Should i be disappointed with the 45mm F1.2

[Lukeylight]

As far as my eyes see, 45 pro has better optics. The contrast were good and surely seen more cleaner. But for bokeh, i love 75mm.

I agree about the 75mm but, I bought the 45 f1.2 for better separation in confined spaces.

 

[wimg]

I agree about the 75mm but, I bought the 45 f1.2 for better separation in confined spaces.

Your new pictures show slightly better contrast for the 45 Pro, even at F/1.2, and at F/1.8 it appears slightly sharper too. If you look at the helmet, ear flap, right hand side in the picture, you will see much more definition in the details than in the 45 F/1.8 image.

This apart from the roll-off, or bokeh, or OOF areas, which are a lot nicer with the 45 Pro.

BTW, I also own both lenses, the 45 Pro, 45 F/1.8, and I also own the Panny 42.5 F/1.7, and tested the PL 42.5 F/1.2.
For me, the 45 Pro was best, followed by the Panny 42.5 F/1.7, the latter especially for portraits. The PL I did not like because of its roll-off, and the Panny 42.5 F/1.7 is slightly sharper towards the edges and corners than the Oly 45 F/1.8. I also consider its roll-off and bokeh to be more pleasant.

In order to test and compare lenses, IMO you do need to take corners and edges into account, whether you shoot portraits or not. When positionign a person or person's face off-centre, the result should not suffer or be significantly different. That actually is the case with the 45 F/1.8 IMO. And absolutely not with the 45 Pro. I have to say that I use the 45 Pro for much more than just portraiture, however. Architectural details and landscapes come to mind too.

The fall-off towards the edges and corners is why I do not like, f.e., most large aperture Voightländer lenses. I tend to shoot filling a frame as much as possible, and the resolution fall-off at wide apertures significantly interferes with that, unless you want to achieve a certain look. This is also why I consider the 45 F/1.8 to be of lesser quality, although it is not as nearly as bad as the mentioned Voightländer lenses. The only reason I have kept 45 F/1.8 is because I think it is good enough, and useful when I travel light due to its rather small size.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

 

[PakkyT]

Much better set this second time. For me, my eyes keep going to the gold crest on the label and oddly with the PRO at f1.2 & f1.4 the details are kind of blown out, partially maybe due to that lens being slightly brighter than the camera things when metering exposure, so perhaps more highlights issue than image quality. But that said, the lettering on the label still looks softer to me on the PRO at f1.2 and f1.4 than the 45/1.8 does at f1.8. Even if you argue that lenses get sharper once you stop them down from wide open, I would hope the $1300 PRO lens at f1.4 would be as good as the $300 45/1.8 but to my eyes it isn't.

You will have to decide for yourself if the PRO is worth the extra money, but personally I might be more forgiving if we were comparing, say, a $600 and $300 lens, but the PRO is list priced at literally one-thousand dollars more and at slightly over 4x the price I would expect more from the PRO lens.

 

[RichardC]

According to the EXIF, pics 1, 3, 5 & 7 are from the f1.2 lens.

The 1.8 version appears slightly sharper and has more contrast - at least to my eye. The 1.2 has the characteristic smoother bokeh.

Here are my examples. EM1 MK2. SOOC JPEGS. IS off, tripod mounted, remote release. Full sized pictures uploaded and left to forum software to shrink them.

I would class these as average, but I don't shoot jpegs and the compressed versions here are subjective. The link to the raw files is at the foot of this post and op can get a better comparison from those. I've checked the first image with bare minimum of processing and sharpening and the bottle label and coins look fine to me.

f1.2

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

f1.4

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

f1.8

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

f2.8

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

f4

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

f5.6

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

I'll upload the RAW files and edit this post to include a link (cooking tea right now!)

RAW files: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0r3uzw2wwv3d7e2/AAB5hK43K3X4SWgFPa8YGtRPa?dl=0


1200x1600px crop of the f1.2 (top) RAW image. This has had very basic processing in Lightroom plus a smart sharpen/texture filter in Photoshop at my default setting. As you can imagine, I'm more than happy to use mine wide open.

To make a comparison, OP would need to make his f1.2 RAW image available. There are too many things that can happen to JPEGS and in camera settings will probably vary from mine.

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

 

[Lukeylight]

Your new pictures show slightly better contrast for the 45 Pro, even at F/1.2, and at F/1.8 it appears slightly sharper too. If you look at the helmet, ear flap, right hand side in the picture, you will see much more definition in the details than in the 45 F/1.8 image.

This apart from the roll-off, or bokeh, or OOF areas, which are a lot nicer with the 45 Pro.

BTW, I also own both lenses, the 45 Pro, 45 F/1.8, and I also own the Panny 42.5 F/1.7, and tested the PL 42.5 F/1.2.
For me, the 45 Pro was best, followed by the Panny 42.5 F/1.7, the latter especially for portraits. The PL I did not like because of its roll-off, and the Panny 42.5 F/1.7 is slightly sharper towards the edges and corners than the Oly 45 F/1.8. I also consider its roll-off and bokeh to be more pleasant.

In order to test and compare lenses, IMO you do need to take corners and edges into account, whether you shoot portraits or not. When positionign a person or person's face off-centre, the result should not suffer or be significantly different. That actually is the case with the 45 F/1.8 IMO. And absolutely not with the 45 Pro. I have to say that I use the 45 Pro for much more than just portraiture, however. Architectural details and landscapes come to mind too.

The fall-off towards the edges and corners is why I do not like, f.e., most large aperture Voightländer lenses. I tend to shoot filling a frame as much as possible, and the resolution fall-off at wide apertures significantly interferes with that, unless you want to achieve a certain look. This is also why I consider the 45 F/1.8 to be of lesser quality, although it is not as nearly as bad as the mentioned Voightländer lenses. The only reason I have kept 45 F/1.8 is because I think it is good enough, and useful when I travel light due to its rather small size.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thank you very much Wim. I definitely see your points. I will endeavour to shoot more with it and see if it grows on me.

 

[oldracer]

... better ...

Better for what? How do you use your images that tiny differences matter?

 

[Lukeylight]

I suppose when you spend alot of money for a 45mm f1.2 you would expect it to be better than your 45mm f1.8

 

[Lukeylight]

According to the EXIF, pics 1, 3, 5 & 7 are from the f1.2 lens.

The 1.8 version appears slightly sharper and has more contrast - at least to my eye. The 1.2 has the characteristic smoother bokeh.

Here are my examples. EM1 MK2. SOOC JPEGS. IS off, tripod mounted, remote release. Full sized pictures uploaded and left to forum software to shrink them.

I would class these as average, but I don't shoot jpegs and the compressed versions here are subjective. The link to the raw files is at the foot of this post and op can get a better comparison from those. I've checked the first image with bare minimum of processing and sharpening and the bottle label and coins look fine to me.

f1.2
View attachment 892850


f1.4
View attachment 892851



f1.8
View attachment 892852


f2.8
View attachment 892853


f4
View attachment 892854


f5.6
View attachment 892855



I'll upload the RAW files and edit this post to include a link (cooking tea right now!)

RAW files: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0r3uzw2wwv3d7e2/AAB5hK43K3X4SWgFPa8YGtRPa?dl=0


1200x1600px crop of the f1.2 (top) RAW image. This has had very basic processing in Lightroom plus a smart sharpen/texture filter in Photoshop at my default setting. As you can imagine, I'm more than happy to use mine wide open.

To make a comparison, OP would need to make his f1.2 RAW image available. There are too many things that can happen to JPEGS and in camera settings will probably vary from mine.

View attachment 892870

Thank you very much Richard, this will be a great help. I will compare when I go home after work.

 

[Lukeylight]

Much better set this second time. For me, my eyes keep going to the gold crest on the label and oddly with the PRO at f1.2 & f1.4 the details are kind of blown out, partially maybe due to that lens being slightly brighter than the camera things when metering exposure, so perhaps more highlights issue than image quality. But that said, the lettering on the label still looks softer to me on the PRO at f1.2 and f1.4 than the 45/1.8 does at f1.8. Even if you argue that lenses get sharper once you stop them down from wide open, I would hope the $1300 PRO lens at f1.4 would be as good as the $300 45/1.8 but to my eyes it isn't.

You will have to decide for yourself if the PRO is worth the extra money, but personally I might be more forgiving if we were comparing, say, a $600 and $300 lens, but the PRO is list priced at literally one-thousand dollars more and at slightly over 4x the price I would expect more from the PRO lens.

Exactly my point. Ty

 

[994]

Probably of no help to you, but I found of the cheap 45s, I like the P1.7 the best but the sigma 56/1.4 was best of all and cured my need to try the 1.2. Price, size and weight also fit my style more.

 

[PeeBee]

I used to own the f1.8 but didn't use it very often. It was sharp but it just didn't call to me. I now have the f1.2 after getting it 'free' in a promotion. I haven't used that one much either, partly because I got it during the pandemic so opportunities have been limited, and partly because I like the convenience of a zoom. I prefer the character of the f1.2 lens, the colours, contrast, bokeh and transitions. It is a nice lens, it feels great and has weather sealing, but I can understand why anyone would question the value proposition over the 1.8.

 

[Mack]

Another point on the f/1.2 is it is hopefully better sealed against dust than the f/1.8 is. My f/1.8 went into Olympus for a firmware update as it was used on a drone and the thing needed the update for some video issues with the diaphragm. Cost of the firmware update was $140 and it took weeks if not months due to estimate changes. When it came back it was full of dust, but given the amount of time off to repair and being used on a flying fan of a drone, I overlooked that matter.

Hopefully the weather sealing of the f/1.2 will prevent that being I use it in the desert and afternoon wind carries a lot of dirt, but it is too heavy for the drone to manage.

 

[Lukeylight]

I used to own the f1.8 but didn't use it very often. It was sharp but it just didn't call to me. I now have the f1.2 after getting it 'free' in a promotion. I haven't used that one much either, partly because I got it during the pandemic so opportunities have been limited, and partly because I like the convenience of a zoom. I prefer the character of the f1.2 lens, the colours, contrast, bokeh and transitions. It is a nice lens, it feels great and has weather sealing, but I can understand why anyone would question the

Probably of no help to you, but I found of the cheap 45s, I like the P1.7 the best but the sigma 56/1.4 was best of all and cured my need to try the 1.2. Price, size and weight also fit my style more.

I used to own the P1.7, my copy of the Oly 45 was sharper wide open and did not suffer with alot of ca, so I sold it.

 

[Lukeylight]

According to the EXIF, pics 1, 3, 5 & 7 are from the f1.2 lens.

The 1.8 version appears slightly sharper and has more contrast - at least to my eye. The 1.2 has the characteristic smoother bokeh.

Here are my examples. EM1 MK2. SOOC JPEGS. IS off, tripod mounted, remote release. Full sized pictures uploaded and left to forum software to shrink them.

I would class these as average, but I don't shoot jpegs and the compressed versions here are subjective. The link to the raw files is at the foot of this post and op can get a better comparison from those. I've checked the first image with bare minimum of processing and sharpening and the bottle label and coins look fine to me.

f1.2
View attachment 892850


f1.4
View attachment 892851



f1.8
View attachment 892852


f2.8
View attachment 892853


f4
View attachment 892854


f5.6
View attachment 892855



I'll upload the RAW files and edit this post to include a link (cooking tea right now!)

RAW files: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0r3uzw2wwv3d7e2/AAB5hK43K3X4SWgFPa8YGtRPa?dl=0


1200x1600px crop of the f1.2 (top) RAW image. This has had very basic processing in Lightroom plus a smart sharpen/texture filter in Photoshop at my default setting. As you can imagine, I'm more than happy to use mine wide open.

To make a comparison, OP would need to make his f1.2 RAW image available. There are too many things that can happen to JPEGS and in camera settings will probably vary from mine.

View attachment 892870

After much testing and deliberation, I have decided to sell my copy. It's def not sharp wide open compared to your copy. I truly thought the Pro versions would def be consistent, clearly not. My 45mm f1.8 is a freakishly good copy so I will be using that alongside my 75mm. Thank you for your help.

 

[RichardC]

After much testing and deliberation, I have decided to sell my copy. It's def not sharp wide open compared to your copy. I truly thought the Pro versions would def be consistent, clearly not. My 45mm f1.8 is a freakishly good copy so I will be using that alongside my 75mm. Thank you for your help.

Okay. Have you definitely compared the RAW images, and definitely had IS set to off on the tripod? Remember my JPEG cropped example was sharpened. I don't want to be responsible for someone dumping a lens

Can you not simply return it?

Failing that, looking at the results you are getting from the 1.8, you a probably making the right decision.

 

[Lukeylight]

Okay. Have you definitely compared the RAW images, and definitely had IS set to off on the tripod? Remember my JPEG cropped example was sharpened. I don't want to be responsible for someone dumping a lens

Can you not simply return it?

Failing that, looking at the results you are getting from the 1.8, you a probably making the right decision.

Hi, Richard, I had everything set to manual, tried af and manual focus, countless subjects. I compared raws across the board using yours as a reference. My copy is absolutely soft wide open, comes good at f1.8. I didn't purchase to use at f1.8 so back on the market it goes.

Many thanks.

 

[PeeBee]

OK. I re shot the same image inside, levelled my tripod. I shot the images below on manual and af at the same exposure and 1.2 meters to subject. There was no difference in af accuracy as i used a ruler at a 45 degree angle before hand which crossed with a subject and found af was bang on. First image is sharper at the edges than the 45mm f1.8.

45mm F1.2 Pro @ F1.2
View attachment 892782
Standard 45mm F1.8 @f1.8
View attachment 892783
45mm F1.2 Pro @ F1.4
View attachment 892785
45mm F1.2 Pro @ F1.8
View attachment 892786
45mmF1.8 @ F1.8
View attachment 892787
45mm F1.2 Pro @ F2.8
View attachment 892788
Standard 45mm F1.8 @ F2.8
View attachment 892784

There you go. Not sure if i have a bad copy or thats how this lens is. I used to own the Zuiko 50mm F1.2 back in the day and i expected soft wide open for vintage lens. Lenstips mtf graph show this lens as a stellar performer @ f1.2 and amazing @ F2.8.

There are discrepancies between your manually entered exif details and the automatic exif details that subscribing members can see.

You started by manually putting details above the image, so it reads:

Photo 1 - 45mm f1.2 @ f1.2, the exif concurs.
Photo 2 - 45mm f 1.8 @ f1.8, the exif concurs.
Photo 3 - 45mm f.1.2 @ f1.4, the exif reads 45mm f1.2 @ f1.8
Photo 4 - 45mm f1.2 @ f1.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.8 @ f1.8
Photo 5 - 45mm f1.8 @ f1.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.2 @ f2.8
Photo 6 - 45mm f1.2 @ f2.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.8 @ f2.8
Photo 7 - 45mm f1.8 @ 2.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.2 @ f1.4

I can see that it's because one image has gone out of sequence, but it's misleading for non subscribing readers.

 

[PeeBee]

Close focusing at f1.2 and the DOF is unforgivingly shallow

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

I think it's better with a little working distance

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

 

[Lukeylight]

There are discrepancies between your manually entered exif details and the automatic exif details that subscribing members can see.

You started by manually putting details above the image, so it reads:

Photo 1 - 45mm f1.2 @ f1.2, the exif concurs.
Photo 2 - 45mm f 1.8 @ f1.8, the exif concurs.
Photo 3 - 45mm f.1.2 @ f1.4, the exif reads 45mm f1.2 @ f1.8
Photo 4 - 45mm f1.2 @ f1.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.8 @ f1.8
Photo 5 - 45mm f1.8 @ f1.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.2 @ f2.8
Photo 6 - 45mm f1.2 @ f2.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.8 @ f2.8
Photo 7 - 45mm f1.8 @ 2.8, the exif reads 45mm f1.2 @ f1.4

I can see that it's because one image has gone out of sequence, but it's misleading for non subscribing readers.

Weird, as I uploaded in sequence, maybe server was slow and did that. Nevertheless lens is not as expected.

 

[demiro]

After much testing and deliberation, I have decided to sell my copy. It's def not sharp wide open compared to your copy. I truly thought the Pro versions would def be consistent, clearly not. My 45mm f1.8 is a freakishly good copy so I will be using that alongside my 75mm. Thank you for your help.

My advice...don't try to sell it here.