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!
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.Nothing new, Ron.
Choices are:
1. Buy a fast (manual) prime.
.
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:
How would the 45-200mm F4-5.6 compare to the 45 f2.8 macro for achieving shallow depth of field shots?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
You can use a DOF calculator to get an IDEA about the comparison:How would the 45-200mm F4-5.6 compare to the 45 f2.8 macro for achieving shallow depth of field shots?
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.
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
well it is only 5.6 at the long end, its 3.5 at the 14 endI 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
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.
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
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