45 f1.8 vs 56 f1.4 vs 75 f1.8 for a twin lens do it all

Let's say you are going on a trip with 1 camera body and just 2 prime lens, you don't know what you will encounter, you may be shooting portrait, or landscape, or street, or something else, etc. One of your lens is a wide angle 17mm f1.8, which one of the three (45mm f1.8, 56mm f1.4, 75mm f1.8) will you choose as a second lens to make this combo work the best? In terms of both quality and usability. Thanks!

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

Let's say you are going on a trip with 1 camera body and just 2 prime lens, you don't know what you will encounter, you may be shooting portrait, or landscape, or street, or something else, etc. One of your lens is a wide angle 17mm f1.8, which one of the three (45mm f1.8, 56mm f1.4, 75mm f1.8) will you choose as a second lens to make this combo work the best? In terms of both quality and usability. Thanks!

-> 56mm/f1.4

Compared to the Oly 45mm its just a notch narrower and a little faster - > more separation, enough tele for many situations.

I find the 75mm for a two-lens setup too narrow, too much a step from 17mm.

Of course this comes down to your very personal style and preferences. 😊

Not quite the scenario outlined, but I recently attended a music festival where I needed to get my EM5ii to pass as a non-interchangeable lens camera. Did that via the 9mm bodycap lens, but that would have been useless for shooting the acts on stage, so smuggled one more lens in. That was the Sigma 56mm.

Definitely the best choice - better quality and slightly (handily) faster than the 45mm (which I own) and not so long as to overly compromise shooting close to the stages when I could (as the 75mm would have been, great lens though it is - I rented it for the same festival last year).

Soulfulized wrote:

Not quite the scenario outlined, but I recently attended a music festival where I needed to get my EM5ii to pass as a non-interchangeable lens camera. Did that via the 9mm bodycap lens,

One more reason to use MFT cameras   It is certainly much harder for FF to be that sneaky

but that would have been useless for shooting the acts on stage, so smuggled one more lens in. That was the Sigma 56mm.

Definitely the best choice - better quality and slightly (handily) faster than the 45mm (which I own) and not so long as to overly compromise shooting close to the stages when I could (as the 75mm would have been, great lens though it is - I rented it for the same festival last year).

56mm has minimal CA (especially against a 75mm lens)
Both are super sharp though

I voted Sigma 56 1.4, but then again, I'm biased as I'm absolutely IN LOVE with that lens

I owned the 75 1.8, and it's a great lens, but way too long for me so I sold it. And the O45 1.8 is very nice, I'll never part with it, as it represents the essence of m43, but it can't touch the Sigma for optical qualities (sharpness, contrast, lack of CA...).

I have done it with the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and Olympus 45mm f/1.8...

I have done it with the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and Olympus 75mm f/1.8...

And the 45mm f/1.8 is a better pairing because it isn't "too long" in some cases... But with the versions that I have, the 75mm f/1.8 was way sharper than my 45mm f/1.8 (of course, way sharper is relative and is in reality the difference between 50 and 50.5, so it is there, but it isn't in your face)

For a landscape like trip, or where you will see something far away, I'd be taking the 75mm... for other types, the 45mm.

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

Soulfulized wrote:

Not quite the scenario outlined, but I recently attended a music festival where I needed to get my EM5ii to pass as a non-interchangeable lens camera. Did that via the 9mm bodycap lens,

One more reason to use MFT cameras It is certainly much harder for FF to be that sneaky

Indeed so:-D

There are good arguments to be made for both the 45mm and the 56mm

But definitely not the 75mm

Harold

I have the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8.  No 56/1.4 (yet) but do a Sigma 60/2.8

For general use, 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 is not 'a bridge too far' to each other

I usually pair my 15/1.7 (no 17/1.8) with my 45/1.8 or 25/1.8 when traveling.

I reserve 75/1.8 (and 60/2.8) for street parades or indoor concerts/basketball where my wallet allows only cheaper seats or I have to be at the back of the crowd.  I only take these on car trips where I can leave them in the car when not in use.

addlightness wrote:

For general use, 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 is not 'a bridge too far' to each other

Same with me, these two make are very good and lightweight kit.

photofan1986 wrote:

I voted Sigma 56 1.4, but then again, I'm biased as I'm absolutely IN LOVE with that lens

I owned the 75 1.8, and it's a great lens, but way too long for me so I sold it. And the O45 1.8 is very nice, I'll never part with it, as it represents the essence of m43, but it can't touch the Sigma for optical qualities (sharpness, contrast, lack of CA...).

56 is not that huge in terms of size compare to the 45?

What I used for do most purposes was wider than 17mm (Ricoh GR: 13-14mm equiv.) and 2.8/60 macro.

2 bodies to avoid changing lenses - crucial when in company.

The 60 for triple use: short tele, macro and portrait.

What I missed sometimes was a UWA and more often a longer tele (birds and beasts), never ever a FL between 14 and 60mm. When I used the 12-40, I always found 40mm too short.

Peter

45 1/8

As the variables are too many i would go for the 45/1.8 as both longer FLs might limit too much the FOV.

In addition, 45 is just as good as 56 and 75.

YMMV if course
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade... And try to find somebody whose life has given them vodka, and have a party.

John Glover wrote:

addlightness wrote:

For general use, 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 is not 'a bridge too far' to each other

Same with me, these two make are very good and lightweight kit.

This is very Leicaesque.  When Leica cam out with the CL (Compact Leica) film camera they introduced it with two compact lenses, a 40mm f/2 and a 90mm f/4.  Your choice compares favorably. With the 2x crop factor the 17mm and 45mm are like 34mm and 90mm on full frame.  That was a good pair for travel then, and is a good pair now.

I have traveled with a 17mm f/2.8 and the manual 40mm Leica (Minolta) f/2 in Italy.  Worked out really well.

TEdolph

tedolf wrote:

John Glover wrote:

addlightness wrote:

For general use, 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 is not 'a bridge too far' to each other

Same with me, these two make are very good and lightweight kit.

This is very Leicaesque. When Leica cam out with the CL (Compact Leica) film camera they introduced it with two compact lenses, a 40mm f/2 and a 90mm f/4. Your choice compares favorably. With the 2x crop factor the 17mm and 45mm are like 34mm and 90mm on full frame. That was a good pair for travel then, and is a good pair now.

I have traveled with a 17mm f/2.8 and the manual 40mm Leica (Minolta) f/2 in Italy. Worked out really well.

TEdolph

Those were exactly my thoughts when I paired up those two lenses some years ago. I learned how to use an SLR on a Pentax Spotmatic with 28mm, 50mm and 135mm SMC primes. For a full prime kit with the EM5.2, I add the 14/2.5 and the 25/1.8. That makes me very Leicaeque (or Pentaxish) , with 28, 35, 50 and 90mm equivalents. And it is *still* a light kit compared to my old Pentax gear! 

Granted the 12-40/2.8 can cover those same focal lengths and give me a little more on the wide end, but sometimes I just enjoy using a more traditional 1950's rangefinder approach. It makes me slow down and enjoy the process of photography.

I  know that a majority of people think that a 35mm focal length is virtually the same as a 40mm for but in 30 years of photography I have never had that experience

when I am travelling (not shooting in the studio)I probably could  do 80% of my images with a 40mm

I never could say the same thing about the 35mm or the 50mm FOV

Harold

Great minds thinks alike. I like to travel light, so I only carry my

• 90% Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 and
• 10% Olympus 45mm f/1.8

for my last trip to Asia. Due to the scenery nature of traveling, I found myself using WIDE 15mm nearly 90% of the entire trip. There are very few moment when I think its worth-switching-lens to 45mm f/1.8 for a tighter head-shots, but when I do switch to 45mm f/1.8, I often found it Not Tight Enough, and backdrop not blurry enough for my liking. When I came back from the trip, I immediately sold the 45mm f/1.8, and is now evaluating between buying

• Sigma 60/2.8 vs
• Olympus 75/1.8

What I learned from my recent trip is that:

• what makes sense on paper (Olympus 45/1.8) may not make sense in real life
• Real Life has a way of forcing you to re-consider your own preference in swapping-lens, in telephoto-compression,  or in the "LOOK" that you prefer.

YMMV, but for me, I think a longer reach 60mm or 75mm would pair better to my PL 15mm f/1.7.