Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus Micro Four Thirds (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/)
-   -   Oly 45 or Oly 60? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/oly-45-oly-60-a-204514/)

SammyKhalifa Feb 7, 2013 11:10 AM

Oly 45 or Oly 60?
 
Just thinking ahead here, my next lens is probably going to be one of those two (though I'll probably change mind often haha). Maybe in a few months.

Which would you guys rather have? I know they're different (and everyone's "needs" vary), but the 45 is of course brighter while the 60 seems more versatile. I think I'd enjoy and use both. I currently use my e-pl2 with Panny 14mm/20mm/45-200, along with a legacy minolta 50 1.4 that I enjoy a lot with mixed focusing results.

ramcewan Feb 7, 2013 12:09 PM

The 45mm f1.8 will replace your Minolta 50 f1.4.

I had a couple of MF lenses in the 40-50mm range that were replaced by the 45mm f1.8.

The one complaint I have about the 45mm is that it doesn't focus as close as I'd like, granted some tubes could fix that.

I personally see the 60mm as a macro lens first and everything else is secondary, it's too short for wildlife and probably a little longer than you'd want for portraits although seems to be good for pet portraits from what I've seen.

SammyKhalifa Feb 7, 2013 1:24 PM

Yeah, I've thought about that. I've also thought that my minolta can replace the 45 for now. I've thought about renting the 60 to see how I liked it. I've never rented a lens online before but people swear by it. 60 does seem like an odd length, but I think I might enjoy the macro aspects as well. They're in the same general ballpark pricewise and that's what got me thinking about it.

Greg Chappell Feb 7, 2013 1:34 PM

I know everyone here will be shocked to hear I do own both :rolleyes:. Since buying the 60 Macro, I have rarely carried the 45, but for reasons that may be not applicable for everyone.

The 45 and 60mm lenses are both close enough to the standard 50mm focal length it's just a matter of whether you want a focal length slightly wider or longer. Either would replace your 50mm lens and eliminate any focus issues you have with the manual 50mm lens.

The outfit I carry most these days is the 12mm f2, 17mm f1.8, 60mm f2.8 and 75mm f1.8. If I need something longer I pick the next size bag up and include the 75-300 M. Zuiko. When I go with the photo club on trips like the upcoming White Sands, NM trip this May, I will take everything I have to cover any angle from extreme wide to extreme telephoto.

Of the two short tele lenses the one I use the most is the 60mm macro. The 75/1.8 Zuiko is stunning, but the 60mm lens covers a wider enough area it is much more versatile, and it is really sharp. I can always find 6-8 subjects where I love the fact I have the 75, but the 60mm lens works great for a variety of subjects where the view through the 75 is just too tight, or there's not enough room to back up. If I had to leave either the 75 or 60 at home and just carry one extra lens with the 12 and 17 primes, it would be the 60. I would also always choose it over the 45 every day. The times I have used the 45 I have found myself wanting to get just a little bit closer more than the times I have used the 60 and wished it covered a slightly wider angle of view. Depending on the user, just the opposite could be the case.

I have also often found myself wishing the 45/1.8 could focus closer. It works well with the 10mm Kenko tube, but when using the tube the depth of field is extremely narrow, as is the range at which the lens will focus with the tube. Tubes for me just work better with a zoom like the 75-300 where you have a 2-4 or 5 foot working range, depending on the focal length zoomed to.

I utilize the 60 first as a short tele, and second for mostly non-macro closeups. I rarely go all the way down to 1:1, although I do now have a focus stage for my tripod so I will be doing some of that when I get the chance.

Some 60mm images..

Click on this first image to open up the file at my Smugmug site and view it at original/100%. The detail is really cool. I actually think I will re-work this image tonight. Viewing it at 100% on my monitor here at the office there's a little but of a gritty/grainy look, probably from over-sharpening.

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...1211092-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...1050732-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...B303101-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...B252928-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...B303049-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...B112767-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...B042566-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...B282991-X2.jpg

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/...C080130-X2.jpg

ramcewan Feb 7, 2013 2:04 PM

I'd listen to Greg on this one. I like my 45mm f1.8 but it is a niche.

SammyKhalifa Feb 7, 2013 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramcewan (Post 1336805)
I'd listen to Greg on this one. I like my 45mm f1.8 but it is a niche.

It doesn't seem niche as much as that they share much of the same purposes so if you have one you don't need the other. Which is along the lines of what I was thinking, really.

But those shots are stunning, Greg. I know people talk about how sharp the 75 is; but to my (undiscerning?) eye, the 60 doesn't need to apologize to anyone. How often do you find yourself missing the faster speed of the 45? That's the main advantage of the 45 from what I gather.

James Emory Feb 7, 2013 3:38 PM

For macro purposes I really like my 4/3 Oly 35mm 1:1 macro. The downside is you need an adaptor and the other is it has a tendency to focus hunt. The upside is the price.

KulaCube Feb 7, 2013 4:00 PM

If I was opening the wallet for a lens, the 60 would come ahead of the 45 for my use. I often walkabout with a manual micro-nikkor 55. For me, having macro capability equals a lens that is just more adaptable to situations/opportunities that can arise. And if the 60 is a sharp lens, I'll give up the extra speed of the 45.

Greg -- not feeling the love for the M.Zuiko ED M.12-50mm. Is it still in the bag or has it been recycled...

shoturtle Feb 7, 2013 5:14 PM

It really depend on what you shoot most. Macro is not my big thing and low light get used more for me. So the 1 stop is a plus with the 45 1.8.

Each person have different needs. I am not a big macro shooter. So for the times I want to shoot macro on the go, I just put on my canon 500D conversion lens onto my all in one 14-150. And it does the macro fix for me, not prefect, but it works well.

Greg Chappell Feb 7, 2013 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa (Post 1336815)
It doesn't seem niche as much as that they share much of the same purposes so if you have one you don't need the other. Which is along the lines of what I was thinking, really.

But those shots are stunning, Greg. I know people talk about how sharp the 75 is; but to my (undiscerning?) eye, the 60 doesn't need to apologize to anyone. How often do you find yourself missing the faster speed of the 45? That's the main advantage of the 45 from what I gather.

If I were still using, say, the E-P3, I might have hesitated buying the 60mm f2.8, but having to raise the ISO one more notch with the E-M5 compared to what I might have used with an f2 lens is not nearly as much of a deal-breaker.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:53 PM.