Micro four thirds and bokeh - no problem.

Bokeh - a Japanese word that refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas in an image. The word is also commonly used to talk about the 'amount' of out-of-focus areas as much as the 'quality'. And the photographic community has gone absolutely bokeh crazy!

This obsession with producing out-of-focus areas (bokeh) in an image, is also what's fueling the full-frame sensor madness we find ourselves in. Because the bigger the sensor, the more bokeh you can create in your photograph. And, as we all know, the more bokeh your photo has, the better it is - right!? Full-frame sensors rule for bokeh, therefore everyone has to go full frame, or your images are going to suck! Apparently.

I don't want to start a conspiracy theory (honest), but the camera manufacturer's must love this train of logic. Not just because full frame cameras are (a lot) more expensive to buy, but also because the lenses required to produce the 'best' bokeh (the f1.2 and f1.4 types) are crazy expensive. I'll give you a 'for example'... 

The Canon nifty fifty 50mm f1.8 is a good, cheap lens, that at f1.8 produces some lovely bokeh. Brand new, the updated STM version of this lens is about $280.00NZ (as of June 2021). But why would you want f1.8 when you can have f1.4! The 50mm f1.4 Canon lens is currently $595.00NZ - that's more than twice the price. And, what's more, it's a notoriously poor performer wide open at f1.4 - so should probably be stopped-down to f1.8 anyway. But I digress.

Canon's RF 50mm f1.2L

F1.4 still not good enough for you (for some it's actually not)? Then you'll have to go for the ultimate 50mm Canon bokeh monster, the 50mm f1.2'L' lens. And why not? It's an absolute bargain at $2270.00NZ! I kid you not. Think that's crazy? Well how about getting the latest 50mm f1.2'L' for the mirrorless 'R' system. Got a spare $3800.00NZ!? Man, I knew photography was an expensive hobby, but that's kinda ridiculous in the extreme - don't ya think? 

But, if you're desperate for the most bokeh you can get, so that your photos are hip, trendy and cool, then the f1.2 is the must have lens for you. You can see why I think the manufacturer's are doing nothing to dissuade the 'bokeh is cool' argument.

I'm not picking on Canon. All the manufacturer's have similar offerings - for a similar price. Except the micro four thirds versions are considerably cheaper. The Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro lens (50mm full frame equivalent field of view) is $1550.00NZ, a LOT less than half the price of the Canon RF lens.

Okay, okay - I can hear you screaming at me already. F1.2 on a micro four thirds system is not equivalent to f1.2 on full-frame, since you double the depth of field when using the smaller sensor (effectively). So it's more like f2.4 in terms of its rendering of bokeh. Okay - fair enough. My reply might go something like this.... "so what"? Really. So what? This desperate need to create bokeh in every image is just a trendy phase, just like every other trendy phase we've been through. 

But, more importantly, the f-stop value of the lens you have is only one factor that determines the out-of-focus rendering in an image. And it's actually not the most important factor. Ideally you need three components working together to create creamy bokeh. Focal range (telephoto is better than wide angle), subject to background distance (the further away the background the better), and finally aperture value (wide open on the lens is better).

Of those three, you could argue that the aperture value is the least important. If you have your subject placed flat up against a brick wall, and you photograph them with a wide angle lens at f1.8, then the bricks will still look like bricks. If, however, you move your subject 20 meters away from the wall, change to a 200mm telephoto lens, and set the aperture to a respectable f4, you'll have bokeh coming out your ears!

Why is this important? Well, it just so happens that probably the number one reason that people give for not trying the micro four thirds system, is because they've been told you can't get decent bokeh using it. In our current 'give me bokeh at all costs' climate, this is an immediate turn-off for anyone thinking about micro four thirds cameras. And yet in reality, it's complete nonsense!

Bokeh bird. E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm at 150mm. f/5.6 @ 1/200th

If the above photo of the seagull on a rock doesn't have enough creamy background bokeh for you, then you're a bit of a lost cause. There is background behind the bird, but it's about 2 miles away, and I placed myself carefully so as to have as few background distractions as possible. If you do this, then even f11 will give you background bokeh to die for! 

I do get that you can't always place your subject with a very clean background 2 miles away - but then again, you often do have some control over where you place your subject - especially with portraiture.

Above is a series of portraits taken on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 with a Panasonic Lumix 25mm f1.7 lens (it just happens to be the fastest lens I currently own). Josh, my son, is about 5 meters in front of the nearest trees in the background. You can see the background detail increasing as the aperture values decrease, which is to be expected. But, at f1.7 (or even f2.8), the background is sufficiently out-of-focus so that Josh 'pops' forward in the image. No - granted - it's not as out-of-focus as it would be with the same f-value on a full frame sensor. But it's also not non-existant in the way many would have you believe using micro four thirds!

Here's another one, this time with the Lumix 45-150mm lens at 100mm and 150mm focal lengths (200mm and 300mm full-frame equivalent). It's a cheap kit telephoto zoom, so only goes to f5.6 at its widest opening at 150mm. But even so, it still manages to create some background bokeh. 

Josh's distance to the background hasn't changed at all, but my position and field of view in relation to him has. And yes - again - it would be even better with a full frame sensor. But, it would also have been even better if I could afford the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro lens and had shot with that at f2.8. That would create more than enough bokeh for me. And if I wanted even more, I would simply move Josh even further away from the background - which I could have done had I chose to do so.

Finally, here's a comparison with what I used to use with an APS-C DLSR, and what I have now with micro four thirds. And as you can see, they're not a million miles away from each other. In both images, subject to background distance is similar (which is why I choose them to compare).

I never felt inferior when using an APS-C DSLR (although some will still argue that even APS-C isn't 'good enough'), and I don't feel inferior using micro four thirds either. If you know how to create bokeh, then you can create it whatever system you are using.

If I was serious about bokeh (I'm not), then I would invest in some fast micro four thirds portrait lenses. Something like the Olympus 45mm f1.2 Pro or the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I may end up getting the smaller and lighter Olympus 45mm f1.8 one day, it's a cracking lens and can be picked up reasonably cheaply second-hand.

And yet for me - as a landscape photographer - the flip side of all this micro-four-thirds-can't-do-bokeh nonsense, is that I can get 'greater' depth of field using the same apertures as full frame sensors. And this is a huge benefit for micro four thirds. If f/5.6 on micro four thirds is the same as f/11 on full-frame (for example), then I can let in more light by staying at f/5.6, not have to boost my ISO as quickly when the light begins to fade, and get as sharp, if not sharper results.

In the end, you need to decide what is important for you in your photography (don't let anyone else tell you), and maybe even more importantly, how much you're prepared to pay to achieve it! If you absolutely love the bokeh look, are mainly a portrait photographer, and want smooth, creamy backgrounds to be your style, then get a full frame camera and a whole series of f1.2 lenses. But don't ignore the other two factors in the blurry background equation. And make sure you nail focus at f1.2, or you will have some disappointed clients.

If, however, bokeh is only something you want/need to achieve occassionally, and you still don't mind having a hint of the background environment rendered in an image, then you can totally achieve this with micro four thirds. Heck, if you want creamy backgrounds that look like soup, you can achieve this with micro four thirds - with the right lens, and more importantly, the right technique!

So, while micro four thirds may not be the absolute best choice to achieve the bokeh look, it's not a no-go either. And yet all these camera reviewers and 'influencers' immediately dismiss the system because you "can't get decent bokeh". What a load of bokeh balls!

