Quick and dirty 45 vs 42.5

[duke]

Since I have the Nocticron until tomorrow I figured I might as well see how it stacks up against the 45f1.8 in a sort of general way. The first test is with both lenses at f1.8 and I cropped one of them to make the framing line up better, let me know what you think. These are also just jpegs, have raw if people want to mess with them you can msg/email me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[duke]

IMO there isn't really any noticeable difference in the rendering and only incredibly slight differences in sharpness which could definitely just be sample variation. This is at f1.8 of course. If you shoot wide open on the PL then the difference become more apparent, though still slight IMO.

 

[duke]

The next shot is focused in the middle. This time the lenses are wide open so it should be easy to tell which is which. The PL image was cropped again to make the framing line up.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[RevBob]

Very interesting. Makes me really happy with my 45mm.

 

[duke]

Okay, last one for now is just kind of dumb but what the heck All lenses are wide open and cropped to be similar to the 45, this one includes the pl25 shot from the same distance

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[GFFPhoto]

I have the 45, and think its a great lens, but I'm beginning to really dislike threads like this where people say they cant see a difference between two lenses and challenge others to see a difference. Especially when presented like this. Cropped to the same size and not labeled? Are you waiting for someone to say they see a difference in the way they render and answer with "so which is which"? Do you hope they answer wrong to justify your own opinion? It feels a little bit like a set up. If you don't like the lens or don't think its worth the price, sell it, but why put this much effort into justifying your choice?

 

[Jay86]

The biggest thing I have been noticing from people's comparison's to various other lenses or just comparing the images I have seen from the Nocticron in general (not sating the obvious things) is that (1) the Nocticron has a much smoother transition from the out of focus area to the area in focus and (2) the rendering quality is quite pleasing, has "that look" to it.

People have paid far more for that last 5% of perfection and gotten less in return. The Nocticron's a very nice lens IMO for those who crave it & the bank to pay for it.

Thanks for comparison, duke.

 

[duke]

I have the 45, and think its a great lens, but I'm beginning to really dislike threads like this where people say they cant see a difference between two lenses and challenge others to see a difference. Especially when presented like this. Cropped to the same size and not labeled? Are you waiting for someone to say they see a difference in the way they render and answer with "so which is which". Do you hope they answer wrong to justify your own opinion? It feels a little bit like a set up. If you don't like the lens or don't think its worth the price, sell it, but why put this much effort into justifying your choice?

The point of cropping them and not labeling them is to see if you can tell a difference without being informed. This is especially important for the first test since it's comparing the lenses at the same aperture. If I told you that the first image was the PL (don't actually remember, would have to look it up) then you would start to see how much better it is I think it's important for people to be able to see an ~objective representation of the lenses. The PL is definitely a better lens and can do f1.2 which is something that the 45 just can't. I'm simply trying to show that they are similar. I've said numerous times that I like the lens, I just couldn't justify it because for how I shoot there isn't enough difference between the 2. I'm not trying to set anyone up, just trying to show how similar the lenses are so that people can have help deciding which one they want to keep or buy. Also not trying to justify my choice, getting rid of the 45 too However, I know that most of the users here have the 45 or have some experience with it. I hope this helps them.

Also, I've stated that they are just jpegs that have been cropped to frame similarly. If anyone wants the raw files I will gladly send them.

 

[GFFPhoto]

The point of cropping them and not labeling them is to see if you can tell a difference without being informed. This is especially important for the first test since it's comparing the lenses at the same aperture. If I told you that the first image was the PL (don't actually remember, would have to look it up) then you would start to see how much better it is

Obviously they are different. Thats why its a set up. But being able to see a difference in how they render and being able to accurately identify which is which, when I only have real experience with one seems like a set up. You should check though, because to my eye, the neutral rendering of top one looks like what I get from my 45. But of course, I only have one of them, so how could I be expected to be able to accurately identify the difference, which is why it feels like a set up.

 

[htc]

I remember when first I got 75/1.8 in my hand. I knew right away that this is quality thing made from "glass and steel". Heavy as hell. I'll bet the feeling with Nocticron have to be at least the same. Quality optics have always been heavy and well made. It's kind of part of the story.

To me it's interesting to see that my toy-alike 45 can compete with Nocticron, at the jpg-laptop-monitor-level anyhow. Of course I'm not saying they are equal. At least your shoulder knows which is which When people refer their lens having certain "look", "the look", I often wonder is it something real or does it come by knowing the price. Is it like the CD-player I once had. The brand was Linn and it was almost as expensive as the life itself. It had "the sound". Until I found out it was phillips inside ;-)

Please don't get offended. I would buy that Nocticron in a heartbeat if I had the money. Still it's refreshing to see that they are not THAT far away from each other. That all my pictures I'm going to take with the 45 are not doomed in advance :-D

 

[MarkRyan]

I have the 45, and think its a great lens, but I'm beginning to really dislike threads like this where people say they cant see a difference between two lenses and challenge others to see a difference. Especially when presented like this. Cropped to the same size and not labeled? Are you waiting for someone to say they see a difference in the way they render and answer with "so which is which"? Do you hope they answer wrong to justify your own opinion? It feels a little bit like a set up. If you don't like the lens or don't think its worth the price, sell it, but why put this much effort into justifying your choice?

I disagree, I prefer this type of comparison. Lets you objectively pick out the differences -- if you can spot any -- without the subconscious impartiality of knowing "this lens is more expensive," or "I own this lens," or "someone told me before that this lens is better."

You keep using the word "setup," which sounds like a copout to me. Either don't say anything about the pictures, or say things you won't back down from when you find out the lens is different than what you assumed. It's easier to express opinions when you know it's supported by MTF tests, DxO ratings, and price, but it's not more honest.

Personally, I can tell which lens is which when both are shot wide open, but in the first shot I cannot tell. I'm not clever enough. To my eyes, the only difference I can pick out is that the top shot seems a bit less contrasty, which I prefer. But the difference is slight.

In a dark setting, with the lenses wide open, the difference would be a lot more apparent.

 

[GFFPhoto]

You keep using the word "setup," which sounds like a copout to me. Either don't say anything about the pictures, or say things you won't back down from when you find out the lens is different than what you assumed. It's easier to express opinions when you know it's supported by MTF tests, DxO ratings, and price, but it's not more honest.

I already took the bait and said which one looked like my 45 (and why I thought that), so no cop out here (in fact, I'm the ONLY one who has said anything about identification). I own the 45, I think it's a great lens (which I already said). A couple of pictures of a bottle in your kitchen isn't really a valid lens test, in fact its a test where he admits he tried to mask the more obvious differences (which is why I use the term set-up) And why try and obscure them? Because you are selling one? Why not highlight the differences? That seems like it would be much more useful to anybody considering the lens. If you create a test to try and obscure the differences in a lens, and then ask on an online forum if a mix of enthusiasts and a few pros can tell the difference, what have you proven? And you are right, the differences are subtle. But if they weren't what would that mean? It would mean one lens was really really bad. Differences in lenses, when the starting point is good, will be subtle. That is the nature of the beast. In fact, depending on the subject, the differences between m43 and an LX7 or an S120 (is that the current one?) can be subtle. We don't see a variety of conditions, or subjects, or lighting. We get a picture of a bottle in his kitchen. So really, what is being illustrated here?

Personally, I can tell which lens is which when both are shot wide open, but in the first shot I cannot tell. I'm not clever enough. To my eyes, the only difference I can pick out is that the top shot seems a bit less contrasty, which I prefer. But the difference is slight.

