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!

Olympus ZD 50mm F2 vs Panny Leica 45mm F2.8 on OM-D

FlypenFly

New member
Will be buying one of these solutions to use on the OM-D.

PL45 advantages:
Much Faster AF
2:1 Magnification (on 35mm equivalency)
Compact and Small
Possibly better LOCA performance

Oly 50mm F2 advantages:
Weather sealed with MMF-3
1 full aperture faster
Possibly better bokeh
100mm is better than 90mm
Possibly slightly sharper

Different review sites tend to go back and forth on which one is sharper. My guess is that they're probably pretty close and the Oly ZD might be slightly sharper. I tend to trust the DPReview site more because they have more expertise than say TechRadar or ePhotozine.

Right now, I'm leaning heavily on the Olympus solution because of the weather sealing primarily, full aperture stop advantage (useful for portraits), and slightly sharper reputation. The PL45mm though really gets me on the very clean LOCA and AF speed which will probably be very useful. I wonder if perhaps the Oly 50 ZD LOCA might go away as you go to F2.8 or F4.

I plan to shoot this combo in the rain and snow so the weather sealing would be a big win. Then again I can just cover the PL45 in a plastic bag and it'll be sort of weather sealed as well and offer more useable AF speeds.
 
Last edited:

FlypenFly

New member
Yeah, but I doubt it'll be as optically excellent as the Oly 50 ZD and I actually do want the full aperture stop.

Secondly, 100mm is one of my favorite FL but anything longer and it becomes too awkward for me. I've tried back in the day with the Sony 135mm STF on full frame and a bunch of other lenses but I just can't use a FL longer than 100mm.
 

Jonas

Active member
In my opinion the Zuiko 4/3 50/2 Macro suffers badly from LoCA and it didn't (I've since long sold the lens) clean up really until stopped down to f/5.6. Sometimes OK at f/4. It depends on what you are shooting of course, how much you can tolerate and what you think about PP-ing and the result from cleaned out LoCA...

The second problem was the focusing speed and the lack of a focus limiter. No third problem really. It's a nice little lens, very clinical rendering so if you like that it will work good for you. The bokeh is neutral, also wide open, and gets slightly worse sometimes stopped down. That probably doesn't bother you much. I noticed it in a few situations only as I didn't use the lens as a macro (mostly wide open in other words).

My experience with the lens comes from use with a 4/3 camera. I have no idea what the focusing will be like when used with a micro 4/3 camera.

I have sometimes lusted for the Panasonic 45/2.8. Beautiful rendering.

Good luck with your decision,

/Jonas
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
I have owned two copies of the 45/2.8 (and own one now). Both were extremely sharp; not sure how the 50/2 could be much sharper.

Re. portraits: with both lenses you can get as close as you like. With the 45/2.8 on the OM-D, I am not sure the one stop advantage translates into any real advantage re. DOF control.

The 45 handles well on the OM-D. It, together with the Oly 45/1.8, are must-haves with the OM-D or any other µ4/3rds camera. I haven not used the 50/2, though.
 

nugat

New member
I have both. Comparisons of sharpness must be made on the same body to be meaningful. In my opinion both lenses are comparable at all apertures (judging from picture comparisons, not testing). I like the 45/2.8 rendering better, more "filmic". In practical uses the f2.8 I find sufficient. For real shallow DOF on m43 one needs the 75/1.8.
The focus of 50/2 on m43 is much slower.
 

pellicle

New member
I'll wager you won't see much difference between f2.8 and f2 in DoF

Are you sure the AF is better on the Pana?? If so then I'd go the Pana as you also get macro ability too.

Unless you like the look of that chrome looking lens.

Personally I'm still quite happy with my OM 50 1.4 or my Pentax 110 50mm
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well, just to muddy the water a bit, I've had both of these lenses, and I'd quite agree with your assesment.

nowadays on the OMD I use a Leica Elmarit R 60mm f2.8 - it's small and perfectly formed, and IMHO it knocks those other two excellent lenses into a cocked hat. AF is over-rated for macro (especially with the 50 f2 on µ43!) Manual focusing is really easy (no need to zoom in and out, it's obvious in the EVF). It would probably also be cheaper!!!!!

all the best
 

nugat

New member
Are you sure the AF is better on the Pana?? If so then I'd go the Pana as you also get macro ability too.
50/2 is for 4/3 mount and phase detection focus. Even on E5 it is slower than newer SSW motor lenses (12-60 for example). On m43 it is focused with contrast detection and really slower than any dedicated m43 lens.
 

FlypenFly

New member
I have both. Comparisons of sharpness must be made on the same body to be meaningful. In my opinion both lenses are comparable at all apertures (judging from picture comparisons, not testing). I like the 45/2.8 rendering better, more "filmic". In practical uses the f2.8 I find sufficient. For real shallow DOF on m43 one needs the 75/1.8.
The focus of 50/2 on m43 is much slower.
What's confusing is the pl45 should have done much better because it has a weaker AA filter and it has 2 extra megapixels.
 

Jonas

Active member
What's confusing is the pl45 should have done much better because it has a weaker AA filter and it has 2 extra megapixels.
...and to that you can add the weather sealing and the extra stop you said you need. It's a pity the Zuiko doesn't come with the Panasonic rendering, fast focusing and freedom (very nearly so) from LoCA.

For me it would be the Panasonic. Sometimes one has to make a decision and not look back.
 

nugat

New member
What's confusing is the pl45 should have done much better because it has a weaker AA filter and it has 2 extra megapixels.

What is really confusing is the figures given by the dpreview test.
L10 sensor is 3648x2736 pixels. The Nyquist limit for this sensor is 2736/2=1368 lp/ph.
How on earth did they register over 1500??
It's an old story where for years up to 2010 they not only misused Imatest but confused picture lines/widths with picture line pairs and placed the Nyquist limit according to either measure at random.
Then when the issue was raised they removed the Nyquist limit line from all old tests (like this one) and discontinued Imatest testing altogether.
Now they are back to old good resolution charts and "what you see is there" approach.
 
Top