Oly MFT lens for shallow DOF

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

Since you started the thread and own 12-40, I am inclined to think that you believe it's not adequate. Neither do I.

http://howmuchblur.com will give you an idea of the blur of each lens.It's not black and white but I think 45mm wins in most cases.

I own both the 12-40 and 45, not the 60, so I will not give you my biased opinion. They're all good lenses though, can't go wrong whatever choice you make.
--
http://500px.com/PBian

agaoo wrote:

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Do you need another lens? You could find the answer yourself: try the one that you have.

The closer to your subject, and the wider the distance between the subject and its background, the blurrier the background.

However, with a relatively small focal length (let's say smaller than 25mm), you can get a blurred background. But you have to be so close to your subject that it's unpractical for portrait.

Olympus OM-D e-m5, Voigtländer 25mm lens — 1/200 sec. — F/2,0 — ISO 200 — 25 mm

At the same focal length, some lenses will create a better bokeh.

At 40mm, the M.Zuiko 12-40mm Pro can be used for portrait. But at its widest aperture (F/2,8) the background is blurred by not that creamy.

Some people had great results doing portrait with the M.Zuiko 45mm. Personally, I prefer the bokeh obtained with the M.Zuiko 60mm and the M.Zuiko 75mm. But that's a personal preference: other might disagree. I've not tried the Lumix 42,5mm F/1,2 (nor the Voigtländer 42,5mm since I don't have it) but I suspect that both are very good choices to do portrait with a creamy bokeh.

In a nutshell, before buying another lens, try your M.Zuiko 12-40mm @40mm and F/2,8. Shoot close to your subject. Look at the result that you're getting. If that's not good enough for you, then some very good primes are waiting for you...

With the 45mm f/1.8 if you take a head shot you need to stop down quite a bit (to around f/4) to get a substantial part of the head in focus. If you consider your subject at least as important as the blurred background you will not use it up close at f/1.8.

The following shot was taken at 34mm f/4. (It won the teddybear challenge on dpreview a few months ago.) Look at the full size image and judge whether this image has enough of the teddybear in focus. It doesn't matter whether we think the background is sufficiently blurred or not. For a shot like this it's the subject that matters most. (This was shot with the 12-40 f/2.8 lens.)

Not nearly enough in focus at 34mm f/4.

And here is a shot at 45mm f/2.8 (with the 45 f/1.8 lens). This was at a rehearsal before a concert. F/2.8 was needed to get the conductor in focus. The conductor was 15 to 20 feet from the camera. The organ in the background was 150 to 200 feet from the camera.

45mm f/2.8 to show how much background blur you get.

Sigma 60 2.8.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

IMHO the 12-40 and 75/1.8 make an ideal team. DOFs from the 12-40 are quite shallow in typical settings, including portraiture, although clearly not quite what you can achieve with the fast prime counterparts. But the combination of longer lens and extremely thin DOF make the 75 stand well apart from the zoom for portraits, especially tight headshots.

I do have and use the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8, but the 12-40 is my go-to lens for general use. IMO its best at 40mm for portraits, as the OOF rendering is quite pleasant.

cheers,

Rick.

Agree wholeheartedly! It's my go to pairing.

Peng Bian wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

IMHO the 12-40 and 75/1.8 make an ideal team. DOFs from the 12-40 are quite shallow in typical settings, including portraiture, although clearly not quite what you can achieve with the fast prime counterparts. But the combination of longer lens and extremely thin DOF make the 75 stand well apart from the zoom for portraits, especially tight headshots.

I do have and use the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8, but the 12-40 is my go-to lens for general use. IMO its best at 40mm for portraits, as the OOF rendering is quite pleasant.

cheers,

Rick.

Agree wholeheartedly! It's my go to pairing.

The 75mm is a wonderful lens my only issue with it as a portrait lens { other than for head & shoulder type}  is that its a wee bit on the long side in typical home settings. The 45mm F1.8 delivers a lot of bang for the buck though its build quality is nowhere near the 75mm. For shallow DOF portraits manual focus is often your best option and if you can accept this you have a world of choice in adapted lenses

jim stirling wrote:

Peng Bian wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

IMHO the 12-40 and 75/1.8 make an ideal team. DOFs from the 12-40 are quite shallow in typical settings, including portraiture, although clearly not quite what you can achieve with the fast prime counterparts. But the combination of longer lens and extremely thin DOF make the 75 stand well apart from the zoom for portraits, especially tight headshots.

I do have and use the 25/1.8 and 45/1.8, but the 12-40 is my go-to lens for general use. IMO its best at 40mm for portraits, as the OOF rendering is quite pleasant.

cheers,

Rick.

Agree wholeheartedly! It's my go to pairing.

The 75mm is a wonderful lens my only issue with it as a portrait lens { other than for head & shoulder type} is that its a wee bit on the long side in typical home settings. The 45mm F1.8 delivers a lot of bang for the buck though its build quality is nowhere near the 75mm. For shallow DOF portraits manual focus is often your best option and if you can accept this you have a world of choice in adapted lenses

Yes, even in my friend's relatively large studio I still find the lens too long for anything wider than head and shoulder. It's certainly a more of a specialized lens. I still have my 45mm for indoors, but when I go out, it's usually 12-40 and 75. Great for candids of others from far away, and the amount of compression gives you a unique perspective to create a lot of depth to an image.

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

Try the 12-40 out on portraits and see if the bokeh is to your liking. The 60 macro is not going to be a lot different than the 12-40 since both are F2.8 and the focal lengths not that far apart.

1) 75mm

2) 45mm

3) 12-40mm

4) 60mm

If you consider Panny then the Nocticron

or large zoom , the Pro 40-150mm

Cheers,

I think I have a portrait with the 60mm at f2.8 around here somewhere.

Oops sorry. taken at f4.

The DoF you get is defined by math. So it seems we cannot disagree???

The problem is in the definition of the circle of confusion.

Look at the image below. (This won the teddybear challenge on dpreview.)

The bear is about the size of a human head. This shot was taken at 34mm f/4. You would argue that the bear must be completely within the DoF and everything must be sharp. DOFMaster says that at 34mm f/4 and a camera to subject distance of 1 meter the total depth of field is 10cm. The reality is that DOFMaster computes using a circle of confusion that is something like 3 pixels large. And indeed, if you look at the full size image you will see that most of the bear isn't blurred by more than 3 pixels. But I don't call that pin-sharp.

The nose and eyes of the bear are pin sharp but if you look not 5 but just 2 to 3 cm behind the eyes there is already serious blur. My experience with DOFMaster is that when it tells me the DoF is X then in reality the DoF is less than half of that. And as a result the calculation of hyperfocal distance is also way off because it accepts a blur at infinity of 3 pixels.

Now replace the bear by a human head and let's increase the distance to 1.5 meters and slap on the 45mm at f/2. You say the head will be sharp. DOFMaster says that everything in a range of 6.5cm will be acceptably sharp. That is probably about right: if you focus on an eye then everything within 3cm in front or behind that eye will not be blurred more than 2 to 3 pixels. But I don't call that sharp. The reality is that the tip of the nose and certainly the ears will be very clearly unsharp. What a DoF calculation calls "acceptable focus" is not acceptable in my book. If you accept up to 3 pixels blur as being sharp then you are right that f/2 is good enough for a head shot. My experience is that for a head shot I am not satisfied even with 45mm f/2.8.

dv312 wrote:

1) 75mm

2) 45mm

3) 12-40mm

4) 60mm

If you consider Panny then the Nocticron

or large zoom , the Pro 40-150mm

Cheers,

#3 and #4 should switch places as they're both f/2.8 so 60mm being a longer focal length will give more background blur. Other than that I agree with you.

If budget is a concern I'd recommend 45mm - it's probably the best bang for buck in Olympus lens line up, perfect focal length for portraits, but very usable for other purposes as well.

If budget is no problem then 75mm might be the best option if working distance isn't a problem (you'll need to get quite a bit away from your subject unless you're just doing head shots)

If working distance might be a problem but budget is absolutely no problem at all, then the Nocticron is the best choice - basically it's like the 45mm on steroids but you pay a huge premium for it (beautiful lens but very overpriced in my opinion).

If you need more versatility and prefer zooms then the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 might also be a good choice.

You should get the Olympus 45/1.8, not because you will always use it at f/1.8, but because you get the option to use it at f/1.8 and you will sometimes want to use it at f/1.8.

Here's a picture of my daughter taken with a legacy 50/1.4 wide open on a .71 reducer, i.e. effectively a ~35/1.0. Her eyes are in focus and not much else.

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

I'd advise you to take a portrait photos with 2.8/12-40 that you own. These shots will help you to decide how much of DOF do you want.

Thanks everyone for the helpful responses.

75mm f/1.8 must be better choice but it's expensive for occasional use. I'd rather invest in 40-150mm f/2.8 lens since it could be more versatile and useful.

According to the above input, I understand it couldn't be any wrong to grab 45mm f/1.8.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Thanks again.

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Check out the Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95.

There's an excellent recent review, with real-world shots, by Tyson Robichaud:

http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/voigtlander-nokton-42-5mm-f0-95-review-dayum/

agaoo wrote:

I did research online but I didn't get right to decide. So I'd like to seek your kind advice here.

I'm considering Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 Macro Lens and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 Telephoto Prime Lens for my Oly EM1.

I own Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 PRO Standard Zoom Lens.

I want to take portrait photo with nice shallow depth of field and sharp IQ.

1. Is 12-40mm f2.8 PRO already good enough for it? In the other words, do I really need those lenses (which I'm considering now) for better IQ with nicer shallow depth of field?

2. If yes, which lens I should consider for it? Or any other lens?

Thank you.

As a relative new owner of a MFT system -the Olympus E-M5, I can say for sure that while there are arguments as to why the MFT is a viable option for many, it is not all that it is cut out to be.

One of these factors of course comes up in this post such as this one... mainly, the relative few choices of lenses for specific purposes, and while there is a significant growth in this direction and without question there are some useful and sharp lenses  available from Olympus and Panasonic, they are very expensive and still lacking in some features.

As an owner also of a Nikon D7100, I am spoilt for choices. With over 60,0000 million or more Nikon lenses, and millions more from independents, there is reason enough for me to stay with my Nikon system as my main camera. With this availability and choices , I do not have to spend a fortune to get a lens for a certain purpose as the used market has everything to offer for a fraction of the cost. One could argue that the main reason for MFT is its portability, but to be quite honest, I do not really see much difference in carrying an MFT with a legacy lens such as the Olympus 14-54mm or an Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 pro  over carrying a Nikon D7100 with a 50mm 1.8 or even a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 lens for example. My rant is not to dispel users from making choices in which ever direction they choose, but for me, it will be a very long time before I am comfortable to say that I will not make a complete switch to MFT, even though, without question, I do appreciate the difference in weight distribution compared to the heavier systems as I am in my 70's. Although I like the E-M5 for what it is, and I have no reservation in saying that it is in deed a very fine camera,  if you still think that it compares favorable with camera such a Nikons and Canons, then I disagree with you, and it will take some time before it will IMO