can the 12-100 replace 45&74 1.8's?

[Sergey Borachev]

No way. F/4 is just OK for a M43 lens. Some will say that the 12-100mm can replace 6 or 7 lenses, but that's only true if you sacrifice many advantages in 2 more stops additional light. To say it can replace the primes in its range is like saying the Sony RX10 IV can replace the entire M43 system for most people. It is simply ridiculous to consider this zoom when you can get those primes. This zoom is for convenience and best if you already have other faster lenses in its range first.

 

[wolfychi]

I have the Olympus 12-100 for almost 2 years now, for my shooting style, I will always need a fast prime for the night time scenery.

For my travel, I now always pack the Olympus 12-100, a Voigtlander 17.5mm, and the Panasonic 100-300, sometimes throw in the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

 

[stateit]

....

For 700 nearly new I'd get them and try yourself, and if you find, you hardly ever need them, sell them, perhaps even with a profit.

Peter

Exactly this.

 

[Marty4650]

only at f/4.0.

If you require f/1.8 for any of a variety of good reasons, then you are much better off with the prime lenses. Not only are they faster and smaller, but they are also considerably cheaper. Of course, this means you only have 45 and 75mm and not the entire range from 12 to 100mm.

But that is the trade off here. If you want speed, size and best value... get the primes. If you want range, weather sealing and versatility, but don't need the speed, then you are better off with the zoom lens. In both cases, your images will be very sharp.

 

[bluevellet]

I completely understand that when you get into telephoto territory, it is much easier to get thin Dof, even at slow apertures. So if your purpose is some nice subject separation, it will work. It's something I found out quickly just fiddling with kit (telephoto zooms) long ago. The 12-100 f4 would definitely be good enough for many people.

But...

I like telephoto with fast aperture as a low light lens too. Not for DoF control, but for keeping ISO low and/or shutter speed high enough. IBIS, even dual IS, will not help if your subjects move around. Between f/1.8 and f/4, there's over two extra stops. For me, the 75mm f1.8 is definitely a keeper there.

 

[Cheshire-Chris]

One technique where the background is distracting is to underexposed to darken the background and use flash to illuminate the subject. A -3Ev underexposure will get rid of pretty much any background.

Cheers,

Chris

Yes, to get that awful cheap flash look, it's great.

Light is light. How you use it is where your photographic skill lies. For portraits I prefer to use off-camera flash and hold the flash to one side of the subject. Of course I'm not impartial, but I don't think it looks awful at all.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[john isaacs]

I haven’t used any of them, so of course I’m an expert.

You can do a lot of posed portraiture with an f/4 lens. When I took a Nikon Portrait and Lighting course, NPS supplied the students with D600’s and 24-120mm f/4’s. Candids will be more of a challenge because can’t limit depth of field to the same extent.

Personally? I hope to resist the siren call of fast M43 primes indefinitely. But if M43 was my primary format, I’d be looking seriously at the 45mm and the Sigma 56mm.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

If you were shooting at f/8 with the D600’s. On m43, f/4 is too slow for general portraiture. I prefer the 35-100 f/2.8 for flexibility and the f/1.8’s for DOF.

Everyone has a different definition of portraiture -- take a look at flbdig response below. When shooting against a backdrop (studio or otherwise) you're not worried about dissolving the background. And when shooting an environment portrait, you want to preserve the setting.

I actually brought my own D800 to the class, along with a 135mm f/2 DC and a 85mm f/1.8D. I left my own 24-120mm f/4 at home, but ended up using the provided one quite a bit. Here's an outtake where I deliberately chose f/8, so I could keep the Emmy and the model in reasonable focus. I might have even been better at f/11:


Shawn Alexander.

If you're regularly looking for extremely narrow DOF portraiture, m43 may not be the right system for you.

--
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 

[photofan1986]

One technique where the background is distracting is to underexposed to darken the background and use flash to illuminate the subject. A -3Ev underexposure will get rid of pretty much any background.

Cheers,

Chris

Yes, to get that awful cheap flash look, it's great.

Light is light. How you use it is where your photographic skill lies. For portraits I prefer to use off-camera flash and hold the flash to one side of the subject. Of course I'm not impartial, but I don't think it looks awful at all.

Cheers,

Chris

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about off camera flash (which I use quite a lot actually). A very good technique as well, but me, it's more posed and less natural than a shallow dof natural light shot.

 

[jwilliams]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

The 45 and 75 are both very good lenses. I own the 75 and owned the 45 only to replace it with the Panny 42.5 1.7 because I need the in lens IS for my GM1 (both lenses are equally great).

Now my personal experience is the 75 is a seldom used lens. Technically it is about perfect, but it just isn't a FL I find very useful. Others may have the exact opposite experience. It is all down to what you feel comfortable with.

I'm guessing the breakdown of the 2 lenses cost comes out to something like $200 for the 45 and $500 for the 75. If it were me I would try to buy the 45 from him and find a better use for the other $500. My first stop would be to get a Sigma 60 2.8. They are about $225 new and can be found for about $125 used (what I paid for mine). I actually prefer the 60 to the 75. It is a superb lens in every aspect. I like the FL better and 60 f2.8 on m43 can give decent background blur when used right. The 75 will always be able to blur backgrounds more, but in use I haven't found the difference to be a big deal.

Another thing to consider is just getting the upcoming sigma 56 1.4. Seems like a great lens that could make both the 45 and 75 unnecessary. This is the only lens that has made me pause and wonder if it would be better than the 60.

Never used a 12-100. Seems like a great travel lens, but fast primes make m43 so much more useful and expand your shooting envelope. I cannot imagine using the format without a few fast primes.

--
Jonathan

 

[eques]

only at f/4.0.

If you require f/1.8 for any of a variety of good reasons, then you are much better off with the prime lenses. Not only are they faster and smaller, but they are also considerably cheaper. Of course, this means you only have 45 and 75mm and not the entire range from 12 to 100mm.

But that is the trade off here. If you want speed, size and best value... get the primes. If you want range, weather sealing and versatility, but don't need the speed, then you are better off with the zoom lens. In both cases, your images will be very sharp.

we need weather resistant, close focus F2 45 and 75mm lenses. Both together for lesss than the 12-100-

Peter

 

[Jay56]

A friend of mine has a 45 and 75 1.8 he is selling for $700 for both. Both are brand new since he ended up buying the 45 PRO shortly after buying them. I'm on the fence about taking them off his hands. I'd like to have 2 prime portrait lenses but have seen plenty photographer use the 12-100 for portraits and it's has so many uses I'm wondering if I should just but one. But at the same time for the same amount I could get 3 faster lenses if I were to ad the 12-40 2.8 used for about the same price. Thoughts on those who have used all 4.

The 45 and 75 are both very good lenses. I own the 75 and owned the 45 only to replace it with the Panny 42.5 1.7 because I need the in lens IS for my GM1 (both lenses are equally great).

Now my personal experience is the 75 is a seldom used lens. Technically it is about perfect, but it just isn't a FL I find very useful. Others may have the exact opposite experience. It is all down to what you feel comfortable with.

I'm guessing the breakdown of the 2 lenses cost comes out to something like $200 for the 45 and $500 for the 75. If it were me I would try to buy the 45 from him and find a better use for the other $500. My first stop would be to get a Sigma 60 2.8. They are about $225 new and can be found for about $125 used (what I paid for mine). I actually prefer the 60 to the 75. It is a superb lens in every aspect. I like the FL better and 60 f2.8 on m43 can give decent background blur when used right. The 75 will always be able to blur backgrounds more, but in use I haven't found the difference to be a big deal.

Another thing to consider is just getting the upcoming sigma 56 1.4. Seems like a great lens that could make both the 45 and 75 unnecessary. This is the only lens that has made me pause and wonder if it would be better than the 60.

Never used a 12-100. Seems like a great travel lens, but fast primes make m43 so much more useful and expand your shooting envelope. I cannot imagine using the format without a few fast primes.

My plan it to buy the 45mm first. I already told him that. I will see where I'm at when I have the other $500 to burn.