45 macro portrait shots

Started Nov 23, 2009 | Discussions
TEBnewyork
OP TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
Haha LOL

If I touched them up I would have gotten flamed for working on a test file. I was fair, the first one is me.
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: Thanks, Terry!

TEBnewyork wrote:

Ehrik wrote:

DPR reviewers often advertise their galleries in forum posts, but DPR, why was it so hard to make a good selection of head portraits with the PL 45? It's the closest µ43 has to a portrait lens currently (if you want fast AF).

The boke looks nice in the posted images.

As expected, for head portraits with the background several metres away, there is good isolation.

As I wrote in the thread where the review was discussed:

Actually, the sharpness in the widget looks pretty good to me. I doubt people would have much to object to WRT the resolution they get in real life use.

and

I think people will get great results in real life use. 1:1, OIS, fast flexible AF, compact, light, non-extending, low CA and distortion - a lot to like. I'm not seeing anyone pointing out a gallery sample that's ruined by insufficient MTF50.

But I also understand complaints about the price.

Erik,
I will go off your list. FOR ME it "checks all the boxes":

1:1 check
OIS check
fast flexible AF check
compact light check
non extending check
low CA (I haven't seen ANY) check
low distortion (I use LR so I don't see any) check

I do understand where people are coming from on the price. I'm my case there is nothing this lens is gong to produce that I will say gheez if only I was using a better lens my image would be amazing. I have a 50mm f1.4 Leica lens that I can just as easily use on the G cameras. However they don't focus as close oh and did I mention like double the price and manual focus. I don't usually buy a lens from the MTF charts. It is more of how does it perform in the field. Also, for portraits I also have the absolutely STELLAR Zeiss 135 f1.8 for my A900....but it is a beast. A portrait example can be found here:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149181&postcount=171

The Oly 50 macro will work for a lot of people with a Pen. The Oly 35 macro will also be fine for a lot of people with a Pen. It doesn't AF on Panny which takes it out of contention since I already have a manual focus 40 f1.8 and 50 f1.4. I think in the macro threads we've shown that it has lovely bokeh better than the 50 macro. '

Here are most of the macro shots in one place:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11594

You previously said that you don't do copy work (I think it was you who said that, if not, apologies). But to get that 1:1 with that lens, the only thing it would be good for is copy work given that the front of the lens will be so so so close to the subject (and it may not be even ideal for that as the review here suspected that the lens suffered from field curvature).

Regards,

Buchan Grant Contributing Member • Posts: 820
Thanks for the first good portrait samples from this lens

its a shame they couldn't have done that with the main reviews out there
thanks, they look good!

-- hide signature --
TEBnewyork
OP TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
Sorry,

Yes, I did say in this thread I don't do copy work. What I meant on the 1:1 comment was that I am happy with the lens close in on macros (as close as I can get) and no I don't find the working distance a problem. I am not highly technical in speaking about macro shooting and macro lens design. Bottom line, this lens works for me. You are disappointed with the product Panny has decided to sell.

I was asked for portrait samples. That's what I set out to give.
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

mpgxsvcd Veteran Member • Posts: 8,094
Re: 45 macro portrait shots

Could you post some comparison pics with the 14-45 Kit lens? i would love to see how this lens fares against the cheaper kit lens.

-- hide signature --
 mpgxsvcd's gear list:mpgxsvcd's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M5 II +5 more
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: Thanks, Terry!

plevyadophy wrote:

You previously said that you don't do copy work (I think it was you who said that, if not, apologies). But to get that 1:1 with that lens, the only thing it would be good for is copy work given that the front of the lens will be so so so close to the subject (and it may not be even ideal for that as the review here suspected that the lens suffered from field curvature).

More negativity about an excellent lens again, eh?

I specifically took Terry's lens, racked the manual focus out to 1:1, and measured the working distance. It's about 7.5 inches from the front edge of the lens hood, plenty of room for lighting small three-dimensional objects that fit into a 13x17.3 mm image field.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: 45 macro portrait shots

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Could you post some comparison pics with the 14-45 Kit lens? i would love to see how this lens fares against the cheaper kit lens.

Well, at 45mm, the G Vario 14-45 is an f/5.6 maximum aperture lens. I made 60 some exposures with Terry's ME45/2.8, but all of them were at f/2.8. I didn't bother to test it against the kit lens at such a large aperture difference, it didn't seem particularly interesting as a comparison unless you just wanted to see the difference in DoF.

I did take a few shots comparing the Konica Hexanon AR 40/1.8 @ f/2.8 vs the ME 45 wide open ... I'll add a couple of them when I get to it later on.

-- hide signature --
rivoth Regular Member • Posts: 130
Re: Thanks, Terry!

Godfrey wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

You previously said that you don't do copy work (I think it was you who said that, if not, apologies). But to get that 1:1 with that lens, the only thing it would be good for is copy work given that the front of the lens will be so so so close to the subject (and it may not be even ideal for that as the review here suspected that the lens suffered from field curvature).

More negativity about an excellent lens again, eh?

I specifically took Terry's lens, racked the manual focus out to 1:1, and measured the working distance. It's about 7.5 inches from the front edge of the lens hood, plenty of room for lighting small three-dimensional objects that fit into a 13x17.3 mm image field.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Did you really mean 7.5 inches and not 7.5 cm? The second is what I would have expected from the published information. Regardless, there is plenty of distance for lighting a subject that is about dime sized when shooting 1:1.

Thanks very much for sharing the images.

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: Thanks, Terry!

rivoth wrote:

I specifically took Terry's lens, racked the manual focus out to 1:1, and measured the working distance. It's about 7.5 inches from the front edge of the lens hood, plenty of room for lighting small three-dimensional objects that fit into a 13x17.3 mm image field.

Did you really mean 7.5 inches and not 7.5 cm? The second is what I would have expected from the published information. Regardless, there is plenty of distance for lighting a subject that is about dime sized when shooting 1:1.

Well, I didn't bring a ruler with my. I used the width of my hand as a measure: my hand is about 4.5" wide and there was about one and a half hands width between the front of the lens hood and the subject at minimum focus.

Remember that the ME45 is an IF lens ... it does not extend the lens barrel in focusing at all. Comparing it to the Olympus ZD 35 (which is a unit shift focusing lens sitting on a camera with twice the mount register), it remains very compact on the camera even at minimum focus. With the ZD 35 at 1:1, there's only about 4.5 cm working room as a consequence, but there is a surprisingly luxurious amount of working room with the 45mm due to its longer focal length and the fact that it does not extend.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
my initial impressions of the 45 Macro ...

I've just looked through the photos I made with Terry's lens yesterday. She asked me what my initial impressions were, so I thought I'd share them here too.

I was mostly interested to see how the 45 Macro compared to the Konica 40/1.8 as I've round the Konica to be about my most used lens for a lot of my still life and portrait work in recent months. A lens of similar quality and speed with AF and OIS would be an advantage in my work. While the Konica is a stop and some faster, I tend to use it at f/2.8 most of the time as its wide open performance is a little soft.

There were 58 exposures made with the 45 on my camera, all but 10 of them were wide open. In four cases, I shot exactly the same "mostly planar" scene (+/- the focal length difference) with both the ME45 and the Konica 40 @ f/2.8.

  • On center performance from both is just about the same.

  • At four-fifths of the way out from center and beyond to the corners , the ME45 holds sharpness with only very small degradation where the Konica goes a little soft.

  • I see little evidence of significant rectilinear distortion with either.

note : Resolution looks very good with both lenses ... of course, without a good reference target, tripod and level to do serious resolution testing, I'm sure that neither lens is performing at its best. Same goes for rectilinear correction.

  • The Konica is very well controlled on lateral chromatic aberration, the ME45 shows even less.

  • I didn't shoot any high-contrast edges so edge blooming and/or longitudinal chromatic aberration isn't easily apparent with either lens.

