Fun with the Lumix/Leica 45 macro

[jonoslack]

HI There
I've been asked to post some pictures and give some thoughts - I've only had it for a few hours myself, but it seemed that as we have a thread for the 20, it'd be worth starting a thread for this lens too.

I'll try and get a gallery up later on today (unfortunately I've got some work to do as well). In the meantime, some preliminary thoughts.

Sharpness
It seems to be excellent - I'm not shooting charts though, but at the very worst I would have thought that it was right up there with most macros of that focal length. I guess my yardstick here would be the 4/3 Zuiko 50, which may have the slowest focusing mechanism in the world, but was wickedly sharp. It's too early to know whether it's that sharp.

Focusing
Hmm - well, on full range it can sometimes struggle to deal with close objects until it's 'got it', then it's pretty good. Manual focusing works well, but there seems to be a very VERY long focusing throw - especially when you're trying to get back from infinity! Of course, there may be tricks to learn here.
If you set it on the limit (0.5m to infinity) then it seems to be quick and sure (allowing for the slow old focusing on the EP-1). Nobody around here wants their picture taken, but I think it'll make it into an able portrait lens.

Bokeh
This is where the lovely old Zuiko let itself down - barbed wire bokeh it always seemed like to me. Having said that, I don't think I know any lens which never produces nasty bokeh. No worries like that here though, out of a couple of hundred shots taken yesterday, some were quite lovely, and all seemed reasonably good.

General Thoughts
Well, the build quality is panasonic standard - which is pretty good (i.e. like the 20 f1.7). The manual focus ring is wide, and possibly a little too firm, but the real point about this lens is that it's really small. Hardly any bigger than the Oly kit lens, and it easily fits in the slimmest coat pocket.
The depth of field can be remarkably small - it always makes me laugh when people write off 4/3 because of lack of DOF 'control'. Using full frame a lot these days my personal feeling is that 4/3 represents the 'sweet spot' unless you're trying to do nose out of focus portraits. (which would probably be possible with this lens anyway).

I was wondering about the whole concept of macro on a m4/3 camera (I don't believe that telephoto works that well on these little cameras) - but I've been pleasantly surprised.

To be honest, I haven't been looking for problems, and so it would be surprising if I'd found any - and my reservation with respect to getting to focus from distance to close may be due to the EP-1 body rather than the lens. Or, indeed, due to my incompetence!

Seems to me that for the prime devotee, this lens, together with the 20 f1.7 and a 10 or 12mm f2.8 would make a lovely and pocketable kit.

I'll put up a few shots in the next post, forgive me that they aren't all wonderful - I was trying to show a variation rather than wowing you with my (undoubted) photographic talent

Everybody please join in - I assumed everybody already had this lens, so I'm a bit surprised to have got in at the top.

[jonoslack]

I think it's de-rigour to do a pet shot first - so here is dixie, who is no longer a spring chicken (14)
she can still move around pretty quick though, so the AF kept up here


Now a couple of 'distance' shots - I think that this lens has to work as a medium telephoto as well as a macro to earn it's keep:

Looking for Blue!


Now for a couple of Redgrave Church:





This shot shows an impossible bokeh situation - but I think it's handled it with some gracefulness (of course, it's all rather subjective)



More in the next post

[jonoslack]

Now for some more standard outside stuff - mostly trying to look at the Bokeh and detail:

Here's another tricky shot, which I took deliberately to try and provoke something nasty


Stuck Ladybird (you can't hide from this lens!)


Old fence post (this shows you how small the DOF can be)


Ivy on the Gravestone


a couple more bokeh shots - showing how nice it can look in normal circumstances:





I think this one begins to give an idea of the detail that's going to be possible



Some indoor shots in the next post

[jonoslack]

Finally some pictures in the kitchen

Pepper and sunlight



Glasses (Emma will kill me for not washing and polishing them properly first!)


I have a felt phobia (can't touch the stuff), so I don't know how these felt flowers got into the house . . . it makes my hackles rise just looking at this brrrrrrr



I haven't got the point of focus quite right on this, but I liked it anyway



All of these were shot RAW, and processed in LR3 beta - not really my choice of converter. They were then output to jpg. Processing was minimal, and none of them was cropped more than a very small amount (for compositional purposes).

