Hi all,

Really thanks!! Have you guys heard of "Brenizer Method = Panamoric Bokeh"? For OM50mm f1.8 and 45mm f1.8, which one will do a better job?

So u mean now u are using mainly the 45mm f1.8 already? How does it perform compared with the 50mm? Awesome?

Hi WT21, thanks!

How about comparing this with the 45mm f1.8? Does OM50mm f1.8 have the same sharpness as the 45mm?

Either would do fine. The 50mm would provide more background OOF by way of the longer focal length at the same wide open aperture but the 45 would most likely provide a sharper in focus subject as its quite sharp wide open when compared to any of the legacy 50s I've used/seen. Obviously with the 45 you'd have to disable AF after achieving focus or focus manually since you need the focus and exposure to remain constant throughout your series of images.

__________________
Olympus PEN E-PL1 | M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 L | M. Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f4-5.6 R | Zuiko Auto-W MC 28mm f2.8 | G.Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f1.4 | Zuiko Auto-T 135mm f2.8 | Fujian 35mm f1.7

I've never had the OM 50/1.8. I've had FD, OM (2.0), Takumar, Rokkor and some other legacy 50s. All of them were designed for film, in a different time, with different rear coatings than modern lenses. Light comes off silicon sensors much harder than film, and bounces around inside the adapters, and off the back lens element. This creates ghosting/flare (white bleed -- whatever it's called) when wide open on just about every legacy lens I have ever seen. The 45/1.8 was designed for a silicon sensor, and will not exhibit this.

Different legacy lenses are more soft wide open than others. Remember, some of these were developed in the 70s, when "soft focus" was a big hit. So, old Takumar and Rokkors (two that come to mind) seem to do this the most. OM and FD less so. I haven't used Nikons.

But all of them will exhibit this ghosting/flare/white bleed in bright and high contrast situations, forcing you to stop down up to a full stop. The 45/1.8 won't require that.

So, that's the trade-off. Soft a bit, and requiring a little stop down vs. $300+. I don't shoot 50mm that often, so I have an FD 50mm 1.4, that settles down around 2.0. I've owned the 45/1.8 twice now, and just don't use it enough to justify the cost.

FWIW -- I find the OM lenses to be sharp but lacking the color and contrast on FD lenses. The OMs (and Takumars) have much smoother focusing rings than FDs. So, there's another trade-off. Takumars are an absolute treasure to MF. OM isn't too far behind, but I stick with the FD for color and contrast, and a few frustrating moments here and there when focusing.

YMMV.

Good luck and happy shooting!

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)

Why not give the OM lens a try - the 50/1.8 is cheaply available. Warning MF lenses can be addictive :-)

FWIW I found the OM 50/1.4 I had to be very very good, but only as others have said stopped down a bit (f4-f8 seems the sweetspot). The 45 blew it away across the board though.

__________________
E-M5, E-PM1, Olympus Zuiko: 12/2, 45/1.8, OM Zuiko: 50-250/5, 135/3.5, 100/2.8, 85/2, 50/3.5, 35/2, 28/2, 24/2.8.Panasonic: 20/1.7.

The legacy 50's do tend to be soft when wide open. Here's a graph describing the behavior of the Olympus 50mm F1.8. By F4, it's stable until the end.



Here are links to samples images of the iso res chart.

F1.8
F2.8
F4
F5.6
F8
F11

Hi Mr. Botak,

So are you using the 45mm f1.8? How was it so far? Yea, it's bit expensive for me. Hence i may only be able to afford the OM 50mm f1.8. And hopefully it's still good. If he sweetspot is f4-f8, then there's no point to get the OM50mm f1.8 already right? Cos its sweetspot is not the widest at f1.8?

Hi lenshoarder,

Thanks for the graph! What about with the 45mm f1.8? Ohyea, what about comparing OM50 f1.8 with the minolta rokkar 50mm f1.7?

Hi WT21, thanks!

What about comparing OM50 f1.8 with the minolta rokkar 50mm f1.7? Is minolta lens good?