las Palm as
Mu-43 Regular
dixeyk, i have the same af problems with the oly 45. I have the pana 45 too, and for me the pana is by far a better lens
dixeyk, i have the same af problems with the oly 45. I have the pana 45 too, and for me the pana is by far a better lens
Thanks for that. I think the PL45 is going to be a better fit for what I want as well.
Yes but the build quality of the 14/2.5 is a lot better than that of the 45/1.8. And you can buy 2 14/2.5 second hand for the cost of a 45/1.8 second hand and still have money left over for some SD cards. One of the points that is often made about the 45 is how amazingly affordable it is for the level of performance...and I agree but I should have think Olympus could have done a bit better.
I have the Oly 45mm and find it hunts a little on my EP1. When this occurs I switch the camera off and the issue resolves itself. This occurs occasionally in good light with good contrast, so I am not sure of the issue. It obviously hunts in low light without the focus assist function on this "vintage" body.
This never occurs with the oly 45mm on my EPM1 body.
I honestly can't believe these complaints.
Images:
Images look great... And being a tad on the clinical side is fine by me, because that is something that can be changed in post quite easily... Softness/lack of contrast is not so easy to deal with.
Auto Focus:
I am currently in an EV 1-2 room and unless I point at a flat white or black object the E-M5 + 45 f/1.8 nails focus every time (in other words, if there is any contrast at all). It only hunts significantly at or UNDER its official Minimum Focus Distance, and it still is reasonably accurate even then, even in an EV 1-2 location. The reason for this hunting, btw, is that the DOF on a 45 f/1.8 at 19" is pretty narrow, less than 1/4th of an inch. That makes it MUCH harder to find focus.
Working distance:
The MFD is on the long side for this focal length (about 1:8 magnification), but the working distance itself is not at all long. Mine focuses and shoots at 16" (3.5" less than its rated distance of 19.5"). At MFD you get about a 6" wide frame at the plane of focus... So not really useable for portraits anyway. If you are looking to do macro this is not the lens for you, but for any general use purpose for which a 45mm focal length makes sense this is more than enough working distance.
Build Quality:
This is the complaint I understand the least. I don't even know what to say about this. If you can't see how strong this lens is relative to its size and weight, nor how well built the focus ring, mount, etc is... I don't know how to explain it to you. Personally I think a lot of people are just so amazed by how light it is they assume it is poorly built. That is not the case. This is a very high quality build, and the weight and strength of the externals is entirely appropriate to the size and weight of the internal optics. I guarantee I could drop this lens safely onto cement from twice the height you could ever safely drop ANY Canon L lens, and those are top-of-the-line build quality. And as to the build quality vs the 14mm.... The 14mm is equal at best. Both lenses have a metal mount and otherwise plastic bodies, but the 45's plastic is slightly higher quality in my opinion. However, the difference is not that important because both are very high quality that will stand up to heavy use extremely well.
I don't have my P20 anymore to compare to but as I recall the P20 never was squirrely when it came to AF...but is was noisy and really slow (albeit a bit faster on my Panasonic bodies than my Olympus bodies). I think what I find annoying is that sometimes the 45 is fast and accurate and I love it then suddenly it loses it's mind and can't AF on the simplest thing. Today I couldn't get it to focus on a flower with not much behind it and it kept trying to focus on the background. I have to manually focus it first to get it going then it'll correct itself.
You use NEX series cameras, crappy and slow auto focus should be 2nd nature for ya. Different subject, I kept the PL 45mm instead even though the Oly 45mm is awesome too.
There's a reason I don't own any NEX native glass. I only use the NEX for MF legacy lenses (something m43 does not do particularly well). But if there were a decent set of native glass like what is available for m43 the NEX would likely be my main system because with the possible exception of the E-M5 m43 isn't in the same league as NEX IQ wise.
I agree. The G3 can't make images sing like my Nex 5-N could using a 28mm f2.8 Contax C/Y mount distagon. I'm not talking about field of view...it just seems good retro SLR glass and the 5N were made for each other.
capodave said:
There's a reason I don't own any NEX native glass. I only use the NEX for MF legacy lenses (something m43 does not do particularly well). But if there were a decent set of native glass like what is available for m43 the NEX would likely be my main system because with the possible exception of the E-M5 m43 isn't in the same league as NEX IQ wise.
As far as the PL45 vs O45...it really depends what you're after. The PL45 is a better fit for me and I probably should have just bitten the bullet and gotten it first rather than going with the O45. I don't think the O45 is bad just not the best fit for me. It's like my Honda Fit. It's a terrific car and does many things right. It's perfect for my wife to commute to work in but I would be thrilled if I never had to drive it again. I have friends that own them and are really bent that I don't like it and can't fathom that I'd rather take the bus or walk than drive it.
AF issues may have to do in part with the way I shoot. I like to shoot stuff close to MFD. The fact that the MFD is over a foot and a half means I see a lot of AF hunting.
Kia Soul>Honda Fit...I'm just trying to stay on topic. Both 45mm lenses are very good.