[wim]

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/m...2-pro.html

http://www.getolympus.com/lenses/m-zuiko..._us&ref=CJ


Kind regards, Wim

[Klaus]

Nice stuff but it's overpriced for what you get from this. 

I'm wondering how many they are selling of these f/1.2 lenses.

I suppose they are probably meant as halo products.

If a pro requires large aperture lenses, he will not go MFT.

That being said they are a little cheaper than a (orig) FF 85mm f/1.4.

[wim]

I think they are doing well enough, otherwise they wouldn't bother.


Overpriced is relative, of course, it is an opinion.


Yes, they are MFT lenses, and therefore not looking as good from an optical and aperture POV as FF equivalent lenses, when "equivalencing" them, but to be very honest, it is about time that people start looking at these differently, IMO.


Whatever happens, these are F/1.2 lenses, very well made ones for that matter, to very high optical and electro-mechanical standards, in a niche market, and from that POV the price is very realistic considering current trends, if not cheaper than to be expected.


Besides, for enough DoF I normally stop down my 85L to F3.5 or F/4. The 45 PRO will be excellent from wide open, but it will still have to be stopped down to F/1.7 or F/2 to get similar DoF.


Considering my experience with the 25 PRO, I will add the 45 to my bag, and the 12 PRO, also F/1.2, which will likely be announced in February next year. IMO, they will be worth it .


Kind regards, Wim

[toni-a]

I suppose they are probably meant as halo products.

If a pro requires large aperture lenses, he will not go MFT.

 

While that seems logic, reality might be another thing, when you are involved in a system you want it to do everything.

Why on earth would a full frame user especially one using a camera like 1Ds or 1Dx get a pancake lens ?? but they are getting it.

Check the sales of Canon 40mm pancake it does not make sense IMHO yet it's selling 

 

[Brightcolours]

Whatever happens, they are MFT f1.2 lenses. Equivalent to FF f2.4 lenses. With MFT image circles. with MFT focal lengths to provide the meant FOV.

I rather have a Tamron 85mm f1.8 VC USD, to be frank. The saving grace for this Olympus 45mm is its weight, but that is to be expected for an almost f2.8 equivalent, of course. It does not render that nicely, by the way?

 

$1200 seems very excessive for a 35mm f2.4 equivalent.

[JJ_SO]

Tall guys either need tall camera-bodies or tall lenses - everything else just hasn't enough space for their fingers. As a medicine person you know about lack of "fine motor control"?

 

:lol:

 

The 45 mm pictures are not overly exhilarating, bokehwise. But if one wants µ4/3, fast lenses with AF and decent build quality (which are still a lot lighter than their "equivalent" bokeh producing colleagues) there's suddenly not much choice.

[JJ_SO]

Ooooh-lala, one needs to be a bit of a flare-fan:

 



 

Picture is coming from over at DPReview. Is it only me or ist it massive?

[Brightcolours]

Whoa, and that is somewhat stopped down too. It looks like it wants to compete with my 1967 Canon FL 55mm f1.2!

[Klaus]

The bokeh of the 45mm is looking rather good based on the dpreview images.

 

That flare image - honestly - you can produce that with pretty much all lenses out there if you push it - the contrast range in that image is excessive. 

[JJ_SO]

Well, I don't believe that "you can produce that with pretty much all lenses out there if you push it"-part, otherwise I'd have seen it. This kind of situations I was in with a couple of lenses, none was as bad as that sample. Other samples with front light also show some kind of flares I'm used to see in UWA-pics, never in a portrait lens.