can the 12-100 replace 45&74 1.8's?

[Jay56]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

 

[Kharan]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

NO.

Seriously, just no. The f-stop difference between them is too much, and the 45 and 75 can pull some tricks off that aren’t available to the zoom. The 75mm is one of the system’s best lenses, capable of achieving the subject separation associated with 35mm. Its bokeh is a thing of beauty, as is its resolution wide open. I bitterly regret selling one that I bought for less than $200 - it’s probably the worst mistake I’ve ever made regarding gear.

The 45mm is a little soft wide open, which gives a certain look that is great for portraits - the 12-100mm just can’t do that.

The 12-100mm f/4 is a great lens for travel and video, that can sub for almost any lens in a pinch. But a dedicated portrait lens it is not, at all. One good thing about it is that it can focus closer than either of the others, making it a good choice for animal portraits, for example.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

I like the idea of the 12-100 as a city travel lens. But for portraits i would miss the extra two stops of depth of field control and low light performance of the two primes.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

I haven’t used any of them, so of course I’m an expert.

You can do a lot of posed portraiture with an f/4 lens. When I took a Nikon Portrait and Lighting course, NPS supplied the students with D600’s and 24-120mm f/4’s. Candids will be more of a challenge because can’t limit depth of field to the same extent.

Personally? I hope to resist the siren call of fast M43 primes indefinitely. But if M43 was my primary format, I’d be looking seriously at the 45mm and the Sigma 56mm.

 

[greg57]

The 75mm is one of the system’s best lenses, capable of achieving the subject separation associated with 35mm. Its bokeh is a thing of beauty, as is its resolution wide open. I bitterly regret selling one that I bought for less than $200 - it’s probably the worst mistake I’ve ever made regarding gear.

I'm curious about the backstory of the person who sold it to you for less than $200. Stolen gear maybe?

 

[Tom Caldwell]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

Don't walk - run - get them both.

The 12-100 is a fine lens and I have one - it images well it has lens stabilisation - it is good for general purpose. One lens fits all?

It is also on the large size, is not internal focus/zoom and "only f4.0" - but I don't hold that against it.

I also have the 75/1.8 - compact and sharp - the 45/1.8 - a delightful small lens and the Panasonic 42.5/1.2 - a top range performer. I would never part with them despite the overlap in use - it is more what the subject material of the day - the size that is being carted around and personal circumstances. Personal circumstances can include being able to afford what we buy and keep, even storage considerations, and whether we subscribe to the theory of what is bought and not used is "wasting money". Frankly if I subscribed to the latter theory I would be even more careful about what I might buy as buying and not using and then selling at a loss is more expensive in my book than buying, keeping and little using. Once bought it is "sunk costs", once sold at a loss it can never be used again even if you change your mind.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Day Hiker]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

Do not believe anyone who tells you the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 Pro can effectively replace two or three f/1.8 primes. That's like believing a Corvette and a minivan are the same thing.

Buy what you need for your own uses. If you don't know, then don't buy.


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

 

[brentbrent]

Do not believe anyone who tells you the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 Pro can effectively replace two or three f/1.8 primes. That's like believing a Corvette and a minivan are the same thing.

I pretty much agree that the OP's two options are not interchangeable, but I wouldn't call the 12-100 a minivan, either.

If you decide to go with the primes, you might check prevailing prices for used examples. You can buy the 45 and 75 brand new with warranty, lens cases, and lens hoods (which are not cheap) for $899: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1255052-REG/olympus_v311040bu010_portrait_kit_with_45mm.html

 

[Kharan]

The 75mm is one of the system’s best lenses, capable of achieving the subject separation associated with 35mm. Its bokeh is a thing of beauty, as is its resolution wide open. I bitterly regret selling one that I bought for less than $200 - it’s probably the worst mistake I’ve ever made regarding gear.

I'm curious about the backstory of the person who sold it to you for less than $200. Stolen gear maybe?

I don't think so. MFT resale prices are really attractive in my country. There're few buyers, and some people just want to sell their stuff quickly and move on - I got both a 12-35mm f/2.8 II and 35-100mm f/2.8 II for $600 :-D

In this particular case, the guy was selling both a battered E-P2 and the 75mm f/1.8 for around $180. I think he wildly underestimated the price of the lens simply because the whole kit looked so ratty. He also posted a single, terrible picture of the two things on the ad - I basically took a gamble and decided to head down to his place to take a look at the stuff. I always look at things like this - I take some risks, and then enjoy the rewards.

