Hello, I've been wondering about this for a while now. My 45mm f/1.8 was one of my favorite lenses for a while. However, since I got my 12-40, I find I use my 45 a lot less and usually when I do use it, its because I tell myself that I should. I still find it takes great pictures and that it has a little something more than what my 12-40 does at 40mm. I am wondering if I should trade my 45 for a 75mm. It would be a focal length I do not really have (other than my 75-300, but its not for the same situations). I know the 45 can usually be used in more situations than the 75 and that its an hefty investment. I've had the 75mm for a bit, but I sold it because I needed the money. My other concern is that with the 12-40 + 75 instead of 12-40 + 45, I would have 2 big (by m43 standards) lenses, rather than a big and a small one which would mean I wouldn't have a really compact lens other than with my Rokinon 7.5mm FE. So, I've been wondering for a while now and I think I could use some words of wisdom from someone else. Edit: Forgot to say, but I've got someone offering me his 75mm for my 45mm + 475 CAD
IMO, You would benefit more from the 75. The 45 vs the 12-40 @40 gives you something but not what you get at 75. The 75 vs the 75-300 @75 gives you alot more. You owned the 75 already so you know what you get. For me, the 75 is almost always producing something just a little more special than other lenses. Pick up the 75 and then eventually get something small like the 20 or 14, or 25(when the price drops) so that you have the option of a compact kit. PS. Its always easier for me to make choices like this when someone else is actually spending the money...
Personally I think I would keep the 45mm right now, and start slowly saving for the 75. Reason for me saying this is that I have both the 45 and 75 and use the 45 a lot more, AND 90% of the pictures I take with it are between f1.8-2.8. The 45mm is a much better lens in low light because of the shorter focal length, which means you need slower shutter speeds and it is still usable for indoors, while the 75mm is a bit too long. If you have savings of $475 already to add to your 45mm to get a 75mm, I would keep the 45mm and set aside the $475, and start slowly saving $275 extra to add the 75mm in the future. Locally in Canada, GTA, I see the 75mm often being offered for $700 used. I actually got mine locally here for $700 which also included an original Olympus hood and an $80 filter. So basically, on a 2X crop sensor, having the option of f1.8-2.8 goes a really long way and I just can't see myself replacing the 45mm f1.8 with the 40mm f2.8 portion of the zoom lens.
Alternatively you could pick up one of the 60mm ( oly or Sigma) F2.8's and keep or sell the 45. Gives you a in between that rivals both in IQ, albeit a stop slower, but significantly less $$. I have the 45, 60 and 75 (oly's). I like them all and want to sell the 60 or 75, but can't part with either one yet. Tough decision frankly.
I had a 75 and just traded it on a 45 + cash. It all came down to focal length preference (& needs) to be honest. The 75 just didn't "fit" with me. Didn't matter in the end how brilliant the lens was if it doesn't work for me it doesn't work. Ultimately this is a question your best suited to answer. If you think you can use the 75 and get good images out of it then by all means go for it.
Since you don't use the 45/1.8 much because you own the 12-40/2.8, I'm wondering whether you'd use the 75/1.8 if you owned the 35-100/2.8.
I'd keep the 45. I have a 12-35 and whilst it's a great walkabout lens, it's no replacement for the 45. At f1.8, the 45 gives great subject isolation and works well in low light. It's also an ideal FOV for a lot of portrait situations. It's also not an expensive lens - probably the best value in u43. I'd just keep it. The 75 is a stellar lens of course, but it's a much narrower FOV than the 45 and unless you're sure it's a FL that will work for you, then it's not a substitute for the 45. As Gary5 mentioned, the 35-100 might be a better choice. It's much more versatile and will fit nicely with your 75-300.
I do not have the 12-40 and since I got the 75 I use the 45 much less. If you like the 12-40 and don't need the speed at the 40-45 FL then this swap seems like a no brainer.
The 45 is what got me seriously into m43. Still got it, really good on my ancient ep1. Wont get rid of it ever, it for me embodies the advantages of m43, being small and excellent. Since getting the 75, 12-40 and a legacy om50f1.4 it sees little use, but every now and then I give it a run and it always make keepers. Some of my very favourite pics are with that lens. You will regret selling it.
Both are fabulous lenses - but 150mm 35mm equivalent is a slightly esoteric length. I grew up using Leica 135mm lenses and liked that FL, but it's not a common fixed FL lens today. If it works for you, it's brilliant. If not...it's a very expensive paperweight.
for me the reason to mount a prime over a stellar-quality zoom (which the 12-40 is) is for that extra stop or 2 of performance. in these scenarios (night time) i dont really ever see the 75 being usable. id say 25mm is the compact night-time 12-40 companion, despite the duplicate FL... but between 45 and 75 id go 45 esp if you shoot on long end of the zoom
the 75mm is godlike, truly incredible lens although it's mostly a single use lens for a certain portrait or landscape shot.
75mm is way too long for indoor use where most of low light pics are taken. IMO, the primary use of this lens is shallow DoF.
Ever since getting the 75 and 12-40, my 45 has seen very little love. The 45 is nice, but the 75 is at least twice as nice.
I have the 20 Panasonic and the 45 and the 60, which besides being a stellar macro lens, is a fine portrait lens. If I were to add a lens to your collection it would be the 60, not the 75, which I feel is too long for general use. For myself, I am wondering if I need the 45 since I have the 60. Crossen
