Dumping the Oly 45mm

Anders W said:

Anders W wrote:

Anders W said:

Jonas B wrote:

Anders W said:

micksh6 wrote:

1.3 stop (F2.8-F1.8) is a big deal for m4/3. To justify dumping 45mm F1.8 think of it in FF equivalence terms. Not counting 25mm (which is too short for portraits), you replaced your lens with another lens that is 2 and 2/3 stop slower. What an achievement.

Click to expand...

Going from f/1.8 to f/2.8 is 1.3 stops. Going from f/3.6 to f/5.6 is 1.3 stops.

Jonas

Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what Mick had in mind Jonas. But going from the Hexanon 85/1.8 on 35 mm film to the Pany 45/2.8 on MFT implies a total loss of 3.3 stops worth of DoF control (ability to get shallow DoF). I am personally pretty much OK with losing 2 stops, as I do with the 45/1.8 since I would rarely shoot my Hexanon wider than about f/4 anyway unless the light level was such as to force me to. However, I'd rather not lose more than that.

Click to expand...

A stupid mistake came out of my mind, of course
But, I'm still sure that 1.3 stop is a big deal for m4/3, because there isn't much DOF control to begin with. In that sense IMO wider aperture on m4/3 is more valuable than on full frame, not because aperture difference doubles.



If 1.3 stop difference isn't big and F2.8 is acceptable why not go just a bit further - Oly 40-150mm zoom is very good in 40mm-80mm range. At 40mm F4.0 it's sharp enough so people wouldn't notice a difference with primes on shots that are usually posted here - web resolutions, up to 2 megapixels if poster is generous.



There must be a reason why fast primes are made, and F2.8 on m4/3 IMO is just not fast at all.

bowportes said:

bowportes wrote:

A bit of experimenting, comparing the 45mm and 60mm Oly lenses, stepping back with the latter to achieve approximately the same framing of the subject. OOC Jpegs, uncropped, size reduced identically for the two shots. Both lenses set to maximum aperture.




Oly 45mm, f1.8


Oly 60mm, F2.8

I'm curious to hear anyone's analysis of the differences?

Click to expand...

Analysis: One sample is inconclusive. I saw you opened a whole new thread about this. I's not worth it, useless thread. People will post speculations but it's not possible to draw conclusion from a single photo set.





Dry grass is a difficult case for estimating background blur, it may uglify bokeh on any lens, that's why neither of your shots look good. Also, partially, because background is too close.





Bad comparison, but you can see that straws in background are larger on 45mm lens than on 60mm. Theoretically, wider lens should make background items smaller, but it didn't, because F1.8 aperture will blur background more in this case.





In the end, it's all about priorities. In my opinion, 1.3 stop between F1.8 and F2.8 make huge difference. There are many samples on the internet to find what Oly 45mm can do. You could have found them if you wanted to. If you prefer larger lenses to accompany larger camera - that's your choice. Although, I still don't get why not buy real DSLR in this case, but I won't argue.





Just one more example, try this with F2.8 lens when you have time



F1.8

snack said:

snack wrote:

The Oly 45/1.8 is my main reason for staying the the m4/3s system instead of moving to the Sony NEX or Fuji EX-1.

Truly a superb lens that has no equal in the other mirror-less systems.

I don't get this infatuation that so many have with IBIS or OIS.

Click to expand...

The Sony NEX is about to get a new quality lens, a 35mm f1.8.

And as an aside, it is unusual that no one has mentioned the Pana 20 1.7 yet in this thread.

I bought the PL45 as a macro lens. It is fine. I find f2.8 too slow for the sort of non macro things I shoot, and I don't see the quality from the PL45 to be worth the money anyway. Also the limiter is very annoying - it needs another setting (macro).

I bought the Oly as a short tele as soon as it came out. It is brilliant. The cheap price shows in some PF wide open in landscapes, but that's a rare thing to be doing.

Cruel but simple response - if you can't be satisfied with this lens, find another pastime.

bowportes said:

bowportes wrote:

A bit of experimenting, comparing the 45mm and 60mm Oly lenses, stepping back with the latter to achieve approximately the same framing of the subject. OOC Jpegs, uncropped, size reduced identically for the two shots. Both lenses set to maximum aperture.




Oly 45mm, f1.8


Oly 60mm, F2.8

I'm curious to hear anyone's analysis of the differences?

Click to expand...

What you see in this comparison is two things: First that the 45/1.8 yields more background blur as would be expected based on its wider max aperture. Second, that this is partly counteracted by the longer FL of the 60, which magnifies the background more (at the same subject magnification), thereby making it appear more blurry than would otherwise be the case.

So, provided that you are in a position to move further away from the subject, you can use a longer FL to compensate for the lack of lens speed. One problem is that this is not always possible. A 45 mm lens (90 mm EFL) works well indoors in an ordinary room but 60 mm (120 mm EFL) is a bit on the long side in my experience.

Of course, one other implication is that if you want to maximize background blur on MFT, the 75/1.8 can give you even more of it than the 45/1.8, provided that you can move sufficiently far away from the subject.

ryan2007 said:

ryan2007 wrote:

ryan2007 said:

I have a different philosophy. Both Olympus and Panasonic MFT's are a fine system for the most part and I still believe at least for me to have 100% compatibility and function don't mix and match if given a choice. When MFT's was new after selling my DSLR I decided Panasonic was the better system FOR ME at the time and still believe that after three years or so.

Click to expand...

I have the Panasonic GX-1 and GH-3 and I will only use Panasonic lenses. It does not matter if an Olympus lens fits. Same of if I had an Olympus body I would have Olympus lenses for that.

The inability of some of the posters here to comprehend or respect is amazing. I stick to what I have done when I was a Nikon user and have no complaints. I tried the Panasonic 100-300 and it was just ok, not great for reasons previous stated in other posts and that was returned.

It makes no difference that MFT's for Olympus and Panasonic is an open format that you can interchange body and lenses. My method works perfect for me and when I shot Nikon and used only Nikon glass same thing. A big part is an investment in lenses or TTL flashes whatever.

Take note, I Never ever said Olympus sucks.

The absolute great thing about this was after all the BS back and forth with others attacking me over and over I have finally (hopefully) and they have with my urging used the ignore user function. This has made the experience here like it was, a pleasure to have an opinion and its not what you say its how you say it. So I can give my opinion with out the others PIA's jumping in because they have no respect for an independent thought. The Panasonic 45 2.8 macro is a nice lens.

Click to expand...

I have lot so of respect for independent thought, just not much for illogical thought.

(a) Whether or not it "worked for you when you used Nikon" is irrelevant to whether or not Panasonic lenses work well on Olympus cameras or vice versa.

(b) 100% compatibility is not a matter of opinion, it's a testable feature and a primary design consideration for the system. Some lenses are obviously less compatible than others (20mm Panasonic banding issue, for example) but others have no reported issues.

So don't confuse your right to express an opinion with a (fictitious) right to avoid having your opinions criticized for being wrong. (And, yes, opinions can be wrong.) Your blind brand loyalty defeats one of the major attractions of the m43 system.

tjuster1 said:

tjuster1 wrote:

tjuster1 said:

ryan2007 wrote:

tjuster1 said:

I have a different philosophy. Both Olympus and Panasonic MFT's are a fine system for the most part and I still believe at least for me to have 100% compatibility and function don't mix and match if given a choice. When MFT's was new after selling my DSLR I decided Panasonic was the better system FOR ME at the time and still believe that after three years or so.

Click to expand...

I have the Panasonic GX-1 and GH-3 and I will only use Panasonic lenses. It does not matter if an Olympus lens fits. Same of if I had an Olympus body I would have Olympus lenses for that.

The inability of some of the posters here to comprehend or respect is amazing. I stick to what I have done when I was a Nikon user and have no complaints. I tried the Panasonic 100-300 and it was just ok, not great for reasons previous stated in other posts and that was returned.

It makes no difference that MFT's for Olympus and Panasonic is an open format that you can interchange body and lenses. My method works perfect for me and when I shot Nikon and used only Nikon glass same thing. A big part is an investment in lenses or TTL flashes whatever.

Take note, I Never ever said Olympus sucks.

The absolute great thing about this was after all the BS back and forth with others attacking me over and over I have finally (hopefully) and they have with my urging used the ignore user function. This has made the experience here like it was, a pleasure to have an opinion and its not what you say its how you say it. So I can give my opinion with out the others PIA's jumping in because they have no respect for an independent thought. The Panasonic 45 2.8 macro is a nice lens.

Click to expand...

I have lot so of respect for independent thought, just not much for illogical thought.

(a) Whether or not it "worked for you when you used Nikon" is irrelevant to whether or not Panasonic lenses work well on Olympus cameras or vice versa.

(b) 100% compatibility is not a matter of opinion, it's a testable feature and a primary design consideration for the system. Some lenses are obviously less compatible than others (20mm Panasonic banding issue, for example) but others have no reported issues.

Click to expand...

In fact, the 20 mm banding issue does not appear to be a Pany-Oly compatibility issue but rather a 20-with-certain-bodies compatibility issue. The GH3 manual, English version, p. 288 says:

Stripes appear in high ISO sensitivity.

[When the interchangeable lens (H-H020) is used.

Stripes may appear in high ISO sensitivity depending on the lens you use.

-> Decrease the ISO sensitivity (P134).

tjuster1 said:

So don't confuse your right to express an opinion with a (fictitious) right to avoid having your opinions criticized for being wrong. (And, yes, opinions can be wrong.) Your blind brand loyalty defeats one of the major attractions of the m43 system.

Click to expand...

You comparing apples to oranges, and 1:1 90 2.8 macro lens to a 90 1.8 portrait lens. Why would you expect the 45 1.8 to be able to replace a dedicated macro lens? Most portrait lenses give high magnification and do not focus very close at all.

All that said, the Olympus 45 1.8 (aside from the longer focal length 75 1.8) is pretty much the only dedicated portrait lens in all of m43. As such it is a must have lens. It's sharp wide open, has great bokeh, is lightweight, is a MSC lens so focusing is fast and near-silent in still and video mode, and it's cheap. I'm not sure what's not to like about the 45 1.8? IMHO, it's one of the "must have" lenses in m43.

marike6 said:

marike6 wrote:

You comparing apples to oranges, and 1:1 90 2.8 macro lens to a 90 1.8 portrait lens. Why would you expect the 45 1.8 to be able to replace a dedicated macro lens? Most portrait lenses give high magnification and do not focus very close at all.

All that said, the Olympus 45 1.8 (aside from the longer focal length 75 1.8) is pretty much the only dedicated portrait lens in all of m43. As such it is a must have lens. It's sharp wide open, has great bokeh, is lightweight, is a MSC lens so focusing is fast and near-silent in still and video mode, and it's cheap. I'm not sure what's not to like about the 45 1.8? IMHO, it's one of the "must have" lenses in m43.

Click to expand...

No, its apples to apples (plus a caramel coating). It is a comparison of a 120 (not 90) 2.8 Oly lens to a 90 1.8 Oly lens. They both fall within the range of what many would consider "portrait lenses." Even Olympus advertises the fact that the 60mm lens will serve nicely for portraits.

Like the 45mm, the 60mm is sharp wide open, has great bokeh, is lightweight, is a MSC lens so focusing is fast and near-silent in still and video mode, and is pretty cheap. It's a little more than a stop slower than the 45mm, but also a bit longer, yielding additional blurring of background that somewhat compensates for the smaller aperture. The 60mm also will do macro, but only when you set its switch to tell it to focus close range.

It's more apples to apples than apples to oranges. What's not to like about the 60mm Oly lens?

tjuster1 said:

tjuster1 wrote:

tjuster1 said:

ryan2007 wrote:

tjuster1 said:

I have a different philosophy. Both Olympus and Panasonic MFT's are a fine system for the most part and I still believe at least for me to have 100% compatibility and function don't mix and match if given a choice. When MFT's was new after selling my DSLR I decided Panasonic was the better system FOR ME at the time and still believe that after three years or so.

Click to expand...

I have the Panasonic GX-1 and GH-3 and I will only use Panasonic lenses. It does not matter if an Olympus lens fits. Same of if I had an Olympus body I would have Olympus lenses for that.

The inability of some of the posters here to comprehend or respect is amazing. I stick to what I have done when I was a Nikon user and have no complaints. I tried the Panasonic 100-300 and it was just ok, not great for reasons previous stated in other posts and that was returned.

It makes no difference that MFT's for Olympus and Panasonic is an open format that you can interchange body and lenses. My method works perfect for me and when I shot Nikon and used only Nikon glass same thing. A big part is an investment in lenses or TTL flashes whatever.

Take note, I Never ever said Olympus sucks.

The absolute great thing about this was after all the BS back and forth with others attacking me over and over I have finally (hopefully) and they have with my urging used the ignore user function. This has made the experience here like it was, a pleasure to have an opinion and its not what you say its how you say it. So I can give my opinion with out the others PIA's jumping in because they have no respect for an independent thought. The Panasonic 45 2.8 macro is a nice lens.

Click to expand...

I have lot so of respect for independent thought, just not much for illogical thought.

(a) Whether or not it "worked for you when you used Nikon" is irrelevant to whether or not Panasonic lenses work well on Olympus cameras or vice versa.

(b) 100% compatibility is not a matter of opinion, it's a testable feature and a primary design consideration for the system. Some lenses are obviously less compatible than others (20mm Panasonic banding issue, for example) but others have no reported issues.

So don't confuse your right to express an opinion with a (fictitious) right to avoid having your opinions criticized for being wrong. (And, yes, opinions can be wrong.) Your blind brand loyalty defeats one of the major attractions of the m43 system.

Click to expand...

I pick what I see is best. I don't care for the Panasonic or Olympus brand flash options so I use Metz a brand I am familiar with for a long time. When I shot Nikon and Metz was an option I used Nikon until digital began to grow and Metz became a good option for certain things.

I found a camera bag system that is perfect for MFT's with some of my own customization for dividers. I found a camera strap system I like and they go on my binoculars or any camera that accepts them. I use what I see is best for what I have in front of me today.

Olympus does not have any fast zooms like the 12-35 or 35-100 2.8 and I can't wait or guess. Talk is cheap and if it is not on the shelves it does not exist.

I was lucky to get the first round of GH-3's and if I missed out I would not get an OMD, waste of money and time for me. I would keep using my GX-1 and separate video camera. So I am not settling if I have made a choice.

Comparing fast glass only. Olympus coverage is terrible today. Panasonic offers excellent coverage for fast glass and if Olympus comes through great.

Everyone is hung up that Olympus has 1.8 lenses and Panasonic has 2.8 glass and is slow. BS, its less than a full stop. 1.4, 2.0, 2.8,4.0 are full stops. Their is no significant difference between the 35-100 2.8 and 75 1.8 at the same focal length. The difference is you pay $900 for a 75 mm for ONE lens and the the 35-100 for less than half more you get many more prime 2.8 lenses in that zoom range. You get a 35, 50, 75, and 100 2.8 prime lens in one. The 75 1.8 is a waste of money IMO and the 35-100 2.8 is a better investment if your ready to spend $900. This has nothing to do with output because they are both good, but its a joke to think your getting more out of the 75mm IMO.

The Olympus 12 and 17 and also included in the 12-35 2.8. The 45 1.8 is cost less because its not a macro lens and Panasonic is. If Panasonic had a 60 2.8 macro like Olympus is would be costly.

Olympus does not have a fast equivalent 50 mm and that is standard. I have not checked lately, but Nikon usually has a 1.4 & 1.8 version of the same prime lens at the 50 mm equivalent.

It makes no sense to me to own both the Olympus 75 1.8 & Panny 35-100. For all encompassing fast glass Olympus does not deliver. Having a Panasonic body with the options and cost getting a Panasonic lens for your Panasonic camera makes alot of sense.

Olympus only has the following fast glass today:

12 2.8 equal to 35 mm format to 24 mm 2.8

17 1.8 equal to 34mm 1.8

45 1.8 equal to 90mm 1.8

60 2.8 macro equal to 120 mm 2.8

75 1.8 equal to 150mm 1.8

Panasonic has the following fast glass

12-35 2.8 equal to 35 mm format 24-70 2.8

35-100 2.8 equal to 70-200 2.8

45 2.8 Macro equal to 90 mm 2.8 macro

25 1.4 equal to 50mm 1.4

20 1.7 equal to 40 mm 1.7

14 mm 2.5 equal to 28 mm 2.5

Everyone has an opinion, great, but I doubt anyone actually writes this on paper to see how obvious it is. I sold the 20 1.4 for the 25 1.4 and am glad I did. I don't believe in using a third party camera battery if I have a choice either.

bowportes said:

bowportes wrote:

bowportes said:

Robert Deutsch wrote:

I bought the 45/1.8 when I had the the GX1, and, being used to the OIS of the 14-42x and the 45-175, found the 45's lack of image stabilization to be a significant downside in low light. I pretty well had to use at least 1/90 sec. to maintain sharpness, which meant effectively losing the f1.8 aperture advantage (not as far as DOF, of course).

Things changed when I got the OM-D. I did a series of test shots with the 45mm, IBIS on. I got acceptable sharpness down to 1/5 sec. That's a full 5 stops down from the "reciprocal rule" and much better than the 2-3 stops that I get from the Panasonic OIS under the same conditions. The 45mm really shows its stuff when used on the OM-D.

Having said that, if I had the 12-35, I'm not sure if I'd keep the 45 as well. I don't think sharpness difference is much of an issue. It would come down to how much I needed/wanted the extra speed and shallower DOF available from the 45. The lens is small enough and cheap enough that I would probably keep it.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, I'm curious what you've missed, if anything, from the GX1 once you started using the OM-D

Click to expand...

I haven't actually missed it--in the sense that I had an actual need for it and it was not available--but I wish the OM-D had an on-camera flash. The little flash that's included with the OM-D works well enough, but when you mount it you have three pieces of plastic that are in danger of being lost. I bought an Olympus FL-600R flash, which leaves you with just one piece of plastic to have to look after--and, of course, it's a much more powerful and flexible flash.

(also whether you still own and use the GX1 at all, and if not, why).



I traded in the GX1 on the OM-D. I have no use for two m4/3 cameras. (I have a Sony RX100 as a backup.)

bowportes said:

Other than the lowlight advantages of the IBIS, what were you most/least impressed with about the OM-D when you made the move?

Click to expand...

Well, the 5-way IBIS is a big advantage: image stabilization for the Oly 45mm and the Panasonic 7-14 and 25mm, plus more effective image stabilization for the 14-42x and the 45-175.

But the major advantage of the OM-D is the sensor, which represents at least as much of an improvement in performance as the GX1 sensor represents over the GF1 sensor. This is documented by DxO, and translates to improved IQ throughout the range of lighting conditions, especially low light.

The OM-D has a number of features that are better than what's available on the GX1. These are too numerous to catalogue, but they include the folding LCD, the built-in EVF (more convenient to use than the accessory EVF for the GX1, which I had), and a feature that's not relevant for most users but is important to me: the ability to take 3D photos with any lens.

Bob