Panny Leica 45 f/2.8 review up....

[Diane B]

on dpreview.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_45_2p8_o20/

I've been hedging on this one. I'm not a macro shooter too often and not sure if the lens suits my needs otherwise. I'd love to have something in a fast 40-45. The review is interesting nonetheless.

Diane

 

[kevinparis]

the pricing seems to be utterly outrageous ( 900 dollars) for what it is and the bodies it can be used on.

It reads to me like it is a bastard child of some long forgotten alternative universe where Leica were going to do a micro four thirds camera

as far as i can see its only real advantage is size - other wise if you want a macro in that region seems like the Zuiko 50 is the way to go

just my thoughts

K

 

[Terry]

Kevin,
I've been trying to figure what to do for macro for a year now. The Zuiko 50 may seem obvious to you but it

a)doesn't AF on Panny
b) AF is awful on 4/3 and even worse on the E-P1

So, last October when I got the G1 I considered the 50 and held off, then again I thought about it when the Pen was released and by that time this lens was announced. I thought the samples so far looked pretty good and will probably get it.

 

[JBurnett]

Not really compelling at that price. There are much cheaper alternatives for macro in that range, and it seems to fall a bit short on the "portrait" duty. I agree with Diane -- while there are many great options for fast manual lenses in this range, a fast "native m4/3" 40-45mm would be welcome (auto-focus, stabilization, f/1.4 - 2).

 

[Vivek]

the pricing seems to be utterly outrageous ( 900 dollars) for what it is and the bodies it can be used on.

It reads to me like it is a bastard child of some long forgotten alternative universe where Leica were going to do a micro four thirds camera

as far as i can see its only real advantage is size - other wise if you want a macro in that region seems like the Zuiko 50 is the way to go

just my thoughts

K

I am perfectly happy with my (real) pen F Zuiko Macro 38/3.5 and that is going stay. It is tiny and performs beautifully.

The two lens examples (sites) that were linked so far are negative adverts for this overpriced lens.

 

[monza]

I can vouch for the 38/3.5 Pen F. After trying all the Pen lenses it's the only one I kept, and the others were pretty much all excellent.

 

[jonoslack]

Hmmm. well, I took the 14-140 back, and I was going to get this with the proceeds, but it seems I'd be better to stick with the old Zuiko 50 and do something else with the proceeds . . . thoughts turn to that 85 f1.4 zeiss that I keep not quite buying

 

[ecsh]

Pretty disapointing all the way around, especially with the price point Panasonic has put on this lens. If it was a 4-500 lens, it may have been a different story, but, i pass on this one.

 

[scho]

Perhaps they should have kept Leica out of this one. If nothing more it would have a lower price. The "Pure" Panasonic brand 14-45, 45-200, and the more recent 20 are all stellar performers.

 

[jsnack]

I predict extremely low sales on this lens...way too much money. The upside is that if no one buys it they may come to their senses and drop the price.

 

[Howard]

I cannot add too much to what others have already written. $900 for a lens with a dpreview review in which they had too stretch and call barely highly recommended. An adapter is needed with my m4/3 G1. Panny hit a home run with the 20 1.7 and it appears as if they missed the mark the 45 2.8.

 

[wolverine]

I am sorry if I offend but anything published by dpreview gets my take it with a grain of salt concern. When I read that they were going to start reviewing lenses my first reaction was, and they do this based on what expertise? :wtf: For me, even their camera reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt. I think I will wait and see what actually develops and see what real world output looks like before passing judgment. In the mean time my trusty Nikon 60mm afd works wonders for macro on the G1. :sleep006:

 

[Diane B]

I cannot add too much to what others have already written. $900 for a lens with a dpreview review in which they had too stretch and call barely highly recommended. An adapter is needed with my m4/3 G1. Panny hit a home run with the 20 1.7 and it appears as if they missed the mark the 45 2.8.

There might be a misunderstanding. The Oly 50 f/2 macro needs an adaptor, but the 45 f/2.8 is a 'native' m4/3rds mount.

It isn't even the price for it but whether there's the need. Reading Andy Westlake's comments, it appears that it is a very good macro lens and some would be interested in that--but for many of us, the preference would be for a non-macro faster native lens in that range. I, for one, will stick with my MF lenses for now and wait to see what else will come in the next year since macro really isn't my interest..

 

[henningw]

As a macro lens this seems overpriced and for that underperforming. I have a last version 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor and an MF 200/4 Micro Nikkor, with the latter working wonderfully on the G1. For higher mags and super quality I have some Leica M bellows and a range of Photars that can't be beat. I've had the 200/4 since it came out, but the others items I've bought in total for a lot less than the 45/2.8 costs.

Now a nice 45 or 50/2 or 1.4 portrait lens with IS would be tempting...

 

[barjohn]

I too was disapointed in the lenses performance. I guess the Lieca name on it doesn't guarantee stellar performance only stellar price. I was really considering this lens but now I will pass. The X1 better have some stellar glass at its stellar price.

 

[pellicle]

the pricing seems to be utterly outrageous ( 900 dollars) for what it is and the bodies it can be used on.

err ... like any of the Leica M lenses could have been used on much else before the m4/3 came along either ... seen their prices lately?

 

[pellicle]

Hi

perhaps I'm reading about a different lens ...

An adapter is needed with my m4/3 G1.

and why would that be?

perhaps also everyone has missed some points:

The first thing you'll notice on picking up the 45mm F2.8 macro is just how tiny it is. The lens is little bigger than Panasonic's 14-45mm kit zoom, remarkable for a 1:1 macro with image stabilization

when I try to use my Oly 50mm I am typically in low light where needing a tripod for macro is often required ... this lens would allow more in close than this:

as I didn't have any extension tubes and I doubt I could have hand held it more if I'd needed to be stopped down more.

Since it focuses to 1:1 it thus needs to move that element a long way to go from infinity to 1:1 ... or don't people know that?

also, a comparable lens might be a Canon EF 100 Macro with IS, selling for about US$1000 at B&H
... at 625g (vs 225g for the Leica / Panny) I think I know which one I'd prefer to use

 

[monza]

I'd like to see another review besides dpreview before coming to any conclusion on this lens.

 

[ecsh]

The other thing which he stated in the review is how the stabilization unit seemed to really rattle around in the lens. I have tested my 45-200, and i can barely feel or hear this in the lens. If i did not know this about this lens, i would have never felt this. DP makes it sound likes its ready to fall out of the back of the lens.

 

[jonoslack]

I'd like to see another review besides dpreview before coming to any conclusion on this lens.

HI There
I quite agree - my gut reaction is negative, but me second thought is just that.

Actually, much better, I'd like to take some shots with one before coming to a conclusion.

Previous panaleica lenses have all been pretty well received, I'd be surprise if this was not a winner.

In the UK (warehouseexpress prices) the Olympus 50 f2 is £446, and the panaleica 45 f2.8 is £589 sure, it's a difference, but not that much difference (and it has IS and fast focusing and 1:1).

Size?
Olympus 50 f2: 300gm 71mm x 61.5mm (£446) (weathersealed)
PanaLeica 50 f2.8: 225 gm 63mm x 62.5mm (£589)
Olympus 35 f3.5 165 gm 71mm x 53mm (£197)