Again - they were an attempt to give an honest impression of what the lens could do, and not to say anything about my patchy photography

Also worth mentioning that all of these were hand held with IS on (I'm not going to use a tripod with a m4/3 camera . . . EVER!)

[Lupo]

Thank you, lots of great pictures

very much stuff we like to see!

[Brian Mosley]

What's missing for me with this lens, is a balance between enough super sharp foreground detail, contrasting with super smooth out of focus background... I'll be watching intently for more examples Jono, you're doing a great job!

Thank you

Cheers

Brian

[Amin]

Thanks Jono! These are the best examples I've seen yet from this lens. The "test chart" performance at DPR was disappointing, but it isn't surprising to see this lens perform in your hands.

[TEBnewyork]

Good morning Jono.
Thanks for posting these. I have the lens on pre-order and I just couldn't bring myself to cancel the pre-order at Amazon. Glad I didn't do it. I think it will work out just grandly for me and how I want to use it. A fast portrait lens is still very welcome but I think I can manage with this and my 50 lux and a 40 f1.8
Now I just wish Panny.com would get this lens in before Amazon as through my company we get great deals and the price difference is HUGE.

[Diane B]

Thanks Jono. Think you hit all the types of shooting I would expect with this and it did pretty well. I checked all the EXIF and was surprised to see you only shot 2 wide open--a lot at f/3.2 and 5.0. Looks quite good to me. Now--if we ever get it here I'll have to make a decision.

[pellicle]

Jono

echoing everyone's thanks I'd like to ask how you felt about the IOS on this lens assisting hand held. I'm commonly using my macro lenses at about f16 and so IOS would seem to be a great asset when in close (even if the AutoFocus isn't) and shooting at 10th of a sec

[monza]

Jono, how big is this lens compared to the 14-45?

[Joan]

Jono, want to add my thanks here, too. Very much appreciate your thoughts and all the examples. Please post more as you go along with this lens. By the time I've managed to save up for this one, it's possible that the projected Olympus m4/3 50 macro will be out to compare it to, LOL. (2011, right?)

[pellicle]

Jono

Originally Posted by monza

Jono, how big is this lens compared to the 14-45?

excuse me answering for you but, to quote from his text:

Hardly any bigger than the Oly kit lens, and it easily fits in the slimmest coat pocket.

pardon me

[pellicle]

Ohh

say ... can you enable the LENS IOS in your PEN? I have read that you can have one or the other ... if you wouldn't mind could you test with the lens based IOS if the Pen can drive that (I have a G1 mate ; - )

[monza]

Hmm, sorry, guess I was too mesmerized by the photos.

[Linh]

Looks very promising. The only downside I see right now is the price tag. I could do w/o the Leica name and macro, but given it's the only ~45mm prime that is likely to be around for the next couple of years, I may not have a choice.

Here's a random question, is the AF loud? Or a better question, have you tried it in video mode? I know it's not meant to be used for it, but since we have it, I like to play with it.

[Guy Mancuso]

Jono this shot here looks like a 35 cron Version IV when it gets a little wonky looking. I agree a tough bokeh test shot here, otherwise it looks pretty good.

[Guy Mancuso]

Reminds me of this shot I took long ago with the 35 cron version IV. Fairly similar in look

[TEBnewyork]

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

Reminds me of this shot I took long ago with the 35 cron version IV. Fairly similar in look

And the nickname for that lens is "The King of Bokeh"

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes it is but it can be wonky at times too.

[TEBnewyork]

Here is a very good set of pictures to show the size of this lens compared to other m4/3 lenses and other macro solutions.

Remember the Zuiko 50 f2.0 extends out when focusing and the Panny internally focuses and won't "grow"

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._o20/page2.asp

terry

[jonoslack]

Hi Everyone
Thank you for all the thanks!
I'll try and answer as many questions here rather than answering each post individually.

Originally Posted by Brian Mosley

What's missing for me with this lens, is a balance between enough super sharp foreground detail, contrasting with super smooth out of focus background...

I'll do my best . . just don't expect me to put it on a tripod!

Originally Posted by Amin

Thanks Jono! These are the best examples I've seen yet from this lens. The "test chart" performance at DPR was disappointing, but it isn't surprising to see this lens perform in your hands.

HI Amin
It's always the same with lenses isn't it. MTF charts etc. only tell half the story.

