you are using Lightroom consider buying the XRITE ColorChecker Passport - best 100$ I have spent - or your could ask Santa to consider it as a Christmas gift. This will help your RAW results with LR...
Merry Christmas and or Happy Holidays to all.
I was told by XRite that the profiler does not work in Lightroom 3 beta yet. They told me to make a DNG, run it through the standalone profiler and then bring it into LR3. I can make the profile, but can't get it into LR no matter what I do. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.
I shoot the target (tight on the color chart) - then do an export out of LR 2.6 using ColorChecker passport - at that point it asks for a profile name and within 30 secords or so it reports that it succeeded in making a profile and Bob's your uncle. Seems to work flawlessly and I like the results created for the GF1
Happy Holidays and best regards, Terry.
Cindy and Terry,
when you take a shot of the color chart the simple way to make a profile in LR2 is to export and click on the bar in the dialgoue box and it will automatically make the profile. This automatic bit did not work for the G cameras (it did work for my other cameras)when it first came out. I wrote to Xrite and then sent them a sample at their request, but I never heard back after that. There was a way to get it to work but I believe you had to export as a different file type. My question: is this still the only way to do it?
I have not used LR since version 1. I have been a C1 fan. I just downloaded LR3 beta after you suggested it, Terry. I really like using it again (and will purchase it), but the Passport would not work. I wrote XRite and they said that the Beta3 does not work with the Passport yet and suggested the work-around. The thing that they did not explain to me, was how to get the profile back into LR3 after it was made in the external software. I have written back and asked for clarification, but so far have not received it. I'll post when I do, unless someone here knows the answer.
I load the target image; chose export, export gives me several choices including ColorCheck Passport which is my choice; a dialog pops-up asking me to name the profile; from there on it automatically creates the profile and puts it in place for Lightroom to see it. I restart LR and the new profile is available. Beyond that you can simply chose Export work through the various options.
Best regards, Terry.
OK I will go back and try again with LR 2.6. I hadn't tried it with Version 2.6 but for sure the automatic export function did not work with the Panasonic cameras in late September so perhaps somethig changed in LR to allow for this. I know early on a few of us had the same problem and X-rite did ackowledge it in my emails. I would say user error on my part but at that time other cameras were working perfectly using the exact same key strokes.
Last edited by Terry; 22nd December 2009 at 09:42.
45mm with OIS (2), 1/250 & 1/500 at f4. Subjects are about the size of medium-to-small blueberries. Trying to handhold, the berries were going in and out of focus like the after-effects of a large amount of Irish whiskey!
Earlier in the year -- Oly 35mm, 1/40 at f5.6. A sharper shot, but I had something to lean my body and arm against.
Mea culpa for all of them -- both my tripod and my monopod were sitting at home. Doh!
More on the color checker....we now have a forum member from X-Rite...
If the quality of your photograph isn't worth the money to you, be happy and stick with what you have. :-)
The 14-45 is a fine lens, however I used it so infrequently I sold it. Haven't got the ME45 yet, for the moment I'm content with my Konica 40/1.8, but I'll get the 45 as soon as I can sensibly do it.
Yes AF works but like mentioned it's nowhere as good or fast as the standard lenses. The shot of the camera case was handheld about 6 inches above the case at an angle (it took me 2 tries to get it right.) It was probably the first time I shot a Macro in probably 3 or 4 yrs and obviously on a different system. The macro shot of the 20mm lens in my gallery was taken on my kitchen counter. The only post processing done was changing the WB to flourescent light. Everything else is 100% out the camera and pretty damn close to accurate if you ask me.
Some comparisons, 45 f2.8 and 14-45 at 45mm f5.6, no processing, only conversion to Jpeg in Cap1 V5
No 1 PL45 f2.8
No 2 P14-45
No 3 P14-45
No 4 PL45 f2.8
No 5 PL45 f2.8
No 6 P14-45
Last edited by Peter Leyenaar; 22nd January 2013 at 15:26.
Same set, Some processing applied
Last edited by Peter Leyenaar; 22nd January 2013 at 15:26.
Interesting comparison, thank you!
It looks like the PL 45mm is slightly longer in all the shots.
When I first read the reviews of the 45mm, I thought "underwhelming at that price". After seeing some samples wide open, I began to reconsider, based on my photographic interests and working habits. Eventually, I ponied up the cash and purchased one.
One can certainly find a less-expensive macro lens that equals its performance. One can certainly find a less-expensive portrait alternative, although the fast ones are all manual-focus, and I would stop most down 1 or 2 stops anyway (f/2 or 2.8) for better sharpness and contrast. For general walkabout and travel, the 14-45 or 45-200 do very well indeed at 45mm, though they are slower (f/5.6 and f/4 respectively).
For me, the appeal of the 45mm is
- 45mm (90 equivalent): the 70-90mm range is one of my favourites for general walkabout, and for portraits. And for macro it provides a reasonably good working distance.
- 1:1 macro: I really like having closeup capability at hand at all times. I missed this when working with a Leica-mount 40mm and sometimes ended up packing two lenses (the 40 and Oly 35 Macro) instead of one.
- Auto-focus: I'm no stranger to MF and the G1 makes it easy, but there are certain situations in which AF is desirable.
- Acceptable speed: A bit of a compromise here, but one I'll live with. I still have a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 which is quite good at f/2. To do better than f/2, I think there would be other compromises. For example, the wider the aperture, the more I tend to lean on "focus assist" to get critical focus.
- Reasonably good bokeh: Not stellar, but quite nice.
- Very small and light package. Doesn't extend to a great length when macro focusing.
- A single solution for a variety of tasks.
Expensive. Yes, enough to cause me to go back and forth on the decision several times. Nonetheless, the 45mm offers a blend of capabailities that are unique (right now) and of value to me. As always, YMMV.