That was my point. You can see the difference, but you aren't sure which is which. I said the difference in how they render is obvious, but I only have experience with one of the lenses, so how can I accurately say which is which (which feels like a set up). But hey... you say the top one is less contrasty, which you prefer (which is a valid preference). So does that mean you agree or disagree with me and think the top one looks like the 45 we both own (or can you not tell since you only own one of them)?

I doubt I'll buy the 42.5 at $1600 (or even at $1300 like duke did), but maybe a more extensive comparison and test (by a huge Olympus fan) will be useful.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/...a-nocticron-42-5-f1-2-lens-review-comparison/


But... if I took the bait he should reel me in and say if I was correct in identifying my lens. But if its a set up, he wont until he hooks a few more

 

[tosvus]

Since I have only used the Nocticron (and only for a few days), it's a bit hard to conclusively say anything on the first one. I also wonder if maybe the Nocticron you got isn't the best possible one - to me, a Nocticron shot should have been sharper, but it would be useful to know exactly where you focused and if the camera was perfectly level. Maybe you could have chosen a different subject matter that would show it more clearly as well. What camera do you use btw? That will obviously have an impact on color rendition etc.

The two other comparisons are obvious of course...

I agree with the notion that for most people, the 45 1.8 makes more sense. For me, getting it at the good price at Unique, I felt that was justified because:
-It is 3/4-1 stop faster
-It has OIS (my GH3 does not have IBIS)
-perfect focal length (85mm eq)
-It offers a thinner DoF if I want it, compared to what the 45 can do (though possibly not the 75?)
-Amazing build
-VERY sharp and high contrast
-LOVE the Aperture dial
-Size wise a great fit with the GH3. Definitely looks like they fit together. (Some of my other lenses look puny on it, though of course for travel, I should rather get a EP5 or something...)
-The fortune of not having used the 45 or 75, so I don't need to worry about incremental improvement on certain apertures

(The two first are the most important for me though, since I probably gain about 3.5-4 stops on my GH3 for static subjects compared to the 45)

 

[Sammyboy]

The test proves the 42.5 does a decent job when compared to the very affordable O45.

 

[usayit]

The test proves one thing... that we spend way too much time looking at test shots.

 

[SojiOkita]

If we look at the filenames we can know which is which
(the photo from the 45 is the same for the 1st test and the 3rd test)

I always find this kind of post interesting. It's only a few examples, but it gives examples of how the lenses differ.

I know I'll probably never buy the 42.5 (too expensive for me for a single lens) so I don't care if I find it's a better lens
(however on the first example, I'm not sure of which one I'll prefer)

 

[SojiOkita]

The test proves one thing... that we spend way too much time looking at test shots.

Looking at test shots doesn't take much time... compared to making them.
I'm in this process right know... testing my new gear and comparing photos of my old gear. That can drive you nuts

 

[usayit]

Good point. Let me correct myself.

The test proves one thing... that we spend way too much time evaluating and not enough time enjoying.

My honest opinion. Ignoring the fact that I don't like the focal length, I don't like the Nocticron for the same reasons I didn't like the Noctilux f0.95 aspherical. It lacks the beautiful imperfections that set it apart... its unique character. So while you all can evaluate test shots for which is sharper the true character of a lens is through its use. Most modern lenses are sharp... boringly sharp. For the most part, I'm fine with that... the Olympus 45mm will do just fine.

Users of camera equipment or photographers?

 

[SojiOkita]

The test proves one thing... that we spend way too much time evaluating and not enough time enjoying.

I think it's natural to evaluate when you just get some new gear (body or lens).
The need to do it passes quickly... and then there's plenty time to enjoy.

(it's always the best thing to do when you start to become frustrated by your gear. You just stop reading gear forums & website and you go shoot...)

Users of camera equipment or photographers?

I'm both. I like to take pictures, and I enjoy camera equipement (reading about it, testing it, using it and so on).

 

[duke]

Just got back from lunch, not trying to bait you guys in. Okay, just looked it up and the first photo is the Nocticron in the first test. will respond to other comments shortly