Query : Olympus 75mm f/1.8 lens

[Michael Dbn]

Good Day

I hope DPReview will forgive me for re-posting one of their photos from their Fuji XT2 review, but I'm interested to know from those experienced photographers who have the 75mm f/1.8 if it is capable of substantially the same subject separation and blurred background as the Fuji used in the photo:

 

[mferencz]

It's capable of that and more.

 

[Tommi K1]

DOF is same across the system with same subject framing and aperture ratio.

F/1.8 is f/1.8 is f/1.8.

So you get same DOF between 17mm, 25mm, 45mm as with 75mm when all set to f/1.8 and frames subject same size. But the difference is that longer focal length crops field of view more and this way forces you to stay further and perspective is different that makes background larger than foreground.

So 75mm vs 56mm

And f/1.8 vs f/1.2

In the other is almost 2x longer and deeper DOF, so it would be nicer separation with 75mm.

To add.

56/1.2=47mm

75/1.8=42mm

So 56mm is shallower by depth of field but the background is larger with 75mm so it appears more blurred.

 

[Jim Salvas]

Divide 75 by 1.8 and 56 by 1.2. That gives you a rough idea of the relative subject isolation of each lens. Large numbers equal more subject isolation. The Fuji comes out with a slightly shallower DOF, almost literally by a nose.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Can't do APS conversions in my head, but I'd say the much greater magnification afforded by the 75 is going to make a meaningful comparison difficult. Distance from subject for a torso-height portrait will be greater and the background will appear much closer, but of course at f:1.8 subject separation will still be significant. In short, the look will be quite different, DOF differences aside.

The 75 and the 35-100/2.0 SHG are probably my favorites for indoor performances when I have the freedom to plop myself wherever I wish (i.e., don't need more reach). The Nocticron is probably the only other system lens I'd be interested in adding for such purposes.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Fygaren]

Loading…

howmuchblur.com

Here is a good comparison. I set the crop factor to 1.85 on the m43 lenses as thats the "crop factor" of the short side of the sensor (for similar framing in this case). Portrait orientation is where 4:3 shines.

The longer FL helps more if the background is furter away, but the fuji will give more blur at any distance. When we get the Oly 50mm f1.2, it will be pretty close

 

[raindance]

I had the 75 and while a superb lens it was difficult to achieve the quality of separation that I get from crop and FF. People will tell you the differences are minimal but that 3D look is much harder to obtain on sensors smaller than crop.

 

[doc1975111]

Good Day

I hope DPReview will forgive me for re-posting one of their photos from their Fuji XT2 review, but I'm interested to know from those experienced photographers who have the 75mm f/1.8 if it is capable of substantially the same subject separation and blurred background as the Fuji used in the photo:

I am by no means a professional, as this is purely a hobby for me. What I found to be most helpful to determine the types of photos that are capable by any given lens, is to visit Flickr (or similar sites), and view the collection of images in a group specific to that lens. It works for me

- Joey

 

[Tom Axford]

Good Day

I hope DPReview will forgive me for re-posting one of their photos from their Fuji XT2 review, but I'm interested to know from those experienced photographers who have the 75mm f/1.8 if it is capable of substantially the same subject separation and blurred background as the Fuji used in the photo:

I assume you mean to compare a 56mm f/1.2 lens on the Fuji XT2 (APS-C sensor) with the 75mm f/1.8 lens on Micro 4/3 cameras.

The crop factor between APS-C and Micro 4/3 is 1.33, so the 56mm f/1.2 lens on APS-C is equivalent (in field of view, depth of field and also background blur) with a Micro 4/3 lens of 56x1.33mm and f-number 1.2/1.33, i.e. 75mm f/0.9.

The 75/1.8 on MFT will give about twice as much depth of field and about half as much background blur as the 56/1.2 on APS-C.

 

[pocoloco]

I had the 75 and while a superb lens it was difficult to achieve the quality of separation that I get from crop and FF. People will tell you the differences are minimal but that 3D look is much harder to obtain on sensors smaller than crop.

Crop?

 

[Tom Axford]

The crop factor between APS-C and Micro 4/3 is 1.33, so the 56mm f/1.2 lens on APS-C is equivalent (in field of view, depth of field and also background blur) with a Micro 4/3 lens of 56x1.33mm and f-number 1.2/1.33, i.e. 75mm f/0.9.

Silly mistake, I should have written 56/1.33 instead of 56x1.33, which invalidates completely what I said!

 

[bluevellet]

Good Day

I hope DPReview will forgive me for re-posting one of their photos from their Fuji XT2 review, but I'm interested to know from those experienced photographers who have the 75mm f/1.8 if it is capable of substantially the same subject separation and blurred background as the Fuji used in the photo:

Low light with a moving subject at ISO 1000 and 1/125. I'm guessing DPR has a few blurry shots before that one was selected for the review. 1/125 is a bit slow.

With m43, IBIS can't help you much for exposure in those conditions. The Zuiko 75mm is a stop darker so you need to crank up the ISO to compensate and m43 is at a disadvantage there too. So roughly the same shot in DoF control, but with higher ISO image with more noise and less DR.

 

[beaverdale]

A few examples...

 

[Tom Axford]

Good Day

I hope DPReview will forgive me for re-posting one of their photos from their Fuji XT2 review, but I'm interested to know from those experienced photographers who have the 75mm f/1.8 if it is capable of substantially the same subject separation and blurred background as the Fuji used in the photo:

My earlier post made a simple arithmetical error.

Hopefully more correctly:

The 75mm lens on MFT is equivalent to a 75x1.33 = 100mm lens on APS-C, so gives a much reduced field of view compared to the 56mm lens. If you stand much further back from the subject to get the subject the same size in the image frame, then the background blur (of a sufficiently distant background) increases in proportion to the focal length (if the f-number remains the same). However the 56/1.2 lens has a smaller f-number.

If you combine the three effects (increasing the focal length, decreasing the f-number and changing the sensor size), the combined effect is that the background blur for the 75/1.8 on MFT is (100/56)x(1.2/1.8)/1.33 = 0.90 times the background blur for the 56/1.2 on APS-C. In other words, not much difference, but the 56mm lens has a slight edge (if my arithmetic is correct this time!).

 

[BigMacIain]

--
"If it's not fun, why do it?” - Jerry Greenfield

 

[greg57]

Yes and more, but on a narrower fov that corresponds to a much more intimate kind of portrait, unless you really are much further, which could could actually be unpractical in real situations.

--
Gregory Dziedzic
gregorydziedzic.com/photos

 

[Founder]

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5...f1.8-and-1.85x-42mm-f1.2-on-a-3m-wide-subject

Here is a good comparison. I set the crop factor to 1.85 on the m43 lenses as thats the "crop factor" of the short side of the sensor (for similar framing in this case). Portrait orientation is where 4:3 shines.

The longer FL helps more if the background is furter away, but the fuji will give more blur at any distance. When we get the Oly 50mm f1.2, it will be pretty close

Interesting, can you explain that a bit more?

 

[Tommi K1]

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5...f1.8-and-1.85x-42mm-f1.2-on-a-3m-wide-subject

Here is a good comparison. I set the crop factor to 1.85 on the m43 lenses as thats the "crop factor" of the short side of the sensor (for similar framing in this case). Portrait orientation is where 4:3 shines.

The longer FL helps more if the background is furter away, but the fuji will give more blur at any distance. When we get the Oly 50mm f1.2, it will be pretty close

Interesting, can you explain that a bit more?

DOF is not the mattering factor for pleasing portraits as is the magnified background by using narrow field of view.

Example look that video about that rarely used style (I started to use that over decade ago with a 4x5 camera) by difference between 85mm f/1.4 and 200mm f/3.2.

The 200mm f/3.2 has much deeper depth of field, but background is far more blurrier than 85mm f/1.4 with shallower depth of field.

Longer focal length allows better control of the background, just like in macro photography 180mm is much better than 50mm as you can radically alter the background by moving camera just a little, while shorter focal length requires more movement or doesn't even allow it at all.

This is why Olympus (Sigma) 75mm f/1.8 wins in portraiture the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 even when Fuji has just slightly shallower depth of field (42mm vs 46mm) as it is equal to 38mm 1.7 vs 75mm 1.8.

It is like shooting 40mm f/5 vs 75mm f/5.6 (or something) and difference is big for benefit of 75mm focal length.

 

[Prairie Pal]

It's capable of that and more.

That was going to be exactly what I said too. It's a lens in a class and a look of it's own. A master piece.

While some others in this thread jumped right into quoting conversion and equivalencies and f-stops and such... the bottom line is the output of this lens, which is reason of itself to drive someone to switch to M4/3!

--
Ivan

 

[Tommi K1]

Good Day

I hope DPReview will forgive me for re-posting one of their photos from their Fuji XT2 review, but I'm interested to know from those experienced photographers who have the 75mm f/1.8 if it is capable of substantially the same subject separation and blurred background as the Fuji used in the photo:

Low light with a moving subject at ISO 1000 and 1/125. I'm guessing DPR has a few blurry shots before that one was selected for the review. 1/125 is a bit slow.

With m43, IBIS can't help you much for exposure in those conditions.

It helps a lot.

IBIS stabilize the frame, but not the moving subject.

In a low light photo where scene is sharp but person is moving by the emotional expression like here in the singing person) then audience doesn't care that person ain't perfectly sharp.

But now lets take the same shutter speed without IBIS, that causing the whole frame is slightly out of focus, and the audience will notice it and likely doom the whole photo because it can't separate a moving subject from a moving camera.

That is a thing in rock photography where motion ain't enemy, noisiness ain't enemy. As rock photography is just opposite to fashion catwalk photography.

The performer is giving an performance, and photographer can use a slow shutter speed to deliver that performance with immersion of the time with a single frame.

Freezing the action so that person is always like statue doesn't always, if even most of the time work when there is motion/task in the play. As the motion is visible and it is just as important visual factor as is perspective.

In sports photography same can be used if the athlete pose does not deliver the expression of motion like example:

You can see that in the first it looks like a athlete is stretching, while in second athlete is giving all. Using a slower shutter speed the first one would turn to be totally different delivering the emotion of the motion regardless of different perspective and moment.

That same thing is very important in motorsports, where you need to often use slow shutter speed to keep the wheels rotating so that car doesn't look like it is parked in the road. And then comes the old trick to use even longer shutter speed and pan to create an immersion of motion.

In event photography flash with second curtain can be used to create very impressive photographs, first to blur the subject and then flash it to make possible to identify the person or moment.

And IBIS is helping a lot in most cases as it helps photographer to keep wanted area of the photograph stationary while separating the subject.

Just a very nice feature and function that helps to control time far better than shutter alone.