Image courtesy: CameraLabs.
Gordon from CameraLabs (Click here) tested the new Panasonic 30mm macro lens. He writes:
In terms of quality I have absolutely no complaints with the Lumix G 30mm f2.8. It delivers great-looking close-ups with attractive rendering, and when focused on more distant subjects will keep details sharp right into the corners. Compared with the Leica 45mm f2.8, the new Lumix looks like a bargain. Sure the Leica has a focus limiter, a more comfortable minimum focusing distance and more refined rendering, but personally speaking they’re not enough to justify the considerable price difference.
New Panasonic lens store links:
Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 POWER O.I.S. Lens at Amazon, BHphoto and Adorama.
Panasonic MACRO 30mm f/2.8 MEGA O.I.S. Lens at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, WexUK or RedcoonDE.
33 Responses
Surprised how nice the bokeh is. I’d be temped to get this to replace my 25mm f1.8 as a walk around every day lens. The IS is a big bonus for Panny users like myself. very nice 🙂
I’m sort of wondering the same thing. I think I like the ~30mm focal length, but the cheap Sigma 30/2.8 doesn’t have enough to woo me away from my 20mm/1.7, whereas the added macro capabilities, OIS, and resolution of the Panasonic 30 seem like nice extras.
The lack of focus limiter hurts however. Unless AF somehow is blazing despite not having the limiter…
Not impressed by the sample images so far.
Really? I thought his samples on Flickr were pretty impressive. When he pushes it to f11 for non-macro shots he’s well into diffraction territory, but something like this is pretty darn sharp, corner to corner…
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/16545408273
Really. The edges are blurry. It doesn’t seem super sharp. There is purple fringing and it just doesn’t seem to perform like a good macro, or a good prime. I prefer the 50 mm f/2.0 or 60 mm f/2.8 for macro and there are probably close to a MFT dozen primes I would rather have if it is for non macro shots.
If you’re seeing blurry edges, we aren’t talking about the same lens.
Panasonic 30mm/2.8
http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/panasonic-lumix-g-30mm-f-2-8-macro-asph–review-27274/images/highres-Panasonic30mm_MTF_1428136061.jpg
vs.
Olympus 60mm/2.8
http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-60mm-f-2-8-macro-lens-review-22067/images/highres-Olympus60mmMacro_MTF_1369915071.jpg
This chart means nothing to me. Actual IQ IRL is all that matters.
As it should. But there are certainly no blurry edges to be found. If the corner performance of this lens doesn’t satisfy you, there aren’t many in the M4/3 system that will, unless you exclusively use the 12-40mm, 75mm 1.8, or Nocticron 42.5/1.2 both stopped down to f/4…
The 12-35 mm is better than the 12-40 mm, not based on charts based on owning both, and selling the lesser of the two. Furthermore, all of the edges of the 30 mm images look completely blurry, again, regardless of what your charts say. IRL
Again, I don’t think we’re looking at the same images, or you’re confusing blur from a soft lens with out-of-focus areas.
Take a look at this sample:
I admit that there is some blur (at 100% size) in the extreme left bottom corner (looks like the lens might be slightly decentered, since the bottom right looks a bit better). But the sand along all the bottom and left and right edges is a good test for acuity, and it’s sharp and consistent across the frame. Not blurry at all, except the bottom left.
I’d be more likely to chalk up other softness except in the extreme corners to JPEG compression from the OOC files.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8739/17022952035_075fb5576b_o.jpg
You are getting into things that don’t matter. The images are soft, out of focus, have purple fringing and so many other images. This is far from a premium lens. But obviously you think it is, so speak with your checkbook and buy it.
You are clearly drunk. Please sober up and be less drunk, drunky.
John Fs Hismother and TurboFrog, buy the lens. $400 for a low quality 30 mm macro is a great deal.
The short working distance for 1:1 is really an issue I think and I would always prefer the Olympus 60mm for that reason. But maybe it’s really more about being a decent all-round lens for people who “sometimes” want to shoot a macro.
I am not a macro person, but having a ‘normal’ with close focus like this would be quite useful, even if not using it for 1:1 macro work. It is also the widest prime for m43’s with OIS which may be quite useful for video.
