Oly 1.2 Pro series vs 1.8s

Hey Guys

For those "in the know" are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

I am looking for some primes to compliment my 12-100 (which I just love) for low light shooting when f4 just doesn't cut it.

Thanks in advance guys

Complement.

Seriously... I spent a few hours with the 17/1.2 compared to the 17/1.8 which I have. TBH I really didn't think it worth the difference. I've got a good copy of the 1.8 and whilst the sharpness of the 1.2 was better, the difference wasn't enormous. I also didn't find the OOF blur much better unless I was very close to the subject. The size and cost difference of course is huge. Personally, for the 35mm eff FL, I think the 1.8 is just fine. It could be a different story for the 25 and 45 lenses, but I haven't tried a comparison.

I don’t own all the pro primes, but from what I’ve gotten with my 17mm pro, it seems more than worth it unless the bulk is too much. Crazy good even at 1.2, it’s worth it to me for my uses which have me using it near a lot of splash potential. Size is the only downfall, but when I want to bring just two primes, the other being the fisheye, it is the one I want. All those 1.2 lenses are big for M4/3, but not massive for what you get.

The 17 Pro resolution is clearly better than the 17/1.8, aperture for aperture and what's more, the Pro is sharpest at 2.0 while the 1.8 doesn't reach its peak until 5.6.

The 25 and 45 pairs are closer but to my knowledge, the 45 Pro does not share the 1.8's field curvature, which is an issue if you're shooting architecture or something similar.

Impossible to "measure" for OOF transition, bokeh, etc. but sample photo comparison should reveal whether the Pro version renders in a way that better suits your preferences. It's also impossible to ignore the large price and size difference, and none of these options is "bad" per se.

Cheers,

Rick

I have been sitting on the fence for a very long time on a 25/1.2 and 45/1.2. I already have the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8. I also have a Sigma 30/1.4.

The only reason for a 25/1.2 or 45/1.2 is WR (to go with my EM5.ii). Outside WR photo ops, I don't see myself lugging a 1.2 around - I'll trade light-weight and reduced bulk over IQ any time of the day. In the end, I came to a compromise - live with a 14-150 ii which is WR - as WR is but less than 5% of my use cases.

Having said that, I'm now contemplating a 56/1.4 which is WR and within my weight/bulk tolerance

I used the 1.2 trio on a job last summer, my takeaway was the 45 1.2 is in another league compared to my 45 1.8. The 17 1.2 was alot like the 1.8, except better corrected for aberrations and really did look better when doing waist level up horizontal portraits, it's a nice lens. The 25 1.2 is for sure the weakest of the 3. Mine is worse at 1.2, but better than the 1.8 at 1.8. Only reason I have it is because I found one for $600. And for $600 I think it's a great lens.

I think the 45 and 17 Pro are worth it for sure, but the 25 Pro is not a $1300 prime. It should have been priced at $800 instead.

gurudave said:

Hey Guys

For those "in the know" are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

I am looking for some primes to compliment my 12-100 (which I just love) for low light shooting when f4 just doesn't cut it.

Thanks in advance guys

Click to expand...

my thoughts have to be a big hats off to Olympus for there trio of 1.2 lenses. If you look at the 1.4 lenses vs 1.8 lenses from Nikon ect you will find that, more often than not, the 1.8 versions are generally sharper. Although there are a small few exceptions with the latest fast lenses. So for Olympus to design 1.2 lenses that are not only as good but better than the 1.8 versions is quite a feat !

Few also buy expensive fast primes just for that slight advantage of light gathering ability, they pay the price for the rendering of such lenses, and the superb build quality. There is a train of thought that says, money is best spent on top lenses, than cameras. Cameras come and go but lenses are forever

There is clearly far far more to great lenses than sharpness.

gurudave said:

Hey Guys

For those "in the know" are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "that much" better. If you need weather sealing and every bit of extra light, than that is just what you need and that is what those lenses offer.

I'd say that for 90% of users that do not fall into the above category, it's most likely not worth it. Especially if you get a good copy of the f/1.8 lens. I was surprised how good the 17 was. I tried it out last year and it was sharp corner to corner even wide open. And really sharp stopped down. And that's supposed to be a mediocre lens, at least that's the reputation it has.

But the PROs do have something going on for them.

The 25 and 45 are designed for nice smooth bokeh which might be an important factor for some. But the tiny 45 is not at all bad in this regard either. The 17, while marketed as having feathered bokeh, actually is exactly opposite of that.

I know a lot of gearheads brush aside such things, but for a lot of photographers, it is very important how the lens renders the scene (hence quite common complaints about the 40-150 PRO). I was always salivating about the 75, which was touted as one of the best lenses in the system. But the way it renders out of focus areas is one of the worst of all my lenses. Big disappointment.

I'm also pretty sure they AF faster. If you're trying to shoot indoor sports for example, I'm sure that 45 PRO would be a lot better choice than the f/1.8 one.

Anyway, those f/1.2 primes live in the territory of diminishing returns. You can get 70% there at 1/3 the price by choosing f/1.4 Sigmas, for example.

The only PRO prime I have is the 8mm fish-eye. Not tempted by the f/1.2 trio much. The 12-100 is amazing, best lens ever

Joseph Ellis did a YouTube comparison of the 45mm 1.8 vs the 1.2 PRO.

gurudave said:

Hey Guys

For those "in the know" are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

I am looking for some primes to compliment my 12-100 (which I just love) for low light shooting when f4 just doesn't cut it.

Thanks in advance guys

Click to expand...

Yes, better. But also much bigger. And IMHO -- from 17, 25 and 45 only 17 and 45 make sense, tbh. 45 1.2 PRO is my personal love.

I love the 17 Pro's OOF transition.


E-M1ii+17/1.2

My sole 1.2 Pro FWIW. Hoping for another in the 80-90mm range at some point.

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

gurudave said:

Hey Guys

For those "in the know" are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

I am looking for some primes to compliment my 12-100 (which I just love) for low light shooting when f4 just doesn't cut it.

Thanks in advance guys

Click to expand...

Shooting at f4 (for example) you will not see that much of a difference, besides very small gains in resolution/sharpness/rendering, and unless you pixel-peep.

What's different is that you get f1.2, along with that low-light capability and subject separation, all while still maintaining excellent IQ.

Is that worth the "penalties" you are mentioning? Only you can say!

Cheers guys this is all REALLY good info - much appreciated !

gurudave said:

are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

Click to expand...

Hi Dave

A trade-off only you can decide.... I'm fortunate that I have the trio, sold the nice Sigma 16/1.4 to get the Oly 17/1.2, and the quite excellent PannyLeica 25/1.2 to get the Oly 25/1.2, but it all started when I treated myself to the Oly 45/1.2 and just loved it. IMHO the Oly 17/1.2 somewhat better than the Sigma 16/1.4 in all respects (but weight and price), and the Oly 25/1.2 only better than the PL 25/1.2 on bokeh, otherwise a wash as they say (but for weight and price!). My use cases are indoor shots with friends and family sat around the table -- the 45 for one head, the 25 for two, and the 17 for three... Mount the 12-40/2.8 PRO if I'm short of time, patience, enthusiasm, or inspiration.

gurudave said:

Hey Guys

For those "in the know" are the Oly pro series 1.2 primes optically "that much" better than the zuiko 1.8 versions - considering the price difference, weight and size penalties ??

I am looking for some primes to compliment my 12-100 (which I just love) for low light shooting when f4 just doesn't cut it.

Thanks in advance guys

Click to expand...

You might like this article by Roger Cicala:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/01/finally-some-m43-mtf-testing-25mm-prime-lens-comparison/

In summary, the f/1.2 is indeed better than the f/1.8, but the f/1.8 is still very good. For me, the f/1.8 is the kind of lens mFT is all about, while the f/1.2 isn't.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

I compared the 15/1.7 and 17/1.8. Chose the 15/1.7. Then when the 17/1.2 came out I compared and got that too. Its better all around (it's sharp at 1.2 come on what else would you want) but pairs with my em1ii so size, weight and wr is all good. The smaller sits on the penf.

I don't shoot 25/30, didn't test the 1.2 variant but most mention its the worst of the 3.

I compared the smaller 42.5/45 and got the 42.5/1.7. Then when the 42/1.2 came out I compared it, l liked it... But not that much. Didn't seem better than my 75mm and thus value proposition wasn't there for me. However the 56mm/1.4 came out and that's awesome every which way. Get that. The 42.5/1.7 & 75mm sit on my penf. The 56mm sits on my em1ii.

Like you I have the 12-100mm for any other situation and that rocks.

People mainly seem to concentrate on ‘light gathering’, sharpness and the subjective issue of bokeh, but frankly the only major difference between the 17mm f1.2 and 1.8 in my use as a street photographer is for subject isolation.

For example, at a typical-for-me 15 feet subject distance at 1.2 the dof is around 18”, while the 1.8 gives a relatively massive 5’-odd. This for me very well justifies the 1.2, since the combination of perspective and natural focus effects are not at all easily achievable in any other way. In combination with the fantastic CAF of the M1ii with eye-AF and moving the focus point cluster on the rear screen, I find it a great street tool.

i also have the Panny 15mm f1.7 which is wonderfully small and light for travel, but dof is quite deep and there is much more distortion that often needs a lot more fiddling in post.

I own the f1.8/ f2.0 Olympus Premium prime lenses and I also own the three f1.2 Olympus Pro prime lenses. The f1.2 Pro lenses are noticeably better, but larger and very expensive.. I use the f1.2 pro lenses along with the 12-100 f4.0 lens with my E-M1 Mkii. I use the smaller premium primes with my Pen F. I do notice a difference in image rendering.

This is an interesting discussion of first world problems. It is hard to choose as the f1.7/ 1.8/ 2.0 primes are as desirable as the Pro primes for the different but valid reasons everyone expresses. For yourself, price and size are cold statistics you can think about and how those two points sit with you. Then consider whether f1.2 is needed over f1.8 vs wanted. Optically, the differences from f2.5 to f16 between Pro and others are only measurable via testing on a bench and side by side deliberations or a huge print viewed close up. From f1.2 to f2.5 there are obvious differences in edge resolution, bokeh rendering/ DOF and aberrations like colour fringing that are more obvious between the Pro and the smaller primes... even after appropriate RAW processing. The Pro primes are totally usable wide open in performance to the edge if conditions demand, such as a wedding group shot in fading light near sunset... particularly the 17 Pro as DOF for longer lenses means being forced to stop down to get everyone in focus.

Get what suits your needs as well as expectations. Another thing is that if you always use a gripped EM1.2, the tactile experience with a Pro prime is better balance, but a 1.8 prime on a Pen F is as nice but for obviously different reasons.

As someone else mentioned, just use a 12-40mm f2.8 Prime (good optically wide open), boost your ISO to allow Auto up to 6400 and be done with all the agonising! But that noise at ISO 6400 and f2.8 vs ISO 1250 and f1.2... back to the drawing board!

--
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me. Make the best you can of every day!