"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[Crotal Bell]

Thanks for that.
If your just starting out with close up/macro shots, then close up filters are a cheap effective way of seeing if macro is for you, if you get right into this type of photography, then you might want to think about buying a much more "expensive" dedicated macro lens. I dont rate single element "cheap" close up filters, its best to get double element close up filters. The "doublets/achromats" may cost more, but its worth it in the end. "Fleabay" is a good place to look, an bargains can be had...A couple of years ago i bagged both the Canon 500D an 250D close up filters for appox £50, an ive been using those extensively ever since. I also have a Polaroid 500D, which is virtually the same as the Canon 500D.
I have the 500D mounted to the Panny 45-150mm, and to answer your question...I have the 250D mounted to the Panny 12-60mm. I believe the 500D is +2, an the 250D is +4 diopter.
For my style of close up/macro, im looking for uncluttered/creamy backgrounds (mainly UK wild Butterflies) so im trying to find a good balance between the right diopter strength, which still allows for optimum focus on the whole of the butterfly (without the need to crop my images).

Note- i see you bought that Sigma off of Fleabay?...it looks to be 1.6 Diopter? Its a doublet, so the quality should be good. Will it give you enough magnification on your 12-60mm lens? I guess it depends what subjects you will be shooting. If i was you(after some practice) i would mount that Sigma to a longer zoom range/lens, then possibly look for a stronger magnification/higher diopter close up filter, to mount to your 12-60mm..................But im not you, an we all have different needs/goals, in the type of subjects/images we are chasing to produce.
Cheers Paul.

I also have the 100-300 Panny lens, is that too powerful for the Sigma filter?

 

[woof woof]

Lilies, dying off now but still lovely enough today.

GX80 and Minolta Rokkor 135mm f2.8.

The fuchsia is just starting to flower.

 

[woof woof]

I also have the 100-300 Panny lens, is that too powerful for the Sigma filter?

As long as you can screw it to the lens it'll have an effect. You'll see when you get it.

One nice test will be to take a picture at minimum focus distance without the filter and then to take two pictures with the filter fitted, one at minimum focus distance and one at the furthest away it'll allow focus. That'll show you what's possible with and without the filter and how much room you have to adjust the framing.

 

[Sangoma]

I also have the 100-300 Panny lens, is that too powerful for the Sigma filter?

The 100-300 takes a 67mm filter

 

[woof woof]

The 100-300 takes a 67mm filter

My advice would always be to buy a filter capable of fitting the lens with the widest diameter filter thread and to use stepping rings (about £5 each) for smaller thread diameter lenses.

 

[Sangoma]

My advice would always be to buy a filter capable of fitting the lens with the widest diameter filter thread and to use stepping rings (about £5 each) for smaller thread diameter lenses.

Yes, of course, but he has already bought the lens/filter, so was just pointing out it is a different size in reply to his question

 

[Crotal Bell]

The 100-300 takes a 67mm filter

Ah, I assumed the lenses would all be the same diameter.

 

[woof woof]

Ah, I assumed the lenses would all be the same diameter.

Unfortunately lenses have all sorts of diameter filter thread but it's not the end of the world. If you want to use the filter on the smaller diameter thread lens you could buy a step down ring. It'll cause vignetting but you can crop the picture. Or, just try the filter out on the lens it'll fit and if you like it you could always buy another to fit the longer zoom.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Unfortunately lenses have all sorts of diameter filter thread but it's not the end of the world. If you want to use the filter on the smaller diameter thread lens you could buy a step down ring. It'll cause vignetting but you can crop the picture. Or, just try the filter out on the lens it'll fit and if you like it you could always buy another to fit the longer zoom.

Yeah I'll see how it goes buddy. Watched a video of a photographer earlier who bought an adapter so you can reverse the lens on the camera which turns it into an affective macro. I don't really like the idea because all that swapping increases the risk of getting dust inside the camera IMHO

 

[Snapsh0t]

The real problem with reversing most M43 lenses is that you've got no way of setting the aperture as they don't have aperture rings.

 

[woof woof]

Yeah I'll see how it goes buddy. Watched a video of a photographer earlier who bought an adapter so you can reverse the lens on the camera which turns it into an affective macro. I don't really like the idea because all that swapping increases the risk of getting dust inside the camera IMHO

This technique has its fans but it's something I'm not really tempted to do although do remember connecting one lens to another backwards but I can't find the test pictures, I expect it was a failure

In your place I'd consider a film era manual macro prime via a cheap adapter. A 50mm will give you a 100mm equivalent FoV on MFT. This is the one I have and I think it is a good lens, 1:1 too...

Sigma 50mm F2.8 Macro Manual Focus Pentax PK Mount -JB 2005- | eBay

MACRO LENS. MANUAL FOCUS. THIS IS A USED ITEM. 3 MONTH WARRANTY. NO SIGNS OF DUST. LENS PERFORMS AS IT SHOULD.

www.ebay.co.uk

Anyway. If the close up filter piques your interest and you fancy a macro lens a film era one may be a cheap way to do it at some point in time.

Good luck with the close up filter and don't forget to post some pictures!

 

[Sangoma]

Ah, I assumed the lenses would all be the same diameter.

It isn't as bad as what it may sound like.

The only lenses I use colour filters or the close up "filters" on are 52 and 58, so the filters (including the IR filters) are 58 and I have an adapter for each 52 lens to take the 58 filters.

Then I have 62 and 67, so I use 67 with adapters for the 62

This strangely was the same with the Pentax cameras I had until I changed to Canon, and now the same sizes for the M43 lenses, so although there are many sizes, there seem to be just a few common ones.

The only odd one is the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 which is 46 mm, so I have a 46mm-58 mm adapter for the 58mm filters, should I want to use one.

The only filters I use on the larger longer lenses are a graduated ND filter and a CPL filter.

So I carry 4 58mm filters, X2 and X4 close up, CPL and graduated ND and 2 67mm filters, CPL and graduated ND, 6 filters covers everything I want for everyday use. The colour and IR filters are in the bag with the IR camera.

 

[Stephen L]

The only odd one is the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 which is 46 mm, so I have a 46mm-58 mm adapter for the 58mm filters, should I want to use one.

All my m4/3 primes, interestingly, are 46mm thread apart from the 45mm Oly, which is a tiny 37mm, and my yet-to-arrive Panny 9mm, whose thread size I haven't looked up.
My 2 zooms are 52mm and 62mm.

 

[tijuana taxi]

my yet-to-arrive Panny 9mm, whose thread size I haven't looked up.

Just looked out of interest because the camera is next to my desk and its 55mm

Someone in the UK reported getting theirs yesterday, so maybe more have landed.

 

[Stephen L]

Just looked out of interest because the camera is next to my desk and its 55mm

Someone in the UK reported getting theirs yesterday, so maybe more have landed.

Just spoken with UK Digital again. Apparently the next official delivery is scheduled for September, but the odd one slips in now and again. I’m next on their list, however. Seemingly Wex, Park, LCE, UK Dig., etc each only got 2 out of the first batch of 40.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Just spoken with UK Digital again. Apparently the next official delivery is scheduled for September, but the odd one slips in now and again. I’m next on their list, however. Seemingly Wex, Park, LCE, UK Dig., etc each only got 2 out of the first batch of 40.

I got the third of three that LCE in Cheltenham had.
That's what the chap told me and i've no reason to think he made it up.

 

[Testudo Man]

I have a similar Sigma lens in 72mm so I was happy to recommend it to Keith. No, it won't have a huge effect on the 12-60mm but it's more a matter of guiding him through the early stages without him getting something with a savage learning curve like a Raynox 250 and being disappointed with the results. My personal preference with something like the 12-60mm would be extension tubes but Keith said he wanted a front element add-on.

No offence was meant, it was a good shout, ironically i was watching that Sigma on my Fleabay account too! (which was the 1st time i had searched for close up filters in over a year!). I "cut my teeth" on the Raynox 250 (my 1st close up filter) an as you say, the 250 has a steep learning curve. The Raynox 150 an quality achromats/doublets are somewhat easier to start off with for sure. Cheers Paul.

