First full 75mm f/1.8 review at SLRgear (and super GX1 deal!)

Share

SLRgear (Click here) is the first website posting a full and very detailed review of the new Olympus 75mm f/1.8: “Simply amazing results for sharpness, great resistance to chromatic aberration, very low corner shading and near-zero distortion. Add in excellent build quality and good looks, and you have a package that’s sure to please any photographer.

Click on the shop name to check the Olympus 75mm page and price: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, J&R, Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon France, Amazon Italy, Amazon Japan and on eBay.

Meantime there is a super deal on the GX1. Body + lens for $519 at Adorama (Click here).

Share
  • Fish

    This is not just looking like a great m4/3 lens. It is looking like a great lens, period. A real benefit to the system.

  • Christian

    As an outdoor-photographer I dislike unsealed lenses, especially if they are very expensive…

    • hope you enjoy that kit zoom then… 😉

      • Christian

        No need to worry. I still own a couple of nice FT-lenses and an E-3.

  • Agent00soul

    Just compare the blur index to the one from the Canon 85/1.8 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10) and you’ll understand why the Olympus lens is more expensive.

    • Nawaf

      What does it all mean? 😛

      • freddy

        +1… 🙂

      • fta

        What it means is that this lens optically is better then the Canon and Nikon 85mm. From the blur index chart, this lens is very, very, very, very, very good. Wide open this lens is amazing! Looks like the best m43 lens so far. Even beating out the Oly 45mm.

        Congrats Olympus!

        • rrr_hhh

          It has to be better just to allow prints of the same size, because the sensor is smaller and the photo sites are way smaller.

          The smaller the format and the sharper a lens for this format has to be. It was already so for the 35mm film format with respect to medium format etc…

      • it means the Canon is a David Hamilton lens……j/k ofcourse, the 85 is not bad at all.

    • Wow, great link Agent. That does really put it in perspective.

    • hgy

      or compare it to the Nikon 85mm F1.8 at half the price with a hood included and ask yourself whos kidding who lol

      http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480/cat/12

    • MikeS

      The Nikon 85/1.8 AF-S (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480/cat/12), is a better comparison. Of course, it is still a bit softer than the Olympus, but it covers a full frame, and is nowhere near as bad as the old Canon design. Also, it’s weather-sealed, for those who care (doesn’t affect me and what I shoot).

      In any case, I can’t wait for Amazon to ship my 75mm 🙂

      • Khawag

        I’m using both Nikon FF and Oly E-M5. To me, at just $500, Nikon’s 85/1.8G is absolutely a steal and more interesting. Oly 75mm is about $900 which is too expensive for me. And its 150mm focal is a quite not comfortable for portrait.

    • Geoff

      For all the Oly knockers here, it’s also worth noting this comment “The Canon ET-65II lens hood (an accessory) is light and relatively large”, unfortunately it does not state the price.

  • I was waiting for this review and expected a result like this. Compare the blur index of the 75 with the already great ZD 150mm f2, with any Carl Zeizz tested in SLRGear, with any Leica, any Canon, any Nikon etc. The 75 is better at all apertures than any single other lens tested there. This is an extraordinary lens. Just include the Hood OLYMPUS and I´ll get one tomorrow. Just to have it

    • Richard

      I don’t know if this is correct, but on cyberphoto.se they say that a lens hood called LH-61F is included. Perhaps that’s a Sweden only thing?

  • EvilBobo

    Why is it tested on an E-P1. Does MSC mean Move Still or Movie Still…. and is it’s closest focus distance 29.5cm, 29.5″ or 33.12″.
    I have found SLR gear very useful when researching the Pana/Leica 25mm, and think that the testing on the 75mm is good, but the article needs editing and correcting that I wouldn’t have expected from them.
    Can’t wait to see this lens for sale though 🙂

    • bli

      I seem to recall having seen a closest focus distance of ca 90cm.

      • Evilbobo

        Yeah, that sounds about right. 1 foot with a 16 degree angle would make an ok Macro, so I’d expect that 3 foot at 16 degrees would be what they are suggesting is not ideal for macro.

      • BLI

        I just double checked it: the Olympus web site says the closest focus distance is 84 cm.

    • Warren

      I agree. Why not test it on an OM-D or at least the G3.

  • Doug

    That GX1+lens is not $519

    Besides, why get a GX1 when you can get a OMD ;)? Since they appear to be available now…. At least here in SoCal

  • Soooooooo…. tempting!

  • A black version please.

  • Bah

    Maybe an excellent lens, certainly 3x the price of the equivalent Nikon or Canon => wrong price.
    43 is about tiny and cheap – tiny and good does not work in optics.
    Please, give us a 43 camera with 3 reels (aperture, exposure, ISO) and cheap and good lenses. Anything else is just nerds’ boil potion => they won’t get laid anyway.

    • Evilbobo

      So this is not good, or just not cheap?
      I think most of us have been missing a beat here. So…. is ‘will this lens get me laid?’ the new ‘I want it in black’?

    • BLI

      @Bah???
      It has been favorably compared to the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens (Pekka Potka), which currently is *on sale* at Amazon for some US$ 100 *more* than the asking prize for the Zuiko 75 1.8. The Canon lens btw weighs in at 750 g, almost 2.5 times as much as the Zuiko 75 1.8.

      • Yes, I did. In that conversation people did no believe me and offered Canon´s 85mm f/1.8 as an equal to Zuiko M. 75mm. Now when we have SLR Gear tests for all these lenses, it is easy to see how things are.
        -p-

        • Bah

          I believe you mate that this lens can beat the cheap Canon, if mounted on the same M43 camera. But what about a 5dII + 135 F2 vs OMD5 + 75 F1.8 ? That would be an interesting comp, you know, similar prices. I use a Hasselblad 2/110 on tilt adaptor myself, I like it better than the Canon 2/135. I want real photos in the test, no flat charts. I anticipate the results here: it is absurd to pay 2500 USD for OMD5 + 1.8/75 as a portrait machine. Just the wrong choice.
          Basic laws of optics say that a smaller format cannot beat a format that is 4x larger, except in convenience and price. Macro and super teles possibly being an exception but this lens is neither. Take away the price and I am only left with convenience => see where I am going?
          I would love a small camera to take along on a hike but I say neih if it costs as much as the more “serious” one. I also say neih if it lacks the three (at least two) control reels or proper manual focus assist or a prover viewfinder, just personal taste of course but this is how I shoot.
          So here is my wish: proper controls, peaking for manual focus assist, EVF, small zoom (like a 35/70 F4) with very close focus, total price 800 EUR or less. They don’t need to make that lens detachable and they can make that sensor a little smaller if it needs be.
          The only camera getting close to my wishlist is the Ricoh GXR with the new zoom but it is damn slow. I really hope some M43 can fill the gap.

          • Neonart

            Hyperbole is so common…

            OM-D = $999
            75/1.8= $899
            Total = $1898

            Thats a $602 difference from the $2500 you claim. Not arguing the rest of your post, but once you start with such an exaggeration, the rest loses weight…

          • If you’re a “value buyer”, the most newly released product is seldom the best choice. BTW, the 5DII is something of a “value camera” — it’s discounted because the 5DIII is out.

            If you’re buying m43 gear, used previous generation bodies are reasonable value (EP3 and GH2 are about $600, a GF2 is about $200 or so, G3 is also reasonable value). Adapted lenses are dirt cheap if $400 for an Oly 45mm is too much. The 75 is expen$ive because it’s a brand new lens. The 85mm f/1.8 and 135L are how many years old ? Brand new lenses are expensive (see Canon’s new f/2.8 primes and the new 24-70 f/2.8)

        • It’s two stops slower in dof terms (or half as long in terms of focal length). Whether or not you care about this is your prerogative, but they are hardly comparable.

          The comparison is silly anyway, unless you’re planning to use the two lenses on the same camera.

          Are the SLRGear tests comparable across formats or even cameras ? I notice the tests for Canon lenses show substantially different results on FF versus APS-C cameras.

          • BLI

            @elflord
            As you obviously are not a frequent visitor to this forum: your point of DOF has been discussed extensively in this forum — everyone knows about it.

            So — you are right: the lenses are not directly comparable. But to most people, a 75mm f/1.8 in m43 format gives more than sufficient control of the DOF. In fact, if you take portrait shots wide open and the eyes are in focus, the nose tip will be out of focus.

            They are incomparable in other terms, too: the Canon FF 135mm/2 lens weighs about 2.5 times more and is noticeably bigger. An important reason for choosing the m43 format is to get very good (or: acceptable, depending on your requirements) quality that are so much smaller/lighter than the FF format.

            • I am a frequent visitor to the forum. I only brought up the DOF issue because others in the forum (including those who are cited on the front page) keep insisting that a lens that has dof comparable to f/3.6 is “comparable” to an f/2 lens. It isn’t.

              BTW, if you actually use these lenses with cameras, it isn’t valid to compare the lenses in isolation either.

              I completely agree that this is looks like a very high quality product, but comparing with glass from different formats is just silly fanboy stuff.

              • Esa Tuunanen

                > but comparing with glass from different formats is just silly fanboy stuff.
                Said by cheerleeder of church of flat earth, err flat DOF believers…

                135mm FF and 75mm 4/3 sensor lenses give almost same field of view and f-ratios are similar giving same exposure parameters meaning they’re basically used for same things.
                While DOF might not be as shallow even portraits don’t need millimeter thin DOF and more likely it just gives ability to avoid bigger stopping down of lens in many situations.

                But by your own logic shouldn’t that 135/2 FF lens also be useless because it doesn’t have DOF control of same purpose medium format?

                • [quote]135mm FF and 75mm 4/3 sensor lenses give almost same field of view and f-ratios are similar giving same exposure parameters meaning they’re basically used for same things.[/quote]

                  This is not really true though. The lenses are used in conjunction with a camera body, and ISO 3200 on full frame is not equal to ISO 3200 on a smaller sensor.

                  If you only need f/4 equivalent dof on full frame you can get a 70-200mm zoom that weighs about the same as the 135L.

                  Fast primes on full frame are really about shallow depth of field.

                  “sharpness” isn’t everything. That’s why the 50 f/1.2L costs more, not less than the 50mm f/1.8.

                  [quote]
                  But by your own logic shouldn’t that 135/2 FF lens also be useless because it doesn’t have DOF control of same purpose medium format?[/quote]

                  As I didn’t claim that any lens was “useless”, no, that would not follow from my logic.

                  However, if there were a 200mm f/2 lens for medium format, I would not try to pretend that the 135L (or the 75mm f/1.8) was comparable.

                  BTW, how many medium format lenses can you name that provide comparable dof to an 85mm f/1.2 ?

                  • Bart

                    “This is not really true though. The lenses are used in conjunction with a camera body, and ISO 3200 on full frame is not equal to ISO 3200 on a smaller sensor.”

                    Since ISO depends on brightness, ISO 100 is ISO 100 is ISO 100 is ISO 100 is ISO 100 and so on.

                    If what you say were true, ISO 3200 for a Nikon D700 would be totally different from ISO 3200 on a Nikon D800 because the later has pixels of approx 1/3 of the size of the first, and hence they only gather 1/3 of the number of photons etc.

                    Thats simply not how it works, so stop propagating this totally nonsensical argument.

                    ISO values relate to brightness not to total amount of light gathered, and hence they mean EXACTLY the same thing regardless of format.

                    ISO 100 film doesn’t care about if its stuck into a large format camera or a 9mm miniature camera, it will still be ISO 100 film.

                    • [quote]
                      Since ISO depends on brightness, ISO 100 is ISO 100 is ISO 100 is ISO 100 is ISO 100 and so on.

                      If what you say were true, ISO 3200 for a Nikon D700 would be totally different from ISO 3200 on a Nikon D800 because the later has pixels of approx 1/3 of the size of the first, and hence they only gather 1/3 of the number of photons etc.
                      [/quote]

                      No. You are correct that the exposures are the same — if f/2, ISO 3200, 1/60s is the right exposure on m43, it will be the right exposure on full frame.

                      The point that you are trying very hard to miss or obscure is that the larger sensor will have less noise at high ISOs (e.g. take a look at DxO mark plots for any m43 camera versus any full frame camera).

                      The reason is that the larger camera will have some combination of a lower pixel density and more pixels. In the former case, one gets less noise per pixel, in the latter, one can downsample to reduce noise.

              • Bart

                “I completely agree that this is looks like a very high quality product, but comparing with glass from different formats is just silly fanboy stuff.”

                Not at all, as long as it is actually a comparison with regards to what you can do with that glass on the system it was made for.

                I mostly shoot m4/3 nowadays, but I have cameras for pretty much every (D)SLR mount that has been ‘mass produced’ over the last 50 years. If I go take pictures, I have to make a choice which camera and lenses to take with me, which gets determined by a number of factors, the most prominent ones being ‘working distance’, ‘available light’, and if I have to take the weather into account. In such a real world approach, a 75mm on an E-M5 or a 150mm on a D700 (camera I don’t own but can borrow if needed) will work for the same working distance and within reason, within the same lighting conditions, hence they are for most practical purposes equivalent, and a comparison between the 2 is totally valid from the point of view of which camera+lens combinations fit a certain application.

                Attempts to compare a 75/1.8 mft lens to a 85/1.8 ‘full frame’ lens ignore that those lenses do not fit the same applications when fit onto their native cameras, and hence that is a technically valid, but realistically useless comparison.

                Obviously the shallowest DOF achievable with those 2 camera + lens combinations will be different, and sometimes that is very relevant, but very often it is not.

                Bottomline, you should pick tools that fit the application and compare them to see which one gets the best results. Comparing based on numbers alone is a theoretical approach that has little value in practice.

                There is nothing ‘silly fanboy’ about looking at different tools that can do the job and compare them, rather the opposite.

                • OK, but if you do take this approach — e.g. start with the use case and work from there — if f/3.6 is good enough for you, then you have several options on a full frame body (e.g. the 70-200mm f/4 lenses come into play.)

                  The whole point of fast primes on full frame cameras is to get either reduced dof, or more light. You’re not getting the same thing with a prime for a smaller system — you don’t get the same depth of field, and while you do get the same exposure settings, the smaller sensor will lag the larger sensor (by about two stops).

                  basically, people don’t buy the 135L to shoot at f/8. The 70-200mm zooms cover that territory quite well (and offer some extra convenience as a bonus).

                  • Bart

                    Yes, a 70-200 on a full frame camera might be an option, but one that comes anywhere near the optical quality of for example the 75/1.8 is hard to find and expensive.

                    However, comparing it as one of the possible options that can do the job is totally valid, just like the 40-150mm on a mft camera could do the job, and could be compared.

                    You keep ignoring that a good quality 70-200 that can actually give you results comparable to what for example the 75/1.8 on mft can is going to be expensive, if it exists at all.

                    See, there is more to IQ then DOF.

                    Oh, and there is a lot more to sensor performance then size, things like fill ratio, quantum efficiency and the ability to get rid of heat are all at least as important to sensor performance as size. Your approach is simplistic and ignoring important factors.

                    You remind me of the people in the 2nd half of the 20th century who were refusing to take 135 format serious for professional use.

                    People buy a 135/2 also because of the f2.0 aperture, so they can use it when they really need it. Its totally silly to argue that people would not stop it down if required for proper DOF, rather the opposite. They also won’t switch to their 70-200 just because of needing more DOF or such.

                    Oh, and for what it is worth, I own a nice Minolta 135/2 for my older srt mount cameras, I totally know what kind of DOF a 135/2 can give, and how seldom one actually needs it.

                    • [quote]owever, comparing it as one of the possible options that can do the job is totally valid, just like the 40-150mm on a mft camera could do the job, and could be compared.[/quote]

                      If a 200mm f/2 and a 200mm f/2.8 lens have comparable performance at f/8, does that make the two lenses “comparable” ? Would you say that the 200mm f/2.8 “compares favorably” to the 200mm f/2 on those grounds ?

                      Likewise, you could compare a slow zoom to the olympus 75mm, but that really misses the point, because the value in each lens is in their distinguishing features (large aperture/ability to zoom), not the overlap of functionality (both can shoot 75mm at f/8).

                      In practice, one will nearly always choose one over the other regardless of their performance characteristics at 75mm f/8 depending on what “the job” is.

                    • Bart

                      “If a 200mm f/2 and a 200mm f/2.8 lens have comparable performance at f/8, does that make the two lenses “comparable” ?

                      See, that is why a comparison with a 135/2 makes sense, while comparing to a 70-200 doesn’t.

                      “Would you say that the 200mm f/2.8 “compares favorably” to the 200mm f/2 on those grounds ?”

                      No, that would depend on other factors, such as if I’d likely need that f2.0 aperture to begin with. If I don’t, and performance is the same in ALL other aspects (read carefully) then yes, the f2.8 may compare favorably because it will be smaller and lighter.

                      It is totally silly to only compare based on aperture and to always want the widest aperture regardless of if you are going to need it.

                      It reminds me of people who ‘need’ the longest lens they can get, believing that more impressive lenses will magically improve their pictures.

                    • [quote]No, that would depend on other factors, such as if I’d likely need that f2.0 aperture to begin with. If I don’t, and performance is the same in ALL other aspects (read carefully) then yes, the f2.8 may compare favorably because it will be smaller and lighter.[/quote]

                      To me you’re saying that one set of capabilities might fit your use case better than the other, which is like “comparing” a slow zoom to a fast prime.

                      This kind of “comparison” is more or less trivial because the obvious conclusion is to choose the product whose capabilities match your use case (e.g. the zoom zooms, the prime doesn’t)

                      [quote]
                      It is totally silly to only compare based on aperture and to always want the widest aperture regardless of if you are going to need it.[/quote]

                      But I’m not advocating that you compare on aperture. I’m arguing that fast lenses are fundamentally different products and therefore not comparable.

                      Trying to sell a slow lens as a replacement for a fast lens is silly or dishonest (but this is what the “comparison” of the slow Oly 75 to the fast Canon 135L does). No one who buys a 200mm f/2.0 lens would seriously consider a 200mm f/4 an adequate replacement. Likewise, someone who is willing to settle for the slower lens would be foolish to accept the extra weight and cost of the faster one.

                    • bart

                      Blablahblah. Come back when you start realizing that a 75/1.8 isn’t exactly ‘slow’, rather, it is brighter then a 135/2 by 1/3 stop.

                    • look, if you want to compare the physical/optical properties, one lens is 135mm and the other is 75mm, so they are quite different, QED!

                      If however you want to take the view that you will compare their usefulness when mounted on their bodies, then 135L gives me shallower depth of field, and it’s mounted on a body that will let me crank up the ISO a couple more stops.

                      Seems to me you are trying to have it both ways here.

                    • Bart

                      @elflord

                      You are the one who keeps insisting on comparing physical properties.

                      With regards to a full frame body and 135/2 being able to provide more shallow DOF then a mft body with the 75/1.8, yes, I realize and already addressed that issue. But, to repeat myself, for the very very large majority of cases that extra shallow DOF is not needed, but for the cases where you do need it, a full frame camera with that 135/2 is the better choice. For the large majority of cases it is an option that you are not going to need.

                      If you spend a few times as much money, you’ll be able to buy a much larger camera with larger lens, that handles certain cases better, especially concerning low light. That was a really major concern a few years ago when anything smaller then a full frame camera was limited to low iso values, but that is no longer the case, and ISO 1600 or 3200 are totally usable on the latest crop of mft cameras, also for large prints, so this argument is becoming more and more of a corner case as well.

                      I am not, and never have been saying your DOF and low light arguments are technically incorrect, rather not, but I’m pointing at that those arguments are pretty much irrelevant for the large majority of cases.

                      That is no different from how there are technically correct arguments as to why medium format is superior to 135 format, but, in the large majority of cases, those arguments are irrelevant.

                      They are relevant if you happen to deal with the corner cases a lot, but when you do, you should start with realizing that you are dealing with corner cases and that what applies there really has little relevance for the rest of the world.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            > I notice the tests for Canon lenses show substantially different results on FF versus APS-C cameras.
            Of course they show different results because smaller sensor on one side lowers amount of vignetting but on other side its smaller pixels require lot better degree of aberration correction and sharper image from lens.

    • Surefoot

      “tiny and good does not work in optics”
      Tell that to Leica, Zeiss…

    • T-L

      4/3 gear is anything but cheap, but the quality is superb.
      Some of the m4/3 pieces are just ridiculously priced (12mm/2, 75-300) and should offer everything for that money (hello, where is the sealing?)..

      Oh, and by the way, I don’t want it in black, I want it in pink with “Hello Kitty” pictures on it! 😉

      • BLI

        @T-L:
        If you buy the silver version and ship it to me, I’ll paint it in pink for you and even add polka dots. But I’ll charge $50 for the job and you also have to ship the painting :-).

        • Bart

          I’m sure Kai will also gladly take the job of painting it pink!

    • mooboy

      I don’t get it when people say m43 is about cheap. Very generally speaking – I think value for dollars you’re going to get more from the Canikon entry level APS-C cameras.

      I decided to get into m43 instead of a smaller APS-C Nikon as it seemed to offer best compromise between size and image quality. So, igh quality lenses are very welcome – even if they do attract a high price.

      Having just bought the Panny 7-14 and the Voightlander 25mm… I’m trying very, very hard to resist this lens (and the Panny 12-35). Think I’ll wait for the Pany 35-100 to come out first to compare – maybe that’ll give Oly time to drop price, make it black, add weather sealing, include a hood and pouch, and add a ‘get laid’ feature.

    • Ross

      The compact feature of M4/3’s is not about being cheap, although the E-PM1 is at an affordable price along with kit lenses, the real benefit of M4/3’s is its smaller size & not about ‘cheap’. Use this lens on an E-M5 & the combination is compact (compared to DSLR’s) with a fantastic output in IQ. If you want quality, then you have to pay for it, no matter the size.

    • Chez Wimpy

      3x more expensive, but also 3-stops sharper (ie f1.8 here = f5.6 over there). You DO get what you pay for it seems.

      • anonymous

        sharpness is not a factor of aperture.

        and you seem to be interpreting things the other way around. the lens has a bigger aperture (= is faster) which would result in a narrower depth of field ( = less is in focus, not more!)

        • Bart

          Sharpness is actually also a function of aperture in that the smallest details that can be imaged before running into diffraction will directly be determined by the aperture.

          A 400/4 has a fair chance on resolving separate rings when taking a picture of the planet Saturnus. A 400/8 has no chance on that whatsoever, because it simply cannot resolve that level of detail because of diffraction caused by its smaller aperture.

  • stopkidding

    The test using E-P1 to keep the resolution numbers consistent with all the previous M43 lenses they have tested. If they test with OM-D, the resolution numbers will go up, but then they will have a different baseline compared to the previous tests.

    Lenstip does the same thing, they use the EPL-1 for all M43 tests

    • EvilBobo

      Yeah, I guess.
      But where Canon and Nikon lenses are tested on 2 cameras – a full frame and an APS-C, you’d think we could get 2 tests as well. I suppose it’s a greater injustice that a Panasonic lens like the 25mm is also tested only on the EPL-1.

  • Doug

    Why don’t they retest all the lenses on an OMD, and use both cameras…. Doesn’t everyone have an OMD now ;)?

  • Bob B.

    I have one on pre-order because the review are over the fence. Can’t wait to get my hands on this lens….I do not mind paying the price for the build quality and performance here with this offering. Looks like a bargain to me!

  • OM-4ever

    Probably not surprising for most of those familiar with zuiko short telephotos.My own favorite: the OMZ 90mm f/2.0. Yeah, I pre-ordered the hood on day one…. 😉

  • Leon

    This lens may be very kool, but it’s not practical at all. 150mm focal length is a bit awkward in real use.

    • ab

      There is nothing awkward about any focal length. You dont generally use long FL in small apartments, just as you dont use WAs for birding.

    • Mr. Reeee

      Awkward? That’s funny.

      • @Mr. Reese – Irember you writing somewhere you use the Voigtländer 75/2.5 on your Oly. How does it perform?

        I’m rather disappointed with the 15 mm and the 25 mm Snapshot Skopar on my m43s.

        My CV 75/2.5 needs some repair, and I wonder if it is worth it – I think the lens design should fare much better with the 43 sensor.

        • Mr. Reeee

          Yes, I got a Voightländer 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar a couple of months ago after canceling my order for the 17.5mm and wondering what to do with my $100 deposit. I debated getting the newer 75mm f1.8 but decided on the f2.5 because of the description of the f1.8 wide open. I think I got about the last new 75mm f2.5. They’re out of stock.

          I’ve been extremely happy with it. On my GH2, the size and weight are great, even with the L39 adaptor. It performs really well… with great color and sharpness and really nice character. I’ve been using it a lot with either the Nokton 25mm or Nokton 35mm f1.4 as a two lens walkabout kit.

          If it’s not too expensive a repair, do it. It’s really nice to work with!
          KEH is selling them used for $300… lens hood included.

          • Thanks for the info – I will get mine repaired.

            I got the 75 about ten years ago. With a Bessa R, the 15 mm Heliar, a 25 mm Snapshot Skopar, the excellent Ultron 35/1.7 and a Jupiter 50/2 it was part of a very portable combo. Switching from heavy Nikon gear to the rangefinders was a great experience, and I’m happy to see that CV now produces some great m43 glass.

            My favorite lens then was the Ultron 35/1.7, but like the 75 it literally fell apart. I still guess they might have taken some damage after a night on Stromboli – where volcanic gasses even corroded my hiking boot grommets …

            I’ll get both lenses repaired, and will sell the 15 and the 25. The Noktons are tempting, but I have to recover financially from the OM-D-

            Some image from my RF setup: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liebermann/sets/72157600036645655/.

            Stromboli here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liebermann/sets/72157594576054482/

  • ab

    Cant wait, every time I get a call from my camera store I get excited. Should be a great lens to use for sports, fashion, portraits etc.

  • Camaman

    Holly s..! $900 vs €1080 !! WTF!
    This won’t be mine for a very long time, i am afraid… 🙁

    • E-1

      Glad it’s 949 EUR at Amazon Germany, only a 40 EUR markup to the US Amazon price.

      • Mr. Reeee

        My European friends who regularly hop the pond buy things here in the States and bring it back to Euroland. Or just come here and buy stuff. I’ll even buy stuff for them on Amazon (no sales tax, almost 9% in NYC) and they’ll just pick it up on their next trip.

        What you’d save on ONE trip to B&H could pay for your trip.

    • BLI

      I was corrected some days ago by some Germans (?) saying that the Amazon Germany list price of €1080 is not the price taken by Amazon, but that Amazon Germany gives advertizing space to other companies and that it is these other companies that charge €1080 (or so). So — apparently, when Amazon has the lens in stock, they supposedly will charge €949 for it. (I seem to remember that it was said earlier the price would be €899…)

      • E-1

        I’m only one German 😉 Not “Zee Germans”

  • I visit SLR often and this is among the best blur graphs I’ve ever seen there! This lens is extremely sharp – and it is on a Oly E-P1. On a 16mpix it should be even better – or is that possible?
    Expensive? It is a lot of money, but this last, super sharpness is hard to achive. The Nikon 85/1.8G (half price, 50g heavier) on Nikon D7000 is on the same sharpness level – but only when stopped down to aperture 4 – 11. Nikon 85/1.4G is like the Oly 75 at f1.8 – 11 but is 50% more expensive + twice the weight.
    I was about to leave m43, but a 12-35 + 75 combo on a EM-5 must be something of a photo making machine.

  • Chris Sanford

    An interesting aside; on Robin Wong’s website he says Olympus has provided him with a copy of the lens to test, along with an E-M5. He has a photo posted of a silveer E-M5 with a BLACK 75mm lens mounted…

    • The lens on Robin’s website is silver, not black.

  • jeffry Scott

    Wow, that black 75mm on Robin’s site is gorgeous. I know it is only aesthetics, but if I’m to pay $900 for something, the aesthetics do come into play. I lust for this lens, but I really want it in black.

    • Anonymous

      It is not black, he said is silver.

  • Chris Sanford

    http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

    Looks black to me; Robin says the camera they supplied him is silver…

    … you decide.

    • BLI

      Please read the first comment/question in the thread following Robin’s teaser: an anonymous reader asks if it is black; Robin answers with suggesting the anonymous guy should leave his name and then states that it is a SILVER lens.

  • JF

    i guys, i have a problem with my E-M5: it doesn’t reconize my pana 20 mm anymore despite it works very well with my GH1 ! When I put it on E-M5, the motor doesn’t switch on i have no aperture info, and black screen…any idea ?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close