  • Bokeh at f/2.8 looks pretty similar on both (which is very good: the Konica 40/1.8 has lovely bokeh at f/2.8!)

Overall, the biggest things I noticed in shooting with the two lenses:

  • Configured as I have it set up (modified Konica 40 on DMW-MA1 with deep lens hood), the two lenses are about the same size and weight, balance about the same in the hand.

  • The manual focusing with the Macro is substantially slower than the Konica 40.

  • Field of View and Depth of Field at f/2.8 with either lens is just fine for my portraiture needs. If I need more background blur on this format, going to f/1.8 on the Konica does a tiny bit more but in reality what I really need is a longer lens ... the 70mm f/2 lens is better for that, presuming you have the working room.

  • Going to f/1.8 on the Konica helps in lower light helps a good bit, but you give up a lot of sharpness, particularly on edges and corners.

  • I didn't make many very close-in shots (I reserve macro testing for a copystand and proper lighting ...) but of what I did, the ME45 performs beautifully for the sort of subjects the focal length is good for.

  • Autofocus on the ME45 is convenient and quick at normal subject distances. It does some hunting on complex subjects in the near field ... I didn't try too much but maybe spot focus with a smaller spot would help there. (I usually just jump to MF.) Face detection in portraits worked perfectly, as usual.

  • The ME45's OIS proved as I expected: a useful aid in mediocre shooting circumstances. IMO, this is all I expect from any IS system.

Ok, enough initial thoughts ... Back later, I'll post some pictures then.

Terry:
Great to see you again yesterday!

Thanks again for the opportunity to try this lens! It is really a delightful piece.

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: my initial impressions of the 45 Macro ...

Thanks for the info! This is very helpful. I am sold on the quality of the lens, but am hesitating on the price. Time to save up I guess. 45mm is a good length on m43 for portraits.

-- hide signature --

SLOtographer
Panasonic G1, LX3

rivoth Regular Member • Posts: 130
Re: Thanks, Terry!

Godfrey wrote:

rivoth wrote:

I specifically took Terry's lens, racked the manual focus out to 1:1, and measured the working distance. It's about 7.5 inches from the front edge of the lens hood, plenty of room for lighting small three-dimensional objects that fit into a 13x17.3 mm image field.

Did you really mean 7.5 inches and not 7.5 cm? The second is what I would have expected from the published information. Regardless, there is plenty of distance for lighting a subject that is about dime sized when shooting 1:1.

Well, I didn't bring a ruler with my. I used the width of my hand as a measure: my hand is about 4.5" wide and there was about one and a half hands width between the front of the lens hood and the subject at minimum focus.

Remember that the ME45 is an IF lens ... it does not extend the lens barrel in focusing at all. Comparing it to the Olympus ZD 35 (which is a unit shift focusing lens sitting on a camera with twice the mount register), it remains very compact on the camera even at minimum focus. With the ZD 35 at 1:1, there's only about 4.5 cm working room as a consequence, but there is a surprisingly luxurious amount of working room with the 45mm due to its longer focal length and the fact that it does not extend.

Thanks for the followup. That's much better than I was expecting then. There is no substitute for having somebody do a real measurement rather than having to follow the published specs. In fact I think I remember you saying that.

mcspresso Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: my initial impressions of the 45 Macro ...

Godfrey wrote:

I've just looked through the photos I made with Terry's lens yesterday. She asked me what my initial impressions were, so I thought I'd share them here too.

I was mostly interested to see how the 45 Macro compared to the Konica 40/1.8 as I've round the Konica to be about my most used lens for a lot of my still life and portrait work in recent months.

Thanks Godfrey for your analysis. It corroborates what I am seeing. I shot yesterday with the 45mm macro, and two Konica's that I use most of the time....the 40/1.8 and the 50/1.7.

I couldn't see any real difference in distortion, CA or bokeh. Bottomline is that the 45mm macro is a keeper and in spite of its pricetag, well worth the investment.

Regards......Richard

mpgxsvcd Veteran Member • Posts: 8,094
Re: 45 macro portrait shots

Yes I was mainly interested in seeing what difference in depth of field $500 would get me.

Godfrey wrote:

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Could you post some comparison pics with the 14-45 Kit lens? i would love to see how this lens fares against the cheaper kit lens.

Well, at 45mm, the G Vario 14-45 is an f/5.6 maximum aperture lens. I made 60 some exposures with Terry's ME45/2.8, but all of them were at f/2.8. I didn't bother to test it against the kit lens at such a large aperture difference, it didn't seem particularly interesting as a comparison unless you just wanted to see the difference in DoF.

I did take a few shots comparing the Konica Hexanon AR 40/1.8 @ f/2.8 vs the ME 45 wide open ... I'll add a couple of them when I get to it later on.

-- hide signature --
 mpgxsvcd's gear list:mpgxsvcd's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M5 II +5 more
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: 45 macro portrait shots

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Yes I was mainly interested in seeing what difference in depth of field $500 would get me.

It will be very similar to the difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 in the left column of this page:

http://www.gdgphoto.com/dof_40-70_sample/

-- hide signature --
Radu Grozescu
Radu Grozescu Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
Re: Thanks, Terry!

Godfrey wrote:

I specifically took Terry's lens, racked the manual focus out to 1:1, and measured the working distance. It's about 7.5 inches from the front edge of the lens hood, plenty of room for lighting small three-dimensional objects that fit into a 13x17.3 mm image field.

Actually, the minimum focus is 150mm, minus 62mm the length of the lens, minus 20mm the flange distance, so the working distance should be about 68mm without the hood at 1:1

There is no way a lens with 150mm minimum focus distance to have 187mm working distance at 1:1

-- hide signature --

Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

 Radu Grozescu's gear list:Radu Grozescu's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS +4 more
plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: Thanks, Terry!

Radu Grozescu wrote:

Godfrey wrote:

I specifically took Terry's lens, racked the manual focus out to 1:1, and measured the working distance. It's about 7.5 inches from the front edge of the lens hood, plenty of room for lighting small three-dimensional objects that fit into a 13x17.3 mm image field.

Actually, the minimum focus is 150mm, minus 62mm the length of the lens, minus 20mm the flange distance, so the working distance should be about 68mm without the hood at 1:1

There is no way a lens with 150mm minimum focus distance to have 187mm working distance at 1:1

Yeah, I think you are correct, and in any event, if my memory serves me correctly, the working distance is mentoned in the review on this site. I had a little touchy feely of the lens last week and one of the first things I tested was the 1:1 Macro focus abiltiy, and the lens was pretty darn close to the subject (but I can't say how close as I didn't measure, I am going near to the same shop on Thursday so I could always measre the distance next time around).

Regards,

Cameraman777 Forum Member • Posts: 97
Called Panasonic USA, they won't have the lens until 18 Jan 2010

Other US retailers may get it sooner though.

 Cameraman777's gear list:Cameraman777's gear list
Panasonic LX100
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: Thanks, Terry!

You know, you can all natter on and on as much as you like with specs and measurements and numbers.

I estimated using my hand as a gauge, and found a surprising lot of working room at 1:1. It's MUCH more than the ZD 35 Macro has at 1:1 magnification, and plenty for what is needed to illuminate the kind of subject that would be photographed in a 13x17.3 mm field coverage.

Beyond that, the exact measure is not of any further interest to me.

Terry can use a ruler to tell us the exact amount of working room if she feels like it.

I'm done with this nonsense.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Andrew Westlake Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
Well, using a ruler...

The working distance of the 45mm macro at 1:1 is about 6.5cm. That's without the hood, by the way.

(However, it's a small diameter lens, m43 bodies are small, and you only have to light a very small area.)

-- hide signature --

Andy Westlake
dpreview.com/lensreviews

 Andrew Westlake's gear list:Andrew Westlake's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus Stylus Verve S Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads