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!

14-45 lens limiting.

Ron Evers

New member
Shooting @ full zoom the minimum aperture is f 5.6 so it is not possible to blur the background in a pic such as this. :angry:


 
V

Vivek

Guest
Nothing new, Ron.

Choices are:

1. Buy a fast (manual) prime.

2. PS whatever you capture afterwards.
 

Diane B

New member
Nothing new, Ron.

Choices are:
1. Buy a fast (manual) prime.
.
Yes, that's why a lot of us have MF lenses in the 35 to 50 FL range--F/1.2-2.8. For AF, the new 45 f/2.8 macro is certainly better for this--look at some of the shots from it on its own thread. Not as fast as I would have liked, but much better and quite nice for closeup/macro.

Diane
 

hodad66

Member
I like blur so much that I'm always creating a blurred
background layer and erasing the foreground layer......



This was shot with the 20mm 1.7 but the person standing
in the background was still too distracting. To the rescue
gaussian blur.... :)
 

pellicle

New member
its the reason why I keep coming back to liking 35mm or larger frame size..



no photoshop required, just a humble 50mm at f2

PS I second DI's remark about legacy 50's ... I've even found that my FD 28mm at f2.8 is better for people at middle distance than the zoom
 

Ron Evers

New member
I tried the same shot this morning with a Minolta 55/1.7 wide open but today is very grey & snowing so it is a very dull pic but the background is nicely blurred. I also have a Takumar 55/1.8 (well reviewed) coming in the mail. It will be interesting to shoot all three @ the same time in good light for comparison. The Pentax adapters are also "in the mail". :D
 
G

gme109

Guest
Shooting @ full zoom the minimum aperture is f 5.6 so it is not possible to blur the background in a pic such as this. :angry:


Yes, that's why a lot of us have MF lenses in the 35 to 50 FL range--F/1.2-2.8. For AF, the new 45 f/2.8 macro is certainly better for this--look at some of the shots from it on its own thread. Not as fast as I would have liked, but much better and quite nice for closeup/macro.

Diane
How would the 45-200mm F4-5.6 compare to the 45 f2.8 macro for achieving shallow depth of field shots?
 

JBurnett

Well-known member
How would the 45-200mm F4-5.6 compare to the 45 f2.8 macro for achieving shallow depth of field shots?
You can use a DOF calculator to get an IDEA about the comparison:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

DOF at 45mm with a subject at 10 ft.:

14-45 (f/5.6): 8.88 ft to 11.4 ft (2.56 ft)
45-200 (f/4.0): 9.18 ft to 11 ft (1.79 ft)
45 macro (f/2.8): 9.41 ft to 10.7 ft (1.26 ft)

50mm @ f/2: 9.65 ft to 10.4 ft (0.72 ft)
50mm @ f1.4: 9.75 ft to 10.3 ft (0.51 ft)

Of course DOF isn't a "cutoff" range. And "bokeh" (the subjective appearance of out-of-focus elements) also comes into play.

For comparsion with "full frame" (5D) at 10ft:

90mm f/5.6: 1.24ft
90mm f/4.0: 0.88ft
90mm f/2.8: 0.62ft
90mm f/2.0: 0.44ft
85mm f/1.2: 0.29ft
135mm f/2: 0.19ft
200mm f/1.8: 0.08ft :eek:
 

Diane B

New member
As John points out, if you carry the 45-200 and want to shoot 45mm at f/4.0 you will have a "reasonably" comparable DOF to 45 f/2.8 if your minimum focusing distance works for you (I don't remember what the 45-200 minimum is, but just mounting it now, its in range of maybe 3.5-4 ft.). Not having compared, not sure of the bokeh quality of the two. However, for me, having a 45mm that has a much less minimum focusing distance (being a macro LOL), is often important to me.

If I want much more shallow DOF, I will opt for my Konica 40 f/1.8 or FD 50 f/1.8.
@ f/2.0


Luckily, I have the choice, whereas I know others don't. I can also use my EF 50 f/1.4



Diane
 

Ron Evers

New member
I have rarely had the 14-45 on my G1 as my walk about has been the 45-200; so I was quite taken back to find my maximum aperture was 5.6 with a large DOF with the 14-45 mounted. Nothing new to the folk who have been using the 14-45 I guess but sure disappointing to me when faced with this situation & it was the only lens with me.

Here is a shot of a wild flower I took @ full zoom last July with the 45-200. As you can see I got blurred background @ f 11.





I guess I will keep the 14-45 for indoor shots because it is not suitable for my type of outdoor photography.
 
W

wonderer

Guest
Well its not really accurate to think that using a wder lens like 14-45 will automaticaly result in larger DOF. If you use the 14-45 @ f11 to shoot the same set of flowers you will get a similar shallow depth of field (if flowers are the same size in the frame). Off cousre the final picture will be different since the perspective wil lbe different.