 

[Testudo Man]

I also have the 100-300 Panny lens, is that too powerful for the Sigma filter?

I dont have that lens, but a bag full of cheap step up/step down rings always come in handy! As woof woof (Alan) has said, just be aware of possible vignetting (depending on what zoom you choose). Since that Sigma is +1.6 diopter, i reckon it would work great on your 100-300mm.

Heres an example of one of my wild snake images, with me using the Panny 45-150mm (with 500D close up filter attached) the lens was fully zoomed at max 150mm. No cropping to the image. Bear in mind that this young female Adder, was quite a small snake, no more than 30cm in length.
Panny G80, f/11, 1/500, ISO 320. Auto focus, Handheld, Jpeg, Minimal editing. No flash used......basically, these settings are how i shoot most of my images.

Note -
I never handle Adders, i never try to move them, i photograph them exactly as i find them in the wild.
Always show caution when getting this close to an Adder. Ive been observing adders for well over a decade now, so i have some understanding, when it comes to how these beautiful creatures might react.

Young female Adder (Viper berus). No cropping. by Tort Man (out of hibernation!), on Flickr

 

[d00d]

Shall I get the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7, the Sigma 56mm f1.4 or save my £££?

The Sigma is "awesome", about twice the size & weight. The Panasonic is erm .... ?

 

[Stephen L]

Shall I get the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7, the Sigma 56mm f1.4 or save my £££?

The Sigma is "awesome", about twice the size & weight. The Panasonic is erm .... ?

Heck of a difference in focal length (comparatively speaking). Is the Sigma twice ad good? I doubt it.

 

[woof woof]

Shall I get the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7, the Sigma 56mm f1.4 or save my £££?

The Sigma is "awesome", about twice the size & weight. The Panasonic is erm .... ?

Well, they're different focal lengths so that should help you choose. I've had the Olympus 45mm f1.8 for years but I can't remember the last time I used it as this sort of length is getting long for me.

I don't think you can go wrong so I'd just buy whatever you can find at a decent price I do like more compact lenses though so the size would influence me.

Good luck choosing.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Shall I get the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7, the Sigma 56mm f1.4 or save my £££?

The Sigma is "awesome", about twice the size & weight. The Panasonic is erm .... ?

I thought you had something catering for that sort of focal length.
Maybe it was someone else i was thinking of?

 

[d00d]

I thought you had something catering for that sort of focal length.
Maybe it was someone else i was thinking of?

I've got the 45-150mm, very nice. I think you and/or woof suggested it years ago. I've also got the 12-60mm ... probably my most used lens nowadays.

I was thinking of going up market. I've seen some super work done with the Sigma. I think all of @gramps 100 Strangers shots were done with that lens.

I'd prefer the 42.5mm over the 56mm length, but I think in terms of Angle of View there's little in it.

Hmmmm .... the gas ...

 

[d00d]

I always admire good macro, but I'm not much interested in doing it, not really my thing.

I've had a Raynox 250 for many years (I've had proper macro lenses too) but I never had much luck with any of it. But one thing I did find, after years of trying on Nikon lenses, is the Raynox 250 works well on M43 at about 80mm. I'll dig it out again and maybe post a couple of pics. BTW yes, I think the Raynox 150 is easier with a slightly less shallow dof.

 

[gramps]

I think all of @gramps 100 Strangers shots were done with that lens.

Pretty much David, a couple with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 but the 56mm is my main 'go-to' .. those two and the Olympus 75mm f1.8 are superbly sharp lenses.
A 42mm equivalent might be better than the 56mm sometimes but the only contenders IQ-wise would seem to be the Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 or Olympus 45mm f1.2 Pro and not cheap.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Yoohoo boys and girls....

Do you put UV filters on your MFT lenses? Should I have them on my Panny lenses?

If the answers yes yes, can you recommend a solid choice without selling the furniture to afford a good one?

 

[woof woof]

Yoohoo boys and girls....

Do you put UV filters on your MFT lenses? Should I have them on my Panny lenses?

If the answers yes yes, can you recommend a solid choice without selling the furniture to afford a good one?

I don't use them but I suppose they can provide some protection if you're going to be taking pictures where there's likely to be spray, sand or dust, like the beach. I've never seen any detectable degradation in image quality with them but they can cause issues if there's a light source in the frame.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I don't use them but I suppose they can provide some protection if you're going to be taking pictures where there's likely to be spray, sand or dust, like the beach. I've never seen any detectable degradation in image quality with them but they can cause issues if there's a light source in the frame.

Interesting Alan. I've heard people say that UV filters can protect your lens or sensor from light damage. Some say you should always fit them.

I don't really understand it to be honest, but I fitted one to the bridge camera to be safe.

 

[gramps]

Yoohoo boys and girls....

Do you put UV filters on your MFT lenses? Should I have them on my Panny lenses?

If the answers yes yes, can you recommend a solid choice without selling the furniture to afford a good one?

No, the lens hood protects the lens, I don't want anything else in front of the glass.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I've got the 45-150mm, very nice. I think you and/or woof suggested it years ago. I've also got the 12-60mm ... probably my most used lens nowadays.

I was thinking of going up market. I've seen some super work done with the Sigma. I think all of @gramps 100 Strangers shots were done with that lens.

I'd prefer the 42.5mm over the 56mm length, but I think in terms of Angle of View there's little in it.

Hmmmm .... the gas ...

Didn't you have a 45mm macro at one stage too?

 

[Snapsh0t]

Interesting Alan. I've heard people say that UV filters can protect your lens or sensor from light damage. Some say you should always fit them.

I don't really understand it to be honest, but I fitted one to the bridge camera to be safe.

A UV filter as a UV filter is totally unnecessary as the sensors aren't sensitive to UV light. The only real use for them is as a protector when you're likely to be in a situation when water/mud/whatever could get thrown at the lens. If you do use one then it should be the best you can afford as there's no point putting a cheap filter in front of your expensive lens as it will degrade the image. The knee-jerk automatic addition of a filter is really a hang-over from the film days when we all used Skylight filters as they actually did do something useful. I'm gradually weaning myself from this.....

 

[Crotal Bell]

A UV filter as a UV filter is totally unnecessary as the sensors aren't sensitive to UV light. The only real use for them is as a protector when you're likely to be in a situation when water/mud/whatever could get thrown at the lens. If you do use one then it should be the best you can afford as there's no point putting a cheap filter in front of your expensive lens as it will degrade the image. The knee-jerk automatic addition of a filter is really a hang-over from the film days when we all used Skylight filters as they actually did do something useful. I'm gradually weaning myself from this.....

So a UV filter doesn't protect the internals of the camera?

 

[woof woof]

A UV filter as a UV filter is totally unnecessary as the sensors aren't sensitive to UV light. The only real use for them is as a protector when you're likely to be in a situation when water/mud/whatever could get thrown at the lens. If you do use one then it should be the best you can afford as there's no point putting a cheap filter in front of your expensive lens as it will degrade the image. The knee-jerk automatic addition of a filter is really a hang-over from the film days when we all used Skylight filters as they actually did do something useful. I'm gradually weaning myself from this.....

Do you have any evidence for filters degrading an image?

I'm not being argumentative, just honestly asking for evidence as this is an oft repeated thing and I've honestly never seen anything even remotely noticeable but maybe I've just been lucky with uv and other "protection" filters. The only issue I've ever seen is when there's a light in the frame for eg nightime shooting and streetlights and that can be a real issue.

In my dslr days I had a filter of some sort on any lens that'd take one but these days I don't bother.

 

[woof woof]

Interesting Alan. I've heard people say that UV filters can protect your lens or sensor from light damage. Some say you should always fit them.

I don't really understand it to be honest, but I fitted one to the bridge camera to be safe.

As far as I know the only light that can damage a sensor is laser... but having said that I wouldn't point the camera at the sun and leave it there fir a long time just in case.

For protection against salt spray and the like is an idea and some lenses need a filter to be weather sealed. Personally I wouldn't bother unless for protection against salt water and the like... Actually when I used to shoot a lot at gigs I had one to protect from flying beer

 

[Crotal Bell]

As far as I know the only light that can damage a sensor is laser... but having said that I wouldn't point the camera at the sun and leave it there fir a long time just in case.

For protection against salt spray and the like is an idea and some lenses need a filter to be weather sealed. Personally I wouldn't bother unless for protection against salt water and the like... Actually when I used to shoot a lot at gigs I had one to protect from flying beer

I see Alan, thank you. I won't bother then.
Funny how some people seem to recommend you put a UV filter on your lenses as standard, but I trust the forum collective

 

[Sangoma]

Do you have any evidence for filters degrading an image?

I'm not being argumentative, just honestly asking for evidence as this is an oft repeated thing and I've honestly never seen anything even remotely noticeable but maybe I've just been lucky with uv and other "protection" filters. The only issue I've ever seen is when there's a light in the frame for eg nightime shooting and streetlights and that can be a real issue.

In my dslr days I had a filter of some sort on any lens that'd take one but these days I don't bother.

Putting a UV filter on the Panasonic 100-300 has a huge impact, I still don't know why, but it was suggested that it is the effect of having another glass surface close to the front element.
Loss of both contrast and sharpness.

Reviews say that the 100-300 is not as sharp as the 100-400, and at first I though this was the reason, but when the last discussion about using UV filters came up, I removed it and compared again, and it changed the 100-300 completely.

I tried two reasonable quality filters, and both had a similar effect, yet the same two filters on a Canon lens had no noticeable effect.

Putting a UV filter on the 100-400, or any of the other Panasonic lenses has no noticeable effect.

Probably my UV or most usually skylight filter probably did go back to film, as up until 20 years ago, most of my photographs were take nearer to the equator where blue was the usual colour of the sky not grey . The four most available films were Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Agfa and Gratispool (all had to be sent away for processing, and took about 6 weeks), and particularly Agfa had a very noticeable blue cast without a skylight filter.

In nearly 60 years of using a camera, and 50 years of interchangeable lenses, I have never damaged a lens, however I am finding to start not using a UV filter entirely is a hard change to make, although I can see the logic in it

 

[d00d]

Pretty much David, a couple with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 but the 56mm is my main 'go-to' .. those two and the Olympus 75mm f1.8 are superbly sharp lenses.
A 42mm equivalent might be better than the 56mm sometimes but the only contenders IQ-wise would seem to be the Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 or Olympus 45mm f1.2 Pro and not cheap.

Thanks Gramps, thanks for coming to this thread. I need to get out with the camera more, I've got plenty of lenses, not Pro lenses, but they are good. Spending too much time at home, fotography frustrated ...

 

[Snapsh0t]

So a UV filter doesn't protect the internals of the camera?

Not in the slightest.

 

[d00d]

Didn't you have a 45mm macro at one stage too?

Yep, you're right. But it's so slow to focus. I've thought about taking it out on the street but worried I might lose the cute little squarish hood. Any excuse to grab a zoom.

 

[Snapsh0t]

Do you have any evidence for filters degrading an image?

I'm not being argumentative, just honestly asking for evidence as this is an oft repeated thing and I've honestly never seen anything even remotely noticeable but maybe I've just been lucky with uv and other "protection" filters. The only issue I've ever seen is when there's a light in the frame for eg nightime shooting and streetlights and that can be a real issue.

In my dslr days I had a filter of some sort on any lens that'd take one but these days I don't bother.

I've seen tests in the past that showed that cheap filters did cause loss of contrast, etc. and increased the likelihood of flare. It's quite possible that current cheap filters are much better than they used to be but, until I see tests that prove it, I'll stick with top-quality filters. If I've paid £1000 for a lens then £100 for the filter seems a reasonable investment.