sgoldswo
Veteran Member
I've tried it on the GH3 for video. No complaints about its AF performance (fast and silent).
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
75/1.8 is not for me (family/enthusiast photographer)
- Thread starter Alex Notpro
- Start date
Vlad S
Senior Member
75mm is indeed a very specialized lens, and it is not surprising at all that it did not work for family events. It requires a much more deliberate style than many other lenses, precisely because how much it excludes the environment. So all the attention is concentrated on the subject, together with all the flaws.
Vlad
If you want good advice it would help greatly if you posted images that you like, and images where you feel your existing lenses fall short, with your comments. It is very difficult to guess blindly about the look that you are trying to achieve, because everybody has a different aesthetic, and they suggest what they like, not necessarily what you might like.
Again, examples would help. There is a lot of customization that can be performed. Having said that, it is pretty much impossible to replicate a look across different brands - that's why people often become so attached to a specific brand. You need to understand that you will never get a 100% percent match. You can make certain aspects of an image similar, but you may have to jump through the hoops when shooting, or use post processing. If you show what you are going for and what does not work then someone may offer a specific solution.
Vlad
Yes, there are plenty of women who don't want to see a true pic of themselves. They would rather see a false picture but very good looking one. My wife is one of those. Too impress her with pics I have to change her skin completely and make it butter smooth.
>The focal length really is too long for family photos.
I have the Olympus 45mm and furniture and walls get in the way of framing the picture the way I want, so you must have had twice the problem I had.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I'll remove the 75mm from my wish list.
papillon_65
Forum Pro
I'm judging it on what you posted because I'm assuming that was the point of posting the images?
Well the images told me nothing about the lens you mentioned except that the OP would be paying for a softer lens that is longer, slower and doesn't auto-focus, so to me he would be worse off, that was my point. I don't know if the Leica lens is significantly better than the 75mm but nothing you posted or said indicated that was the case. I've seen images from the 75mm that looked much better than the ones you posted, even at these sizes, that's my point.
Thomas Kachadurian
Senior Member
I think you are responding most to buying a lens that is beyond your experience, and I applaud you for seeing it. A lens like the 75mm is a very specialized lens. Perfect for what it is, but not a miracle cure and not a solution for everything.
I love it, but I have specific uses for it, and have other lenses for different things. My guess is your experience is more like what others will feel.
I think you will find the 45mm an entirely different lens and much more suited to what you shoot.
Tom
www.kachadurian.com
Call me crazy. I happen to like photos of cats.
I love it, but I have specific uses for it, and have other lenses for different things. My guess is your experience is more like what others will feel.
I think you will find the 45mm an entirely different lens and much more suited to what you shoot.
Tom
www.kachadurian.com
Call me crazy. I happen to like photos of cats.
You seem to have reading comprehension problems or I'm just not writing simply enough. Did you see anywhere that I said the 90 was "better" than the 75? I didn't think so. It says right there in the subject "another option". IMHO, I find it to be fantastic and well worth the price which is a bargain for leica glass, hence the no brainer comment. This lens has it's own signature and it's quite possible the OP or someone else might get along with it better than the 75. Some of us don't have a problem with manual focus. Some even *gasp* enjoy it. I'm not sure where you get "soft" from. For a raw image with no additional sharpening it doesn't get much sharper than that first image, and that was quickly manually focused using the EVF. You can see every pore in his face.
FWIW, the 90 will also hold it's value much better than the Oly. Pick one up used now like I did and you will be able to sell it for at least that much down the road... if you ever wanted to.
FWIW, the 90 will also hold it's value much better than the Oly. Pick one up used now like I did and you will be able to sell it for at least that much down the road... if you ever wanted to.
Last edited:
Harold66
Forum Pro
You re welcome . Hopefully this thread can help OTHER people to be more wary when investing in a new lensAlex Notpro wrote:
[...]
Thanks for confirming what I already suspected: I'm a confused consumer. I'm so glad for the clarity these forums can bring to my thought process
Before I bought it, I honestly thought the 75/1.8 was going to improve the results I'm getting from the current gear. The reviews make it seem like a magic lens.
and your last comment further prove my point . it does not matter how sharp and good a lens is if the focal length is of little or no use to your photography
for me , there is only ONE thing that would make me get that lens,: it is to have oly bring a very high end weather proof 2X extender so then it gets me a very good and portable 300 mm which is one of the only 4 ( or 5 if I wanted to cover 100%) lenses that I would need
Harold
Harold66
Forum Pro
Unless you are shooting in a VERY big studio , the 150mm equivalent makes it only ok for crops of less than the entire face
in normal environments ( home studio, hotel rooms,) this focal length is too long MOST of the time
hey as far as I am concerned there are many times when the 90mm focal equivalent is too tight for small spaces ( especially when you privilege under the belt framing)
if oly had a 40mm ( 80mm equivalent ) then I probably would get the 60mm because I think having a 80 and a 120mm covers almost any kind of composition for framing portraits and models images
Harold
papillon_65
Forum Pro
My reading comprehension is fine thanks but your suggestion for an equally expensive, longer, slower, manually focusing lens wasn't a great one considering the OP was complaining about focus speed and FOV. In fact it wasn't a "no-brainer" at all.
I'm sure the Leica is a great lens, it just wasn't a great suggestion considering the OP's comments, that's my point.
It's just about incomprehensible to me that anyone would buy a lens with an effective FOV of 150mm and then discover that it's too long for the use described in the OP. Did this realisation come as a shock?
As for "too sharp", this makes a refreshing change from all the posts agonizing about substandard optics and "bad copies" that aren't sharp enough. Application of Vaseline or similarly viscous unguents used to be the solution to this problem: it's advisable to fit a filter.
Roy
As for "too sharp", this makes a refreshing change from all the posts agonizing about substandard optics and "bad copies" that aren't sharp enough. Application of Vaseline or similarly viscous unguents used to be the solution to this problem: it's advisable to fit a filter.
Roy
Last edited:
Hello Corkcampbell. First I have to say that I shoot portraits/portraits and portraits with the 75mm. It's difficult for me to judge differences in sharpness between 45mm and 75mm Zuiko, because I've used my 45mm too little to make a correct comparision. I have the OM-D since a few weeks now (coming from E5), and the 75mm is my most used lens at the moment. Despite that, my first impression is that they are pretty much comparable in sharpness. Maybe slightly better in the 75mm. That's only my first impression (nothing scientific about that). The handling/build quality (feeling it is enough) is much better on the 75mm. Beside that I find the background blur on the 75mm of much higher quality than the 45mm (I know, I know, that's a personal taste). That's what I really like about the 75mm. You can ofcourse always look for (sharpness)tests anywere on the internet. As I said before, it took some time to change some shooting habits using the 75mm for portraits (distance), so I forced myself to use this lens as much as possible. It was well worth it, because the results are simply magic and extremely sharp! With the E5 I always wanted the SHG 150mmF2 because of it's excellent IQ/sharpness (but the price was a bit too steep for me). I now feel, that I've got that quality in the 75mm. At the moment it already feels a bit awkward to use the 45mm. I never ( and I mean never), use video, so I cannot comment on that. Others certainly can.
Oh well, I just keep on talkingtalkingtalking. Sorry for that. I hope you'll make the right choice. Maybe you can borrow or rent any of these lenses from someone. At least try them out in a shop! Good luck !
Last edited:
I would describe myself in a similar way - enthusiast/family photographer. I find the 75mm to be am amazing lens for my purposes. It has its strengths and weaknesses, and ideal subject matter. I find the AF performance very fast outdoors, or for indoor sports like hockey/soccer where you have an easy time of pre-focusing or are not capturing action coming directly at you. I do find that low light AF is not great, nor is the CAF usable. I took a shot of Christmas lights walking home last night and it simply could not lock focus on a brightly lit set of Christmas lights. Likewise, it does not react fast enough indoors to use it as a lens for a moving subject (in my opinion). The 25mm is much better suited to that purpose for family.Alex Notpro wrote:
I feel an obligation to post this just to provide a different perspective from all the rave reviews of this lens which are all over the Internet
Here's what I found:
I hate having to return lenses. Does anybody know if I would find the 45/1.8 useful based on the above comments? Is anybody else using C-AF TR on an E-PM2?
- The AF speed on the 75/1.8 is noticeably slower than the PL 25/1.4. Most reviewers say it's "acceptable". I disagree. The AF is slow enough to render useless the C-AF Tracking mode for Continuous Shooting on my E-PM2. Results may differ on other bodies. I personally find the C-AF TR CS mode to be a DSLR-killer when photographing kids who are "moving around a lot but not running towards the camera", when used with the 25/1.4, but with the 75/1.8 the C-AF TR mode devolves into a useless gimmick.
- This is touted as a portrait lens, but I find it too sharp for portraits of adult female family members. I had to apply a Soft Focus effect before I could show my wife the test photos I took of her. Results may differ if you use a professional make-up artist, or photographing kids with perfect skin.
- The focal length really is too long for family photos. It is difficult to compose in a typical household setting, where walls and furniture gets in the way, and it's difficult to compose when in a family activity outdoors, because you need to step away at least 10-20 feet. And if I'm going to be outside I'd rather carry a zoom, or the 25/1.4 to capture some environmental context with just enough blur.
- Generally speaking the 75/1.8 does nothing to improve the quality of OOC JPEGs. There's still the issue of skin tones (see my other threads). I was hoping it might somehow outperform the 25/1.4 in color rendition and fix the skin tone issue, but it doesn't, it's just sharper.
- The 75/1.8 now costs the same as a D7000. It has put my whole commitment to m43 into question... I was initially thinking to dump the DSLR, now I'm more inclined to keep both systems, with each doing what it's best at. D7000 for indoor and non-environmental portraits. E-PM2 for everything else, including, environmental portraits.
Thanks
I find the 75mm too long for indoor use, except studio where you have more time to move around and a more static subject.
I do like the 75mm for things like the kids' Christmas concert. It is sharp enough to crop heavily for web/blog use.
Outdoors, though, I really like the focal length with kids, more so than the 45mm. I like the 75mm so much I have a hard time packing the 45mm, but turned around it is hard to justify the 75mm over the 45mm given the price
Here are a few I'm glad I had the 75mm for:But the 45mm can do very well outdoors as well, you just have to be a bit closer:
Practically speaking, there are few situations where there is a significant difference in background blur between the 45mm and the 75mm. Basically the 75mm is my preference whenever I can't get any closer, otherwise the 45mm is very good as well, at half the price.
Jeff Tokayer
Veteran Member
B&H is selling the 85/1.4 Rokinon for $239. This offer is valid til Dec. 18 (I sound like a salesman). Seems like a reasonable option.
Anyone tried this lens on a µ4/3?
tedolf
Forum Pro
Alex Notpro wrote:
I feel an obligation to post this just to provide a different perspective from all the rave reviews of this lens which are all over the Internet
Here's what I found:
I hate having to return lenses. Does anybody know if I would find the 45/1.8 useful based on the above comments?
See above.
Tedolph
I feel an obligation to post this just to provide a different perspective from all the rave reviews of this lens which are all over the Internet
Here's what I found:
- a portrait lens?
I hate having to return lenses. Does anybody know if I would find the 45/1.8 useful based on the above comments?
See above.
Tedolph
I think the way you are using this lens is fairly different from those who praise this lens, and to some extent it is a case of mismanaged expectations.Alex Notpro wrote:
I feel an obligation to post this just to provide a different perspective from all the rave reviews of this lens which are all over the Internet
Here's what I found:
I hate having to return lenses. Does anybody know if I would find the 45/1.8 useful based on the above comments? Is anybody else using C-AF TR on an E-PM2?
- The AF speed on the 75/1.8 is noticeably slower than the PL 25/1.4. Most reviewers say it's "acceptable". I disagree. The AF is slow enough to render useless the C-AF Tracking mode for Continuous Shooting on my E-PM2. Results may differ on other bodies. I personally find the C-AF TR CS mode to be a DSLR-killer when photographing kids who are "moving around a lot but not running towards the camera", when used with the 25/1.4, but with the 75/1.8 the C-AF TR mode devolves into a useless gimmick.
- This is touted as a portrait lens, but I find it too sharp for portraits of adult female family members. I had to apply a Soft Focus effect before I could show my wife the test photos I took of her. Results may differ if you use a professional make-up artist, or photographing kids with perfect skin.
- The focal length really is too long for family photos. It is difficult to compose in a typical household setting, where walls and furniture gets in the way, and it's difficult to compose when in a family activity outdoors, because you need to step away at least 10-20 feet. And if I'm going to be outside I'd rather carry a zoom, or the 25/1.4 to capture some environmental context with just enough blur.
- Generally speaking the 75/1.8 does nothing to improve the quality of OOC JPEGs. There's still the issue of skin tones (see my other threads). I was hoping it might somehow outperform the 25/1.4 in color rendition and fix the skin tone issue, but it doesn't, it's just sharper.
- The 75/1.8 now costs the same as a D7000. It has put my whole commitment to m43 into question... I was initially thinking to dump the DSLR, now I'm more inclined to keep both systems, with each doing what it's best at. D7000 for indoor and non-environmental portraits. E-PM2 for everything else, including, environmental portraits.
Thanks
First - of course it is a long lens for indoors as any other 150mm equivalent lens would be. Hard to fault the lens for that
Those who buy the 75mm, buy it because they need longer glass. If you want a shorter lens for indoors then 45mm 1.8 is a nice option. You mentioned in another post that on D7000 you use the 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4. I think the 85mm 1.8 on D7000 is already on a longish end at around 130mm equivalent. On the other hand the 50 1.4 @ 75mm equivalent is a bit too short for portraits in my opinion. For me the 45mm 1.8 at 90mm equivalent is a better FL than both of these for indoor portraits.Also, most users don't use m43 with continuous AF much and when people talk about the AF speed of this lens it is in the context of Single-Shot AF. While its great that you had success with 25mm 1.4 and e-pm2, tracking AF is still not a strength of the system. It is not something you could rely on to work consistently well with most lenses in the system, and specially not with a fairly long focal length portrait lens - even on DSLRs portrait lenses like 85mm 1.4 are not well suited to tracking AF. The 45mm 1.8 may be better because it is not a heavy chunk of glass like the 75mm 1.8.
It is interesting that you consider being too sharp as a negative
You should not rely on lens softness to get pleasing portraits. Good portrait lenses are sharp. Good lighting goes a long way towards getting good portraits and possibly some post-processing should help as well.As for the price and the issue of keeping two parallel systems, that it is indeed a dilemma for many users. The only suggestion that I would have there is to try the 45mm 1.8. It is a very nice portrait lens and it might give you what you need to dump the DSLR. Nevertheless m43 or other mirror-less systems are still not at a point where they could replace DSLRs for action shots.
Last edited:
exdeejjjaaaa
Veteran Member
150mm is OK for head and shoulder shots of 1-3 people together or head and torso for 1-2 together people in most american living/dining rooms... which I 'd assume is the same as a very big studio somewhere else.
Last edited:
Alex Notpro
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,069
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 367
Hi Tedolph, welcome back!
fyi Nikon heavily markets 135 f/2 as the ultimate portrait lens.
fyi Nikon heavily markets 135 f/2 as the ultimate portrait lens.
Alex Notpro
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,069
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 367
I wrote the original post in a moment of frustration. Criticizing the lens for being too sharp was just plain stupid, as others have pointed out...random78 wrote:
It is interesting that you consider being too sharp as a negative
Harold66
Forum Pro
Yes you are right .random78 wrote:
I think the way you are using this lens is fairly different from those who praise this lens, and to some extent it is a case of mismanaged expectations.Alex Notpro wrote:
I feel an obligation to post this just to provide a different perspective from all the rave reviews of this lens which are all over the Internet
Here's what I found:
First - of course it is a long lens for indoors as any other 150mm equivalent lens would be. Hard to fault the lens for that
for me because I am used to shoot most my portraits under the belt ( as well as some below the chest) , I found out that in most spaces that I shoot even a 90mm gets too tight sometimes. I agree with you that the 75mm does not feel quite right . something between 80 and 85mm is the best for indoors ( I like the 80 mm best but there is maybe a bigger market for the 85mm). who knows maybe one day I will get lucky and Sigma can bring a nice 2/40 or 41mm for m4/3rds
that would be the perfect lens for that use . and I could use the 60mm ( 120mm) on those rare occasions when I shoot something tighter and outdoors
Harold
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum