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

[Terry]

I'm with Jono here and still plan to order this lens. I think people have overreacted. One of the great things for me between the Panny bodies and these lenses is to be able to AF with a very small AF point (remember you can make the focus box very small) and move that point.

There is a lot of noise and negativity on DPReview as well. Here is a post from Andy Westlake the reviewer:

"OK this is getting a bit silly now. The 45/2.8 isn't mediocre optically - it may not be sharpest in class but it's far from the worst we've seen, and it has no distortion, minimal CA, insignficant vignetting and really pleasant bokeh. There's a lot more to a lens than just sharpness.
Anyway I'm willing to be refuted on this, so here's a challenge. There are 30 full res samples in the gallery, and probably another 5 linked in the review text. Please tell me which of these are limited by the lens's optical mediocrity, and how. Thanks."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33440226

 

[jonoslack]

There is a lot of noise and negativity on DPReview as well. Here is a post from Andy Westlake the reviewer:

Thanks for the link Terry; it's lovely to see one of the dpreview reviewers actually chipping in positively and not simply making sarcastic remarks.

If it really has lovely bokeh, and fast autofocus, and it's tiny, then that's three things it's got over the 50 f2.

I'll keep my order on, and see what comes of it.

 

[Brian Mosley]

I trust Andy Westlake's judgement, but was hoping to see more examples of portraits - I would have sold my 50mm f2 for the Leica 45mm f2.8 if it had been typical Leica quality... it looks like that won't be necessary - at least not until Jono starts posting Leica samples

Cheers

Brian

 

[jonoslack]

I trust Andy Westlake's judgement, but was hoping to see more examples of portraits - I would have sold my 50mm f2 for the Leica 45mm f2.8 if it had been typical Leica quality... it looks like that won't be necessary - at least not until Jono starts posting Leica samples

Cheers

Brian

I've just spent half an hour looking through Andy's samples. I think they look rather lovely - really nice bokeh, crisp and 3d.

I'll work on it

 

[Vivek]

"There are 30 full res samples in the gallery, and probably another 5 linked in the review text. Please tell me which of these are limited by the lens's optical mediocrity, and how. Thanks."

Why would he "review" it and try to defend it with the samples he showed?

Shooting a portrait under the light he did @ ISO800 and the way he processed it to show a sample with quarter of the frame badly smudged...

Why can't these folks learn to do make photos before reviewing a new photography product?

 

[kevinparis]

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?

even leica tend to generally price their lenses lower than the cost of the body

 

[kevinparis]

Hi

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

are we all on the same page here... your photo isn't a macro photo... unless that is a incredibly small flower

the oly 50mm we are referencing here is the Zuiko D 50/2 not the old OM zuiko 50... which i am sure would still focus closer than your picture

think there are crossed wires here

K

 

[Brian Mosley]

That shot reminds me of this one, taken with the E-P1 + mZD 14-42, not a macro lens at all but focuses pretty close.

E-P1 + mZD 14-42
1/100s f/5.6 at 42.0mm iso500

Cheers

Brian

 

[Diane B]

I'm with Jono here and still plan to order this lens. I think people have overreacted. One of the great things for me between the Panny bodies and these lenses is to be able to AF with a very small AF point (remember you can make the focus box very small) and move that point.

There is a lot of noise and negativity on DPReview as well. Here is a post from Andy Westlake the reviewer:

"OK this is getting a bit silly now. The 45/2.8 isn't mediocre optically - it may not be sharpest in class but it's far from the worst we've seen, and it has no distortion, minimal CA, insignficant vignetting and really pleasant bokeh. There's a lot more to a lens than just sharpness.
Anyway I'm willing to be refuted on this, so here's a challenge. There are 30 full res samples in the gallery, and probably another 5 linked in the review text. Please tell me which of these are limited by the lens's optical mediocrity, and how. Thanks."

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33440226

I've been out of the loop most of the day so haven't seen too much of the hoo-hah on dpreview, but it was starting last I read.

I'm not disappointed--just in the same place I was to begin with. I want a 40-45 but don't do portraits and not sure how this fits into my lens lineup yet. I'm still on the fence--but spending time looking at the samples it could fit--I like my Tammy 90 f/2.8 macro which is 1:1--and this would be quite similar. I often carried it instead of my 85 f/1.8 because I could do macro if I chose. So--its not a no or yes yet. I've saved my pennies for it or something else down the road and I'll just have to think about it and see how others like it in 'real life'.

Diane

 

[Vivek]

even leica tend to generally price their lenses lower than the cost of the body

Sony have the right idea. Their 30mm f/2.8 macro for 1.5X crop sensor bodies is US $199/-.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...gId=-1&productId=8198552921665887604#features

I am eagerly looking forward to Sony entering the mirror less cam arena.

 

[pellicle]

Morning Kevin

are we all on the same page here... your photo isn't a macro photo... unless that is a incredibly small flower

that's correct, and I even said that its only close focus if you read my post:

{the Leica} lens would allow more in close than this:

insert example image

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.

the oly 50mm we are referencing here is the Zuiko D 50/2 not the old OM zuiko 50... which i am sure would still focus closer than your picture

nope ... as that was set at its lockstop minimum and focus was by moving camera back and forth. It was all hand held as on the day I hadn't taken my tripod cos I was just out for a walk in the arboretum with my wife.

