Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8 Lens: Review

By Ctein

The Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 lens for Micro 4/3 is a moderately priced ($400) moderate telephoto, equivalent to 90mm in 35mm terms. I fell into lust with this lens as soon as Mike first described it last summer. It was exactly what I wanted. I decided then that if my TOP print sale did especially well, I would treat myself to some optical presents.

By the time the sale rolled around, I had decided to hell with the conditionals, I was going to buy it, regardless.

One reason is that it's a fast lens. I'm an available light photographer by inclination. Other people do great with strobes and the like; I never cottoned to them. Most of the time I don't need anything like ƒ/1.8; I'd rather be down somewhere around ƒ/4 or ƒ/5.6. But when I want it, I want it.

The other reason is that it's a longish lens. For many photographers, their focal "sweet spot" is in the 30–40mm (equivalent) range. Me, I've always been a telephoto kind of guy. When I bought my first Pentax 67, I didn't think twice about choosing the 105mm lens over the 90mm. I didn't even get a wide-angle lens for that camera until I'd been using it for well over a dozen years.

The Panasonic 20mm ƒ/1.7 lens is superb, but it's wide for my tastes. I readily adapt, but when I put the 45mm Olympus on the camera, it's just like we were made for each other. It sees the way I do. I hardly ever have the experience of immediately feeling sympatico with a piece of equipment, but this is one of those times. It's compact and lightweight to boot. I can put my Olympus Pen with this lens in the same little padded stretchy pouch I use for carrying around the camera with the Panasonic 20mm.

Optical questions
So much for physical issues. How does the lens perform optically? The key questions for me are, how good do its images look wide open, when I am in one of those available-darkness situations? And, is it uniformly excellent across the field stopped down? My portfolio prints are large: 15x20" image area. I want a lens that can keep up. Issues that are not important to me are "color rendition" of the lens and bokeh. I'm not even convinced the former matters when one photographs in raw, as I always do, and I am sufficiently insensitive to bokeh that I only notice it when it is exceptionally awful. If you wish for an evaluation of that, wait for Mike's upcoming review.

This lens exceeded any expectations I had. It is so good that it's hard to tell what aperture I'm working at except by the amount of light falloff. Wide open, the lens exhibits a bit over half a stop of falloff from center to corner, but it's down to under one third of a stop at ƒ/2.2 and below a quarter stop by ƒ/2.8. There's no focus shift that I could detect going from ƒ/1.8 to ƒ/8.

At ƒ/1.8, central sharpness is close to the camera's limit, and corner resolution is only a little worse than that. The only hint that you're working wide open is a slight softness to the edges (acutance); they are just ever so slightly smeary. Other than that, the lens is already almost as good as it gets on this camera. There is no sudden jump in image quality as you stop down, like there was with the Rokinon 85mm. It just gradually creeps up from very, very good to excellent.

This lens is phenomenal wide open. Above is the full frame; below is a 100% section from this (after you click on the image). It's a little grainy 'cause it's ISO 800.

At ƒ/2.8, photographs are visibly crisper than wide open, especially at the corners; at ƒ/4 there is very little to complain about anywhere in the field. Continuing on down to ƒ/8, the corners to pick up a bit more contrast and sharpness along the way, but it takes some really serious pixel peeping to see any differences anywhere between ƒ/4 and ƒ/8. Acutance falls off a little from that optimum range at both ƒ/2.8 and ƒ/11 (diffraction has to dominate, eventually) but you can confidently use any aperture from ƒ/2.8 to ƒ/11 and be assured of excellent results. The differences are, frankly, subtle.

Above is the full frame of this test scene. Below, 100% sections from the centers and the corners of the frames. From top to bottom, ƒ/1.8, ƒ/2.8 and ƒ/5.6 (click on the image to see it 100%).

Correction for chromatic aberration is extremely good. There is maybe one pixel's worth of lateral chromatic aberration. I didn't notice any longitudinal chromatic aberration until I started pixel-peeping for this article; then I detected just a hint of magenta-foreground/green-background longitudinal color. It is small enough that I didn't notice it before this.

What all this tells me is that this lens is a lot better than the camera. If the Micro 4/3 format survives long enough for us to see a 25–30 megapixel body, I have no doubt that this lens will still be a strong performer. This is not one of those optics where a significantly better camera body will make you long for a significantly better lens.

When I'm looking for corner-to-corner uniform sharpness, this
is going to be my go-to lens.

Is there anything I can complain about in this lens? Well, I do wish it stabilized a little better. Sharpness is pretty reliable at 1/40th sec, but not so much at 1/20th. That's nice, but it's nothing to write home about. I've seen similar behavior with other lenses in this focal length range; I think maybe the image stabilization in the Olympus Pen EP-1 just doesn't optimize all that well for this focal length.

Verdict
All in all, I think this lens is worth every bit of the $400 price tag. Even if it weren't a fast lens, it would deserve accolades. It is that good.

Well, that's it for the 45mm lens (the Amazon link again—B&H is currently out of them). Next week I'll be reviewing the Olympus 12mm ƒ/2. If you've been thinking about buying one of those, you may want to hold off until you read my review (that's what English majors call foreshadowing). Until next time....

Ctein

ADDENDUM by Mike: Peter Vagt, in the Comments, asked to see a picture of the lens on a camera, so I made a quick snap of mine on a Panasonic G3. Subjectively speaking I'd say the 45mm is about the size of a 50mm Summicron, but quite a bit lighter.

Send this post to a friend

You can always find the "help TOP" links here ---> B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

[Leo Graet]

Hi, Ctein,
I fully agree with you. What a great lens!
It's a mystery to me
1. why Olympus didn't give us a lens like this earlier,
and
2. why this fabulous lens is priced so low (e.g. compared to the Panasonic-Leica 25 F/1.4 that i also own).
The answers to these questions can't be found in physics, I think. But I can't understand the marketing strategy behind it...
Leo

[David Mantripp]

Totally agree. A gorgeous lens. It reminds me of my old Canon FD 135 f2.0 - well, apart from the fact that it weighs about 1/5th of that...

[Will]

A spot-on review of an wonderful little - er, tiny - lens. It is also particularly well suited to video work as well. It makes an outstanding "interview lens" on the Panasonic GH2, usable at any aperture. F1.8 makes it easy to drop backgrounds out on location.

[Nicholas Condon]

I've only had this lens a few weeks, but it's already displaced the 20 mm in my heart. I don't see as well at 90 mm-e as I do at 40 mm-e (or 80 mm-e, thanks to a good bit of time using a Hexanon 40 mm on an adapter), but I'm happy to learn. My usual kit now is this lens on my E-P1 and the 20 mm on an E-PM1; it's a combination that seems to work great for casual event photography.

[Sean]

I bought this lens a few weeks ago, and it has been competing with my 20mm f/1.7 as most used lens on my GF1 ever since. Prior to that I had been manually focusing a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D on the same camera, and with great results until my main subject (my toddler daughter) started to get more mobile. Now I need autofocus to capture her as she toddles around at ever increasing speed. I also love this lens for its small size. I can carry the GF1, 20mm f/1.7, 45mm f/1.8, and 14-45mm zoom all day long with no effort at all... even when I've got a diaper bag on one shoulder and a 25 pound toddler in tow.

[Michael Bernstein]

Thanks for the review. You confirmed my suspicions, putting this lens at the top of my list!

If only more m4/3 lenses could be like this. So far the 45/1.8 and the 20/1.7 seem to highlight all the salient advantages of the system. Just need a wide-angle prime that measure up (your hint about the 12mm is not encouraging...)

[Bill Stickney]

I totally agree and want one of these lenses badly. I hesitate only because of the issues I have with the e-p1 body. It's fine for relatively slow still life work, but, for me, it's not as suitable for faster people or street shooting. So, I'm waiting to see what Olympus or Panasonic come up with in their next generation before jumping on the bandwagon.

Bill Stickney

[Martin]

But why silver only?:/

[John Camp]

I've been walking around with this lens on my Panasonic GF1, and it's a very nice combination, though without IS. I've also got the Lumix/Leica 45mm F2.8 which is another exceptionally good lens, and with autofocusing macro capability that is really quite astonishing. I used to photograph very small archaeological artifacts under really bad conditions with a Nikon D3 and Nikon's 60 macro, and for shootability, this Lumix 25 on a GH2 would absolutely kick Nikon butt under those conditions (but only in my opinion -- and I am a Nikon fanboi.) Between the two lenses, I think the Olympus is better for calm, considered portraits, and, of course, the Lumix for macro. For walk-around available darkness, they about tie, for me, with the Panny, because I don't have IS with the Olympus, but very good IS on the Lumix. On the other hand, the Panny's half again more expensive and twice as big. If I were shooting Olympus cameras, I would definitely go for the Olympus lens.

Just in passing, I've acquired the Voightlander 25mm f0.95, another interesting lens...but I should have read the reviews before I bought it.

[richard]

Was it windy, by any chance?

[Bob Rosinsky]

Hmm. Sorry I read the review. Now, I'm going to have to budget for it.

[shooter]

For what its worth I would agree wholeheartedly it is a beautiful lens as is the 12mm f2 I have both, the biggest plus of all is that they weigh very little. I am constantly amazed at how small this kit is, I always chuckle when i see non micro 4/3 fellow photographers struggling under the combined weight of a small wardrobe.

They have every possible combination of lens, flash, Filters, and of course the obligatory tripod! By the time they get this sorted the shot has long gone, along with me..I love my EP3 and primes.

[Kenneth Voigt]

You don't seem like a "cottoned" kind of guy to me. More like an Einstein type. I can't find your usage in my 1974 Webster. Do you know the derivation of your usage ? I haven't heard it used that way since Festus on "Gunsmoke".

[Peter Vagt]

It's such a pretty lens. But I want to see a picture of it mounted on your camera too!

[KeithB]

Nice self portrait, Ctein. Way to test Bokeh on yourself.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

A very informative, practical review of this lens, Ctein. Thank you. Clearly this is one of those increasingly rare relatively inexpensive optical gems. The main barrier to my buying one is guilt. I have a drawer of fine M-mount glass and an adapter for micro 4/3rds. I am compelled to go to my arsenal if I need f/1.4. But...you never know what I might compel Santa to drop.

[toto]

Thanks, Ctein, for the review. I've been thinking about buying the Olympus 12mm ƒ/2. But I'll hold off until the review... I have to say it doesn't sound promising. Just as well, saves me $799+tax.

[mbka]

I was using the 45/1.8 and the DG 25/1.4 to do a kids concert. I had a G1 and a GH2, so no stabilization at all. Very nice results, of course you could tell the cameras apart but not the lenses unless you look for the shift of perspective or such. Focusing was fast too on these non Olympus bodies. Great experience. BTW the 45/1.8 was rented as was the GH2 - some places do rent out m4/3 gear alongside the "pro" gear. At least in Singapore.

[James B]

Please forgive me if I appear to be the little boy in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, but I don't get this.

I have a Panasonic GF-1 with a 20mm lens, and it is "just about" pocketable in a coat. That's why I own it, so I can take it when I don't want to take my proper camera kit in a carry bag. This lens, as shown on Mike's picture attached to a G3, is nothing less than a slightly smaller DSLR. I'd never get that in my coat pocket.

So, it should be reviewed against a proper DSLR system. How does the systemic combination of sensor, camera, and lens stack up against an equivalent combination from any other manufacturer? Points certainly in its' favour for relative compactness and lack of weight, but it is still going to be carried in a bag.

[Mike Johnston]

James,
It's very difficult to get a feel for relative size in web JPEGs. The G3/45mm combo is pretty tiny--smaller and lighter than a Leica. It's appreciably smaller than the smallest DSLR.

I wrote a rant a long time ago about "pocketability" as a standard of approval for cameras, but I'm guessing that's not going to be taken as terribly constructive in the present context. [g]

Mike

[Ed G.]

James B: I've been walking around with the GF1 and the 45mm in the pocket of my army jacket (which is what I wear in autumn weather), and the 20mm and 45-200mm in the other pocket. I was a little surprised by how well it fit, I admit.

The GF1/45mm combo would be a little awkward in the light jackets and sport coats I wear in warmer weather, but the GF1/20mm in one pocket and the 45mm in the other would be quite all right.

In high summer, I carry a man-purse anyway, and the GF1 with three lenses fits nicely along with cell phone and a paperback in a very small bag.

Your outerwear may vary.

The G3 looks too lumpy for a pocket no matter what's mounted on it, but I could be wrong.

[Timprov]

I don't like the bokeh. Perhaps because it appears to have removed my nose. I don't know about "exceptionally awful," but I'm opposed to any lens that makes me look like a Dick Tracy villain.

[Dave Wilson]

It looks even cooler with the (optional) hood attached...

[sneye]

90mm equivalent should be one of the easiest focal lengths to adapt to. It offers some selective focus (but not too much) and some structure to moderately distant objects (but again, not too much). I've always imagined this type of lens should be well suited to deep landscapes where you want a very gradual loss of sharpness along the z axis. The little Olympus does very well for this type of photography because of its way to hold OOF surfaces together. I've seen this behavior only in much larger (and much, much older) optics, so it was a pleasant surprise. The combination between modern sharpness and old-time softness makes it special, not only good.

[Richard]

Ed G wrote,

"The G3 looks too lumpy for a pocket no matter what's mounted on it, but I could be wrong."

Indeed -- the G3 is not to lumpy for my jacket pocket with the 20mm f/1.7 mounted:

In warmer weather, I wear a light vest over a shirt, and the G3 slides nicely into the vest pocket.

While the GF1 is smaller, I wouldn't give up my articulated LCD screen for anything!

Regards,

Richard

[ctein]

Dear Richard,

No, it wasn't especially windy. Why would you think so? If you're thinking the difference in sharpness in the 100% sections might be due to subject motion, it wasn't. Shutter speed at f/1.8, by the way, was 1/3200 second. It's hard to test really fast lenses outdoors!

~~~~~~

Dear Kenneth,

You need to get a “big boy's" dictionary [VBG]!

The OED traces this usage back to 16th century England. It's British, not American Western. The last citation they give is 1960, which places it in current use. Interestingly, my usage turns out to be archaic; sometime in the 19th or 20th century, it changed from “cottoned to” to “cottoned on to” at least according to the illustrious likes of Nevil Shute and DH Lawrence. Don't ask me why.

Yes, I do read it for fun. If I were trapped on a desert island with only one book allowed, it would be a tough call, but my single-volume OED would probably win out over my single-volume complete Shakespeare.

~~~~~~

Dear Peter,

Currently I own only one camera body, so you may see photographs of a lens, but you'll not see photographs of the lens on a camera.

~~~~~~

Dear James B,

Well, I don't get why pocketability should be a criterion I use for reviewing lenses. If that's primarily what you care about, then all you really need to do is go read the dimensions in the equipment specifications. I can pretty much guarantee you it's never going to get a mention in my reviews.

And, for the record, I didn't review this lens “against” anything.

~~~~~~

Dear Timprov,

Oh, that phony prosthetic nose of yours doesn't fool anybody; it's more obvious than a comb-over. So I Photoshopped it out.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[PhotoSquared]

Thanks for a look at this new lens - Olympus seems to have a winner on their hands. Like you, I prefer more of a telephoto than the 20mm, so nice to have an option that costs less than the Panasonic 45mm...with faster aperture to boot.

[Ed]

Well Ctein, a 45 was what I personally needed the least. Okay it has a great performance all over and 1.8 is of course nice. But having said that, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of my 14-45 kitt lens. It does not have the low light performance, but that does not bother me a bit. If needed I can crank up the ISO a few nothches and can still get the shot. What I miss though is a longer tele, in the medium tele range. A 105 for instance as you state I would have prefered. And a 35-135 zoon would also be welcome. With the micro 4/3 system you have many different lenses but they all seem to be either wide angle zooms, kitt zooms, or tele zooms, or travel zooms. A simple compact normal to tele is conspicously missing. So who is gonna make me happy with a collapseble barel design 20-75?

[Tom]

I love this lens. I don't care for the focal length that much but I'm having a hard time taking this lens off my camera. Maybe I've just never had a good portrait length lens before.

(Love how it looks on the camera. Just looks sexy, I think.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smrlabs/6262222037/

[Amin Sabet]

I love this lens and can find no fault with it other than the ease with which the "decorative ring" falls off of the front.

As much as I like the 20/1.7, I'm finding that I use the combination of 14/2.5 and 45/1.8 much more these days. The 14 works for most of what I do, and the 45 is perfect for most of the rest.

[Mike Peters]

I have the Lumix / Leica 45 macro for my GH2 and for video it's perfect with the IS built in. It's one of those things where the extra stop would be nice, but the lack of IS is an issue for what I most want that camera for anyway. If only it was black, then it would be irresistible.

[Gary]

Aftermath and Atget, great shelf!

[Rob L]

'Pocketability' can be overrated, but there's a good bit of truth to it for some uses. With one kid, I can use just about anything - I take my Pentax 67 to the playground, or the Linhof Tech 70 w/ instant back to a birthday party. A DLSR or Leica is no big deal. But two kids, or on vacation? If it has to be carried on a strap, and can't be slipped into a cargo pocket or such, it's too big, too cumbersome. Which was my result with M4/3 - the Pen with 14mm was tiny, but add another lens, and taking into account the menu-itis that most M4/3rds cameras have....cumbersome. Better results with same effective encumbrance using my D7000.

I went through 2 of the beasties before deciding this, sadly, and I still miss the size, but realized that what I really want is an M9 or digital Contax G series, so...um, I'll just be sad.

[Jim Simmons]

I bought an Olympus E-PL1 body just to use with my Summicron 40mm f/2 lens. It's softer in the corners on a 4/3 sensor but has a lot of the other attributes that Ctein admires about this 45mm. Without of course auto-everything. Interestingly, I used to be that 35-40mm user that Ctein describes, but have now find that it's this 80-90mm range that I most use. I recently sold several prints made at this length - with a 165mm f/2.8 on a Pentax 67. The more I read Ctein, the more I find I have in common with him. Mike, should this be of concern to me or my family? ;-)

[Paris]

Mike,
Could you post a link to your "pocketability rant"?

There are lots of cameras (and photo-capable cellphones) that fit nicely in a pocket; in fact, I own one.

But if I'm going out to take pictures, I don't mind carrying a camera.

I'm a little mystified by the complaints that every new camera that comes out is "too big".

[Alf]

In your future review of the 12mm, can you compare it to the 9-18 I'm thinking of?

[richard]

Re: Windy... just I noticed that the foliage had moved considerably between images.

I've been caught out before using trees to assess lenses.....

[Ed]

Try a GX680 for pocketability. If you can pocket that behemoth you can truly be said to have deep pockets. Yet Luminous Landscape takes it out in wilderness. A GF1 with pancake is pocketable and a GX680 can live on my back in a bagpack. Both have their use.

Greet, Ed

[robin]

Someone should compare this against the G. Zuiko Auto-S 40/1.4 I currently use. That is quite a peach.

[ctein]

Dear Richard,

Illustrations exist to illustrate the points of an article, not to prove them. If the tree photos hadn't been representative of the lens' actual performance, I'd have found different illos to use.

If you pixel-peep the comparison photos, you'll see that most of the leave and branches don't move from frame to frame.

pax / Ctein

[Joe Sawicki]

On the lightness of this lens. I ordered the lens through Amazon (I think/hope I used the TOP link) so I could have it for a trip up to Vashon Island this weekend. It was due on Tuesday, so I was really excited when there was an Amazon box waiting for me at home. Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up and it didn't weigh anything at all. All I could think of was that I'd not gotten my full order of memory cards in my last order. Bit of a jaw-dropper when I saw the lens box inside once I'd opened it.

For me this is the main point on the m4/3 format. Cameras are a bit smaller (ok a lot smaller than my 1dmk3 :-), but that isn't were the big gain is. When you compare the size of this lense on the G3 to some other APSC camera, don't forget to put a 90mm f/1.8 lens on the front. Now that's a big piece of kit! I now carry the the 20mm f/1.7, the 45-200, the 45 f/1.8 and for the rare times I use it (I don't see wide either) the 9-18. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but I think the entire kit weighs less than my Canon 24-70 f/2.8.

[Andrew Fildes]

Yup, nice lens and just what I've been waiting for so long. Only one thing annoyed -once upon a time Olympus used to provide a hood (shade) with all its digital lenses. This arrived without one. I am a firm believer that a hood is the one simple accessory likely to improve an image. I could buy one online for between $50-70! I ended up buying a cheap Chinese knock-off.
This is annoying cheapskating of the same category as the tendency of makers to supply a cheap push on rear lens cap in consumer kits, rather than a proper rear cap. How much do they actually save by these daft strategies? The rectangular hood for the mFT 9-18mm is essential but was almost impossible to find when i got mine and not cheap either. Infuriating.