All my film shooting was done with slow-ish kit zooms so my first real experience of playing with depth-of-field came with a 50mm F1.8 on APS-C. It's a fun combination and one of the only really affordable ways to play around with the low-light and shallow depth of field capabilities of your first DSLR (it's no surprise that cheap 50s are sometimes seen as 'gateway' lenses, leading to addictive fast-glass buying habits). There's a pleasing manual focus ring that's the perfect width and has just the right amount of knurling, though this employs a focus-by-wire system that old school purists who prefer mechanical focusing may not be a fan of. The reason I wrote about the camera I used and my own photographic experiences are to set the context. I wanted to make sure I explained the underpinnings of my opinions, rather than simply announce them as if they were the only possible conclusion anyone could draw. The lens has only one control on it, the manual focus ring. The ring is plastic with thin ribs, about 5/8'' wide. The focus ring sits in the center of the lens and is very smooth to turn, yet stiff enough that it will stay where it is set. With its fly-by-wire focusing design, the lens does not have any stops on it to let the user know it has reached either its close-focusing distance or infinity distance. The Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 is a lens that I never leave the house without. (No exaggeration; my everyday camera bag consists of an Olympus PEN E-P7, Olympus M.Zuiko 14-42mm Pancake, and an Olympus M.Zuiko 9mm Body Cap lens).

None (some may consider build slightly plasticy, but then if it would be metal they would complain its heavy; so at this price point, go away, NONE) Falloff of illumination towards the corners is very well controlled, especially so for a fast aperture lens. At f/1.8 the corners are only 0.76 stops darker than the image centre and visually uniform illumination is achieved at f/2.8.In the two tables below you’ll see how the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7 compares against the Olympus 45mm f1.8, first in the middle of the frame, then in the corner. Note due to its slightly longer focal length, the Olympus is delivering a slightly tighter field of view and therefore resolving slightly finer details. The thing to look for in the comparisons below are the overall sharpness and contrast. For video I noticed a decrease in speed with the G7 when set to continuous autofocus. After the first attempts I found it easier to switch to manual focus and use the excellent peaking of the camera. In the past I never used lenses pouches with my larger lenses, but with these smaller rangefinder like lenses, I put all my lenses into pouches before they go into my bag. This is one disappointment I have with Olympus which Panasonic is one step ahead with even their Leica lenses. Hood and Pouch should be included in the price of this.

Finally the Pansonic 45mm enjoys optical stabilization, whereas the Olympus 45mm has none built-in. This may be a moot point though depending on which body you own. All Olympus PEN and OM-D bodies sport built-in stabilization which works with any lens, so mount the 45mm f1.8 on an Olympus body and it’ll become stabilized; having stabilization built-into the Olympus bodies also makes the optical stabilization on the Panasonic lens redundant. But if you mount the Olympus 45mm f1.8 on a Panasonic Lumix G body they’ll become an unstabilised combination which could be an issue depending on your usage.To evaluate the real-life performance of the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7 lens, I shot this exterior scene at every aperture setting using an Olympus OMD EM1 mounted on a tripod. Olympus PEN E-PL7 + Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 (1/250 sec, f/2.8, ISO200) (Image credit: James Artaius) Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8: Verdict This lens is a must for micro 4/3 users if it suits their way of photographing. If you are looking for a short tele prime and you don't need macro, look no further, this is the one to get. If you’re looking for the softest and most incredible bokeh, I’d say the big brother to this lens, the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro is the better choice.

While it has an effective focal length of 90mm, this is still a 45mm optic –so you get the same depth of field as you would with a 45mm f/1.8 lens on a full frame camera (or, alternatively, you get the same effective depth as you would at 90mm f/3.6 –but note that this phenomenon only extends to depth of field; the lens still gathers f/1.8 of light, so you don't lose any transmission). There's always a risk of disappointment when you finally get the thing you've been hoping for, but I haven't found that to be a problem with the 45mm. The PEN Mini isn't the obvious body to mount it on - a model with little direct control, aimed squarely at a demographic that tends not to buy additional lenses - but it's still an Olympus, so buried away in there somewhere are all the customization options in the world. A few minutes spent enabling the Super Control Panel and toning down the noise reduction and sharpening left me with a seriously compact combination set up to produce very likeable JPEGs. The scale on the left side is an indication of actual image resolution. The taller the column, the better the lens performance. Simple. Sometimes shooting with a new focal length can be a challenge - getting used to 'seeing' the photographic opportunities in front of you - but having a proper portrait lens has been genuinely reinvigorating. I wouldn't claim to have suddenly become a great (or even particularly good) portrait photographer but spending a couple of weeks shooting with the 45mm has helped me enjoy photography (and the results I'm getting), more than in a long time. Definitely worth the wait. The Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 is yet another nice addition to the Micro Four Thirds system, even if it wasn’t a focal length that was missing in the lens line-up. The differences between it and the M.Zuiko 45mm are more related to the build quality and optical stabilisation than the optical quality.The lens does provides poor macro ability at best - at its close focusing distance of 50cm (around 20 inches) it provides only 0.11x magnification. But scroll down to the corner crops and you’ll see a stark difference between them. While the Lumix manages to deliver a very crisp result in the far corner, even at its widest and aperture, the Olympus is much softer and doesn’t approach the same quality until it’s closed down to f5.6. Indeed the Olympus looks quite poor in this comparison, but this performance is not uncommon for most lenses, which are generally softer in the extreme corners at their wider apertures. It’s the Lumix here that’s performing above average. 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) Portraiture is a popular genre regardless of the camera system in question and 85mm/90mm lenses (35mm format) have always given photographers the perfect field of view with which to work. As of late 2017, there are a number of Micro Four Thirds lenses that fall into this category but today we are comparing the oldest offering with the newest addition to the system.

Of course, the 45mm f/1.8 isn’t without its merits. Because it is so small and light, it is much easier to transport and can suit any Micro Four Thirds body in the range. It is also four times cheaper than the PRO lens, so unless you regularly shoot portraits and require the best quality Olympus has to offer, it (or its sibling within the Panasonic Lumix range) may prove a more tempting proposition.

Summary

Lateral chromatic aberrations, typically seen as blue or purple fringes along contrasty edges, are very well controlled with this lens - the example below shows the worst-case scenario you are likely to encounter. The Olympus 45mm f1.8 is a surprisingly compact lens even for the Micro Four Thirds standard. Measuring 56mm in diameter, 46mm in length and weighing just 116g, it’s beaten only by pancake lenses on size and weight. Indeed it’s only 56mm at the rear end to support the standard Micro Four Thirds lens mount. Beyond the mount, the barrel tapers down to a narrower diameter for the rest of the lens. This thing really is tiny. Finally, I haven't stated that we believe the manufacturers have responded to our requests (I'm sure if we're requesting it, plenty of other people are too, and I'd hope any company would pay more attention to their broader market research than just making what we recommended).