First, and as is my habit, I said that I practiced photography for quite some time (less than two years), so everyone will feel not necessarily represented in my comment.
I was looking for a "portrait optic" for my GX1 to effectively replace my other goals (1st version 14-42 and 45-200) which, it must be admitted, are not brighter.
So like many people who are looking for an equivalent of 90mm Micro 4/3, I wondered THE big question: Panasonic 45mm 2.8 or Olympus 1.8? The many and varied forums tell you the same thing: they are two excellent optical and there is really no wrong choice ... True, but that does not answer your question.
"The Olympus 3 times brighter, it is very small."
"The Panasonic helps make the macro and stabilized."
I admit that the idea of macro with a real dedicated objective was tempting until now I was doing a bit with my 45-200mm coupled with a windscreen RAYNOX DCR-150 (excellent for my taste s' any). But there still is the setting that makes decide first: the price. Yes the Panasonic is between 2 and 3 times more. I mean the price at which one can find these objectives used on the Internet.
I admit that I had decided to take an Olympus 45mm black 1.8 (I was going to write a paragraph on the aesthetics of goals, but it is an absolutely subjective parameter so I ignored) that I had found on a classifieds site, but my project was aborted and the seller gave me good fake.
Later I found a Panasonic 45mm just over two times more expensive than the Olympus, but I'm tempted.
The verdict?
Well it's simply the best goal of the Panasonic micro four thirds range I bought (I also have the 20mm 1.7 1st version but in comparison I used less)! I have certainly not for a long time, but since 2.5 months that I have, it has not left my GX1!
Already at the beginning the product is very well finished, very nice in hand, we already have the feeling of having a beautiful object between the fingers. I do not say that because it is the Leica. I have never had a product of this brand, even if it is very famous, the fact that there is his name marked on the lens is not at all influenced my choice (of course). In short, the perspective is somewhat smaller than the V1 14-42, but a little heavy (metal construction I share suppose), nothing embarrassing. Some consider congestion as an important criterion, which I understood: the whole GX1 + Pana 45mm form a harmonious whole, pleasant and relatively light. The slides all easily into a small tote to cut with my 20mm (to get an idea).
Once screwed in, two options on the barrel: development "Limit": the 45mm behaves as a "non-macro" lens with 50cm minimum MAP; or "Full" which allows the macro and a reconciliation to 15cm only. Note that the MAP is possible to infinity in both cases but in the second, moving the net area is exponentially when going from macro to infinity position (I do not know if I'm very clear ...), instead of being a regular basis.
Side "image quality" (anyway), for me it is simply excellent: a striking level of detail, very good sharpness across the image from 2.8 to 22 opening. After yes I admit that not zooming to 400% in the corners to see what it is and if everything is sharp in the center is on the edges, so good. It seems that the sharpness of the Olympus is still better than the Panasonic, but quite honestly, it was not ashamed of anything.
Finally:
Positive points: aims that exudes a feeling of quality, excellent image quality, stabilization (still quite useful for certain situations), a flexible ring MAP (compared to 42mm-14 where we can sometimes have the feeling of blockage), very nice macro.
The bad: the price (to be said that is), a little noise "e" when you turn the MAP ring (nothing embarrassing but one wonders if this is normal at the beginning ...), just to quibble .
That it is not I who will tell you what to buy objective, but if the macro is an important parameter for you and you get to find what Pana-Leica 45mm 2.8 at a price that suits you: go ahead, this is a killer!
