The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Lumix/Leica 45 macro

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Everyone
Thank you for all the thanks!
I'll try and answer as many questions here rather than answering each post individually.

What's missing for me with this lens, is a balance between enough super sharp foreground detail, contrasting with super smooth out of focus background...
I'll do my best . . just don't expect me to put it on a tripod!

Thanks Jono! These are the best examples I've seen yet from this lens. The "test chart" performance at DPR was disappointing, but it isn't surprising to see this lens perform in your hands.
HI Amin
It's always the same with lenses isn't it. MTF charts etc. only tell half the story.

Terry
I hope you get your discounted version . . . I paid £599 for mine - still, I've certainly paid more for worse lenses!

Diane
I'm ashamed to admit that for a lot of the time I had it on Program mode - It was my first outing with the camera for a few months, and I was more interested in getting a shot than fiddling about too much.

Pellicle
I've been using the In Body stabilisation on the Olympus body. I haven't done a comparison, it would be a great deal of work (lots of test shots to get a decent sample). Others have done similar with different lenses, and seem to think that they are roughly equivalent (conventional wisdom is that lens stabilisation is better). I'm pretty sure you can switch it off on the body and on in the lens though.

Monza
in comparison with the 14-45, it is, apparently, 3mm longer and 2.5mm wider and 30 grams heavier . . .i.e. to all intents and purposes the same size.

Hi Joan
The big contrast of this lens with the old Zuiko, is that the bokeh on it really is much much better (it may not be perfect, but it's much better). Whether it's as sharp is another matter - I think someone with a tripod is going to have to work that one out!

Lin
the AF is silent - noticeably and obviously so - excellent.

Hi Guy
I'm not sure that I've got a lens that would have done that shot much better - maybe the 50 Asph lux? (or the 75 'cron). But I think the point is that it still isn't 'nasty'. Perhaps less edgy than you 35 'cron shot?

and as Terry says - that was with the 'bokeh king'. My first feelings is that it really is very good - the ivy berry shot was a nasty test as well but that worked.

I haven't had much of a chance to shoot more today (nothing worth posting), but I'm increasingly feeling that this really is a keeper.
 

pellicle

New member
Hi Jono

forgot that the tests were using some sort of IOS ... the internal one on the PEN. I'm really drawn to this lens (despite being quite pleased with my 50 f1.8 and its extension tubes) because of:

* 1:1 is as far as I take my 50 anyway
* having apeture controlled by the camera means I can focus wide open (or stop down with the shutter speed / dof preview mode) to see my target well
* get IOS giving me hand holdable ... which I wold love to have for stuff like this:

 

Jonas

Active member
What's missing for me with this lens, is a balance between enough super sharp foreground detail, contrasting with super smooth out of focus background... (...)
Ity's wonderful when we from time to time get these images, assuming we are thinking of the same thing of course... Brian, can you give us an example or two of lenses producing this balance?


Hi Everyone
Thank you for all the thanks!

(...)

Lin
the AF is silent - noticeably and obviously so - excellent.
I to would like to say Thank you for the images!

How cool with the first specialised lens for the µ4/3 system.

A question though, what does your reply to Lin mean? It is silent as in you can't hear it, the camera doesn't pick up the sound or it is very much more silent than the ZD50/2, or something else (probably)?
 

Joan

New member
...

Hi Joan
The big contrast of this lens with the old Zuiko, is that the bokeh on it really is much much better (it may not be perfect, but it's much better). Whether it's as sharp is another matter - I think someone with a tripod is going to have to work that one out!


...
I haven't had much of a chance to shoot more today (nothing worth posting), but I'm increasingly feeling that this really is a keeper.

Thanks Jono. I am really encouraged by what you've posted already that this is worthy of serious consideration. Kind of wish it didn't have the Leica brand name so we could acquire it for less cash though. ;)
 

Y.B.Hudson III

New member
Like the pics, but I am unsure about the processing, maybe? because My jupiter 3 at f/2.8 exhibits better resolution than I am picking up here:)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Like the pics, but I am unsure about the processing, maybe? because My jupiter 3 at f/2.8 exhibits better resolution than I am picking up here:)
I think you have a point there, Hudson.

