First Olympus 45mm f/1.8 review by Pekka Potka
The two new Oly lenses, the 45mm and 12mm (Clubsnap)
You can read a new Olympus 45mm f/1.8 review made by Pekka Potka (Click here and than click on the 45mm link under “latest”): “The sweet point is from 2.8 to 5.6. Contrast and sharpness are very good. Shooting JPEGs I didn´t notice any need to worry about distortion, vignetting or chromatic aberrations. Lens has problems with flare only with sun hitting front lens against or nearly against the light. It is optically a lot better lens than its price tag says“.
The lens will start shipping in very late September and there are only a few places now where you can preorder it:
Adorama (Click here), J&R (Click here), Amazon DE (Click here), Amazon FR (Click here), Amazon JP (Click here) and on eBay (Click here).
Reminder: Clubsnap (Click here) has been the very first to post some 45mm f/1.8 image samples.
Share
Recent comments
Comment from pdc: Junk lenses are junk regardless of the s...
Comment from Nick Clark: Except the terrible ones, which are, wel...
Comment from Agent00soul: Are there ANY AF lenses that will AF on ...- Comment from pdc: Any FF fast normal lens is good for port...
sneye
10 months ago |The 45 seems like a classic portrait lens: not extremely sharp at the edges at wide apertures. The lack of aspherical elements should contribute to a “rounded” and smooth OOF rendition. However, it leaves space in the lineup for a more “perfect” short telephoto.
GreyOwl
10 months ago |Agreed. A classic Leica short telephoto FF equivalent of 135mm f2.8/2.5 (or even f1.8 assuming price not to high) would fit the bill for me as well as a f1.8 90mm FF equivalent. No, no, stop! I’m getting to greedy, the bank balance won’t stand the strain.
Mr. Reeee
10 months ago |Voigtländer 75mm f1.8 looks pretty good in that range. Of course it’s manual and needs a Leica M mount adaptor. But the price isn’t insane ($715) nor is it too big, either, only a few mm longer than the Nokton 25mm.
I’m not very hopeful of either Olympus or Panasonic filling holes in the M4/3 lens lineup with anything I would want, anytime soon. The 12mm was a good step and if Panasonic ever decides to release the mythical 12-50mm f2.5-3.3, that will fill a big hole.
Otherwise, I’ll look elsewhere.
simon
10 months ago |That’s what I’d expect from a lens like this. However, it’s disappointing to see that it’s bested by the 50mm/2 (a macro!) in the bokeh department.
blohum
10 months ago |To me it looks like there’s some motion blur in the 45mm bokeh shot.
Pekka Potka
10 months ago |It´s not motion blur. MZ 45 is eager to show any contrast there is. You can see it also in the last image. The crop you refer to is from the edge of frame. A “drawn” looking bokeh is typical in the edges if there is contrast to catch on…
blohum
10 months ago |Thanks for the clarification!
sneye
10 months ago |Most lenses are bested by the ZD50. It is a truly exceptional optic which has its own quirks (slow, noisy focusing and an extending barrel).
I have a feeling that the 45 bokeh will be comparable to that of the 50 macro or even better. We should wait for more reports.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |Well, the reviewer claims the 50mm has better bokeh… (?)
I find it very hard to see anything from those tiny images (bokeh, sharpness or otherwise), the ones in club snap are much more suitable for the purpose of evaluation.
All in all it seems OK; not so sharp (even in the center) and seems to have a soft ‘glow’ reminiscent of legacy lenses. This could work for portraits or not, depending on your preferences.
I don’t like the silver painted plastic barrel. You can see in the club snap images that it is prone to scratches and may look quite nasty after a while (the 50mm is made from very resilient polymers). The size is brilliant, though, and so would be the weight I guess.
I would like to see a full review of both new primes. My gut feeling is that the 45 is the better lens from a price/ performance perspective. Other than the metal build and distance scale, I have a feeling objective tests will reveal the 12mm does not live up to the hype and expectations. I am currently struggling with adapted 4/3 lenses and hope to be proved wrong.
Boooo!
10 months ago |There’s an objective test of the 12mm over at Lenstip:
http://www.lenstip.com/310.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12_mm_f_2.0_ED_Introduction.html
The lens has absolutely no distortion correction (it’s done in software) and has the worst vignetting of all 4/3 lenses ever made.
Like the 45mm, the 12mm is only $100 less than the 12-60, which smacks it around in every important aspect except size and weight.
Kylberg
10 months ago |Based on my about 500 exposures with Oly 12 mm on a Panasonic I would say that the methodology used by Lenstip is not adequate. The SLR gear review conclusions are more in the line of my experience.
Boooo!
10 months ago |Lenstip is more or less the only review site on the internet that does proper lens testing and has proper testing methodology. SLRGear is fairly useless when it comes to lens tests. Diwa Labs might also be good, I’m not sure yet. Edit: They’re probably not. They seem to test lenses with OOC JPEGs… Their 12mm test shows no distortion, so it’s safe to conclude they’re doing something wrong.
agent00soul
10 months ago |This is my experience too.The 12/2.0 has no distortion to speak of, when used on a camera. And it is sharp. Very sharp. Slrgear’s test are the ones I trust most.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |So funny… you are not ignoring the fact that you are viewing in-camera corrected images, are you?
Lenstip are using the E-P1 because (apparently) it does not correct raw files. 12mm images look like they were taken with a fisheye
agent00soul
10 months ago |I judge the images that come out of my camera. They are sharp and free from distortion. What more could you ask? Have you even used the lens?
Boooo!
10 months ago |If you’re strictly a JPEG shooter, then it’s all good. If you’re not, the 12mm is a bad lens for that price.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |No I haven’t used the lens, I’m relying on critical evaluation performed by someone who has, and does this professionally.
This is what reviews are for – helping one make up his mind whether he wants to invest in something or not.
Your statement: “the 12/2.0 has no distortion to speak of, when used on a camera” is in fact incorrect and misleading as E-P1 users who would rather shoot raw could be very upset with this lens’ performance.
I’m not dissing the lens, I’m not ignoring its flaws either. It might be easier for me as I have not invested my money on it or ‘bond’ with it in any other way.
Nick Clark
10 months ago |That simply isn’t true, and apparently you’re as muddled as the kids over at Lenstip.
ALL Micro Four Thirds bodies, from both Panasonic and Olympus, correct for optical distortion in-camera. It’s part of the the format. That includes the EP1.
The only reason that the RAW samples from Lenstip show uncorrected distortion is because they are processed using Dcraw. All the major RAW developers (Aperture, ACR, Silkypix etc.) will automatically correct distortion – with most this can’t be turned off and you will NEVER see the distortion, even if you wanted too…
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |OK, thanks for clarifying this. I use LR myself.
I have no ‘ideological’ aversion to software correction – I’d be silly for using m43 if I did.
The only question is how far can one go down this road without affecting overall IQ.
Kylberg
10 months ago |I always use RAW, never jpg. I use LR which also corrects distorsion. The essential thing is the percieved result, I think. Measures are seemingly objective, but always have shortcomings as we see from this discussion.
Om an old enough to remember lens tests in the 60′s: There was no measuring available, meaning that experienced photographers made an intelligent evaluation and showing lens caracteristics with good examples – real world photography. That was good lens revoews!
Boooo!
10 months ago |Here’s a question for you:
Which photo would have better quality – the one from the current 12mm with its huge barrel distortion, corrected in software through interpolation, or a photo from a theoretical 12mm with no distortion?
Also, there are many people and a lot of software running dcraw (which is the best raw converter for Olympus cameras, actually). This “you won’t see the distortion” argument isn’t one that should be made.
To see people defending software correction as panacea for poor technical design makes me queasy… “Ah, who cares if this lens has 20% distortion and 5 pixels of CA because it’s been made out of beer bottle glass – the software will fix it, and since I never print anything, that’s awesome.”
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |@Boooo!
You are perfectly correct, assuming that correcting distortion optically does not introduce aberrations as well.
The fact is simple optical designs, such as triplets, are very hard to beat as far as resolution is concerned. Adding optical elements gains speed and FL range but causes an inevitable degradation in IQ.
Both approaches represent a compromise.
Agent00soul
10 months ago |Unfortunately, there are no theoretical lenses. Optical correction of distortion is not without drawbacks. Usually it reduces corner sharpness. So in the final image, it might not yield better results than software correction.
WT21
10 months ago |“Except size and weight”???
That’s a pretty HUGE exception!!
12-60: 80X99mm, 575g
12mm: 56X43mm, 130g
Boooo!
10 months ago |Some people care about actual image quality, not the size and weight of a lens.
I prefer better optics to pocketability. If I wanted something compact to casually shoot JPEGs with, I’d go buy an XZ-1.
tmrgrs
10 months ago |You should buy a D3 and some nice Nikkors and stop bothering those of us here who don’t care about image quality.
Boooo!
10 months ago |And you should go buy a Pentax Q, or one of those Olympus 100€ cameras
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |You should avoid telling people what they should do, and so should I
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |Well he does have a point IMO – the size and weight differences are not insubstantial…
Other than that the 12-60 is one full stop slower when zoomed fully out, and suffers from “mustache” distortion that is not so easy to correct. oh, and AF on m43 is frustratingly slow.
I mean, come on, your bias in favor of 4/3 is very apparent from your statements.
Mr. Reeee
10 months ago |Moustache distortion? That’s a new one for me.
So what sort of Moustache are we talkin’ about here?
Hitler? Dali? Clark Gable? Yosemite Sam?
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |heh… more like the Dali sort
I did not come up with this, google it
Boooo!
10 months ago |I’m only biased in favour of 4/3 because:
1) It has better cameras
2) It has better lenses
I don’t mind mirrorless as a concept, and I don’t hate the idea of looking at an EVF instead of through an OVF, like many “purists” do. In fact, I look forward to that, because it’s going to make for a wonderful future.
The problem is that m4/3, so far, is a system designed to milk money out of people through countless iterations of basically equal cameras (except the GH2) and overpriced lenses, and it has created a cultist following – not at all unlike Apple.
Let’s be honest here – the 12-60 *IS* a massively better lens in every aspect except size and weight (well, that’s the reason why it’s better – quality comes at a size+weight premium!), and it costs only slightly more than the 12mm prime.
The moment you get your 12-60 on m4/3, it will be VERY similar in size and weight to the 4/3 version, if image quality is maintained. Unfortunately, it will probably be optically worse, seeing the current crop of lenses, and sell for more money.
If you attach a 500g+ zoom to a PEN, why not simply attach the old version to a 4/3 DSLR instead and have a system that’s easier to use, balances better and focuses faster?
If you want something to fit in your pocket, why don’t you buy an XZ-1 or an S95?
My camera is a tool, not a fashion accessory. There’s an objective, physical reason for all that weight and the size to go with it. Wait a couple of months and see what happens when Sony comes out with the A77, which is a mirrorless camera exactly like it should be. If it’s as good as expected, I think I’m going to sell all of my 4/3 gear and jump on Sony’s bandwagon, like a lot of other people I’ve talked to. Unlike Panoly, Sony won’t make any mistakes with their mirrorless from now on; meanwhile, I expect another 14-42 kit zoom refresh from Olympus next year
P.S. I was just wondering – have you ever used the 12-60 and have you ever used a pro camera body?
Ulli
10 months ago |Every time i see you commenting, you are always saying the same, is there nothing else in your mind?
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |First I get sneered at for not having used the 12mm, now I get the same for not having used the 12-60. Curiosity or superciliousness? Anyway I’ll answer your question as honestly as I can.
I’ve used pro SLRs from Nikon (F3HP and N90s) with “pro” lenses (Nikon 80-200 ED, Tokina 28-70, Nikkor micro 60mm etc). My favorite lenses were actually the 24/2, 35/2 and 85/2 because they delivered a good balance of great IQ and usability.
I switched to digital when the GF1 came out and immediately replaced it with a G1 – couldn’t stand not having an EVF and grip (Therefore the PENs were never an option for me).
I was never impressed with native m34 lenses. I mostly use the ZD 11-22, ZD 50/2, PL25/1.4 and OM 90/2. The only “native” m43 lens that I currently have is the Nokton 25/0.95. Other than that I have an odd collection of m and c mount lenses.
I like the ZD 4/3 optics *a lot*, but Olympus’ current camera body offerings (the E-5 and then?) don’t make too much sense to me. I do appreciate smaller size, but don’t appreciate compromising on IQ, especially optical quality (sensors choices are secondary as far as I’m concerned – like choosing to use different varieties of film except, unfortunately, you only get to chose once).
The A77, assuming it is done right, makes more sense to me than the E-5, especially when coupled with Zeiss lenses. I’ll wait and see.
JeremyT
10 months ago |Curious why such a person would care at all about a Four Thirds site. If IQ is your only concern and size and weight are not factors, you should be shooting Canon or Nikon FF, not 4/3 or µ4/3.
Boooo!
10 months ago |I love the 4/3 crop factor, I love the quality of the lenses and the bodies, I love the super menu, I love that I get more DOF, not less, and I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the sensor with regards to ISO, although it could definitely use a bit more dynamic range, but whatever.
The thing is, to get good and fast lenses, you need good (which means heavy) glass. However, the heavier the glass, the more problems moving it with CDAF; that’s why the current lenses are lightweight and thus optically compromised. Even the 14-54 MkII, which is “CDAF-compatible” doesn’t focus fast on m4/3, and neither do other “compatible” lenses. More power is also needed, and the batteries in the current m4/3 cameras don’t exactly shine in that regard even now.
I therefore think it’s not very likely that we’ll see any fast zooms (especially telephoto) in the next several years; if we do, they won’t be optically great. Such lenses, if made properly, need bigger bodies and batteries with more juice in them. But when that happens, you’ve lost the “it’s lightweight” argument, and you have a “DSLR” (size- and weight-wise) all over again.
Sony is doing things right. They have PDAF adapters, they have the SLT system, and they have an upgrade path; m4/3 has no upgrade path yet. That makes me worried about the system, unless it was always supposed to be a platform for software-corrected wide and normal primes.
I suppose I complain because I care
Right now Olympus is producing substandard lenses and iterating the same body all over again, which makes me think they’ll be run into the ground by everyone else (again). You can bet that Canikon won’t abandon their old lens mounts when they inevitably go into mirrorless.
I don’t want to see Olympus crash and disappear into a Wikipedia entry about what they once were. I’m genuinely worried to the point into seriously looking into jumping ship on mirrorless Sony, of all things…
Frederick: I was just curious, not trying to berate you for anything. The 12-60 is just so good… And it feels so well on an E-30 or higher. Even my 70yo dad loves it
Got any Tairs, by the way? The 11A is one of my favorite M lenses
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |Boooo!
I’ve seen great images taken with the 12-60, I know it’s a stellar lens (no mean feat for a 5x zoom).
I never had any Tairs. If I recall correctly I had a 85mm Jupiter but did not like it so much.
I still have the Leica Summicron C 40/2 and a very lovely Nikkor 5cm f2 (late edition black rim).
xmichaelx
10 months ago |Then you’re using the wrong system.
WT21
10 months ago |I don’t want really heavy lenses for m43. I think what you want, Boooo, is for Oly to keep investing in 43.
I can’t help you there, but smaller lenses with some IQ trade-offs is OK by me, at least as long as the sensor remains (IMO) the weaker link. I might care more if the sensor was better, but all around the new EP3 does what I need, and I don’t need the 12-60 to complete it.
Boooo!
10 months ago |4/3, m4/3, I honestly don’t care, as long as it can PDAF existing Zuiko glass and is roughly the size of an E-3. They can use an adapter or a translucent mirror or whatever else they can think of, but a bigger body that can focus bigger glass is necessary. The PENs can’t do that, and there’s no way to mount 4/3 lenses on other DSLRs. Lenses are supposed to be “forever”…
Wt21
10 months ago |At the end of the day you and the 43 diehards are in an unprofitable, minority niche. If it works for you -great! Except th system was so poorly received in the general market, that Panny couldnt make it into a business and now even Oly is moving away.
I am sorry for your loss, but what you want is needed or desired by so few, that you should get yourself set for continued disappointment, because what you are waiting for — weather sealed, 43 sensor, heavy optics — are being phased out and is a camera evolutionary dead end.
You can disaparage me if you like, you can rail and post all you want, but you would be better served to open your eyes and mind to what is ACTUALLY happening, and make adjustments for yourself. If you don’t want to, then fine, but why take it out on everyone else here? None of us can change the fact for you that you are pursuing a dying, if not dead, camera niche.
WT21
10 months ago |“Lenses are supposed to be “forever”"
I think, USED to be “forever” rathern than SUPPOSED to be is the order of the day now — there are so many electronics in use now (the biggest offender is focus-by-wire) that lenses now have life spans. If Canon dropped EOS tomorrow, could you adjust the apertures on their L glass with any other system? Can you focus a focus-by-wire lens on another system?
The reason I never bought 43, after examining it several years ago before going with Canon, was because I didn’t see any other system that could use that 43 glass. That’s still the case with m43, and it’s what stopped me from getting the 7-14 or 45mm macro when they first came out — $1,000 lenses in a system that cannot be used anywhere else. Too much risk initially for my comfort.
I think now, though, with the new lenses being released, and after looking at NEX and the size of the lenses required there, that m43 is indeed finding a sweet spot of size and performance, and will last a good long time. Long enough to justify more investment in glass.
But I am certainly not buying the lenses with the same lifetime expectancies that I might have had in years past.
Agent00soul
10 months ago |Are there ANY AF lenses that will AF on another maker’s camera? The only example I can think of are the Fuji bodies that were based on Nikon cameras. And Kodak made some pro models that were based on Nikon and Canon cameras. But they aren’t made anymore.
With m4/3 we have lenses that give full functionality with two active manufacturer’s cameras. Can anything top that?
Antonio
10 months ago |In my opinion, a fairer bokeh comparison between the 45 and the 50 would be with both lenses wide open, considering also the different focal lengths.
Boooo!
10 months ago |Still wondering when the first good Oly lens for m4/3 will be built
(By “good”, I mean “close or equal to a 4/3 lens in image quality, build and weather sealing”.)
It’s cheap, though.
Also, it’s funny how you can buy the 50mm for $499 in the US of A, which is only $100 more, and gives you an optically better lens that is also weather-sealed and has a more solid build.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |True, the 50mm is very attractively priced especially considering its performance.
BUT then you have to add an adapter ($116 for the Panasonic version, add 50% for the Olympus branded one…) and, once mounted on a m43 camera, you lose weather sealing. If you care for small size, minimum weight and fast AF then the 50mm really does not stand a chance, or does it?
That said, I won’t be replacing it with the 45/1,8 anytime soon.
Off topic – why is the Olympus MMF-2 so much more expensive that the Panasonic adapter? And this is the “cheaper” plastic version that replaced the even more expensive MMF-1. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t appreciate being ripped off.
Boooo!
10 months ago |Buy a DSLR along with the 50mm – then you get a better camera and a better lens for less money
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |I won’t replace my old trusty G1 for an SLR having the same (or older) sensor… it just doesn’t make sense to me.
I already have the 50mm and a few other 4/3 and OM lenses.
JeremyT
10 months ago |The 50mm macro is an excellent lens but its AF is terrible. There’s no focus limiter and it’s PDAF only – the combination is a recipe for disaster on current µ4/3 bodies. You’re almost better off shooting MF (at which point you have to wonder whether you’d be better off with a legacy fast normal at a fraction of the price instead).
Even on my E620 the 50mm macro focuses poorly. Sometimes usability wins over optical quality, and in my case the 45mm here will almost surely replace the 50mm macro in my bag since AF is really useful to have. Maybe I’ll even sell the 50mm since I don’t really do much macro shooting with it at all.
Boooo!
10 months ago |I’ve heard that the 50 has focus issues on the E-xxx bodies. On my E-3 it’s dead-on, fast and accurate. It almost never misses focus nor cycles.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |I’m not aware of any 50mm lens (legacy or otherwise) that performs as well as the ZD 50mm.
Ulli
10 months ago |I realize just now the 45 mm looks very compact!
jules
10 months ago |Extra speed aside, I wonder how it compares with the macro 45, in non macro shots, obviously.
WT21
10 months ago |I think this is the test. Of course, the 45/1.8 is much faster, but the PL45 has pretty good color and contrast, so I’d like to see those two compared.
Mr. Reeee
10 months ago |Exactly. 45mm vs. 45mm.
The review seems pretty reasonable. Decent lens, decent price, nothing exceptional. It’s about what I’d expect. True the comparison images are a little weak, but you get the gist of it’s performance. I won’t run out and buy one.
Kylberg
10 months ago |I agree. Wasn’t there a rumour about an m4/3 50mm macro? That may be a better (and more expensive)choice if it carries on the image quality from the 4/3 version.
lnqe-M.
10 months ago |I also think the.
Nick Clark
10 months ago |@ Frederick Hew (couldn’t reply above, so I’ll do it here)
“The only question is how far can one go down this road without affecting overall IQ.”
To be honest I think with MFT the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. If the image samples look good then they look good. In this sense I find it hugely frustrating when reviews insist on listing un-corrected distortion as a ‘con’, despite the fact that with most RAW developers you’ll never see it…
The Panasonic 14/f2.5 is probably a good example of ‘how far one can go’ with correction before you start paying a penalty in IQ – MASSIVE uncorrected distortion and it shows with very soft corners at wide aperture.
Frederick Hew
10 months ago |Well, according to Lenstip measurements the Panasonic 14mm has -6.37% distortion and the Olympus 12mm – 5.97%.
I don’t see such a big diffrence between the lenses in that respect.
Mikey
10 months ago |Construction is plastic?!?! Snap! I was hoping the lens would have been constructed of metal like the 12mm. I was really expecting that with a $400 price tag. The lens performance has to really be up there to justify that price tag just a bit more now.
I can understand that the 12mm was expensive because its a wide angle lens, made of metal, innovative ‘snap’ focusing, and is sharp even at F2.0.
The 45mm though is close enough to a 50mm that you can’t stop and compare the price tag/speed to APS-C equivalent lenses.
WT21
10 months ago |Don’t forget with all these lenses – these are the brand new first ship prices. My 14-150 sells for easily $100 less used than when I bought it last summer (might be even more than $100). All these new lenses will drop in price over the next year. The 20/1.7 didn’t for a long time, because it was the only quality lens around. Since then, we’ve had the 14mm released, the 12, soon the PL25 and the mZD45. People will start to mix and match the lenses that are important to them, and no one lens will be able to sustain it’s list price.
Heck, the Oly 40-150 can now be had for $150 new! I would think the 45/1.8 will settle in around $250-300 used price, which will be around the same as, e.g., Canon’s 85/1.8.
sneye
10 months ago |High quality glass doesn’t get cheaper except temporarily, for the holiday season and such. The 12/2 will basically stay at $800 for good. OTOH the 45/1.8 will drop in price considerably over the next twelve months. The PanaLeica 25 may be another discount-resistant lens (its larger sibling always was).
WT21
10 months ago |You might be right. Also, some lenses have gone UP in price!!! (If I have invested my retirement money in lenses instead of corporate stocks, I might be in better shape financially!)
But, the PL45 and the 7-14 are both coming down (albeit quite some time later). I’m also very willing to buy used, and that takes some time for used lenses to show up.
I do think, though, the 12/2.0 is a bit overpriced, and I think that has to correct, though again, I could be completely wrong on that.
pdc
10 months ago |Any FF fast normal lens is good for portraits on mFT.
Nick Clark
10 months ago |Except the terrible ones, which are, well, terrible…
pdc
10 months ago |Junk lenses are junk regardless of the specifics – but there is a ton of GOOD legacy glass out there and more to come as the world embraces MILC.