Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 Sample Images

By dpreview staff on Jul 1, 2012 at 05:32 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $899.00

Just posted: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 prime lens sample images. We've been using the Olympus prime lens for the last few days and have prepared a quick sample gallery using the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 and GX1. These samples have been shot at a variety of apertures in a range of lighting conditions, intended to highlight the lens' portraiture capabilities.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 sample images

There are 15 images in this preview samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it. Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Please note - an earlier version of this gallery contained some images, uploaded in error, which did not meet our usual editorial standards. They have been replaced, and new images added. We will be adding more samples in the coming days. 

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8 preview samples gallery - Posted June 30th 2012
352
I own it
159
I want it
10
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 262
12
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Jul 1, 2012)

They are soft with mediocre bokeh, nothing can compare to 135mm/2.0 such as from Canon or Sigma 150mm/2.8 OS macro IQ on a FF body.

3 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Jul 1, 2012)

ok for a 150mm f/3.5 equiv. lens.

1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (Jul 1, 2012)

Such a lot of lens envy in this blog.
Looking at Robin's photographs reveals this is a superlative lens (and SLR gear say as much)
Crops with the OM-D + 75mm maybe as good as or better than a D800.
'Pop' and Bokeh as good as a Zeiss lens.
For goodness sake, give credit where it's due and grow up.

7 upvotes
Jim Ford
By Jim Ford (Jul 1, 2012)

Nah - Robin's review is nowhere near as comprehensive, in-depth and complete as the one-line dismissals made in this thread!

Jim

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (Jul 1, 2012)

The "best" comments are from the equivalence police, out in full force here today as well. Thanks to this forum I "learned" after shooting for 40 years that fast M4/3 lenses are in reality very slow lenses.

Also, the moon is made out of (the 35mm equivalence of) green cheese. Honestly!

Amazing logic and comments, here.

1 upvote
ginsbu
By ginsbu (Jul 1, 2012)

awful samples! they're so bad I can't tell whether DPR even has a good sample of the lens. the samples I've seen elsewhere show this to be a superb lens!

3 upvotes
citizenlouie
By citizenlouie (Jul 1, 2012)

For those mentioned about bad review photos, I tend to agree with you. I think the DoF choices are pretty bad for many of the portraits. DoF should be enough to cover both the nose and eyes, not wide open for every shot. As for overexposure on dog portrait. I think it's fine. We do need a few over exposed shots to show the lens's CA (or lack of). There should be more photos about bokeh and light spheres and light stars, we we get to know every character of the lens. Sharpness of this lens is a given (it's an Olympus HG), but bokeh quality, the second most important character of a lens, should also be shown before I would consider the lens.

Yes, they should go for a meeting and create a chart of goals need to accomplished. They need one photo for each possible real world scenario, each with a variation of using wide open and best aperture of the lens. With different lighting scenarios.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ropo16
By Ropo16 (Jul 1, 2012)

Maybe the "powers that be" are unhappy at the game changing influence the em5 is achieving and ordered a redress?

0 upvotes
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Jul 1, 2012)

That is paranoia. Not great shoots but Ieeeeeeesh. Conspiracy ? Some people should take pictures and not watch so much TV.

1 upvote
mark25
By mark25 (Jul 1, 2012)

these are, quite simply 'sub-standard' bad samples. they look as though the guys went out for lunch and every photo taken during that time was posted here for a very large audience, of which a large number is the potential buyer.

