Olympus 45mm f1.2 worth it?

[Ozonation]

I picked up the EM1X - it's a great camera that handles superbly in hand. Naysayers don't know what they're talking about...

Anyways, I recently did a portrait session with it - turned out great. The lens I used the most was my 45mm f1.8. I did try out the 45mm f1.2 before in store, and compared the handling of the lens, bokeh, etc. While the f1.2 was obviously better, I decided that the extra cost wasn't worth the benefits.

I also have the 75mm f1.8 as well: lovely lens, but admittedly the reach is probably a little on the long side for portrait work.

Now, with the EM1X at hand, I strongly suspect the f1.2 will pair better with the larger camera for handling. Plus, Olympus has the trade-in bonus sale that was not running when I considered the f1.2 before. So, I can get it at a much better deal than previously.

The other option I was thinking about was the 12-100 f4 (also has the trade in bonus) except I'm not likely to be travelling anytime soon. I do have other travel gear options if needed.

Given what I already have (45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8), is the 45mm f1.2 still a worthwhile buy? Or am I better off getting the 12-100 f4 for all around photos?

 

[Jonas Palm]

I picked up the EM1X - it's a great camera that handles superbly in hand. Naysayers don't know what they're talking about...

Anyways, I recently did a portrait session with it - turned out great. The lens I used the most was my 45mm f1.8. I did try out the 45mm f1.2 before in store, and compared the handling of the lens, bokeh, etc. While the f1.2 was obviously better, I decided that the extra cost wasn't worth the benefits.

I also have the 75mm f1.8 as well: lovely lens, but admittedly the reach is probably a little on the long side for portrait work.

Now, with the EM1X at hand, I strongly suspect the f1.2 will pair better with the larger camera for handling. Plus, Olympus has the trade-in bonus sale that was not running when I considered the f1.2 before. So, I can get it at a much better deal than previously.

The other option I was thinking about was the 12-100 f4 (also has the trade in bonus) except I'm not likely to be travelling anytime soon. I do have other travel gear options if needed.

Given what I already have (45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8), is the 45mm f1.2 still a worthwhile buy? Or am I better off getting the 12-100 f4 for all around photos?

This is an impossible question.

That said, I have both the Olympus 45 f1.8 and the 75 f1.8, and they do an excellent job of shooting people. As you have experienced yourself.

So I wouldn’t recommend buying the 45 f1.2. Not due to any optical issue with it whatsoever because by all accounts it’s an excellent lens, but simply because you already have its primary application field well covered.

By the way, I really like the 75mm. A lot of the time the extra working distance is a benefit, not a drawback. These days, the 45mm only gets used indoors at events.

 

[dgnelson]

I picked up the EM1X - it's a great camera that handles superbly in hand. Naysayers don't know what they're talking about...

Anyways, I recently did a portrait session with it - turned out great. The lens I used the most was my 45mm f1.8. I did try out the 45mm f1.2 before in store, and compared the handling of the lens, bokeh, etc. While the f1.2 was obviously better, I decided that the extra cost wasn't worth the benefits.

I also have the 75mm f1.8 as well: lovely lens, but admittedly the reach is probably a little on the long side for portrait work.

Now, with the EM1X at hand, I strongly suspect the f1.2 will pair better with the larger camera for handling. Plus, Olympus has the trade-in bonus sale that was not running when I considered the f1.2 before. So, I can get it at a much better deal than previously.

The other option I was thinking about was the 12-100 f4 (also has the trade in bonus) except I'm not likely to be travelling anytime soon. I do have other travel gear options if needed.

Given what I already have (45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8), is the 45mm f1.2 still a worthwhile buy? Or am I better off getting the 12-100 f4 for all around photos?

From what I've read, the 1.8 is sharp wide open whilst the 1.2 needs to be stopped down to 1.8. Both lenses are equally sharp at 1.8. The 1.8 is a fantastic lens; sharp, small and inexpensive. I don't think you're missing that much with the 1.8, especially since you have the 75mm as well.

Dan

 

[john isaacs]

I picked up the EM1X - it's a great camera that handles superbly in hand. Naysayers don't know what they're talking about...

Anyways, I recently did a portrait session with it - turned out great. The lens I used the most was my 45mm f1.8. I did try out the 45mm f1.2 before in store, and compared the handling of the lens, bokeh, etc. While the f1.2 was obviously better, I decided that the extra cost wasn't worth the benefits.

I also have the 75mm f1.8 as well: lovely lens, but admittedly the reach is probably a little on the long side for portrait work.

Now, with the EM1X at hand, I strongly suspect the f1.2 will pair better with the larger camera for handling. Plus, Olympus has the trade-in bonus sale that was not running when I considered the f1.2 before. So, I can get it at a much better deal than previously.

The other option I was thinking about was the 12-100 f4 (also has the trade in bonus) except I'm not likely to be travelling anytime soon. I do have other travel gear options if needed.

Given what I already have (45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8), is the 45mm f1.2 still a worthwhile buy? Or am I better off getting the 12-100 f4 for all around photos?

The 45mm f/1.8 lens proves that Olympus doesn't have any real photographers working in it's design group. Otherwise, they would not have made that lens with the 37mm filter size (versus the 46mm filter size on the 12, 17, 25, 60). Even 46mm is a bad choice; 52mm would have matched many of their zoom lenses.

With the pro lenses, Olympus jumped up to 62mm. Matching the 12-40 f/2.8. Great.

And they added the clutch to all the pro lenses.

For video, the pro lenses are a much better choice because of the filter size and clutch.

 

[Joe Lynch]

I've got the 45 1.2 and find I only use it indoors in low light (gymnastics, for example). Otherwise I always go to the 40-150 f2.8 zoom. Everything is a compromise. If I already had the 1.8, no, I wouldn't get the 1.2. Same with the 17 f1.2. I got it because I didn't have any other wide primes. I don't travel with them, however.

Joe

 

[Jorginho]

That lens is very good. Excellent. Weathersealed too.

Only downsides for this work:
-FL
- Focusses less fast (but is it too slow).

The reviews are raving. But at 429 euro and as a stormchaser and nighttime photographer (aurora and NLCs) the speed and the FL with such a price is a no brainer.

What price can you get the 45 mm f1.2 for?

 

[Eric Gerards]

Until half a week ago I owned the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro lens. Although it felt like a real pro grade lens, I was not quite satisfied about the sharpness at f/1.2. Only at f/1.6 and above it started to show excellent sharpness. The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.6 (or higher) is very much noticeable.

I read and watched several reviews about the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 lens and all of them were very positive about this alternative MFT portrait lens, so I decided to give it a try. I haven't had any regrets whatsoever. The Sigma already shows perfectly sharp images right from f/1.4. It also has weather sealing and it's much cheaper! Of course you loose the focus clutch and the extra on-lens function button.

So to answer your question: no, for me it's not worth it, since there's a much cheaper and in my opinion better alternative.

 

[Peter 1745]

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals compared all the m43 45mm lenses last year.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/

The f/1.8 lenses performed very well optically so upgrading to a f/1.2 is all about whether you need the extra aperture or not.

If you need the extra aperture and are happy with manual focus the Voigtlander f/0.95 may be worth considering.

 

[Ozonation]

That lens is very good. Excellent. Weathersealed too.

Only downsides for this work:
-FL
- Focusses less fast (but is it too slow).

The reviews are raving. But at 429 euro and as a stormchaser and nighttime photographer (aurora and NLCs) the speed and the FL with such a price is a no brainer.

What price can you get the 45 mm f1.2 for?

I can get it for about $1000 Cdn, which is at least $300 less than usual.

 

[Ozonation]

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals compared all the m43 45mm lenses last year.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/

The f/1.8 lenses performed very well optically so upgrading to a f/1.2 is all about whether you need the extra aperture or not.

Do I need the extra aperture? Meh... maybe... sort of? Would be nice... maybe I'm being sucked into the whole "pro feeling lens in my hand" mantra.

I should disclose that I also shoot Fuji and Nikon: each system has their place in my arsenal. I was thinking of the Olympus 45mm f1.2 because the equivalent Fuji (56mm f1.2) feels great in hand.

 

[Ozonation]

Until half a week ago I owned the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro lens. Although it felt like a real pro grade lens, I was not quite satisfied about the sharpness at f/1.2. Only at f/1.6 and above it started to show excellent sharpness. The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.6 (or higher) is very much noticeable.

I read and watched several reviews about the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 lens and all of them were very positive about this alternative MFT portrait lens, so I decided to give it a try. I haven't had any regrets whatsoever. The Sigma already shows perfectly sharp images right from f/1.4. It also has weather sealing and it's much cheaper! Of course you loose the focus clutch and the extra on-lens function button.

So to answer your question: no, for me it's not worth it, since there's a much cheaper and in my opinion better alternative.

Hmmm... never thought about the Sigma.

 

[LightCameraAction]

If I threw down the money for the EMX, I would want the pro lenses to match. The size fits the camera. The weather resistance completes the camera. The build quality is consistent with the camera. The iq sounds like it is very good.

 

[bofo777]

I picked up the EM1X - it's a great camera that handles superbly in hand. Naysayers don't know what they're talking about...

Anyways, I recently did a portrait session with it - turned out great. The lens I used the most was my 45mm f1.8. I did try out the 45mm f1.2 before in store, and compared the handling of the lens, bokeh, etc. While the f1.2 was obviously better, I decided that the extra cost wasn't worth the benefits.

I also have the 75mm f1.8 as well: lovely lens, but admittedly the reach is probably a little on the long side for portrait work.

Now, with the EM1X at hand, I strongly suspect the f1.2 will pair better with the larger camera for handling. Plus, Olympus has the trade-in bonus sale that was not running when I considered the f1.2 before. So, I can get it at a much better deal than previously.

The other option I was thinking about was the 12-100 f4 (also has the trade in bonus) except I'm not likely to be travelling anytime soon. I do have other travel gear options if needed.

Given what I already have (45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8), is the 45mm f1.2 still a worthwhile buy? Or am I better off getting the 12-100 f4 for all around photos?

It depends what your appetite is in your photos..if seperation and bokeh is a must the 1.2 lenses are the best M4/3rd can offer but in general photography there is no better lens for range shapness and stability then the12-100..and at 100 you can also get some decent bokeh.


Leica 42.5 very similar to the Oly 45

 

[Skeeterbytes]

From what I've read, the 1.8 is sharp wide open whilst the 1.2 needs to be stopped down to 1.8. Both lenses are equally sharp at 1.8. The 1.8 is a fantastic lens; sharp, small and inexpensive. I don't think you're missing that much with the 1.8, especially since you have the 75mm as well.

Dan

The 1.2 is sharpest between f:2 and 2.8 while the 1.8 is sharpest from f:4 to 5.6 and the 1.2 is sharper where they overlap.

That aside IMHO the compelling reasons to prefer the 1.2 would be for the extra light gathering and its unique look, as it renders differently from the 1.8. They share the same minimum focus distance and only the 1.2 has snap MF and the l-fn button.

In sum, hard to argue swapping the 1.8 for the 1.2 unless you really want the dreamy look, which to my eye is quite nice.

Having the 45/1.8 already, plus multiple zooms crossing the FL, I don't have a 1.2 in my budget.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[G1Houston]

This to me is the best reasonably priced 45mm lens for shooting people because how it handles skin tone and texture. The skin imperfections can be amplified by the 45/1.8. When the face is somehow in shadow (back-lighted), it can look "dirty" and "muddy" with the 45/1.8 that is not pleasant to look at. The 45/1.2 is way too pricey, unless you often shoot with available light that is on the low side. Studio or indoor formal portrait should be handled with a flash so f2.8 is plenty wide for that and the deeper DOF helps to keep your subject in focus.

 

[Joshsx]

I like it, still can't justify it over my 42.5 1.7 pana. But try the Sigma 54mm 1.4.

 

[Lichtspiel]

It is worth it if you want

1) The faster aperture

2) The better subject separation/thin DOF

3) The better rendering/bokeh

4) Weather proof

5) Better built/look more professional/show-off ;-)

Otherwise, the 45/1.8 does really well.

 

[addlightness]

I have been down this path, several times.

17/1.2 over my 15/1.7?

25/1.2 over my 25/1.8?

45/1.2 over my 45/1.8?

I love prime lenses and own more f1.8/1.7 primes than I should. None of which are WR. Neither were my m43 bodies, until I bought my EM5.ii last December that open up a can of GAS on WR lenses.

I was going back and forth on 25/1.2 and 45/1.2 for the EM5.ii but eventually gave up on those for a WR 14-150 superzoom. The f1.2 trio just doesn't balance well on the EM5.ii and I'm not interested in anything bigger or heavier than my PEN-F/EM5.ii. FWIW, a 56/1.4 is on my list as I have good experience with my Sigma 30/1.4 as well as other Sigma lenses when I was shooting Nikon dSLR.

Your case with EM1x is different. Like one poster said, EM1x + f1.2 pro do make better pairing IMO.

 

[Eric Gerards]

If I threw down the money for the EMX, I would want the pro lenses to match. The size fits the camera. The weather resistance completes the camera. The build quality is consistent with the camera. The iq sounds like it is very good.

I can completely follow your reasoning. I am more than satisfied with my 12-40mm and 40-150mm pro lenses: superb build quality and delivering sharp images even wide open. The 45mm pro lens, however, is an exception to that. As described in my previous post, wide open it's really significantly less sharp than the Sigma lens. And as all my camera gear is eventually a collection of tools that suits the need / desire to produce the best images that I can possibly get out of it, I consider image quality to be more important than rock solid build quality. Although I should add to that, that the build quality of the Sigma lens is more than adequate for me.

 

[daleeight]

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals compared all the m43 45mm lenses last year.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/

The f/1.8 lenses performed very well optically so upgrading to a f/1.2 is all about whether you need the extra aperture or not.

Do I need the extra aperture? Meh... maybe... sort of? Would be nice... maybe I'm being sucked into the whole "pro feeling lens in my hand" mantra.

I should disclose that I also shoot Fuji and Nikon: each system has their place in my arsenal. I was thinking of the Olympus 45mm f1.2 because the equivalent Fuji (56mm f1.2) feels great in hand.

Do you have a Fuji with the Fuji 56mm f/1.2? If so, then problem solved. Use it.