I think those Pro primes are really made for Pro's. Low-light, bad weather or maximum performance.Thanks all for the helpful feedback and direction... as a bit of an update, following an early recommendation by @bargainguy I started looking at the Sigma 56 1.4 and pulled the trigger on ordering last week. Got it in earlier this week, and really haven't had a ton of time to shoot with it, other than one outing... and I am leaning toward returning it. Not so much due to the quality, which is great... but I think that even this "smaller" alternative to the Oly Pro 45 1.2 is going to be too much bigger than the 45 1.8 to justify holding onto.
I am going to give it another go this weekend, but with the small bag I like to carry, the difference in size between the 56 1.4 vs 45 1.8 really is a difference. I don't really do traditional portrait shoots... but like to be prepared for those impromptu portrait opportunities. Since I am working with a wider lens... the odds of me having the 56 in the bag are much less than having the smaller 45 1.8 in there when I need it.
Maybe it is the lens hood with the Sigma 56m...
I bought the 25 f/1.2 on black friday for 600€... then sent it back as I got a bad copy. Right side was never sharp (even at f/4). Comparison with my 25 f/1.8 was harsh for the f/1.2.I think those Pro primes are really made for Pro's. Low-light, bad weather or maximum performance.
I could have got new Olympus 25mm f/1.2 at Black Friday for ~650 €, but later bought new Olympus 25mm f/1.8 for 190 €.
That 42.5mm f/1.7 is a small miracle. Of course cannot compete in quality with the PL, but for me it's plenty sharp. And the minimum focus distance of 31 cm gives nice bokeh when you want closeups. PL has it at 50 cm. Weight 425 g vs 130 g.I spent an afternoon walking around Manchester with the PL42.5mm Baked Bean Tin lens on my GX80. I went back to the shop and bought a P25mm and P42.5mm f1.7’s instead.
If you have to ask, probably not. And with your other statements, until you change your outlook about the traits you mentioned, it would not be worth it.... anyone have any feedback about whether it is worth it to upgrade to this pro lense?
One of my main concerns is the size... will I want to carry that larger lens often? The 45 1.8 is always in the bag, but I think that is because it is so darn small...
Is the improved sharpness and extra low light capabilities going to outweigh the size? I tend to always gravitate towards smallest lenses possible...
Mike is correct - That "cheap' "amateur" Panasonic 25mm F1.7 is just amazing for IQ. It is the equivalent of those 50mm film era lenses sold at knockdown prices by Nikon, Canon and Pentax to get you hooked on adding to your lens bag spend. After one try out I knew I had to have it - you can even see the IQ difference over the zooms clearly on old 12 and 16MP M4/3 sensor cameras. That lens is a milestone that adds something special to the whole M4/3 format.I spent an afternoon walking around Manchester with the PL42.5mm Baked Bean Tin lens on my GX80. I went back to the shop and bought a P25mm and P42.5mm f1.7’s instead.
I agree on all your points. The 20 1.7 is my most highly regarded lens, shame its slow AF. Recently been chasing the dog around the house with the P42.5 and struggling with DOF. Either her snout is in focus but not her eyes, and vice versa. Forget about having the furry detail on her chest. I've been shooting birds with the PL100-400 with more success than this elusive black and white beast.Mike is correct - That "cheap' "amateur" Panasonic 25mm F1.7 is just amazing for IQ. It is the equivalent of those 50mm film era lenses sold at knockdown prices by Nikon, Canon and Pentax to get you hooked on adding to your lens bag spend. After one try out I knew I had to have it - you can even see the IQ difference over the zooms clearly on old 12 and 16MP M4/3 sensor cameras. That lens is a milestone that adds something special to the whole M4/3 format.
- how do they fit 8 elements lenses in 7 groups into the size and weight of the 25mm?
- with 2 Aspherical elements and 1 UHR element inside - how come it is so inexpensive?
Seriously - for near every M4/3 photographer - this is THE prime lens deal of 2020. How many of us really shoot in the dark, the rain and dust storms? If you do - then the choice is easier.
I am told (and it will be bad for my pocket) that the "cheap' "amateur" 42.5 Panasonic and the olympus 45mm F1.8 have the same effect on those who try them out........which is bad as my 2020 resolution was to take pictures with the kit I had rather than lust for just another fix of lens !
If your GAS is getting hold as you read about new lenses to buy - then can I suggest that you "simulate" the effect of having an F1.4 vs a F1.7 at a great website called "DoF simulator" at -- https://dofsimulator.net/en/ .....now suddenly that F2.8 legacy lens in your old camera bag begins to look useful again !
Best wishes to you all - Paul C
I bought a 25 f/1.2 which was worse (from f/2.5 approx.) than my 25 f/1.8. At f/4, the borders of the Pro were largely inferior to the 25 /f1.8.I doubt you’re going to find anyone who sprung for the 45/1.2 that will tell you that the 45/1.8 is nearly equal in image quality. That’s like someone who bought a Mercedes admitting that a Camry is as good even tho the Camry may be as comfortable & much more reliable. Your $ is in the more expensive lens, therefor it’s the best. I will be the first to admit it’s better, but $800 better is debatable unless you need f/1.2 & regularly shoot at f/1.2
Sorry to hear that your Pro versions were actually inferior to the cheaper 1.8 version.I bought a 25 f/1.2 which was worse (from f/2.5 approx.) than my 25 f/1.8. At f/4, the borders of the Pro were largely inferior to the 25 /f1.8.
Actually, I bought a second one, which was even worse but because of AF problems.
The first lens was also clearly defective (decentered), but it also convinced me that it was too big and not as pleasant to use as I expected (I didn't like the AF clutch that I continuously moved by mistake).
Of course, I didn't keep it.
So, it's not because you buy something that you like it in the end
For me, the volume is more important than the price paid: once you've bought it, it's yours. But you carry the additional volume & weight everytime you use it, not just the day you buy itI should have worded my post to say "to find very many" rather than say "to find anyone". I would say the background bokeh is better than with the 1.8 version but unless i'm being paid for images that require that better bokeh look, I'll use that additional $800 in a better way for my photography.
Gromit... between those two images, my money is on the 45/1.8. Nice image, BTW!I hope this will be relevant (at least in some small way) to this thread, which has been a good read. My Sigma 56 arrived end of last week and so I've been out and about with. Today, before I move my 45-1.8 on. just thought I'd have a quick - and very unscientific - comparison between the 45 and the 56. Both shot wide open, and the distance to subject changed slightly to allow for different focal lengths. Should state the background here is quite chaotic - sunlight through ivy bushes and various trees.
View attachment 802127
View attachment 802128
Of course the Sigma does have a softer, more diffuse bokeh (as one would expect) but there's a certain 'something' about the little O45 which is why I always maintain it punches so well above its weight. I did have the 45-1.2 for a while - sold it in a fit of full-frame GAS madness early last year, and regretted doing so very soon after! Shame I didn't have one here to throw into the mix.