Olympus 45mm vs Olympus 60mm macro for food photography

innatelychatty wrote:

Hello to all food and portrait photographers out there!

I currently have the wonderful Olympus OM-D E-M10 paired with my amazing Oly 17mm f/1.8 prime lens for landscape and street photography.

I am now in the market for a second prime lens. Ideally it would be a lens for both food and portrait photography, but if I had to prioritize one it would have to be food (recipes, restaurant dishes, etc. - so a lens that works well in low-light situations). I am looking at either the Oly 45mm f/1.8 lens or the Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro lens.

I like the shorter focal length of the 45mm, which seems to be a good short tele length and perfect for portrait photography - the bokeh isn't bad either! However I have read several reviews saying macro would be really helpful for food photography.

Between the Oly 45mm or the 60mm macro, which should I be getting? Is the macro lens capable of good bokeh in portrait photography despite its longer focal length and 1:1 macro capability? I have looked into the Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 but it is sadly out of my budget.

The 17mm 1.8 might also be a solution but as I have not used it for food photography (as I don't have one), I can't say.

What I can say is that the 20mm is great for food. I also have the 25mm f1.4. And at times I have wanted something brighter than the 20mm f1.7 as restaurants and such tends to be quite dark at times so any extra speed would be greatly appreciated. What I have found out is that the 25mm, although better than the 20mm in low light because of it's extra speed, is too long and focusing distance too large to comfortably take photos of food from your seats. The 20? Awesome.

Although these are old (aka, I have gotten better since), should give you an idea of what the 20mm can do. As far as I remember, all were taken with the 20mm unless otherwise stated on the photo.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/sets/72157629408163033/