Dpreview needs to up its game and they need to have a meeting on this; the quality of their samples has degraded over the years. just browse the site back to 2006 and see how good the samples used to be.

i hope dpreview.com is listening.

muhammad muhsin

6 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Jul 1, 2012)

So agree. The staffs need some serious photography training. I can't believe how bad the skills are

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Jul 1, 2012)

The samples are fine. Most people buying this lens are amateurs, and their pictures will look the same as these. I am sure that the DPR guys are actually good photographers, with as much training in the field as they have, but choose to make boring pics because the people buiyng the gear will not be professional phototgraphers. Professional photogs will have a FF body with a genuine 1.4 or 1.2 lens, for portrait, they will likely not buy a 75 mm olympus lens, and mpunt it on a GH2. I wouldn't. And how many of you don't look at a professionaly made picture (which, btw, inculdes a lotttt of PP) and say "Photoshoped" or "well, okay, but he is a PRO, I could never get results like that !". Just chill, if you don't like the samples here just look at some others on other sites. Buy this lens because it makes you special, with it's shiny finish, it gives you bragging rites, you don't own a leica, but it's close, especially on an em5.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
BYRON MCD 77-81
By BYRON MCD 77-81 (Jul 1, 2012)

Hey, cool it on the sarcasm front. There are a lot of very capable photographers on this site and they know when the samples are sub -standard. And I know that, without a doubt, they wouldn't take pictures like these. You clearly cannot see that the samples are not representative of what the lens is capable of, and that, is what the samples are supposed to show. Look a bit closer. No, these samples are not fine.

3 upvotes
Domagoj Batinic
By Domagoj Batinic (Jul 1, 2012)

@ nicolaiecostel - actually, because of the price tag, people buying this lens will not be amateurs that will make pix like these. people buying this lens will be more skilled amateurs than that. people that take shots that are worth looking at and admiring. (here i'm not counting people that just have to have the latest and priciest gear around)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
andrewD2
By andrewD2 (Jul 1, 2012)

The two of the dog are taken with +1 exposure compensation and look about a stop overexposed. I was put off a camera that I'm really tempted by until I looked at the exif. Is that the reaction you want to your galleries? I'd get a better exposed shot with my phone.

It should be a very useful focal length, I do a lot of professional work with 135L on 1DsIII and 1DIV and used to love the classic Minolta 100f2 on the KM7D.

Maybe its time to harness the power of dpreview - it users. Put the cameras and lenses into some good hands.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jul 1, 2012)

Wow, über sharp
But let's face it, it's not comparable with the Canon 135L for portrait pictures, the canon melts the bg completely.
But the oly can easily be the better landscape lens, it's much more portable

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't think its angle of view allows it to be a good landscape lens. Normally wide-angle lenses are used for that purpose, and this is a telephoto.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
pixtorial
By pixtorial (Jul 1, 2012)

I wouldn't classify lenses as "portrait" or "landscape" lenses by their focal length alone. There are plenty of examples of phenomenal landscape photographs taken with lenses > 50mm, just as I've seem some remarkable people photographs taken with lenses < 35mm.

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jul 1, 2012)

Yea, that's conventional thinking, yet I've seen many stunning landscape pics taken with telephoto lenses.
Sharpness is crucial for landscape, and the oly delivers
For portraits, IMHO sharp is enough, no need to be über sharp

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 1, 2012)

Of course telephoto lenses are useful for landscape photography. Isolating a mountain range, a distant tree, a large setting sun are all examples of the types of images telephotos excel at. Lanscape photography doesn't always mean wide-angle photography.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

150mm equivalent = landscape lens?!?

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

Of course you can always use telephoto lenses for landscape photography, but you'll be using it to isolate a subject - a mountain, a tree or whatever. You need lenses that give you a perception of depth and a panoramic vision when you photograph a landscape, not ones that compress perspective. Saying wide-angles are for portraits and telephotos for isolating subjects is, of course, too generic, but it's a useful rule of thumb. So don't give me that "conventional thinking" thing.

0 upvotes
JoeSchmoe
By JoeSchmoe (Jul 1, 2012)

The quality of these samples is embarrassing. Seems like DPR doesn't put much effort into taking non-technical photos anymore. For much better ones, see Robin Wong's review:

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
pixtorial
By pixtorial (Jul 1, 2012)

I completely agree with you, there are substantial issues with these photos across the board. Non-critical focus, focused everywhere but the eyes, little or no attention paid to background, therefore leaving us just to guess at what quality of bokeh the glass may have. I won't even get started on exposure and color grading.

1 upvote
ashwins
By ashwins (Jul 1, 2012)

"The Olympus 75mm ƒ/1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses we've ever tested. It is tack-sharp even wide open at ƒ/1.8, gets a little sharper through to ƒ/8, and stays sharp even stopped down to ƒ/16. At ƒ/22 there is a bit of diffraction limiting that exhibits a little generalized softness."

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14

7 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Jul 1, 2012)

What's with all the high iso shots (?) .. this is a lens test not a sensor test. I'm sorry i hate to be one of the complainers for once but this gallery is 80% awful.

4 upvotes
Poweruser
By Poweruser (Jul 1, 2012)

Highlights seem to blow easily with this combo.

2 upvotes
Kurt_K
By Kurt_K (Jul 1, 2012)

Actually, I think it's the positive exposure compensation that's blowing the highlights.

2 upvotes
ovatab
By ovatab (Jul 1, 2012)

"Shutter speed < 1/Focal Lenght" rule does not work for u4/3 lenses without optical stabilisation, some pictures are good examples for this. I would suggest SS < 1/FLin35mmEquiv

0 upvotes
Klaus dk
By Klaus dk (Jul 1, 2012)

It's a rule of thumb, not a guarantee.
Some photographers have a very steady hand, others will need even shorter exposures.
And the longer the exposure, the bigger the risk of the subject moving - if you shoot moving subjects, that is.

0 upvotes
jl_smith
By jl_smith (Jul 1, 2012)

DPReview posts sample gallery...free visitors gripe about quality of photos...and the world spins on :D

I think the sample gallery would have benefitted from a few more contextual portraits, not the uber-tight headshots presented.

As far as the ISO 8000 shots - C'mon people, look at the shutter speeds, around 1/100s, it's not rocket science.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 1, 2012)

It's not about free vs paid visitors, it's about so called experts presenting a high quality new optic where you would at the very least expect a bit more energy and effort than hand-held snapshots.

Shutter speed 1/100 is too slow for this lens. 1/150 is the minimum as you have to account for the 2x crop of the sensor.

And there's no reason to shoot ISO 8000 for static shots. Such high ISOs softens images, and negates the resolution a lens might normally offer. Do people not use tripods anymore or think about lighting?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
jl_smith
By jl_smith (Jul 1, 2012)

Erm, were these not shot on an OM-5D (edit - seems to have been a GH-2 I think, so scratch the IBIS talk) I can't seem to get to the ice cream shot now, but if you've got IBIS, that's the entire point of shooting at below 1/35mmE-Focal speeds.

Also, I don't know many people that bring tripods and studio lighting to an ice cream parlor. I'm not saying it was the best shot in the world, but you guys are expecting world-class shooting from a HARDWARE REVIEW SITE.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

No trolling, but all I can say, after seeing these pictures, is that my OM 50mm/f1.4 is not jeopardised.
However, we must take into account that micro 4/3 sensors have a tendency to clip highlights, and photos taken with these cameras need some sharpening and highlight correction in post-production to look tonally balanced.
That said the pictures are sharp and bokeh is nice, also showing no signs of distortion or chromatic aberrations. Whether that justifies the high price asked for this lens is up to each one. As I said, I have a classic lens that does the same job, despite the focal length difference which will make me get a little closer to the subject.

1 upvote
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't think all M43 cameras have the issues you claim, most notably the OM-D and GH2. The older sensor cameras do have less DR, but I'm not sure what you mean about the sharpening. You can vary this in camera, or else shoot RAW.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

Of course. You can't sharpen images in-camera when you shot RAW.
And these images are proof that overexposure still persists with the new gen m4/3 sensors. (They're also proof that those foolish "equivalent aperture" theories are wrong, by the way...)

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Jul 1, 2012)

I think they were shot over-exposed on purpose. Look at the exposure compensation values.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Jul 1, 2012)

Hm, i don't think that this collection shows anything about the capabilities of this lens. We all know that you guys can do much better.

My suggestion:
Please remove this collection and show a link to a more meaningful one like
http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html

Regards,
Michael

10 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jul 1, 2012)

Thanks for the link. Chalk and cheese, Robin got some really great shots and shows the lens in much better light.

However, I think folks will complain whatever DPR do because if they present neutral images, they won't look as good as they could, and if they process to taste, some will complain they are processed. But I do think these DPR samples should have been better. Bad day at the office.

0 upvotes
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Jul 1, 2012)

What is the point of making sample pictures for a f1.8 lens with ISO 8000 ?????

To me, this is utter nonsense.
A significant part of the images is completely useless for assessing the quality of the lens.

2 upvotes
Ivar Dahl Larsen
By Ivar Dahl Larsen (Jul 1, 2012)

From what I can judge from the samples, it does not impress me a bit. My old 50mm Pentax 1,7 with adapter and my Canon 85mm/1,8 EF with adapter are doing much greater in every aspect on a GH2 as well as a G3. Albeit manual.

1 upvote
pca7070
By pca7070 (Jul 1, 2012)

I think I can do a better job here, at least I won't put on those out of focus and blurry pictures. :D

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 1, 2012)

What I don't get are all the ISO 8000 shots. When your testing a lens wouldn't want to avoid such extremes? It's not D4 and not a camera test.

If you can't get a fast enough shutter speed use a tripod or flash, especially for static shots. Ice cream doesn't move unless you count the melting.

4 upvotes
julieng
By julieng (Jul 1, 2012)

Thats irrelevant. Having a few shots at high ISO does not get in the way of judging other pics at base ISO first and then, for serving as an example, the picture did not need to be an action shot.

Of course, a tripod would have been used normally..

0 upvotes
BYRON MCD 77-81
By BYRON MCD 77-81 (Jul 1, 2012)

A very poor effort on the part of the photographer. I can only imagine how the people at Olympus will feel when they get to see these shots. And quite rightfully so.

4 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jul 1, 2012)

Amusing - everyone banging on about how MFT does not offer shallow enough DoF, and yet put this lens in the hands a (presumably) competent photographer in (presumably) a bit of a hurry and they trip over the shallow DoF all the time.

The answer being of course that very shallow DoF is a Special Effect that needs Special Care - of the type not being exercised here :-)

9 upvotes
TonyC5D
By TonyC5D (Jul 1, 2012)

I have to say this is a very poor set of photographs, on some it is difficult to find a sharp point of focus. for instance the picture of the metalwork brackets. Surely, DPreview, you can come up with better samples than this. Having looked at the Robin Wong pictures they certainly seem to be a whole lot better than these. As somebody has pointed out the reflection in the sunglasses is not of a photographer taking great care over sample shots!

6 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Jul 1, 2012)

Great lens, silly FL Olympus. You should have made this a 60 f/1.8 and the macro a 75 f/2.8. I'll buy the macro, but not this lens. The 45 f/1.8 is already a little gem and a more useful FL. If only it were all metal like the 75.

0 upvotes
Ropo16
By Ropo16 (Jul 1, 2012)

Forget this hatchet job. Look at Robin Wong real world samples:

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/

17 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Jul 1, 2012)

Or more precisely:

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html

5 upvotes
aDamDam
By aDamDam (Jul 1, 2012)

Thanks a lot for thi link! Photos are great and the review much more in-depth!

2 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Jul 1, 2012)

Just goes to show that if you want to test something (or show what it can do... samples..) then put it in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing

Excellent - thanks for the link.

2 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Jul 1, 2012)

Maybe Olympus shold be sending their lenses to Robin to review. Impressive photos, never mind the lens, and the lens output in his hands is very impressive.

1 upvote
Tap0
By Tap0 (Jul 1, 2012)

The link is not for vegans though !!

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 1, 2012)

I agree. DPR's photos look just amateurish compared to Robin Wong's. The former fail to demonstrate the lens' abilities. And - Wong's photos are beautiful to look at.

0 upvotes
lajka
By lajka (Jul 1, 2012)

What real shallow DOF? Remember that because of the format MTF lenses have DOF two stops down compared with FF. Thus 1.8 on MTF is 3.5 on FF. You would be better of with FF Zuiko 100/2.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gao Gao
By Gao Gao (Jul 1, 2012)

on m4/3? that's a 200/4 without AF.

1 upvote
blohum
By blohum (Jul 1, 2012)

The equivalence police are out already... yawn... it makes me wonder exactly how thin some people need the DOF.

8 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

@blohum- it's not necessarily about "thin" DOF. Sometimes, it's just about how well diffused the background is rendered. As lajka infers, this Oly 75/1.8 only renders the background blur equivalent of an f/3.5 aperture on FF. People just need to know that before dropping $900 on this lens.

0 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Jul 1, 2012)

m43 has been around for 3 years and regular 43 and other crop sensor DSLRs for 10 years, it's not exactly news... and if you drop $900 on a lens and didn't understand this you have more money than sense...

1 upvote
wootpile
By wootpile (Jul 1, 2012)

Poor samples. I have no idea why Dpreview lets poorly taken samples be publiished as representation of lens performance. One example is the image with the girl wearing glasses. Download it, load in photoshop, enlarge the reflection of the photographer from the sunglass and check how she is taking that shot. That is no way to take review photos wide open. Shame the staff isn't taking their jobs seriously.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
dji_tea
By dji_tea (Jul 1, 2012)

I agree. They obviously put so much effort into exemplary reviews; I wish they'd apply some of that diligence to the sample shots. At least have a set of scenes and f-stops to cover with each lens.

1 upvote
scalll
By scalll (Jul 1, 2012)

Méh...
Thought this would be a real shallow DOF monster, but apparently it isn't...
You're better off with the 45mm f1.8... = smaller, fast AF, more useable focal length, equally sharp = waaay more "bang for buck"

Saying that a Canon (or Nikon) 85mm is as good (or better) than this Zuiko 75mm is complete rubbish (yes I owned one)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

There are plenty of excellent examples from the Nikon and Canon 85mm and 100mm primes shot on APS-C that look just as good, if not better, than these examples. Oly is NOT the only manufacturer that is capable of producing a sharp medium-telephoto prime.

As for not quite being a shallow DOF monster, it's probably because the 150mm effective focal length forces you to shoot from farther back (greater subject distance) which counteracts the ability to get shallower DOF. Greater subject distance means greater DOF.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
scalll
By scalll (Jul 1, 2012)

I used my Canon 85mm on APS-C + FF and basing on my personal experiences that was a world of difference with the samples here above. @ f1.8 = loads of purple fringing and not nearly as sharp...
Well... it's always possible that I owned a bad 85mm sample I guess

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 1, 2012)

Why wouldn't a Canon or Nikon 85 1.8 be as good? The fast 85s from both are superb portrait lenses.

And the Nikon 85 1.4G, there's your bokeh-monster.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 1, 2012)

Once again, excited about seeing reactions to a new piece of equipment, only to be reminded that camera gear people are the worst in the internet, compounded by anything that has to do with micro 4/3. It never fails to bring out the cranks.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (Jul 1, 2012)

Sad, but very true. I couldn't have put it better.

0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Jul 1, 2012)

Well... OK lens... Something like budget SONY 85/2.8, but brighter. But nothing special, as Four Thirds 50/2 was for example...
Olympus lost that precious ability to make unique lenses. Too bad...

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 1, 2012)

What does that even mean? Why ever bother posting anything?

8 upvotes
Simon Cowell
By Simon Cowell (Jul 1, 2012)

I agree with Paul.

The real surprise is the amount of purple fringing in some shots. 4/3 lenses didn't use to have purple fringing at all.

Plus, the shallow DOF seems to be a problem for the E-M5's focusing system. Out of all portraits, only one seems to be clearly focused and sharp on the eyes. Some might say it's a photographer error but why should the dpreview testers be worse than the average photographer? After all, they use so many different cameras on a day-to-day basis.

