45 macro portrait shots

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

You said it WAAAAAY better than me. Perfectly echoes my feelings.
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

TEBnewyork
OP TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
Not at all....

A good dialogue on these things is healthy and we know Panny monitors the forums so they should hear what people have to say.

LOL there is a retouched (better than a facial) version of my portrait in a thread on another site.
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

tameside Senior Member • Posts: 2,679
Re: Having used it,

Hi Terry, know what your saying and you are spot-on, the value proposition is the key, but you may find you are just as much taking the 45 on and off because of the short focal length as much as taking the close-up on/off a 45-200.

As I say is there that much between a f2.8 and f4 at 1m with a +1 diopter? plus I can take the close-up off and I have 90-400mm zoom or I have 100mm f4.5 macro etc etc.

mcspresso Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Perfect

TEBnewyork wrote:

You said it WAAAAAY better than me. Perfectly echoes my feelings.

BTW Terry......I really love that portrait of you. Very nice shot.

Regards.....Richard

Amin Sabet
Amin Sabet Veteran Member • Posts: 6,763
Re: The joys of branding

Andy Westlake wrote:

... Summary (in case there was any doubt where this was heading): it's a Panasonic lens. Not a Leica.

All of that said, Leica has a reputation to uphold, and they won't just let Panasonic pay a fee and slap the Leica name on any lens, sight unseen. In fact, there is at least one documented instance in which case Panasonic designed and produced a lens, brought it to Leica for branding, and were sent back to the drawing board to redesign the lens.

See here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070624160310/http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/popup/behind_the_scenes/vol3.html

"Ishiguro reflects on its rocky start, 'We didn't get approval for the first lens that we submitted. In fact, right from the very start we had a sense that the collaboration itself was in danger. The problem wasn't in the lens itself, it was the fact that our appreciation of 'photorealism' had not yet reached the level that Leica Camera AG wanted.'"

-- hide signature --

-Amin

 Amin Sabet's gear list:Amin Sabet's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a9 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +16 more
TEBnewyork
OP TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
Re: Having used it,

I think it just comes down to "horses for courses". I'm actually most used to just going out shooting in NYC with camera and one prime lens.
This weekend when I went out on Saturday here is what I had with me:

money, credit card, liscence keys in jeans pocket
GH1 with 45 macro (my GF1 isn't back from really right stuff yet) on shoulder
20mm in pouch zipped in pocket of fleece sweater.
iPhone in other fleece pocket.

Later that night when I went to do a sunset shoot, I grabbed a bag (North Face waist pack) an threw the 7-14 and 14-140 in, my Gitzo traveler stays in the car and I was good for almost anything.

I have a bunch of different diopters (all more magnification) nikon 3T & 4T canon 250D (in two different sizes). So I hadn't really considered a +1. The 45 macro is significantly smaller than the 45-200. Even the 14-140 is smaller (but heavier). This gets back to the horses argument above. We all will come up with a kit that meets our needs and with the vast array of available lenses (including the legacy glass) people really do have a lot of choice right now - perhaps just not as many native m4/3 as they would like. Maybe Oly will come up with a more pleasing macro option?

-- hide signature --
Clark666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,280
Re: 45 macro portrait shots

Thank you for the reply. I too have to trim my eyebrows. It is a problem of being past a certain age. I didn't mean to offend, but to know whether I need IBIS for my age and physical coordination. I used to have an E520 with PL 25mm and handheld photos such as this. And, I was wondering whether that is possible with the GF1? I currently carry my 7D and 50mm f1.8 everywhere and don't mind the weight in my backpack (which I also carry everywhere)

 Clark666's gear list:Clark666's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Sony RX10 III Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +7 more
kenw
kenw Veteran Member • Posts: 5,385
Re: The BIG problem of the 45 macro is the price!

Godfrey wrote:

I don't see the value of mFT as having anything to do with price.

After eight days hiking around Death Valley with a mFT setup I'll gladly second, third and fourth this!

