The Olympus 60 macro is no better than the Panasonic 45 2.8

Why would it be.  You still have to get in close for macro range to do 1:1.  The only difference is focal length.  Take the macro away and all you have are 2.8 prime lenses.  The 60 mm does not focus as close as the Panasonic by about 2".

For me more working distance is always desirable even if it is 15 mm longer lens. Also the shots I'm seeing from the 60 are very nice indeed. You are the first one to bring this up, so I guess it's a whatever floats your boat. Personally I would like to have seen something in the 90 range but hey that's me.....

B

--
Bill Wallace
http://bwallace.zenfolio.com/
"Mister I ain't a boy no I'm a man
And I believe in a promised land"....

Um, ok?  Reviews of the Oly 60mm macro have thus far been uniformly glowing.  Some reviewers even say it's among the very best M43 lenses to date.  You don't have to use it for macro, after all.  Apparently it's a very good 60mm lens for all purposes.

How would you know?  I thought you were only panny lenses on panny bodies.

--
This never would have happened if Tedolf was still alive.

if you own a 2.8 lens that covers this range and don't need the macro ability your duplicating focal length.

if you shoot an object and need macro and can not get close the longer focal length is useful.  Have you ever used a copy stand,

I never said it was a bad lens. the 120 mm focal length has limited use.  It's still a short telephoto lens.  It won't do for indoor work, groups etc.. For that matter the 45 2.8 is limited too but you don't have to back up as far to include the same scene as you would with that olympus 60 mm.

What I have seen from the Oly is that it is a very good lens. I have a 45 mm Oly, I don't need another 45 mm FL. So the 60 mm would be better for me. May be also more usefull for sports BTW.

Since I already have a car (that I am determined to defend), a Ferrari 458 Italia is no better than my Civic Si.

Both are excellent lenses.  Both focuses to 1:1.  Both are f2.8 lenses.  The Panasonic has a little nice image rendering.  The Olympus has a limiting switch so focusing can be little faster. Still I went with the Olympus 60 Macro because of the extra working distance.  It is a wonderful lens and is also a very good all around lens.  I am pleased with the OLy 60 Macro.

Dave

--
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3380136992_7c5a0986ea_m.jpg

Cheaper with weather sealing and a better operating interface in macro. What else do you want? You pay more for the IS in the Panasonic, then you get the advantaged of the Olympus for free.

I'veseen some daft threads on this forum but this one takes the biscuit.  It does nothing but provide an excuse for an argument.

--
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter

i had the 45mm macro and sold it after a few months

reasons:

AF struggling big time and is awfully slow

IQ could be better for a macro

I have yet to own the 60mm but do believe it's the better lens than the Leica based on reviews, especially Ming Thien's

Cheers,

This is very amateurish trolling even by your standards.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

... and not only you! A 90-120mm F2.8 macro plus tele lens would be great! - Peter

Funny isn't it.  However, read the subject line.  I said one is no better than the other. Never said this sucks or anything like that.  All seem to have a movie playing in their head of what they want to read into it.  Love the one about the two cars and those two are the same.  Need gas to make it go and if you stand in the middle of the road both will run you down.

Ya know I never ever ever ever have actually laughed out loud, but this is a good one..

The Panasonic has a limit switch too.

Which makes the 60mm a better macro lens. Both achieve 1:1 reproduction but you don't need to get as close with the 60mm.

I have the 45mm macro but if the 60mm was available at the time I would have bought it instead.

[edit] BTW, the difference between 90mm and 120mm (in full-frame terms) is not that much and, honestly, I'd rather have 120mm equivalent lens.

Macro lenxes are a waste of time.

--
Without the darkness the light would be nothing !

Now there's a constructive comment!

And you don't have to move in as close with the 60 as with the 45. I'm not really trying to be a jerk but I just not sure what point you were trying to make with your original post. From everything I've read the PL45 is an excellent lens. From all I've read so is the 60. The 45 has OIS which would be a plus on a Panasonic body. Otherwise it mostly comes down to which focal length one prefers.