IMO this is an average lens with slightly better IQ than a legacy lens but difficult to handle with AF.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Jul 1, 2012)

Re Simon - the oof portraits are sloppy shots, not the lenses fault.

3 upvotes
intruder61
By intruder61 (Jul 1, 2012)

nice and all, if your into head shots....otherwise a useless FL.

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

Just like 24mm is a useless FL if you're not into landscapes and 400mm is a useless FL if you're not into wildlife, right?

3 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Jul 1, 2012)

That's a pretty narrow view.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

@mister_roboto - I can't tell if you said that as a pun or not. After all, a 150mm effective perspective *is* a "pretty narrow view!" LOL.

This FL isn't "useless", but it's a bit limited in its use. It won't be the first lens on everyone's "buy" list, that's for sure. In fact, given the FL and its high price, it's more of a niche lens. But it's good that such a lens is at least offered, even though its sales volumes will probably be rather small.

0 upvotes
aDamDam
By aDamDam (Jul 1, 2012)

@T3
Very true! I was exactly missing this FL and brightness when recently shooting at my daughters' performance. Black background, light on faces only. Oly 45/1.8 was doing very well but was too short.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 1, 2012)

Images 8 and 16 are most telling to me. Purple fringe is readily apparent and softness is pretty average for a fast prime used at max aperture.

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

Image 8 is a shot of obscenely glaring light reflection that they took probably on purpose just to see how the lens would respond, and there's very little purple and easily correctible. There are only a tiny amount of lenses that wouldn't show any purple on a shot like that. and they are all much pricier and heavier than this lens.

16 may look soft in the corners but it's because the wall is close enough so that the narrow DOF put the corners out of focus, it has nothing to do with corner sharpness. Also it's kind of funny that you are using a photo of a brick wall, a test subject that nobody shoots in real life, to attack the lens.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 1, 2012)

They are test shots of simple items and this lens isn't excelling. It's not doing terribly, but it certainly isn't beating primes that cost half or 1/4 its price. Go check out the recent Nikon 50mm gallery or the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 and you won't find purple fringe.

You can justify it how you would like, but you are wrong that most lenses would purple fringe. Some do, but not most.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

deleted

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

2 upvotes
privater
By privater (Jul 1, 2012)

Actully, I think both Nikon and Canon 85 f1.8 can provide that performance, oh, and they have such performance for 35mm cmos.
And, for $900, you can buy them together. The only problem is not as sparkle as Olympus.
PS:Did I mention 85 1.8g is splash-resistent? well, never mind... just enjoy what you like and share your best shot with us.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jul 1, 2012)

well unless they are f1.4. still 2 grand is unheard of for an 85mm lens outside of german glass for specialty cameras like leica an zeiss

2 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

Wrong, the Canikon lenses have corner softness, light falloff, CA,, not to mention they are made of plastic. Only a fanboy or a troll/hater could think those lenses deliver this kind of performance.

5 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jul 1, 2012)

your a total fool if you are telling me you can tell from these few samples the objective level of sharpness from ever part of the frame. Also id hardly call these acid test images. most of them are headshots. also 4/3rds is a small format witch is advantageous. the new nikon 85mm f1.8 g is a stellar lens that is as good as any prime of this length i have seen. And frankly some of shots look a bit soft to my eye

2 upvotes
dtchannet
By dtchannet (Jul 1, 2012)

I would suggest look at the samples here instead...
http://robinwong.blogspot.ca/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 1, 2012)

Look at image 8 of the car. Focus is near the corner on the British flag emblem. It's not razor sharp and it has plenty of purple fringe. That's not a "godly" performance, it's an ordinary one.

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

the lens has already been tested by SLRGear, just compare their results with this lens to their results with any of the Canikon 85mm f/1.8 lenses, and this lens is longer than those (150mm vs 127.5mm).

