45mm or 75mm to round out short tele for kit.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by csnite, Sep 1, 2015.

  1. csnite

    csnite Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Feb 21, 2012
    Florida
    I am currently trying to round out my kit. I use an EM-10 with the Panasonic 12-32, Oly 25 and 40-150. I would like to have a fast medium telephoto. I am deciding between the 45, 60 macro or 75. The 45 is the cheapest and probably most versatile, the 60 has macro and a little more reach, and the 75 is, well, the 75. I will use it mostly as a portrait lens, both full body and head and shoulders for my kids. It will also get some use as a landscape lens for compression and low light shots.

    My main issue is working distance. How much room do you need to effectively frame an outdoor full body portrait with the 75? I know I can, and have put the 40-150 on and test it, but I'd like to know your thoughts on this. I previously had the 45 and liked it a lot. I won't shoot much macro, but the 60 would be nice for the occasional shot. I really want the 75, but I just have this feeling that it will travel with me and not get used much because it is too long. If you have the 75 and 45, which gets the most use?
     
  2. sdb123

    sdb123 Mu-43 Veteran

    255
    Jul 25, 2014
    Northants, UK
    Steve
    Just as an aside, have you considered the Sigma 60mm f/2.8? Great value for money, sharp and a nice alternative to the 45/75.
     
  3. Jfrader

    Jfrader Guest

    This is all really subjective but here goes:

    For studio portraiture, the 75mm is excellent. As a travel lens, not so much. I think you agree based on your comment that it would not get much use. I travel a lot and would never take it out of the bag so would not travel with it. Even for shooting the kids, I think the 75mm is too long. Kids move too much. My favorite lenses for shooting the grandkids are the 12-40mm PRO and the 45mm. To shoot "full body" outdoor portraits with the 75mm, I'd have to be clear across the yard where it is difficult to interact with the subject.
     
  4. csnite

    csnite Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Feb 21, 2012
    Florida
    I have considered the Sigma 60, and I hear it's good, but I'm looking at something faster or with added capability over the 40-150. I know the Sigma is faster at 2.8 than the 4.4 max aperture of the 40-150 @60mm, but the Sigma doesn't really excite me much. I'm sure it's awesome in it's own right, but this is my hobby, and I feel like I should be a little excited when I spend money on it. I know that's crazy, probably, but I would regret not having either the faster 45 or 75 or the macro of the Olympus 60.
     
  5. siftu

    siftu Mu-43 Top Veteran

    644
    Mar 26, 2015
    Bay Area, CA
    siftu
    I use the 75mm for travel a lot but you do need the working distance (outdoors). I was actually surprised that about 40% of my shots on my last trip was taken with it. Using this with full body shots will require quite some distance. I have the 12-40mm and use that a lot too when traveling. My 45mm f1.8 rarely gets used since the 12-40mm is good enough for me around this focal length. I guess it's just up to the individual and what they are comfortable with.

    Full body.. maybe 20 yards?

    Erx2rgFh.

    Head only.. maybe 1 yard.

    19184776980_93d3e740ee_b. Farmer Portrait by Siftu, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2015
    • Like Like x 5
  6. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    Just get the 75. Closer portraits are better than full body. Spend a day with your 40-150 locked at 75mm and get a feel for it.
    You already have the 25mm for full body or 3/4 portraits, plus the 40-150 does excellent work too. It will also give you the compression and low light performance you desire. You'll learn to see the 75 way and want to use it. Despite what people say, it works just fine indoors for head/shoulders or pets (children too I'd wager)....unless you live in a tiny Manhattan apt maybe.

    The 45 is great, but you have that range covered pretty much. 60 is solid too. Probably equally as sharp, but you'll always wonder "what if I got the 75..." Prices are very compelling lately, due to high frequency of promotions. You'll always be able to get a cheap 45 used.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. sdb123

    sdb123 Mu-43 Veteran

    255
    Jul 25, 2014
    Northants, UK
    Steve
    I suggested it as you mentioned you were considering the Oly 60mm too. You don't have to justify not wanting the Sigma to me. :)

    I've owned both 60mm's and also own the 45mm & 75mm (as well as the Nocticron) so have experience of all the lenses you're considering....I will post my thoughts on the thread a bit later.
     
  8. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    If you're considering the 60mm Oly macro with a maximum aperture of f2.8, why not consider selling off your 40-150 zoom and buying the 40-150 f2.8 Oly? It's very sharp, focuses to 70cm (.21x magnification, 7.7cm FoV). I confess it's a big beast in m43 terms (760g), but you'll have a lot of options regarding portraiture, close up and low light photography. Just a thought.
     
  9. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    How important is getting background separation for your photography? The even faster options are more expensive, but if anything they will excite you. The Panny 42.5 f/1.2 is considered an even better lens than the 75, and the Voigty 42.5 f/.95 (manual focus only) is very good too. Or, you could wait for the upcoming Oly f/1 primes in about a year.
     
  10. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    I had them all and 45mm was rarely used because it's too close to 12-35 and 75mm was little to heavy and too expensive to just throw it on every hike or skiing. I got used Sigma 60mm for $120 and it is just perfect for my use: small, good focal length and I won't sweat much if it accidentally rolls off the cliff.
     
  11. csnite

    csnite Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Feb 21, 2012
    Florida
    I would love the functionality of the 2.8 zoom, but it is too big for my purposes and about $500 bucks more than I want to spend. I can get the 75 new for $699, or I can get the 45, a new bag, filters, batteries, and a cheeseburger with money left to spare. I'll still probably get the 75.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. csnite

    csnite Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Feb 21, 2012
    Florida
    I would say it's fairly important for portraits, but I am sure that either of the 1.8 lenses would achieve what I am looking for. I don't need to blow the background into a hazy cloud. I like to keep a little bit of context. Also, I think the PL42.5 is more than I want to spend right now. The 75 is stretching the budget, but achievable.
     
  13. Levster

    Levster Mu-43 Top Veteran

    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    As a slightly dissenting opinion I don't see the 35-100 as a 75 replacement. I think they both stand on their own and they have different purposes.

    The 75 is just stellar, but not particularly versatile or weather sealed. The 35-100 is much more flexible and also weather sealed (and internal zoom which is a big plus).

    Here is the 75 as a short tele:

    full.

    A shot with the 35-100 @100

    P6200037.

    My feeling is the 75 is just a better lens (of course it is a prime!). The 35-100 is lot more useful.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    This portrait is wide open with the 75 at roughly 12 feet. (HTH)

    P6220350.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I've owned all and 45 is too close to 25mm for most purposes and f2.8 can be too slow. Ideally I'd want 67mm 1.4 (135mm eq) but 75mm 1.8 is close enough.

    I consider 15/45 and 25/75 to be nice pairs depending on if you want to favor wide or long.

    The 75 just kills it for outdoor portraiture.
     
  17. Levster

    Levster Mu-43 Top Veteran

    I'd say as a lens that will be used "mostly as a portrait lens, both full body and head and shoulders for my kids", the 35-100mm meets the mark. I have a constant battle with myself over whether I like prime lenses or zooms, and I can never decide. I must have bought the 75mm and 35-100mm 3 times over now, and I still can't decide between the two! For now I am going back to the 35-100mm, and I'm trying to get all thoughts of the 75mm out of my mind.
     
  18. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    I feel the same about wanting some structure and context to background blur. However, I suspect that you can get similar background separation with your 12-32 f/2.8 as with the 45 f/1.8 by just moving a little closer to the subject. I don't know at what point distortion would become a problem, though (I don't shoot many portraits). Have you used the 12-32 for portraits?

    I also own all three of those lenses. The 45 IMO is a solid lens, but just does not offer enough that is new and different. If the 75 is the most money you are looking to spend, that's what I'd go with. It will give you the most unique images from the rest of your kit. While I agree with you that the 75 seems an unusual focal length, that's not necessarily a bad thing when compared to everything else you already have covered. The 60mm macro is a great lens (one of my favorites) but if you aren't going to shoot much macro, then what strengths it has left are even better with the 75.
     
  19. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I think if you have a nice park or open space and kids that will pose, the 75mm is magical. If you are doing spur of the moment grab shots, the zoom wins by a mile because poorly framed shots aren't magical.
     
  20. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    And here I thought I was the only one! Personally I am going back to the 75, I can't feel the love for the 35-100.