Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Okay so here again I don't get it. Why would a 45mm lens need faster shutter speeds becuase of the crop factor of the sensor? I assume when you say a 90mm needs faster shutter speeds you mean it's long and so it shakes more so you'd better get a fast shutter speed. But the 45 is a 45 in terms of how large it is, yes? Or is there some other reason you need fast shutter speeds at that CROP size? AAAggggggghhhhh. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu>wrote: > I have both lenses. In fact, my GF-1 setup consists of the 1.7/20mm, the > 45mm you are asking about, and a 90mm Elmarit with adapter. The 45mm is not > bad at all--not as good as the 20mm but not bad. You do have to keep the > shutter speeds up, as you are shooting with what is effectively a 90mm. > > Some example here: > http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws/?page_id=341 > > Nathan > > Nathan Wajsman > Alicante, Spain > http://www.frozenlight.eu > http://www.greatpix.eu > http://www.nathanfoto.com > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:02 AM, James Laird wrote: > > > Yea but the combo of the 20/1.7 and the 45 would be like a digital > > Leica CL with the 40 and 90, which I have and use on the GH1. I just > > wonder if the 45 2.8 is very good optically? > > > > Jim > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Jeff Moore <jbm at jbm.org> wrote: > >> 2010-03-25-22:01:41 James Laird: > >>> Anyone using the Panasonic 45 2.8 Macro? Kind of pricey by Panasonic > >>> standards. Is it worth it? I'm using my trusty 40 Summicron now. It's > >>> faster at f/2.0 but of course it won't do 1:1 and doesn't have MEGA > >>> OIS;). > >> > >> I'm too lazy to look up the exact details, and have no personal > >> experience with these lenses, but check dpreview -- I think they > >> thought the 40/1.7 was far better as a general-purpose lens, and some > >> (non-micro-)4/3s macro lens (totally pulling this out of my behind, > >> but is there an Olympus 50/2.0?) with an adapter was an > >> optically-far-better macro lens. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >