Olympus 45mm f1.8 - good or not so good?

[pdk42]

To my mind the big gap in the currently available Olympus (OMS) line-up, is the absence of a Pro grade 45mm f/1.4.
IMO the f/1.2 is too big, heavy and expensive for the majority of photographers while the f/1.8 just doesn't perform well enough at the larger apertures, although it does give us the possibility of capturing an image that might otherwise be impossible.

Well, I guess we all have our size/weight expectations, but I don't think the 45/1.2 is too big. I'm shooting FF now with a Panasonic S5 and have the 50mm f1.8. It's the same size as the 45/1.2. In fact, if I were into portraits I'd have a 45/1.2 in my bag already. It's a superb lens and at f1.2 it gives a DOF equiv in FF terms of a 90mm f2.5 which is just about perfect for portraits. It would be unreasonable to expect Oly to produce f1.2, f1.4, and f1.8 variants of the same focal length.

If there is a gap in the m43 lens range, it would be a shift lens. There are none.

[Ross the fiddler]

It's not just edge sharpness, but also the central area. My 12-40mm f2.8 is noticeably sharper at 40mm and f/2.8 (enlarged to match the fov) than the 45mm at the same aperture. I appreciate there is a big difference in price, but one is a zoom at max aperture and the other a prime stopped down, so I would expect the prime to be a close match to the zoom.
The 12-40mm is really not suited for use on my Pen F body and I much prefer the 45mm f1.8, but the results are disappointing, so I'd like to know if I have just been very unlucky or if this is the best I can expect from the 45mm.

Ian - I admit I have not compared manual focus results. I use BBF and all my other lenses produce sharp images, so I'd be very surprised if all three examples had a focusing issue, but maybe I should check that with the current lens.

I'm always suspicious of BBAF where AF may not be instant with the moment, leaving room for focus error to occur. With the camera's ability to correct for 5 axis in stabilisation, one being rotational roll (from pressing the shutter button etc), I don't know if there is any relationship here because of the subjects you may use this lens for or not. Also, the lighter the lens, the easier it is to have camera shake, because of less mass. Just a thought.

[pdk42]

I guess you mean CAF rather than BBAF? If you have CAF selected and keep your thumb on the back button then focus will be continuing until the point you press the shutter.

I agree that SAF though is not ideal for portraits and other subjects that move. The DOF on the 45mm at f1.8 is pretty thin and it doesn't take much movement of the subject to end up with a slightly OOF shot. I use SAF for landscapes, but switch to CAF for portraits.

[Ross the fiddler]

I was thinking pressing BB for S-AF & then the delay in pressing the shutter button. I know other brand users are used to using that method (maybe not S-AF), but it has always been foreign to me, having only used the shutter button with a half press when needed.
I haven't really done any serious portraits in a formal sense (I do for family, but mostly family snaps) & really hadn't thought about using C-AF for that, but if they're moving, I guess it makes sense.

[blu-by-u]

As with all manufactured items, there are +/- tolerances. It could be you have a body that's say on the minus and a lens that's also minus making the acceptable tolerance even greater. (just my personnel logic). The 12-40 you have may be a better combination for you.

I have that 45/1.8 and I can say it's tack sharp. But after getting the 42.5/1.2, that 45 is only kept and not used.

[fotofundi]

Maybe, but I haven't found any problem with my other 9 (why do I need 9 ???) lenses, so unlikely. I suspect it is more of an individual expectation based on all the hype from reviews, as, looking through my LR catalogue, two of the three 45mm I have owned yielded much the same image quality, so I am probably expecting too much or am comparing against an exceptionally sharp zoom. Next time I'm in the UK or Oz I will visit a couple of dealers and compare their demo lens against my current one - that might resolve any remaining misgivings.

[pdk42]

Did you look at the examples I posted earlier in this thread? Do they meet your expectations? If so, then it’s likely you’ve got a duff copy of the 45.

[fotofundi]

Yes I looked at the photos you posted. The castle at f/5.6 is what I would expect from my lens, while the central area of a portrait taken with my lens at f/1.8 this morning appears very slightly softer than in yours, although lighting wasn't all that great. Thank you for posting those images.

[fotofundi]

If there is a gap in the m43 lens range, it would be a shift lens. There are none.

I have been considering a tilt-shift adapter - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224717609083 - with a Nikon or Tokina ATX Pro 12-24mm lens - 24-48mm equivalent should cover a lot of architectural situations. My only misgiving is if the rise or backward tilt will cause the lens to foul the E-M1 'pentaprism' and limit its usefulness. An alternative is a legacy shift lens with adapter, I used the Olympus 35mm on my OM cameras and it was very good, but the fixed focal length was restrictive. Manual control would almost certainly apply to any OMS shift lens anyway.
We already have five 20-25mm 'standard' focal length lenses to choose from, so I don't see a problem with OMS offering three in the 45mm category, except an f/1.4 Pro lens that is smaller, lighter and less costly than the f/1.2 might prove to more popular than either of the other two.

[pdk42]

As well as my Pen F I now run a Panasonic S5 and my plan is to get a Canon 24mm TS mK II lens and then use an adapter to L mount. The only impediment is the cost of it!

[fotofundi]

Has anyone used the tilt-shift adapter (eBay link above) and with what lenses?
Thanks