I have rarely had the 14-45 on my G1 as my walk about has been the 45-200; so I was quite taken back to find my maximum aperture was 5.6 with a large DOF with the 14-45 mounted. Nothing new to the folk who have been using the 14-45 I guess but sure disappointing to me when faced with this situation & it was the only lens with me.

Here is a shot of a wild flower I took @ full zoom last July with the 45-200. As you can see I got blurred background @ f 11.





I guess I will keep the 14-45 for indoor shots because it is not suitable for my type of outdoor photography.
 

hodad66

Member
When I got my G1 I got the body only and then the
45-200. I remember being very pleased with the bokeh
from that combo. I have since used mostly my old
Canon lenses.....
 
R

retnull

Guest
I just got the Panasonic 20 1.7, and it's made me fall in love with the G1 all over again. What beautiful bokeh!
 
G

gme109

Guest
You can use a DOF calculator to get an IDEA about the comparison:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

DOF at 45mm with a subject at 10 ft.:

14-45 (f/5.6): 8.88 ft to 11.4 ft (2.56 ft)
45-200 (f/4.0): 9.18 ft to 11 ft (1.79 ft)
45 macro (f/2.8): 9.41 ft to 10.7 ft (1.26 ft)

50mm @ f/2: 9.65 ft to 10.4 ft (0.72 ft)
50mm @ f1.4: 9.75 ft to 10.3 ft (0.51 ft)

Of course DOF isn't a "cutoff" range. And "bokeh" (the subjective appearance of out-of-focus elements) also comes into play.

For comparsion with "full frame" (5D) at 10ft:

90mm f/5.6: 1.24ft
90mm f/4.0: 0.88ft
90mm f/2.8: 0.62ft
90mm f/2.0: 0.44ft
85mm f/1.2: 0.29ft
135mm f/2: 0.19ft
200mm f/1.8: 0.08ft :eek:

Thanks much, that was very helpful.

Using the calculator found on your link, I see that ultimately I can achieve a shallower depth of field going with the 45-200, in the 200mm position @ f/5.6, compared to the 45 macro @ f/2.8, at the focusing distance of 4' or greater. Of course the macro will focus closer than 4', giving it an even shallower DOF.
 

pellicle

New member
Ron

I have rarely had the 14-45 on my G1 as my walk about....
so I was quite taken back to find my maximum aperture was 5.6 with a large
well it is only 5.6 at the long end, its 3.5 at the 14 end

this seems to work well for people who have been brought up on digicams

 
W

wonderer

Guest
Thats true to an extent but people are often misled by it as well.

Consider the following scenario - suppose you are taking a head-and-shoulders portrait of someone using 45mm @ 2.8. Lets say you have determined that you need to stay at a distance of 6 feet to get that shot with the 45mm lens. Our DOF calculator says you will get DOF = 0.45 ft in this case.

Now if you stay at the same point and put your 200mm 5.6 lens on, the DOF calculator says that DOF is now only 0.04 ft. Now thats a wow!!!. However unfortunately we no longer have a head and shoulder shot. With 200mm at 6ft, we are really zoomed into a part of the face. As a result you will have to move back to around 27ft to get a similar head and shoulder shot with the 200mm lens as you got earlier with the 45mm lens. The DOF in this case is only 0.9 ft !

Moral of the story: If you shoot the same subject (at a similar size) using the 45mm lens @ 2.8 lens and 200mm lens @ 5.6, the DOF will be shallower for the 45mm 2.8 lens. The only case when 200mm 5.6 will give a shallower DOF is when you actually use it to zoom further into the subject and capture smaller details.

Thanks much, that was very helpful.

Using the calculator found on your link, I see that ultimately I can achieve a shallower depth of field going with the 45-200, in the 200mm position @ f/5.6, compared to the 45 macro @ f/2.8, at the focusing distance of 4' or greater. Of course the macro will focus closer than 4', giving it an even shallower DOF.
 

pellicle

New member
wonderer

yes, but I think Ron was after something more like this sort of DoF look from his 45mm:



this is from a FD 50mm f1.4 at 1.4
 

slau

New member
How can one compare the DOF of a wide angle lens to a tele photo lens? Also, wide DOF may be considered a 'feature' by others, not necessarily a 'limitation' :). Yes, a Formula One race car cannot even have room to carry a large piece of luggage, but I won't consider it is a limitation and is not as good as a truck. This is one of the beauties of the M4/3 camera: you have lots of choices of lenses, a lot more than any other cameras,
 
Last edited:

Ron Evers

New member
Ron



well it is only 5.6 at the long end, its 3.5 at the 14 end

this seems to work well for people who have been brought up on digicams


I understand that but @ 14mm the birdhouse would be insignificant in the picture, not the subject.
 
Top