Terry
I hope you get your discounted version . . . I paid £599 for mine - still, I've certainly paid more for worse lenses!

Diane
I'm ashamed to admit that for a lot of the time I had it on Program mode - It was my first outing with the camera for a few months, and I was more interested in getting a shot than fiddling about too much.

Pellicle
I've been using the In Body stabilisation on the Olympus body. I haven't done a comparison, it would be a great deal of work (lots of test shots to get a decent sample). Others have done similar with different lenses, and seem to think that they are roughly equivalent (conventional wisdom is that lens stabilisation is better). I'm pretty sure you can switch it off on the body and on in the lens though.

Monza
in comparison with the 14-45, it is, apparently, 3mm longer and 2.5mm wider and 30 grams heavier . . .i.e. to all intents and purposes the same size.

Hi Joan
The big contrast of this lens with the old Zuiko, is that the bokeh on it really is much much better (it may not be perfect, but it's much better). Whether it's as sharp is another matter - I think someone with a tripod is going to have to work that one out!

Lin
the AF is silent - noticeably and obviously so - excellent.

Hi Guy
I'm not sure that I've got a lens that would have done that shot much better - maybe the 50 Asph lux? (or the 75 'cron). But I think the point is that it still isn't 'nasty'. Perhaps less edgy than you 35 'cron shot?

and as Terry says - that was with the 'bokeh king'. My first feelings is that it really is very good - the ivy berry shot was a nasty test as well but that worked.

I haven't had much of a chance to shoot more today (nothing worth posting), but I'm increasingly feeling that this really is a keeper.

[pellicle]

Hi Jono

forgot that the tests were using some sort of IOS ... the internal one on the PEN. I'm really drawn to this lens (despite being quite pleased with my 50 f1.8 and its extension tubes) because of:

* 1:1 is as far as I take my 50 anyway
* having apeture controlled by the camera means I can focus wide open (or stop down with the shutter speed / dof preview mode) to see my target well
* get IOS giving me hand holdable ... which I wold love to have for stuff like this:

[TEBnewyork]

Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso

Yes it is but it can be wonky at times too.

Yup. I guess I was following on to the remarks about the X1 that most of these lenses can hit situations to make them look really wonky.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Brian Mosley

What's missing for me with this lens, is a balance between enough super sharp foreground detail, contrasting with super smooth out of focus background... (...)

Ity's wonderful when we from time to time get these images, assuming we are thinking of the same thing of course... Brian, can you give us an example or two of lenses producing this balance?

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hi Everyone
Thank you for all the thanks!

(...)

Lin
the AF is silent - noticeably and obviously so - excellent.

I to would like to say Thank you for the images!

How cool with the first specialised lens for the µ4/3 system.

A question though, what does your reply to Lin mean? It is silent as in you can't hear it, the camera doesn't pick up the sound or it is very much more silent than the ZD50/2, or something else (probably)?

[Joan]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

...

Hi Joan
The big contrast of this lens with the old Zuiko, is that the bokeh on it really is much much better (it may not be perfect, but it's much better). Whether it's as sharp is another matter - I think someone with a tripod is going to have to work that one out!


...
I haven't had much of a chance to shoot more today (nothing worth posting), but I'm increasingly feeling that this really is a keeper.

Thanks Jono. I am really encouraged by what you've posted already that this is worthy of serious consideration. Kind of wish it didn't have the Leica brand name so we could acquire it for less cash though.

[Y.B.Hudson III]

Like the pics, but I am unsure about the processing, maybe? because My jupiter 3 at f/2.8 exhibits better resolution than I am picking up here

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by Y.B.Hudson III

Like the pics, but I am unsure about the processing, maybe? because My jupiter 3 at f/2.8 exhibits better resolution than I am picking up here

I think you have a point there, Hudson.

The anti shake thing could mess up the sharpness.

I see artifacts from the 45-200 Pana zoom. It isn't predictable either.

[jonoslack]

HI Terry
That was what I was thinking about too . . . and why I'm not writing off the X1 on the basis of two or three shots.

Jones
The AF really is quiet (mind you, I'm pretty deaf!). I had positively noticed it's silence - I haven't shot any video with it, but I'm certain the noise wouldn't be picked up.

Joan
Well - when Panasonic go for it the lenses are hardly cheap (look at the 7-14). This is pretty cheap for anything with Leica written on it.

Hudson and Vivek
Well - blame me about the processing - it's done in LR3 beta with no extra sharpening, and I'm not terribly familiar with Lightroom (and don't much like it). Mind you, I'm not sure how you can criticise the resolution on something which has been reduced so much?

Added to which there was no hint of a tripod anywhere . . . of course, it might be the lens - or it might be the IS (as Vivek suggests). For me, these look quite sharp enough, and they print well.

Still, dpreview had some criticism as well . . . . .

[Vivek]

Jono,

What dp revs does has nothing to do with what I said here. My comparisons come only from your shots (shown in this forum) of the 50/2 Olympus Macro.

Yes, the OIS having a hand in the resultant image quality is an aspect worth looking into.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Vivek

Jono,

What dp revs does has nothing to do with what I said here. My comparisons come only from your shots (shown in this forum) of the 50/2 Olympus Macro.

Yes, the OIS having a hand in the resultant image quality is an aspect worth looking into.

Hi Vivek - in that case, I suspect that it's more likely to be the distinction between Aperture and Lightroom.

If I can wrench my 50 macro back from a certain person, I might try and do some comparisons.

[Vivek]

Hi Jono,

Notably missing in your 45 panaleica samples is the "bite" we saw from your Olympus 50/2, pretty much under similar lighting.

Yes, your finding on the bokeh difference appears to be a notable feature of the panaleica.

[pellicle]

Hey Jono

Originally Posted by Vivek

Yes, the OIS having a hand in the resultant image quality is an aspect worth looking into.

since the lens supports it, you've got the opportunity to see if the decision to go with lens based is superior or not ...


heh

[Brian Mosley]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Ity's wonderful when we from time to time get these images, assuming we are thinking of the same thing of course... Brian, can you give us an example or two of lenses producing this balance?

Hi Jonas, I'll give you three... the Hexanon 57mm f1.2, ZD 150mm f2 and the PL 14-150mm

Seriously, I'm yet convinced... there are some more samples turning up on dpreview here though.

Just eager to see more portrait work with this lens, I'm OK for macro work with the ZD 50mm f2 - but the focus limiter, speed and size of this native m4/3rds lens is of interest to me.

Cheers

Brian

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Brian Mosley

Hi Jonas, I'll give you three... the Hexanon 57mm f1.2, ZD 150mm f2 and the PL 14-150mm

Seriously...
I have the Hexanon 57/1.2 and it is reasonably (in context) sharp when stopped down to f/2.8. It's a good lens and what I like with it is the OOF background which is rendered in a very pleasing way with very little of defocus CA and a soft gentle bokeh.

The ZD150/2 is a mix of harsh and nice bokeh. Some bright rings. I haven't used it of course. It is too long for me, too heavy (I would have to lift weights for weeks before trying to use it) and I also don't have that money.
So, it is not my image:
http://i.pbase.com/o2/89/72089/1/113...W.IMG_9088.jpg
There were nice bright rings showing up in the Olympus America's sample photo gallery (2 images, wow) earlier (the bird image). Now they have made the samples very small and put them inside a flash thing. Useless.

The zoom is a zoom and uninteresting to me. Perhaps you are right, at least for some focal lengths? I haven't checked.

So, there you are.

Originally Posted by Brian Mosley

Seriously, I'm yet convinced... there are some more samples turning up on dpreview here though.

Just eager to see more portrait work with this lens, I'm OK for macro work with the ZD 50mm f2 - but the focus limiter, speed and size of this native m4/3rds lens is of interest to me.

I guess you mean "not yet convinced". Neither am I. The lens is interesting. I guess many of us wish they had made an f/2 version. At least I do. For now I use the Olympus Zuiko OM50/2. If the Panasonic 45/2.8 is going to replace it it has to be very good indeed.

The OIS is nice, but then again, it is f/2.8 only. The AF could be nice for non macro use. I care more about real life samples than the DPR test results so I'll stroll around and look closely to whatever shows up. Thank you for the link. (moment... ... ...) Hmm. I don't know anything about the PP. If they are carefully sharpened and at that size I don't think there is that bite I would wish for.

For portraits the real bite isn't necessary. A lens that is equivalent to a 90/5.6 will provide a decent DOF for most portraits, but sometimes it will not be shallow enough for my taste, or throw the background into a pleasing blur. I will have to experiment a little with that.