The anti shake thing could mess up the sharpness.

I see artifacts from the 45-200 Pana zoom. It isn't predictable either.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Terry
That was what I was thinking about too . . . and why I'm not writing off the X1 on the basis of two or three shots.

Jones
The AF really is quiet (mind you, I'm pretty deaf!). I had positively noticed it's silence - I haven't shot any video with it, but I'm certain the noise wouldn't be picked up.

Joan
Well - when Panasonic go for it the lenses are hardly cheap (look at the 7-14). This is pretty cheap for anything with Leica written on it.

Hudson and Vivek
Well - blame me about the processing - it's done in LR3 beta with no extra sharpening, and I'm not terribly familiar with Lightroom (and don't much like it). Mind you, I'm not sure how you can criticise the resolution on something which has been reduced so much?

Added to which there was no hint of a tripod anywhere . . . of course, it might be the lens - or it might be the IS (as Vivek suggests). For me, these look quite sharp enough, and they print well.

Still, dpreview had some criticism as well . . . . .
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Jono,

What dp revs does has nothing to do with what I said here. My comparisons come only from your shots (shown in this forum) of the 50/2 Olympus Macro.

Yes, the OIS having a hand in the resultant image quality is an aspect worth looking into.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

What dp revs does has nothing to do with what I said here. My comparisons come only from your shots (shown in this forum) of the 50/2 Olympus Macro.

Yes, the OIS having a hand in the resultant image quality is an aspect worth looking into.
Hi Vivek - in that case, I suspect that it's more likely to be the distinction between Aperture and Lightroom.

If I can wrench my 50 macro back from a certain person, I might try and do some comparisons.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hi Jono,

Notably missing in your 45 panaleica samples is the "bite" we saw from your Olympus 50/2, pretty much under similar lighting.

Yes, your finding on the bokeh difference appears to be a notable feature of the panaleica.
 

pellicle

New member
Hey Jono

Yes, the OIS having a hand in the resultant image quality is an aspect worth looking into.
since the lens supports it, you've got the opportunity to see if the decision to go with lens based is superior or not ...


heh

:angel:
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Ity's wonderful when we from time to time get these images, assuming we are thinking of the same thing of course... Brian, can you give us an example or two of lenses producing this balance?
Hi Jonas, I'll give you three... the Hexanon 57mm f1.2, ZD 150mm f2 and the PL 14-150mm :p

Seriously, I'm yet convinced... there are some more samples turning up on dpreview here though.

Just eager to see more portrait work with this lens, I'm OK for macro work with the ZD 50mm f2 - but the focus limiter, speed and size of this native m4/3rds lens is of interest to me.

Cheers

Brian
 

Jonas

Active member
Hi Jonas, I'll give you three... the Hexanon 57mm f1.2, ZD 150mm f2 and the PL 14-150mm :p
Seriously... :)
I have the Hexanon 57/1.2 and it is reasonably (in context) sharp when stopped down to f/2.8. It's a good lens and what I like with it is the OOF background which is rendered in a very pleasing way with very little of defocus CA and a soft gentle bokeh.

The ZD150/2 is a mix of harsh and nice bokeh. Some bright rings. I haven't used it of course. It is too long for me, too heavy (I would have to lift weights for weeks before trying to use it) and I also don't have that money.
So, it is not my image:
http://i.pbase.com/o2/89/72089/1/113197000.8YQjBSzW.IMG_9088.jpg
There were nice bright rings showing up in the Olympus America's sample photo gallery (2 images, wow) earlier (the bird image). Now they have made the samples very small and put them inside a flash thing. Useless.

The zoom is a zoom and uninteresting to me. Perhaps you are right, at least for some focal lengths? I haven't checked.

So, there you are. ;)


Seriously, I'm yet convinced... there are some more samples turning up on dpreview here though.

