Oly 45mm vs. PL45 ... Which for you?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by CarlB, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. CarlB

    CarlB Mu-43 Veteran

    I just jumped at a good deal on a used PL45, and am waiting for it to arrive on Tuesday.

    The choice is interesting between the two m43 45mm lenses (Oly versus Pana-Leica). They both appear to have very excellent sharpness, and richness. To my eye, a slight advantage may exist here for the PL45.

    The ability to shoot macro is a big plus for the PL45. The ability to shoot portraits at f1.8 of course goes to the Oly 45mm, probably a bigger plus.

    Size and weight definitely goes to the Oly 45mm. In-lens OIS could offer a slight advantage in some instances to the PL45.

    Lower cost definitely goes to the Oly (Although I found a used PL45 on eBay for not too much more than the Oly).

    In the end, I thought about the legacy Canon fd 50mm f1.4 that I love to shoot. The Oly 45mm would have been quite a bit of overlap for me. So, I decided upon the PL45 for mostly its additional macro capability. Now, just have to wait until Tuesday until it shows up at my work!

    I'm know I'm in the minority here. Anyone else either choose the PL45 over the Oly 45mm? Anyone have both? If so, why?
     
  2. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  3. CarlB

    CarlB Mu-43 Veteran

    Yes, those are some great shots you're getting from that, for sure!
     
  4. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    If you do macro then go for the panny 45, otherwise go for the oly 45/1.8 its an excellent lens imo cause I own one.
     
  5. drizek

    drizek Mu-43 Veteran

    492
    Aug 5, 2011
    I probably would have purchased the PL if they were both the same price.

    I don't regret getting the mz though. It is really excellent. I stopped using my 20mm.
     
  6. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    i will probably end up owning both in the future... but for now, the oly 45 1.8. :biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    532
    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    Mark
    My thoughts precisely. And why I have the Olympus.
     
  8. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I had the Oly 45, but a dedicated portrait lens isn't quite my thing. I have an OM 50/1.4, which can pinch hit quite nicely for when I need that. I also have the PL25, which is fabulous for low-light people shots, and can be used for portraits (just more like body shots, or upper body shots).

    The PL45 is great for walk-about because you can get good landscape details OR macro. It's rendering is a bit more contrasty and richer colors, IMO, than the Oly45. The background blur, of course, is completely won by the Oly, but again, I am OK with my legacy lenses for that.
     
  9. Conrad

    Conrad Mu-43 Veteran

    Right on. And that's why I (still) have the PL45. I have shot the oly, and it's excellent and desirable, but already owning the PL45, I cannot justify another 45 mm (yet).

    I also have a Rokkor 50/1.7, and it's no match to either the panny or the oly. It starts to be comparable only from f/4 and up.
     
  10. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    I don't care enough about macro shooting not to be satisfied with the macro capabilities of my small cameras (GRD3 and X10). So, for me, the Olympus 45 is a very easy call. I like candid portraits, love subject isolation in those candid portraits, love low light, love the lower price. Absolutely no downside to the Oly and absolutely no upside to the Pany, for ME... But if you like shooting macros, the equation changes completely and the Pany is the ONLY choice.

    Bottom line, if you're not a macro shooter, I don't know why you'd EVER choose the Pany. And if you are, I don't know why you'd even CONSIDER the Olympus, unless money is no object and you want both macros and the fastest possible portrait lens....

    -Ray
     
  11. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    :thiagree::thiagree:
     
  12. zerotiu

    zerotiu Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Sep 13, 2011
    Indonesia-Singapore
    I used to think like you before buying 45mm lens. I think that portrait and macro photography is very different. If I bring 45mm, I will think about face and something blurry :D. So it was easy for me, I chose Oly 45mm.
     
  13. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    It's sharper at all apertures. Maybe not enough for most people to care, but enough to make a difference on big prints or major crops.

    DH
     
  14. CarlB

    CarlB Mu-43 Veteran

    Here is a bit of the PL45 lens (new to me) at the McNeely Conservatory:

    <img src=https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6638847923_90006bd9ef_b.jpg>

    <img src=https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7149/6638922689_b5bf53157e_b.jpg>

    <img src=https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6638947017_a91f76fd55_b.jpg>

    <img src=https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6638866443_cdd7a6a81f_b.jpg>
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. PeterB666

    PeterB666 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    780
    Jan 14, 2010
    Tura Beach, Australia
    Peter
    I never considered the PL45 as I already have a slow macro lens for MFT via an adapted Olympus OM 50 mm lens.

    I picked up a 3-week old Olympus 45 mm from a deceased estate and it appears may have never been used. Such are the benefits of somking and lung cancer to the non-smoker.

    I am very impressed with the Olympus 45 mm 1.8 - an absolute ripping piece of kit for portrait use.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
     
  16. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Oly 45 FTW, better in low light, more bokeh, cheaper. =)
     
  17. Henk

    Henk Mu-43 Regular

    197
    Aug 18, 2010
    the Netherlands
    It has the more effective OIS which does not produce artifacts on video like the IS does and like dhazeghi said, it's sharper.
     
  18. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    I don't have the funds to buy either one right now but I think about this every day. Back in the 80's I had a Tamron SP 90/2.5 macro. It was my favorite, most used focal length and I love macro. Then I got an Olympus 85/2. It was smaller (smaller than most 50's at the time) lighter and faster. Yes, 2/3 of a stop seemed like a big deal when I was 20something.

    I never knew which one to take out. Taking both seemed extravagant. I was tortured every day. Now 25 years later I have the same dilemma and I don't even have the lenses yet!

    I must have done something horrible in a past life to have such karma. Today, if I had $400 in my pocket, it would be the Oly 45/1.8. Tomorrow? I don't know.

    @Ray S In answer to your question
    Image stabilization. I use a G2. I like it, the 45/1.8 doesn't have it. It's not a dealbreaker, but it is a consideration.

    Fred
     
  19. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hi Fred
    Don't be so pessimistic . I can send u my Olympus 45mm for couple of weeks .Shoot for few weeks , have fun and return it . Just pay the shipping back . I can do that for a photography lover .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  20. crsnydertx

    crsnydertx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    995
    Dec 31, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Chuck
    I'm in a "small is better" phase right now, so my G2/PL45 combination has been in storage for a while and the E-PM1/Oly 45 is getting all the action. The photos in this thread is encouraging me to try the PL45 again. Thanks!