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

Wow you found one tiny bit of purple on a single image, in which they shot the most absurd light reflection probably on purpose just to see what kind of aberation they would get. There's not a lens in the world short of maybe an exotic supertelephoto that won't show some purple from a shot like that, and as for the focus there is no way to tell exactly how sharp it is because the surface is totally flat and there is no texture detail, it is completely smooth. That image does however show what extremely shallow depth of field is possible, something the trolls have been constantly whining about.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jul 1, 2012)

And you are calling it "godly" based on some sharp centrally placed portraits. ANY prime can do that.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

@IcyVeins, you're using the sensor format multiplier effect to claim that "this lens is longer"? Seriously? Sorry, but this is a 75mm lens. I guess that's why Oly calls it the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8! I've been using my Canon 85/1.8 on my E-PM1 (using an EF-to-m4/3 adapter) which gives the effective perspective of a 170mm lens, but it's still an 85mm lens!

And no, this Oly lens is not "godly". It's about as good as the Canon 85/1.8 lens, which costs less than $400-- not $2000. I think you're letting your enthusiasm get away from you, causing you to say some rather absurd things.

As for shallow DOF, yeah, if you want to shoot with a 150mm effective lens! Yes, it's "possible", but with caveats. Keep in mind that larger formats can achieve these shallow depth of fields at shorter effective focal lengths. Every format has its pros and cons. Easy shallow DOF acquisition is not a big "pro" for m4/3.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jul 1, 2012)

I wouldnt say any prime most are soft wide wide open. but these look a little soft wide open too. seems to be the nature of the beast

1 upvote
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

T3 you're being ridiculous arguing semantics, it's plainly obvious that the lens will simulate a longer focal length and nobody cares about how long the physical lens is, only what kind of image it produces. I think you're letting your love of Canon cloud your judgment here, this lens is clearly better

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

IcyVeins, in real world shooting, I don't think it's really better than my Canon 85/1.8 which I've been using on m4/3. And you don't hear people calling the Canon 85/1.8 a "godly" lens! LOL. Besides, you're being a total hypocrite. The person who is "letting your love...cloud your judgement here" is the overly enthusiastic fanboy who has called this lens "a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more." Yeah, the Canon 85/1.2L costs $2000, but you're getting an f/1.2 lens, and it's full frame. This Oly lens is only f/1.8.

Is this Oly lens a good lens? Sure. It should be, because it's a prime lens, and most prime lenses have good optics. But a "godly" lens? Come on, if you even have an ounce of reasonableness inside you, you have to admit that that's a bit of an overstatement!!! LOL!

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jul 1, 2012)

no its not semantics at all. its 75mm lens period. You can even put the canon and nikon lens on this one of these cameras and compare apples to apples. You get the optical effect of 75mm lens with the field of view of 150mm field of view. Personally i dont think that is that wonderful. Id rather have the optics of an actual 150mm lens

1 upvote
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jul 1, 2012)

The Canon and Nikon lenses aren't designed to be used on m4/3, you have to use an adapter and there is no autofocus and they are larger because they cover a larger image circle. The only reasonable comparison is to compare each lens on the cameras for which they are intended to be used.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Jul 1, 2012)

@IcyVeins- you're making a futile attempt to support your absurd claim that this is a "godly lens", which is just overly enthusiastic fanboy gushing. It's a good lens. Sure. A lot of primes are also good lenses. The Canon 85/1.8 on a Canon APS-C body, giving the equivalent of 135mm is an excellent lens, for less than $400. This Oly lens is more than twice that price, at $899. Is it more than twice as good as the Canon? No. As good? Sure. But you're also paying more than double the price. The Canon 100/2 lens, giving the equivalent of 160mm on APS-C, is also a very good lens. And it's only ~$470. There are plenty of really good prime lenses. Good primes aren't that uncommon, and they are definitely available for a lot less than $2000...even a lot less than $900, too!!!

The point is, your enthusiasm is commendable, but overblown. It's a good lens, but for $900, it should be.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Total comments: 262
12