I was just reacting to all the jump on the negative sayers who seemed to be basing what a 1:1 macro with IS should cost on the prices of different products. I notice noone commented on my reference to a comparable lens in the Canon range.

 

[pellicle]

Reading the conclusions of Andy's review on dpreview I'm left wondering if Andy has any experience ... for example:

Perhaps the most interesting comparison to be made is with the Olympus ZD 50mm F2 Macro.

right ... lets compare a lens which isn't a micro4/3 lens ...

This lens works on Micro Four Thirds bodies using an adapter,
has a stop faster maximum aperture, and gives 1:2 magnification with exceptional image quality - and the combination may well cost less than the Panasonic 45mm.

lovely it won't even allow you to get as close as the Leica does, with 1:1 magnification ... so what's the price difference gap for this inferior legacy lens then?

I bought an adaptor recently for using a 9-18mm ... cost US$139 plus shipping, but they are about 199 euro around here ... at US$399 (or 499 euro) for the ZD that's 698 euro... I'm not reaching out for my wallet yet ...

what other great things exist about this "compared to" alternative ...

Autofocus is this lens's weak point - it works only hesitantly on the E-P1, and not at all on Panasonic bodies - but if you're planning on doing slow, considered macro work on a tripod, that isn't much of a problem.

lovely ... so with AF not working on the G1 I'd be just as well served by getting some other legacy lens (since the 4/3 is legacy on the micro 4/3 like a FD 50 macro or such like) for much less than the ZD compared by this bright spark ... not much of a comparison if you ask me, and if I was wanting to take advantage of all the benefits of micro 4/3 why not get the lens with AF and image stabilisation so you can hand hold it?

seems like a flaccid review if you ask me ... where can I get a job like that?

Ahh ... I know ... Leica hasn't paid for kickbacks probably :ROTFL:

 

[Vivek]

I was just reacting to all the jump on the negative sayers who seemed to be basing what a 1:1 macro with IS should cost on the prices of different products. I notice noone commented on my reference to a comparable lens in the Canon range.

Canon have many full frame cameras on which that 100/2.8 would work.

Nikon have a few macro lenses that reach 1:1 (105, 60). You can also compare the prices.

Sony have a 30mm/2.8 for $199.

IS isn't useful for "macro" distances. Canon's superlative true macro 65mm MP-E, does not even have auto focus and for good reason.

$900/- for a slow lens that will not offer movements, isn't that attractive, regardless of the name. Leica aren't exactly known for their macro lenses, are they?

Your example of "forget me not" flower isn't a macro (it is more like 1:10 magnification or so) so is the dp rev gallery pics, though your sample is an infinitely better shot, shot under better light and nicely composed.

Light and composition: who needs such trivia for "reviews"?

 

[pellicle]

Vivek it was nice to see your example of the Sony lens being so well priced. I wonder how the build quality compares to the Canon EF50 f1.8 II?

I have the series 1 of that (came on my EOS630, which still has it on at the moment) which was quite a reasonable device.

 

[Paul_Kerfoot]

Could the sharpness issues be caused by sample variation? Most macro lens are exceptionally sharp in my limited experience, its rare to find one that isn't. Many feel that a macro is unsuitable as a portrait lens for that very reason. I wouldn't write this one off so quickly.

Paul

 

[Vivek]

Many feel that a macro is unsuitable as a portrait lens for that very reason.

Yes, many who can photograph, perhaps, know that.

Reason: high contrast.

However, that isn't true nowadays. There are macro lenses with superb micro contrast and fantastic OOF renditions.

The PC-Micro nikkor 85/2.8, for example, is a superb portrait lens.

There are many beautiful portrait samples shown here that were taken with the superb Olympus 50/2.

The lens may be sharp, etc but when you use it on a high pixel density body with limited DR and high noise ... (edited).

 

[Vivek]

Vivek it was nice to see your example of the Sony lens being so well priced. I wonder how the build quality compares to the Canon EF50 f1.8 II?

I have the series 1 of that (came on my EOS630, which still has it on at the moment) which was quite a reasonable device.

Pellicle, It looks like it has a plastic mount. It appears to be a rehoused Vectis macro lens.

Any bets that the Pany 45/2.8 (in certain hands) would outperform this 30/2.8?

 

[pellicle]

Pellicle, It looks like it has a plastic mount. It appears to be a rehoused Vectis macro lens.

reuse of an existing design would help save money ... and I'm not sure that I have any real significant problems with plastic mounts on AF cameras anyway.

Any bets that the Pany 45/2.8 (in certain hands) would outperform this 30/2.8?

likely ... all I need to do is win the lottery to justify buying that pany 45 and I'll report the results myself!

:thumbs:

 

[Brian Mosley]

No need to win the lottery, Jono and Helen will surely lead the charge! :thumbs:

Can't wait to see some portrait samples :deadhorse:

Cheers

Brian

 

[pellicle]

No need to win the lottery, Jono and Helen will surely lead the charge!

well ... if they're buying I'll go grab a place to sit!

reckon they'll grab some potato wedges with some tomato sauce too