$1066 for Pana/Leica 45mm f2.8

[Oly5050]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/lens_of_the_year_2011/

Lens of year award goes to .....

 

[swhyge]

If u look at the threads, it was not clear that the OP wanted to buy this as a macro lens. And, I was not aware that this was a macro lens until later in the thread. In any case, I wasn't advising...dun put words into my mouth. I was just asking what is the point of the 45 2.8 when Oly has such a fantastic 45 1.8. IMHO, a great lens. Super sharp wide open, fantastic bokeh....magical result that I have not seen for a long time. I think its nearly as good as the ZD 50 f2. But having said that, I have not shot the 50 f2 for a long time either.

It was quite obvious, at least to me, that TS has done his groundwork and wanted the leica/45, - and hence macro fn is one key consideraton
It was also quite obvious, at least to me, from your first post, that you either overlooked the macro fn or you are not aware!
Hence, i posted a prompt to you "Are these 2 lens the same?, and you failed to catch it.
I posted in the 'chit-chat style', with no condescending intent - My apology.

 

[swhyge]

I had the oly45. Lens perform as praised.

But using on the small lumix bodies, composing/snapping with live view, you need extra 'care', esp trying ad hoc candid shot.

with benefit of hand-on usage, I would have got the Leica 45 - for its OIS and macro, if I start anew now. - lose a little speed, but gain in more keepers and macro function (very useful than many think).

Congrats to TS purchase!

 

[Agrivar]

quite true.. esp indoor shots when ss drops. On my GH2 the oly 45 works very well because i can use the EVF and hold the camera steady. Using the 45 on my GF3 is possible, just that i really need to shoot in S mode or try and hold it super steady with arms tucked into my sides for better posture.. not so easy as GH2..

 

[blacvios]

I just got the lens great match with the newer m4/3 bodies which can reduce the focus box fast focus and great macro performance. Sharpness is top class from f4

 

[sin77]

I just got the lens great match with the newer m4/3 bodies which can reduce the focus box fast focus and great macro performance. Sharpness is top class from f4

how much u paid?

 

[Oly5050]

I had the oly45. Lens perform as praised.

But using on the small lumix bodies, composing/snapping with live view, you need extra 'care', esp trying ad hoc candid shot.

with benefit of hand-on usage, I would have got the Leica 45 - for its OIS and macro, if I start anew now. - lose a little speed, but gain in more keepers and macro function (very useful than many think).

Congrats to TS purchase!

quite true.. esp indoor shots when ss drops. On my GH2 the oly 45 works very well because i can use the EVF and hold the camera steady. Using the 45 on my GF3 is possible, just that i really need to shoot in S mode or try and hold it super steady with arms tucked into my sides for better posture.. not so easy as GH2..

Oly 45 is a low light lens and it has two specific functions the first of which is its a magical portrait lens and secondly, can be used for some telephoto work. It is definately not a macro. Its super sharp according to lenstip.

 

[ziggy]

If u look at the threads, it was not clear that the OP wanted to buy this as a macro lens. And, I was not aware that this was a macro lens until later in the thread. In any case, I wasn't advising...dun put words into my mouth. I was just asking what is the point of the 45 2.8 when Oly has such a fantastic 45 1.8. IMHO, a great lens. Super sharp wide open, fantastic bokeh....magical result that I have not seen for a long time. I think its nearly as good as the ZD 50 f2. But having said that, I have not shot the 50 f2 for a long time either.

The significant price difference would have been obvious that they are not the same, no?

 

[Oly5050]

The significant price difference would have been obvious that they are not the same, no?

Sorry, I did not consider the price difference because I did not remember how much I paid for the 45 1.8 until this thread started. But, now that I remember, yup, the leica is nearly twice price and the 45 1.8 is damn good value. As for the price difference, does it mean anything? The Leica branding itself could already explain the price difference. But it does not imply that a more expensive lens is necessarily better. And that was exactly my point I guess : twice the price, f2.8, larger, IMO uglier on the PENS. Why? That was my question.

For $450, the 45 1.8 is a bargain compared to the leica. In fact, I think it is underpriced. They could have priced it at about $700-800 and it would still sell. FYI, the 45 1.8 is actually sharper than the ZD 50 f2. On the lenstip website, the 45 1.8 is 7% sharper based on their resolution chart (75 vs 80). Anything more than 50 on their chart is damn good already. On photozone, the 45 2.8 is indeed sharper than the 45 1.8, but not by much. At f 2.8 2241 vs 2390. At f4 2313 vs 2386. The 45 1.8 at 1.8 is 2094 already. If macro means so much to you, then no choice, u gotta pay the $500 difference. But if u buying the lens for portrait, I do not see the point. The 45 1.8 IMO, is a no-brainer. FYI, you cannot assume that everybody who buys a macro lens uses it for macro.

 

[blacvios]

Sorry, I did not consider the price difference because I did not remember how much I paid for the 45 1.8 until this thread started. But, now that I remember, yup, the leica is nearly twice price and the 45 1.8 is damn good value. As for the price difference, does it mean anything? The Leica branding itself could already explain the price difference. But it does not imply that a more expensive lens is necessarily better. And that was exactly my point I guess : twice the price, f2.8, larger, IMO uglier on the PENS. Why? That was my question.

For $450, the 45 1.8 is a bargain compared to the leica. In fact, I think it is underpriced. They could have priced it at about $700-800 and it would still sell. FYI, the 45 1.8 is actually sharper than the ZD 50 f2. On the lenstip website, the 45 1.8 is 7% sharper based on their resolution chart (75 vs 80). Anything more than 50 on their chart is damn good already. On photozone, the 45 2.8 is indeed sharper than the 45 1.8, but not by much. At f 2.8 2241 vs 2390. At f4 2313 vs 2386. The 45 1.8 at 1.8 is 2094 already. If macro means so much to you, then no choice, u gotta pay the $500 difference. But if u buying the lens for portrait, I do not see the point. The 45 1.8 IMO, is a no-brainer. FYI, you cannot assume that everybody who buys a macro lens uses it for macro.

Not forgetting the mega ois too. Cheers guys, actually both lens are very good so its just preference.

 

[NazgulKing]

Sorry, I did not consider the price difference because I did not remember how much I paid for the 45 1.8 until this thread started. But, now that I remember, yup, the leica is nearly twice price and the 45 1.8 is damn good value. As for the price difference, does it mean anything? The Leica branding itself could already explain the price difference. But it does not imply that a more expensive lens is necessarily better. And that was exactly my point I guess : twice the price, f2.8, larger, IMO uglier on the PENS. Why? That was my question.

For $450, the 45 1.8 is a bargain compared to the leica. In fact, I think it is underpriced. They could have priced it at about $700-800 and it would still sell. FYI, the 45 1.8 is actually sharper than the ZD 50 f2. On the lenstip website, the 45 1.8 is 7% sharper based on their resolution chart (75 vs 80). Anything more than 50 on their chart is damn good already. On photozone, the 45 2.8 is indeed sharper than the 45 1.8, but not by much. At f 2.8 2241 vs 2390. At f4 2313 vs 2386. The 45 1.8 at 1.8 is 2094 already. If macro means so much to you, then no choice, u gotta pay the $500 difference. But if u buying the lens for portrait, I do not see the point. The 45 1.8 IMO, is a no-brainer. FYI, you cannot assume that everybody who buys a macro lens uses it for macro.

Oh for the love of anything.. we all know that you are an Olympus fanboy, but don't piss on other preferences OK?

 

[Oly5050]

Oh for the love of anything.. we all know that you are an Olympus fanboy, but don't piss on other preferences OK?

HAhaha! Am I pissing on Leica/Panasonic? That's ironic. The fact is I use the panny lenses more than the Oly ones. My favs are the 14 2.5, 25 1.4, prev 20 1.7. Only recently, did I rediscover the 45 1.8. I do not like the 14-42, 17 2.8, have sold the 9-18 and replaced it with the panny 7-14. I have the 12 f2 and its good, but is a little wide for my purpose. I chose the lenses based on specs, performance, and function, and most of them just happened to be Panny/Leica lenses. I am sorry if my nick is Oly5050, but that is like 11 years ago when I bought the C5050 and joined clubsnap. There is no need to start a personal attack and accuse me of brand pissing and for being a fanboy.

 

[spidey89]

Guys, lets not deviate from the topic, lets all be civilized people, as mention by blacvios, its a matter of preference

 

[blurboiboi]

anyone bought this lens recently??... where to get it at a good px... thanks thanks..