Optically I find the 1.8 lenses completely fine, and their sizes are just great (hmm, yeah, small … you know what I mean ;-)). My only gripe is the missing weather sealing. It would not have to be as good as in the 1.2 Pro lenses for me, but I would like to have some. The 1.2 Pro lenses are just too expensive and too large.
Sure, I love my 1.8 lenses too, but as already mentioned, it depends on needs. I work in the field almost all the time and the lack of weather sealed, and often challenged by available light, that 1 stop of light means a lot and can be a deal breaker for my shot. But for most of my travel, family trips, I take the 1.8 :)
I have to say I was happy with my Panasonic Leica 25mm 1.4 and the Sigma 56 1.4.............until...... I found a 25mm 1.2 Olympus sitting on a used gear shelf. They let me take it and do some test shots. That lens is simply amazing. I have always had a love of primes but this one is crazy sharp, Like,, it pops. I'm just looking over the collection to see who gets traded in..
YES! Alway invest in the best glass you can possibly afford. Never choose 3 inferior cheaper lenses over 1 pro quality lens. Not to mention you can achieve more with a less fancy camera and the best glass, than you'll ever achieve with the latest all-singing-and-dancing camera paired with mediocre glass. Quality glass will last you a lifetime and will hold it's resale value. New cameras come out every year. Photography is all about light. Your glass is what connects you to that light. Happy Christmas everyone 🎄 Rick
Good point about good glass over fancy pants cameras. All the 1.8 lenses are pretty goid and they are compact. I would love one of the 1.2s though. No idea which one. Probably the 25mm?
@@davebellamy4867 I'd suggest NOT the 25mm, else all your pictures will look like everyone else's. Go wide angle or go telephoto to give you pictures more impact
@@rickbear7249 I can't make that choice for you Dave hahah just but I tend to agree with Rick. However, it all down to what you shoot. if you want to see more bokeh, 45mm is special.
I go the 17, 45 and 75 mm all f1.8 they are all "cheap" and outstanding lenses, the f1.2 versions may be slightly better but should sees the difference? And about the weather sealing, who makes pictures when it is raining cats and dogs? I don't, and when I need to, I take my umbrella with me! And keep a whole lots of money in my pocket ;-)
As far as the Olympus pro lenses are concerned - when you need WR sealing they are the best and consistently excellent optical performance. My 12-40 pro and 40-150 Pro are about 7 years old and have survived years of rain, saltwater splashes, wind blown sand and dust - both still performing like day one. My Zuiko 25mm f1.8 lens is great optically too, but hardly ever gets used because it can't handle bad weather. The WR quality is the undeniable difference.
I’ve owned and enjoyed all the 1.8 and 1.2 series. Sold off the primes this year except 8mm and 75mm. In between 12mm and 60mm I use Sigma 1.4 set which I think is slightly brighter than the oly 1.2 and since I do mostly event work I prefer the three queens to the three kings (7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, on the three OM-1 bodies I now use. If I used the primes more in my work I would have kept the 1.2 primes. As it is I use a prime lens in the 17-50mm range quite seldom. BTW I think you covered all the main issues very well here and inwill recommend this video to others.
Hi Jimmy, Most of my lenses are M.Zuiko PRO zooms, but I do own two M.Zuiko primes... the 45 mm PRO f/1.2 and the 60 mm f/2.8 macro. I view my two M.Zuiko primes as specialty lenses that I need for specific situations. I purchased the M.Zuiko PRO 45 mm f/1.2 specifically for very low light situations when doing industrial client safety videos, as well as for portrait work. I knew from my previous experience using another system that f/1.8 would not be fast enough for my low light video needs, so I never considered the f/1.8 version. I own the M.Zuiko PRO 12-100 f/4 IS but I never bring that lens for client work as it is too slow for the environments in which I typically shoot... I use the trio of M.Zuiko PRO f/2.8 zooms instead. All of the lenses I use are weatherproofed to provide maximum flexibility. Choice of lenses is a very personal decision that really comes down to the photography/video needs of each individual photographer and their available budget. Tom
I love my 17mm f1.2 Pro and it's one of my go to lenses for events and environmental portraits. The 17mm f1.2 Pro is one of the reasons why I got a micro 4/3 system. I love the look and it's different. The manual focus clutch is really useful, and I use it all the time. The L-Fn button is really useful, especially if I have it on my E-PL8 which doesn't have many controls. On my E-M1X I don't use the L-Fn as much because the body already has a lot of buttons. I use it a lot with my E-M1X because I need the weather sealing, but it's definitely on of my favorite micro 4/3 lenses.
I do not yet even own an Olympus body but I do own five pro Oly lenses including all the 1.2s! It is the manual clutch, fantastic weather sealing and superb optical quality which is why I bought them for video shooting on my Panasonic GH6! 👍🏾🙏🏾
Absolutely love the f/1.2 PRO holy trinity. I use now only 17mm f/1.2, but used all of them and they are absolutely amazing, great image quality, build quality and a great deal for the price.
I started with the 1.8 lenses for size and price (and still use them occasionally because they’re great) buuut I’m much happier with the quality of the photos that come out of my pro lenses. The images seem clearer and more dynamic. Plus that weather sealing with my em1 mkii is huge
I have both the 45mm f/1.8 and f/1.2 they are both great lenses. Most of my paid work is headshots and portraits the f/1.2 gives that extra edge plus I do shoot some creative work outdoors and having the weather sealing on the f/1.2 gives me confidence to shoot no matter the conditions. Both create great results but having the f/1.2 for my portrait work gives that next level of quality I want to provide my clients. When I am out and about or just with family I love having the smaller and lighter f/1.8.
I have 17-25-45mm 1.8 and last year bought the 17mm PRO. I am so impressed by the results that I am going to buy 25mm and 45mm PRO. My main problem is that prices got high more than 20%... I am waiting for better deals. I already have OM1, EM1.3 and EM5.3 so I am not interested in the last deals.
Yes, you seem to share my excitement when I got my first pro lens. The prices have gone up all thanks to inflations... (seems to be big words these days), fuel, chip shortage...etc. Most manufacturers have already put up their prices by quite a bit since the beginning of the year. Hence making this current deal even more tempting, you can get the package and just keep the lens and sell the camera after hahah I know some have done that.
@@Red35Photography I was told from the Greek resellers that these offers with a free pro lens are not available in Greece and other countries. We can't also buy from UK shop. Can you inform us in which countries are these offers available?
In terms of PRO lenses, the 12-40mm f/2.8 yes definitely worth it especially the original Mark i if it can be found at a good price. In terms of the prime lenses, I can't really afford them and I'm not a pro.
As always Jimmy a very balanced video. Not used any of the pro primes (although would like to!😁) I do the the 17 f1.8 which I love usually on my Pen F with the 12 mm next to it in the bag. For my 25 mm I have the Lumix / Leica F1.4 mk1 which I do really like, would I trade for a F1.2 maybe not for the extra bit of light but for weather sealing and manual focus clutch. If going to be out in wet weather just take my F2.8 zooms with my OMD1 Mk3. For my short tel it is the Sigma 56 F1.4 which does the job for me. As you said all great lenses and all have there place.
I do weddings and I use pro zooms but had the 25mm F1.8 and 45mm F1.8 everything fits in my camera backpack. Just depends on your needs and what you want to work with.
Jimmy! I will have to watch the recording. I am about to go into work but once I am there ill put on my headphones and check it out. I am sure this one will be great! Honestly I wish I could afford Pro level lenses but everyone should know that you can still get pro level images with regular and premium model lenses as well. The pro grade perks are amazing though. Take care, Jimmy
Although it would nice to have the 45/1.2 as well, it’s one focal length I rarely find myself reaching for. I have the 1.8 version and it works like a charm. That being said…my 25/1.2 is my bread and butter, 17/1.2 for more environmental type shots as well as a staple during during wedding receptions, for anything on the long end I use my 40-150 pro. That lens is crazy wicked sharp. 12-40 2.8 for anything outdoors-ish, 75/1.8 on the long end, 7-14/2.8 for the wide end. To be honest, I’m more interested in a fast 10.5 lens, like the Leica 12/1.4. Anyways, I wouldn’t say NO to the 45/1.2, but I can’t seem to justify its cost based on the little amount of time it spends on my camera.
I only had the 17mm 1.2, because I found that I needed that extra depth of field only at wide apertures. Technically speaking, it was without a doubt the best m4/3 lens I've ever had. However, the E-M1 II + 17mm 1.2 is only 200g lighter than a Sony A9 + 35mm 1.4, so now I have that combo. As far as portraiture goes, the full frame camera is miles ahead of m4/3. The eye autofocus feels like cheating. A far as portraiture or landscapes go, I don't see the point in m4/3 or APS-C. The question is more, is full frame OK or should I go with Fuji GFX. If you are buying pro level lenses... buy a camera with a larger sensor. I keep m4/3 for stuff that makes sense, a small travel camera with small lenses. E-M5 III / E-M10 IV / E-P7 + small f/1.8 primes and you've got a package that you simply can't get with full frame.
While the 17mm pro is in a class of its own, I found the small Panasonic 15/1.7 was good enough for me in terms of rendition and sharpness with added advantage of being much smaller. I also find the slightly wider angle more versatile.
Thanks Jimmy - a nice comparison of the pros and cons - or Pros and non-Pro? (sorry) . Of my 9 lenses the only Pro lens I have is the 12-40 f2.8 (unless you count the 60mm Macro which is weather sealed). I got the 12-40 used in a bundle with an EM5ii and am blown away by the quality and bright images in a zoom, If I only had one lens this would be it. However my next favourite is the 75mm f1.8 - a very worthy addition to the 1.8 trio if you have them. Amazing for portraits. keep up the great work - your enthusiasm and straight-talking as a professional user is entertaining, informative and much appreciated.
I have the f1.8 lenses in a 6L sling bag with my Pen-F. All bought used for good prices. I just bought 2 of the f1.2 lenses (the 25 and 45) also used to go with my OM-1 and E-M1iii kits. You can get them for $600-$700 in excellent to like new condition from MPB and KEH. That's nearly 1/2 the price of a new lens. Optically, the f1.2 lenses are better. However, for me the weather sealing, focus clutch, function button, and extra speed are the difference makers. The feathered bokeh is nice, but it isn't what "sold" me on these lenses. Overall, they are EXCELLENT pieces of engineering and manufacturing. You have to give it to old Olympus for being that dedicated to excellence to bring these lenses to market. Too bad their business case was erroded by smart phones and stiff competition from big guys like Sony and Canon. I hope JIP doesnt go cheap and try to survive by squeezing old IP for another decade or so. They have to take a bold move here or there. I say that should be a Pen-F ii (new sensor, nrw EVF, weather sealing, better comms with your phone) and revamped f1.8 prine lenses...all weather sealed.
Maybe if I was into more portrait photography I would buy a couple of the pro lenses. I have many prime lenses. I replaced my Lumix 25mm f/1.7 with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. With the little tighter angle and faster aperture, it really gives pleasing bokeh within a reasonable working distance. The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 can be a bit busy with it's bokeh. So if Olympus makes an f/1.4 pro that was between 40-60mm, I would buy that over the the Sigma 56mm f/1.4. I do have the 12-40 & 40-150 f/2.8 pro lenses and what a difference from the kit lenses and the 14-150mm with sharpness and quality. I use the 1.4x teleconverter and it is excellent for backyard birding. So worth the money.
Nicely done: IMO as a recreational user (ie someone who does long trips outdoors) buying these Pro lenses largely mitigates the value of MFT in that are they too large and heavy (there are comparable APSC and maybe even some FF options that come close or exceed) Now for a professional who uses MFT they may make a lot of sense if the lightest kit not needed.
Thanks mate. To certain extend, you are right. However, as already mentioned in my previous video, I am only looking at like for like (pro grade lenses), full frame 35mm, 50mm and 85mm 1.4 or 1.2 lenses are double the size, weight and more in price. to me, the 1.2 lenses are still pretty small from what I used in Canon before. But yeah, those 1.8 are just so tiny that they are my go-to set when I am travelling.
Thanks for another thoughtful and informative video Jimmy... Yes I have the f1.8 lenses... And now more than ever I WANT the f1.2 set... My wife and my bank manager both hate you... 😩
I've had the 1.8 trio, but never gelled to the 17 mm and sold it back. I replaced it (shock ! Horror !) with the brilliant 15/1.7 Panasonic-Leica. I've never had any of the 1.2 primes, but I have the 12-40 and 12-100 pro, and the these zooms are already outstanding. I can only imagine the primes to be even better, but I really can't justify the cost...
Thanks Jimmy. I was looking at the f1.2, thinking that is were I need to be. However, your video reminded me why I bought an OM-5; light and compact. So now, I am getting the F1.8 lenses. Secondly, do I shoot in the rain? No, I am too soft for that stuff!
I love this guy! English is not his first language but he speaks beautifully! I have an Oly OM 1 and a whole heap of baby Zuikos. He is definitely 'on song' with my thoughts.
Thanks Steve! You are the first person to praise my speaking. English is indeed not my first language. I do try to say properly as much as I can, but still make mistake from time to time (and get told off).
@@Red35Photography You speak with much clarity Jimmy and your accent only enhances elocution. Ignore the naysayers! Or, tell them to stick a Canon 400mm lens in an orifice of their choice!
The only pro lens I have is the 20mm f/1.4 because the others are just too big and $$$. If OM system would offer an updated f/1.8 series with weather sealing and maybe metal construction, perhaps sort of leaving the optics alone, that would be great. The 20mm f1.4 proves they can do this.
I think I have more than a lifetime to go in improving my ability to tell a story with a photograph, my ability to use light interestingly, and my ability to compose well before I need to worry about technically improving my photos by moving from the f1.8 primes to the f1.2 ones. By then, I'll barely be able to lift the lightest camera. Of course, if money were not an object, I'd have bought all the f1.2 ones by now.
If you have the budget and need for f1.2, get them. One key factor that many miss is the light transmission of the f1.8 lenses vs the f1.2 lenses - the f1.2 lenses allow more light at the same apertures. This is particularly noticeable in dark conditions like night events, where the Olympus 25/1.8 gives a darker exposure at the same settings than the f1.2 at f1.8. The 25/1.8 is super little lens under most conditions, rendering impressively at a small price and footprint. But if you need extra image quality, reliable manual focus, weather sealing and more depth of field control, the f1.2 lenses are it.
This may be rather controversial, but from the tests I have undertaken on my own 25mm f1.8, versus two different versions of the 25mm f1.2 Pro, the 25mm f1.8 is actually sharper (using both auto and manual focus). The test was done indoors, on the same camera (EM1mk2, set up on a tripod) at various f-stops, and of the same subject matter.
Interesting. I did have some problem with my 25mm 1.2 but it all because I dropped it on the floor that knocked out of focus. I had it repaired and it's now as sharp as ever. At least my copy of 1.2 pro is much sharper than the 1.8 (at 1.8). 1.2 is on par with 1.8's wide open performance however, so I don't see any worse.
@@Red35Photography Thank you for your observation. Of all the Olympus lenses that I own (and I have MANY!), the 25mm f1.2 is the only one that has given me any grief. The fist copy was returned to Wex at the outset, as there was an issue with the focus, and Olympus undertook some repairs of the focus mechanism under warranty. However, it was not as sharp as my 25mm f1.8. I duly replaced it with a 'new' copy from Ebay, and I must say, I sometimes query (not always), if any part of the photo taken with this lens is actually 100% sharp. I've never had an issue with any of my other Pro, and non-pro lenses, which I cherish and love. I guess each lens specification has an acceptable range, with some copies being sharper than others! Thank you for all your videos, which I enjoy very much.
I think if you're making money from photography, the Pro lenses are totally worth it. And if you're not, well, I wouldn't suggest someone feels completely obliged to buy them to feel like a "real photographer". As Jimmy pointed out, there are real benefits to the 1.8 line of lenses. When I shot Olympus it was 1.2 for work and 1.8 for pictures of my family, travelling, etc. M43 has a lot of options for a lot of budgets, that's for sure.
My opinion: you don't need the 1.8 primes. Just use the 12-40/2.8 Pro zoom. The 1.2 primes are worth it, as they can't easily be replaced with a zoom. Though I personally don't need or want them. Maybe the 1.2 primes are too big. They should have been 1.4 instead, maybe?
Owning both Oly 17mm and 25mm F1.8 (and Pana 42.5 F1.8) I can say neither of these lenses are lacking in terms of (image) quality. As an enthousiast, I do however find myself in increasingly challenging lighting conditions and situations (say indoors, murky grey weather, concerts/festivals/performances etc.) So I'm contemplating getting at least the 25mm F1.2 (most used of these three vocal lengths) I'm still a bit on the fence about it. It's a bit of an investment for sure, and it's not like the f1.8 are have 'let me down' thus far. But the idea of being able to leverage the faster aperture to keep shutter speed up and ISO down is appealing.
As an casual hobby photographer I don't need the pro lenses but I kinda want them anyway because the Olympus pro lenses look great feel amazing the hand
f1.2 are nice but still feel a bit too front-heavy on the EM1 for my taste. So I compromised and got the Sigma f1.4 trio - 19, 30 and 56mm. Heavier and brighter than the 1.8 series but smaller and lighter than the PRO and only a third-stop less light (and not weatherproof if that's needed!). And they cost about the same as the f1.8 series.
I’ve picked up all 3 pro lenses for the price of one due to everyone jumping ship to full frame. I’m primarily a video shooter so the bigger size is preferable.
Those who want optimal image quality, go for full frame cameras. If you want a sensible trade off between portability, price and IQ, go for the 1.8s. M43 should go back to its roots
I have or had all lenses you mention here - and none of them is what I ideally would like to have. The 20mm/1.4 Pro comes quite close, but lacks the manual focus clutch which I need for video. The 17mm/1.8 shows that the mf clutch is possible in a small and affordable lens, but the product management obviously doesn't know much about video and made not only this questionable decision. The Sigma 56mm/1.4 proves that a really good portrait tele lens can be made more compact either. If OMDS were any clever, they would make an mft version of the old 50mm/2.0 macro lens, which is optically great, very versatile and surely could be fairly compact with modern af motors. For a fast wide angle I accepted that a really large aperture is necessary, but if I didn't have the 17/1.2 Pro, I maybe would get the new Laowa for video and keep the the Leica 15mm/1.7 for traveling.
@@Red35Photography In the bag for (mostly recreational) photo tours by bike, I have all 1.2 primes as well as other primes from 10 to 75 mm. If I had to pick only one, that would be the 25mm, but I think I like the 75 most for it's beautiful out of focus rendering. I even prefer that a little bit to the 45mm/1.2, but can't say why... This bag of lenses is the main reason why I am not (yet) changing system.
You can hire a pro lens as I did for a dimly lit dancehall, still had to use the small flash supplied with the camera. Result,s suprisingly good, f1.2 really helped, kept ISO low and shutter speed enough to freeze motion, £50 for the wk end hire, can,t afford 1k to buy.
I have used the 45 1.8 a lot it is a great and inexpensive lens. Then I tried the 45 1.2. I was sold in a heartbeat. I cannot describe what it is. But whatever it is, it has a lot of it :-) Now i wonder if I would have it the same eay between the 20 1.4 and the 17 1.2. I haven’t seen any real in depth comparison between those two. I have 20 mm. 1.4 it doesn’t give me the same wow as I have with the 45 1.2
Hi Karim, like you I shoot primarily with the trio of f/2.8 zoom lenses. These are terrific lenses that meet the majority of my needs extremely well. I only own 2 M.Zuiko primes, which I view as specialty lenses for specific situations. Tom
I’m also curious. I have both the 20mm 1.4 and the 25mm 1.8 and love the 20 for the OM-1 as a go-to lens for most of my outings. For the PEN F, depending on the situation, it’s either the 17 1.8, the 25 1.8 or the 45 1.8. Was thinking of pairing the 45 1.2 with the 20, but would also love the 8-25 for hiking, but $$$ 😢
@@Nitschke-CAN Im in the same boat as you. Have you taken a decision yet? It may sound unreasonable, but I also want that 17mm f1.2, even if I already have the 20mm and 7-14mm. There's just something mystical about that 35mm equivalent...
@@polyfission2776 Not yet, but would love to have both and also the 17mm 1.2 as at times I find the 20mm to be too tight. It took me awhile to adjust to the 17mm FOV, but it’s now one of my favourites. Would also like to try the 7-14 lol.
How do you clean your gear after you've been hit by rain? I've realised rain isnt the cleanest thing (pollution, dust, sand). Dont tell me quick rinse under tap water??
I have 17 1.8 and 20 1.4 I will say the new 20 is a good sweet spot. It has the Pro quality, sealing and much lighter weight. The MF clutch and 0.2 aperture difference don’t matter for me.
Hi Jimmy, do you ever find yourself using maximum aperture when you know you shouldn't? I used to have a few Nikon 1.4 lenses and with hindsight I realise I used them at 1.4 too often. I suppose I though that having paid a lot more for an extra stop I was obliged to use it as much as possible.
That's a mistake that a lot of people make. Shallow focus is not a virtue. If it were, all the people who shoot large format would never stop down to f/64. I got caught up a little bit with Noctilux mania, but I disabused myself of that disease pretty quickly.
I do and don't. it depends on different things, In bright days, may be not, and also the feel I want to achieve. My last video shows only using 1.2 aperture ono all the three lenses to achieve the looks I wanted. But when I am doing it at events, weddings, I often approach it differently. That said, full frame has much shallower depth of field that I now got so tired of and with MFT, even at 1.2, it's not as bad as many thinks, perfect for environmental portrait works.
You mentioned the difference in F- and T-Stop between the 1.8 lenses and the 1.2 ones. Did you measure any of these to see how significant the difference is?
On DXO they have T-stop measurements for 25mm f/1.2, 17mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8. As I would expect the simpler lenses have less loss. 'Effective' stop for the 1.2 is only 1.8! For both the 1.8 lenses it is 2.0. In other words only a gain of 1/3 of a stop! I'd guess the 25mm f/1.8 would be similar to the 17 and 45mm pair.
@@RichardDriscoll-ve9mi thanks very interesting. That means you do not gain that much more speed with the f1.2 lenses than one might expect reading the f stop
@@RichardDriscoll-ve9mi Is that in terms of the light losses inside the lenses? I guess it would be easyish to test by testing side by side on the same constant scene and seeing what shutter speeds are used.
@@RichardDriscoll-ve9mi it doesn’t really matter what DXO say about T stops. In real use the 1.2 lenses do actually have 1 stop better performance over the 1.8 lenses. I have both versions of the 17 and 45 lenses, I’ve done my own tests and in doubt about the superior performance. Bought used in mint condition for £600 each. Worth every penny.
I always felt a pro lenses were more demanding. Oversaturated rendering, bulky and very expensive vs the results in mft autofocus performance. Even bajonets tend to fail easily if you are unlucky. It was more joy with 1.8 toys.
I used the 25 and 45 to shoot indoor volleyball this last weekend. They did great on my OM -1. The pics were as good as the ones I have been taking with a D500 with a 24-70 f2.8 lens. The big difference is that I could shoot at ISO 640 in the gym using the f1.2 Olympus primes whereas with the Nikon D500 with the 24-70 f2.8 I had to shoot above ISO 2000.
@@Red35Photography I agree. Thats why i think its not really a good idea to compare a 500 euro lens to its 1300 euro equivalent. If you are rich enough, go Pro, if you are not, go 1.8. And in any case : GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE PICTURES 😀
I ordered the 17mm f1.8 a few days ago. The pro lenses are very nice, but they are too big and heavy. I have the Leica 12mm 1.4, but I would be better off with the Oly 12 f2. I also have the 42.5 Nocticron, but I often think I would be better off with the Lumix 42.5 1.7 - Just as sharp as the Oly 45 1.8, but it focuses closer which is something I value.
Many may think that it is cheaper and faster to buy equipment to enhance their photos than to try to learn until they realize that their photos will still be just as dull and boring as they are, but at a slightly higher resolution. And please stop using the word PRO in every sentence, being a professional only implies that your main source of income is photography, not that you are a good photographer. I don't know of a single doctor, architect or businessman who goes around remarking that he is a professional in what he does to make it clear that he is good at it.
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DfwnhP0szOo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Olympus 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.8 - [Which One?]](/img/tr.png)
I have both versions of the 17 and 45 lenses. All are great but the 1.2 lenses are simply outstanding.
Optically I find the 1.8 lenses completely fine, and their sizes are just great (hmm, yeah, small … you know what I mean ;-)). My only gripe is the missing weather sealing. It would not have to be as good as in the 1.2 Pro lenses for me, but I would like to have some. The 1.2 Pro lenses are just too expensive and too large.
Sure, I love my 1.8 lenses too, but as already mentioned, it depends on needs. I work in the field almost all the time and the lack of weather sealed, and often challenged by available light, that 1 stop of light means a lot and can be a deal breaker for my shot. But for most of my travel, family trips, I take the 1.8 :)
I have to say I was happy with my Panasonic Leica 25mm 1.4 and the Sigma 56 1.4.............until...... I found a 25mm 1.2 Olympus sitting on a used gear shelf. They let me take it and do some test shots. That lens is simply amazing. I have always had a love of primes but this one is crazy sharp, Like,, it pops. I'm just looking over the collection to see who gets traded in..
YES! Alway invest in the best glass you can possibly afford. Never choose 3 inferior cheaper lenses over 1 pro quality lens. Not to mention you can achieve more with a less fancy camera and the best glass, than you'll ever achieve with the latest all-singing-and-dancing camera paired with mediocre glass. Quality glass will last you a lifetime and will hold it's resale value. New cameras come out every year. Photography is all about light. Your glass is what connects you to that light.
Happy Christmas everyone 🎄
Rick
That said, there are times when you would legitimately choose a non-pro lens for reasons of size and weight. All Olympus lenses are excellent!
Good point about good glass over fancy pants cameras. All the 1.8 lenses are pretty goid and they are compact. I would love one of the 1.2s though. No idea which one. Probably the 25mm?
@@davebellamy4867 I'd suggest NOT the 25mm, else all your pictures will look like everyone else's. Go wide angle or go telephoto to give you pictures more impact
@@rickbear7249 I can't make that choice for you Dave hahah just but I tend to agree with Rick. However, it all down to what you shoot. if you want to see more bokeh, 45mm is special.
I go the 17, 45 and 75 mm all f1.8 they are all "cheap" and outstanding lenses, the f1.2 versions may be slightly better but should sees the difference? And about the weather sealing, who makes pictures when it is raining cats and dogs? I don't, and when I need to, I take my umbrella with me! And keep a whole lots of money in my
pocket ;-)
As far as the Olympus pro lenses are concerned - when you need WR sealing they are the best and consistently excellent optical performance. My 12-40 pro and 40-150 Pro are about 7 years old and have survived years of rain, saltwater splashes, wind blown sand and dust - both still performing like day one. My Zuiko 25mm f1.8 lens is great optically too, but hardly ever gets used because it can't handle bad weather. The WR quality is the undeniable difference.
I’ve owned and enjoyed all the 1.8 and 1.2 series. Sold off the primes this year except 8mm and 75mm. In between 12mm and 60mm I use Sigma 1.4 set which I think is slightly brighter than the oly 1.2 and since I do mostly event work I prefer the three queens to the three kings (7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, on the three OM-1 bodies I now use. If I used the primes more in my work I would have kept the 1.2 primes. As it is I use a prime lens in the 17-50mm range quite seldom. BTW I think you covered all the main issues very well here and inwill recommend this video to others.
Hi Jimmy,
Most of my lenses are M.Zuiko PRO zooms, but I do own two M.Zuiko primes... the 45 mm PRO f/1.2 and the 60 mm f/2.8 macro. I view my two M.Zuiko primes as specialty lenses that I need for specific situations.
I purchased the M.Zuiko PRO 45 mm f/1.2 specifically for very low light situations when doing industrial client safety videos, as well as for portrait work. I knew from my previous experience using another system that f/1.8 would not be fast enough for my low light video needs, so I never considered the f/1.8 version.
I own the M.Zuiko PRO 12-100 f/4 IS but I never bring that lens for client work as it is too slow for the environments in which I typically shoot... I use the trio of M.Zuiko PRO f/2.8 zooms instead. All of the lenses I use are weatherproofed to provide maximum flexibility.
Choice of lenses is a very personal decision that really comes down to the photography/video needs of each individual photographer and their available budget.
Tom
I love my 17mm f1.2 Pro and it's one of my go to lenses for events and environmental portraits. The 17mm f1.2 Pro is one of the reasons why I got a micro 4/3 system. I love the look and it's different. The manual focus clutch is really useful, and I use it all the time. The L-Fn button is really useful, especially if I have it on my E-PL8 which doesn't have many controls. On my E-M1X I don't use the L-Fn as much because the body already has a lot of buttons. I use it a lot with my E-M1X because I need the weather sealing, but it's definitely on of my favorite micro 4/3 lenses.
I do not yet even own an Olympus body but I do own five pro Oly lenses including all the 1.2s! It is the manual clutch, fantastic weather sealing and superb optical quality which is why I bought them for video shooting on my Panasonic GH6! 👍🏾🙏🏾
Absolutely love the f/1.2 PRO holy trinity. I use now only 17mm f/1.2, but used all of them and they are absolutely amazing, great image quality, build quality and a great deal for the price.
I started with the 1.8 lenses for size and price (and still use them occasionally because they’re great) buuut I’m much happier with the quality of the photos that come out of my pro lenses. The images seem clearer and more dynamic. Plus that weather sealing with my em1 mkii is huge
Thanks Allie! Yes, you can't go wrong with the pro lenses and they are some of the best around.
I have both the 45mm f/1.8 and f/1.2 they are both great lenses. Most of my paid work is headshots and portraits the f/1.2 gives that extra edge plus I do shoot some creative work outdoors and having the weather sealing on the f/1.2 gives me confidence to shoot no matter the conditions. Both create great results but having the f/1.2 for my portrait work gives that next level of quality I want to provide my clients. When I am out and about or just with family I love having the smaller and lighter f/1.8.
I have 17-25-45mm 1.8 and last year bought the 17mm PRO. I am so impressed by the results that I am going to buy 25mm and 45mm PRO. My main problem is that prices got high more than 20%... I am waiting for better deals. I already have OM1, EM1.3 and EM5.3 so I am not interested in the last deals.
Yes, you seem to share my excitement when I got my first pro lens. The prices have gone up all thanks to inflations... (seems to be big words these days), fuel, chip shortage...etc. Most manufacturers have already put up their prices by quite a bit since the beginning of the year. Hence making this current deal even more tempting, you can get the package and just keep the lens and sell the camera after hahah I know some have done that.
@@Red35Photography I was told from the Greek resellers that these offers with a free pro lens are not available in Greece and other countries. We can't also buy from UK shop. Can you inform us in which countries are these offers available?
In terms of PRO lenses, the 12-40mm f/2.8 yes definitely worth it especially the original Mark i if it can be found at a good price. In terms of the prime lenses, I can't really afford them and I'm not a pro.
As always Jimmy a very balanced video. Not used any of the pro primes (although would like to!😁) I do the the 17 f1.8 which I love usually on my Pen F with the 12 mm next to it in the bag. For my 25 mm I have the Lumix / Leica F1.4 mk1 which I do really like, would I trade for a F1.2 maybe not for the extra bit of light but for weather sealing and manual focus clutch. If going to be out in wet weather just take my F2.8 zooms with my OMD1 Mk3. For my short tel it is the Sigma 56 F1.4 which does the job for me. As you said all great lenses and all have there place.
I do weddings and I use pro zooms but had the 25mm F1.8 and 45mm F1.8 everything fits in my camera backpack. Just depends on your needs and what you want to work with.
Jimmy! I will have to watch the recording. I am about to go into work but once I am there ill put on my headphones and check it out. I am sure this one will be great! Honestly I wish I could afford Pro level lenses but everyone should know that you can still get pro level images with regular and premium model lenses as well. The pro grade perks are amazing though. Take care, Jimmy
Although it would nice to have the 45/1.2 as well, it’s one focal length I rarely find myself reaching for. I have the 1.8 version and it works like a charm. That being said…my 25/1.2 is my bread and butter, 17/1.2 for more environmental type shots as well as a staple during during wedding receptions, for anything on the long end I use my 40-150 pro. That lens is crazy wicked sharp. 12-40 2.8 for anything outdoors-ish, 75/1.8 on the long end, 7-14/2.8 for the wide end. To be honest, I’m more interested in a fast 10.5 lens, like the Leica 12/1.4. Anyways, I wouldn’t say NO to the 45/1.2, but I can’t seem to justify its cost based on the little amount of time it spends on my camera.
I only had the 17mm 1.2, because I found that I needed that extra depth of field only at wide apertures. Technically speaking, it was without a doubt the best m4/3 lens I've ever had.
However, the E-M1 II + 17mm 1.2 is only 200g lighter than a Sony A9 + 35mm 1.4, so now I have that combo. As far as portraiture goes, the full frame camera is miles ahead of m4/3. The eye autofocus feels like cheating. A far as portraiture or landscapes go, I don't see the point in m4/3 or APS-C. The question is more, is full frame OK or should I go with Fuji GFX. If you are buying pro level lenses... buy a camera with a larger sensor.
I keep m4/3 for stuff that makes sense, a small travel camera with small lenses. E-M5 III / E-M10 IV / E-P7 + small f/1.8 primes and you've got a package that you simply can't get with full frame.
While the 17mm pro is in a class of its own, I found the small Panasonic 15/1.7 was good enough for me in terms of rendition and sharpness with added advantage of being much smaller. I also find the slightly wider angle more versatile.
Thanks Jimmy - a nice comparison of the pros and cons - or Pros and non-Pro? (sorry) . Of my 9 lenses the only Pro lens I have is the 12-40 f2.8 (unless you count the 60mm Macro which is weather sealed). I got the 12-40 used in a bundle with an EM5ii and am blown away by the quality and bright images in a zoom, If I only had one lens this would be it. However my next favourite is the 75mm f1.8 - a very worthy addition to the 1.8 trio if you have them. Amazing for portraits. keep up the great work - your enthusiasm and straight-talking as a professional user is entertaining, informative and much appreciated.
I have the f1.8 lenses in a 6L sling bag with my Pen-F. All bought used for good prices.
I just bought 2 of the f1.2 lenses (the 25 and 45) also used to go with my OM-1 and E-M1iii kits. You can get them for $600-$700 in excellent to like new condition from MPB and KEH. That's nearly 1/2 the price of a new lens.
Optically, the f1.2 lenses are better. However, for me the weather sealing, focus clutch, function button, and extra speed are the difference makers. The feathered bokeh is nice, but it isn't what "sold" me on these lenses.
Overall, they are EXCELLENT pieces of engineering and manufacturing. You have to give it to old Olympus for being that dedicated to excellence to bring these lenses to market. Too bad their business case was erroded by smart phones and stiff competition from big guys like Sony and Canon. I hope JIP doesnt go cheap and try to survive by squeezing old IP for another decade or so. They have to take a bold move here or there. I say that should be a Pen-F ii (new sensor, nrw EVF, weather sealing, better comms with your phone) and revamped f1.8 prine lenses...all weather sealed.
Agree with you . . . The pro lens are the way to go . . . Just wish I had enough beer tokens to get one
Thank you for your valuable opinion. There are also Sigma lenses f1.4 with an optimal performance price ratio. What do you think of Sigma lenses?
Maybe if I was into more portrait photography I would buy a couple of the pro lenses. I have many prime lenses. I replaced my Lumix 25mm f/1.7 with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. With the little tighter angle and faster aperture, it really gives pleasing bokeh within a reasonable working distance. The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 can be a bit busy with it's bokeh. So if Olympus makes an f/1.4 pro that was between 40-60mm, I would buy that over the the Sigma 56mm f/1.4.
I do have the 12-40 & 40-150 f/2.8 pro lenses and what a difference from the kit lenses and the 14-150mm with sharpness and quality. I use the 1.4x teleconverter and it is excellent for backyard birding. So worth the money.
Those f1.2 lenses are huge! I prefer smaller lenses, it is what m43 is all about.
Wait for my next review hahah you will be blown away!
Nicely done: IMO as a recreational user (ie someone who does long trips outdoors) buying these Pro lenses largely mitigates the value of MFT in that are they too large and heavy (there are comparable APSC and maybe even some FF options that come close or exceed) Now for a professional who uses MFT they may make a lot of sense if the lightest kit not needed.
Thanks mate. To certain extend, you are right. However, as already mentioned in my previous video, I am only looking at like for like (pro grade lenses), full frame 35mm, 50mm and 85mm 1.4 or 1.2 lenses are double the size, weight and more in price. to me, the 1.2 lenses are still pretty small from what I used in Canon before. But yeah, those 1.8 are just so tiny that they are my go-to set when I am travelling.
Thanks for another thoughtful and informative video Jimmy... Yes I have the f1.8 lenses... And now more than ever I WANT the f1.2 set... My wife and my bank manager both hate you... 😩
I've had the 1.8 trio, but never gelled to the 17 mm and sold it back. I replaced it (shock ! Horror !) with the brilliant 15/1.7 Panasonic-Leica. I've never had any of the 1.2 primes, but I have the 12-40 and 12-100 pro, and the these zooms are already outstanding. I can only imagine the primes to be even better, but I really can't justify the cost...
I got the 25 and 45 1.2. 25mm is still one of m43 favs lenses instead I sold the 45mm to buy the 75 1.8 and now I'm pretty happy with it
Thanks Jimmy. I was looking at the f1.2, thinking that is were I need to be. However, your video reminded me why I bought an OM-5; light and compact. So now, I am getting the F1.8 lenses. Secondly, do I shoot in the rain? No, I am too soft for that stuff!
I love this guy! English is not his first language but he speaks beautifully! I have an Oly OM 1 and a whole heap of baby Zuikos. He is definitely 'on song' with my thoughts.
Thanks Steve! You are the first person to praise my speaking. English is indeed not my first language. I do try to say properly as much as I can, but still make mistake from time to time (and get told off).
@@Red35Photographyhi Jimmy, love your videos too, curious to know what is your first language. Cheers from France …
@@Red35Photography You speak with much clarity Jimmy and your accent only enhances elocution.
Ignore the naysayers! Or, tell them to stick a Canon 400mm lens in an orifice of their choice!
The only pro lens I have is the 20mm f/1.4 because the others are just too big and $$$. If OM system would offer an updated f/1.8 series with weather sealing and maybe metal construction, perhaps sort of leaving the optics alone, that would be great. The 20mm f1.4 proves they can do this.
I think I have more than a lifetime to go in improving my ability to tell a story with a photograph, my ability to use light interestingly, and my ability to compose well before I need to worry about technically improving my photos by moving from the f1.8 primes to the f1.2 ones. By then, I'll barely be able to lift the lightest camera. Of course, if money were not an object, I'd have bought all the f1.2 ones by now.
If you have the budget and need for f1.2, get them. One key factor that many miss is the light transmission of the f1.8 lenses vs the f1.2 lenses - the f1.2 lenses allow more light at the same apertures. This is particularly noticeable in dark conditions like night events, where the Olympus 25/1.8 gives a darker exposure at the same settings than the f1.2 at f1.8. The 25/1.8 is super little lens under most conditions, rendering impressively at a small price and footprint. But if you need extra image quality, reliable manual focus, weather sealing and more depth of field control, the f1.2 lenses are it.
This may be rather controversial, but from the tests I have undertaken on my own 25mm f1.8, versus two different versions of the 25mm f1.2 Pro, the 25mm f1.8 is actually sharper (using both auto and manual focus). The test was done indoors, on the same camera (EM1mk2, set up on a tripod) at various f-stops, and of the same subject matter.
Really?
@@manuelpujantemarcos7248 David Fleet agrees with me @ 5:00.mins... ruclips.net/video/8L3Gq_uthzw/видео.html
Interesting. I did have some problem with my 25mm 1.2 but it all because I dropped it on the floor that knocked out of focus. I had it repaired and it's now as sharp as ever. At least my copy of 1.2 pro is much sharper than the 1.8 (at 1.8). 1.2 is on par with 1.8's wide open performance however, so I don't see any worse.
@@Red35Photography Thank you for your observation. Of all the Olympus lenses that I own (and I have MANY!), the 25mm f1.2 is the only one that has given me any grief. The fist copy was returned to Wex at the outset, as there was an issue with the focus, and Olympus undertook some repairs of the focus mechanism under warranty. However, it was not as sharp as my 25mm f1.8. I duly replaced it with a 'new' copy from Ebay, and I must say, I sometimes query (not always), if any part of the photo taken with this lens is actually 100% sharp. I've never had an issue with any of my other Pro, and non-pro lenses, which I cherish and love. I guess each lens specification has an acceptable range, with some copies being sharper than others! Thank you for all your videos, which I enjoy very much.
I have the 12-45mm PRO, because it is allround for me and weatherproof. All my other lenses are the cheaper ones. They they are fine for me.
I think if you're making money from photography, the Pro lenses are totally worth it. And if you're not, well, I wouldn't suggest someone feels completely obliged to buy them to feel like a "real photographer".
As Jimmy pointed out, there are real benefits to the 1.8 line of lenses. When I shot Olympus it was 1.2 for work and 1.8 for pictures of my family, travelling, etc.
M43 has a lot of options for a lot of budgets, that's for sure.
My opinion: you don't need the 1.8 primes. Just use the 12-40/2.8 Pro zoom. The 1.2 primes are worth it, as they can't easily be replaced with a zoom. Though I personally don't need or want them.
Maybe the 1.2 primes are too big. They should have been 1.4 instead, maybe?
Great video thanks 👍
Owning both Oly 17mm and 25mm F1.8 (and Pana 42.5 F1.8) I can say neither of these lenses are lacking in terms of (image) quality. As an enthousiast, I do however find myself in increasingly challenging lighting conditions and situations (say indoors, murky grey weather, concerts/festivals/performances etc.) So I'm contemplating getting at least the 25mm F1.2 (most used of these three vocal lengths) I'm still a bit on the fence about it. It's a bit of an investment for sure, and it's not like the f1.8 are have 'let me down' thus far. But the idea of being able to leverage the faster aperture to keep shutter speed up and ISO down is appealing.
As an casual hobby photographer I don't need the pro lenses but I kinda want them anyway because the Olympus pro lenses look great feel amazing the hand
f1.2 are nice but still feel a bit too front-heavy on the EM1 for my taste. So I compromised and got the Sigma f1.4 trio - 19, 30 and 56mm. Heavier and brighter than the 1.8 series but smaller and lighter than the PRO and only a third-stop less light (and not weatherproof if that's needed!). And they cost about the same as the f1.8 series.
A high quality lens is a long term investment but not so the camera body which is a short term investment, due to digital decay.
Great video
I’ve picked up all 3 pro lenses for the price of one due to everyone jumping ship to full frame. I’m primarily a video shooter so the bigger size is preferable.
Those who want optimal image quality, go for full frame cameras. If you want a sensible trade off between portability, price and IQ, go for the 1.8s.
M43 should go back to its roots
Where do rank the 75 1.8 compared to the 1.2 pro trinity in terms of image quality? And would you like to see a 75 1.2 PRO?
I have or had all lenses you mention here - and none of them is what I ideally would like to have. The 20mm/1.4 Pro comes quite close, but lacks the manual focus clutch which I need for video. The 17mm/1.8 shows that the mf clutch is possible in a small and affordable lens, but the product management obviously doesn't know much about video and made not only this questionable decision. The Sigma 56mm/1.4 proves that a really good portrait tele lens can be made more compact either. If OMDS were any clever, they would make an mft version of the old 50mm/2.0 macro lens, which is optically great, very versatile and surely could be fairly compact with modern af motors. For a fast wide angle I accepted that a really large aperture is necessary, but if I didn't have the 17/1.2 Pro, I maybe would get the new Laowa for video and keep the the Leica 15mm/1.7 for traveling.
Interesting insight. What's your favourite lens (that you currently use)?
@@Red35Photography In the bag for (mostly recreational) photo tours by bike, I have all 1.2 primes as well as other primes from 10 to 75 mm. If I had to pick only one, that would be the 25mm, but I think I like the 75 most for it's beautiful out of focus rendering. I even prefer that a little bit to the 45mm/1.2, but can't say why... This bag of lenses is the main reason why I am not (yet) changing system.
Excellent evaluation. U didn't mention the aesthetic side thou. The 1.8 versions are such a beauty on these bodies.
They are also very discreet due to the small size.
@@davebellamy4867 agreed, especially on the smaller EM5 and EM10 bodies
haha I got told off by saying the 1.8 lenses were sexy before, so I leave that to individual's comment :)
You can hire a pro lens as I did for a dimly lit dancehall, still had to use the small flash supplied with the camera. Result,s suprisingly good, f1.2 really helped, kept ISO low and shutter speed enough to freeze motion, £50 for the wk end hire, can,t afford 1k to buy.
Hi , I am thinking of adding one of these lenses to my kit for street photography, which would you recommend on my OM 1
I have used the 45 1.8 a lot it is a great and inexpensive lens. Then I tried the 45 1.2. I was sold in a heartbeat. I cannot describe what it is. But whatever it is, it has a lot of it :-)
Now i wonder if I would have it the same eay between the 20 1.4 and the 17 1.2. I haven’t seen any real in depth comparison between those two. I have 20 mm. 1.4 it doesn’t give me the same wow as I have with the 45 1.2
Personally I am happy with the Pro zoom and I have no interest in either set of primes. I suspect that a lot of people agree with me.
Hi Karim, like you I shoot primarily with the trio of f/2.8 zoom lenses. These are terrific lenses that meet the majority of my needs extremely well. I only own 2 M.Zuiko primes, which I view as specialty lenses for specific situations. Tom
As some have already suggested, pro version of 1.8 primes would be greatly appreciated!
Two questions…are those deals for US customers? Does the EM1 Mk 3 have pet eye detection?
No it doesn't. Only OM-1 has it. And the deal, it seems to be UK (or Europe) only as some already mentioned.
For someone who already own the 7-14mm f2.8 and the 20mmf1.4, would you say that purchasing the 17mmf1.2 is a bit redundant?
Nice comparison! Where would you place the 20mm 1.4? I recently got one and kind of wonder if 25mm 1.8 would've been better value. It's nice though 😌
I’m also curious. I have both the 20mm 1.4 and the 25mm 1.8 and love the 20 for the OM-1 as a go-to lens for most of my outings. For the PEN F, depending on the situation, it’s either the 17 1.8, the 25 1.8 or the 45 1.8. Was thinking of pairing the 45 1.2 with the 20, but would also love the 8-25 for hiking, but $$$ 😢
@@Nitschke-CAN Im in the same boat as you. Have you taken a decision yet? It may sound unreasonable, but I also want that 17mm f1.2, even if I already have the 20mm and 7-14mm. There's just something mystical about that 35mm equivalent...
@@polyfission2776 Not yet, but would love to have both and also the 17mm 1.2 as at times I find the 20mm to be too tight. It took me awhile to adjust to the 17mm FOV, but it’s now one of my favourites. Would also like to try the 7-14 lol.
How do you clean your gear after you've been hit by rain? I've realised rain isnt the cleanest thing (pollution, dust, sand). Dont tell me quick rinse under tap water??
I hope OMsystem make an 10mm f1.2 and 75 f1.2
I have 17 1.8 and 20 1.4 I will say the new 20 is a good sweet spot. It has the Pro quality, sealing and much lighter weight. The MF clutch and 0.2 aperture difference don’t matter for me.
Hi Jimmy, do you ever find yourself using maximum aperture when you know you shouldn't? I used to have a few Nikon 1.4 lenses and with hindsight I realise I used them at 1.4 too often. I suppose I though that having paid a lot more for an extra stop I was obliged to use it as much as possible.
That's a mistake that a lot of people make. Shallow focus is not a virtue. If it were, all the people who shoot large format would never stop down to f/64. I got caught up a little bit with Noctilux mania, but I disabused myself of that disease pretty quickly.
I do and don't. it depends on different things, In bright days, may be not, and also the feel I want to achieve. My last video shows only using 1.2 aperture ono all the three lenses to achieve the looks I wanted. But when I am doing it at events, weddings, I often approach it differently. That said, full frame has much shallower depth of field that I now got so tired of and with MFT, even at 1.2, it's not as bad as many thinks, perfect for environmental portrait works.
Jeez, Europe has such great deals for Olympus gear, compared to the US, though I already have the f1.2 trio.
Would be nice to add the Sigma 16, 30 and 56 to the comparison
I have those and so far have had great results!! And they are not overly expansive! I consider them pro level in image quality at consumer prices.
@@LonStar3000 they are on my wish-list. But at the top of it are the 40-150pro and 7-14 pro
You mentioned the difference in F- and T-Stop between the 1.8 lenses and the 1.2 ones. Did you measure any of these to see how significant the difference is?
On DXO they have T-stop measurements for 25mm f/1.2, 17mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8. As I would expect the simpler lenses have less loss. 'Effective' stop for the 1.2 is only 1.8! For both the 1.8 lenses it is 2.0. In other words only a gain of 1/3 of a stop! I'd guess the 25mm f/1.8 would be similar to the 17 and 45mm pair.
@@RichardDriscoll-ve9mi thanks very interesting. That means you do not gain that much more speed with the f1.2 lenses than one might expect reading the f stop
@@RichardDriscoll-ve9mi Is that in terms of the light losses inside the lenses? I guess it would be easyish to test by testing side by side on the same constant scene and seeing what shutter speeds are used.
@@RichardDriscoll-ve9mi it doesn’t really matter what DXO say about T stops. In real use the 1.2 lenses do actually have 1 stop better performance over the 1.8 lenses. I have both versions of the 17 and 45 lenses, I’ve done my own tests and in doubt about the superior performance. Bought used in mint condition for £600 each. Worth every penny.
@@berlinerffm the 1.2 lenses have 1 stop better performance. I have both versions of the 17 and 45 lenses. They’re outstanding lenses.
That Christmas discount doesn’t seem to work for US customers.
I only have 45mm f1.8 from this set
Sadly I don’t see that camera and lens offer in Florida.
Oh no... I thought you would have similar thing going in US.
The oly pro lenses are the best you can get
I always felt a pro lenses were more demanding. Oversaturated rendering, bulky and very expensive vs the results in mft autofocus performance. Even bajonets tend to fail easily if you are unlucky. It was more joy with 1.8 toys.
Didn't your Holy Trinity lenses used to be the 17, 25 and the 40-150?...
Yes, they are. But I am looking at the 1.2 trio and name them differently "the three kings" haha
@@Red35Photography Haha! Makes sense!
Wonder if OM System ever makes 12mm f 1.2 Pro lens?
I am praying.
I used the 25 and 45 to shoot indoor volleyball this last weekend. They did great on my OM -1.
The pics were as good as the ones I have been taking with a D500 with a 24-70 f2.8 lens.
The big difference is that I could shoot at ISO 640 in the gym using the f1.2 Olympus primes whereas with the Nikon D500 with the 24-70 f2.8 I had to shoot above ISO 2000.
Are PRO Lenses worth the money, compared to the 1.8 equivalents ? I think the answer lies in the price difference. A simple as that IMHO.
In most cases, lenses are relevant to price, apart from Leica, some lenses are purely from the brand value and not performance.
@@Red35Photography I agree. Thats why i think its not really a good idea to compare a 500 euro lens to its 1300 euro equivalent. If you are rich enough, go Pro, if you are not, go 1.8. And in any case : GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE PICTURES 😀
I ordered the 17mm f1.8 a few days ago. The pro lenses are very nice, but they are too big and heavy. I have the Leica 12mm 1.4, but I would be better off with the Oly 12 f2. I also have the 42.5 Nocticron, but I often think I would be better off with the Lumix 42.5 1.7 - Just as sharp as the Oly 45 1.8, but it focuses closer which is something I value.
U have it, then it is worth. U do not have it, “worth try” U can not afford, then it is called “worthless”.
Many may think that it is cheaper and faster to buy equipment to enhance their photos than to try to learn until they realize that their photos will still be just as dull and boring as they are, but at a slightly higher resolution.
And please stop using the word PRO in every sentence, being a professional only implies that your main source of income is photography, not that you are a good photographer. I don't know of a single doctor, architect or businessman who goes around remarking that he is a professional in what he does to make it clear that he is good at it.
Too bad they didn’t make a 14mm f1.2
For video work, it would have been interesting if any breathing occurred.
Worse not worst I’m afraid.
Thanks, corrected