I'll wait until more, bigger and various samples are available.

Cheers,

/Jonas

[pellicule]

Originally Posted by Jonas

For portraits the real bite isn't necessary. A lens that is equivalent to a 90/5.6 will provide a decent DOF for most portraits, but sometimes it will not be shallow enough for my taste, or throw the background into a pleasing blur. I will have to experiment a little with that.

I'll wait until more, bigger and various samples are available.

Cheers,

/Jonas

Sorry for my confusion - I'm coming from film and a full frame DSLR. I understand the Crop Effect of a smaller sensor on the traditional focal length calculation, but does it also effect the aperture? The above is suggesting a 45 2.8 becomes a 90 5.6? is this true?

thanks for the clarification.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by pellicule

Sorry for my confusion - I'm coming from film and a full frame DSLR. I understand the Crop Effect of a smaller sensor on the traditional focal length calculation, but does it also effect the aperture? The above is suggesting a 45 2.8 becomes a 90 5.6? is this true?

It's the tip of a huge and contentions iceberg of an argument . . .but in terms of DOF compared to a full frame camera, then it has some value (that's as far as I'm going).

I think two things about the 45.

1. it probably isn't as sharp as the Zuiko 50 macro
2. it definitely has better bokeh.

I suppose that you pays your money and you makes your choice.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

It's the tip of a huge and contentions iceberg of an argument . . .but in terms of DOF compared to a full frame camera, then it has some value (that's as far as I'm going).

Not only some value. That is how it is, with regards to noise, field of view and DOF. Hmm... no need to go there. Different systems are different. I'm just so used to think in FF terms after the time i spent with the 5D. I'll soon be back to 4/3 terms.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

I think two things about the 45.

1. it probably isn't as sharp as the Zuiko 50 macro
2. it definitely has better bokeh.

I suppose that you pays your money and you makes your choice.

"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by Jonas

"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot.

True.

[FWIW, my PC Micronikkor 85/2.8 is capable of delivering both. Bitingly sharp as well as (especially through movements) creamy smooth bokeh. It costs about the same as the Panasonic 45/2.8]

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Not only some value. That is how it is,

Sheesh - absolutes are always so dangerous, and absolute truths . . . doubly so!

Originally Posted by Jonas

Hmm... no need to go there. Different systems are different. I'm just so used to think in FF terms after the time i spent with the 5D. I'll soon be back to 4/3 terms.

I've used both in tandem, ever since the Kodak 14n appeared, and I'm very well aware that generalisations are just that, they aren't laws.

Originally Posted by Jonas

"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.

Hmmm, well, how do you measure 'sharpness'? - you can measure definition in terms of lpi, but sharpness isn't quite the same thing.

Forgive me Jonas (and for spelling your name Jones in a previous post . . . ). I think that so much of this is subjective, and what really is measurable is only measurable for a particular image in a particular situation (apart, of course, from the fov effect of cropped sensors. . . . not that 4/3 is cropped of course ).

All the best

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Sheesh - absolutes are always so dangerous, and absolute truths . . . doubly so!

I've used both in tandem, ever since the Kodak 14n appeared, and I'm very well aware that generalisations are just that, they aren't laws.

I like it on the edge. And physics is physics. There will always be people not wanting to understand each other, but that is another thing.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hmmm, well, how do you measure 'sharpness'? - you can measure definition in terms of lpi, but sharpness isn't quite the same thing.

We can at least talk about "sharpness" in units possible to measure. Then some may prefer MTF50 values, other prefer to discuss esoteric details in MTF curves, some read USAF charts by experience - but surely "sharpness" can be measured and discussed from technical values. We just need to agree about the method.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Forgive me Jonas (and for spelling your name Jones in a previous post . . . ). I think that so much of this is subjective, and what really is measurable is only measurable for a particular image in a particular situation (apart, of course, from the fov effect of cropped sensors. . . . not that 4/3 is cropped of course ).

You called me Jones!! LOL, now I get upset!

regards,

/Jonas

[Brian Mosley]

Originally Posted by Jonas

"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.

Sharpness and bokeh - yes, the balancing act is what I was talking about above, and no - I'm not yet convinced about the PL 45mm f2.8... but I'm looking to be convinced, asap!

Cheers

Brian

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Jonas

I like it on the edge. And physics is physics.

But opinions are opinions and interpretation is interpretation, and that line has been used on internet forums to prove impossible so many things that have happened.

Originally Posted by Jonas

We can at least talk about "sharpness" in units possible to measure. Then some may prefer MTF50 values, other prefer to discuss esoteric details in MTF curves, some read USAF charts by experience - but surely "sharpness" can be measured and discussed from technical values. We just need to agree about the method.

First you'll have to define sharpness . . . you seem to be equating it to resolution here (very dodgy ground).
I'm also a scientist by training, and I understand only too well that most of these discussions are marred by a basic flaw in original definitions, long before one reaches anything to do with physics.

Originally Posted by Jonas

You called me Jones!! LOL, now I get upset!

Yes, I'm deeply sorry (typo rather than simply stupidity). I often get called Juno, and I know how bad it feels!

all the best

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Brian Mosley

Sharpness and bokeh - yes, the balancing act is what I was talking about above, and no - I'm not yet convinced about the PL 45mm f2.8... but I'm looking to be convinced, asap!

Cheers

Brian

HI Brian
Sorry - work and crap weather have got in the way of more testing. Incidentally - did you get my email about lens correction information? I'm relying on you!

all the best

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

First you'll have to define sharpness . . . you seem to be equating it to resolution here (very dodgy ground).

Jono (difficult to mess up that spelling), Well said.


Apparent sharpness and actual sharpness often differ.

There is a chapter on this topic in this book.

Book: Image Clarity: High-resolution Photography
Author: John Williams
ISBN: 0240800338


I suspect the flare of this lens has a part to play with the results.

( I also suspect, given the complex design, the lens could have some internal flare )

[greggebhardt]

Well Thanks Jono. Images in this thread clinched it for me and my 45mm is on the way! Hope it make a decent portrait lens, too. Wsh it was f2 or better f1.7! <vbg>

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

But opinions are opinions and interpretation is interpretation, and that line has been used on internet forums to prove impossible so many things that have happened.

Yes. But that doesn't mean everything you read on the Net is false.

Originally Posted by jonoslack

First you'll have to define sharpness . . . you seem to be equating it to resolution here (very dodgy ground).
I'm also a scientist by training, and I understand only too well that most of these discussions are marred by a basic flaw in original definitions, long before one reaches anything to do with physics.

Yes, just as I said. You have to define what you are talking about, then you can measure it.
I didn't say "sharpness" is resolution. I mentioned MTFs and USAF charts interpreted by human beings. I usually think of "sharpness" as a combination of resolution and contrast, which is why I don't write sharpness. That is probably how clear, sharp and contrasty I can be on the subject.

===

Jono, I don't know what the problem here is. In an earlier post you said:

Originally Posted by jonoslack

(...)
I think two things about the 45.

1. it probably isn't as sharp as the Zuiko 50 macro
2. it definitely has better bokeh.

You assumed something about how "sharp" the Panny Macro is, and declared something about the way it draws OOF areas. To that I replied

Originally Posted by Jonas

(...)
"Sharpness" and bokeh often seem to be a balance act. "Sharpness" can be measured, bokeh cannot. I like what I have seen this far from the Panny 45/2.8.

With that I meant "sharpness" can be expressed by numbers while bokeh definitely is about personal taste.

I didn't expect my reply to be perceived as a controversial one. I was wrong.

Now I don't feel the need to play a public tennis game over the topic. I am guilty of having done so but I find most of those games to be of little value and try to reserve them for the DPR forums. And I still like what I have seen from the Panasonic Macro this far.

kind regards,

/Jonas

[Amin]

IMO, there is no point to commenting on resolution, accutance, sharpness, or "bite" with these heavily resized images. Assuming the lens doesn't absolutely suck, the apparent sharpness of a web-sized image comes down to postprocessing, and I appreciate that Jono doesn't take a heavyhanded approach to sharpening for the web.

Here's hoping for some more photographs to get this thread back on track!

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by Amin

IMO, there is no point to commenting on resolution, accutance, sharpness, or "bite" with these heavily resized images.

Oh, well. You seem to have skipped post #1 in this thread.

[Amin]

Not at all, Vivek. I don't think Jono's comments about sharpness in post #1 were informed by his review of the web-sized images he posted subsequently. The remainder of the comments seem to have been.