I've fortunately yet to actually purchase any gear that I suspect was stolen, but I've declined to buy a couple of times exactly because of that.

 

[JaKing]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

Do not believe anyone who tells you the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f/4 Pro can effectively replace two or three f/1.8 primes. That's like believing a Corvette and a minivan are the same thing.

Jim, I agree, but in many cases the 12-100 is the "corvette" ... ;-) .
In reality, more like a turbo Subaru Forester ... :-D

Buy what you need for your own uses. If you don't know, then don't buy.

Exactly.

I usually get out pencil and paper, then make a list of what I want/need that my present gear will not do. The list is usually pretty short! I expect that to be the case for most people, using most systems, most of the time ...

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

 

[flbdig]

I have All of the lens that you mentioned and they are all great lens.

YES, you can use the 12-100mm as a portrait lens. I am a professional photographer and this is the main lens I use when I am shooting on white backgrounds or shooting children. Shallow DOF is not the only portrait trait. This lens is tack sharp, and I can shoot groups or close ups with it.

I have a Oly 45mm Pro also, but in studio I use thr 12-100mm. On white backgrounds I want a sharp image nose to hair and DOF makes no difference with a solid background.







--
1Co 13:13 But now we still have faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is LOVE!!!

 

[Velocity of Sound]

Disclaimer: I haven't used the 45mm f/1.8 or 75mm f/1.8. I do have the 17mm and 25mm f/1.2's, and for the focal lengths you're asking about, I have the older Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2.0 and the 35-100mm f/2.0 lenses. In other words, I have experience with primes, and I have experience near the depth of field you're talking about at those focal lengths.

The one thing you haven't told us is what you plan to use the lenses for. I think everyone is jumping to the assumption that you want to use these for portraiture, specifically (which was my initial assumption, given your wording). Most of the replies - including mine - are geared toward that.

If it's portraiture we're talking about, then it's true that the f/1.8 lenses will offer you some more creative options... but when I've done portraiture (family portraiture, mind; not paid work or trying to be fancy), as long as I was around 40mm or longer, being at f/4 never let me down. I still blur out the backgrounds, and I still occasionally get situations where I wish I'd stopped down. Sure, the things I can do with the f/1.2 lenses are pretty dreamy by comparison, but I don't think that I've ever been out and found myself wishing that it was one of my f/1.2 lenses (or f/2.0, to make the comparison fair) instead of my 12-100mm. I'm still very pleased by the photos I get at the end of the day.

What's another thing in favor of the zoom over the prime is changing out lenses. Nobody wants to wait for you to change lenses when you're doing portraiture. When I was using the Leica D Summilux 25mm f/1.4 and Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2.0 (or sometimes mixing it up with the Sigma 150mm f/2.8), I eventually moved to using two bodies, because swapping lenses became a chore and a time waster.

Yet primes - if you're not already using some - also force certain creative options. It's too easy to get lazy with zooms; if you're locked in to one or two focal lengths, sometimes you make the best with what you can do, and the results can mean the development of a new shooting style for you. In that regard I must say that I do love using primes.

Another argument in favor of primes gets away from portraiture a bit and goes into low lighting. I have no qualms about using the 12-100mm in low lighting thanks to the in-lens image stabilizer working in concert with my E-M1.2's IBIS, but IBIS and ILIS don't mean a thing if you're trying to freeze action. Going from f/4 to f/1.8 is a hair over two stops of light, which isn't insignificant.

Long story short? If you told me that I could only own one or two lenses, the 12-100mm would be one. I am in love with many of the portraits I've taken with it, and as you pointed out, it's incredibly versatile even besides that. Sure, if portraits or low-light shooting was all that I did then maybe I'd feel differently... but personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck at 45mm and 75mm as my two focal lengths.

Hope it helps!

