Olympus 25mm f/1.2 PRO bokeh compared with Fuji 35mm f/1.4 XF R

[tomO2013]

I used to own the 17.5 and have some images I've shared in the native thread. It's a beautiful beautiful lens with a classic rendering- the best of the voigtlander m43 range for my tastes as you really do get that FF wide 'look' from it. From samples I've seen the Oly 17.5 will also give the same sort of FF wide 'look' but with really creamy out of focus. I can see a case for owning both.....

 

[tkbslc]

Pretty close horse race given that one of these lenses costs literally half what the other does (and is usually on sale for cheaper than that).

 

[tomO2013]

It's the laws of diminishing returns. I tried an Otus once and have to admit to being a little underwhelmed relative to it's price. It was a phenomenal optic, but for my purposes not worth the 4-5 times price differential over the Sigma Art series.

In the tests on this page here, for my eyes (and I also happen to own both the XF35 1.4 and Oly 25 1.2) there is a noticeable quality improvement in favor of the Oly. Whether that's worth 3 times the price is up to the purchaser. One significant difference too - is the close focus ability with the lens is massive.

 

[Sammyboy]

.... some people are content using "coke bottle" optics ..... it's your call .... it's your money ....

 

[ijm5012]

I know. I own both of those voigts and love their rendering, but they're not really in the same class as the Oly 25 f1.2.

I feel like the 17.5mm voigtlander might give the new 17mm Oly a run though. It's much sharper than my voigtlander 25mm f0.95 mk ii.

I owned all 3 of the Noktons, and while I loved them, I ended up selling all of them. Of the three, I felt that the 42.5 was the sharpest when shot at f/1.2 or f/1.4. The 25 seems to get a bad wrap, but I felt that it and the 17.5 were about even.

Owning the 25 PRO, and seeing the results from the 17 and 45 PRO lenses, there's no doubt in my mind that they're the better performers. Much smoother bokeh (and issue with the Noks I found over time), vastly superior CA performance (the Noks were terrible in this regard), and vastly sharper images at f/1.2.

 

[MxPhotos]

No normal lens I have ever owned* has had bokeh this smooth.

*Partial list: Pana Leica 25/1.4, Pana 25/1.7, Leica M Summilux ASPH 50/1.4, Zeiss ZM Planar 50/2, Konica M-Hexanon 50/2, Minolta 58/1.2, Pentax 50/1.2K, Pentax DA 35/2.4, Samsung 30/2, Zeiss ZF Makro 50/2, Olympus OM 50/1.2, Olympus OM 55/1.2, Nikon 50/1.2 AIS, Nikon 35/1.8 (DX), Canon 50/0.95 LTM, Canon 50/1.2 LTM, Nikon 50/1.8G, Nikon 50/1.4G, Canon EF 50/1.8 II, Canon EF 50/1.4, Canon EF 50/1.2L, Sigma ART 50/1.4, Sigma 30/1.4, Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8, Olympus OM 40/2, Voigtlander 50/1.5 (M), Voigtlander 50/1.5 (LTM), Mitakon 50/0.95, Mitakon 25/0.95, Voigtlander 25/0.95, Olympus 25/2.8 (4/3), Pana 20/1.7, Fuji 35/1.4...

Amin, giving you have an experiance with both the 25/1.2 PRO and the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8, can you comment on how they compare? Bokeh/sharpness/overall opinion.
I'd appreciate you thoughts!

 

[dirtdevil]

Good stuff Amin. I agree that the Olympus appears to have smoother bokeh. Of course, the Fuji lens costs half that of the Olympus, and is a whopping 7+ years old. If Fuji were to remake it today, I'm sure there are a number of "improvements" that would be made to it.

Having said that though, they're both exceptional lenses. I was surprised to see that the Olympus has smoother bokeh than the PL25, a lens I owned and used fairly often. I was always pleased with how that lens rendered, and the Olympus definitely takes that up a notch.

Thanks for your effort in doing this, as I'm sure the comparison will inevitably come up if it hasn't already, so this is a good place to point people to. Plus, it gave you an "excuse" to get out of the house and go shoot some.

The Fuji 35 1.4 is awful for autofocus and it "clicks". Many people prefer the 35 f2 instead which we could compare with the PL 25 1.4

 

[ijm5012]

The Fuji 35 1.4 is awful for autofocus and it "clicks". Many people prefer the 35 f2 instead which we could compare with the PL 25 1.4

Yes, but if you read the title of the thread, it says that it’s a Bokeh comparison, not an autofocus comparison.

 

[dirtdevil]

Yes, but if you read the title of the thread, it says that it’s a Bokeh comparison, not an autofocus comparison.

Would be nice to compare the PL42.5 1.2...Oly45 1.2....Fuji56 1.2

 

[ijm5012]

Would be nice to compare the PL42.5 1.2...Oly45 1.2....Fuji56 1.2

I’m sure if you’d send all those lenses to Amin he’d be happy to oblige.

 

[dirtdevil]

I’m sure if you’d send all those lenses to Amin he’d be happy to oblige.

I only possess the PL 42.5. I'll have to sell one to buy the next one, not the 3 at the same time.

 

[James Elliman]

Thanks for this comparison. Really useful and very close to a purchase!

J

 

[Beligasse]

Amin, giving you have an experiance with both the 25/1.2 PRO and the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8, can you comment on how they compare? Bokeh/sharpness/overall opinion.
I'd appreciate you thoughts!

I would like to know as well since I'm interested by these two lenses.

 

[BPCS]

The 25 Pro is special. The 17 and 45 Pro lenses are superb, in the modern and clinical way, but the 25 has the character. It should be used at f1.2... even at f1.4 the bokeh "smoothness" goes from "exceptional" to "just nice"... if you are looking for it... but it does stay "nice and smooth" even when well stopped down, which some lenses don't. It's not tack sharp, even stopped down, which means it doesn't suit some genres of photography best. When the shot deserves the effort, the 25 Pro is rewarding.

 

[doady]

The Fuji surprises me. I wouldn't have expected a prime lens to have hard-edged bokeh balls. I thought that was just a trait of a zoom lens. I always assumed prime lenses always have smoother bokeh than zoom lenses, but I guess not. I guess I will have to be careful if I ever finally decide to get a prime.

 

[John King]

Interestingly, the smooth focus transitions both in front of the plane of focus and behind it are what convinced me to buy the 12-100.

I don't think that this is necessarily a characteristic of primes or zooms, just the lens design. Possibly easier to do with primes, but I don't know.

 

[0000]

I wouldn't have expected a prime lens to have hard-edged bokeh balls. I thought that was just a trait of a zoom lens. I always assumed prime lenses always have smoother bokeh than zoom lenses, but I guess not.

The optical design of a prime lens can be literally anywhere on the map... there are even some people on this forum with a particular fondness for the "soap bubble" bokeh that some designs produce.