Battle of Macros which one you like the most?

Playing with my new light box. I need a macro slide however this gives an idea

Here Panasonic 30mm (my favourite for small widget photography) Panasonic 45mm (my favourite for flowers and underwater) Zuiko 60mm my favourite for bees and moving things

Shots are 16 focus stacked in photoshop. Interesting to see the chromatic variations. White balance was set fixed on a whibal card and lighting and exposure settings identical

Framing not totally identical due to lack of hardware!

30mm

45mm

60mm

I've been looking for the chroma difference you claim to see.  I think the two Panasonic lenses are indistinguishable.  The Oly lens is slightly redder/warmer.

Honestly, the difference in focal length is much more obvious than any chroma difference, to me.

I have to go with the Pana 30mm as it's the only one I have. I bought it mainly for copy work since macros are usually well corrected and need minimal post work. It doesn't disappoint as it's the sharpest lens I own or have tried.

edspen wrote:

I've had two 45's both excellent. Keep one on a G9, gave one to a friend who chucked the macro they had. Dual IS with the G9, but fun to pop it on my GX85 on some field trips. The light weight is great, compared to a 100mm IS canon macro on a canon body. And, comes with a lens hood, what will they think of next (free filters, LOL). I had the Olympus 60 macro which is very sharp, but the limit control on the side of the lens seem awkward. The speed of the Leica 45, its balance, and the free hood (again LOL) made it a keeper. Now here is question: with the 2x crop factor are we getting 1:1 or 2:1 or have I opened a can of worms ? (bag of snakes, last LOL).

We are getting 1:1 i.e. a 17.3x13mm frame size which is the sensor size.

We do get 20.3 megapixels though which is equivalent to 81.2 megapixels that no full frame camera has but that does not make it 2:1

Can of worm just popped open!

As a dedicated non pixel peeper I can't tell them apart

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

As a dedicated non pixel peeper I can't tell them apart

They are focus stacked should not be major differences at 2.8

Resolution differences are more apparent on single shots and if you look at edges (my subjects are not at the edges)

Shots at f/11 reveal differences on that account however a lens may work different at f/11 than it did at say f/4

Dspider wrote:

None of your images have demonstrated why a photographer would use different focal lengths for different environmental inclusion. for in the field bug shooting a zoom with close up filters is the best tool for that job.

Ds

Wow amazing conclusion a shot in a light box does not show the background on top of that focus breathing almost annihilates those differences anyway

No comment on the generic statement about shooting a bug in the field with a long lens and a close up filter literally pearls of wisdom from an acclaimed photographer?

With these lenses and subject I don't think there is any reason for preference, in between the 45 and 60. In fact, I own both, and I always have difficulty in deciding between them, just for perspective reasons. I end up deciding based on convenient distance, or which one is fitted to the camera! (bad reason, I know!) 

The 30 mm definitely is not my preferred FL for macro. I already had this opinion when I was shooting FT.

edspen wrote:

I've had two 45's both excellent. Keep one on a G9, gave one to a friend who chucked the macro they had. Dual IS with the G9, but fun to pop it on my GX85 on some field trips. The light weight is great, compared to a 100mm IS canon macro on a canon body. And, comes with a lens hood, what will they think of next (free filters, LOL). I had the Olympus 60 macro which is very sharp, but the limit control on the side of the lens seem awkward. The speed of the Leica 45, its balance, and the free hood (again LOL) made it a keeper.

I have been looking at the 45 lens several times, specifically for my GM cameras. But did not buy it because I did read somewhere that for macro the lens OIS is not providing a benefit. Since you had two 45's, can you confirm if this is indeed true?

Now here is question: with the 2x crop factor are we getting 1:1 or 2:1 or have I opened a can of worms ? (bag of snakes, last LOL).

The crop factor does not apply to reproduction ratio. Because the reproduction ratio is directly defined as the ratio of the subject size on the sensor plane to the actual subject size.

The high pixel density of smaller sensors actually gives m43 an advantage over the larger formats in macro photography.

Overall, I am surprised how close the 3 pictures are.

I like the 60mm picture best overall, very closely followed by the 45. The 60 is a tad sharper, contrast is the same. The 30 seems a bit weaker.

It is hard to tell though, how much the choice of stacking spacing affects the end result. Single shots would be easier to compare.

Pedagydusz wrote:

With these lenses and subject I don't think there is any reason for preference, in between the 45 and 60. In fact, I own both, and I always have difficulty in deciding between them, just for perspective reasons. I end up deciding based on convenient distance, or which one is fitted to the camera! (bad reason, I know!)

The 30 mm definitely is not my preferred FL for macro. I already had this opinion when I was shooting FT.

At 1:1 the 45mm and 60mm are practically identical further away there is difference

30mm is different and only good for still life it is a nice lens though for close up work, macro you are hitting the subject with no room for lighting

Your sample photos are not realistic. There is no rain falling on the statue.

Which of these?

• Is the best focal length (considering scaring insects and avoiding bee stings)?
• Is weather sealed?
• Has IQ that may be met but not surpassed?

One very interesting thing once you take focus stacking out of the mix is that performance of the lenses changes at f/2.8 going to f/11

At 2.8 the Olympus has perhaps a little edge over the 30mm not possible to see much over the 45mm the depth of field is minimal

30/2.8

45/2.8

60/2.8

At f/11 though the 30mm and the 45mm both seem to do better than the 60mm

30/11

45/11

60/11

All lenses seem to have quite a bit of vignetting wide open with the Panasonic worse. I am using lightroom so vignetting is not corrected

In terms of chroma differences the Olympus lens seems to produce less luminance in the blues which in turn make the image look warmer than Panasonic whose blue are brighter so overall the image looks cooler. Difference in color temperature is 150K if that so nothing major

All in all the 45mm and 60mm are really close also due to the stronger focus breathing of the 60mm with subjects in the centre. Not part of this test is performance at the edges

Bassam Guy wrote:

Your sample photos are not realistic. There is no rain falling on the statue.

Which of these?

• Is the best focal length (considering scaring insects and avoiding bee stings)?
• Is weather sealed?
• Has IQ that may be met but not surpassed?

1. None really the 60mm has lots of focus breathing at 1:1 and 1:2 the performance is almost identical to the 45mm working distance is 2 cm aside. 30mm is not for that. So you will scare them. The best option but is not macro is 50-200mm with 1.4 or 2x TC
2. Only the 60mm but again shooting during rain is not what I do, drops tend to show and I usually have some form of light with me too
3. The 60mm only does better at the edges and up to f/5.6 however when you are at f/11 there is no gap in fact things start going the opposite way. I shoot a lot at f/11 to have depth of field, things tend to move making stacking not practical

Finally I use those lenses not just outdoors but indoors and underwater, I have a nice housing watertight to 100m I do not worry about weather sealing lol!

I have had the 60mm for 7 years the 45mm from less than one year and the 30mm for less than one month all have pro and cons and specific use cases but would agree the 30mm is more a still life close up lens is not something to go after bugs

instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/

cba_melbourne wrote:

Overall, I am surprised how close the 3 pictures are.

I like the 60mm picture best overall, very closely followed by the 45. The 60 is a tad sharper, contrast is the same. The 30 seems a bit weaker.

It is hard to tell though, how much the choice of stacking spacing affects the end result. Single shots would be easier to compare.

Single shots are in another branch interesting to see how things change from 2.8 (used for stacking) to f/11

I think that you are splitting hairs with this comparison, so unless you can come up with a more challenging subject, all I see are differences in Focal Length and minor chroma characteristics, which matter not in PP. If it were me I'd be more focused on the differences at closest focusing distance and infinity, and homogeneity acrosss the frame, which you can't demonstrate in your comparison.

RSTP14 wrote:

I think that you are splitting hairs with this comparison, so unless you can come up with a more challenging subject, all I see are differences in Focal Length and minor chroma characteristics, which matter not in PP. If it were me I'd be more focused on the differences at closest focusing distance and infinity, and homogeneity acrosss the frame, which you can't demonstrate in your comparison.

Interesting I see no differences in focal length except between the 30mm and the rest the 45mm and the 60mm look almost identical which is the manifestation of the 60mm focus breathing

If for homogeneity across the frame you mean how it performs at the edges I do not shoot anything in the shape of a rectangle neither am looking at reproducing photos so what it does in the corners though academically interesting is not actually that important. In fact a bit of vignetting and less sharp corners may help in real life situations

The comparison objective is in fact to show that the differences are almost none when you shoot a widget which is what you do in real life

Next step am planning to shoot a set of legos or a flower not bugs this is a light box for still life