1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

O 45 f1.8 vs P 42.5 f1.7

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by snaimpally, Jul 24, 2016.

  1. snaimpally

    snaimpally Mu-43 Top Veteran

    572
    Dec 31, 2012
    I got the O 45 shortly after it came out but I just didn't couldn't get into it. I used it but I didn't enjoy taking photos with it. I recently got the P 42.5 and I like it much more than the Olympus (so much so that I sold off the O 45). Weird. Anyone else have this experience?
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2016
  2. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    I've got the Oly 45 and have wondered about the P 42.5. I just can't bring myself to spend the $$ for a lens so close to one I already own. What is it that you like better about the P than the Oly? I'm curious to know why one might prefer one lens over the other.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
  3. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Prefer the Pan over the Oly. It's I little sharper across the frame. But I also do like it a bit better, not sure why. I know I like the closer focus and with my GX85, I like dual OS.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. snaimpally

    snaimpally Mu-43 Top Veteran

    572
    Dec 31, 2012
    Its hard to express. I just found the photos taken with the 45mm "flat" compared to photos taken with my other lenses. When I originally got the 45mm, I also had my 75mm but I just didn't like the look of the photos from the 45mm compared to the 75mm.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Many have commented that Panasonic glass seems to have higher contrast, maybe that's what you're seeing?
     
  6. mauro

    mauro Mu-43 Regular

    145
    Jun 26, 2012
    near Venice, Italy
    The opposite, I found thet in general m.zuiko lenses have much more contrast than the Panasonic lenses.
     
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It varies from lens to lens, and type of lens. Not sure about zooms, but with primes for instance, Olympus might have higher global contrast compared to the Pana Leicas, but maybe not the normal Panasonics like the 14mm, 20mm, 30mm and 42.5mm f/1.7.
     
  8. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    The general consensus that I've read is that the Olympus lens seems to have slightly smoother background blur and less CA (though that might be a body issue), and the Panasonic has better cross-frame sharpness, OIS, and closer focus distance. Really you can't go wrong with either...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    I could be wrong, but for lenses I've done review searches for they seem to point to Panasonic having more contrast. Camera Labs for one points to the Panasonic having slightly more contrast wide open.
     
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I think you guys are seeing what you want to see!
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    lol it's pretty irrelevant to me, I PP RAWs so OOC global contrast is not a big deal.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    Well, that's been known to happen. I wonder how many could correctly pick images shot with one vs the other.


    Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    I've got the Oly, a mate of mine borrowed it and liked it, but in the shop ended up buying the Pana and loves it

    He thinks its better ... but he's not sure why either
     
  14. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I just meant with the Olympus vs Panasonic as a whole discussion above, really.

    I've owned both lenses in the thread title and I think in this specific case, the Panasonic is the better lens. I always felt the 45mm f1.8 was just average.
     
  15. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    I guessed as much ... I was agreeing with you and lending more support to "seeing what they wanted"

    I think my mate likes the Pana because he wants to ;-)
     
  16. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Having owned both lenses, here are my thoughts:

    Olympus Advantages:
    • cheaper
    • nicer bokeh when shot wide-open (by f/2 it's about the same between the two)
    Panasonic Advantages:
    • OIS for Panasonic bodies
    • better build quality (seems to be a thin metal shell exterior vs plastic on the Olympus)
    • close focusing distance
    • sharper across the frame
    I owned the Olympus, sold it as I didn't use it much, but then bought the Panasonic shortly after it came out. I don't regularly use it, but when I do I am very impressed with it. I typically will shoot it at f/2 to round out the bokeh (it's a bit mis-shaped wide open), but by f/2 it's nice and round, and I get the added benefit of a slight sharpness improvement by stopping down 1/3 stop.

    After seeing the performance of the Panasonic 42.5, it's extremely difficult to try to justify the PanaLeica version. Unless you're a dedicated portrait photographer, or regularly are shooting in very low light and need the extra stop, I just don't see the value in the Nocticron when compared to the P42.5. As for the difference between the Olympus and Panasonic, it's really just personal preference. If they're both the same price, then I'd say get the Panasonic. But the Panasonic is typically more expensive, so it's simply a matter of figuring out what you value more: a slightly cheaper lens, or a slightly better performer.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    It may not be scientific, but I've owned two copies of each now.

    I bought the first 45 a while when it was "a lens you had to have" and never really enjoyed it that much. So I sold. Then shortly after the 42.5 came out I picked one up, I was shooting a Pan body at the time so it made sense. I didn't use it often, but enjoyed it when I did.

    I switched to the E-M5 mkII and figured I could raise some cash by trading the 42.5 for a 45. Yes I was able to get some extra cash in hand, but just didn't enjoy using the 45 as much or the results. So now I have another 42.5.

    I will add that I'm just as often shooting it close wide open as anything else. So that might impact my impressions, but I'm not sure I'm pushing the closer focus distance, maybe I am.
     
  18. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Well, it is art after all :D
     
  19. astrostl

    astrostl Mu-43 Veteran

    354
    Oct 4, 2014
    St. Louis, MO
    Justin Honold
    If you want weird, my biggest beef with the O45 was the tapered cylinder. One of the reasons I prefer the Panny is that its body isn't more narrow than the mount.
     
  20. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    Well surprise, surprise. I checked a Panasonic 20mm V-II versus an Olympus 17mm and the Panasonic definitely has an edge in contrast and sharpness - but you have to look closely. The contrast makes some items look more 3-dimensional; I know it may sound hokey, but it does. Even the spouse person saw it. There is some purple fringing on an E-M5 V-I, but not much, and only at the edges. Probably not a big difference in these two lenses, but some.