> But maybe it’s really more about being a decent all-round lens for people who “sometimes” want to shoot a macro.
It is. Oly had a cheap 35mm macro for 43.
The Pana 30mm fits the same niche: decent and affordable.
If it wasn’t for maximum compactness, by the way, you could always still buy the Olympus 35mm f/3.5 and adapt it; good used ones should be available well below $200. It’s a really sharp lens as well.
There is the disadvantage of short working distance, but to be closer to the object can be a visual advantage in macro photography, too, because the longer the focal length, the more compressed the object’s depth will become. In the analog days all manufacturers offered at least a 50mm and a 100mm macro lens, and each hat its reason for existence already back then, and it wasn’t just that the 50mm lens usually was less expensive.
For real 1:1 macro, I would always choose the 60mm – for more realistic working distance, for weather sealing, focus limiter.
But for something like art reproduction (paintings, engravings etc) working distance with 60mm might be too long, and that 30mm would be more convenient.
45mm is kind of in no man’s land, and grossly overpriced too.
60MM + OIS would be ideal then. I keep wondering why Lumix did a 30mm macro.
Still keep wondering? I have just explained in which cases it can be more useful than a 60mm.
Plenty of other lenses can cover those needs. Macro is ideally for close-up work, and 30mm means you’ll need to get really really really close.
More I read the reviews of the 30mm, more I want to buy the 45mm…
this is an interesting lens for me. I’ve become quite fond of the 30mm focal length having had the Sigma 30mm f2.8 for quite a while. I like the idea of OIS and macro. If it couldn’t have had a focus limiter, I would have been happy enough with 0.5x close up as some other macro’s have done. I don’t need 1:1, nor is 30mm the best for that. But for all purpose I like this 30mm.
The M4/3 system really needs a longer macro lens, like a 105mm f2.8 (or longer!), for shooting bugs.
30mm (and 45mm) seems kind of pointless in terms of working distance. 60mm is better, but for shooting bugs it’s still too short. I use adapted Nikons (105mm f2.8 and 200mm f4) for more reach. Of course, good manual focus is crucial, so that’s why I opt for adapted manual macro lenses.
Olympus have an outstanding 40-150mm F2.8 macro lens
😉
Probably not quite as nicely rendering as that 40-150 mm F2.8, but
cheaper, and with a greater magnification ratio is the Olympus
four-thirds 70-300 mm (f4.0-5.6) with a maximum magnification at 35mm
equivalent of 1.0 at 0.96 metres
e.g., at a distance of about a metre :
http://vkelim.smugmug.com/Flowers/2013-Spring/i-jdQVD5p/A
“The M4/3 system really needs a longer macro lens, like a 105mm f2.8 (or longer!), for shooting bugs.”
There are PLENTY of old manual 100mm macros to be used on adapters, and Samyang had just released a new one in native m43 mount (though it makes little sense to buy it in this mount).
I can’t shoot live bugs with a manual lens. I don’t need AF, but I need an automatic diaphragm. I cannot focus precisely enough with a stopped-down lens even if the EVF is still bright, I need the lens wide open to be able to quickly judge focus, and manually stopping down the lens after having focused is impossible in hand-held macro photography.
But there used to be the excellent Sigma 105mm f/2.8 with Four Thirds mount, which unfortunately was discontinued long ago but sometimes still can be found on eBay, as well as the Sigma 150mm f/2.8.
Myself, if I need the distance, I use the ZD 50mm f/2 with EC-20. Stopped down, image quality is good enough for my needs. But still I do consider looking for one of the Sigmas.
I already have, use and thoroughly enjoy using manual macro lenses of various lengths.
The system needs longer macro lenses (doubling as telephoto primes!) for those who are unable or unwilling to man-up and focus manually. 😉 Manual focus for macro is generally preferred to control critical focus rather than relying on algorithms, random or broad-area focus points (Olympus’ lack of pinpoint focus).
Well geez, now I’m just wondering whether to get this, the 20 1.7, or the 45. Any idea which is sharper? Id be making panoramas with either of them.
I mean the 42.5