45 vs 75

[Wisertime]

It appears to me that you have to know what you are doing with the 75mm. When used properly, it's utterly amazing. Yet, I do see a lot of images posted in various sites that are just meh. Particularly full body shots where the face is out of focus and flat (or just parts of). Sometimes the 45 appears better in similar photos, but obviously there are other variables. I've even had the same issues with the 45 itself shooting dogs wide open.

I'm sure in a controlled contest the 75 would win out in sharpness...but only just. Yet, I still do want it! And yes, it shines more in the out of focus area, but the 45 is no slouch. There are no losers here. I'd even throw the Oly 60mm into the mix as a nice in between that is super sharp. Even the Sigma 60 is very comparable.

 

[mfj197]

Nah. From B&H, at regular prices, the 45mm is 44% of the 75mm price. With the current instant rebates, it's slightly cheaper, 41% of the 75mm price.

In the US maybe. Here in the UK the cheapest prices for both are £709 for the 75 and £209 for the 45, both from SRS as it happens. That's 29.5%.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[13thFloorPhotography]

For whatever my opinion is worth, the 75mm defines the m43 system. I have not found a lens that is as sharp. My 45 does not get a lot of use now that I have the 75 and 45mm is no slouch. The 75mm is tack sharp at 1.8, but sings at 2.8

 

[benjimouse]

I pondered this choice for weeks, eventually I decided if I got the 45 I'd always be wondering if the 75 was what it was cracked up to be It's on the camera 40%+ of the time now. "Die for" bokeh and sharpness are the positives, sometimes awkward focal length is the downside imo.

Lately I've been feeling 150mm efl flattens faces too much and wondering if the 45mm might be more useful.

 

[LowriderS10]

I had them both out yesterday for a photo shoot (promo material for a play some of the local foreigners are putting on)...and the 75 never left the bag (even though it's my favourite lens right now!). Even though we were outside, I simply didn't have the room to work with such a long FL...I've been considering selling the 45 because I've been using the 75 more and more, but it turns out they both have a purpose in my life!

It's really a personal choice...the 75 is great, but I'm sure many people would find it too long.

 

[snaimpally]

I have searched and searched and cant find a thread dedicated to the similarities and differences between the lenses. Im trying to decide on which one to buy. First off, price doesnt matter to me. What does matter is the value of the lens. If the 75mm is that much better than Ill pay for it. Has anyone done any comparisons shooting the same images with both lenses? Id love to see some. If not for those of you that have shot both more than just one time can you tell me what you like about each?

I highly recommend the 75mm. I have both the 45mm and 75mm but I use the 75mm far more often. Also, I love the quality of the images from the 75mm much more. I post many pictures on Facebook (they are public so let me know if you want to see them and I can send you a link) and people have commented on the quality of the images. Most of the images I post are taken at concerts using available light so they are typically shot with the lens wide open. Amazing how great the pictures look even at f1.8. It is my favorite lens.

 

[napilopez]

Another thing to note is that I do think the 75mm's angle of view tends to make people more relaxed overall; they don't feel as much as if they have someone all up in their face. On the other hand, sometimes you want this, or you want to be close enough to easily direct your subject.

It's interesting to see other people's opinion on the matter. I've used the 45mm significantly for about 2 out of the past 15 or so shoots. When I have the 75mm with me, the 45 rarely leaves the bag. I just feel like whenever I need to be close enough for the 45, the 25 often makes do.

But after trying the Voigtlander, my focal length preferences are confused again... Right now it's all riding on the upcoming PL Nocticron!

 

[LowriderS10]

Yeah, the 75 gives you distance, but it's pretty much useless indoors (unless you're shooting a gym or an arena) and outdoors I found that if I didn't have a big enough open space, it was hard to work around stuff that would be distracting between me and the subject, especially for full-body shots, so I switched to the 45 so I can be half as far away and get the same shot.

But...like I said...it's all dependent on preferences and situations.

The O75 has been my favourite M4/3 lens since the first time I mounted it on my camera...in fact...it's thanks to the O75 that I completely got rid of my Canon full frame (5D Mark II) setup and sold my beloved and legendary 135L. Yes...the O75 is THAT good.

 

[LowriderS10]

EDIT: Sorry, went through twice for some reason.

 

[bcaslis]

I bought the E-M1 a few days ago and the 75mm was the first lens I bought for it. It's a great piece of glass. I prefer more distance to subjects for a portrait so the 75 was the best choice for me. Indoors, I don't think it's useless unless you want a full body shot. Then you need distance. But a good shoot or head and shoulder is pretty easy unless you are shooting in a broom closet.

 

[tjdean01]

I didn't read the entire thread but I doubt some of this has been mentioned.

The 75 is one of the sharpest lenses ever produced by mankind. It's very sharp even at F1.8 so you might end up wanting ND filters in bright light for bokeh. It's built very well. It's very distinctive as I don't think there are many lenses produced in that shape and color (ok, I guess they did make the black version. I prefer silver).

Finally, and this is the part I'm sure hasn't been mentioned, is that while the 75 is one-of-a-kind lens (regarding sharpness wide open, mainly), from what I hear the 45 is matched by the 45/2.8, for example. At F4 does it beat the 35-100? Not by as much as the 75 does. You can also go out and buy a $30 50/1.8 from the 80s which for most situations can be a 45 alternative. Finally, with the 45 you'll be wanting to shoot at F3.2 to maximize sharpness, thus reducing your bokeh. The 75 can be shot wide open and be sharp across the frame. The wonderful photo of the wedding couple above says it all for me!

If you got the money by all means get the 75. Get the 45 next year

 

[Bacio]

I have both. Both have great bokeh.
I love blurred background and 45 is really enough.

I do not really care about sharpness, so I would eventually trade my 75 for i.e. P35-100.

 

[Drdave944]

For me the 75 is best.I carry it along with the 12-35 mm as a travel combo. Great for candids. Only problem is if you are in too close,then the 45 would be better. I do heavy cropping and the 75 means a better image ,but it is quite amazing how much cropping you can get away with for both of them. Of course the 35-100 ml 2.8 zoom covers both situations and more. Since I carry a Canon D MK111 with a 70-300L this is not necessary for me, but the 75 fills a unique niche for me. Low light ,or more discreet street shots. It is a super lens,a favorite.

 

[napilopez]

I didn't read the entire thread but I doubt some of this has been mentioned.

The 75 is one of the sharpest lenses ever produced by mankind. It's very sharp even at F1.8 so you might end up wanting ND filters in bright light for bokeh. It's built very well. It's very distinctive as I don't think there are many lenses produced in that shape and color (ok, I guess they did make the black version. I prefer silver).

Finally, and this is the part I'm sure hasn't been mentioned, is that while the 75 is one-of-a-kind lens (regarding sharpness wide open, mainly), from what I hear the 45 is matched by the 45/2.8, for example. At F4 does it beat the 35-100? Not by as much as the 75 does. You can also go out and buy a $30 50/1.8 from the 80s which for most situations can be a 45 alternative. Finally, with the 45 you'll be wanting to shoot at F3.2 to maximize sharpness, thus reducing your bokeh. The 75 can be shot wide open and be sharp across the frame. The wonderful photo of the wedding couple above says it all for me!

If you got the money by all means get the 75. Get the 45 next year

This is a pretty fair point. While I wouldn't say the 45 is so unsharp that you would want to stop it down, if you're comfortable with the size and MF, legacy primes do a splendid job. Most old cheap 50mm F1.4 lenses will perform quite decently at F2, losing most of their ghosting, by F2.8 are very sharp, and by F4 are pretty impecable around the entire frame since you are only using the center of the image circle. I personally think 50mm is a substantially better focal length than 45mm, and at F1.4 you can get extremely creamy bokeh and dreamy images or at F2.8 you can be razor sharp while not being very much behind the 45mm due to the slightly longer focal length.

Truth be told though, unless I'm doing studio work (and heck, even for much of that), I very very rarely look at images at 100% magnification. I just don't print photos of people large enough for that to be an issue. However, don't underestimate a stopped down legacy lens. I always use this picture as an example, but it's effective. This was shot on my old G3 with a Canon FD 50mm F1.4 stopped down to either F2.8 or F4. This is a 100% crop, and you can clearly see the lens outresolving the sensor in the eyebrow hairs. It doesn't really get sharper than this on M4/3:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

That said, the coatings on old lenses seem like they're often not as good as those on modern ones when it comes to light gathering. I've seen a couple of threads showing F1.4 lenses exposing almost the same as the 45mm f1.8

 

[tjdean01]

What does it mean by the lens out-resolving the sensor?

Another thing, although I do think the 45 will beat the old lenses in sharpness at all apertures, look at the price ratio. A good 50/1.8 would cost $40 and the 45/1.8 is $400, so those lenses are 10% of the price. Look at the 75mm. It's $900 but a good adapted lens in a similar focal length will be like $400, or 50%.

I have to get me a good 1.4 lens. As far as I know NONE eliminate ghosting or are sharp at 1.7. My Pentax 50/1.7s are definitely usable at f2.2 (and is amazing at f4 or f5.6). The Konica Hexanon 57/1.4 was outperformed by all of my 50/1.7s at all apertures

 

[atmo]

One of the biggest advantages of the O45 over both the O75 and the many fine assorted 50 mm legacy lenses is that it is very small and light. If you're transporting a bunch of kit for a photoshoot that's obviously not an issue, but if (like me) you carry your camera around in your bag all day then it's a plus of some significance.

 

[LowriderS10]

One of the biggest advantages of the O45 over both the O75 and the many fine assorted 50 mm legacy lenses is that it is very small and light. If you're transporting a bunch of kit for a photoshoot that's obviously not an issue, but if (like me) you carry your camera around in your bag all day then it's a plus of some significance.

Absolutely!!! When I'm gone for the day or the weekend...I'll take the O75. But when I went to Europe for nearly a month and walked/hiked all day, I took the O45. Every little bit adds up when you're carrying it 16-18 hours a day for weeks! Plus, it's so small I could just slap it in my pocket for easy lens changes; no digging around in a bag!

 

[napilopez]

What does it mean by the lens out-resolving the sensor?

Another thing, although I do think the 45 will beat the old lenses in sharpness at all apertures, look at the price ratio. A good 50/1.8 would cost $40 and the 45/1.8 is $400, so those lenses are 10% of the price. Look at the 75mm. It's $900 but a good adapted lens in a similar focal length will be like $400, or 50%.

I have to get me a good 1.4 lens. As far as I know NONE eliminate ghosting or are sharp at 1.7. My Pentax 50/1.7s are definitely usable at f2.2 (and is amazing at f4 or f5.6). The Konica Hexanon 57/1.4 was outperformed by all of my 50/1.7s at all apertures

Outresolving the sensor essentially means that the lens is providing significantly more information than the sensor can actually capture (some caveats, but that's basically it). The aliasing (jagged edges) of the leftmost eyebrow hairs in the above picture occurs because the sensor is not detailed enough to render the straighter lines of the hairs.

If you go legacy, I'd definitely suggest an F1.4 lens despite the larger size, as most of those perform quite decently by F2. At F2 you'll have similar exposure (theoretically, depending on coatings), and equal or a tiny bit more bokeh.

And again, the Canon 50mm F1.4 is a wonderful option on M4/3. Still haven't personally found a legacy lens I prefer for this usage. It also just has some really nice rendering that you can't really match with the more clinical modern lenses. Stopped down, in fact, I'd say it's both sharper(at least in the center) and more contrasty than the 45mm. Not sure how far you have to stop it down, but it seems like F2.8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Adelina-19 by napilopez, on Flickr