Olympus 45mm v. Olympus 75mm

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell. But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

I'm especially interested in feedback from people who have experience with both focal lengths, or preferrably, both oly lenses.

Thanks, and keep it real.

Arthur, yes I have both of these lenses. I certainly do not worry about the foreshortening in portraits. I would suggest if you can afford the 75mm maybe you could afford both?  An assumption of mine.

A couple of examples but you would never know not seeing the person in the flesh. The last image is 400mm on FF. I suspect you ay be looking for more studio taken photos, but hope these help a little.

OLY 75MM

OLY 75MM

OLY 45MM

Induster 50mm f2 on OM-D

400MM

:-DI have neither lens but I do own the 50mm 2.0 macro with the MMF-3 adapter and a really sweet Minolta 85mm 1.7 that I converted (by machining) to 4/3.  I have used both of these for portrait settings and though I prefer the bokeh of the 85mm yet.  I didn't like the distance from subject with the 85mm in the studio.  I use manual focus for both.  I would buy both so my answer probably doesn't help much.

ArthurG1987 wrote:

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell. But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

I'm especially interested in feedback from people who have experience with both focal lengths, or preferrably, both oly lenses.

Thanks, and keep it real.

IME 45 & 75mm lenses both work well for portraits in M43 format. I can't say I notice flattening effects until I go beyond 100mm or so. Although your definition of "flattening" might differ from mine...I like a bit of perspective compression but not so much that the subject looks like a cardboard cutout. Wide open the Oly 75 has more bite than the 45, so if you prefer a less clinical portrait approach w/ shallow DOF the latter lens would be your best option. The 75 is pretty amazing, though...one of the best lenses I've ever owned, and not just because it's sharp. It is that, but it doesn't sacrifice broad tonal range or rich color response to the god of resolution.

-Dave-

ArthurG1987 wrote:

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell. But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

I'm especially interested in feedback from people who have experience with both focal lengths, or preferrably, both oly lenses.

Thanks, and keep it real.

If I could only have one, it would be the 45. I have both, but even thought the 75 is sharper, I use it less as I typically find myself too close to the subject and tire of backing up over things  

The 45 is on sale right now on the Olympus web page for $349. I'd call that a no-brainer. Oh, B&H also has the lens for the same price. I like to support them because they're awesome.

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/pen-omd.html?utm_content=popular_primes_title&utm_campaign=md_lenses&utm_source=em_md_lenses_omd_fn&utm_medium=email

ArthurG1987 wrote:

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell. But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

I'm especially interested in feedback from people who have experience with both focal lengths, or preferrably, both oly lenses.

Thanks, and keep it real.

I simply wouldn't be torn between them. There is no reason to be. Get them both. That's what I did and I don't regret it. Nor would I worry about flattening people's faces too much with the 75. I consider it well within the range of appropriate portrait lenses.

So the only question is really which to get first if you can't or don't want to buy them both at the same time. Here, I would certainly go for the 45 to begin with for a number of reasons. First, this is the focal length you are likely to use more often. The 45 works even in a room of ordinary size. For the 75 you need to be in a hall or outdoors. Second, it is smaller and lighter so that you can easily have it with you most of the time. Third, it is significantly less expensive while very nearly as good optically.

The 75 is more of a niche product. Fine for stage performances, stealthy street shooting, and outdoor portraits where you really want to blur the background as much as possible as well as a number of other things but still not as much of a must-be-there tool as the 45. It's no coincidence that FLs of about 45 mm are included in the range of kit zooms. The kit zoom gives you the FL but not the speed and shallow DoF that I would often want for a FL like this.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell. But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

I have experience with neither of these two lenses , but today I chose to order the 45 for exactly the reasons others have already stated.  In case you don't already know; the compression of a focal length is the same in any format, ie 75mm has the same compression effect on MFT as it does on FF.  It's when you add a "tele-extender" that the compression is multiplied by the x-factor.

As you, I'm really drooling over the 75 because it creates the "whole package" that I'm looking for in an expressive art type lens.  However, I have similar focal lengths in Nikon glass that I have been using with an adaptor, to much the same effect, albiet manual focus.  Which is mostly okay with me because the type of composing I do at that focal length are usually static sceness that I can tolerate manual focusing.  I chose to get a dedicated AF 45mm lens for family and portraits where I don't want to risk mis-focusing by eye.

Still...man oh man, the 75 is a sweet package and would be so nice to hold.

BingoCharlie wrote:

I would note that the 75mm is outstanding for distant landscapes.  It's sharp edge-to-edge and distant objects still have great micro-contrast and dimensionality.  So many lenses seem to flatten everything at infinity.  This lens is good enough to retain the subtle gradations of color, light, and shadow that make landscapes stand out.

I haven't used mine for landscapes much yet. Nevertheless, I am sure you are perfectly right. I know that the focal length as such is sometimes just perfect when you want to cut out a particular area from a broader scene. And its micro-contrast as well as edge-to-edge sharpness are outstanding, which of course is a particular asset for scenes like this.

Of course, for nearby landscapes the lens is crap because you can't fit much into the frame.

ArthurG1987 wrote:

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell. But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

Yes.

But that can be an advantage depending on your model.

If your model has Middle Eastern or Northern European features (big nose, big ears) this works well.

If your model is Asian the longer focal lenght will make her look like a child.

I'm especially interested in feedback from people who have experience with both focal lengths, or preferrably, both oly lenses.

I have both focal lenghts (essentially, 40mm and 90mm) in manual lenses and the difference is subtle but noticable-exaclty what you want.

Tedolph

Thanks, and keep it real.

ArthurG1987 wrote:

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell.

A small point: just the shell is metal, inside it is all plastic and some glass, I suppose.

But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

Some people say that the 75 is too sharp for portraits. I have neither, so I can not tell from my own experience. But I have to say, that legacy lenses with 50mm and 100mm give very nice portraits. SO the FL should not be a problem.

Peter

eques wrote:

ArthurG1987 wrote:

Hey there kind dpreview.com forum folk!

I'm in a bit of a situation. granted, nice situation, but a situation nonetheless.

I'm torn between getting the olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the olympus 75mm f/1.8. Yes, the 75mm has its seductive claws in me. That front element and the all-metal construction are sexy as hell.

A small point: just the shell is metal, inside it is all plastic and some glass, I suppose.

But My main concern is the focal length: specifically, does an effective focal length of 150mm excessively flatten someone's face as compared to a 90mm effective focal length?

Some people say that the 75 is too sharp for portraits. I have neither, so I can not tell from my own experience. But I have to say, that legacy lenses with 50mm and 100mm give very nice portraits. SO the FL should not be a problem.

Peter

it is the change in perspective and how that effects facial features that the OP is asking about.

TEdolph

I have both the Oly 45/1.8 ad the 75/1.8.  I like them both.  Still there is something a little bit special with the images the 75/1.8 produces.  Here is a photo from my first and only studio outing.

Since it was a photo club setting I really didn't have any control of the light output and had to shot at a smaller f-stop that I would have done if I had control of things.  I did have to get back to the far wall for my shots.

Dave

They are both outstanding (equally so IMHO in terms of image quality).  The 75 feels great, but then the 45 feels fine to me as well.  I never got that "plastic" feeling some people talk about with the 45.

I had the 45 first, and was amazed at how well it performed.  The 75 is amazing in it's own right.  I use the 45 more often though.  I guess it's because of the focal length.  The 75 is a little more specialized since you have to have the room to use it.  It's a great concert lens.

One thing to keep in mind.  You'll need a good ND filter if you want to shoot it wide open during the day.  ISO200 as a minimum isn't your friend if you want shallow DOF on a bright day.