I have the 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens and am satisfied to have purchased an outstanding lens. I chose the 45 f/1.8 over the 1.2 because there isn't enough of a difference to my eye to justify spending an additional $700. The PRO lens certainly has beautiful glass, but bang for the buck lies with the f/1.8, in my humble opinion. When I looked at the PRO line-up, I entered that world knowing I would buy only one lens, and chose my lens based upon travel opportunities as I entered retirement. The others, while nice, are unnecessary for me.
Yeah, I kinda want one of these lenses but when I look at comparisons and think that I could buy 5 of the 45mm 1.8 for the price of one 45mm 1.2 pro here, it makes it hard to justify. Maybe one day I will buy one, but its probably the last lens on my list. The 17mm seems more affordable because the 1.2 is only like the price of 2.5 1.8s, but 17mm isnt really my focal length, so I guess the only pro lenses I will own for now are the zooms.
I think you all nailed it. Not much difference in the real world, but a big difference for those who want to see it, especially in the 45mm. Heavier, bigger, costlier... but if you need it, or covet it, they do NOT disappoint. Not sure about comparing or looking at images of the model with some presets applied is the best idea, but you're not alone in doing that. For review purposes, hard to tell if the lens is good or the processing is. Appreciate the videos and the thoughts. My 17mm f/1.2 is a treat. A big treat. And glad to see BOTH of you...
Daniel, You must be a Sony guy. The m43 system has options, and a lot of them. All sizes of bodies with lenses that fit the amateur to the professional, with variety. Others do not have a complete and wide ranging system. If you don't need a m43 f/1.2, quit paying attention. It is about taking quality images that the shooter and their viewers like. Isn't about what you think is true. Like this article wasn't exactly true in title... petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
Daniel Spaniel joining this discussion, when it comes to portrait, I never ever really see the eyes that sharp. This is using the EM5ii and the 45 1.8. Don't get me wrong I love Olympus and these wonderful small primes. I shoot in face detect and surely I should be getting the eyes reasonably sharp as there is some depth of field with the 1.8. I don't really want to spot focus and recompose and I shouldn't have to. My experience with Pro lenses they are a touch sharper and the 3D pop comes from the increase in micro contrast. That said I wouldn't buy one of these particular lenses, in view of cost benefit ratio, they are beautiful, with probably the best build quality of any lenses, but the M4/3 sensor just has too many limitations. I am saving up for the Sony A7iii and the 85 FE 1.8. I think the sharpness and the eye auto is a real game changer.
The 17 and 45 f/1.2 pro lenses are a must for me on my E-M1X but surprisingly my 25 f/1.8 is as serviceable , though I will add 25 f/1.2 for its water and dust resistance. I’ve both 2 E-M5 Mk ii and mk iii which are slower to focus and off balanced and the f/1.8 lenses I think have advantages in handling but image quality from f/2 and up is no let down from the f/1.2. You will not regret having both f/1.2 and f/1.8 always available to you.
Your reviews capture the good points of these three Olympus f1.2 PROs. I have them all and your reviews are a fair assessment of the products. But then your reviews are always intelligent and fair-minded, as far as I can see.
Nice video Josh, very helpful for people considering these lenses. Still don't understand why people hate on m43 so much. Unless you're shooting sports or moving objects in near darkness, m43 is MORE than you need. It's not a "lesser" system by any means and can serve professionals extremely well.
it´s not hate it is just a lesser system for stills, maybe those days the things are more close but what those of us who have been or are professional photographers don´t like it´s lens conversion factor, i don´t want to buy an expensive f/2.8 lens which leads in in f/5.6, lens like this Olympus ones make the things closer anyway still must to deal with noise and a very little sensor, the price are also closer, for video no problems. in my case i prefer MFT over FF clearlly they are better offert and i don´t need depth of field or unreallistic HDR or low light extrem which shows my entourage better than my own eyes, cheers
Nando & Blonde Moby Dick what an idiot comment! Big Black Camera won’t make you professional and I can do better shot in low light on my Oly than your FF. Wanna bet on it?
its good while its cheap and small. the target audience say they do not need anything like FF performance, but then the existence of m43 lenses which arent cheap, arent small, and they still fall behind their cheaper FF alternatives proves, that such mindset is often false. I use m43 camera priced at FF price, i use m43 telephoto prices at the price of quality FF lenses, and to get good low light performance/dof i am looking for an m43 portrait lens priced 1.5-5x more than a better FF alternative. that's the moment of admitted failure.
Useful review, well done. When I look your pictures on global level, I barely see any difference. When zoomed in there is a difference, but who is looking at the pictures zoomed in? These 1.2 lenses are pixel peeper special :) Seriously, for real life use the "half the size and (less than) half the price" aspect is much more compelling that the difference I see in the pictures.
f1.2 lenses are superior in every regard. There is no point 'deliberating' whether they command the higher price. They deliver optically superior results every time, and help even lesser cameras produce wonderful output. In the long run, those lenses save money & time. For anyone who knows anything about photography and lives from it, there is nothing more to say.
Zvonimir Tosic you could make the same comment of a canon 1dx vs a canon t6i, but not every photographer has the budget for the 1dx. Or maybe they do and want to decide it it’s worth spending their whole budget on one thing vs several. Sure the optical performance is better and they command the higher price, the video is to help you decide if that higher price is worth it to you for the difference between the two. For some it will be. For others it won’t.
Price is a relative thing. See, this lens is as good or better than any Leica AF lens for their SL system, that cost 4x more, and better than any Zeiss lens that costs 2-3x more. They outsmoke any comparable top lens. Olympus f1.2 pro lenses are superior products, but cost less. How was that achieved? The answer is the m4/3: for any other larger format, the cost of material of same optical quality rises exponentially because more surface is needed. And if more surface is needed, more thickness is needed too, more critical precision required, lenses are more prone to decentering and AF shock, and the optical performance in all those cases drops. Then compensations are introduced for those lenses: bigger, shock absorbing barrels, more complex motors, more compromised designs that annul imperfections caused by demands of a larger format. All of that the Olympus lens does not require: you get more, for way less. That is called a bargain.
Zvonimir Tosic no one is arguing how they good they are. Both me and Alison are m43 shooters. But again not every photographer wants to spend this money all on one lens.
For the price of one Leica SL lens, which is not better at all, a photographer can get _all three_ f1.2 Pro primes from Olympus, plus a second-hand m4/3 camera. Perhaps use that analysis in some of your future videos, so that people really interested in superior optics can approach the problem from a different perspective. Because no one on UA-cam tells them that.
Yeah, but conversely a lot of people don't have the budget for 1 Leica SL Lens or 3 1.2 pro lenses. They have $1200 to throw at a new hobby, and are weighing between buying 3 1.8 primes and one 1.2 lens. We want to help those people see what that 1.2 will buy them so they can decide if the superior optics is the priority or the versatility of 3 lenses.
For me the Leica 15 1.7 is enough and also sharper with better Macro capabilities than the Oly 17 1.8. Hope to see more videos soon and enjoy your family life :) gx9 would be a great cam to test or g9..
we talk about low-light in our review of the olympus 25 1.2, the same theories apply here. Basically it is 1 1/6 stops between this and the 1.8 lenses, so we go over what that difference means to ISO or shutter speed.
the depth on first photo at right is due to the composition, not the lens, you said ¨i don´t know how to explain¨ that´s all :-) 1.2 are a little better, but the price difference is not just that, the body lens of 1.2 series are on another league
Sharpness is irrelevant. Sharpness is nonsense talk. What you do not mention at all, is the superior *micro-contrast* in f1.2 lenses, which constantly delivers more tonal values and new details across the image. From highlight to mid-tones, across highlights, the f1.2 lenses *see more* colour detail. Highlights are not clipped. That is critical. Sharpness is not critical, because excessive sharpness *destroys* such important details, as it is case in many lenses today.
you are correct Peter, as we readily share in our intro video, we are not pros, though both alison and I have been paid for photography, it isn't our main income driver. that said, what is the point of a review if you don't delve into the details of the lens. Also, why wouldn't you compare to the cheaper counter points if you are considering spending that much more. We ultimately really liked the lenses, as it is. If you are looking for real world usage of the lenses, watch part 1 for the actual shoot using these lenses.
I have the 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens and am satisfied to have purchased an outstanding lens. I chose the 45 f/1.8 over the 1.2 because there isn't enough of a difference to my eye to justify spending an additional $700. The PRO lens certainly has beautiful glass, but bang for the buck lies with the f/1.8, in my humble opinion. When I looked at the PRO line-up, I entered that world knowing I would buy only one lens, and chose my lens based upon travel opportunities as I entered retirement. The others, while nice, are unnecessary for me.
Michael Castle the 45 f/1.8 is one of the premiums isn't it?
Yeah, I kinda want one of these lenses but when I look at comparisons and think that I could buy 5 of the 45mm 1.8 for the price of one 45mm 1.2 pro here, it makes it hard to justify. Maybe one day I will buy one, but its probably the last lens on my list. The 17mm seems more affordable because the 1.2 is only like the price of 2.5 1.8s, but 17mm isnt really my focal length, so I guess the only pro lenses I will own for now are the zooms.
Very good review. Thank you. I just ordered the 45mm f/1.2 Pro for my Lumix G9
how do you like it on the g9?
@@A1Bokeh I'm not the OP, but the 45 Pro great on the G9. All the f1.2 Pro lenses work beautifully on the G9.
@@raksh9 ya I have one olympus lens and I really like it I'm sure they're freaking fantastic
I think you all nailed it. Not much difference in the real world, but a big difference for those who want to see it, especially in the 45mm. Heavier, bigger, costlier... but if you need it, or covet it, they do NOT disappoint. Not sure about comparing or looking at images of the model with some presets applied is the best idea, but you're not alone in doing that. For review purposes, hard to tell if the lens is good or the processing is. Appreciate the videos and the thoughts. My 17mm f/1.2 is a treat. A big treat. And glad to see BOTH of you...
Craig Pickles the pictures in the fashion shoot are processed but the ones in the analysis are straight out of camera RAW as interpreted by Lightroom
Really? That is just a pretty stupid statement.
Daniel, You must be a Sony guy. The m43 system has options, and a lot of them. All sizes of bodies with lenses that fit the amateur to the professional, with variety. Others do not have a complete and wide ranging system. If you don't need a m43 f/1.2, quit paying attention. It is about taking quality images that the shooter and their viewers like. Isn't about what you think is true. Like this article wasn't exactly true in title... petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
Daniel Spaniel joining this discussion, when it comes to portrait, I never ever really see the eyes that sharp. This is using the EM5ii and the 45 1.8. Don't get me wrong I love Olympus and these wonderful small primes. I shoot in face detect and surely I should be getting the eyes reasonably sharp as there is some depth of field with the 1.8. I don't really want to spot focus and recompose and I shouldn't have to. My experience with Pro lenses they are a touch sharper and the 3D pop comes from the increase in micro contrast. That said I wouldn't buy one of these particular lenses, in view of cost benefit ratio, they are beautiful, with probably the best build quality of any lenses, but the M4/3 sensor just has too many limitations. I am saving up for the Sony A7iii and the 85 FE 1.8. I think the sharpness and the eye auto is a real game changer.
@Daniel Spaniel "M43 is in no way a ‘professional’ system" LoL - say that to Sean Archer, Arcadius Mauritz or Joe Edelman! :D
The 17 and 45 f/1.2 pro lenses are a must for me on my E-M1X but surprisingly my 25 f/1.8 is as serviceable , though I will add 25 f/1.2 for its water and dust resistance. I’ve both 2 E-M5 Mk ii and mk iii which are slower to focus and off balanced and the f/1.8 lenses I think have advantages in handling but image quality from f/2 and up is no let down from the f/1.2. You will not regret having both f/1.2 and f/1.8 always available to you.
Your reviewes are very nice and informative. Thank you for your good work!
Your reviews capture the good points of these three Olympus f1.2 PROs. I have them all and your reviews are a fair assessment of the products. But then your reviews are always intelligent and fair-minded, as far as I can see.
Thanks James!
Nice video Josh, very helpful for people considering these lenses. Still don't understand why people hate on m43 so much. Unless you're shooting sports or moving objects in near darkness, m43 is MORE than you need. It's not a "lesser" system by any means and can serve professionals extremely well.
it´s not hate it is just a lesser system for stills, maybe those days the things are more close but what those of us who have been or are professional photographers don´t like it´s lens conversion factor, i don´t want to buy an expensive f/2.8 lens which leads in in f/5.6, lens like this Olympus ones make the things closer anyway still must to deal with noise and a very little sensor, the price are also closer, for video no problems. in my case i prefer MFT over FF clearlly they are better offert and i don´t need depth of field or unreallistic HDR or low light extrem which shows my entourage better than my own eyes, cheers
Nando & Blonde Moby Dick what an idiot comment! Big Black Camera won’t make you professional and I can do better shot in low light on my Oly than your FF. Wanna bet on it?
its good while its cheap and small. the target audience say they do not need anything like FF performance, but then the existence of m43 lenses which arent cheap, arent small, and they still fall behind their cheaper FF alternatives proves, that such mindset is often false. I use m43 camera priced at FF price, i use m43 telephoto prices at the price of quality FF lenses, and to get good low light performance/dof i am looking for an m43 portrait lens priced 1.5-5x more than a better FF alternative. that's the moment of admitted failure.
Great informative review
Useful review, well done. When I look your pictures on global level, I barely see any difference. When zoomed in there is a difference, but who is looking at the pictures zoomed in? These 1.2 lenses are pixel peeper special :) Seriously, for real life use the "half the size and (less than) half the price" aspect is much more compelling that the difference I see in the pictures.
f1.2 lenses are superior in every regard. There is no point 'deliberating' whether they command the higher price. They deliver optically superior results every time, and help even lesser cameras produce wonderful output. In the long run, those lenses save money & time. For anyone who knows anything about photography and lives from it, there is nothing more to say.
Zvonimir Tosic you could make the same comment of a canon 1dx vs a canon t6i, but not every photographer has the budget for the 1dx. Or maybe they do and want to decide it it’s worth spending their whole budget on one thing vs several. Sure the optical performance is better and they command the higher price, the video is to help you decide if that higher price is worth it to you for the difference between the two. For some it will be. For others it won’t.
Price is a relative thing. See, this lens is as good or better than any Leica AF lens for their SL system, that cost 4x more, and better than any Zeiss lens that costs 2-3x more. They outsmoke any comparable top lens. Olympus f1.2 pro lenses are superior products, but cost less. How was that achieved? The answer is the m4/3: for any other larger format, the cost of material of same optical quality rises exponentially because more surface is needed. And if more surface is needed, more thickness is needed too, more critical precision required, lenses are more prone to decentering and AF shock, and the optical performance in all those cases drops. Then compensations are introduced for those lenses: bigger, shock absorbing barrels, more complex motors, more compromised designs that annul imperfections caused by demands of a larger format. All of that the Olympus lens does not require: you get more, for way less. That is called a bargain.
Zvonimir Tosic no one is arguing how they good they are. Both me and Alison are m43 shooters. But again not every photographer wants to spend this money all on one lens.
For the price of one Leica SL lens, which is not better at all, a photographer can get _all three_ f1.2 Pro primes from Olympus, plus a second-hand m4/3 camera. Perhaps use that analysis in some of your future videos, so that people really interested in superior optics can approach the problem from a different perspective. Because no one on UA-cam tells them that.
Yeah, but conversely a lot of people don't have the budget for 1 Leica SL Lens or 3 1.2 pro lenses. They have $1200 to throw at a new hobby, and are weighing between buying 3 1.8 primes and one 1.2 lens. We want to help those people see what that 1.2 will buy them so they can decide if the superior optics is the priority or the versatility of 3 lenses.
For me the Leica 15 1.7 is enough and also sharper with better Macro capabilities than the Oly 17 1.8. Hope to see more videos soon and enjoy your family life :) gx9 would be a great cam to test or g9..
15mm f/1.7 is the No.1 lens for M43 system, nothing beats its size + performance, for street shots
Daniel Haschar g9 coming first. Then gx9 will be 2 after that!
TheCameraProject great to hear. And one camera and beer episode? :)
Daniel Haschar hopefully when it warms up! Testing out 15 1.7 with g9!
Can you use this lens on an olympus omd camera too?
Great review
Missing low light night time photography comparisons
we talk about low-light in our review of the olympus 25 1.2, the same theories apply here. Basically it is 1 1/6 stops between this and the 1.8 lenses, so we go over what that difference means to ISO or shutter speed.
the depth on first photo at right is due to the composition, not the lens, you said ¨i don´t know how to explain¨ that´s all :-) 1.2 are a little better, but the price difference is not just that, the body lens of 1.2 series are on another league
Nando & Blonde Moby Dick the composition on the 1.2 is the same as the 1.8 so that’s not what I meant.
Hi ThecameraProject no it is not the same regarding depth, the background is less charged and more diffuse
I have 17 mm 1.8 and 45 mm 1.8
Oly is run and gun, don’t think it’s about aiming for perfection
Sharpness is irrelevant. Sharpness is nonsense talk. What you do not mention at all, is the superior *micro-contrast* in f1.2 lenses, which constantly delivers more tonal values and new details across the image. From highlight to mid-tones, across highlights, the f1.2 lenses *see more* colour detail. Highlights are not clipped. That is critical. Sharpness is not critical, because excessive sharpness *destroys* such important details, as it is case in many lenses today.
unfortunately in the camera world you pay a lot of money for incremental upgrades.
nit picking as most these UA-cam videos are most people aren't pros
you are correct Peter, as we readily share in our intro video, we are not pros, though both alison and I have been paid for photography, it isn't our main income driver. that said, what is the point of a review if you don't delve into the details of the lens. Also, why wouldn't you compare to the cheaper counter points if you are considering spending that much more. We ultimately really liked the lenses, as it is. If you are looking for real world usage of the lenses, watch part 1 for the actual shoot using these lenses.