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

Now I understand how hard is for me to express myself in english.
Sorry, I am not a OM-D owner, I'll be. I badly used a paradox to say that for me these photos are simply wrongly taken.

Because doing a portrait shoot with a model wearing makeup is such as unrealistic scenario?

Scott Kelby? Isn't he a Photoshop trainer?

But anyway, something like a 70-200 at 200mm is getting a bit long for portraiture. The reason is telephoto lenses compress distances while wides expand, which is why 85-135mm is considered the classical portrait length. Too long a telephoto for portraits and facial features become flattened. Too short, 28mm for example, features become elongated, i.e., big noses, foreheads, etc. I suspect Olympus didn't choose 135mm as 68.5mm would have been too close to the 45 1.8.

Tastes in focal lengths for portraits change by the decade.....
Back in the 1980s, a 300mm 2.8 was THE lens for portrait photography. Nikon makes the 135 f/2 DC specifically for portraits. Cartier Bresson used much shorter lenses. Right now people seem to lean toward the 85s. All you can really say is that a certain length is popular at a certain time.

@Neodp
Too long telephotos don't "fatten" (as in wider and rounder) facial features they "flatten" (as in pushed in flat like a pug dog).

I've never heard of a 300 2.8 telephoto ever being "THE lens for portraits". Maybe of football players, but never portraiture. Any examples?

T2i is generations old. Even my GF3 and GH2 can shoot rings around it. if you havent tried the latest Gen 3 & Gen 4 M4/3, dont troll

By bradleyg5 (2 hours ago) Please message me to apologize when DXOmark gets...

What is this DXOmark you speak off? Do you wear it around the neck or does it attach to the camera for ultimate photography experience?

The Canon t2i (550D) is the same 18 mp sensor of the T3i and T4i. The EM-5 doesn't even equal the IQ from this camera let alone "run circles around it". As far as the GH2 or GF3, I have both cameras and sorry but they also don't come close (at least not for stills). The Canon T3i is not on the level of a D7000 for IQ, but it's still offers significantly better AF and IQ performance than any m43 camera especially at base ISO where images are as clean as can be.

The "significantly better IQ performance" is simply not true. Check the high ISO samples by yourself. EM-5 has better DR and cleaner dark noise than 5D mk II, I doubt t2i is better than 5D II.

For camera features including faster X-sync, FPS, EVF, weather sealing, articulating touch screen, level of customization etc. the EM-5 simply kills these entry level APS-C cameras. Period.

@DarkShift
None of the Canon's you mention are well known for their DR, but overall IQ is better than E-M5. There is no comparison between a 5D II and an E-M5, however, as the 5D II is simply better in pretty much every way. Only an true Olympus fan would dare to make this comparison.

As for the entry level APS-C, put it up against a D3200 or A55 and the Olympus will not come out ahead. Look at where the D3200 is on DxOMark, and you'll understand. It's nothing against the E-M5, but the new entry level Nikon IQ is simply better.

Don't wait for DOXmark to pull their finger out and give a "sensor score" which is dubious anyway. Imageing Resource and others have done DR tests for the E-M5 and give it praise in being competitive with most APS-C sensors and up there within a whisker of the Sony NEX sensors.

As far as DXO mark's scoring system goes -
(from their web site)
Sensor Overall Score shows a camera’s:
Sensor quality in terms of noise.
Ability to render high contrast.
Formation of colored noise.
Ability to shoot in low light.

What it doesn't say is how each of these parameters are weighted against each other.
Give me objectivity in hard numbers rather than a score any day otherwise just show me the pictures it takes for which the E-M5 is a winner anyway.

Cheers

@marike6

BS. I'm myself a long time Canon user, but don't posses need for stupid brand loyalty. 5D2 gives somewhat more detail, and of course finer noise at ISO 100, but its DR is not very good and is plagued by gridded noise which limits its pushability when doing PP.

5D2 is also much slower (under 4 fps), doesn't have IBIS, and its weather sealing is not very good. AF is worse on low light than CDAF on EM-5, it's got slower X-sync speed, no built in AF assist, FullHD output is very soft.

LOL, for years it was high ISO, then it was DR for some time when it was the only thing that matters for IQ, now that the M5 is equal or better than some APSC, it's only base ISO that determines IQ.

I'd say the performance is main driver behind the price:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14
compared to:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10

One of the sharpest lenses they've ever tested.

I could get a Toyota Camry, and put mag wheels on it, for $25,000 (to this Porsche at $50,000)...plus the Camry gives me slightly better gas mileage. Doesn't make sense to me, all cars with mag wheels are great, especially the ones with fat tires. Porsche puts a glossy paint job on it and expects more than double the going rate...

Firstly it's worth noting that according to the DXOmark sensor rating, the Rebel T2i has a superior sensor to any ever made for micro four thirds.(by a over 10 points) So I believe Canon would be the porsche and micro four thirds the Camry.

Secondly comparing lens @Julian_K Two things, first you can only compare the very centre of the canon graph because the "soft corners" would be cropped off entirely when mounted on a Micro four thirds camera.

2nd point @Julian_K they did those measurements on a Canon 20d which has a 8MP sensor on a 1.6x crop. They did the 75mm measurements on a Olympus EP-1 which has 12 megapixels crammed into a smaller sensor. Put both lens on the EP-1 and then get back to me, I would wager they are virtually identical on the same camera.

Oh dear... I think EM-5 runs circles around EOS 550D for features and has better sensor performance.

I bet the Zuiko 75/1.8 will beat EF 85/1.8 @f1.8 in about every aspect. And yes I own the latter lens.

These manufacturer trolls are always so funny...

Just backing up my 2nd point about the lens, here is proof that pretty conclusively shows my point.

From a more reputable lens reviewer Photozone.

The 85mm F/1.8 scores a little less than 1850 line widths per picture height (LW/PH) when mounted on a 8MP canon 350d http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review?start=1

The 85mm F/1.8 scores a little less than 2280 LW/PH when mounted on a 15MP eos 50D http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/421-canon_85_18_50d?start=1

This completely backs up my statement that that resolution measurements tend to increase drastically as the pixel density of the camera sensor itself increases. Showing that the Micro four lens are a lot less impressive than those graphs on slrgear would have you believe.

The Panasonic GH1 is rated at 64, the Rebel T2i as 66, so not 10 points. Will be interesting to see how the OM-D fares.

why a Rebel T2i is funny?
it is great class - better than the EM-5 and the GH2 at photo

Well.... for your sheer photo pleasure maybe you should stick to reading DXOmark tests.

not sure about that. Canon 85mm 1.8 is excellent. I haven't seen any evidence Oly 75mm is better

The president of Olympus has admitted the sensor in the E-M5 is made by Sony.

What was that you said about DXO?....LoL

It's 150mm eq. to 35mm ... how is this stupid? It would actually be considered ideal since the ideal portrait range is largely considered 85mm-150mm.

No - bla, bla, bla . . .!
4/3 (mFT) is not optimal for photo - the EM-5 changes here nothing

For film and then with the hack for GH2 from Vitaliy Kiselev and patches from Nick Driftwood - yes!

@marikes6: "For landscape photographers, the 2x crop factor is an issue as it limits choices in UWA lenses"
There are the m43 oly 9-18 mm, the pany 7-14, the 4-3 oly 9-18, the 43 oly 11-22 and the 43 oly 7-14 . The pany 7-14 is tack sharp but expensive, I have the m43 oly 9-18 and I'm very happy with it, corners are a bit soft but it is so small and lightweight !
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/7109198021/

another one who thinks that a bigger lens makes the m43 concept pointless...its about flexibility....at least in m43 you can choose for real compact setup or bigger, thats what it makes interesting compared with dlsr's

Bigger? It has a 58mm front filter thread, same as my Nikon 50 1.8G. This is not large for a telephoto with a fast max aperture. If all you want is miniaturization, all you'll get are slow lenses.

It's an ideal portrait lens for the m4/3rd system. If you were shooting with a 135 sized DSLR, you'd either be wanting the use a 85mm f1.4, 135mm or 70-200mm. This is "smaller, lighter & less expensive" compared to those lenses.

"... less expensive ..."

Do you have any quote for this? Who said that?

A lot of it comes down to production volume. This is going to be a relatively low volume lens. First of all, there aren't really all that many m4/3 users (compared to Canon and Nikon DSLR users). Secondly, even though it's a 75mm lens, its effective FL is 150mm, which isn't exactly a must-have, do-all focal length that many people will want. As a result, it's going to be a relatively low volume, low production lens, which drives up the price. Oly knows this, so they've priced the lens to squeeze as much revenue out of the limited volume of lenses they'll sell. Meanwhile, Canon and Nikon can price their lenses lower because they know that they can easily make up for the lower price with much higher sales volume.

It'll be interesting to see what the prices of Canon's mirrorless lenses will be. Hopefully, the $200 price tag of Canon's excellent new 40/2.8 pancake will be a preview of what we can expect.

One large reason for Olympus' high lens costs is that Olympus lenses, unlike those of other brands are telecentric. (No, a telecentric lens is not the same as a telephoto lens. Check it out on Wikipedia.) This is in accordance with 4/3 philosophy which minimizes light fall-off in the corners and gives a correct size ratio for objects in the image regardless of distance from the camera. This was part of the reason for creating the 4/3 system in the beginning.

It costs a LOT more to make a telecentric lens than it does to make a normal digital camera lens. I do not own a 4/3 camera but I came very close to buying one when I entered the semi-pro camera circle. The telecentric lens concept almost had me convinced. I finally went to Nikon because I decided that sensor size trumps telecentric. That's an individual decision but if you are using or planning to get a 4/3 camera you are going to have to live with the expensive lenses.

@MattBrisVegas

Several reasons. One is what Marvin Clapp said, telecentric design. Second is low volume, like T3 said. I'll add more.

Size: It's not easy to create smaller lenses with the same amount of performance.

Aperture: 7-blade circular aperture design is common in m4/3 lenses. That design is usually found only in high-end Canon and Nikon. 9-blade circular is standard on all 4/3 high grade and up lenses (there are exceptions). That's why Olympus lenses have far superior bokeh.

Design: 4/3 and m4/3 lenses are created ground up for the sensor size they're for. R&D cost is higher. Most cheap Nikon and Canon lenses are designed for 35mm FF format, so their R&D cost is already amortized.

Resolution: Don't know about m4/3, but 4/3 lenses have almost the twice the resolution of FF lenses, because it has smaller sensor, so it needs that much resolution to compensate for sharpness. That means the glass have to be higher quality. Lots of ED glasses are used.

" The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?"

Does it really? The Olympus has 1 more element (for a total of 9) than the Nikon, while 5/9 of those elements are fairly exotic: 3x Extra-low dispersion and 2x High Refractive. Also, even if it produces a much smaller image circle, the 75/1.8 lets in roughly the same amount of light as the 85/1.8 through an aperture that is only about 4mm smaller in diameter.

Not only that, the barrel is all metal, while the Nikon is plastic. The metal Voigtlander 75/1.8 and Leica 75/2 are $715 and $3795, respectively. Neither of which have AF obviously. So, the price isn't bad in comparison to those lenses.

The 75/1.8 is indeed pricey, but so far it seems like it is worth it.

Mystery explained. Now it makes a lot of sense why the high end m4/3 lenses are so expensive.

And since I've got so many thoughtful and knowledgeable posters responding, could anyone explain the converse mystery: why is the 12mm f/2 NOT more expensive than what I'd expect based on 35mm full frame optics? Do super-wides not require a telecentric design?

Just one correction: the barrel of Nikon's 85 f1.8D is definitely metal, based on the ding I put in mine.

"could anyone explain the converse mystery: why is the 12mm f/2 NOT more expensive than what I'd expect based on 35mm full frame optics"

Has to do with the shorter flange distance of mirrorless cameras, which allows lenses with shorter focal lengths to be simpler/smaller (e.g. non-retro-focus wide angle lenses).

I was thinking of the newer Nikon 85/1.8G, which is mostly plastic except for the mount. The older D has more metal (filter, hood mount) but the barrel is still plastic.

Correction to previous post: the 75/1.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups.

The smaller sensor makes it necessary for the lens to be at least(!) double as sharp as a lane for 24x36mm sensor size. If not, images would be softer than FF. Now, the Oly 75 seems to be superbly built.
Presicion in mechanics is costly, especially if smaller dimensions are at hand like with m4/3 & 4/3 format lenses vs lenses for larger formats. Simple as that.

Marketing. Read the marketing stuff posted above and you’d think there are something special about Olympus all the Nikon and Canon users are idiots.

APS-C and FF lenses are cheaper because their sales volumes are greater and they have to compete with older version of the same lens and 3rd party offerings which caps how expensive they can be.

m4/3 price will come down in a decade or two but Olympus would have moved to another format by then.

@Peiasdf - with regards to marketing, yep, Oly pulled the same stunt when they were marketing their original 4/3 system. They got people to believe that there was something special about Oly's 4/3 lenses that Nikon and Canon were missing out on. Ultimately, not everyone bought into the 4/3 marketing ploy, and now 4/3 has faded to a sideline footnote. But apparently, some people are still citing the Oly marketing mantra.

Thank you for all your hard work, I enjoy your website.

"Socialist"? Get back on track.

@mister_roboto: i lived in a comunist country for 6 years, I think I know about socialism a thing or two.

Private company manages its comments section however it wants. If you don't like it then take your traffic somewhere else. That is capitalism, comrade.