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

[Brian Mosley]

Whoops, meant Terry not Helen! (maybe Helen too?)

Cheers

Brian

 

[woodyspedden]

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"?

Whoa!

I agree with most of your points but "Leica isn't really known for their macro." Say what! The Leica Apo Macro 100 2.8 is generally acknowledged as perhaps the best macro ever for 35mm work!

woody

 

[47th_vacuum_space]

Has anyone here tried the Pentax-DA Limited 35mm macro on the m4/3ds cameras?

 

[monza]

The Leica Apo Macro 100 2.8 is generally acknowledged as perhaps the best macro ever for 35mm work!

I'll second this...a fantastic lens. The 60mm Macro is also superb...

 

[Vivek]

Whoa!

I agree with most of your points but "Leica isn't really known for their macro." Say what! The Leica Apo Macro 100 2.8 is generally acknowledged as perhaps the best macro ever for 35mm work!

woody

That is a key, Woody. 35mm work. We are talking about 1/4th area sensor.

It is a fabulous design. Very pricey but compared to the PanaLeica, looks like a bargain.

 

[gjhzyy]

The picture is beautiful.

 

[Coveted Pixel]

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

Thanks for the link, I read that post by Andy. That was very funny, I enjoyed that quite a bit. Strange that he got so defensive about all the "silly" replies about his review, when in his own words he was "underwhelmed" by the lens, and barely could muster up much enthusiasm for the lens.

He says that the lens is not optically at the top of the class, but is competent. Then gets upset if people say "mediocre"? I'm sorry, I thought mediocre was an acceptable description of good, not great, so-so.

He says that most people MF for macro anyway, but then the focus by wire of the lens was a complete letdown combined that there is no distance scale.

Then he says it's not compelling enough to justify the price, (which MOST of the posts in that thread were referencing) Then he wonders where all the negativity came from?? Then to his defense, he points to an image gallery of, well, sloppy images, (I've seen infinitely better in this forum from you folks with the 14-45 kit and the new 20).

 

[Vivek]

Coveted Pixel, The point is that you buy the lens, however good/bad it is.

Plunk down the money..make the "review" worth the while.

 

[Brian Mosley]

It was a shame Andy had to go into defensive mode - but there are some very disappointed Leica fans in that thread... and his balanced review probably wasn't intended to fuel such rage

At least those who do plonk down the cash are doing so from an informed position - no false expectations. :thumbup:

Cheers

Brian

 

[slau]

The 45f2.8 is definitely light, small and AF very fast, especially for a marco lens. Can't comment on the IQ as I haven't done any real world shots with this lens, that was just acquired by my shooting buddy two days ago.

If you are considering just the functionality of the 45f2.8, it is miles ahead of the Olympus 50f2 macro, which is relatively huge/heavy, needs an adapter and no AF. My friend probably will sell his Olympus 50f2 now after he uses his 45f2.8 a bit more. He is currently using the new lens on either his G1 or GF1.

Is it expensive or is it worth the money? This is so different from person to person, and is highly personal.