Will it make benefits by adding Olympus 45/1.8 to my lens kit?

Look back through your picture archives. If a lot of them are at the long end of the 12-40 then it's still only a 'maybe'. If not, don't bother, you've got good glass already.

 

Not at all. A very similar Bokeh and framing (moving in closer) can be achieved with the Pana 25mm.

Apart from background compression, but u can get that and better with your 35-100mm.

 

I love that small cheap excellent beautiful rendering lens for portrait. Whether you need it, only you can tell.

 

I also have the 12-40 and the 60 macro. My 45 is one of my least used lenses, but I do love it when I use it.

 

Looks like you really like zooms... I would stick to that.

I'm kinda the opposite. I really like the O12, O25, and O45 combination which closely mimics what I use on other systems. I don't find FOV 25mm anywhere close to that of a FOV 45mm.

 

I would say that unless you do a lot of low-light shooting, your lenses are already too duplicative. The 45mm, wide open, will blur the background more than the 35-100 but you can also do that in post for free. And 45mm is approximately 40mm, so you really have that focal length covered with two lenses, not just one.

 

Nothing wrong with that.... zooms are highly flexible in their use. It looks like you like that flexibility, so I would stick to that. Early in the 80s (or was it 70s) zooms were relatively new technology and the difference in quality was noticeable. We are lucky today that modern zooms are pretty good.... especially when we are talking about the higher end zooms including the 12-35mm f/2.8, 12-40mm f/2.8, and the 35-100mm f/2.8


Your photography (how you shoot too.) should drive your equipment purchases not the other way around. If it doesnt' fit you... it doesn't fit.... don't force it.

 

you can achieve a similar look to the 45 with your 75mm lens, you just need to move back a few paces. Actually, your 75 will be much better to achieve subject-background separation. Learn to use the lenses you already have.

 

yes for a few reasons:
-its cheap
-much better working distances than the 75/1.8
-much faster af than 60/2.8
-stronger defocus than 25/1.8 and the 2.8 constant zoom

i have similar lens arsenal to your and i dont feel like the 45 is replaceable

 

I agree about the 75mm, it's perfect for a really close/intimate portrait of the face or head but sometimes you can only back up so far. I think the 45mm will compliment the 75mm for portraits or subject isolation if you're shooting more than one person. It's like the 75mm portraits are great for facial or head shot where the 45 shines for head and shoulders or two person shots.

 

For me, portraits is what the 45mm f/1.8 is all about. Plus it is a stop and a (almost) half faster than the 12-40, which is a lot. The 12-40 zoom is very good, but it is not the same as a faster prime lens.

I shoot mostly portraits and Lightroom tells me in the last 22 months of the 12,500 +/- OMD portrait shots, about 6,600 (53%) are with the 45mm. The 75mm (25%) and 12-40 (22%) represent the remaining amount. Previous to and now along side of the OMD I use Nikon D700/800 and it is pretty much the same. The 85mm f/1.4 usage is 55%, the 135mm DC f/2 is 15% and 105mm DC f/2 and 24-70 f2.8 are the rest. While I have the Nikon 70-200mm VR lens, it was used for only 2% of my portrait shots (because I love the 105 and 135 f/2 DC lenses). The point is, if you shoot portraits a faster prime in the 85mm to 105mm (FF) is your workhorse lens in most cases.

The 45mm f/1.8, especially with the $300 US pricing out there right now, it is a no brainer if you shoot portraits. Mine is sliver but I am considering getting a black one as a backup.