If any photographer or artist looks back at their work, they will see patterns.

These patterns are often predictable, even cultured, but some are surprising and come from a conscious or un-conscious reaction to their environment or technique.

One pattern that has emerged in my work, that I have been semi aware of, but must admit to almost deliberately ignoring is to do with my little Olympus 25mm F1.8.

This lens gets used more than I recall choosing to and the keepers it produces are out of proportion to it’s use. Without any expectations or requirement to be anything more than a problem solving “filler” lens, it has crept into “top three” contention (25, 75, 300).

In my basic kit bag, it and the 75mm are now standard, even more so than the 45mm.

The secret may lie partly in the technical aspects of the lens, specifically it’s real focal length.

Many photographers, myself included prefer the true standard lens (mathematically and visually), the 40mm or thereabouts*. The 40mm is a more relaxed and non-specific focal length than the “nifty fifty”, easy to use, neutral, but hard to force a decisive look with, so the photographer is almost forced to make the content the entirety of the image, not fall back on any visual tricks like changed perspective or magnification.

The 50mm became the recognised standard partly because it made more descriptive sense and partly because we are all portraitist at heart, especially in the early days of photography. Documenting our travels and family generally meant placing people first, so the ever so slightly compressed and sensibly clean view through a 50mm lens just fit.

The 25mm Olympus f1.8, when compared to various other 50mm equivalents, looks to be closer to a 45mm full frame lens. This, for me is actually ideal. I loved the Panasonic 20mm, but the focussing (AF and MF) on earlier Olympus cameras made it frustrating and to be honest, 40mm eq. is still a little wide for me as it just adds in a little perspective creep. The 45mm takes some of the slight exaggeration of the 40 and compressed 50mm lenses out, hitting a genuinely “un-opinionated” focal length.

Sharpness of the lens falls into the lush-sharp not hard-sharp family. This has similar characteristics to the 12-40 Pro zoom or the 45mm F1.8, but seems a touch sharper than either and even more generous.

Bokeh is stable and maybe even more attractive than the 45mm, approaching the 75mm’s, but without the compression. The lens cuts-out subjects from their background very pleasantly and naturally, but allows for some context. The 12-40 does this also, but with the equivalent depth of field of a full frame f5.6 lens, the environment tends to be more intrusive.

I had the Pana/Leica 25mm for a while, and it is a true 50mm lens. It has an undeniable “snap” to the files, but I found the true 50 focal length not to my liking (I think I felt that if some compression was in order, then use the 45 and do it properly).

Is it perfect?

No lens is perfect, and this is no exception. In direct comparisons the the near perfect 25mm Pro, it is pretty much as sharp through the range, especially from f2 on, but there is a little CA wide open (so predictable I made a Lightroom pre-set for it) and a little distortion, but that rarely rears it’s head.

*The actual standard lens is the diagonal of the film/sensor plane of the camera which for 35mm or full frame cameras is roughly 42mm or 21mm on an M43 camera.