Just eager to see more portrait work with this lens, I'm OK for macro work with the ZD 50mm f2 - but the focus limiter, speed and size of this native m4/3rds lens is of interest to me.
I guess you mean "not yet convinced". Neither am I. The lens is interesting. I guess many of us wish they had made an f/2 version. At least I do. For now I use the Olympus Zuiko OM50/2. If the Panasonic 45/2.8 is going to replace it it has to be very good indeed.

The OIS is nice, but then again, it is f/2.8 only. The AF could be nice for non macro use. I care more about real life samples than the DPR test results so I'll stroll around and look closely to whatever shows up. Thank you for the link. (moment... ... ...) Hmm. I don't know anything about the PP. If they are carefully sharpened and at that size I don't think there is that bite I would wish for.

For portraits the real bite isn't necessary. A lens that is equivalent to a 90/5.6 will provide a decent DOF for most portraits, but sometimes it will not be shallow enough for my taste, or throw the background into a pleasing blur. I will have to experiment a little with that.

I'll wait until more, bigger and various samples are available.

Cheers,

/Jonas
 

pellicule

New member
For portraits the real bite isn't necessary. A lens that is equivalent to a 90/5.6 will provide a decent DOF for most portraits, but sometimes it will not be shallow enough for my taste, or throw the background into a pleasing blur. I will have to experiment a little with that.

I'll wait until more, bigger and various samples are available.

Cheers,

/Jonas
Sorry for my confusion - I'm coming from film and a full frame DSLR. I understand the Crop Effect of a smaller sensor on the traditional focal length calculation, but does it also effect the aperture? The above is suggesting a 45 2.8 becomes a 90 5.6? is this true?

thanks for the clarification.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sorry for my confusion - I'm coming from film and a full frame DSLR. I understand the Crop Effect of a smaller sensor on the traditional focal length calculation, but does it also effect the aperture? The above is suggesting a 45 2.8 becomes a 90 5.6? is this true?
It's the tip of a huge and contentions iceberg of an argument . . .but in terms of DOF compared to a full frame camera, then it has some value (that's as far as I'm going).

I think two things about the 45.

1. it probably isn't as sharp as the Zuiko 50 macro
2. it definitely has better bokeh.

I suppose that you pays your money and you makes your choice.
 

Jonas

Active member
It's the tip of a huge and contentions iceberg of an argument . . .but in terms of DOF compared to a full frame camera, then it has some value (that's as far as I'm going).
Not only some value. That is how it is, with regards to noise, field of view and DOF. Hmm... no need to go there. Different systems are different. I'm just so used to think in FF terms after the time i spent with the 5D. I'll soon be back to 4/3 terms.

I think two things about the 45.

1. it probably isn't as sharp as the Zuiko 50 macro
2. it definitely has better bokeh.

I suppose that you pays your money and you makes your choice.
"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot.
True.:)

[FWIW, my PC Micronikkor 85/2.8 is capable of delivering both. Bitingly sharp as well as (especially through movements) creamy smooth bokeh. It costs about the same as the Panasonic 45/2.8]
 

jonoslack

Active member
Not only some value. That is how it is,
Sheesh - absolutes are always so dangerous, and absolute truths . . . doubly so!
Hmm... no need to go there. Different systems are different. I'm just so used to think in FF terms after the time i spent with the 5D. I'll soon be back to 4/3 terms.
I've used both in tandem, ever since the Kodak 14n appeared, and I'm very well aware that generalisations are just that, they aren't laws.

"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.
Hmmm, well, how do you measure 'sharpness'? - you can measure definition in terms of lpi, but sharpness isn't quite the same thing.

Forgive me Jonas (and for spelling your name Jones in a previous post . . . ). I think that so much of this is subjective, and what really is measurable is only measurable for a particular image in a particular situation (apart, of course, from the fov effect of cropped sensors. . . . not that 4/3 is cropped of course :ROTFL::ROTFL:).

All the best
 
Top