The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

45 f1.8 arrived

Millsart

New member
would love to see this side by side with an OM 50 f1.8 as a comparison. I love my OM 50 and wonder if in portrait work the AF would be an issue?
Not only does AF work great, but you've got the options to not only have face detect AF, but actually select which eye is in focus (which even with the lesser amount of DoF m4/3 gives still can make a difference)

Likewise, with the newer models with touch screens, you can simply touch the point o the display to select focus and move it around at will in the frame without having to recompose

Nothing wrong with a OM 50mm, but the ultra compact size and feather weight, in addition to a beautiful rendering, all on top of AF and a mere $400 price tag make it pretty tough to justify messing with a legacy lens and adapter when that native glass is getting this good
 

raist3d

Well-known member
If I was going micro four thirds, I would buy the two new Olympus lenses and call it done. Maybe add the Panny-Leica F1.4 and use that for pretty much everything. Those three lenses are good, avoid the s*ck of the initial lenses I saw in micro four thirds, are well built and it's virtually all the focal lengths I need.

I would even dare shoot a wedding with those primes (would need two cameras).

The cameras to me need to change (the pens, for a wedding). I really want to see what Olympus chooses as their "next gen" sensor.

- Raist
 

pellicle

New member
Not only does AF work great, but you've got the options to not only have face detect AF, but actually select which eye is in focus (which even with the lesser amount of DoF m4/3 gives still can make a difference)

Likewise, with the newer models with touch screens, you can simply touch the point o the display to select focus and move it around at will in the frame without having to recompose
good points

and a mere $400 price tag make it pretty tough to justify messing with a legacy lens and adapter when that native glass is getting this good

meer? well I don't know about that part, its about the same price as a Canon EF100 f2.8 which will give you a shallower DoF rendering on a FF camera and signicantly more than a 50mm which gives very similar Angle of View and DoF on a APS camera ... personally I wish we'd see some of that promise of cheaper lenses in the Micro 4/3 than we do. After all a 45mm lens is not hard to design, expecially one which covers a smaller area than it does on 35mm ...

but I agree that its good to encourage sales of native lenses!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
good points

meer? well I don't know about that part, its about the same price as a Canon EF100 f2.8 which will give you a shallower DoF rendering on a FF camera and signicantly more than a 50mm which gives very similar Angle of View and DoF on a APS camera ... personally I wish we'd see some of that promise of cheaper lenses in the Micro 4/3 than we do. After all a 45mm lens is not hard to design, expecially one which covers a smaller area than it does on 35mm ...

but I agree that its good to encourage sales of native lenses!
Sorry for pointing this out, but I think that is the weirdest comparison I've seen in many hours. To start with, the Canon lens is around 40% more expensive than the Zuiko. Then, it weighs 40% more than the 45mm and the E-PL3 combined, the latter including IS, which the cheap version of the Canon lens doesn't offer. Now, add a 5DII to the equation :watch:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Sorry for pointing this out, but I think that is the weirdest comparison I've seen in many hours. To start with, the Canon lens is around 40% more expensive than the Zuiko. Then, it weighs 40% more than the 45mm and the E-PL3 combined, the latter including IS, which the cheap version of the Canon lens doesn't offer. Now, add a 5DII to the equation :watch:
Not a really fair comparison, as the Canon equipment will deliver much more outstanding results.
 

Rich M

Member
I got mine from a brick and mortar camera store in Honolulu....and in spite of agreeing with Jono in principle, I ordered the hood from Shueido Camera in Tokyo. :p

R
 

Millsart

New member
Sure the EF100 is a good lens, as is the 85mm f1.8 and especially the 135mm f2, however, once we introduce a FF camera into the equation we are talking about a pretty big investment in the body, in addition to the size and weight of the system.

45mm f1.8 weights just a few ounces and can be easily carried in a pocket without even knowing its in there. Just a bit apples to oranges really.

Coming from a Leica M9 system, I personally find $400 for a 90mm equiv to be a great value, as my Elmarit M f2.8 cost me about $1500.

Not that $400 is chump change, but in the realm of camera lenses, especially in the enthusiast market and in regards to less than the mainstream systems, its an outright steal IMHO.

good points

meer? well I don't know about that part, its about the same price as a Canon EF100 f2.8 which will give you a shallower DoF rendering on a FF camera and signicantly more than a 50mm which gives very similar Angle of View and DoF on a APS camera ... personally I wish we'd see some of that promise of cheaper lenses in the Micro 4/3 than we do. After all a 45mm lens is not hard to design, expecially one which covers a smaller area than it does on 35mm ...

but I agree that its good to encourage sales of native lenses!
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

Sorry for pointing this out, but I think that is the weirdest comparison I've seen in many hours.
well from my persepctive the comparison was (as I stated) on the price for the same angle of view. It was a reaction to the "meer" tag of the price and my feeling that many people appear to have too much money. I'm not sure why you are unclear on that but when comparing lenses I feel its critical to compare them in terms of field of view as well as f-stop.

do you not see that? If not can you explain why that comparison is invalid?

Its like people saying how much of a steal the 20mm f1.7 is ... cos its a 20mm and a 20mm (made for full frame) normally costs so much more.

now THAT is an invalid comparison if you ask me.


To start with, the Canon lens is around 40% more expensive than the Zuiko.
BhPhoto shows the EF100 as $464 and the Oly as $399

I make that 16% extra for the EF

Then, it weighs 40% more than the 45mm and the E-PL3 combined,
the latter including IS,
well sure, but I don't recall saying anything about it not being light ... or are you just wanting to find more things to justify why you don't like my justification for why I don't think its bloody cheap.


which the cheap version of the Canon lens doesn't offer. Now, add a 5DII to the equation :watch:
sure ... I agree, have you read my blog post where I compare G1 to 5D and call it bambi vs godzilla?

still doesn't make the lens cheap even if in general the m4/3 system remains more attractive.

so now its me :watch:ing
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

Sure the EF100 is a good lens, as is the 85mm f1.8 and especially the 135mm f2,
...
Not that $400 is chump change,
my point exactly

but in the realm of camera lenses, especially in the enthusiast market and in regards to less than the mainstream systems, its an outright steal IMHO.
I disagree, but I perhaps think that people talk themselves into spending more and companies are happy to oblige with prices. I think its only a wee bit cheaper than the Pentax pancake series of lenses for their digital cameras

however, once we introduce a FF camera into the equation we are talking about a pretty big investment in the body, in addition to the size and weight of the system.
which was not the point I took issue with. Heck we may as well start talking about any other tangential point in defence.

Coming from a Leica M9 system, I personally find $400 for a 90mm equiv to be a great value, as my Elmarit M f2.8 cost me about $1500.
this point seems hard to grasp for people who are only used to a single format. If I get a 90mm for my LF 4x5 camera it will cost about $900 but if I go for one which will cover 8x10 it will cost a LOT more ... if I only use it on the smaller format (the 4x5 ) then I'll be missing out on some aspects of the lens. Just as using the Elmarit M on the 4/3 you are missing out on some of the aspects of what it was designed for.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hi

BhPhoto shows the EF100 as $464 and the Oly as $399

I make that 16% extra for the EF
That's not the price for the 100mm f/2.8 that you mentioned in your mail, but the 100mm f/2.0, a lens that was introduced in 1991. Do you think that lens would have been as cheap if it had been developed and introduced today, 20 years later? The more recently introduced 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS lists at $979 from the same source.

I would love to see lower lens prices too, but development costs are rising like everything else, and making a lens smaller doesn't always make it cheaper. Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 lists at $1,879, 5 times as much as the older f/2.8 version. Is it worth it? For some it is. If it isn't for anybody, they won't sell and Nikon knows that. Olympus does too, as does Canon.

There is an AF portrait lens alternative available for m4/3 btw; the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in 4/3 mount. It will AF on the most recent m4/3 cameras, but it's bigger, bulkier and more expensive, even though it's from a third party supplier (and it's been discontinued, but it is possible to find it still).
 
Last edited:

ustein

Contributing Editor
I love the Canon 100mm Macro IS because:

- very good
- fast AF on 60D. Try shooting poppies floating in even a mild wind with the 45mm macro.
 

Millsart

New member
Even if the Canon 100mm is $464 vs $399 for the Oly, I don't really follow the cost logic.

$399 isn't a good deal on m4/3 but $464, or even $399 if its an EF lens is okay then ?

Isn't $400, $400 regardless of what its spent on ? A dollar value is a dollar value regardless of whats its for. $400 either is or isn't a sizeable purchase based upon ones own finances.

As to if something is "worth" it is a totally subjective measure of course and some could find a $4000 lens well "worth it" and others a $40 lens at a garage sale they don't really use was a waste.

Im still of the opinion though as far as photo gear goes, $400 is on the lower end of the spectrum. Others will disagree of course but most gear I've bought usually cost well over that.

If that means myself or others have too much money, whos to say. This is a pretty high end enthusiast forum as a whole with lots of people easily having tens of thousands of dollars of equipment. Thats not average for the whole but it is around this fourm. Other sites maybe have younger or less experienced photographers, people for whom its more of a casual hobby than a passion etc and they may have more modest kits.

I think bottom line is though, that as far as the world of m4/3, and lenses such as the $800 oly 12mm, or the $600 Panny 25mm, the $650 Panny 45mm, or the $900 Panny 7-14, being able to get a really sharp and fast 90mm for $400 is a relative steal, WITHIN THE FORMAT

Aside from the 20mm, the rest of my M4/3 kit all cost well over the 45mm 1.8 so as such for me, its a mere $399 because its my second cheapest lens and one that I probably would of paid more for

Cheers

Hi


well from my persepctive the comparison was (as I stated) on the price for the same angle of view. It was a reaction to the "meer" tag of the price and my feeling that many people appear to have too much money. I'm not sure why you are unclear on that but when comparing lenses I feel its critical to compare them in terms of field of view as well as f-stop.

do you not see that? If not can you explain why that comparison is invalid?

Its like people saying how much of a steal the 20mm f1.7 is ... cos its a 20mm and a 20mm (made for full frame) normally costs so much more.

now THAT is an invalid comparison if you ask me.



BhPhoto shows the EF100 as $464 and the Oly as $399

I make that 16% extra for the EF



well sure, but I don't recall saying anything about it not being light ... or are you just wanting to find more things to justify why you don't like my justification for why I don't think its bloody cheap.




sure ... I agree, have you read my blog post where I compare G1 to 5D and call it bambi vs godzilla?

still doesn't make the lens cheap even if in general the m4/3 system remains more attractive.

so now its me :watch:ing
 

pellicle

New member
That's not the price for the 100mm f/2.8 that you mentioned in your mail, but the 100mm f/2.0, a lens that was introduced in 1991.
ok ... sorry, genuine mistatke I most certainly was not meaning to imply the macro, so if I got the 2 and 2.8 mixed up I'm sorry

I was simply fishing around for a similar lens in the Canon range to demonstrate that I didn't think that the 45 was as cheap as chips.

clearly everyone here does so pardon me.

I am not saying that it is stratospheric just not "cheap". Clearly your budget ideas are different to mine

So sure ... its cheap as chips, you'll buy 2 of them its so cheap...

and yes, I do believe that if that lens was developed today it could be at a similar price because it leverages off plenty of existing technology. Perhaps I must have missed the UD and aspheric elements or some other complex development on the 45

You either don't see my point or are unwilling to say that your take on my point was mistaken or what ever ... you think your opinion I'll think mine
 

pellicle

New member
Even if the Canon 100mm is $464 vs $399 for the Oly, I don't really follow the cost logic.

$399 isn't a good deal on m4/3 but $464, or even $399 if its an EF lens is okay then ?
exactly ... neither are cheap. Which goes back to me saying that its not a "meer $400" but that the price is about right.

why is that such a confronting thing to say?

Now if the lens was less than the 14-45 zoom or even the same price I'd be saying its a bargain.

I have to remind myself that you guys all seem to think that if its less than a grand its not much money. Perhaps if I was sorting out my business costs I would feel differently, but I'm not. its a hobby.
 

Amin

Active member
I don't think this lens is inexpensive, but I do think it is reasonably priced.

The Olympus lens has 9 elements in 8 groups including 2 extra high refractive index elements shown in purple:



Here is the MTF chart:



LensTip is often pretty harsh in their lens reviews and had an absolutely glowing assessment of this lens: http://www.lenstip.com/316.11-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8_Summary.html

I am unaware of any modern non-3rd party lens designed as a short telephoto (excludes the normal lenses which are being used as short teles on APS-C) which is less expensive than this one, despite the fact that many of them have simpler designs and need stopping down to be sharp.
 

pellicle

New member
Hi Amin

thanks for the information on the lens.

the double negative requires extra reading, but ... if I may ask:

I am unaware of any modern non-3rd party lens designed as a short telephoto (excludes the normal lenses which are being used as short teles on APS-C) which is less expensive than this one, despite the fact that many of them have simpler designs and need stopping down to be sharp.
* what about 3rd party and do such exist?
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
I have to remind myself that you guys all seem to think that if its less than a grand its not much money. Perhaps if I was sorting out my business costs I would feel differently, but I'm not. its a hobby.
Prices are -- and always have been -- evaluated relative to one's financial means. What strikes one person as outrageously expensive may be considered a bargain by another.

For instance, while I can easily afford to drop a grand on an m4/3 lens or two if I so desire, I sometimes find myself reeling when I read about the amounts of money people are spending on gear over on the medium-format forum. While it's true that I have a medium-format digital outfit myself, it certainly wasn't a casual purchase -- in order to fund it, I decided not to replace my car for another three years, among other things! -- and even then, I had to scrounge for good deals on used equipment for several months before I had a working system while staying within my self-imposed budget limit.

So with that to provide some context, a list price of $399 for an excellent performing lens strikes me as a veritable bargain. I didn't flinch at buying the 12mm/f2 for $799 because that struck me as being a bargain as well. By the same token, I didn't even consider upgrading my P30+ back to an IQ-anything because that would cost me at least $13,000 to do so, if not more, and I can't see the incremental improvement being worth that much to me, hobbyist photographer that I am.

So, as I suggested up front, prices must always be evaluated relative to the perspective of the viewer. Could I live happily with an m4/3 outfit? Sure; in fact, that's exactly what I was doing before I assembled my medium-format outfit and I still have it today. But since I was willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to free up the funds to move up to a higher-quality format still, I don't have to live with it exclusively. As it ever was, it all comes down to each individual's resources and their willingness to compromise certain aspects of their life in favor of others. Your mileage may vary...
 
Top