Oly 45 f1.8 VS OM 50 f1.8

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by pellicle, Dec 2, 2014.

  1. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    having used the OM since before there were any native options to match it I've often been interested in comparing the 45mm f1.8 with my older OM legacy lens. I had always been a bit iffy about spending hundreds on a focal length which while I like is quite well filled for me by my legacy lens.

    None the less when the 45mm became cheap recently I thought "what the heck" and bought one. I've put my detailed thoughts on my blog here, but for those just wanting to see quickly here are some images:

    the lenses
    50-45-2.

    a contact sheet of the images (handy to overview contrast and DoF)
    portrait-thumbnails.

    one of the lenses
    p1110278.

    the other lens
    p1110281.

    so, if you don't see much in that then the choice comes down to "do you need AF" or not ...

    On my GH body I don't (nor would I on an OM-D) but on my GF I do (unless I put my glasses on)...

    HTH
     
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I'm guessing the top lens was the native 45mm? Nice comparison, the differences certainly aren't huge.

    I've been using a Takumar 50mm/1.4 that I inherited and can't bring myself to invest in the 45/1.8, even given how cheap it is. It's definitely hard to nail focus wide open at f1.4, though. If I took more pictures of moving subjects I would probably be a lot more inclined to liquidate my supply of manual focus lenses...
     
  3. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi turbofrog

    Yep you got it right :)

    I agree with your comments. Which body are you using?
    The thing is that given how little most of my MF lenses cost me its not really worth liquidating them even if I do get a similar AF native lens.

    Worth noting too is that the AF on the 45 is slower than my 20 f1.7 ... given the slaging that the 20 gets ( about its slow af) and the bouyant praise the 45 gets for how fast it is I found that curious.
     
  4. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    I find the 45mm very slow in low light on the E-M1(event using a monopod, too low light for handheld) and it can hunt and get lost, however in brighter situations I've never found it to be a slouch. I find that it's a lens far more dependent on placement than others(I don't notice it with the 12-40 or 25mm, only the 45 - might be the longer focal length starting to show its behavior?), unless you place the AF mark right on an area of high luminance contrast it won't be happy and if you use multiple points it's just going to pick something you didn't notice in the background every time. That said it's basically my go to lens for short telephoto, some of my best images have been captured by it purely by the fact that it's small and always on hand.

    Likewise for the 50mm f1.8, another fantastic lens I always have in a different camera bag =) It's a good small size that really packs a punch, and it takes the same filters as every other lens I have... (37mm for the 45mm? why do you taunt me? it has this step inwards just to take the smaller filter, the barrel would be no larger with a 43mm, so for now I carry a step up ring...).

    Old lenses are by no means bad lenses, it's just marketing has moved forward. For video older coatings are used in some *modern* products as more current types are just too sterile and 'perfect', you end up with things like the Hawk Vintage Lenses to create a pleasing feel for movies. Perfection isn't always a good thing, not when it feels unnatural... (who defines perfection anyway?)
     
  5. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I'm using the GX1 right now, and while I've gotten reasonably competent at using the touch-magnify for manual focus, I'm looking forward to upgrading to a GX7 in the next few months, mostly because of its excellent implementation of peaking (not to mention the high resolution EVF and LCD). From my testing, I really do think the GX7 has the best implemented manual focus assists of any camera on the market. I haven't tried a GH4, but the lack of touch-screen on the A7 and Fuji X-T1 significantly slows down focussing (which still requires magnification, since peaking isn't precise enough for fast lenses).

    I also find that the 20mm focusses quite quickly when you give it a high contrast edge to focus on. If I'm not using MF, I'm always using the touchscreen to focus, and honestly can't imagine wanting to do anything else at this point.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    In every single situation, and on every single m4/3rds body I own the 45mm is far far quicker to AF than the 20mm, unless the 20mm is pre-focussed to the scene.
    (Slagging has two "g"s.)

    I got sent a Zuiko 50mmF2 by mistake one time : it exhibited a definite finer DOF wide open than my 45mm, which I wasn't expecting.
     
  7. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    well good for you ... sorry to report my findings and upset your world. None the less I see what I see ... and as has been covered before perhaps the 20mm focuses slowly for you on Oly bodies.

    thanks for the correction on my android keyboard spelling checker too ... very helpful
     
  8. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    yeah, I briefly owned a GF2 and found this quite interesting to use
     
  9. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    That's actually a good point, it may focus better on a Panasonic body(I don't remember which cameras have it, however Panasonic has a depth of defocus thing which can help some lenses), perhaps the same is true of the Olympus lens on Olympus bodies(focusing faster).

    In theory there shouldn't be a difference, however theory so rarely crosses over into practice it's hardly worth mentioning.
     
  10. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    So far only the GH4 and the LX100 have DFD (and in the LX100's case, it's obviously only specific to its own lens). It's something to look forward to on future bodies. I'm not sure why Panasonic is so adamantly opposed to putting PDAF on their own cameras...it's certainly not a technical limitation, since they happily do it for Olympus on the E-M1.
     
  11. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    I didn't realise it was only the GH4, guess that rules that out. I would guess that the reasoning behind not having PDAF is so that they don't have to pay to use a patent and perhaps also because the sensor yield is low, I know other companies had huge problems with yields especially as the sensor size goes up. While the Olympus patent would likely be shared without fee it has limitations when compared to the canon/nikon/samsung variations which are far more appealing if you really need PDAF. Who really knows though, the reasoning of giant companies is their own.
     
  12. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    I understand it does ...
    https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=70460&page=3&p=709123#post709123

    perhaps the Oly focuses better on Oly bodies (would make sense)

    from that thread: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/04/review-panasonic-20mm-f1-7-ii-micro-four-thirds/


    (the underline is mine)
     
  13. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    But it doesn't : my second-hand 20mm focuses quietly and quickly, except in a few rare occasions ... and mostly its on old Olympus bodies, sometimes an old GF1.
    Thing is ... my 45mm is blisteringly quick to focus, only beaten in dim light by this here Sigma 30mm.
     
  14. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    I agree that the 20 is quite quick. I noted that the 45 is slower, having read others finding it to be blistering I observed that in my use it was mediocre. Not quick, not fast. I felt it to be slower than the 20, but that would be logical when considering the optics.

    Please consider there is more possibility to the world than your experience.

    None the less also consider posting some supporting evidence to your counter claim...
     
  15. tornado

    tornado Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Nov 6, 2012
    The OM series lens 50mm 1.4 was my first manual lens in nearly 15 years since film bodies. So blown away by the real focus ring feel again! Very few modern lenses have focus rings made with proper manual focusing in mind. I think this is partly to blame for why young whipper-snappers really don't see the point of using manual mode.

    The m.Zuiko 75mm is about the nicest manual focus I've found in an auto capable lens, But, the fully modern but retro Voigtlander mFT's series are truly wonderful, with very long ring turns compared to the OM 50's. But they must deal with vanishingly small DoF when shooting at 0.95...;-)