1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

75 or 60?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by MCMLXXIII AD, Aug 13, 2016.

  1. MCMLXXIII AD

    MCMLXXIII AD Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Mar 18, 2014
    London
    Mahesh
    I'm sure this has been posted but what do people who own both these think these compare for portraits, incl background separation, pop and bokeh ?
     
  2. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Check out this thread.

    I have come to the conclusion that I will probably sell my 75 and buy a 60. Sometime.
     
  3. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I own both. The Sigma is great for the price, but subject separation isn't that good for mid-body and full length shots. The 75 works great for full, mid and head shots.
     
  4. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Oops, maybe I am confused.

    OP, are you comparing the Sigma 60 or the Oly 60?
     
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The 75 is a totally superb lens - both in terms of optical quality and mechanical construction. It's a modern classic IMHO. Neither the Olympus 60 nor the Sigma 60, as nice as they both are, have that same "star quality". Of course the Olympus 60 is a macro, so if that's what you need then neither of the other two will measure up!
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. stratokaster

    stratokaster Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 4, 2011
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Pavel
    In my opinion, in the Micro 4/3 land 60mm is a much more manageable focal length than 75 mm. Those 15mm don't sound like much, but they make a huge difference in terms of both perspective and working distance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    The O60 is a FAR more versatile lens. It focuses much closer, is weather sealed, takes great portraits, macro, and landscape. I prefer it to the O45 and the O75 because of its versatility. And btw, when you need more separation just use a discrete gausian blur...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  8. SkiHound

    SkiHound Mu-43 Veteran

    328
    Jan 28, 2012
    I own both and I think both are excellent lenses. I use the Oly 60 considerably more than the 75 and agree it's probably more versatile. The but is that I really like the close focusing/macro capabilities, I'm often using it when hiking, it's weather sealed. It works very well as a short general purpose telephoto lens. If I was doing more portraiture or indoor event kind of photography, I'd prefer the 75. You do need to make sure you have enough working range; in smaller areas the field of view can be too tight. But a shorter focal length lens can sometimes be too wide, and focal length preference is a very idiosyncratic decision. IQ from the 60 is really, really good. IMO, the IQ from the 75 is special. If I only had 1 I'd keep the 60, but only because it's better suited to my use as a general purpose lens for outdoor use.
     
  9. MCMLXXIII AD

    MCMLXXIII AD Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Mar 18, 2014
    London
    Mahesh
    All, thanks for your replies. I did mean oly 60 and 75 and not Sigma. Though Sigma might be very good for the price it sells, it does not have micro capability as Oly 60 has for the same/similar speed.
    I am tempted by 75 for its speed but Oly 60 is meant to be sharper with more microcontrast. I guess I will just buy both and keep one after a day's test run.
    I wonder if anybody would be kind enough to post comparative body shots. It is never too easy, is it!!
     
  10. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    I've owned both and kept the Oly 60 because of its' versatility. I must admit the 75 was a better lens overall but I sold it after getting the Oly 40-150 F2.8 which works better for me. If I was looking for a portrait lens the 75 would be the way to go IMHO. Sorry to sound conflicted but you're comparing two outstanding optics (you can't go wrong with either).
    PS, the Oly 60 takes great portraits too just not as well as the 75 does.
    PSS, the depth of field on the 75 at F1.8 is super thin which is a blessing or a curse depending on your POV.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    For portraits, I have no idea why you'd include the 60mm macro in the discussion. I mean it works, sure, and does a decent job. But it's not really what it's for. If you really want a solid macro lens and then shoot the occasional portrait, it's a good choice. But as a primary portrait lens, it's probably down around #10 on my list. In terms of rendering, I would say the Olympus is a ways behind the Sigma 60mm and 75mm in that regard (for non-macro shots, of course).

    IMO, the interesting discussion for portraits would be 42.5mm f1.7 vs 75mm f1.8 because I have both of those and I can't ever decide which one is better. The 75mm f1.8 can do more isolation and is probably a hair sharper in absolute terms. But the 42.5mm f1.7 is a far more versatile length, costs less than half and weighs only 120g and does outstanding portraits. The 75mm f1.8 requires pretty unruly working distances at times, too.

    (FWIW, I've owned the 42.5mm f1.7, 45mm f1.8, 60mm macro and the 75mm f1.8)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Not to mention the PL45/2.8 Macro, to boot!
     
  13. SpecFoto

    SpecFoto Mu-43 Veteran

    313
    Aug 28, 2012
    So Cal
    Jim

    Since you mentioned “portraits” then this becomes easy, as that is what I specialize my photography around most. I own both the Oly 60 macro and 75, plus the 40-150 f/2.8. The 3 characteristics you asked about are best with the 75 f/1.8, it exhibits these characteristics better than any other m4/3 lens I have used. The benefits of using a true portrait lens outweigh any convenience of using a macro lens, imho, because the macro lens is a compromise in comparison, as are the f/2.8 zooms. Generally, longer focal length will give better background separation, wider f/stops will give more pop, and special lens elements will give more pleasing bokeh plus help with flare and sharpness. The combination of these 3 items all in one lens is why 75mm beats out the 60.

    It and the Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 (replacing the Oly 45mm f/1.8 20 months ago) are my go to portrait kit because these 3 items you mentioned are what I am looking for most with my portrait work. But even though the 75mm has slightly better background separation, the Nocticron is my favorite portrait lens, simply because of the f/1.2 aperture. And the 75mm was the sharpest M4/3 lens (DxO rankings), until the Nocticron came along, just edging it out as top dawg.

    For many years I have shot portraits (and continue to do so) with Nikon D700/D800 FF and eventually gyrated to the almost same 2 focal lengths in the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2, a special defocus control portrait lens. However the “King” of portrait lenses in FF is the Nikkor 200mm f/2, a chubby super sharp $5,700 lens that I can only hope Olympus or Panasonic will emulate with a M4/3 100mm f/1.8 portrait lens in the future!
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  14. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oh yeah. I also had the Rokinon 50mm f1.2 for a week. :laugh1:

    What can I say, I like trying out lenses! Buying and flipping is cheaper than a rental.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I'm quite sure that in terms of pure IQ the O75 is the lens to beat here. Even more if you compare both lenses at 2.8. The Sigma 60 comes close to it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    I agree about the superb Nocticron. If you can afford it, it's worthy of its' reputation. I sold mine to help pay for the 40-150mm F2.8 PRO because for the few portraits I shoot the zoom is great!
     
  17. MCMLXXIII AD

    MCMLXXIII AD Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Mar 18, 2014
    London
    Mahesh
    Interestingly they posted a comparison on one of the camera review sites:Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm vs. 75mm – Apples vs Oranges

    I do agree that 42.5 1.7 is a strong contender to the portrait lenses. I have also used the nocticron and while I liked it, i didn't find it significantly better in all situations over the famed 45/1.8.
    I might just go ahead with 42.5, 1.7 as it's cheaper, fast, focuses close and has that bit of pan-leica pop though is not officially branded as a leica.
     
  18. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It also makes a great tiny prime duo with your 20mm. You can fit one lens on the camera and the other in your pocket.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1