45 macro portrait shots

Started Nov 23, 2009 | Discussions
Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,719
Facts of the big problem

Fact one :

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=65,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=45,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

And other macro lenses on the market are similar in sharpness to the ZD 50mm.

Fact two :

Olympus ZD 50mm macro : 400$
Panasonic 45 f/2.8 macro : 800$

Fact 1 + Fact 2 = big problem!
--
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: 5,719
And another observation

Godfrey wrote:

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.

Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker. But you have a very selective way to read it

So I expose facts with a simple language that you can understand:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33793060

and let you know that I own and use those macro lenses :

  • Olympus ZD 50 f/2 macro

  • Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro

  • OM 50mm f/3.5 macro

So I do not only rely on what I hear about, and my observations are not only based on charts, sorry.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R II Fujifilm X-T2
TEBnewyork
OP TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
Fact 3:

Add $120 for the adapter to use it on m4/3

-- hide signature --
plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: Facts of the big problem

Pixnat2 wrote:
Fact one :

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=65,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=45,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

And other macro lenses on the market are similar in sharpness to the ZD 50mm.

Fact two :

Olympus ZD 50mm macro : 400$
Panasonic 45 f/2.8 macro : 800$

Fact 1 + Fact 2 = big problem!
--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

Well said.

plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: Fact 3:

TEBnewyork wrote:

Add $120 for the adapter to use it on m4/3

Which still makes the Panny Macro $280 more expensive (c.54% more to pay).

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: Facts of the big problem

Let's pretend these things you point at are facts.

Pixnat2 wrote:

And other macro lenses on the market are similar in sharpness to the ZD 50mm.

That's not a fact at all. I suspect a number of Olympus devotees will have your head for that statement, but it is just supposition on your part. LOL

Fact one :

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=65,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=45,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

The differences in edge/corner performance displayed by these widgets at aperture values around f/11, where one tends to use a macro lens for macro work , are insignificant. The differences wide open are modest ... the Olympus is a somewhat better performer there.

Of course, this is one of the very finest 50mm macro lenses ever made by anyone. It's not unreasonable to laud Olympus ZD 50, but it is unreasonable to slam the 45mm macro as being crappy on this basis. I've had PLENTY of Pentax, Nikon and Canon macro lenses that do not perform as well as the 45mm does wide open. It's not where a macro lens is supposed to be used.

And of course, nothing in these MTF curves can say anything about bokeh or other dynamics of lens rendering quality. There are no metrics for such things. It is long been an accepted judgement that the ZD 50 is a lens with beautiful bokeh. The ME45 is brand new on the market and there isn't much beyond a few sample pictures to go on, but from the small number of photos I made with it, compared to the ZD50 photos I made with a loaner some time ago, I'd say the ME45 is very much on par in this domain.

Fact two :

Olympus ZD 50mm macro : 400$
Panasonic 45 f/2.8 macro : 800$

Fact 1 + Fact 2 = big problem!

  • Add $150 for the mount adapter to use that lens on your mFT camera.

  • Add $125 for the EX25 to achieve 1:1 magnification (if you have an E-P1, doesn't work on the Lumix G cameras.)

So ... the real differential in price is $250, counting just the FT to mFT adapter. And for that discount, you

  • don't get AF on Panasonic bodies

  • don't get a focus limiter

  • don't get OIS on Panasonic bodies

  • don't get 1:1 magnification on Panasonic bodies

  • have a lens which is more than twice the size (with adapter, and particularly at 1:2 focus setting) and more than 50% heavier (again with adapter, and not counting the EX25 as well).

And this is a "BIG problem" for Panasonic?

Nonsense, pure and simple.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

TEBnewyork
OP TEBnewyork Forum Pro • Posts: 11,337
Dumb question

For those of you who have ruled out this lens as not good enough and the by definition too expensive why are you so emotionally invested in this thread? You've already chalked this lens off your list. Clearly you have needs that won't be fulfilled by this lens. Why bother arguing on about it?

My one last point, why not go back to the long thread after the lens review and reread Andy's comments. If the lens were that hideous he would not have rated it as he did. In addition, to the best of my knowledge the "value for the price" is factored into their rating.

edit: darn I got this post out of the order of where I wanted it!
--
terry
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/

Cameraman777 Forum Member • Posts: 97
My BIG PROBLEM is I can't get it soon enough

I have been checking the status of availablity of this lens from major on-line retailers every day. I NEED this lens, but do not seem to be able to get it soon enough for my upcoming video shooting events. What do i think of the price? It is quite reasonable in my book.

I can't really use any other fast lens due to the lack of AF using the GH1.

 Cameraman777's gear list:Cameraman777's gear list
Panasonic LX100
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: And another observation

Pixnat2 wrote:

So I expose facts with a simple language that you can understand:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33793060

and let you know that I own and use those macro lenses :

  • Olympus ZD 50 f/2 macro

  • Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro

  • OM 50mm f/3.5 macro

So I do not only rely on what I hear about, and my observations are not only based on charts, sorry.

And I presume you have put all three of those, and the Macro-Elmarit 45mm, through a definitive test procedure and compared the MTF curves, resolution graphs, and evaluated bokeh at all distance, aperture and scene combinations such that you can truly, definitively, incontrovertibly state that the FACTS prove your suppositions.

Do you ever stop your assessment of facts and figures to take a photograph and judge whether the photograph looks nice? Some of the most beautiful photographs were made with lenses that don't measure anywhere near as nicely as the most disadvantaged view of the ME45 ...

-- hide signature --
Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,719
Re: Facts of the big problem

Godfrey,

You made some valid points, thanks.

Just to be clear :

1. I never said that the PL 45 is crappy. I said is seems to be a good lens, re-read my posts.
2. The big problem is that it's too expensive for it's performance.
3. I don't fear for my head

I think there's not to add more here. You seem to be happy with that lens, that's great! But don't take it too much serious, it's a hobby after all

Have a nice day!

PS. I forget to congrats you for Terry's portrait. Very nice, i like 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
i agree

enough fun for one day, Terry.
thanks again for letting me try the ME45.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Cameraman777 Forum Member • Posts: 97
Any seller of this lens?

Any seller of this lens who regrets spending his mony on such "big prolem" lens (suffering from buyers' remorse)? If so please let me know. I want it, I NEED it.

Thanks in advance.

 Cameraman777's gear list:Cameraman777's gear list
Panasonic LX100
Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,719
Re: And another observation

Godfrey wrote:

And I presume you have put all three of those, and the Macro-Elmarit 45mm, through a definitive test procedure and compared the MTF curves, resolution graphs, and evaluated bokeh at all distance, aperture and scene combinations such that you can truly, definitively, incontrovertibly state that the FACTS prove your suppositions.

Relax. If I had to always backup my discussions with facts, life would be horrendous.

Do you ever stop your assessment of facts and figures to take a photograph and judge whether the photograph looks nice? Some of the most beautiful photographs were made with lenses that don't measure anywhere near as nicely as the most disadvantaged view of the ME45 ...

Absolutely agree! Here some recent pictures I took with a lens which is very soft wide open :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33771713

Nice picture!

-- hide signature --
 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: Facts of the big problem

Pixnat2 wrote:

You made some valid points, thanks.

You're welcome.

2. The big problem is that it's too expensive for it's performance.

On that I disagree with you. It's expensive, but not outrageously expensive.

I think there's not to add more here. You seem to be happy with that lens, that's great! But don't take it too much serious, it's a hobby after all

Maybe for you it's a hobby. I'm a photographer, working to make a living with this equipment.

I'm enthused with what I see of the ME45's performance so far. I don't really care too much about test reports. I haven't made enough exposures with one yet, however, to know it well. But ... of the 58 exposures I made, all but 10 were wide open, and the image qualites did not disappoint me at all: I see little deficient about its performance.

PS. I forget to congrats you for Terry's portrait. Very nice, i like it.

Thank you!
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

plevyadophy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,258
Re: Facts of the big problem

Godfrey wrote:
Let's pretend these things you point at are facts.

Pixnat2 wrote:

And other macro lenses on the market are similar in sharpness to the ZD 50mm.

That's not a fact at all. I suspect a number of Olympus devotees will have your head for that statement, but it is just supposition on your part. LOL

Hmm, maybe this will prevent Pixnat2 from being sent to the gallows :-): http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=32,68&fullscreen=true&av=7,7&fl=50,100&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

Fact one :

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=65,32&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=45,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

The differences in edge/corner performance displayed by these widgets at aperture values around f/11, where one tends to use a macro lens for macro work , are insignificant. The differences wide open are modest ... the Olympus is a somewhat better performer there.

You are right the differences at f11 are not worth fussing over. But isn't f11 considered defraction zone on a Four Thirds sensor (although it looked fine to me in that widget)?

According to that widget, the difference between the two lenses wide open is huge once you get past the central zone: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=32,65&fullscreen=true&av=2,3&fl=50,45&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

Of course, this is one of the very finest 50mm macro lenses ever made by anyone. It's not unreasonable to laud Olympus ZD 50, but it is unreasonable to slam the 45mm macro as being crappy on this basis. I've had PLENTY of Pentax, Nikon and Canon macro lenses that do not perform as well as the 45mm does wide open. It's not where a macro lens is supposed to be used.

Maybe some folk think the high price should be accompanied by better performance?

And of course, nothing in these MTF curves can say anything about bokeh or other dynamics of lens rendering quality. There are no metrics for such things. It is long been an accepted judgement that the ZD 50 is a lens with beautiful bokeh. The ME45 is brand new on the market and there isn't much beyond a few sample pictures to go on, but from the small number of photos I made with it, compared to the ZD50 photos I made with a loaner some time ago, I'd say the ME45 is very much on par in this domain.

Yes, agree with you there about bokeh and other dynamics vis-a-vis MTF curves (one of the lessons you drummed into me in our earlier conversations :-)).

Fact two :

Olympus ZD 50mm macro : 400$
Panasonic 45 f/2.8 macro : 800$

Fact 1 + Fact 2 = big problem!

  • Add $150 for the mount adapter to use that lens on your mFT camera.

  • Add $125 for the EX25 to achieve 1:1 magnification (if you have an E-P1, doesn't work on the Lumix G cameras.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some saying that the 1:2 ratio of the Oly lens is in fact equivalent to 1:1 on 35mm full frame, and that the 1:1 of the Pannyh Leica is really a super duper ratio. If so, could we not call it a draw in that Oly haven't given anything that is "less than".

So ... the real differential in price is $250, counting just the FT to mFT adapter. And for that discount, you

  • don't get AF on Panasonic bodies

Some may argue that that is a negative against Panny.

  • don't get a focus limiter

Good point.

  • don't get OIS on Panasonic bodies

Again, some may argue that as a negative against Panny in that they should have opted for in-body stabilisation at the beginning of their development of interchangeable lens cams (I certainly do, and I got the Panny body)

  • don't get 1:1 magnification on Panasonic bodies

Maybe call that one a draw?

  • have a lens which is more than twice the size (with adapter, and particularly at 1:2 focus setting) and more than 50% heavier (again with adapter, and not counting the EX25 as well).

Well on that point, Panny gets da slam dunk.

And this is a "BIG problem" for Panasonic?

Maybe some feel the lens should have broader appeal? Maybe some feel, as your list seems to suggest, that the lens is so Panny-centric and that Panny think they can pull one's p!sser as a result by way of a high price and get away with it, and that's partly rubbing peeps up the wrong way?

Nonsense, pure and simple.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Regards,

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: Facts of the big problem

plevyadophy wrote:

You are right the differences at f11 are not worth fussing over. But isn't f11 considered defraction zone on a Four Thirds sensor (although it looked fine to me in that widget)?

f/11 isn't anywhere near the diffraction limit for a 50mm lens. That's a 4.5mm opening. Diffraction sets in nearer a 2.5mm and smaller lens opening.

