Agree on that one, plus AF is of little use in my kind of macro work with static subjects (lenses, mushrooms, that sort of stuff). I much prefer legacy macro lenses also because they don't change their focal length when focussing, i.e. no "focus breathing".

If you're planning on doing non-macro shooting and an occasional macro the PL 45/2.8 may be a viable option.

__________________
Best regards, Ad.

Pictures | Equipment | Minolta collection | All lenses

Working distance and depth of field are trade-offs with focal length. Take a canon 65mm macro versus a Canon 200mm macro. They have different depth of field and working distance at 1:1. If you like long working distance, a legacy 200mm macro would be best. Just remember your depth of field is going to be even less. However, we have focus stacking these days to take care of that.

Tuskegee Airmen Challenge Coin by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr

Pany 45-200 fitted with Raynox 150, data and pictures.

Please read the Data, you will notice that the working distance 'with this lens' changes just 1/2" over the entire zoom range of 45-200mm.

1/2" = 'no big deal' in my book.

And do not dismiss the cost saving over the 45mm macro, in the UK it's a saving of around £530, not an insignifcant amount.

D in W

As I do not own, nor do I plan to own, a 45-200, your comparison is utterly useless to me. That is why I never bothered reading through all your "data". I agree that 1/2" is not a big deal. My experience with diopters on Canon telephoto zooms in the field, rather than a studio, is that they were very frustrating to use. Maybe this is better. That said, I not going to run out and buy a Raynox and a 45-200 when I already have a great lens as shown above.

As to cost savings, that is a moot point if one already own the lens. And, the cost difference here is not nearly that much. Clearly, if cost is an issue, a converted manual focus lens may be an even better option. I picked up a like new Canon FD 200mm macro for $125.

It amazes me that people go out of their way to criticize a lens when someone posts images for others to see. I am glad you enjoy your diopter it is clearly the right choice for you.

Hey for those who own both the Oly 45 1.8 and PL45 2.8...can the PL 45 do alright for portraits? I'd love to see some samples. Also with the focus limiter, is the focus quick enough?

__________________
Jonathan
--
www.jonathanfriolo.com

The PL45 is a totally fabulous lens and extremely flexible in its uses.

As to portraits it is absolutely fine within the obvious limits due to its aperture.
If you need a shallow DOF for a particular subject you may need to be careful how you position your subject regarding the background.

Some say (my wife included) that it is too unforgivingly sharp. Is this a fault?

Best,

M

__________________
All a dream
E-M5(black&gripped), P14, PL25, PL45, Oly9-18, Oly12-50, P45-200, FL-14, MAL-1,
OM1, OM28/f2.8, OM50/f1.8, OM100/f2.8, Viv135/f2.8, OM35-70/f4, OM75-150/f4, T20

Good questions. Oly 45/1.8 would be better for portraits. Or even the 25/1.4 (though it's a different kind of portrait). I am happy, though, with the output of the PL45 for pics of people. Would I like it to be faster aperture? Yes, but not give up the PL contrast and color, nor give up the macro.

The focus can be slow because of the long throw. If you limit it, and it catches focus, it's plenty quick for portraits. If you forget to limit it, and it misses, it can be frustrating.

On a side note -- this is a shot that the 45-200 + Raynox wouldn't get, which is why I prefer the PL45 -- it's reasonable for portraits, has a good macro, better color and contrast, doesn't require filter mounting/un-mounting, and is also a reasonable walk-around size (though not as small as the 45/1.8). In short, I agree with Muntjack -- it's a wonderfully flexible lens. This lens used to be over-priced, but at street used prices, it's actually a lens that now makes sense.

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)

If you try I think you'll find that at the same image size and f stop you'll get the same depth of field.

same image size + same f stop + different focal length = same depth of field + different distance + different perspective

This is true for any image reproduction ratio.

On a side note -- I shot my kids recitals yesterday (one of my few uses of video). I brought the PL25 and PL45. Honestly, if these were the only two lenses I had, it's all I really need for 85% of my shots. The Panny 14 is great to have (along with my zoom and some legacy lenses), but if I just had the 25 & 45, I would get by just fine.

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)