1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

A compatison Macro - f2.8 vs. f/11

Discussion in 'Nature' started by fgbrault, May 1, 2012.

  1. fgbrault

    fgbrault Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 2, 2012
    Azalea E-PM1 Panasonic/Leica 45mm Macro

    f/11, 1/10, tripod
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    f2.8, 1/160 tripod
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    I used a tripod, both because of the slow shutter speed for the f/11 photo (1/10) and because of the limited depth of field, where any movement forward or back can move the focus point. The f 2.8 was at 1/160 which would have been fast enough, although the flower was moving a bit in the wind, but I probably would not have gotten the focus point right without a tripod to keep the camera at a precise distance. I used manual/auto to focus. I find with the Pany/Leica 45mm that autofocus, when used for macros, does not always work on its own. I focus manually to get as close to precise focus as I can and then use autofocus to make sure it is precise.

    The flower of an Azalea is pretty small. I think the Pany/Leica did a great job. Overall I am very pleased with this lens, especially its 2:1 magnification equivalent capability.
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Justified_Sinner

    Justified_Sinner Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 11, 2010
    Scotland, UK
    Dauvit Alexander
    Any idea what the "Focus Limit" slider on the lens does (or is meant to do)? I have tried it on mine and it seems to prevent it focusing at all, which is plainly not the intention!
  3. everythingsablur

    everythingsablur Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 4, 2010
    Toronto, ON
    Per the DPR review... "There's a also a focus limiter switch on the side of the lens barrel, which allows the user to restrict the minimum available distance to 0.5m for faster autofocus when shooting at longer ranges.". I pick my PL45 up from the post office today, but presumably it keeps the lens from hunting down to the close focus distance. Basically, use it if you are doing portraits and other shooting that is well away from you. Do not use it for macros where you are right up to the lens.
  4. fgbrault

    fgbrault Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 2, 2012
    Thanks. My understanding is that when focus is set to "Limit" the lens will not focus down to macro. This is intended to speed up focus when using the lens for normal photography, by reducing the focus range. I am not sure it makes much difference though. On "Full" it can focus down to its closest focus distance. As I indicated though, I have found that for macro photos I often need to use manual focus first and then refine focus with auto.
  5. las Palm as

    las Palm as Mu-43 Regular

    The pana leica 45mm , in my opinion, its the most underrated lens on m4/3.
  6. everythingsablur

    everythingsablur Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 4, 2010
    Toronto, ON
    I have a hard time seeing any Leica lens (Panasonic or otherwise) as "underrated". :biggrin:

    I think it's generally considered an excellent lens, but people will fault it on price (not really the lens' fault), or size, or brightness, or just don't need macro. For those people, they go with the Oly.
  7. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    I think PL45 has 1:1 magnification , please correct me if I am wrong.But beautiful shots and I love ur BOKEH
  8. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    No, the 45-200 holds that title, but the 45/2.8 is very, very good.

    1:1 is 1:1 regardless of crop factor. 1" of the subject = 1" on the sensor, it's just that our field of view is smaller due to less inches on the sensor.
  9. fgbrault

    fgbrault Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 2, 2012
    It s magnification is 1:1, but the "full frame" equivalent magnification is 2:1.
  10. ckrueger

    ckrueger Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 16, 2011
    Yes, 1:1 is always 1:1, just like 300mm is always 300mm. But with the smaller sensor the view is different. Your 300mm lens looks like a 600mm lens, and your 1:1 magnification lens looks like a 2:1 magnification lens. Nobody argues about the telephoto crop (well, except those who like to argue), but magnification seems to be less accepted as a function of sensor size.

    1:1 at full frame gives you a 36mm wide subject
    1:1 at APS-C gives you a 22.5mm wide subject
    1:1 at 4/3 gives you a 17mm wide subject
    1:2 at 4/3 gives you a 35mm wide subject

    You could of course crop your full frame sensor down to 17mm of sensor width to get the same effect, but there's more going on with 4/3 than you can accomplish with a mere crop. Many features of the camera are tuned to the smaller sensor which makes it easier to use than shooting a crop of a larger sensor (believe me I did just this for a long time with my 5D!). Things such as the viewfinder view, the AF points, the sensor density (manifested as overall resolution after the crop), and of course the size of the camera and lens are all in favor of 4/3 if you're thinking of shooting a 2x crop of a full frame sensor.

    So of course you're correct when you say 1:1 = 1:1. But if you put a GH2 and 45/2.8 in a macro shooter's hands the pictures that they produce will look like those produced by a full frame user if they were to shoot with a theoretical 90/5.6 2:1 macro lens.

    Put another way, I ALWAYS went out with my extension tubes when shooting macro with my 5D and 100/2.8. Now with my 45/2.8 the tubes will see only special duty. Four Thirds effectively gets me closer. (It also lets me shoot wider apertures and thus lower ISOs and less flash power, but that's another story entirely.)
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.