I often mention the importance of knowing you gear.
Handling a camera confidently, using flash effectively, learning the minimum focussing limit of a lens, how it handles flare etc are all part of that, but the next layer is where the art is.
Take for example, my pair of 45mm f1.8 Olympus lenses.
One of the first M43 lenses I purchased, because it and the Panasonic 20 and 14mm lenses (first editions), were the first wave of “game changers”, so it became a staple. I at one point owned three thanks to early kit buys as well as two 14’s. Apart from having the best AF, especially on Oly cameras, it was also the most stable and probably the most powerful, but it sat in a funny place for me.
Intellectually it was a must have, but habitually, it got neglected.
High enough quality to crop massively without issue. The fact that I often crop it heavily probably means it is not long enough.
This was a longer running habit than just this story. The Canon 85 f1.8 suffered much the same fate as did the amazing 90mm f2 macro Olympus before it and so on. I tended to like the 85mm lens a lot more as a 135 f1.8 on a crop frame and can only imagine the Oly 90 would be as exciting as the much missed Zeiss 85 f2.8 with an M43 adapter.
I have actually forced myself to use the lens, because of two important factors.
The first is it is optically hard to find fault with, exhibiting a nice 3d effect.
Secondly, it is surprisingly useful, even if I tend to gravitate either to the longer 75mm or shorter to semi-wide normal lenses. In tandem with the 40-150 f4 it sits in my bag as the Bokeh/low light option.
Super sharp wide open, with enough Bokeh to use creatively or to fix problems.
My street kit for example is officially the 17 and 45mm f1.8’s, a pairing that seems to make sense and works. The lack of other options gives the 45 some room to be relevant.
I think the problem mostly lies in the focal length’s role in my kit. I have three 40-150, three 12-40/60 and two 14-42 lenses. This means I have no less than ten, 40-45mm options. When I use one of the zooms, it often occurs to me I am at an extreme end and wanting to go longer or wider. Actually choosing that length seems a compromise.
What is good though, is that I can carry an f1.8 lens in this range, that weighs and fills the same space roughly as a spare camera battery or a roll of film.
This is a perfect example of a file that surprised me it was taken with this lens. The depth of field should have given it away, but I still had to check.
Unlike the 17mm, a lens that is an automatic go to and one that I strongly identify with or equally the powerful 75, the 45 tends to get used only because it is always there (plan works), the only one in my work and personal kits.
I still tend to lose connection to the images and they often surprise me when I find that this is the lens I used.
The problem here is, I know the 17mm intimately as I do the 75mm and even the newer Leica 15mm, but the 45 has a void where an equally deep understanding should be. It is after all the oldest of the bunch and surprisingly often used.
What I do know for sure is it is completely trust worthy, no matter which one I use. What I should know though is more about the draw, the character, colour palette and general nature.
Is it organic or snappy? Is it brilliant or contrasty? Is it natural or overtly sharp?
Creamy skin tones, gentle colours and smooth transition.
I think the hint is in the problem.
The lens is seemingly “invisible”.
It has an inoffensive excellence that does not make you overly aware of it. Like the 17mm it has a natural character, but unlike the 17mm it was not a surprise, running with expectations, more of an assumption that has passed muster, so maybe taken for granted.
Bokeh, is easy to find and use, but it is less perfect and powerful than the 75mm, although it also avoids the flatness of field the 75 has. There is a natural perspective that does not call attention to itself, a perfect compliment to the 17mm.
Brilliance is again less pronounced than the 75mm, but it also avoids a signature look, being just fine at what it does, elegantly capable, humble.
Without the deserved arrogance of the 75, the 45 often punches just as hard.
Colour is less punchy and bright than the 75, again leaning towards the 17mm’s more natural and slightly heavier look. I have many images that have an old fashioned look, all taken with one of the 45’s and it handles skin tones wonderfully. These two are the polar opposite to the light and bright Leica lenses.
Channelling Eliot Porter or Sam Abel.
Sharpness. It is sharp, I mean really sharp, capable of being used wide open and then cropped in very tightly, even off-centre. Like so many M43 lenses feeding the smaller, squarer sensor, I just do not question its edge to edge sharpness at any aperture. They picked the sensor for a series of reasons and lens design was one of them.
This file highlights everything good about the lens. Natural colour (this is colour, just off white colour), beautiful tones, invisible transitions, it is sharp edge to edge with fine detail down to pixel level. Most importantly, it is not a show-off, just a competent performer.
Chromatic and other aberrations also seem negligible. The 75mm does have very slight fringing wide open, easily fixed, but the 45 is devoid of any as far as I have ever noticed.
The 25mm is based on the design of the 45, but has a very different look. The 25, 75, 12-40 Pro, 75-300 and the Leica’s all have a similar, modern look. They tend to look lush, brilliant and are fast to drop off into creamy Bokeh.
The 45, 17 and 12-60 and 40-150 kit are close in character, being natural, very organic (that word again, but I struggle to find another) with that “invisible” character. These make the core of my travel kit.
It occurs to me there is a new way to categorise my lenses.
Invisible lenses with natural and organic character and more pronounced specialist lenses with modern Bokeh, more brilliance and obvious perspective effects.
Weaknesses?
It is plastic (all three have lasted for years without issue), not weather sealed (does not fog as often as the 75, probably because it does not get as cold being plastic), does not have a brilliant minimum focus (see below) and requires tiny 37mm filters (I step it up to the more supported 46mm, including a metal hood).
The Panasonic 42.5 f1.7 has better close focus, something than often gives it an edge in comparison tests, but from the above file heavy cropping is possible. If it has this one weakness, something that many other lenses like the 25mm, most M43 zooms and even my longest and widest lenses can address, then I will forgive it.
Easily fixed.
So, I guess I do know the lens has deeper layers. They are just obviously not obvious.
One down……..