According to that widget, the difference between the two lenses wide open is huge once you get past the central zone:

Again, nearly all of my photos from the other day were wide open and I see no problem with the performance wide open.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some saying that the 1:2 ratio of the Oly lens is in fact equivalent to 1:1 on 35mm full frame, and that the 1:1 of the Pannyh Leica is really a super duper ratio. If so, could we not call it a draw in that Oly haven't given anything that is "less than".

In macrophotography, a magnification is a magnification. "Equivalent magnification" is meaningless... 1:1 is not 1:2.

  • don't get AF on Panasonic bodies

Some may argue that that is a negative against Panny.

  • The Olympus lens autofocuses (slowly) on the Olympus body.

  • The Panasonic lens autofocuses (quickly) on the Panasonic body and the Olympus body.

And there is some problem here for Panasonic?

  • don't get 1:1 magnification on Panasonic bodies

Maybe call that one a draw?

Same as above.

  • don't get OIS on Panasonic bodies

Again, some may argue that as a negative against Panny in that they should have opted for in-body stabilisation at the beginning of their development of interchangeable lens cams (I certainly do, and I got the Panny body)

What some people would prefer is a matter of their opinion. If you preferred in-body IS, you should have bought a camera that had it. I'm quite happy with both the Panasonic bodies and with their OIS system lenses.

And this is a "BIG problem" for Panasonic?

Maybe some feel the lens should have broader appeal? ...

I'm sure Panasonic will sell as many as they deliver, just like they do with the Summilux-D 25, the GF1, etc. Panasonic is building an excellent lens for their bodies and their product line. That other bodies might also be able to use it is just an addition to their bottom line, and a bonus for said users.

Whatever else "some people say" is irrelevant. You don't like it, you don't want to pay for it ... don't buy it. Life is simple that way.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: And another observation

Pixnat2 wrote:

Relax. If I had to always backup my discussions with facts, life would be horrendous.

LOL

Do you ever stop your assessment of facts and figures to take a photograph and judge whether the photograph looks nice? Some of the most beautiful photographs were made with lenses that don't measure anywhere near as nicely as the most disadvantaged view of the ME45 ...

Absolutely agree! Here some recent pictures I took with a lens which is very soft wide open :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33771713

Several quite lovely photographs, yes.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2818289373_d1d9d5629f_o.jpg

Nice picture!

thank you!
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Ehrik Veteran Member • Posts: 8,014
f-stop, not absolute opening, decides diffraction

Godfrey wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

You are right the differences at f11 are not worth fussing over. But isn't f11 considered defraction zone on a Four Thirds sensor (although it looked fine to me in that widget)?

f/11 isn't anywhere near the diffraction limit for a 50mm lens. That's a 4.5mm opening. Diffraction sets in nearer a 2.5mm and smaller lens opening.

Godfrey, this is one of the rare occasions when you are mistaken on a technical/theoretical matter.

The absolute opening size (entry pupil) is not the deciding factor, it is the f-stop. Thus, any lens will have the same amount of diffraction at f/11. It doesn't matter what the focal length is.
. . .

There is, though, often too much fear of diffraction. If the image isn't too noisy, acutance can be regained by sharpening. The Airy disc (diffraction spread pattern) is symmetric and has the same magnitude everywhere over the frame, contrary to lens aberrations, so it should respond better to standard sharpening.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some saying that the 1:2 ratio of the Oly lens is in fact equivalent to 1:1 on 35mm full frame, and that the 1:1 of the Pannyh Leica is really a super duper ratio. If so, could we not call it a draw in that Oly haven't given anything that is "less than".

In macrophotography, a magnification is a magnification. "Equivalent magnification" is meaningless... 1:1 is not 1:2.

I disagree that it is meaningless. Placing more pixels on the subject is desirable.

But this is more of a system/sensor factor.

Just my two oere,
Erik from Sweden

Ehrik Veteran Member • Posts: 8,014
Try Japan?

People have gotten fairly quick delivery from Japan on µ43 lenses,
see e.g. this poster

http://search.dpreview.com/index.php?q=greg+gebhardt+japan&page=0&scope=Forums&forumid=1041&age=All&field=All&results=Default&sort=Date&view=Default

Cameraman777 wrote:

Any seller of this lens who regrets spending his mony on such "big prolem" lens (suffering from buyers' remorse)? If so please let me know. I want it, I NEED it.

Thanks in advance.

Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,443
Re: f-stop, not absolute opening, decides diffraction

Ehrik wrote:

f/11 isn't anywhere near the diffraction limit for a 50mm lens. That's a 4.5mm opening. Diffraction sets in nearer a 2.5mm and smaller lens opening.

Godfrey, this is one of the rare occasions when you are mistaken on a technical/theoretical matter.

The absolute opening size (entry pupil) is not the deciding factor, it is the f-stop. Thus, any lens will have the same amount of diffraction at f/11. It doesn't matter what the focal length is.

I disagree.

From
-
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Technical Note:

Since the physical size of the lens aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/22 is a larger aperture at 200 mm than at 50 mm), why doesn't the size of the airy disk vary with focal length?  This is because the distance to the focal plane also increases with focal length, and so the airy disk diverges more over this greater distance.   As a result, the two effects of physical aperture size and focal length cancel out.  Therefore the size of the airy disk only depends on the f-stop, which describes both focal length and aperture size. ...
-

This is something I hear all the time. I was always disturbed by this statement as it didn't match my observations of diffraction degradation. So I did my own testing ...

The reason this is not entirely correct is that the statement of independence of focal length to diffraction limits is based on the notion that as lens focal length increases, the exit pupil and Airy disk is projected onto the sensor at a greater distance. HOWEVER, for lenses in the focal length range that I use, and that we're discussing here (7 to 70 mm on FourThirds DSLR and micro-FourThirds bodies), the lens designs are such that the projection is not so much different in terms of total distances as it would be for much longer focal lengths (> 100mm). The statement above is correct for the case of symmetric and mild telephoto lenses of varying focal lengths ... but we are not dealing with the case of symmetric lenses in this range, on these cameras, we're working mostly with inverse telephoto designs for the most part.

I tested my theory some time ago after reading about this notion of the independence of focal length from diffraction limits, and found what I suspected was true. In the range of focal lengths we're discussing here, diffraction degradation of image quality followed a general rule of starting when the iris opening reduced to less than approximately 2.5 mm. This value changes a bit depending upon the particular lens design you're working with, as well as the other factors as mentioned in the rest of the above article.

I assure you that if you fit a ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 lens onto your G1 and observe the behavior of a slit test for each focal length setting at all f/stops, you'll see diffraction begin earlier at 11mm than it does at 22mm (approximately f/4.5-5.5 vs f/8-9), and likewise for a 14-45 mm. A 45-200 mm lens, on the other hand, this starts to level out as the lens design and telescoping of the optics levels out the interaction of Airy disk and focal length.

I realize that my notions here run counter to the current popular wisdom, but I'm satisfied that my observations of the behavior of diffraction provides empirical evidence of their validity.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some saying that the 1:2 ratio of the Oly lens is in fact equivalent to 1:1 on 35mm full frame, and that the 1:1 of the Pannyh Leica is really a super duper ratio. If so, could we not call it a draw in that Oly haven't given anything that is "less than".

In macrophotography, a magnification is a magnification. "Equivalent magnification" is meaningless... 1:1 is not 1:2.

I disagree that it is meaningless. Placing more pixels on the subject is desirable.

But this is more of a system/sensor factor.

I do not understand your meaning. What does "placing more pixels on the subject is desireable" mean in the context of what plevyadophy said and my response?

Restating what I meant, "Considering that a FourThirds 1:1 magnification is somehow equivalent to a 35mm 2:1 magnification is meaningless." A 1:1 magnification means that the subject area is the same size as the receiving format sensor, that is for FourThirds at 1:1 magnification, I'm imaging a 13 x 17.3 mm image field. How does this 'place more [or less ?] pixels on the subject' if I consider that to be some equivalent magnification of 2:1 in terms of 35mm format ?
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads