45 f1.8 arrived

[Terry]

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.

It isn't only about whether your can afford it or not that makes something "expensive" to one person and not another. For instance when I shoot 24mm it is generally not wide open. So, while the 24mm is beautifully made and I love the way you switch it to manual focus, for me the lens became expensive given the way I will use it or in my case how (and how little) I would probably use it.

 

[ptomsu]

Sure, different amount of money is different easy or hard to spend for everyone depending also on the timespan of her/his life.

Having said that at taking into account usual prices for lenses in the 90mm focal length with the reported qualities, the price of the 1.8/45 from Olympus seems a real bargain for me - have ordered one and expect delivery next week. For any of the APSC or FF equivalents you pay easily at least twice this money with not the same quality.

WRT 12mm lens, I so far deferred to order one, as it seems to big for me, simply I would have preferred a smaller and lighter design with a bit less fast.

 

[ptomsu]

It isn't only about whether your can afford it or not that makes something "expensive" to one person and not another. For instance when I shoot 24mm it is generally not wide open. So, while the 24mm is beautifully made and I love the way you switch it to manual focus, for me the lens became expensive given the way I will use it or in my case how (and how little) I would probably use it.

+1

 

[Terry]

WRT 12mm lens, I so far deferred to order one, as it seems to big for me, simply I would have preferred a smaller and lighter design with a bit less fast.

Peter the 12mm is tiny. It is actually slightly smaller than the 45mm. It only weighs 130g. I think you might be confusing this with a different lens.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter the 12mm is tiny. It is actually slightly smaller than the 45mm. It only weighs 130g. I think you might be confusing this with a different lens.

I mean the Olympus 2/12(130g), which I consider "big" compared to the Panasonic 2.5/14 (55g). And as such it is also "too expensive" for me, as I would not have it often mounted to my camera.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

It isn't only about whether your can afford it or not that makes something "expensive" to one person and not another. For instance when I shoot 24mm it is generally not wide open. So, while the 24mm is beautifully made and I love the way you switch it to manual focus, for me the lens became expensive given the way I will use it or in my case how (and how little) I would probably use it.

You make a fair point, as I've been waiting for the 12mm lens basically since I bought my DMC-L1 way back in 2006 and it has effectively become the default lens on my GF1 in the short time since it arrived.

 

[ohnri]

The 12/2 Oly has become my standard lens on my E-P3. My new 45/1.8 Oly is so nice and returns such wonderful images that it will undoubtedly become my standard portrait lens.

BTW, I don't see any significant difference between the 45 f/1.8 Oly and my 45mm f/2.8 Pana within their range of overlapping use.

I will have to see how I feel about the Leica 25 f/1.4 for portraits though. It may displace the Oly.

Adding in the new Pana X lens for some length and I've essentially replaced my entire m4/3 lens kit in the last few months.

Best,

Bill

 

[edz]

BTW, I don't see any significant difference between the 45 f/1.8 Oly and my 45mm f/2.8 Pana within their range of overlapping use.

Since you have both, can I ask you how the ergonomics / feel / build of both compare, specifically for manual focusing.

Thanks.

 

[Terry]

Manual focus on the Oly feels silky smooth. Much better than I expected. I don't have the 45 macro here to compare.

 

[Amin]

Manual focus on the Oly feels silky smooth. Much better than I expected.

Same here. So nice!

 

[JCT]

Terry,

What camera are you using the 45mm/f1.8 on?

BTW, really enjoying the G3. Nice call.

JT

 

[Terry]

G3 is my only m4/3 camera body right now....waiting for the elusive GF-pro

Terry,

What camera are you using the 45mm/f1.8 on?

BTW, really enjoying the G3. Nice call.

JT

 

[JCT]

G3 is my only m4/3 camera body right now....waiting for the elusive GF-pro

Awesome- I'm busy selling off a ton of gear to afford the NEX-7, will have enough left over to try the Oly 45mm/f1.8 . I don't have a decent AF m4/3 portrait lens at present.

JT

 

[Terry]

Awesome- I'm busy selling off a ton of gear to afford the NEX-7, will have enough left over to try the Oly 45mm/f1.8 . I don't have a decent AF m4/3 portrait lens at present.

JT

Oh, I did that too. ....sold GH2, G3 (I had two), 100-300 (I had two) X100, NEX 5 up for sale now.

Replaced with 45 and Sony 18-200. Waiting for 25 and 14-42x, NEX 7 and Sony 30 macro.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

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.

for example Sigma 50/1.4 on Sigma's own cameras (so it is not a 3rd party lens in this case :salute: and as Sigma itself has no FF cameras it is a short tele there on purpose) - modern, short telephoto, less expensive.

Sony 50 f1.8 SAM DT - - modern, short telephoto (it was clearly designed for Sony APS-C cameras, not for A850/A900), less expensive (USD $150).

 

[ptomsu]

This lens rocks! Have it since today mounted on my EP3 and this little marvel just delivers! I did not do any scientific comparisons, but from what I have seen so far it is pretty much on par IQ wise with a M 2/90 ASPH, which I also own.

There are some IQ differences, but these are so minimal IMHO, that the at least 12x more expensive M lens just cannot be argued for

Really like it!

 

[Hauxon]

Mine has arrived from Tokyo (to Iceland). And the lens is tiny! It's smaller than I had imagined.

 

[ErikTande]

Mine has arrived from Tokyo (to Iceland). And the lens is tiny! It's smaller than I had imagined.

Great pics! Did it come with the lens hood?

 

[MRfanny]

just to confirm this is focus by wire correct? how is the feel? I'm not a fan of the focus by wire on the panny lenses, one too many turns for my liking, especially for video.

 

[Amin]

for example Sigma 50/1.4 on Sigma's own cameras (so it is not a 3rd party lens in this case :salute: and as Sigma itself has no FF cameras it is a short tele there on purpose) - modern, short telephoto, less expensive.

Sony 50 f1.8 SAM DT - - modern, short telephoto (it was clearly designed for Sony APS-C cameras, not for A850/A900), less expensive (USD $150).

The Sigma is designed to cover 35mm format (on Canon and Nikon bodies) and happens to act as a short tele on the Sigma cameras. It also costs more than the Olympus lens (both wrt MSRP and typical street price).

The Sony lens is designed like the Canon and Nikon cheap normal lenses with 6 elements in 5 groups, is no smaller than those lenses, and has very cheap construction. They are selling it as an APS-C short tele, but it isn't designed like other short teles. It also has weaker performance compared to the Olympus.