Oly 45mm versus 60mm

I posted these comparison photos, but they were buried at the bottom of another thread. I am examining the difference/similarity between what I can capture with the Oly 45mm and 60mm lenses. These two shots provide an example of their similarity. The first was shot with the Oly 45mm wide open (F1.8), and the second with the Oly 60mm wide open (f1.8).  I moved back for the 60mm shot, so that the framing of the statue was essentially the same. Both are OOC jpegs from a Panny G5, reduced in size by identical amounts, no cropping.

I'm interested in differences AND similarities that forum members see in the photos, and also in observations from persons who own both lenses.  Which do you use most?  Do you see them as serving the same function, or giving you very different images?  Which do you choose most for non-macro purposes and why? I'm especially interested in people's experience with the lenses on Panny cameras.

Not that I don't see any differences between these photos; I do...  but they are pretty similar, don't you think?



Oly 45mm, F1.8



Oly 60mm, F2.8

Thoughts?

The 60mm seems to be shot at f2.8, not f1.8 as you mentioned. At this size, I can't tell much difference in detail to be honest (ignoring the aperture/dof difference). The 60mm seems to have warmer colours though.

The 60mm is an f/2.8 lens.

--
Frank Paris

Yes, the 60mm is an f2.8 lens.  I'm comparing the two lenses at maximum aperture. Sharpness is not the issue -- they are both incredibly sharp -- so we don't have to see them at a larger size.  The particular rendering of each lens is abundantly evident even after the resizing. Clearly, they are very similar, and the angle is not identical, but I thought users who know both lenses well might see differences that I'm not seeing.  The difference in background blur (between f1.8 and f2.8) is evident, but not as striking as I would have expected.

Beyond these images, I thought people who own both might comment on their own experiences with these lenses, noting differences they observe in their own non-macro work with them.

… would like to see are some macros using the 60mm at its closest focusing point.

Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

Bowzy...  Nice touch.

The macro capability of the 60 is amazing. Here's the eye of the same statue, full frame -- no cropping.  Notice how shallow the depth of field is. I was just playing around by setting the lens on 1:1, and then moving it in until part of the eye was sharply in focus.  Handheld.  The focus delimiters on the lens are very nice.  OOC jpeg, no post-processing except resizing.

I then stepped back and shot my favorite dog, lying under a nearby bush. Same lens:

Quite versatile, don't you think?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3343304

Here you go.

The G5's screen is good enough that you can watch the focus move across the screen in 1:1 mode as well.  The lens works very well on the Panny body.

Great to see non macro comparison shots.  Thanks very much for posting these.  I prefer the 60mm rendering between these 2 samples.  The background blur is very busy for the 45mm.  Perhaps the 60mm at 2.8 isn't quite as blurred out, but it's creamier.  I like the color rendering as well, although perhaps that's just slightly different white balance?

There's vertical motion blur on your first image. That's why I always use a macro flash hand holding 1:1 macros with this lens. Using that technique, I get a 90% success rate (razor sharp 1:1 macro shots). That way I can also set the f/stop to 16 and get a useful depth of field at 1:1.

--
Frank Paris

You'll also notice that the hay strands immediately in front of the figure are a little less out of focus on the 60 than the 45.  Normally you would expect the longer lens to have the shallower depth of field, but the 2.8 maximum aperature more than offsets this.  Would be interesting to see the same shot with the 45 at 2.8.

I'm sorry, Frank, but this made me laugh.  I was just playing with my camera and lens, not working.  That's why I wasn't carrying flashes, worrying too much about F stops or trying for razor shart shots.  I was just marveling at the range of shots I could get off quickly with the 60mm Oly lens.  Stick your camera in the elf's eye and then pivot for lazy dog shots.  Sometimes I get tired of razor sharp bugs on the forum and long for partially in-focus elf's eyes.

You know...   I've been wondering myself to what extent the additional FL of the 60 (60mm versus 45mm) compensated for its smaller aperture (f 2.8 instead of f1.8) in terms of the blurring of background.

Well, the difference in focal length from 45mm to 60mm is 33%. The difference in aperature from 1.8 to 2.8 is 55%. Not sure if there's a straight linear equivalence in this case, but it may explain why the depth of field for the 60mm at 2.8 is larger than the DOF for the 45mm at 1.8. Someone with more optical expertise may have to weigh in, but the numbers would seem to suggest that you'd have to go to a 70mm lens at 2.8 (and back up a bit more to maintain constant image size, of course) to get the same depth of field as the 45mm at 1.8.

I have both lenses.  After an outing with the 60, I was considering selling the 45. But comparing enviromental portrait from both lenses, I seem to like the OOF rendering of the 45 over the 60.

Contrary to the reply from another poster, I findthe background of the 45 image less busy than the 60.

--
My nickel, since the penny is being discontinued...
Jeff.

Just from the OP pics, I would keep the 60 which looks quite a bit smoother. The fact that it also offers more versatility plays in.

You can get background blur calculator

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

Shortly, with such small FL difference, F2.8 lens will never blur background more than F1.8 lens, it won't be even close.

I don't own the 60mm, only the 45mm. But going from your two pictures, here is what I vcan say :

From your two pictures, I do really prefer the 60mm one mainly because it has more local contrast. However you have to take in account the fact that the 45mm was shot at 1/1600 with an aperture of 1.8, while the 60mm was sht at the Sam speed plus same ISO, but at an aperture of 2.8; this means that the 45mm picture is slightly overexposed with respect to the 60mm. The 45mm has received 1.3 FStop more exposure, so to level the fied between the two pictures you should lower the exposure by that amount. The 45mm picture would then get some more punch too.

Also, the 45mm is at its widest aperture and may suffer from some loss of contrast there. You will only be able to tell if this is the case by giving the sensor the same exposure.

of course these remarks suppose that the EXIF data indicated in the DPreview gallery are correct.

--
rrr_hhh

Are there really people who modify the exif data? You're kidding, aren't you? What would be the point?

I can't imagine why but there had been cases when people played childish games like this, since then you see these kinds of bet hedging lawyer-like disclaimers more often.

In any case, to me the more exposed shot (45) seems somewhat darker than the less exposed one (60). Both are OOC and unmodified (I trust) so did the light change between the shots? As to the colour difference, AWB does funny things - I think the algorithm takes the lens into account and perhaps adds too much AI into it.

I like the 60 shot better too. But it will be less easy to hand hold on a Panasonic than the 45 because it's longer and slower.