Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 45mm F1.2 PRO Lens, for Micro Four Thirds Cameras

Product Information

For many years our Micro 4/3 optics tests were based on the Olympus E-PL1. Some time ago we’ve also started to test lenses using the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II as we felt the time has come for changes. That’s how we found out that between sensors of those two bodies there is a very small difference, amounting to 5-7 lpmm at most, to the advantage of the newer one with a higher pixel count. Mind you that difference is possible to notice only in the wide area of the maximum relative aperture and it decreases when you employ apertures limited strongly by diffraction. The Four Thirds sensors used in Olympus and Panasonic mirrorless cameras mean the field-of-view of all lenses is effectively reduced by two times compared to a full-frame system – so a 25mm lens will deliver a 50mm equivalent field-of-view. If you’re looking to compare depth-of-field with full frame, then you’ll also need to double the f-number – so a 25mm f1.4 lens will deliver images with coverage and depth-of-field equivalent to a 50mm f2.8 lens on full frame. In terms of exposure though, an f-number on one system is the same as on another – the difference here refers only to equivalent coverage and depth-of-field. When it comes to resolution records, you get the biggest chance of breaking them with a very fast lenses because they get more space for limiting effectively optical aberrations as you stop them down. Most aberrations disappear after stopping down the aperture by even 3 EV and you still find yourself far from a significant diffraction limit. What’s more, lenses with angles of view of just more than several dozen degrees have big chances to reach record-breaking values. You don’t have to employ big elements in them so there are no significant curvatures like in wide angle lenses or big optical element like in a case of long tele photo lenses of good aperture fastness. As a result these are quite simple constructions to produce and to correct properly. The 45mm 1.8 is completely usable at 1.8, but I’m surprised at how many people are saying it can compete with the new Olympus 1.2. I’m actually staggered at how ridiculously sharp the new lens is at 1.2 – a whole stop faster than the 1.8! I would normally say that it wouldn’t be a fair comparison to compare a 1.2 lens at 1.2 vs a cheaper lens at 1.8, but the 1.2 actually wins out at these apertures comparatively (you couldn’t say the same for a Canon 1.2 lens vs. a cheaper 1.4 lens for instance). You usually pay for that extra speed but the compromise has never been great results at 1.2 for sharpness traditionally. Let’s not forget that the difference between using a 1.2 lens and a 1.8 lens could be the difference between having to use the ISO which you find unacceptable and one that you do not – ISO 6400 vs. IS 3200 for instance.

The Nocticron features optical stabilisation to iron-out any wobbles when mounted on bodies without sensor-shift stabilisation, and also boasts fast autofocusing; indeed it’s the brightest Micro Four Thirds lens with autofocus, and the only short and bright telephoto prime I can think of with optical stabilisation. My favourite three high-end general-purpose zooms are the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (which offers a useful 24-80mm equivalent range with a constant f2.8 aperture but no optical stabilisation), the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f2.8-4 OIS (costing a tad more and losing the constant aperture, but extending the range to 24-120mm equivalent and including optical stabilisation), and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm f4 IS PRO (which costs around 50% more, but boasts an even longer 24-200mm equivalent range, as well as being one of the few Olympus lenses with optical stabilisation). Both lenses are vulnerable to flare and ghosting even though they feature a lens coating (Z Coating on the PRO lens and ZERO on the 45mm 1.8). It usually takes the form of a series of polygonal shapes or veiling flare, and occurs if you shoot directly into the sun. Flare with the M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.2 PRO (shot at f/2.8) Flare with the M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 (shot at f/5.6) Chromatic Aberration, Vignetting and Distortion Beyond this, you may find manual aperture rings on some higher-end Panasonic lenses which become redundant on Olympus bodies – you can still adjust the aperture on an Olympus body by using one of the camera control dials, but the aperture ring on the lens is ignored.Currently, two manufacturers drive the platform forward. OM System carries the torch for the now-retired Olympus camera brand. Olympus is still around but is no longer in the camera business. You might still find products with Olympus logos on store shelves, but new releases all have OM System branding. As I suspected, the Nocticron is giving a tiny bit more “snap”, as in, subject separation that looks closer to a cut out than anything. The Olympus 45 PRO f/1.2 has a softer transition between what is in focus and what is not, and the Olympus is also sharper wide open. The 45 f/1.8 hangs in there with slightly less DOF. But the winner here, to my eyes is the Olympus 45 f/1.2 PRO but it was close, very close. Regulars to Cameralabs will know I’m very fond of putting together groups of prime lenses rather than relying on one or two zooms, and if you’re after shallow depth-of-field effects, this is definitely the way to go on Micro Four Thirds due to the sensor size. A great combo on a budget are the Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f1.7 and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8, giving you a standard 50mm and short telephoto 90mm at an affordable price. If you have more to spend, consider adding a wider option with the Panasonic Leica DG 15mm f1.7 or the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f1.8, and if you love the standard 50mm length, you may want to swap the budget Lumix G 25mm f1.7 for something nicer like the Panasonic Leica DG 25mm f1.4 or one of the higher-end models. Speaking of which, those with much bigger budgets and higher expectations would be delighted with the Olympus triplet of f1.2 primes: the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f1.2 PRO, Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm f1.2 PRO and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.2 PRO. If you’re not worried about having an all-Olympus f1.2 collection, remember the Panasonic Leica DG 42.5mm f1.2 Nocticron too which also has optical stabilisation. But if you’d still prefer a premium zoom lens with an upgrade in range, brightness, build or overall quality over a kit model, or are perhaps choosing a first zoom for a higher-end body, there are plenty of compelling options available. Remember if you have a Panasonic body without built-in stabilisation, then you’ll need a lens with optical stabilisation to iron-out the wobbles. In the video above, I manually pulled focus using the Nocticron mounted on an Olympus OMD EM1, using the viewfinder for guidance – unfortunately there’s no magnification, nor focus peaking to help once you start filming on this model. I just about nailed the closest and furthest focusing points, but found the focusing ring wasn’t 100% smooth when turning it from the side – as such you can see the speed of focus pulling vary a little during the clip. Leica Nocticron image stabilisation

As such, expect to see lenses with smaller focal lengths than you might expect. A 12mm focal length on a full-frame system is ultra-wide, for instance, but on an M43 camera it captures a wide standard view. That's about the same as the main lens on your smartphone or a 24mm lens on a full-frame camera. The rule of thumb is to double Micro Four Thirds focal lengths to directly compare them with full-frame. The filter thread measures 67mm, making it the largest of its peer group: the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 and Olympus 75mm f1.8 use 58mm filters, while the tiny Olympus 45mm f1.8 uses 37mm. Lenses like the Nocticron are all about delivering a shallow depth of field with attractive rendering of out-of-focus areas, also known as the quality of the bokeh. A key specification in this process is attempting to maintain a smooth circle when closing the aperture iris control. The Nocticron employs nine diaphragm blades with a circular design – a specification it shares with the Olympus 75mm f1.8. Both are classier than the simpler seven blade aperture of the Olympus 45mm f1.8, although it is at least still a circular shape. Meanwhile the Voigtlander 42.5mm f.095 appears to trump them all with a ten blade system although as I understand it the blades don’t create a perfect circle. Of course there is more to these lenses beside the image quality they put out. There is build, size, feel, usability and then the IQ. I LOVE the Nocticron and at one time had two of them, somehow, here in my home. But with the new Olympus, it only seems natural that it would beat the Old Nocticron as it is much newer and there is just no way Olympus would release a similar lens and have it be worse in quality. With that said, they are close!The obvious difference in price, size and design may already be enough to convince you one way or the other but we cannot help but ask ourselves: how big a difference is there between the latest optical wonder and the first portrait prime for the system released six years ago? Let’s find out! Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III + Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 (1/200 sec, f/1.8, ISO200) (Image credit: James Artaius) If you photograph distant subjects like birds, then the best overall option for Micro Four Thirds owners in my view is the Panasonic Leica DG 100-400mm f4-6.3 OIS with its long 200-800mm equivalent coverage and optical stabilisation; I’ve used it on both Olympus and Panasonic bodies very successfully. There’s also the Olympus 100-400mm to compare. If you think you can work with a fixed focal length long telephoto, then also consider the Panasonic Leica DG 200mm f2.8 OIS or Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 300mm f4IS, both of which offer optical stabilisation It would be difficult to find any fault with the resolution on the edge of the frame. Even by f/1.2 you get 49 lpmm meaning a quite decent image quality. On slight stopping down to f/1.4 the MTFs increase to over 53 lpmm and the peak of the performance you see by f/4.0 with excellent values, exceeding 80 lpmm.

The closest focusing distance is 0.5m, the same as the Olympus 45mm f1.8, although more than double that of the 0.23m of the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95. Meanwhile the Olympus 75mm f1.8 focuses down to 0.84m, although of course is more than 50% longer in focal length. Interestingly this means the maximum magnification / reproduction on the Nocticron is roughly the same as both the Olympus 45mm and 75mm lenses, although the Voigtlander can get much closer than any of them, delivering greater magnification albeit with significant loss of quality due to spherical aberrations. What objective criteria led you to this conclusion? Is this code for "I can't afford higher quality systems"?"Micro Four Thirds cameras use a different image sensor format than full-frame and APS-C cameras, so you need to do some math to match up focal lengths between the systems. Micro Four Thirds uses a 4:3 aspect ratio. Compared with the 3:2 aspect sensors of competing systems, these sensors don't translate as nicely to wide screens and are smaller in surface area. Olympus E-M5 Mark III With 12-200mm Lens Switching to the body-based stabilisation of the EM1 delivered the best result of all, with a sharp image at exposures down to 1/5, representing three stops over my non-stabilised version. Leica Nocticron optical construction Here in shot above I see the Olympus 45 f/1.2 winning again. The Bokeh is nicer, the contrast is perfect IMO and it’s the sharpest of the lot. Here you can see the 45 f/1.7 difference with the Bokeh. You do need to make sure you're getting the right type of lens for your camera. In this guide, we cover lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system. It's the oldest modern mirrorless system and one that multiple camera and lens makers support. Olympus PEN E-P7 + Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 (1/30 sec, f/1.8, ISO1600) (Image credit: James Artaius) Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8: Build and handling

If you prefer something a little wider, perhaps for street photography, I can also highly recommend a 17mm prime or thereabouts and again there’s lots of options, albeit at a higher price than the 25mm above; I’m going to suggest either the Panasonic Leica DG 15mm f1.7 or the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f1.8, both in a similar ballpark price-wise; I personally prefer the Leica, but love the more compact size of the Olympus when mounted on a smaller body. The end result though is you’ll need to choose lenses with very small f-numbers if you want to achieve very shallow depth-of-field effects with Micro Four Thirds. Conversely, with a larger inherent depth-of-field, you won’t need to close the aperture as much if you want to get more in focus. WydawcWhile focusing for stills and video, the lens mechanisms of both lenses are so quiet that you have to hold your ear up to the lens to hear the faint whirring of the motor. There’s a generously-sized manual focusing ring that feels smooth and nicely damped in operation. I’d say it feels similar to the Summilux 25mm f1.4 and slightly better than the Olympus 45mm f1.8, but on my own set of sample lenses, the Olympus 75mm f1.8 focusing ring felt smoothest of all. Used in isolation you’re unlikely to notice the difference, but it is interesting to compare them side by side. I should note the focusing ring on my sample sometimes felt a little scratchy when pulling focus for video – it was rarely an issue for stills, but I could feel it from time to time when constantly turning the ring from unusual angles.