Problem with Olympus 45mm f1,8

[Orioto]

Hi, so i read every reviews of this one and i'm using it with my om-d em1 markii, and.. f1,8 and f2 are meant to be super sharp, but for me they are completely soft and weird (like they almost smear..), and it gets better at 2,2.

Should i return it ? Or are the reviews wrong ?

 

[Felice62]

Can you post some exemples with full exif data?

I mean the 45/1.8 is a no brainer. Certainly not the best lens of the bunch but no slouch either.

F

 

[Orioto]

Sure, i did that to try having a comparison, but all my f1,8 shots have soft focus basically outside.


F1,8


F2,2

Focusing on the open shirt here.

It's like there is a smear filter on it or some vaseline you know, colors are smearing on the f1,8.



I would expect this to be normal for the biggest opening, but i keep seeing reviews that says that lens is as sharp at f1,8 so i was wondering is it just mine.

 

[Terrible Photographer]

Sure, i did that to try having a comparison, but all my f1,8 shots have soft focus basically outside.


F1,8


F2,2

Focusing on the open shirt here.

It's like there is a smear filter on it or some vaseline you know, colors are smearing on the f1,8.

I would expect this to be normal for the biggest opening, but i keep seeing reviews that says that lens is as sharp at f1,8 so i was wondering is it just mine.

That's about what my 45 1.8 looked like when I had it. It's an OK lens, not amazing. Does what it needs to for not alot of money, I think I bought mine for $100 or $200, and for $200 I'd say this is pretty much what to expect.

You can also be alot more aggressive with the sharpening, and Higher ISO's like what you shot this at, also obliterate detail.

 

[Guy Parsons]

Hi, so i read every reviews of this one and i'm using it with my om-d em1 markii, and.. f1,8 and f2 are meant to be super sharp, but for me they are completely soft and weird (like they almost smear..), and it gets better at 2,2.

Should i return it ? Or are the reviews wrong ?

There are a few things to consider...

• It's a relatively cheap portrait lens and portrait lenses do not need to be super sharp.
• Shallow depth of field at wide open plus field curvature can lead to worse results at wide open. Precise focus and checked by either temporary 2x DTC view or even up to 14x view is always needed at wide open.
• In my experiments I did find f/4 best for faces to get head properly in focus, that is, get the correct depth of field for the face and head. Can't recall that I've ever used that lens wide open apart from the tests.
• That fits with the test seen at https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/45mm-f1.8-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/ where f/4 is definitely the best aperture.
• Limited close focus ability may lead to some issues.
• Using ISO 1600 is not a good idea to evaluate lenses.
• Raw file plus DxO Photolab5 would usually do better than the camera jpegs.

 

[Francis E]

Can you post some exemples with full exif data?

I mean the 45/1.8 is a no brainer. Certainly not the best lens of the bunch but no slouch either.

F

Which is 'the best lens of the bunch', please? The only other Zuiko prime I have is the 75/1.8.

 

[Terrible Photographer]

Can you post some exemples with full exif data?

I mean the 45/1.8 is a no brainer. Certainly not the best lens of the bunch but no slouch either.

F

Which is 'the best lens of the bunch', please? The only other Zuiko prime I have is the 75/1.8.

That 75 1.8 is as good as Micro 4/3rds gets.

 

[Francis E]

That 75 1.8 is as good as Micro 4/3rds gets.

Yes, I think it's outstanding. I was talked into the 45/1.8 by a friend and share the OP's reservations.

 

[Dprr]

I get sharp, detailed images at 45 f1.8 as in the one below



100% crop

Although it looks somewhat soft after uploading to DPR. On my 4K monitor it looks sharp.

 

[Harold66]

The Olympus 1.8/45mm is known to be soft in the corners at the widest apertures . The lumix 1.7/ 42.5 Mm is better in this regard

 

[ahaslett]

Ephotozine says it sharpens in the centre all the way to f5.6 and peaks at the edges at f8.

Maybe you are unlucky to have a copy with a big jump in sharpness at f2.

If you really want to understand the lens, control other factors by using a tripod, shooting a flat textured subject at your likely subject distance, shoot at base ISO, and use shutter timer and EFCS.

Shooting into a mown grass lawn at different distances will give you a sense of field curvature and sharpness across the focal surface.

Andrew

 

[Bassam Guy]

Sure, i did that to try having a comparison, but all my f1,8 shots have soft focus basically outside.

...

Focusing on the open shirt here.

...

It's like there is a smear filter on it or some vaseline you know, colors are smearing on the f1,8.

I would expect this to be normal for the biggest opening, but i keep seeing reviews that says that lens is as sharp at f1,8 so i was wondering is it just mine.

I had my 45 1.8 and a willing model nearby, so took a test shot. I haven't inspected this too much but this is at 1/250 w/kit flash and ISO 200. You probably have IBIS on but even 1/60 is too slow for tack sharp. IBIS is great but it is not perfect.

ISO 1600 won't help matters - unless all noise reduction & filter are off, they'll add some softness. Be careful getting too close. The 45 1.8's minimum focus is nearly a kilometer



Try again with better light, lower ISO, and faster shutter before judging

 

[OLY23]

Every system has limitations. I wouldn’t presume to expect billboard size prints from a micro 4/3@ 1600.

When doing portraits with this lens even at 1.8 I usually find it too sharp for female skin. Women don’t want to see pores and imperfections.

Suggest you have a bad copy or unrealistic expectations.

 

[Harold66]

Ephotozine says it sharpens in the centre all the way to f5.6 and peaks at the edges at f8.

this does not sound so believable :-|
Harold

 

[ahaslett]

Ephotozine says it sharpens in the centre all the way to f5.6 and peaks at the edges at f8.

this does not sound so believable :-|

Harold

Are you suggesting that I can’t read or that ephotozine got it wrong?

Copy variation can often be seen when comparing different reviews of the same lens. I’ve seen this with the CV 15/4.5 and Samyang 35/1.8, where I have weak copies that match up with some reviews and not others.

It did look like an unusual chart, maybe they dropped the lens before testing it. Alternatively, it’s a budget lens, so maybe there is copy variation and adequate but not exceptional performance.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Orioto]

Thx guys!

I guess it's normal, although i know obviously my test wasn't in ideal condition, what i wanted to show was the big difference between f2,2 and f1,8, that was my question

I'm perfectly happy with the general sharpness of the lens!

 

[Harold66]

Ephotozine says it sharpens in the centre all the way to f5.6 and peaks at the edges at f8.

this does not sound so believable :-|

Harold

Are you suggesting that I can’t read

Absolutely NOT

or that ephotozine got it wrong?

this is more likely :-D

As often mentioned in the reviews , diffraction hits most m43 lenses around F4 . Please try to find a m43 which peaks at F8 .

Maybe they meant this is the F stop where there is the least difference in IQ between center and corners ?

Copy variation can often be seen when comparing different reviews of the same lens.

True . I am not contesting that

Alternatively, it’s a budget lens, so maybe there is copy variation and adequate but not exceptional performance.

Yes, the Lumix 1.7/42.5mm is more homogenous and fares better in the corners at the two or three widest aperture

Harold

 

[PhotonBeam]

Sure, i did that to try having a comparison, but all my f1,8 shots have soft focus basically outside.


F1,8


F2,2

Focusing on the open shirt here.

It's like there is a smear filter on it or some vaseline you know, colors are smearing on the f1,8.

I would expect this to be normal for the biggest opening, but i keep seeing reviews that says that lens is as sharp at f1,8 so i was wondering is it just mine.

The 45mm f1.8 was one of the first Olympus lenses I got and I thought it was quite fantastic.

I bricked it during a firmware upgrade, sent it in for repair, and received a refurbished lens from Olympus (had to pay to the repair price).

I have never really gotten along with the replacement and feel that it is not as sharp at f1.8 as the prior copy. However, I have also never really done any formal tests. I suspect there is some copy variation.

--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wild_photons/

 

[ahaslett]

Ephotozine says it sharpens in the centre all the way to f5.6 and peaks at the edges at f8.

this does not sound so believable :-|

Harold

Are you suggesting that I can’t read

Absolutely NOT

or that ephotozine got it wrong?

this is more likely :-D

As often mentioned in the reviews , diffraction hits most m43 lenses around F4 . Please try to find a m43 which peaks at F8 .

Maybe they meant this is the F stop where there is the least difference in IQ between center and corners ?

Copy variation can often be seen when comparing different reviews of the same lens.

True . I am not contesting that

Alternatively, it’s a budget lens, so maybe there is copy variation and adequate but not exceptional performance.

Yes, the Lumix 1.7/42.5mm is more homogenous and fares better in the corners at the two or three widest aperture

Harold

There is a chart, have a look for yourself. The optical limits chart is similar but peaks between f4 and f5.6 in the centre and f5.6 and f8 in the corners.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Harold66]

why would I do that ?

I already know how these lenses compare to each other both from the SERIOUS tests I have read and also on my personal experience ;-)

H