Olympus 75/1.8 - great for event work!

Just shot a week-long conference with my new Olympus 75/1.8 on a GX8, and boy do I love this lens. It is sharp, sharp, sharp, and the shallow DoF really picks out a speaker on a stage. It also makes MFT more competitive with larger formats in terms of IQ in low light, thanks to the unique combination of tele focal length and a large aperture. Most 35mm-format pro shooters would be using a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 to get this focal length, and the Oly gathers just 2/3 of a stop less light than the f2.8 or 1/3 of a stop more light than the f4 zoom. Likewise, to get a similar shot, I can use my a7RII and 85/1.8 and shoot in APS crop mode for 135mm EFL and 18MP, which gives a theoretical 1-stop noise advantage. But, I did this at the conference, and in actual use it's hard to see much difference between the results from these two systems when shooting at ISO 3200-6400.

Another lens that narrows the gap between MFT and 35mm format in low light is Oly's 40-150/2.8 (which I don't own). In the 100-150mm (200-300mm EFL) range, 35mm-format systems have few bright lenses, and a 70-300mm zoom offers no light gathering advantage at all with f5.6 at the long end. For me, the 75/1.8 is long enough. But, if I wanted more reach, I'd strongly consider replacing my 35-100/2.8 with a 40-150/2.8 rather than adding a 70-300 for my Sony. In fact, the 75/1.8 is making me reconsider whether I really need the Sony at all and whether I wouldn't be better off with a 42.5/1.2 and 17/1.2 instead. I find the GX8 a much easier camera to use than the overly-complicated a7RII. There are things I like about the Sony (e.g. minimum shutter with auto ISO and EC with auto ISO in manual mode), though, so I'm on the fence.

Chris renato wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Just shot a week-long conference with my new Olympus 75/1.8 on a GX8, and boy do I love this lens. It is sharp, sharp, sharp, and the shallow DoF really picks out a speaker on a stage. It also makes MFT more competitive with larger formats in terms of IQ in low light, thanks to the unique combination of tele focal length and a large aperture. Most 35mm-format pro shooters would be using a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 to get this focal length, and the Oly gathers just 2/3 of a stop less light than the f2.8 or 1/3 of a stop more light than the f4 zoom. Likewise, to get a similar shot, I can use my a7RII and 85/1.8 and shoot in APS crop mode for 135mm EFL and 18MP, which gives a theoretical 1-stop noise advantage. But, I did this at the conference, and in actual use it's hard to see much difference between the results from these two systems when shooting at ISO 3200-6400.

Another lens that narrows the gap between MFT and 35mm format in low light is Oly's 40-150/2.8 (which I don't own). In the 100-150mm (200-300mm EFL) range, 35mm-format systems have few bright lenses, and a 70-300mm zoom offers no light gathering advantage at all with f5.6 at the long end. For me, the 75/1.8 is long enough. But, if I wanted more reach, I'd strongly consider replacing my 35-100/2.8 with a 40-150/2.8 rather than adding a 70-300 for my Sony. In fact, the 75/1.8 is making me reconsider whether I really need the Sony at all and whether I wouldn't be better off with a 42.5/1.2 and 17/1.2 instead. I find the GX8 a much easier camera to use than the overly-complicated a7RII. There are things I like about the Sony (e.g. minimum shutter with auto ISO and EC with auto ISO in manual mode), though, so I'm on the fence.

Better you have pictures post here to see what you got together

I don't understand. Are you making a request?

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Just shot a week-long conference with my new Olympus 75/1.8 on a GX8, and boy do I love this lens. It is sharp, sharp, sharp, and the shallow DoF really picks out a speaker on a stage. It also makes MFT more competitive with larger formats in terms of IQ in low light, thanks to the unique combination of tele focal length and a large aperture. Most 35mm-format pro shooters would be using a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 to get this focal length, and the Oly gathers just 2/3 of a stop less light than the f2.8 or 1/3 of a stop more light than the f4 zoom. Likewise, to get a similar shot, I can use my a7RII and 85/1.8 and shoot in APS crop mode for 135mm EFL and 18MP, which gives a theoretical 1-stop noise advantage. But, I did this at the conference, and in actual use it's hard to see much difference between the results from these two systems when shooting at ISO 3200-6400.

Another lens that narrows the gap between MFT and 35mm format in low light is Oly's 40-150/2.8 (which I don't own). In the 100-150mm (200-300mm EFL) range, 35mm-format systems have few bright lenses, and a 70-300mm zoom offers no light gathering advantage at all with f5.6 at the long end. For me, the 75/1.8 is long enough. But, if I wanted more reach, I'd strongly consider replacing my 35-100/2.8 with a 40-150/2.8 rather than adding a 70-300 for my Sony. In fact, the 75/1.8 is making me reconsider whether I really need the Sony at all and whether I wouldn't be better off with a 42.5/1.2 and 17/1.2 instead. I find the GX8 a much easier camera to use than the overly-complicated a7RII. There are things I like about the Sony (e.g. minimum shutter with auto ISO and EC with auto ISO in manual mode), though, so I'm on the fence.

I came to the same conclusion about my D4/70-200 vs E-M1.1/75 & 40-150

Cannot wait for the E-M1X, I will be the 1st in line!

Very interesting thread, if only because I'm going to ask me the same questions one of these days

What about the Sony 70-200 f2.8 , with the 1.4 for extra reach ? I know it's like around 3000 bucks altogether, but then if you add the 42.5 f1.2 and 40-150 f2.8 to your 75 ...

Jacques Cornell wrote:

There are things I like about the Sony (e.g. minimum shutter with auto ISO and EC with auto ISO in manual mode), though, so I'm on the fence.

I think it's a real shame that Panasonic haven't added those features to the GX8 through a firmware update, especially considering its EC dial.

You can get them if you switch to the GX9, but of course that's a downgrade from the GX8 in some other ways.

108 wrote:

Very interesting thread, if only because I'm going to ask me the same questions one of these days

What about the Sony 70-200 f2.8 , with the 1.4 for extra reach ?

Ah yes, I forgot about the TC. That would theoretically deliver 1 stop more light. Is it worth it? Not for me at this point. 150mm EFL seems long enough for most of my work.

I know it's like around 3000 bucks altogether, but then if you add the 42.5 f1.2 and 40-150 f2.8 to your 75 ...

Yeah, no matter what, I'm looking at a major investment. That's why I opted for the Sony with 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 as a kind of extended trial. Also, to be fair, the Sony with Sigma 135/1.8 would raise the IQ bar one more step relative to the Oly 75. But, it would also raise the size, weight and cost bar.

I'm just starting to process the 9k images from my week-long conference job. As I work through them, I'll be looking to see how much of a real-world IQ benefit the a7RII delivered and considering whether to stick with a mixed PanOly + Sony kit, go back to just PanOly and add some premium lenses, or switch mostly to Sony. Right now, though, I'm pleased with the major low-light tele IQ upgrade over my 35-100/2.8 that the Oly 75 has provided at minimal cost.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Just shot a week-long conference with my new Olympus 75/1.8 on a GX8, and boy do I love this lens. It is sharp, sharp, sharp, and the shallow DoF really picks out a speaker on a stage. It also makes MFT more competitive with larger formats in terms of IQ in low light, thanks to the unique combination of tele focal length and a large aperture. Most 35mm-format pro shooters would be using a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 to get this focal length, and the Oly gathers just 2/3 of a stop less light than the f2.8 or 1/3 of a stop more light than the f4 zoom. Likewise, to get a similar shot, I can use my a7RII and 85/1.8 and shoot in APS crop mode for 135mm EFL and 18MP, which gives a theoretical 1-stop noise advantage. But, I did this at the conference, and in actual use it's hard to see much difference between the results from these two systems when shooting at ISO 3200-6400.

Another lens that narrows the gap between MFT and 35mm format in low light is Oly's 40-150/2.8 (which I don't own). In the 100-150mm (200-300mm EFL) range, 35mm-format systems have few bright lenses, and a 70-300mm zoom offers no light gathering advantage at all with f5.6 at the long end. For me, the 75/1.8 is long enough. But, if I wanted more reach, I'd strongly consider replacing my 35-100/2.8 with a 40-150/2.8 rather than adding a 70-300 for my Sony. In fact, the 75/1.8 is making me reconsider whether I really need the Sony at all and whether I wouldn't be better off with a 42.5/1.2 and 17/1.2 instead. I find the GX8 a much easier camera to use than the overly-complicated a7RII. There are things I like about the Sony (e.g. minimum shutter with auto ISO and EC with auto ISO in manual mode), though, so I'm on the fence.

Because you are even comparing a M4/3 system to a full frame system and tilting towards the smaller sensor tells how far OLY -PAN technology has come..... By the way the 1.2 Oly and Panasonic lenses are Superb...The only draw backs of course are more noise and not quite enough bokeh in portraits esp at farther distances compared to FF.....BUT there is always the revolutionary (cross our fingers) EM1X coming soon....

bofo777 wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Just shot a week-long conference with my new Olympus 75/1.8 on a GX8, and boy do I love this lens. It is sharp, sharp, sharp, and the shallow DoF really picks out a speaker on a stage. It also makes MFT more competitive with larger formats in terms of IQ in low light, thanks to the unique combination of tele focal length and a large aperture. Most 35mm-format pro shooters would be using a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 to get this focal length, and the Oly gathers just 2/3 of a stop less light than the f2.8 or 1/3 of a stop more light than the f4 zoom. Likewise, to get a similar shot, I can use my a7RII and 85/1.8 and shoot in APS crop mode for 135mm EFL and 18MP, which gives a theoretical 1-stop noise advantage. But, I did this at the conference, and in actual use it's hard to see much difference between the results from these two systems when shooting at ISO 3200-6400.

Another lens that narrows the gap between MFT and 35mm format in low light is Oly's 40-150/2.8 (which I don't own). In the 100-150mm (200-300mm EFL) range, 35mm-format systems have few bright lenses, and a 70-300mm zoom offers no light gathering advantage at all with f5.6 at the long end. For me, the 75/1.8 is long enough. But, if I wanted more reach, I'd strongly consider replacing my 35-100/2.8 with a 40-150/2.8 rather than adding a 70-300 for my Sony. In fact, the 75/1.8 is making me reconsider whether I really need the Sony at all and whether I wouldn't be better off with a 42.5/1.2 and 17/1.2 instead. I find the GX8 a much easier camera to use than the overly-complicated a7RII. There are things I like about the Sony (e.g. minimum shutter with auto ISO and EC with auto ISO in manual mode), though, so I'm on the fence.

Because you are even comparing a M4/3 system to a full frame system and tilting towards the smaller sensor

I'm not tilting toward the smaller sensor, but I find the GX8 an easier camera to use, particularly with regard to AF settings and controls. This is why I'm paying close attention to Panasonic's forthcoming L-mount S1/S1R lineup. I don't know whether the MkIII Sonys have become easier to use or whether the AF performance has simply become speedier. I've got some research to do on this. Speed is not the issue for me, as the reputedly "slow" a7RII proved fast enough for my event work. I'll be posting more comparing my experience with the GX8 vs. a7RII after I finish processing this job and can spend some time examining results from both.

My point in the OP was simply to observe that the Oly 75/1.8 has given me a notable advantage over my previous tele workhorse, Panasonic's 35-100/2.8. The extra 1-1/3 stops of light gathering really made a bigger difference than I expected, and I'm delighted with the IQ I got this year compared to the same job in previous years.

OT now, but one other observation I made this year is that it pays to push ISO and accept the consequences rather than drag the shutter and get motion blur, as I've tended to do. Previously, I limited ISO to 3200 and wound up with marginal shutter speeds. Looking over last year's photos, I concluded that the softness was not due to resolution loss at high ISO, but due to motion blur (IS notwithstanding). This year, I kept shutter speeds at 1/(2x focal length), let ISO float up to 6400, and leaned toward brighter exposures. The results are much better. Even an old dog can learn new tricks.

tells how far OLY -PAN technology has come..... By the way the 1.2 Oly and Panasonic lenses are Superb...The only draw backs of course are more noise and not quite enough bokeh

DoF is plenty for my purposes. I haven't yet had a corporate headshot client who wanted only three eyelashes in focus.

As for noise, it's a non-issue for me. DxO PhotoLab 2's PRIME noise reduction does an amazing job of removing noise. My issue with ISO 3200+ with MFT is the loss of detail from the sensor, not from NR. At ISO 6400 there's a major drop-off in resolution. This is why I bought the Sony. But, I'm trying to be realistic about my clients' needs. Most of my work goes online at maybe 1200px wide. Is anyone going to see a difference at that size? Probably not if I apply NR and sharpen appropriately. The perfectionist in me wants the Sony's 42MP and clean ISO 6400. But, the pragmatist in me is wondering if it makes a practical difference for my business.

in portraits esp at farther distances compared to FF.....BUT there is always the revolutionary (cross our fingers) EM1X coming soon....

I don't expect the EM1X to be better in ways that matter to me. Like I said, speed is not the issue for me. And, until we get an organic-film sensor from Panasonic & Fuji, I don't expect major improvements in low-light image quality from MFT. The solution on that front will continue to be brighter lenses.