Anyone have the Olympus 60mm f2.8 AND 45mm f1.8?

Just wondering how good the Olympus 60mm Macro f2.8 lens is at portraiture and if it can replace the 45mm f1.8 which I currently own?

Thinking of purchasing the 60mm f2.8 to replace my 45mm so I can have a lens that can serve as a macro and portrait lens.

Any advice would be much appreciated!

(Also, how does the new 60mm f2.8 compare to the ‘legendary’ Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2.0?)

Regards,
Tony

I have both, and plan on keeping them. They're excellent lenses that complement each other well, despite the similarity in focal lengths.

The 45mm is considerably smaller. It focuses faster (though the 60mm is no slouch) and is useful in low light. I enjoy shooting dim shows, and the 45mm works wonderfully in that environment.

The 60mm's advantages are that it's weather sealed, it's a macro (obviously), and it's a touch sharper edge-to-edge. Having also owned the Panasonic 14, 20, and 25mm primes I can easily say that it also has the sharpest, most pleasing rendering of the bunch. As for portraiture, you'll get a bit less subject isolation from the 60mm but it's enough to do the job.

I have no experience using the legacy 4/3 50mm macro but have read that the 60mm compares very favourably, and may even be a hair better.

I have both. They are indeed substantially different lenses, both in focal length and intent. For me, the 45mm is a general walk-about lens. It vies with my 75mm for being my favourite lens.

The 60mm is marketed as a macro lens. That's not to say that it's no good at anything else. Indeed, it's very sharp. But out of all my lenses (I own all Olympus' prime lenses), it would be the first to go as it's the one I use the least.

I have both and wouldn't part with the 45 just because the 60 could do SOME of what the 45 can do portraiture wise.  If I had to keep only one, I would keep the 45 and get the new Kenko AF extension tubes to shorten up its close focus so that it could double as a macro, rather than keep the 60.

I own both and also the 12-35mm f2.8 Panny zoom. Since purchasing that zoom, I find myself using the 45mm rarely. I generally remove the zoom to get something significantly longer than 35mm... and so I've reached for the 60mm more often than the 45mm. The difference in OOF blurring between the two is slight, and my copy of the 60mm is sharper than my 45mm.

I haven't yet sold the 45mm, but have considered it.  I'll probably hang on to it though.

Running an E-M5 currently.  Have the 60.  Wonderfully sharp, used for everything not just macro or portraiture where I can.  I had the 4/3 50 macro.  It is true I was running it on my GH2, but couldn't get on with it for some reason.  Swopped it for the Panny Leica 45 macro, much happier.  I feel my 60 is clearer and sharper than the 50 macro, and about a draw with the 45 macro.  Plan to get the 45 1.8, pretty confident it will compliment the 60 (happy to see others agree here!), particularly for indoors and low-light work, and especially given its price which must surely rank it top of the bang for the buck pile...

Thanks for your advice everyone.

I think I will keep my 45mm 1.8 until I am sure I don’t need it anymore. The new extension tubes with AF contacts sounds a useful idea though!

Regards,
Tony

TonyinJapan wrote:

Just wondering how good the Olympus 60mm Macro f2.8 lens is at portraiture and if it can replace the 45mm f1.8 which I currently own?

Thinking of purchasing the 60mm f2.8 to replace my 45mm so I can have a lens that can serve as a macro and portrait lens.

Any advice would be much appreciated!

(Also, how does the new 60mm f2.8 compare to the ‘legendary’ Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2.0?)

Regards,
Tony

Never owned the Zuiko 50mm and but I too would have like for the Zuiko 45mm to be along the same lines, portrait lens and macro lens at the same time.

But to answer your main question, I own the 45mm and 60mm. The 60mm can be used for portraiture, but 60mm is a bit long, f2.8 a bit dark for indoors and AF is good but the 45mm has faster AF. It's clear I prefer 45mm for portraiture and would surely miss it if I were stuck with the 60mm for that purpose.

With that said, I do macro photos too and then the 60mm becomes indispensable for that purpose. I still find the AF hunts too much.

TonyinJapan wrote:

Just wondering how good the Olympus 60mm Macro f2.8 lens is at portraiture and if it can replace the 45mm f1.8 which I currently own?

Thinking of purchasing the 60mm f2.8 to replace my 45mm so I can have a lens that can serve as a macro and portrait lens.

Any advice would be much appreciated!

(Also, how does the new 60mm f2.8 compare to the ‘legendary’ Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2.0?)

Regards,
Tony

Yes, I own both.

I don't use the 45 much, to be honest, because I don't shoot many portraits. I use the 60/2.8 Macro more often.

If I had to give one up it would be the 45.

The 60/2.8 Macro has outstanding image quality, but the 45 is also very good.

I think it boils down to what is most important for you. The 60/2.8 has more reach and can shoot close. The 45/1.8 is smaller, brighter, cheaper and can isolate subjects better.

As for the 50/2.0 Macro, Robin Wong did an interesting comparison which suggests there is nothing in it in terms of image quality:

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/09/olympus-mzuiko-60mm-f28-macro-review.html

S.