Dumping the Oly 45mm

Having done considerable shooting over the years with a Hexanon 85mm (film camera) and the PLeica 45mm macro, I really wanted to like the Oly 45 lens on my Panny cameras. I made the mistake of selling my PLeica 45mm, figuring that I could make some money by swapping it for the Oly 45mm, while gaining a little additional margin for selective focus (with F1.8).  I also thought I'd be fine without the macro.

I have tried the Oly lens and tried it again.  It's sharp enough, but I liked the color and micro-contrast better from the PLeica 45mm. I also found that the lowlight advantage of f1.8 (on the Oly lens) was more than offset by its lack of OIS. After I purchased the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8, I found that I wouldn't even try the Oly because the Lumix lens at 35mm and f2.8 (with OIS) performed better across a range of light settings with my Panny GH2 and G5 than the Oly (without OIS).  What is more, the Oly 45mm was so small that it wasn't very balanced on the GH2 and G5 -- I got considerable shake when trying to shoot with slow shutter speeds.

I realize that aesthetics is very subjective, but the puny, silver lens somehow looked like a visitor on my largish Panny cameras.  Olympus seems to take a "needle-nose" approach to lens design, marketing their micro four-thirds lenses as "pen" lenses.  Everything is designed for small.  When increasing the size of a lens, they seem to extend the lens' length more readily than its diameter. Lenses such as the Panny 14-45 or 25mm, on the other hand, have a larger diameter that looks more at home on the Panny G series cameras.

Anyway, I've decided to dump the Oly 45mm because it gave me nothing different enough from the Lumix 12-35mm (stabilized), lumix 45-175mm (stabilized), and Leica 25mm (non-stabilized). I then considered the Oly 75mm as a longer prime that might fill a unique space better than had the Oly 45mm, but opted instead for the Oly 60mm f2.8 macro, which I've tried out some and am pretty thrilled with.  It restores the macro capacity that I lost with the PLeica 45mm, is a bit more distinct from my Lumix 12-35mm, is still fast enough to give some nice selective focus, and seems to combine sharpness, rich color, and nice micro contrast.  It's a bit difficult to explain, but when I lock exposure with the 60mm macro on my G5, I get exactly what I'm expecting, whereas with the Oly 45mm, the exposure seemed to differ from what I was aiming for with my AE lock.  Lastly, even though the 60mm suffers from the needle-nose design, it's black, a bit larger, and looks more at home on my Panny G cameras. Because there's more lens there, I can handhold it more successfully at slow shutter speeds than the 45mm.

I'm sure that some of the lack of success with the Oly 45mm was due to:

1. the fact that I was comparing it with the OIS-enabled PLeica 45, which also gave me macro ability.

2. the fact that it was designed to match a smaller system of bodies that had IBIS.

3. my own limitations as a photographer.

Anyway, a day of experience tells me I'm going to love this Oly 60mm macro/portrait lens. Its difference in FL from my 12-35mm zoom, difference in aperture from my 45-175 zoom, and close focusing uniqueness give it incredible appeal.

I'm not wanting to argue, and realize that many get incredible results with the Oly 45mm. But I've given up, and thought my experience might be interesting to others who are considering lens choices, especially if they shoot with Panny G-series, non-stabilized cameras.