-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Oly 1.2 Pro series vs 1.8s
- Thread starter gurudave
- Start date
I think you must mean the Panasonic Leica 25 1.4?
citizenlouie
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,298
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 367
The only f/1.2 prime I have so far is Olympus 25mm f/1.2 (and Panny/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 which I am considering selling because it uses 67mm filter instead of 62mm filter, which is something you should think about when you carry a lot of primes).
Let me answer your question with a strange story about my relationship with Oly 25mm f/1.2.... It was a hate from the first sight. Bought it based on the usefulness of 50mm equivalent focal length, and at which focal length f/1.2 really is very important! But stats are just that, stats.... I sold it right away because the CA is atrocious wide open.
Then I re-reevaluated my photos.
Oly 25mm Pro f/1.2 won't win from CA technical point of view, because it's the worst CA performing Olympus lens I personally have used (except kit lenses). Even the bokeh from it is considered questionable (very subjective, you either love it or hate it). It's not a very sharp lens by Olympus standard either (12-40mm Pro is sharper given enough light). The AF is not accurate wide open (typical of large aperture lenses, not just this lens). But I ended up buying it back. The reason is that mythical rendering quality that Leica lens users also have trouble explaining. Some lenses just have it.... So as long as you don't use Oly 25mm f/1.2 wide open, which I now never do, the rendering from that lens is very pleasant in a way, which I don't want to use the word soft, because the lens is sharp, but it has a gentle rendering of color. Whether that is worth of the price tag, that's completely up to you. I know I don't like m4/3 version of Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for sure. 42.5mm f/1.2 from Panasonic has magical rendering, but I hate having different filter sizes so it really is up to you what is the priority. Keep in mind most f/1.8 m4/3 lenses use 46mm filters. Lots of savings there and you will avoid a lot of headaches when it comes to filters.
I can vouch Oly 17mm f/1.8 is very stellar, so is Oly 75mm f/1.8 (latter is perhaps the best lens I've used on m4/3 format, but it's very curious why Olympus doesn't call that one a Pro lens, but Oly's m4/3 branding is very strange).
Let me answer your question with a strange story about my relationship with Oly 25mm f/1.2.... It was a hate from the first sight. Bought it based on the usefulness of 50mm equivalent focal length, and at which focal length f/1.2 really is very important! But stats are just that, stats.... I sold it right away because the CA is atrocious wide open.
Then I re-reevaluated my photos.
Oly 25mm Pro f/1.2 won't win from CA technical point of view, because it's the worst CA performing Olympus lens I personally have used (except kit lenses). Even the bokeh from it is considered questionable (very subjective, you either love it or hate it). It's not a very sharp lens by Olympus standard either (12-40mm Pro is sharper given enough light). The AF is not accurate wide open (typical of large aperture lenses, not just this lens). But I ended up buying it back. The reason is that mythical rendering quality that Leica lens users also have trouble explaining. Some lenses just have it.... So as long as you don't use Oly 25mm f/1.2 wide open, which I now never do, the rendering from that lens is very pleasant in a way, which I don't want to use the word soft, because the lens is sharp, but it has a gentle rendering of color. Whether that is worth of the price tag, that's completely up to you. I know I don't like m4/3 version of Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for sure. 42.5mm f/1.2 from Panasonic has magical rendering, but I hate having different filter sizes so it really is up to you what is the priority. Keep in mind most f/1.8 m4/3 lenses use 46mm filters. Lots of savings there and you will avoid a lot of headaches when it comes to filters.
I can vouch Oly 17mm f/1.8 is very stellar, so is Oly 75mm f/1.8 (latter is perhaps the best lens I've used on m4/3 format, but it's very curious why Olympus doesn't call that one a Pro lens, but Oly's m4/3 branding is very strange).
lester11
Leading Member
Yup, PL 25/1.4, my bad.
nameless0ne
Leading Member
That's true for 17 and 45. Not so much for 25 -- I would say 25 1.2 is good, but 25 1.8 better wide-open. Still, 25 1.2 is very usable, bot not as fantastic as 17 and 45 IMHO!
nameless0ne
Leading Member
At the same time 25 1.2 @ 1.8 beats 25 1.8 hands down
glassoholic
Veteran Member
Exactly right!
John W H
Leading Member
I recently purchased the 25 F1.2 to replace the F1.8 version.
For me there is a better rendering to the images, and the ability to use F1.2 is an advantage. As I also shoot in potentially wet or dusty conditions when travelling especially the WR is a bonus.
Size wise the 1.2 is large next to the 1.8 but I recently spent an afternoon with just my EM1.1 and the 25 and didn't have any issues carrying it around for 4 hours.
Hope this helps
John
For me there is a better rendering to the images, and the ability to use F1.2 is an advantage. As I also shoot in potentially wet or dusty conditions when travelling especially the WR is a bonus.
Size wise the 1.2 is large next to the 1.8 but I recently spent an afternoon with just my EM1.1 and the 25 and didn't have any issues carrying it around for 4 hours.
Hope this helps
John
No, they are not with the exception of the 17. The 25 1.8 has as good or better IQ than the 1.2 version in the overlapping apertures. Same with the 45. The 17 1.8 isn't technically a great lens (only problem is on the edges) so the 17 1.2 is an improvement if you need that.
I have the 25 1.8 and it is great. Would never spend the extra money and carry around the extra size/weight of the 1.2 version. I've had the 45 1.8 and it was a fine lens (have the Panny 42.5 1.7 now due to needing IS for my GM1, but they are very similar). I have the 17 1.8 and from all reports the 17 1.2 is a big improvement in the outer edges of the frame. I really don't care as I use the 17 1.8 for inside low light work and the edges are gonna be OOF anyway. If I wanted sharpness at 17mm I'd use my 12-40 which is great at that FL (and so is your 12-100 I think).
So these lenses are really hard to justify in my book.
Let's go to a basic approach: why do you use MFT? I do because it's cheaper and much lighter than FF. So it makes more fun because I do have the equipment more often with me.
The intention of Olympus was to develop a high capable and mobile system. So the big and expensive 1.2-lenses are not part of this original approach.
Why does Olympus build such lenses that seem not to fit this idea? Because the customers want it, the customers pay for expensive lenses, Olympus is able to build small high quality lenses and Olympus want to show what they are able to do = to give a clear signal to the market and their competitors. Every industry produces what the customers will pay for.
Why do the customers buy this 1.2-lenses: because some of us only want the best independent whether this makes sense or not, some believe to be a better photographer with a more expensive lenses, many of us believe, that the 10 % better bokeh makes such a big difference, a few of us really need the little advantage of the 1.2 lenses to the 1.8-lenses....
I made the following experience: I shoot my 45/1.8 and the 45/1.2 at my photo-dealer: I was not really able to see a big difference. There is one, but comparable only under 100 % identical conditions. As soon as the light is only a little big difference everything is different. So the conditions like light, distance between the the subject and the background and the relation between this two distances and the arrangement/composition and the subject itself are much more important than the small difference in bokeh ....
Weather-sealing is an argument!
And the sharp area even with the 45/1.8 is so small that from two eyes of a person only one eye is sharp as soon as the person is not 100 % frontal to the camera. So: how little sharpness do you need? For me, 1.8 is sometimes to much. I - personally - do not need 1.2. And I don't want to carry heavy lenses - that's why I switched to MFT.
Although this 1.2-lenses are a great peaces of gear!
If you can afford them, want to carry them and if you want to be proud of your gear - buy it! It's more an emotional approach: today, we don't buy things because we need it, today, we buy things because we WANT it!
The intention of Olympus was to develop a high capable and mobile system. So the big and expensive 1.2-lenses are not part of this original approach.
Why does Olympus build such lenses that seem not to fit this idea? Because the customers want it, the customers pay for expensive lenses, Olympus is able to build small high quality lenses and Olympus want to show what they are able to do = to give a clear signal to the market and their competitors. Every industry produces what the customers will pay for.
Why do the customers buy this 1.2-lenses: because some of us only want the best independent whether this makes sense or not, some believe to be a better photographer with a more expensive lenses, many of us believe, that the 10 % better bokeh makes such a big difference, a few of us really need the little advantage of the 1.2 lenses to the 1.8-lenses....
I made the following experience: I shoot my 45/1.8 and the 45/1.2 at my photo-dealer: I was not really able to see a big difference. There is one, but comparable only under 100 % identical conditions. As soon as the light is only a little big difference everything is different. So the conditions like light, distance between the the subject and the background and the relation between this two distances and the arrangement/composition and the subject itself are much more important than the small difference in bokeh ....
Weather-sealing is an argument!
And the sharp area even with the 45/1.8 is so small that from two eyes of a person only one eye is sharp as soon as the person is not 100 % frontal to the camera. So: how little sharpness do you need? For me, 1.8 is sometimes to much. I - personally - do not need 1.2. And I don't want to carry heavy lenses - that's why I switched to MFT.
Although this 1.2-lenses are a great peaces of gear!
If you can afford them, want to carry them and if you want to be proud of your gear - buy it! It's more an emotional approach: today, we don't buy things because we need it, today, we buy things because we WANT it!
Of course, the key phrase here is "in my book" because every shooter has different wants, different needs, and different means,. In my own case, I am just an amateur photographer on a budget. My largest M4/3 camera is an Olympus EM1, and while a few of my photos have been published, the income derived is truly tiny. So I lack the motivation to buy $1,200 prime lenses.
I do own all four Olympus f/1.8 prime lenses (17mm, 25mm, 45mm and 75mm) and I absolutely love them all. They certainly perform well enough for my own needs, and were relatively painless to buy.
I do think the f/1.2 primes are certainly measurably better, but only if you need the extra speed, the weather sealing, are using a larger M4/3 camera (EM1 II, GH5, G9, EM1X), and don't mind the expense.
So I am in 100% agreement with you. I cannot justify owning them.... "in my book". But I can understand why others might want them. And I am also glad that they exist, because they make the entire system more desirable.
Think about it this way...You know how good the 75mm 1.8 is ...Well think about the same lens 1.2 ...I think to many us only qualify the m4/3rd system because of size .. but I think the system has matured enough to give us larger stuff with optics that can be quite incredible...
Last edited:
lester11
Leading Member
Hi Mark
What I've found is that the f1.2 trio has completely relieved me of "full frame anxiety", you know, that sneaking insinuation from some of our brilliant posters here that MFT isn't good enough for "real" or "proper" photographers (whoever they are). For quite a while I did look at my more arty shots and wonder if I'd be better off cashing it all in and going to shoot at f1.8 or f2.4 FF, I do love good separation. The Oly 1.2's killed off all that for me... Liberated or what!
This is a good comparison of the 17mm lenses. Pretty much mirrors my thoughts too.
mirrorlesscomparison.com
Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.2 PRO vs M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 – The complete comparison - Mirrorless Comparison
A curious fact about the Micro Four Thirds system is that there isn’t a single autofocus lens that offers the exact equivalent of a 35mm lens. The closest you can find is the 17mm focal length (34mm equivalent) and it just so happens that there are three of them, all ... Read more
mirrorlesscomparison.com
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
I've the 45 f1.8 and the Panasonic 25 f1.7. Both excellent.
I got the Sigma f1.4s, 16, 30 and 56. I reckon there as good as you could get and way cheaper than Olympus f1.2. Also, if you do the maths, the 30 and the 56 give equal bokeh thickness to the Olympus 25 f1.2 and the 75 f1.8. The 16 f1.4 has a little less than the 17 f1.2, of course.
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
Nope.
Loading…
www.imaging-resource.com
Not a knock on the 25/1.8, which I'm happy to have in my kit, but the 1.2 outresolves it and is better at identical apertures. The 1.8 has better CR control, as one would expect from the slower, less ambitious design.
Rick
MFiftysomething
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,169
- Reaction score
- 517
Have a look a the T stop on DXO-not so impressive. Also consider sigma F1.4s which are good performers and cheaper.
I thought the most compelling of the trio was the 45 and I am happy with mine but find 17 and 25 harder to justify.
I thought the most compelling of the trio was the 45 and I am happy with mine but find 17 and 25 harder to justify.
Lens tip shows the 1.2 having a lpmm advantage of about 4 at f2 and basically dead even at f2.8. The 1.8 was tested on the EPL1 w old 12 MP sensor and the 1.2 on an EM5 II so that easily explains the slight advantage the 1.2 has at f2 and would actually make the 1.8 sharper at 2.8. Bottom line is the 1.2 is no better in the aperture range they share. If the bit of speed or the need for a tad less DOF is that important to folks they can go ahead and spend 4x the price and carry 3x the weight, but I'll pass. Of course if they want that, just getting a FF setup makes more sense and is probably cheaper.
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
The IR graphs are both from a GX1 so no translation necessary--the 1.2 is sharper.
Value is in the eyes of the person holding the wallet.
Rick
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum