Olympus 45mm vs Olympus 60mm macro for food photography

That isn't left field, this is:

9mm bodycap. JPEG straight from the camera.

Mark

innatelychatty wrote:

This is the type of food photography I usually take, but I also like to focus in on particular details (like the crust on a pie, etc.)

How far away were you (or the camera) when you took these photos?

I don't exactly remember, but probably ~3 feet.

innatelychatty wrote:

When you say "I was seated with the camera above me at an arm's length for the first shot" - can you please elaborate? Do you mean you were seated and raised the camera above (or at level to) your head? Does that mean I cannot be seated at a restaurant and just have the camera pretty much attached to my face? What is the minimum focus distance for the 60mm macro lens?

The nice thing about the 20/1.7 is that I can remain seated and take pictures of my food without moving from my seat.

I can even flip the swivel of the lcd  down, hold the camera directly above the food, compose and shoot straight down without being too obvious.

Using a longer focal length like 60mm would require standing up and moving back from the table.  I'm also using the 25/1.8, but find that a bit too long.

You don't need a macro lens for this kind of casual food photography, which is why I suggest you give it a try with your 17/1.8 before you buy another lens.

innatelychatty wrote:

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.

The 17mm 1.8 might also be a solution but as I have not used it for food photography (as I don't have one), I can't say.

What I can say is that the 20mm is great for food. I also have the 25mm f1.4. And at times I have wanted something brighter than the 20mm f1.7 as restaurants and such tends to be quite dark at times so any extra speed would be greatly appreciated. What I have found out is that the 25mm, although better than the 20mm in low light because of it's extra speed, is too long and focusing distance too large to comfortably take photos of food from your seats. The 20? Awesome.

Although these are old (aka, I have gotten better since), should give you an idea of what the 20mm can do. As far as I remember, all were taken with the 20mm unless otherwise stated on the photo.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/sets/72157629408163033/

I think I just 'Liked' my own post...didn't even know I can actually do that...pretty dumb to be honest...

innatelychatty wrote:

When you say "I was seated with the camera above me at an arm's length for the first shot" - can you please elaborate? Do you mean you were seated and raised the camera above (or at level to) your head? Does that mean I cannot be seated at a restaurant and just have the camera pretty much attached to my face? What is the minimum focus distance for the 60mm macro lens?

Just seated normally, with the camera below my head. The 60mm focuses down to 7.4".

Uncle Frank wrote:

You don't need a macro lens for this kind of casual food photography, which is why I suggest you give it a try with your 17/1.8 before you buy another lens.

I definitely agree with that. But my point was that 45mm f/1.8 is a great lens but won't add much to your food photography arsenal because its close focusing abilities are pretty poor and in practice, doesn't magnify details any more than the 17mm f/1.8 does. The 17mm f/1.8 can pretty much do just about anything you need to do informally.

The reason why I suggest the 60mm f/2.8 is because it opens up a whole new world of macro photography where you can focus on individual sugar crystals on a pie, really zero in on top of a cherry on top of a sundae, things like that. And it also functions as a great all-around medium telephoto lens and everything that such a lens is good for (headshots, street photography when you want to be more discreet, or just when you need such a long lens, etc.).

There are so many things worth photographing that really needs a medium telephoto macro lens. For instance, one of my hobbies is guitar building. If I really want to zero in on a bridge or a knob, only my 60mm can get close enough to where I feel like it's properly showing the detail I want to photograph. When I'm shooting at a concert, and I want to get a sharp picture of a drummer, often 60mm can be perfect. If I want to zoom in on a single unusual guitar pedal, most other lenses won't quite cut it. Wedding photographers rely on macro lenses for taking pictures of the ring, or eyelashes as part of a makeup shoot or whatever.

Yes, the 45mm f/1.8 is a wonderful lens but I personally find the 60mm f/2.8 to be a more versatile lens. Yet I still carry around the 45mm f/1.8 a lot more because sometimes, being really great at a few things is better than being pretty good at a lot of things and so, versatility isn't always the most important part of a lens, but when you're starting out with your lens collection, I think versatility is important. That's why I love the 17mm f/1.8, for instance. It's actually probably my third favorite lens to shoot with (after 25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/1.8) but if I can only use one lens for the next three months, I pick the 17mm f/1.8 because it strikes a great balance between versatility and specialization.

Even if that doesn't reply to the question of the OP, hereunder are some food to look at without gaining weight, taken at different focal lengths:

M.Zuiko 12-40mm, hand-held Olympus OMD-e-m5

Lumix 12-35mm, hand-held Olympus OM-D e-m5 (cropped image of a Pitaya)

Lumix 14-45mm, hand-held Panasonic GH1 (authentic Moon Cake, from China)

Lumix 14-45mm, hand-held Panasonic GH1 (Yin/Yang Soup, in a Guilin Restaurant)

Lumix 14-45mm, hand-held Panasonic GH1 (raviolis in a Guangzhou Restaurant, in China)

Lumix 20mm, hand-held Panasonic GF1 (Sea Bream plate in a Montréal Restaurant)

If you're talking about taking food while eating, FL 60mm is too long. FOV will be insufficient, and only half of the plate will be on the screen. And you'll be struggling with AF because the plate will be too close.

Think about 20-30 mm FL

innatelychatty wrote:

Hello to all food and portrait photographers out there!

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.

I own both and for food photography I find the macro very useful.  The Olympus 45mm doesn't focus very close, relatively speaking, and with food photography I usually have plenty of room to set up the shot how I want it, so the long focal length is rarely a problem.  The 45mm is a great portrait lens but the 60mm does well when shot wide open.

You can consider the Sigma 19mm or 30mm as well. The 19mm focuses down to 7.9 inches. The 30mm focuses down to 11.8 inches. Neither is as fast as the 20mm F1.7 or 45mm F1.8 but both are sharp and well regarded for the price. The Sigma 60mm F2.8 is a nice lens also. Macro (IMO) is not needed for food photography. While the Oly 60mm Macro is a great lens, if you look for used lenses, you might be able to get all three of the Sigmas for the price of the Oly.

The 45mm 1.8 works really well with some extension tubes.