Olympus 45mm vs Olympus 60mm macro for food photography

Hello to all food and portrait photographers out there!

I currently have the wonderful Olympus OM-D E-M10 paired with my amazing Oly 17mm f/1.8 prime lens for landscape and street photography.

I am now in the market for a second prime lens. Ideally it would be a lens for both food and portrait photography, but if I had to prioritize one it would have to be food (recipes, restaurant dishes, etc. - so a lens that works well in low-light situations). I am looking at either the Oly 45mm f/1.8 lens or the Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro lens.

I like the shorter focal length of the 45mm, which seems to be a good short tele length and perfect for portrait photography - the bokeh isn't bad either! However I have read several reviews saying macro would be really helpful for food photography.

Between the Oly 45mm or the 60mm macro, which should I be getting? Is the macro lens capable of good bokeh in portrait photography despite its longer focal length and 1:1 macro capability? I have looked into the Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 but it is sadly out of my budget.

innatelychatty wrote:

I am now in the market for a second prime lens. Ideally it would be a lens for both food and portrait photography, but if I had to prioritize one it would have to be food (recipes, restaurant dishes, etc. - so a lens that works well in low-light situations). I am looking at either the Oly 45mm f/1.8 lens or the Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro lens.

You choice will depend on the angle of view that you need. Because they are quite different.

If you have to be really, really near, the M.Zuiko 60mm allows to make close-ups on the seeds at the surface of a strawberry. If you'd rather take a picture of a whole dish, you'll appreciate the wider-angle provided by the M.Zuiko 45mm.

Both are very sharp. So that's not a question of IQ. The M.Zuiko 45mm is brighter that the M.Zuiko 60mm.

So, in a nutshell, it's more a question of photographic style.

I remember your thread, and I basically said the 45mm f/1.8 specifically for food photography is kind of useless. But as that was merely a theoretical discussion, I got myself a Trader Joe's mini-pie out of the freezer and put it on a small plate.

This is the 17mm f/1.8 that you know and love. I can get the entire plate and more at eye level. And And for some reason, my tortie cat is licking my snack.

What an awful photo. Let's bring the 45mm f/1.8 in.

Oh, that looks a bit better. But is this honestly that much more useful? After all, you can easily bring your 17mm f/1.8 closer in. All the same, look at that bokeh!

Anyway, let's get as close as possible. Here, the Olympus 17mm is quite impressive.

The Olympus 45mm has to be better, right? Um... not so fast.

Hey, that looks almost identical to the 17mm. Sure, the pie looks less distorted because we have a larger working distance, but I can't fill it in the frame, so I have to crop if that's the detail I want to show off. See, as far as close up is concerned, focal length isn't important. Magnification is. Specifications say that the 45mm has a maximum magnification of 0.11x and 17mm has a maximum magnification of 0.08x, but honestly, I've used both these lenses extensively, and the 17mm focuses closer than the specs say, and in practice, it's as you see in these photos. The 17mm and 45mm pretty much have the same magnification in practice.

But what about the 60mm f/2.8? I have that lens, too.

That looks a lot closer, and we're not done.

Now, if you want to do serious food photography, wouldn't you agree? This is the shot you want. And we're still not done.

OK, we can still get closer, but now it's just getting silly.

These pictures are all out-of-camera JPG, no processing at all, and no cropping.

These photos have also been very helpful to me as I am looking at both the 45 and 60 for my GH3  thanks for taking the time to do the images

innatelychatty wrote:

Also, how is the 60mm macro lens when it comes to portrait photography? obviously with the longer focal length it'll get a bit awkward in interior spaces, but I also read that the bokeh is more pleasing with the 45mm.

When it comes down to it though, I'm definitely more interested in food than portrait photography.

If you're interested in taking pictures of bits of food, the 60 macro will be great, but it's too long for dishes of food. Your 17mm lens would be the better choice for full plates. My foodie-favorite is the 20/1.7.

Hey, why in that last shot is nothing in focus, and if you look at the full size shot, there's these strange hook shaped flares everywhere?

Maklike Tier wrote:

Hey, why in that last shot is nothing in focus, and if you look at the full size shot, there's these strange hook shaped flares everywhere?

First of all, I'm hand holding at 60mm and 1/13s speeds. Those blurry bits are camera shake. I could have gotten that shot actually useful if I cared to take a few frames and make more of an effort but I just took that as my silly shot. Second of all, at that distance, the sufficient DOF is hard to achieve.

innatelychatty wrote:

I really appreciate the photos, it really helps put everything into perspective!

How far away was the camera from the pie (and your adorable cat) when you were using the 60mm macro lens? do you think the lens is usable when taking photos of dishes in restaurants, or will the photo be too cropped? And how well does the lens function in low-light (say not well-lit restaurants)?

Also, how is the 60mm macro lens when it comes to portrait photography? obviously with the longer focal length it'll get a bit awkward in interior spaces, but I also read that the bokeh is more pleasing with the 45mm.

When it comes down to it though, I'm definitely more interested in food than portrait photography.

I was seated with the camera above me at an arm's length for the first shot. I definitely could have backed away without having to stand on a chair or anything like that, but 60mm is definitely for one plate at a time pictures. You can use the 17mm for taking pictures of overall plates of food and some close ups, and then as you want to really get into the details, the 60mm comes in.

I think the 60mm f/2.8 is a good portrait lens. It has wider depth of field but thanks to 60mm being longer than 45mm, that helps blur the backgrounds more than the 45mm would at f/2.8 for a similar framing, so that cancels out the aperture advantage somewhat. That said, the 45mm is wonderful to shoot at wide open. I think the 60mm f/2.8 also has good bokeh. I read someone on this forum say they prefer that lens's bokeh to the 45mm f/1.8. I think both have good bokeh, but not quite the best in the world.

I know portraits are secondary to you, but every time someone talks about a "portrait lens," I have to ask: What kind of portrait?

If you mean a full length portrait of someone, you'll probably want nothing longer than a 25mm lens. For a shot framed to waist level, that 45mm would be fine. And, for a really tight headshot, the 60mm would be near perfect, allowing for sufficient working distance to keep from intimidating your subjects.

These are all portrait lenses when used for the right portrait.

innatelychatty wrote:

I have the 17mm lens, and I know there's a slight bit of distortion but that's what I plan to use for group and full-length shots. For shots framed at waist level, is the 60mm incapable? The focal length (120mm equivalent) is probably a lot better for really tight head shots, but it probably wouldn't work well with interior shooting, right?

The 75mm is my go-to lens for head and shoulders shots, but it takes a distance of 10-12 feet to do it and about 15 feet for a waist length shot. I think the perspective is great at these distances, but it all depends on how much space you have. The 60mm would work at slightly closer distances.

If you want to photograph a full plate (at least 20cm wide) placed in front of you (around 30cm away), then focal length required is a matter of geometry - approximately 25mm. The minimum distance for the 45mm is 50cm (without extension tubes) at which distance the field of view is around 15cm wide. I expect that 50cm is further away than you want and 15cm is a small plate.

Mark

innatelychatty wrote:

lovely photo! how close can you get with your Panny 20/1.7, and is it comparable with my Oly 17mm/1.8?

The Panny 20/1.7 has a minimum focusing distance of 7.87" (20 cm), which results in a max reproduction ratio of 1:8.

The Oly 17/1.8 has a minimum focusing distance of 9.84" (25 cm), and a max reproduction ratio of 1:12.5,

I only do casual food photography very occasionally, but here's two images using the 45mm. Really depends on what sort of food you want to shoot, but I'm happy with the lens.

Doughnut fragments.

Small croissants, on a small plate.

http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-30mm-f2-8-macro-to-be-launched-in-q1/

This might be the answer for your food photography.