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

[fotofundi]

Almost everyone who has written about the Olympus 45mm f1.8 lens has praised its qualities - inexpensive, small, lightweight and great optical performance. I agree with the first three qualities, but wonder about the third as I have now had 3 examples of this lens, 2 brand new and a second-hand one, and all three have dissapointed at the wider apertures.
Perhaps I am expecting too much, the lens does produce pleasing images but based on my experience it is by no means a steller performer at the wider apertures. Both centre and edge sharpness are not really good until f/4.0 and I wonder if this is typical, or have I simply been unfortunate? - 3 times!!

[Bikie John]

I am in the fan club. I used it a fair bit for gig photography, so was probably paying a lot more attention to the centre than the corners, but was always pleased with the results. And of course the portability and low cost were a big help. If I can find any samples I'll put some up (but don't hold your breath, after a wedding on Friday and a big rugby match yesterday I have a lot of catching up to do!).

John

[R99C99]

I have a 45mm and for the type of use it gets, it’s all about the subject and therefore I don’t think I’ve ever looked at edge sharpness. I’m going to go take a look now. But either way I’d still use it for the image quality of the subject.

[Ian]

All the ones I've had/tried have been exceptionally sharp. Could there be a focusing issue? Have you tried focusing manually?

Ian

[fotofundi]

I have a 45mm and for the type of use it gets, it’s all about the subject and therefore I don’t think I’ve ever looked at edge sharpness. I’m going to go take a look now. But either way I’d still use it for the image quality of the subject.

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.

[R99C99]

I must admit, this is where it gets subjective for me (and I end up questioning myself).

I think my 45mm is sharp enough at f1.8 but not because I’ve compared to anything else defined as sharp. Just my judgement.

[R99C99]

This was taken on my 45mm at f1.8. Now I think it's sharp enough but it might be that it's not as sharp as another pro lens. Sharing for reference if it helps.

[Steambuff]

I would expect the prime to be a close match to the zoom.

The one thing to remember that the 12/40 f2.8 is a PRO lens so I would expect better results from a PRO Zoom v a Non-Pro Prime.

[blackfox]

There are to many variables in this to form an answer , pro v non pro , depth of field, camera settings etc ..I have had lots of lenses primes ,zooms ,MFT ,four thirds and can honestly say I have yet to find a bad Olympus lens ..if your not getting the results you expect buy a better one sounds harsh but that’s photography a way to empty your pockets quickly 🤓🤓

[Downwind Dec]

I've always loved the photos I get from my 45mm f1.8, especially portraits. I wouldn't say it's less sharp than my 12-40 f2.8.

[pdk42]

I've never had any problems from my 45/1.8 - and I've had two so far (first was silver and I wasn't a fan). It's very nearly as sharp at f1.8 as stopped down. I have no complaints (and I'm fussy!).

[pdk42]

Here's a recent shot. Stopped down to f5.6. Edge crop is very sharp. Shot in raw and processed with LR. Standard sharpening only - default setting on the slider.

[pdk42]

And a shot at f1.8 (ISO 640). Centre crop is uber sharp. Shot in raw and with default LR processing only. No additional sharpening added.

[fotofundi]

The one thing to remember that the 12/40 f2.8 is a PRO lens so I would expect better results from a PRO Zoom v a Non-Pro Prime.

I would agree with that except for the rave reviews the 45mm has received . The DxO mark for the 45mm f/1.8 has the same score as the 12-40mm f/2.8 in sharpness, but I don't see that in practice until it is stopped down to f/4.0.
It's possible I have an exceptional 12-40mm - certainly I rate it as the best zoom lens I have ever owned (and I have used quite a few in my career). So it was to try and establish if my expectations are too high that I put this question to the forum, and I suspect that may be the case.
What was the apeture used for the shot of the little boy? The DoF suggests about f/4.0 and I suspect that most images produced from this lens use apertures in that region, where it can compete with the more expensive glass.
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.

[pdk42]

The one thing to remember that the 12/40 f2.8 is a PRO lens so I would expect better results from a PRO Zoom v a Non-Pro Prime.

I wouldn't necessarily expect it (but the 12-40 f2.8 is stunning):

1) "Pro" is just marketing. It certainly indicates some characteristics like weather sealing and focus clutch, but whether the optical performance is better or not is IMHO not clear. Before "Pro" was invented, lenses like the 75/1.8 and the 45/1.8 were considered to be excellent optics. The introduction of the "Pro" lenses doesn't suddenly make them worse.

2) Making a zoom perform as well as a prime is obviously a much harder task.

3) Photographers like Damian McGillicuddy (when he was still in love with Olympus) shot with the 45/1.8 and had absolutely stunning results from it. He was quite a fan.

[Ross the fiddler]

Before Pro was introduced, Zuiko DSLR lenses were grouped in three categories,

"Olympus divides its Zuiko Digital range into three tiers of features, build quality and price, each tier broadening out the focal length range, i.e.

Standard: 14mm to 150mm in eight, F2.8-6.3 lenses.
High Grade: 11mm to 200mm in seven, F2-4 lenses.
Super High Grade: 7mm to 250mm in six, generally 'Constant Aperture' lenses.
All lenses are sold with a lens hood, bag and most of the 'High' and 'Super High' grade lenses come with a tripod bracket."

https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Four-Thirds_lenses

[pdk42]

It's interesting that this split into Standard/HG/SHG that existed in the 4/3 world was dropped in the early days of m43. The early lenses for m43 were either relatively cheap and average zooms (kit zooms) or else the f1.8 and f2 small primes. Retrospectively these primes have been called "premium" but they weren't branded that way at the time.

From my understanding (possibly flawed !), the design of a ~50mm focal length lens is a comparatively easy task so the good performance of the 45mm is probably more about that than its design goals being particularly high. Given how cheap it is, there is no reason to expect uber high optical performance - and yet in my experience it does perform really well.

The 12-40 is a stunning zoom and IMHO is probably the best-performing zoom lens I've ever used. It is certainly at least as good as the 45mm, and possibly better - which is quite an amazing feat for a zoom.

[Ross the fiddler]

I bought the 45 f1.8 when it was going cheap, because everyone was praising it, 'so I had to have it'.
I've hardly used it though.