Oh, well now wait a minute... If we include chiropractor fees then perhaps mFT does have something to do with cost.
--
Ken W

Rebel XT, XTi, Pany G1, LX3, FZ28, Fuji F30, and a lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...

 kenw's gear list:kenw's gear list
Sony RX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +34 more
plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: unrelated to thread

Buchan Grant wrote:

Hey Paul, are you going to Vision on Friday? I have booked a portfolio review session so will be taking some pics along and quite fancy seeing Martin Parr talk.
--
http://www.buchangrant.com

Yes, I will be there.

Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
The right price.

SLOtographer wrote:

So what would be a reasonable price for most for the PL 45 f.28? $650 US?

Let's consider the price of other macro lens alternatives available on 4/3 mount :

  • Olympus ZD 50mm F/2 : 400$ for a stellar lens

  • Olympus ZD 35 mm F/3.5 : 180$ for a near stellar lens

  • Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX : 480$ for a stellar (but longer focal) lens

and considering those lenses have to be used with an adapter and will not AF on the Panasonic bodies (but will slowly on the E-P1/2).

I would say that the realistic (optimal for good sales?) price for a good lens like the PL 45 would be around 450-500$. At this price, I would begin to consider it.

At 350$, it would sell like hot cakes and I would buy it in a heartbeat (ok, ok, I'm dreaming ;-))

-- hide signature --
 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R II Fujifilm X-T2
Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
Terry,

Don't worry, your portrait looks nice!
Your deep look nearly convinced me to buy the PL 45 :-D!

And thanks again for your efforts to bring here what may posters asked : some portraits with the PL 45. It's very helpful and I sincerely appreciate.
--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R II Fujifilm X-T2
Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,717
We are not all lucky

Godfrey wrote:

... is that people who have never used it and judge its quality entirely based on looking at spec sheets haven't got a clue.

That's true Godfrey.

All people don't have your luck to try it or are not fortunate enough to spend 800$ just to test it. Those poor people have no other choice to rely on reviews or on user's experience.

After that, all have freedom to trust who they believe most, make their own mind, and express their feelings on public forums, isn'it?
--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R II Fujifilm X-T2
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: Having used it,

Forgot to say how much I liked your shot of Terry

Thank you for the compliment.

Would you call it a great lens or a good one ? ...

The question is irrelevant to me. I don't think of lenses in emotional terms of 'greatness' vs 'goodness' when I'm evaluating them, trying to understand how they perform, or considering whether to buy one. I also don't feel I truly know a lens until I've used it, worked with it, created photographs with it, for at least several months and several thousand exposures.

To date, I've made 58 exposures with the ME45. If I say a lens is 'great' at this point, it means I'm enthused with the possibilities it might engender, which shares more my fantasy of using the lens rather than relaying anything objective about the lens itself.

I know these things about the ME45 from my first experience using it:

  • The imaging quality is at least as good as the similar-focal length and speed lenses that I already have.

  • It is nicely made and balances well on my camera, proves handy in use.

  • Its compact size and light weight make it easy to fit in the small bag I prefer to travel with.

  • It focuses accurately and swiftly when used with autofocus.

  • Manual focus operation with it is slow but very precise.

  • The addition of auto focus and image stabilization to this focal length in my kit is a useful advantage.

  • It's expensive.

The factor of its cost is not a factor in my evaluation of its capability and desireability. The questions of 'what role does it play in my photography?' , 'how well does it perform compared to my other lens choices?' and 'what, on balance, nets me the best photographs and opportunities given my whole equipment kit?' are the priority things I'm thinking of as I assess the lens' performance.

To argue that it isn't worth its price, to me, simply means that you don't value a lens of this focal length enough to be interested at the price point. That's fair, but says nothing about the quality and capability of the lens itself.

For me, the ME45 is very desireable indeed. It provides one of the three essential FoV choices that I need for my photography and does it better than the lenses I already have. I would use it a lot and net a lot of value from it.

IN answer to your implied questions:

  • Do I want one? Yes.

  • Is it the next lens I buy? Maybe. I have to consider a few other things, including money and availability, and the work that I have in mind to do before I decide on what (if anything) I buy. It might happen that I never actually buy one despite how much I want it.

Adding the ME45 to my kit will obviate and obsolete at least three of the present lenses I have in this focal length, and it provides more function as well. I'll sell them and recoup some of the costs of buying the ME45 in the process. That's another good thing, on both counts of reducing the kit and returning some funding, and a part of my consideration of the lens.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Jogger
Jogger Veteran Member • Posts: 8,441
Re: Gee...Such a positive response...

Seems like im not the only one with an issue about the price of this PANASONIC lens and performance!

Teski wrote:

The eyes look sharp on these, and who are you to tell someone they overspent for a lens? I know people who spend 2,000 - 10,000 on a Leica lens that isn't for me, but maybe it is for them.

 Jogger's gear list:Jogger's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
ricko5 Senior Member • Posts: 1,339
Re: Gee...Such a positive response...

I wish Leica would make an all-Leica version of this lens.

Maybe wrapping orange leather around some of it and multiplying the price tag by four?

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: We are not all lucky

Pixnat2 wrote:

After that, all have freedom to trust who they believe most, make their own mind, and express their feelings on public forums, isn'it?

Sure. I object when I see misinformation and opinion being promulgated as fact.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: We are not all lucky

Godfrey wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

After that, all have freedom to trust who they believe most, make their own mind, and express their feelings on public forums, isn'it?

Sure. I object when I see misinformation and opinion being promulgated as fact.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Ah, but those opinions are often based on the FACTS of the data provided in the review/s.

And those reviews are no less valid than your user reports (or as some like to call them "real world" experience/use, as if Andy Westlake and his knd exist in some nether world )

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: We are not all lucky

plevyadophy wrote:

Ah, but those opinions are often based on the FACTS of the data provided in the review/s.

Please articulate the facts in Frederic's exposition of "The BIG Problem".

I read it several times. What I read is this:

"My impression of what I hear about all the other manufacturers' lenses compared to Andy's opinion, graphs and charts of this lens is that all the others are better and this one is more expensive (I think), so Leica wouldn't put their name on it and Panasonic has made a gross error, but it for sure must be good. And it bothers me."

If you want to call that gobbledegook "facts" well, carry on.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

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

Clark666 wrote:

Thank you for the reply. I too have to trim my eyebrows. It is a problem of being past a certain age. I didn't mean to offend,

No offense taken. The wild eyebrows are becoming a hallmark in my advancing years, I'm proud of them.

... to know whether I need IBIS for my age and physical coordination. I used to have an E520 with PL 25mm and handheld photos such as this. And, I was wondering whether that is possible with the GF1? ...

Lovely photo. It might not be ultra sharp but it's very sincere and honest, a good portrait.

No one can answer that question for you, unfortunately. The ability to hold a camera and lens still enough for a given situation is very much dependent upon your own physical capabilities, skills and practice.

I personally don't find much need for image stabilization, but I certainly take advantage of it when it is available. It's a great "nice to have".
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

nick_webster
nick_webster Veteran Member • Posts: 7,623
Thanks Godfrey,

The difference between good and great or good and bad isn't an emotional one.

Doesn't do the job - poor
Does the job - good

Even better than good - great - ie it gives you even better IQ or opens up new possibilities in shooting (low light etc )

Sadly, cost is a factor in a lot of peoples evaluation, including mine. I might desire it very much but if I can't afford it then it is never going to sit in my bag As someone who is just doing this for fun I have to balance the cost against other priorities. I still think it is overpriced for what it is - a none too stellar macro ( based only on reviews :-)) and a fairly slow portrait lens - YMMV of course.

Thanks for taking the time to type out your evaluation and I hope that if you get the lens it more than lives up to your expectations and I look foward to seeing the results you obtain,

Nick

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads