The best mft 25mm, but big and heavy.

Jan and his Camera

Active member
Messages
76
Reaction score
103
Location
DE
My review of the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 25mm 1:1.2 PRO, the first lens in Olympus new F/1.2 Pro lineup. I tested the Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 regarding sharpness, flares, bokeh, and CAs.

All images I am referring to are available at my blog.

Design, Build Quality and Features

Regarding design, build quality and features the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 25mm 1:1.2 PRO is similar to the other Olympus Pro lenses. The build quality is very good as the lens barrel is made of metal. The lens hood is made of plastic but is high quality regardless.

The lens is weather resistant (against dust, rain, and frost). It also features a L-FN button and Olympus manual focus clutch, which provides real manual focus with a depth of field scale and hard stops. The latter is extremely useful for shooting video and close-up images.

However, the Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 does not feature image stabilization or an aperture ring (like some Panasonic lenses).

With a size of 2.76 x 3.43" (70 x 87 mm) and a weight of 14.46 oz (410 g) it is pretty big and heavy for a Micro Four Thirds Prime. It is a bit longer but slightly thinner than the Panasonic Leica 42.5mm 1:1.2. However, the Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 is significantly bigger and heavier than the Sony FE 55mm F/1.8.

DOF and Bokeh of the Olympus M.ZUIKO 25mm 1:1.2 PRO

The difference between F/1.2 and F/1.8 (the maximum aperture of most Olympus primes) is clearly visible.

The transition between sharp and blurred parts of the image are smooth and pleasant. The rating of bokeh quality is something very subjective, but in my opinion, it is safe to say, that the bokeh of the Olympus M.ZUIKO 25mm 1:1.2 PRO is very pleasing.

Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 Pro and CAs

Neither the jpg nor the raw-files of the Olympus M.ZUIKO 25mm 1:1.2 PRO show any lateral aberrations. If this is aided by the camera software, the correction is also applied to the raw files.

Longitudinal aberrations, which appear at the transition between sharp and blurred parts of the image, are also well controlled. All fast lenses suffer from this problem to a degree, but the Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 only exhibits them slightly even in extreme situations. This is a major improvement compared to the Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm 1:1.8.

Sharpness of the Olympus M.ZUIKO 25mm 1:1.2 PRO

The Olympus M.ZUIKO 25mm 1:1.2 PRO is a very sharp lens. The center sharpness is already very good at F/1.2 and stepped down it is an extremely sharp lens. Here is a 100% crop from an out-of-camera jpg:

The image borders are a little soft at F/1.2, but considering we are talking about F/1.2 they are very good. They are certainly useable in all situations. Stepped down the image borders are also very sharp.

I posted comparison images with the Olympus M.Zuiko 12-40mm 1:2.8 here .

Olympus 25mm F/1.2 in low light

As it is already sharp at F/1.2 is well suited for low light photography. The biggest challenge is managing the thin depth of field at F/1.2.

Close focus distance of the Olympus 25mm Pro

With a close focus distance of 11.81" (30 cm) from the sensor and a maximum magnification of 0.11x, the Olympus 25mm Pro certainly isn’t a macro lens. However, casual close-up shots are possible and at F/1.2 the sharp area is very thin.

Flares of the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 25mm 1:1.2 PRO

If there is one area one might criticize the Olympus M.ZUIKO 25mm 1:1.2 PRO it is its behavior against bright light. If the sun is in the frame flares are very likely. Here is an extreme example:

At F/1.2 there is a loss of contrast a slight green and purple coloring. At F/2 the flares get a little more defined. At F/5.6 the contrast improves, but the flares are clearly visible.

In artificial light it is harder, but also possible to catch flares.

The resistance of the Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 PRO is by no means bad. For example, the Mitakon 25mm F/0.95 produces a completely different level of flares.

My conclusion about the Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 Pro

There is no doubt, that the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 25mm 1:1.2 PRO is the best 25mm lens for the Micro Four Thirds system. Maybe it is even the best Micro Four Thirds lens overall. This certainly justifies the high price tag of 1200$ / 1100£. In my opinion, the weight and size of the lens is a bigger problem, as the whole idea of Micro Four Thirds is compact and lightweight equipment. However, everyone has to decide for himself/herself if this is a problem. The Olympus 25mm 1:1.2 Pro is certainly an amazing lens. And for those who are not willing or able spend this amount of money, there is the Panasonic 25mm F/1.7, which is unbeatable value for money.
 
Nice review and summary. I think if someone has the 25mm F1.8, it may be worth looking at if they need the extra speed but for people with the PanLeica F1.4, I don't think it's as clear or even choosing between the 2. The 25mm F1.2 doesn't seem like it's worth double the F1.4 and it's physically bigger.

Someone recently did a technical comparison between the 2 and the F1.4 is a really nice lens. I wouldn't be surprised sales of the F1.4 go up with all these new comparisons.
 
Good review

bought a couple of weeks ago ... I greatly enjoy using this wonderful lens .. it is big compared to 1.8 but sometimes I'm not as concerned about weight ... Everything else makes up for it
 
Nice review and summary. I think if someone has the 25mm F1.8, it may be worth looking at if they need the extra speed but for people with the PanLeica F1.4, I don't think it's as clear or even choosing between the 2. The 25mm F1.2 doesn't seem like it's worth double the F1.4 and it's physically bigger.

Someone recently did a technical comparison between the 2 and the F1.4 is a really nice lens. I wouldn't be surprised sales of the F1.4 go up with all these new comparisons.
Well put...
 
for people with the PanLeica F1.4, I don't think it's as clear or even choosing between the 2. The 25mm F1.2 doesn't seem like it's worth double the F1.4 and it's physically bigger.
On the other hand, the PanLeica 25mm F/1,4 is very prone to chromatic aberration (well controlled with the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2).

I know, it can be corrected under post-processing.

But for certain types of pictures (stained-glass that have magenta or deep blue glass, for example), we have the chore to check carefully for parts of the image that could be accidentally transformed into grey when CA is removed.

So even for some owners of the PanLeica, the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2 could be attractive.
 
for people with the PanLeica F1.4, I don't think it's as clear or even choosing between the 2. The 25mm F1.2 doesn't seem like it's worth double the F1.4 and it's physically bigger.
On the other hand, the PanLeica 25mm F/1,4 is very prone to chromatic aberration (well controlled with the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2).
Is this on older m43 Olympus cameras which did not correct CA in software , looking at some of the reviews it does not seem to be much of an issue

http://www.lenstip.com/314.5-Lens_r...x_25_mm_f_1.4_ASPH._Chromatic_aberration.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_leica_dg_summilux_25mm_f14_asph_review/


If you look at uncorrected 25mm F/1.2 images there is a wee hint of CA there ,though very low for an F/1.2 lens



fe39305865814a69b64cb3862d6f6b67.jpg

I know, it can be corrected under post-processing.

But for certain types of pictures (stained-glass that have magenta or deep blue glass, for example), we have the chore to check carefully for parts of the image that could be accidentally transformed into grey when CA is removed.

So even for some owners of the PanLeica, the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2 could be attractive.
--
The rose of all the world is not for me. I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet—and breaks the heart.
:Hugh MacDiarmid
 
So even for some owners of the PanLeica, the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2 could be attractive.
It's attractive to me and I have the PanLeica F1.4 :)

I was very much tempted to sell the F1.4 to put towards the F1.2. Looking at the recent findings, it's not that the F1.2 is bad, it's that the F1.4 is really good for its age and really not that much slower.

Of course it's not weather sealed, doesn't have manual clutch, etc. At the end of the day, it's what those features are worth. If someone needs weather sealed, the PanLeica being free wouldn't matter much anyway.
 
Is this on older m43 Olympus cameras which did not correct CA in software , looking at some of the reviews it does not seem to be much of an issue
I could be totally wrong here but I think Panasonic bodies correct CA in software but Olympus bodies do not (?) for Panasonic lens. I also notice CA with my PanLeica F1.4 and I'm using an EM1. I had the Olympus 25mm F1.8 and did not notice as much CA so I'm sure the F1.2 would be similar.

Maybe someone that has both Olympus and Panasonic body can comment one way or another.
 
So even for some owners of the PanLeica, the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2 could be attractive.
It's attractive to me and I have the PanLeica F1.4 :)

I was very much tempted to sell the F1.4 to put towards the F1.2. Looking at the recent findings, it's not that the F1.2 is bad, it's that the F1.4 is really good for its age and really not that much slower.

Of course it's not weather sealed, doesn't have manual clutch, etc. At the end of the day, it's what those features are worth. If someone needs weather sealed, the PanLeica being free wouldn't matter much anyway.
just got the 1.2 to try out. I had the panny for a long time my initial impression is that overall this is just a very satisfying lens image quality wise. A lot better than the panny to me. I'm certain lots of 50mm shooters will be very happy with this.
 
Is this on older m43 Olympus cameras which did not correct CA in software , looking at some of the reviews it does not seem to be much of an issue
I could be totally wrong here but I think Panasonic bodies correct CA in software but Olympus bodies do not (?) for Panasonic lens. [...]

Maybe someone that has both Olympus and Panasonic body can comment one way or another.
This was only the case with older bodies. Newer bodies correct the CAs from both manufacturers. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56917632
 
For me m4/3 isn't about getting the most lightweight and compact camera out there. It's about having the most options available. Being able to go lightweight with the 1.8 primes or being able to go all out for performance with the 25 1.2 and the 42.5 1.2. Having a full range of options at say 25mm at 0.95, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, and 1.8 and similarly at around 42.5-45 at .95, 1.2, 1.7, and 1.8 means you can pick what suits you. So whenever anyone states that the larger lenses goes against what m4/3 stands for, it bothers me. The larger lenses represents choices. Want a native 50 equivalent in the Fuji world? You have a 1.4 or a 2. Want one in Sony? You have a 32 1.8 or a 35 1.8. Want a 85? Great you get to choose from a Fuji 56 1.2 or a... Fuji 56 1.2.
 
For me m4/3 isn't about getting the most lightweight and compact camera out there. It's about having the most options available. Being able to go lightweight with the 1.8 primes or being able to go all out for performance with the 25 1.2 and the 42.5 1.2. Having a full range of options at say 25mm at 0.95, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, and 1.8 and similarly at around 42.5-45 at .95, 1.2, 1.7, and 1.8 means you can pick what suits you. So whenever anyone states that the larger lenses goes against what m4/3 stands for, it bothers me. The larger lenses represents choices. Want a native 50 equivalent in the Fuji world? You have a 1.4 or a 2. Want one in Sony? You have a 32 1.8 or a 35 1.8. Want a 85? Great you get to choose from a Fuji 56 1.2 or a... Fuji 56 1.2.
That is it in a nutshell. Lens choice has always been the strong suit of m43. The others started to close the gaps so it is good that panasonic (with leica) and Olympus expand the range of choices. To me the 25mm f1.2 is too big and pricey. But others may want that extra bit of quality. Who am I to say they should not have that choice?
 
Up to the launch of the m.Zuiko 25 1.2, the PannyLeica Summilux 25 1.4 was from my point of view one of the three best µFT lenses - together with the nocticron 42.5 1.2 and the m.Zuiko 75 1.8 - and one of the very rare µFT lenses that are as well balanced as Oly's HG and SHG lenses for FT.

Yes, the m.Zuiko 25 1.2 arguably will be better in some ways but the PannyLeica served me well for years and never gave me reasons to be unhappy with its IQ. So, I just don't see any reason to switch to the m.Zuiko - just as I never purchased SHG lenses apart from the 150 2.0, in my FT days. Excellent is good enough for me.
 
I find it interesting that people who formerly talked about not really liking the Full Frame equivalent of 50mm are now talking about spending the cash to get a 1.2 instead of being happy with the 1.4 (which they do not use much anyway). One more way to spend money. Next we will go through the 'what bag for...' routine. Then the 'going on vacation which lenses should I take' and eventually back to the 'do not use the 25 much because it is too heavy and I do not like the focal length'.
 
Is this on older m43 Olympus cameras which did not correct CA in software , looking at some of the reviews it does not seem to be much of an issue
I could be totally wrong here but I think Panasonic bodies correct CA in software but Olympus bodies do not (?) for Panasonic lens. [...]

Maybe someone that has both Olympus and Panasonic body can comment one way or another.
This was only the case with older bodies. Newer bodies correct the CAs from both manufacturers. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56917632
 
Want a 85? Great you get to choose from a Fuji 56 1.2 or a... Fuji 56 1.2.
Yes but in the m4/3 world you have to spend almost twice as much to get an equivalent lens and that's still f1.2 on m4/3 instead of f1.2 on aps-c. This idea of choices is fine as long as the lenses you actually use are better than the alternatives. I'd prefer a system with 25 lenses and 5 that meet my needs 100% than 100 lenses where 3 meet my needs. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point btw just saying that I think the lenses you are actually going to use are more important than having five different 50mm equivalent lenses.
 
In my opinion, the weight and size of the lens is a bigger problem, as the whole idea of Micro Four Thirds is compact and lightweight equipment. However, everyone has to decide for himself/herself if this is a problem.
I'll suffer 😉

Great commentary. Indeed it is a fantastic lens!
 
as the whole idea of Micro Four Thirds is compact and lightweight equipment.
If you want to buy m4/3 primarily just because it's compact and lightweight then by all means do so but don't assume everyone else shares your priorities. Size and weight are considerations for every system but they aren't the "whole idea" for any system including m4/3.
 
Want a 85? Great you get to choose from a Fuji 56 1.2 or a... Fuji 56 1.2.
Yes but in the m4/3 world you have to spend almost twice as much to get an equivalent lens and that's still f1.2 on m4/3 instead of f1.2 on aps-c. This idea of choices is fine as long as the lenses you actually use are better than the alternatives. I'd prefer a system with 25 lenses and 5 that meet my needs 100% than 100 lenses where 3 meet my needs. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point btw just saying that I think the lenses you are actually going to use are more important than having five different 50mm equivalent lenses.
At regular prices it's $999 vs $1,199. Used/sale prices will lower the price of the Fuji obviously.

The law of averages to me show that the more lenses that are available, the higher chance I have to find one that fits my needs and budget. I don't have to get the Fuji 56 1.2 if I can't afford it, I could get a $200 one or the $1,200 one.

Having more options gives everyone more chance of finding something They need and almost helps the resale/used market.
 
25 mm f1.2....large and heavy, but fantastic
25 mm f1.4: msaller and lighter and good, typical Leica rendering
25mm f1.7 Panny: small, light cheap, reasonable IQ
25 mm f1.8 Oly: small, light and very good.

All these lenses are already very good (almost at their maximum performance) wide-open.
You want the system to be very light and small: no other system will get you this choice as mFT does.
You want it to be that at times. for instance when you travel...you can buy a cam + lenses to suite that. You can use the same cam with other lenses like 25 and 42,5 mm f1.2 elsewhere (studio, portraits).

Which other system offers you that choice in 25 mm, in 42,5-45 mm too and from 12-20 mm....
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top