2how.com has posted a review of the Leica 45mm Macro-Elmarit.

The review is in Thai, and I can only offer a lousy English translation by Google, but there are lots of nice macro, close up, and candid portrait photographs to look at.

The images are resized, and thus not suitable for pixel peeping, but give a good idea of how this lens renders the sharp to out-of-focus areas and transitions.

Unfortunately, the review didn't exactly help to curb my desire for this lens!

(via 43rumors)

Attached Images

 

very nice, but way too pricey for me.

Is there any comparison of this and Pana 20mm for portraits?
I would love to see how DOF compares on e.g. headshots.

I haven't seen such a comparison, but the angle of view is so different, I'm not sure how a practical comparison could be done. The 20/1.7 is short for headshots. I think it works for photos of kids, but for adults it can be an unflattering perspective.

I need to recheck my ZD 50mm f2 for focusing speed on the E-P1 with the new firmware... I think it's a better alternative for me - stabilised, way better IQ, better depth of field control and a good perspective for portraits.

Cheers

Brian

__________________
Founder, Olympus Photo Safari Group
http://www.ukphotosafari.org

While the IQ of the Olympus macro may be better for non macro shots, the Panasonic Leica 45mm has a much greater 1:1 magnification, versus 1:2 for the Zuiko macro. The Leica macro is stabilized. The Zuiko 50 f/2 plus adapter also weighs more than twice as much as the Panasonic Leica 45 f/2.8....and a light kit is the main reason I switched to mFT. The 45mm macro also has full AF functionality and is likely to work just as well on future mFT bodies.

So while I think that the Zuiko 50 f/2 is a superb lens, I think it isn't as suited to mFT nor as a macro lens due to its lower magnification. If I'd already had one, I would have used it with an adapter, but for those who don't, I believe the Leica is the better choice.

__________________
Björn
http://www.bmupix.com/

While I agree with you, it might be interesting to compare the two lenses and the out-of-focus areas at maximum apertures anyway. I'll try to do that later...

__________________
Björn
http://www.bmupix.com/

Thanks Björn, I'm looking forward to seeing that!

I have both lenses, and I wouldn't say that the ZD has way better IQ. It obviously has an extra stop, and it's sharper in the corners up to about f/5.6. The Leicasonic seems to have a slight sharpness edge in the center up to f/5.6. From f/5.6 and onwards, the lenses are essentially equivalent in sharpness. Bokeh is pretty good on both, though the Leicasonic has an eye-like character around the edges at f/2.8, which may be to some tastes and not to others. In terms of limiting bokeh CA, the Leicasonic is much better than the ZD. And operationally the Leicasonic is far better on a micro-4/3 body: lighter and more compact, fast AF, optical image stabilization, very smooth manual focus, 1:1, and a focus limiter. Overall I'd say that the Leicasonic is a much better lens for micro-4/3, though whether it's worth the cost differential is up to the individual; obviously the ZD is a very good lens.

Thanks bg2b,

I got the impression from the dpreview that the Leica was a bit mediocre... whereas the ZD 50mm f2 has always been very highly regarded. Since I already own the ZD 50, and the magnification has been quite fine for my needs, I'm out for now.

There's an Olympus m4/3rds macro planned, so I'll stick with the ZD 50 until that's released for m4/3rds and we'll see how it compares for IQ.

Cheers

Brian

__________________
Founder, Olympus Photo Safari Group
http://www.ukphotosafari.org

Thanks bg2b, I found your thoughts here very helpful. I do like the eye-like character of the Leica lens.

Bokeh color fringing is sort of a pet peeve for me. It's one of the reasons I let go of the Nikon system (35/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4 all suffer this to an extent), and it's an important issue for a macro lens, at least to me.

Having 1:1 in the Leica is also a pretty big feat, when one considers what 1:1 means in Micro Four Thirds compared to 35mm film, where 1:1 gets doesn't get you into quite as small of a world. 1:2 is good enough for me with Micro Four Thirds. I'd rather have had an f/2 lens and 1:2 than an f/2.8 lens and 1:1, all other things being equal.