Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 & Mark 2 Owners Thread

Messages
6,367
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I’ve thought about the 75mm but it’s not a focal length I’d use as a prime. I’ve always been a bit on the fence with the 75mm in terms of IQ and rendering.

Without question, if I had the money and/or took a lot of portraits I’d look no further than the Panny Leica 42.5mm F1.2 for m4/3. I think if I ever ditched FF fully I’d treat myself to one ;)
Amazed that you’re not keen on the 75mm! One of my all time favourites on any format. Though I admit not an easy length to work with.
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
Amazed that you’re not keen on the 75mm! One of my all time favourites on any format. Though I admit not an easy length to work with.
Well it's a difficult one as I've only ever used it in a studio setting and stopped down quite a lot, and tbh any lens tends to be sharp enough when stopped down, therefore all I've got to go on (like most lenses) are sample images and trawling through endless photos on Flickr trying to get a true feel for what the lens is like. It does render nicely but despite comments saying that it's one of the sharpest lenses people have used, I've always thought some of said images are a bit soft/lacking in that fine detail. Maybe I need to try one again.
 
Messages
6,367
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Well it's a difficult one as I've only ever used it in a studio setting and stopped down quite a lot, and tbh any lens tends to be sharp enough when stopped down, therefore all I've got to go on (like most lenses) are sample images and trawling through endless photos on Flickr trying to get a true feel for what the lens is like. It does render nicely but despite comments saying that it's one of the sharpest lenses people have used, I've always thought some of said images are a bit soft/lacking in that fine detail. Maybe I need to try one again.
Must admit it’s the rendering more than the sharpness that appeals to me. It’s sharp enough though I have no idea how it compares to others. Just love the creamy transition of it. And its beautifully built just feels like one solid lump of glass encased in metal. There is no slop anywhere. Almost a bit Zeissy.
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
The 75 is a gorgeous lens, thought about getting it before but it's a bit restrictive for me. Would doule as a pretty nifty macro lens with a raynox or macro rings slapped on though
 
Messages
760
Name
Maarten
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
It#s not a bad price either. In some of the vids I watched it also beat some Sony and Nikon primes for sharpness, and rendering. If I recall I think Gordon Laing pits it against some of the competition and it's pretty impressive what Sigma have pulled off
 
Messages
6,367
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
It#s not a bad price either. In some of the vids I watched it also beat some Sony and Nikon primes for sharpness, and rendering. If I recall I think Gordon Laing pits it against some of the competition and it's pretty impressive what Sigma have pulled off
It looks really good although I suppose it too ends up a little bit of an odd focal length equivalent on m4/3. Though I guess if you’re used to 135mm FF (which I’m not!) then either 56mm or 75mm should be familiar enough to work with. Must admit I do love the construction of the 75mm though. Real joy to use.

Great that there is so much choice these days.
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
The new Sigma 56 1.4 is apparently sharper at all apertures and is a more forgiving FL, nice and tidy little lens too.
I've not seen many sample images from this lens tbh, but one I'm keeping my eye on (y)
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I've not seen many sample images from this lens tbh, but one I'm keeping my eye on (y)
Just re-watched one of the reviews, don't know why I do this as \i want it now, again! :D He's mostly demonstrating it here for APSC but mentions |M43 a lot and the competition for it too, like the 42.5 1.7
 
Messages
928
Name
Huw
Edit My Images
No
The new Sigma 56 1.4 is apparently sharper at all apertures and is a more forgiving FL, nice and tidy little lens too.
The sigma 56 looks pretty impressive but overall the Olympus 75 looks to be the better performer, of course there is always the possibility of some sample variation...
https://www.lenstip.com/351.4-Lens_..._Digital_75_mm_f_1.8_ED_Image_resolution.html
https://www.lenstip.com/550.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_56_mm_f_1.4_DC_DN_Image_resolution.html

My 75 is achingly sharp, a real standout optic. You couldn't go wrong with either to be honest.
I'll probably be adding the 45 f/1.2 to the 17 and 25 I've just acquired :)
The 45 looks to be equally impressive https://www.lenstip.com/524.4-Lens_...ital_ED_45_mm_f_1.2_PRO_Image_resolution.html
 
Messages
8,333
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks :)

The 14-150 is a fantastic little lens, people get very sniffy about them but I am a great advocate of superzooms as a travel option, in fact I will probably buy the rumoured 12-200 as an even more versatile travel lens (assuming the quality is up to scratch)

The penguins were part of a 'work' trip :D
I fancy one (14-150)as a general walkabout lens.
I'll need to check out your images.
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
The sigma 56 looks pretty impressive but overall the Olympus 75 looks to be the better performer, of course there is always the possibility of some sample variation...
https://www.lenstip.com/351.4-Lens_..._Digital_75_mm_f_1.8_ED_Image_resolution.html
https://www.lenstip.com/550.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_56_mm_f_1.4_DC_DN_Image_resolution.html

My 75 is achingly sharp, a real standout optic. You couldn't go wrong with either to be honest.
I'll probably be adding the 45 f/1.2 to the 17 and 25 I've just acquired :)
The 45 looks to be equally impressive https://www.lenstip.com/524.4-Lens_...ital_ED_45_mm_f_1.2_PRO_Image_resolution.html
On paper it would appear so but direct comparison of images even wide open showed the sigma to be sharper. I wouldn't say no to either tbh, they're going to be sharper than most of the alternatives. I think I'd find more use for the 56 though
 
Messages
6,367
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I fancy one (14-150)as a general walkabout lens.
I'll need to check out your images.
Really like mine. The image quality is decent. I haven't pixel peeped but i'm far from dissappointed. But it's such a useful range and the weather sealing paired with my E-M5ii is a massive benefit. Means I can keep the camera accessible when out and about without worrying about it getting wet and it's great for coastal stuff.
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
Messages
928
Name
Huw
Edit My Images
No
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Thanks Keith, interesting that their conclusion differed from Lenstip's results but again maybe down to sample variation.
I never go by the likes of lenstip or DXOmark for that simple reason. They never state how many copies they tested, so we can assume just the one. I always prefer real life examples, it's the reason I watch many reviews, because they can get bad copies too, but if the general consensus across them is similar you can trust it enough
 
Messages
261
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
My step-son and his friends arranged a last minute practise session yesterday at a local track, so I went along with the Panasonic 100-400mm to see what I could do. Not the best conditions, still overcast and dull, and it was very cold and windy, plus this is a fairly small track and not what I really bought it for ...



ISO 200, 400mm, f/8.0, 1/80s - this is one end of the oval to the other, I guess 120m or so, shot in manual mode as was trying to keep base ISO and stopped down to f/8. The 1/80s shutter probably adds too much motion blur but I guess it's good enough for web use.



ISO 500, 400mm, f/6.3, 1/500s - mid-way down the near straight, cranked up the shutter considerably as the wind was getting the better of me.



ISO 1000, 400mm, f/7.1, 1/500s - as the car passes close to where I'm standing, allowing me to get right in the face of the driver, actually not bad considering the shutter is still high and so the ISO is as well.

And for comparison this is a shot with the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO, the kind of shot I normally take and is considerably easier to do with this lens



ISO 200, 150mm, f/10, 1/40s
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
I'm seriously considering dusting down the credit card. Did you have long to wait for it, and does it meet all your expectations?
Not got it yet, only ordered it on Friday.
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
HDEW by any chance?
Yeah, had a manager's special on (maybe still on) so was cheaper than Panamoz. Was going to order from e-infinity as I bought the 100-400mm too and overall e-infinity was cheaper, but I was concerned about warranty repairs having to go back to HK. HDEW assured me all their warranty work was UK so thought that was worth the extra few quid.
 
Messages
1,298
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah, had a manager's special on (maybe still on) so was cheaper than Panamoz. Was going to order from e-infinity as I bought the 100-400mm too and overall e-infinity was cheaper, but I was concerned about warranty repairs having to go back to HK. HDEW assured me all their warranty work was UK so thought that was worth the extra few quid.
I’ve had warranty repairs done with Hdew and it was no problem - with a Canon.
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
Just re-watched one of the reviews, don't know why I do this as \i want it now, again! :D He's mostly demonstrating it here for APSC but mentions |M43 a lot and the competition for it too, like the 42.5 1.7
Watched some more videos and read some more blogs on this Sigma lens, looks great. Ideally would like the PL 42.5mm f1.2, but at half price the Sigma is looking favourable. That being said I don't get the chance to shoot portraits anyway so might just be best to go cheap and buy the 45mm f1.8 ;)
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Watched some more videos and read some more blogs on this Sigma lens, looks great. Ideally would like the PL 42.5mm f1.2, but at half price the Sigma is looking favourable. That being said I don't get the chance to shoot portraits anyway so might just be best to go cheap and buy the 45mm f1.8 ;)
I'd see it as much more than a portrait lens, though it would be ideal for that too. I wish it had better CFD and magnification, but I think the 12-40 has just spoiled me on those fronts. I think it'll be a little cracker for landscape, street, closer up wildlife [like the zoo maybe, or national parks] - slap a raynox on there and you have a very sharp and bright psuedo macro lens for barely any extra weight. I am actually considering selling the 12-40 to get it, and just go with a cheaper option for wider shots.
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
I'd see it as much more than a portrait lens, though it would be ideal for that too. I wish it had better CFD and magnification, but I think the 12-40 has just spoiled me on those fronts. I think it'll be a little cracker for landscape, street, closer up wildlife [like the zoo maybe, or national parks] - slap a raynox on there and you have a very sharp and bright psuedo macro lens for barely any extra weight. I am actually considering selling the 12-40 to get it, and just go with a cheaper option for wider shots.
I'm not a prime shooter generally and need the security blanket of a zoom ;) I do wonder sometimes if I should get a 12mm prime and longer prime and swap them whilst out, but it seems such a faff ;)
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'm not a prime shooter generally and need the security blanket of a zoom ;) I do wonder sometimes if I should get a 12mm prime and longer prime and swap them whilst out, but it seems such a faff ;)
I've always preferred primes, I always end up buying whatever the 'pro' zoom is for whatever system, and I use it for a while, love it, then kinda get bored of it and lust after primes again. When I shot Nikon I ended up with the usual suspects, the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, I didn't take to either, could count on one hand the amount of shots I really liked with the 70-200 in particular - but I found the 24-70 just clunky and too massive for what it offered. The Oly 12-40 is much more of a pleasure to use, it's 1/3rd the weight for starters and every bit as sharp, has slightly better magnification and much better MF implementation - but .... I kinda miss primes. Thinking the Pany 25 1.7 and this Sigma 56 1.4 would be the ideal pairing for me ... but I'm not jumping at it just yet. The 12-40 isn't one you let go of so easy - if I can swing it I'll keep it and get the 56 a little later, be real nice for late Spring/summer


And I know I'm a fussy tw@t when it comes to FL, I detest crossing over, which is why I wouldn't keep a 25 owning the 12-40. I just see it as waste when I could have something different. With the zoom though, I almost always find myself zooming in to about the 25 mark anyway, so is it a waste? I must keep check and see how often I actually use the wide end, and at what aperture. Because if it's rarely, and stopped down, a cheap kit lens would suffice for those occasions
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
I've always preferred primes, I always end up buying whatever the 'pro' zoom is for whatever system, and I use it for a while, love it, then kinda get bored of it and lust after primes again. When I shot Nikon I ended up with the usual suspects, the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, I didn't take to either, could count on one hand the amount of shots I really liked with the 70-200 in particular - but I found the 24-70 just clunky and too massive for what it offered. The Oly 12-40 is much more of a pleasure to use, it's 1/3rd the weight for starters and every bit as sharp, has slightly better magnification and much better MF implementation - but .... I kinda miss primes. Thinking the Pany 25 1.7 and this Sigma 56 1.4 would be the ideal pairing for me ... but I'm not jumping at it just yet. The 12-40 isn't one you let go of so easy - if I can swing it I'll keep it and get the 56 a little later, be real nice for late Spring/summer


And I know I'm a fussy tw@t when it comes to FL, I detest crossing over, which is why I wouldn't keep a 25 owning the 12-40. I just see it as waste when I could have something different. With the zoom though, I almost always find myself zooming in to about the 25 mark anyway, so is it a waste? I must keep check and see how often I actually use the wide end, and at what aperture. Because if it's rarely, and stopped down, a cheap kit lens would suffice for those occasions
I tend to use the two extremes, ie 12mm and 40mm with much less use of the FL’s in between. Maybe if I was a portrait shooter or a street shooter etc I’d be more inclined to use primes, but as a ‘jack of all trades’ I need flexibility. I just wish the 12-40mm was an F1.8 but still the same size and weight :LOL:
 
Messages
10,687
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I tend to use the two extremes, ie 12mm and 40mm with much less use of the FL’s in between. Maybe if I was a portrait shooter or a street shooter etc I’d be more inclined to use primes, but as a ‘jack of all trades’ I need flexibility. I just wish the 12-40mm was an F1.8 but still the same size and weight :LOL:
I find 12mm too wide even for indoors most times, I've always been more of a get in close type shooter though. The 25 - 40mm region is where I'm mostly at. It's noce to have the wider option there though


Had a lovely day out at Walsingham Abbey today, certainly cant accuse them of lacking snowdrops...

7619_full
by Hazel S, on Flickr

7635_full
by Hazel S, on Flickr

7639_full
by Hazel S, on Flickr

7662_full
by Hazel S, on Flickr

Beautiful :) there's a place similar to this down road from me, should get my ass down there and see if there's any growth. There was snowdrops last time I visited, not near as many as that thought :O
 
Messages
10,701
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
284
Edit My Images
No
I tend to use the two extremes, ie 12mm and 40mm with much less use of the FL’s in between. Maybe if I was a portrait shooter or a street shooter etc I’d be more inclined to use primes, but as a ‘jack of all trades’ I need flexibility. I just wish the 12-40mm was an F1.8 but still the same size and weight :LOL:
I found a similar spread when I was looking at my old pictures. That helped me to choose to keep the EZ 14-42mm for general outdoor shooting and justify the 17mm f1.8 to myself for indoor and night use.
I have a P25mm f1.7 and O45mm f1.8 too but they get much less use than the other two lenses even though they're both good.

I keep getting an itch for the 12-40PRO but I know I'll end up resenting the weight and size disadvantage over the EZ lens but unable to leave it behind. I know it's comparitively small and light but on the E-M10ii it's still a lot larger. So I force myself to keep my hands in my pockets when they come up on here for £350-400 :)
 
Messages
10,701
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I found a similar spread when I was looking at my old pictures. That helped me to choose to keep the EZ 14-42mm for general outdoor shooting and justify the 17mm f1.8 to myself for indoor and night use.
I have a P25mm f1.7 and O45mm f1.8 too but they get much less use than the other two lenses even though they're both good.

I keep getting an itch for the 12-40PRO but I know I'll end up resenting the weight and size disadvantage over the EZ lens but unable to 9nleave it behind. I know it's comparitively small and light but on the E-M10ii it's still a lot larger. So I force myself to keep my hands in my pockets when they come up on here for £350-400 :)
I have Olympus 12, 17 and 45 also PL 25 1.4 plus a very decent P 14-45.
Couldn't resist a 12-40 Pro on here last week within the price range you mentioned, very nice it is too
Got it to use primarily on an E-M1 as a good weather resistant combo and leave the small primes for my Panasonic GX9
 
Messages
13,472
Edit My Images
No
Going through my back catalogue and I stumbled across this that I shot with the EM5-II a few years back. Thought it looked half decent so decided to process it.


P4070430-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
Going through my back catalogue and I stumbled across this that I shot with the EM5-II a few years back. Thought it looked half decent so decided to process it.


P4070430-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr
Lovely, and goes to show there is more processing latitude than people would give m43 credit for :)


I have Olympus 12, 17 and 45 also PL 25 1.4 plus a very decent P 14-45.
Couldn't resist a 12-40 Pro on here last week within the price range you mentioned, very nice it is too
Got it to use primarily on an E-M1 as a good weather resistant combo and leave the small primes for my Panasonic GX9

12-40 pro and EM1 is pretty much a fit and forget combo, perfectly matched and does everything you might want within that focal range.

When I ran an EM1 and EM5ii, the EM1 got most of the action. Now I use an EM5ii and EM1ii and I actually use the EM5ii more as, for me, the EM1ii is just a little too big for general use, even compared to the mk1.
 
Top