Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: 14-45 lens limiting.

  1. #1
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    14-45 lens limiting.

    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.


    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Nothing new, Ron.

    Choices are:

    1. Buy a fast (manual) prime.

    2. PS whatever you capture afterwards.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Member hodad66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indialantic, Florida
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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....
    http://hodad66.com Sony A7r,A7II, Sony 70-300G, Rokinon 14/2.8, Leitz Wetzler 35/3.5, Leica R Summicron 50/2 & Elmarit 90mm/2.8, Contax N 24-85 & 70--200mm AND Canon FD 20/2.8, 135/2, 500mm 4.5, Minolta 35/1.8, 45mm/2, Nikon 28-50/3.5, 105/1.8, 180/2.8

  5. #5
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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

  6. #6
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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".
    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  7. #7
    gme109
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Evers View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    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?

  8. #8
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by gme109 View Post
    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
    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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

  10. #10
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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.
    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  11. #11
    wonderer
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Evers View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Member hodad66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indialantic, Florida
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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.....
    http://hodad66.com Sony A7r,A7II, Sony 70-300G, Rokinon 14/2.8, Leitz Wetzler 35/3.5, Leica R Summicron 50/2 & Elmarit 90mm/2.8, Contax N 24-85 & 70--200mm AND Canon FD 20/2.8, 135/2, 500mm 4.5, Minolta 35/1.8, 45mm/2, Nikon 28-50/3.5, 105/1.8, 180/2.8

  13. #13
    retnull
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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!

  14. #14
    gme109
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by JBurnett View Post
    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

    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Ron

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Evers View Post
    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


  16. #16
    wonderer
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gme109 View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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

  18. #18
    Member slau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    AB, Canada
    Posts
    185
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    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 by slau; 12th January 2010 at 02:07.
    Stephen Lau
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    http://www.pbase.com/stephenl

  19. #19
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    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.
    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  20. #20
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    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

    Exactly!
    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  21. #21
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Ron

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Evers View Post
    I understand that but @ 14mm the birdhouse would be insignificant in the picture, not the subject.
    of course .. its all related to subject - distance relationships, you just need to get closer ... anyway, I'm sure that the kid in you just wants to climb that tree :-)

    PS ... I think it would make a better picture that way too. You know, if your pictures aren't looking good enough, your not close enough to the subject ... or something like that ;-)

    (PPS to quote FoghornLeghorn "I say that's a Joke son")
    Last edited by pellicle; 12th January 2010 at 05:11.

  22. #22
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by slau View Post
    How can one compare the DOF of a wide angle lens to a tele photo lens?
    well, I don't recall doing such ... I was simply pointing out that when Ron said:

    so I was quite taken back to find my maximum aperture was 5.6
    that the lens was not a constant max 5.6 and that DoF did not really need to be so deep ...


    I thought that it was clear that one would not need to point out that 14mm wasn't where he wanted to be ... perhaps I just have my sence of humor on backwards today ... or is that my undies? oh dear


  23. #23
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Oh Joy - the sun came out today

    Well, we got sun this morning, enabling me to try a similar shot with my Minolta 55/1.7. I had to get a little further away than with the 14-45 to get a similar field of view. Here is what I got @ f1.7, much improved DOF in my opinion.





    I also shot it again @ 5.6 as with the 14-45 & I think the background tree is clearer than with the Pany lens.


    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    (...)
    Luckily, I have the choice, whereas I know others don't. I can also use my EF 50 f/1.4



    Diane
    Ouch! Hi Diane. That image shows why there are very few EF50/1.4 images in the FM "Admirable" blur thread. Well, to my taste that is, and what I think. OTOH, it can be used for some effects...

    regards,

    /Jonas

  25. #25
    gme109
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderer View Post
    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 for bringing this to my attention. That obvious point escaped me at the time.

  26. #26
    wonderer
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Oh yeah, I have no doubt about the need for a fast 45mm as your exampleand Ron's later example so clearly show. Its just that far too many people are misled into believing that just using a longer focal length will automatically result in a shallower depth of field, and thats why I wanted to clarify

    Personally I will never carry a zoom like the 14-45mm with me and will prefer to cover this range with a 20mm 1.7 with foot zoom as much as possible. Or possibly pair it with the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 (though I hate to change lenses )

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    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

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Ouch! Hi Diane. That image shows why there are very few EF50/1.4 images in the FM "Admirable" blur thread. Well, to my taste that is, and what I think. OTOH, it can be used for some effects...

    regards,

    /Jonas

  28. #28
    bruderadler
    Guest

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by slau View Post
    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,
    DOF being relative to focal length is a photography myth that tends to live forever...

    DOF is a mathematically calculated value that depends ONLY on magnification and aperture value. The focal length comes into the formula indirectly i.e. if the distance is the same the longer focal length will give a smaller DOF for the same aperture value because the magnification is higher. But if the object (e.g. face) covers the same area on the sensor with WA and tele, the DOF is exactly the same if the aperture is the same. The wider FOV of the WA lens "fools" the viewer because the background has more detail and seems to be more sharp.

    Now, because we have to enlarge a picuture taken with a 4/3 camera two times more to make it equal to a FF picture at normal viewing size (e.g. 8x10" print), the perceived DOF is "only" two times the DOF of FF, if we use the same FOV (e.g. 25mm lens with 4/3 and 50 mm lens with FF, but the same aperture and distance). The mathematically calculated value (i.e. using the same circle of confusion for both cases) would show four times difference in DOF at the same magnification.

    Crystal clear

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 14-45 lens limiting.

    Olympus Pen F 40/1.4 on G1.


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •