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!

Fun with Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8

monk

New member
Hi. Shot in RAW (LR4), same white balance, (cloudy) no saturation but slightly different warmth, which you all noticed. As I retrace my steps I realize this was pretty unsystematic, which makes the comparison invalid until I nail down tight ALL the parameters. Maybe take them both out of camera as jpegs, or only save as tiffs into Photoshop?

Being new at this I can appreciate the labors of pixel-peeper presentations.

Blessings,

Rev. Heng Sure
 

ThePhotoSoup

New member
The answer to the stabilisation problem is easy . . . get an OMD!
That was going to be my plan, but it's very lacking in the video department... I actually just went back to Samy's Camera today and exchanged my [12-35mm] lens for the 35-100mm f2.8 (Samy's Camera is AWESOME). I haven't had a chance to snap anything yet though.
 

ThePhotoSoup

New member
Okay guys, I know this thread is for the 75mm f/1.8 but here's why I'm posting these pics... I am having trouble finding good comparisons between the said lens and the 35-100mm f/2.8.

Now, I've just traded in my 12-35mm f/2.8 because I realized I needed a longer focal length. I wanted the 75mm but Samy's only had the 35-100 in stock. So I went for it. I have read from everyone who's touched the 75mm that it might be the best lens ever made. Anyways, I need to know if it can really visibly walk-all-over the 35-100 optically. If so, I need to take this 35-100 back and go finally get that 75mm. The benefits I have with the zoom are OIS, weather sealing, and different focal lengths.

I know primes are supposedly better optically than zooms but I wanted to post this pic and ask the question, how much better than this can the 75mm do? I'm not trying to start anything here, I just seriously want to know. Maybe if anyone has these "bird of paradise" plants around, you can try to snap the same pic with the same framing etc... and compare. One thing I'm really worried about is the lack of OIS I'd have if I went for the 75 thus giving me blurry images while handheld. But then again, I'm very new to all this and most likely don't really know what I'm talking about... :loco:

So, this pic is (GH3 & 35-100mm f/2.8) handheld with the OIS on and untouched. Just taken RAW and comverted with SILKYPIX to jpeg (444). It's at f/2.8, ISO200, 1/60, 100mm. I know, I should have done it at 75mm... Oh well. I know the OMD has OIS internally but maybe you could try to snap some pics without it at about the same 1/60 and f/2.8 as well as f/1.8... anyways, you get my drift.





 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Here's a comparison between two girls, both taken with the 75mm, one in focus and one blurred. The fact that they both happened to be within the frame of the same photograph and that there is an Apple Green Mercedes Benz in the photo as well (also ever so slightly out of focus), must be due to the unique properties of this wonderful lens :D

GH2 with Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8

 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Okay guys, I know this thread is for the 75mm f/1.8 but here's why I'm posting these pics... I am having trouble finding good comparisons between the said lens and the 35-100mm f/2.8.

Now, I've just traded in my 12-35mm f/2.8 because I realized I needed a longer focal length. I wanted the 75mm but Samy's only had the 35-100 in stock. So I went for it. I have read from everyone who's touched the 75mm that it might be the best lens ever made. Anyways, I need to know if it can really visibly walk-all-over the 35-100 optically. If so, I need to take this 35-100 back and go finally get that 75mm. The benefits I have with the zoom are OIS, weather sealing, and different focal lengths.

I know primes are supposedly better optically than zooms but I wanted to post this pic and ask the question, how much better than this can the 75mm do? I'm not trying to start anything here, I just seriously want to know. Maybe if anyone has these "bird of paradise" plants around, you can try to snap the same pic with the same framing etc... and compare. One thing I'm really worried about is the lack of OIS I'd have if I went for the 75 thus giving me blurry images while handheld. But then again, I'm very new to all this and most likely don't really know what I'm talking about... :loco:

So, this pic is (GH3 & 35-100mm f/2.8) handheld with the OIS on and untouched. Just taken RAW and comverted with SILKYPIX to jpeg (444). It's at f/2.8, ISO200, 1/60, 100mm. I know, I should have done it at 75mm... Oh well. I know the OMD has OIS internally but maybe you could try to snap some pics without it at about the same 1/60 and f/2.8 as well as f/1.8... anyways, you get my drift.
Hi There
I've been suffering a similar quandary - except that using an OMD I have OIS either way.

The 35-100 is very sharp at 75mm - no doubt about it - very sharp, I doubt that in real life there will be a critical difference between the two lenses at, say, f4 - my take on this is that it boils down to 2 things:

1. do you need the reduced dof the 75 f1.8 gives (see apple green merc)
2. do you need the zoom facilities of the Panasonic.

For me, If I'm shooting primes, then I'd usually rather shoot with my Leica (I can even put my 75 f2 on the OMD for portraits if I want). So, for me it's 2 that's the decider . . . . .

Just nobody suggest that I need both:poke::ROTFL:
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Hi There
For me, If I'm shooting primes, then I'd usually rather shoot with my Leica (I can even put my 75 f2 on the OMD for portraits if I want). So, for me it's 2 that's the decider . . . . .

Just nobody suggest that I need both:poke::ROTFL:
Why not Jono, it doesn't usually stop you!! ;)
 

kevinparis

Member
Got mine on the day before Thanksgiving... and plunged strait into a lowlight Thanksgiving Dinner.... OMD at ISO 8000 had me a very happy boy


PB230119 by kevinparis, on Flickr


PB230138 by kevinparis, on Flickr

colour at 3200 was pretty nice too


PB220030 by kevinparis, on Flickr

In a bar too dark to read a menu the lens gave me this... a wee bit of banding.. but the ability to get shots like this is very encouraging


PC070125 by kevinparis, on Flickr

tried some street in Maui


PC020210 by kevinparis, on Flickr


PC020216 by kevinparis, on Flickr

and some more in Fremont Street, Vegas


PC110061 by kevinparis, on Flickr


PC110162 by kevinparis, on Flickr


PC110089 by kevinparis, on Flickr

overall.... think I like the combo of OMD and 75mm


K
 

jpmac55

New member
That was going to be my plan, but it's very lacking in the video department... I actually just went back to Samy's Camera today and exchanged my [12-35mm] lens for the 35-100mm f2.8 (Samy's Camera is AWESOME). I haven't had a chance to snap anything yet though.
Wow, Samy's Camera let's you try out lenses before you buy? These lenses are certainly on the high side for 43 options. I am trying to decide between the 75mm and the 35-100mm by perusing this thread and others.
 

ThePhotoSoup

New member
Wow, Samy's Camera let's you try out lenses before you buy? These lenses are certainly on the high side for 43 options. I am trying to decide between the 75mm and the 35-100mm by perusing this thread and others.
Well not exactly. I did buy and fully pay but they have a 15 day return policy. So, as long as the lens is perfect and within the 15 day limit, you should be fine.

I was having (and still am) the hardest time trying to decide that exact thing. I know the 75mm glass is phenom but I also think this 35-100 is also phenom and has some perks like multiple focal lengths, weather sealing, small size, high build quality, in-lens stabilization... I went to Sammy's and tried on the 75mm but since it was very low light, I took multiple shots and all were blurry (GH3). So it made me a little scared being that I'm a new photographer. I just ultimately figured that it would be easier for me to learn with the 35-100. I haven't been able to really use it yet but I have a thread in this forum where I post images from the lens with the GH3.

On the other side, I know that the 75mm costs only $899 compared to the $1499 I paid for the 35-100mm. A difference of $600! That's what I'm struggling with the most. And, I know that it's plenty possible to get fantastic shots with no image stabilization.

long enough... :banghead:
 

bennettk

New member
I was having (and still am) the hardest time trying to decide that exact thing. I know the 75mm glass is phenom but I also think this 35-100 is also phenom and has some perks like multiple focal lengths, weather sealing, small size, high build quality, in-lens stabilization...
Don't bang your head. Keep the zoom. It's an excellent lens - with my full-size (oversize?) Canon digital cameras, the 70-200mm zoom is my most used lens. I have four of them. (Yeah, I have a problem...)

Really, though, I'm working on the same question that you are right now - get the 75 or the 35-100? This would be for personal work and travel, and both my wife and I would be using it. We have the 12-35/2.8, which we both like, and the 20/1.7 and the 45/1.8. Also the 45-200, which is pretty decent for the price but f/5.6 at the long end.

So the 75 would make a nice kit with the 45mm for short to medium telephoto, and the f/1.8 aperture would make a substantial difference in a few cases when we need the extra light-gathering abilities and or slightly less DOF. I like to work with two cameras, and the 12-35 and 75 would be a decent combo for general photo-j work and travel.

But. But. We are using Panasonic cameras and are not likely to buy an Olympus with IBIS any time soon. And for us, image stabilization is a big help for many of the photo situations we find ourselves shooting. Also, too, having the ability to change focal lengths without digging for another lens is very useful much of the time.

So I expect we'll save the few extra pennies and get the 35-100 at some point. It's a tough choice, but you've already got a great versatile lens - go shoot photos! Have fun!
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Don't bang your head. Keep the zoom. It's an excellent lens - with my full-size (oversize?) Canon digital cameras, the 70-200mm zoom is my most used lens. I have four of them. (Yeah, I have a problem...)

Really, though, I'm working on the same question that you are right now - get the 75 or the 35-100? This would be for personal work and travel, and both my wife and I would be using it. We have the 12-35/2.8, which we both like, and the 20/1.7 and the 45/1.8. Also the 45-200, which is pretty decent for the price but f/5.6 at the long end.

So the 75 would make a nice kit with the 45mm for short to medium telephoto, and the f/1.8 aperture would make a substantial difference in a few cases when we need the extra light-gathering abilities and or slightly less DOF. I like to work with two cameras, and the 12-35 and 75 would be a decent combo for general photo-j work and travel.

But. But. We are using Panasonic cameras and are not likely to buy an Olympus with IBIS any time soon. And for us, image stabilization is a big help for many of the photo situations we find ourselves shooting. Also, too, having the ability to change focal lengths without digging for another lens is very useful much of the time.

So I expect we'll save the few extra pennies and get the 35-100 at some point. It's a tough choice, but you've already got a great versatile lens - go shoot photos! Have fun!
In your case I would not think a second and go for the 35-100, much more versatile and giving you IS with Pana cameras.
 
Top