 

[jackkurtz]

Can they replace the focal lengths? Yes. Can the replace the functionality? It depends on you. If you already have the 45mm and 75mm go into Lightroom (or your DAM app of choice) and check the metadata. How many of your photos are made at f3.5 or faster? In my case it's probably about 95%. My "normal" f-stop is f1.8, I occasionally go to f3.5 or f4 to get more depth of field but very rarely. So while I could use the 12-100, it would mean changing how I work.

 

[Henry Falkner]

I went out this morning in drizzly weather with my three-week-old E-M10 II kit, 40-150 lens fitted. This was ideal for the shot across the harbour with rain I was after.

On the way home I saw an Iris bloom, which needed the short lens.

But I did not change lenses, since it was still drizzling.

Back to the topic - if you absolutely need fast primes for your main shooting, get them by all means, budget permitting.

But my feeling is, the 12-100 will suit a greater variety of situations.

Henry

 

[Cheshire-Chris]

I went out this morning in drizzly weather with my three-week-old E-M10 II kit, 40-150 lens fitted. This was ideal for the shot across the harbour with rain I was after.

On the way home I saw an Iris bloom, which needed the short lens.

But I did not change lenses, since it was still drizzling.

Back to the topic - if you absolutely need fast primes for your main shooting, get them by all means, budget permitting.

But my feeling is, the 12-100 will suit a greater variety of situations.

Henry

--
Henry Falkner - E-M10 Mark II, SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

Very good point, Henry. A slightly less than perfect shot with a versatile lens is a lot better than the shot missed because you didn't have the right lens on your camera and time or environmental conditions made it impractical to change. The 12-100 allows just to get pretty much any shot that presents itself. It's the lens that's on my camera 90% of the time.

Chris

 

[Astrotripper]

If you would not shoot those primes at wider apertures, then 12-100 is a better choice. It is extremely versatile and produces really great quality. It also does not suffer from ugly bokeh like some other zooms or the 75 (which I also have, and its bokeh is the only, but also major disappointment).

BTW, I have all three lenses. The 45 I sometimes use on my GM5 as a pocketable bokeh machine, it is so small. The 75 I barely use at all, because I find its bokeh mostly horrible for anything other than fairly tight portraits. The 12-100 is my ultimate do everything lens and I have also gotten some great portraits out of it. f/4 is good enough for tighter portraits as you need enough DoF to get the whole face in focus (at least I do, I hate it when tip of the nose or one eye is OOF). Even more so if there's more than one subject. With the 75, I stop down at least to f/2.8 for such shots, similarly with 45, although to a lesser extent.

What the 75 can do that the 12-100 cannot, is getting a whole body portrait with blurry background. The only problem is that you need to be very careful about what the background is. Worst case scenario, it will be really ugly and distracting. This is where Olympus 45 PRO shows its prowess.

 

[Cheshire-Chris]

One technique where the background is distracting is to underexposed to darken the background and use flash to illuminate the subject. A -3Ev underexposure will get rid of pretty much any background.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[photofan1986]

One technique where the background is distracting is to underexposed to darken the background and use flash to illuminate the subject. A -3Ev underexposure will get rid of pretty much any background.

Cheers,

Chris

Yes, to get that awful cheap flash look, it's great.

 

[eques]

I went out this morning in drizzly weather with my three-week-old E-M10 II kit, 40-150 lens fitted. This was ideal for the shot across the harbour with rain I was after.

On the way home I saw an Iris bloom, which needed the short lens.

But I did not change lenses, since it was still drizzling.

Back to the topic - if you absolutely need fast primes for your main shooting, get them by all means, budget permitting.

But my feeling is, the 12-100 will suit a greater variety of situations.

Henry

Very good point, Henry. A slightly less than perfect shot with a versatile lens is a lot better than the shot missed because you didn't have the right lens on your camera and time or environmental conditions made it impractical to change. The 12-100 allows just to get pretty much any shot that presents itself. It's the lens that's on my camera 90% of the time.

.. if you leave the heavy and slow 12-100 plus camera at home because it is too much bother to carry it around, you'd be better sserved with a small, light weight prime like the 45.

For 700 nearly new I'd get them and try yourself, and if you find, you hardly ever need them, sell them, perhaps even with a profit.

Peter

 

[JaKing]

Learn to use artificial light ...

Biva and Fuqua et.al. "Light Science and Magic" will teach you how. It's a fantastic book, and cheap as chips.