Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by colbycheese, Aug 9, 2015.
Title says all. which one of the 2 is sharper, or just overall better for my kit. I can't decide
Difficult to say without knowing what your needs are. Both are exceptionally sharp at 2.8, to the point that which one is sharper is moot. The 45/1.8 is very sharp at 1.8 as well, perfectly usable for any purpose that you would shoot at 1.8 for.
The biggest differences will be the obvious ones. The 45 at 1.8 will let you shoot in lower light, and at 45mm, will let you get closer to your subject.
The 60 at 2.8 won't be as good in low light, but gets you a bit more reach and keeps you further from your subject, which is good if you want to flatten the perspective a bit more for headshots. However, the 45/1.8 is a classic portrait lens and at typical working distances provides flattering perspective, so this isn't much of a pro for the 60.
Subject isolation is very similar, the 45 is faster, but the 60mm is longer which magnifies the background detail, making it look more blurred. The 60 will give you a similar look to the out of focus areas as the 45 stopped down to F2.2.
I would go for the 45/1.8 because I love a 85/90-ish equivalent focal length lens, longer feels a bit too tight for me. For you? Again it depends on what you're looking for. You've got a variety of 50-58mm lenses, so I would think you should have a pretty good idea whether you want something shorter or longer.
Both are good enough that focal length or aperture should be your deciding factor.
It makes no sense to compare two lenses with completely different focal lengths and maximum aperture. You really should be asking which is sharper, O45/1.8 vs P42.5/1.7 or O60/2.8 vs S60/2.8.
Choose your focal length first, maximum aperture wanted/needed second and then worry about sharpness and other IQ criteria. Worrying about sharpness first and focal length/aperture second is akin to taking the most technically brilliant photo of the most yawn inducing subject with poor composition to boot.
Both are short telephoto lenses with relatively fast aperture. I don't think it is odd to compare them at all. The use cases and types of photos taken with the lenses will be similar.
Both may be short telephoto lenses but they are very different focal lengths in the same way a 35mm is very different from a 50mm although both may be called a "normal" lens. The maximum aperture is 1.25 stops which isn't much of a difference in terms of DoF when you take into account the difference in focal length. However, in terms of light gathering, for me, it's huge as it means I can work with lower ISO and/or faster shutter speeds.
If I'm in the market for a 50mm, I'm not going to buy a 35mm just because it may be marginally sharper.
IMO, a rational way of buying lenses is by choosing a focal length and then buying the best one that suits your needs/wants in terms of price, maximum aperture, IQ attributes, build quality, size and weight depending on the different options available.
Other people might have different criteria or priorities for choosing a lens. However, like I said previously, the logical comparison would be to compare the O45 to the Panasonic variants or the S60 to the O60.
On battle of sharpness? maybe this will helps you
Olympus 45mm F1.8
View attachment 433050
Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN A
as my eyes sees it, Sigma is sharper and have more color, although the bokeh more beautiful on Olympus 45mm F1.8. But it's just my eyes sees it.
Too bad i don't have the 45mm F1.8 anymore so can't to the equal compare (with the same camera, same objects, same place, etc.)
It's been said here before, but you really won't be disappointed by the performance of either lens – both will impress you. Really it's only the focal length that should influence your decision. I've had both, but I've kept the O45. I feel more comfortable with it. I'm not sure I'd could justify both lenses. For me they do the same job but the O45 is a bit more flexible, mainly because you don't always have room to step back...
I agree that both are stellar lenses, but if you plan to use it indoors regularly, the 45mm focal length is easier to work with in terms of working distance, and the extra speed helps indoors as well.
Without more information is hard to say. And while I agree you need to decide if there is a particular focal length you prefer, I also think intended use is important. Short fast telephoto? Get the 45. Dedicated portrait lens? I prefer the working distance of the 60. Indoors the faster 45 might be better, outside you have AF to 45mm but your collection stops there.
Both are very good, I've owned both. I liked the rendering of the 60 better. My current m4/3 kit is aimed at small with the GM5 so I currently have the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 with OIS. If (or when) I pick up another larger body I'll probably add the 60mm again. At its price it might be the best cheap lens I've ever owned.
It's really unfair to ask us which is better for your kit. Only you can decide that. The best we can do is give you opinions on what we like better.
1) Both lenses are super sharp.
2) Both lenses have a good aperture range - the 45 is faster, if low light is a real requirement for you
3) The 60 will give you a little more reach if you need it.
4) Both have the ability to render some good bokeh and provide shallow DOF.
5) I'm not sure of the Sigma, but the AF on the 45 is fast and accurate. I've heard similar from the Sigma, but cannot personally verify.
The 45 is sharper at f/2. They're different focal lengths. They're both sharp enough. Don't pick one or the other for sharpness.
I went with the 45 because it's more versatile. I will probably pick up one of the Sigma 60 within the next year. Unless I can suddenly afford the 75/1.8.
I was actually googling this yesterday.
I shoot portraits more than anything so I have the o45, however, I'd like to have a good walk around lens and was looking at the o12-40 pro and figured that would eliminate the need of the o45. That means I need another portrait lens and was looking at the Sigma 60 to do that job.
So I'm interested in this topic based on those requirements. If the Sigma is as good as the o45 for portraits, then getting the o12-40 pro and sigma 60 would be perfect for me.
Yeah that makes sense to me. Hopefully this thread helped more than just me
I've had them both; still have the 60. They are both technically outstanding imo. As others have said, that should not be deciding factor. I went with the 60 and eliminated the 45 and 75/1.8 from my kit. Big cost savings, but my goal was really to reduce # of lenses. I'm not saying the 60 is as good as the 75 (it's not), but I just never used the 75 enough to make it a "must have".
What are your feelings on the the 60s smooth barrel? I know looks are just looks, but it seems a bit odd to me.
I've wondered if the smooth barrel is still a functional MF ring or if it has no MF ring at all?
Works just like any other MF ring. Really nothing to write home about.
Is the lack of texture/grip an issue?
Never has been for me. Your fingertip tends to have enough grippiness to "stick" to the bare metal.