Pana 45mm f2.8 vs. Olympus 45mm f1.8 + Olympus 35mm f3.5 (macro)

Discussion in 'This or That?' started by Dede, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. Dede

    Dede Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 10, 2011

    what do you guys think on the lenses in the heading? I mean, in terms of price Pana 45mm f2.8 is pretty comparable to Olympus 45 f1.8 + Olympus 35mm f3.5, but I guess there are some differences. I think that I could use the pana as a portrait lens, too and I would have one lens vs. two. So how do you guys think does the pana compare macro and usual (propably portrait or something like that) compare to the other combo? Which lenses would you choose?

    Thanks in advance
  2. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    If you want AF and close focusing, there is only one choice ...
  3. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    PL45 and ZD35 are both macros with AF...
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    For some reason, I was thinking of the OM 35/3.5 macro

    You're missing the 50 f/2 four thirds lens LOL
  5. Dede

    Dede Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 10, 2011
    Oh well yeah I should've mentioned that the Olympus 35mm f3.5 is a adapted four thirds lens, I'm sorry!
  6. ntblowz

    ntblowz Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 13, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    35mm focus too slow, mf is much faster with it
  7. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 5, 2011
    I think 35mm is a bit wide for a macro. It does 1:1, but you have to get up really close. The PL45 should be a bit easier to use, but it is slower than the m.45

    Personally, I think I'm going to get the m.45 and then wait for a longer macro lens. The ZD50 would be a great option for a macro, but it is expensive, and it only does 1:2.
  8. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    As ~tc~ mentions, you really should add the ZD 50/f2 Macro to your list. It's stunningly sharp, cheaper and faster than the Panasonic macro, and quite compact, even with the adapter.
  9. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    I have 35mm macro and it's a stunning lens for the price. I was really skeptical when I bought it but after some pics I love it.
  10. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    If you need AF for macro, the Panasonic is the only reasonable option. The 35/3.5 is horribly slow and not especially accurate for AF.

    If you don't need AF for macro, the 45/1.8 is the better of the two lenses for non-macro uses, and it's smaller and cheaper to boot. Instead of the 35/3.5, consider a manual focus macro lens from another system. There are plenty of cheap MF 55/3.5s and 90/2.8s that will deliver excellent results, and they have the advantage of greater working distance.

    Personally, I'm going to be getting the 45/1.8. For macro, I use a Nikon 55/3.5 macro with an adapter and I've been quite pleased with the results.