Sigma 60mm DN f2.8 Micro Four Thirds lens - Initial Review

Sigma 60mm f2.8 DN 'Art' lens in silver

My micro four thirds lens arsenal has been growing steadily over the last year - and I now have a total of four lenses for the E-M1. One is from Olympus - the 12-50mm EZ kit lens, two are from Panasonic (the 25mm f1.7 and the 45-200mm f4/5.6), while the final lens, and the subject of this post, is the Sigma 60mm f2.8 DN 'Art' lens.

What's missing? Not much really if I'm honest. I'm not really a macro shooter, so the 'faux' macro setting on the Oly 12-50mm is all I need (and is surprisingly good). Eventually I would like a slightly wider reach for landscapes - probably the Olympus 9-18mm f4/5.6 (yes, the 7-14mm f2.8 Pro would be lovely, but I am being realistic budget-wise). But that will have to come much further down the track. At the moment, the 12mm end of the 12-50mm will have to suffice.

But this post isn't about my 'wish' list - it's about a lens I already own. A lens I purchased very cheaply about 6 months ago on a whim. And a lens that, until very recently, I hadn't even mounted on the camera!

I say I purchased it on a 'whim', and to a certain extent that's true. It was almost literally too cheap to pass up, and the fact that I haven't even touched it in the six months since buying it might prove that I didn't really need the lens to begin with? Yet at the same time, it was also a considered purchase, given that one of the lenses missing in my kit was a fast(ish) portrait lens. In fact, when I shot a wedding last year with my Canon 40D, one of the deciding factors for not using my E-M1 was that I didn't have a dedicated portrait lens. The purchase of the Sigma 60mm f2.8 DN 'Art' lens has fixed that.

Tea Ceremony. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 60mm f2.8 DN. f2.8 @ 1/500th, ISO 400

I don't do a lot of portraiture or shoot weddings anymore (except for friends) - so investing in a dedicated, fast portrait lens is a bit of a luxury. The 'classic' lens that most Olympus users think of for portraiture on a budget is the outstanding 45mm f1.8 - a lens I've owned when I had the E-M5 MkII. It's called a 'must-have' for micro four thirds users, and having owned one I can see why. It's small, light, sharp and relatively fast at f1.8 - and can be had for very little money, even brand new. But it's a lens I also eventually ended up selling when I had the E-M5 kit, because I just never used it. I felt guilty owning it, because it was almost too good to just have sitting around in my bag not being used.

But then I get back to the dilemma of not having a portrait lens for those occasions when I do want to shoot a wedding or an event that would suit the portrait length. For me, the Sigma 60mm perfectly fills in that gap.

Calligraphy. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 60mm DN. f2.8 @ 1/2000th, ISO 400

First of all it's cheap. Cheaper even than the Olympus 45mm f1.8. And it's light - only 190 grams (although that's slightly heavier than the 45mm f1.8 at only 116 grams). The design of the lens comes in two colours - black or silver - and falls into the either love it or hate it category. It's covered in polished metal and doesn't have any ribbed or patterned surfaces for your fingers to grip onto. Some users have even suggested using a rubber band placed around the lens to give it at least some form of minimal grip.

Chinese New Year. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 60mm lens. f2.8 @ 1/2500th, ISO 400

I didn't really know what to expect when I attached it to the E-M1, because it really is unlike any other lens design I've ever used before. Mine is the silver version of the lens (I would have preferred black but the guy I purchased it from had the silver) and just looks like a tube of metal stuck to the front of the camera. I'm still trying to make my mind up whether I'm in the love it or hate it camp aesthetically. Part of me thinks it looks quite minimalist cool, and part of me thinks it's just plain odd. Practically speaking, however, I think it works just fine and I didn't have a problem with gripping the lens and using it all afternoon.

Tai Chi. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 60mm DN 'Art' lens. f2.8 @ 1/1250th, ISO 400

It is, after all, a prime lens - so there's no zooming required from the barrel. It is also an autofocus lens, so it focuses - um, automatically. The whole barrel does rotate smoothly (presumably for manual focusing), and fits snuggly in my hand in both portrait and landscape orientations. It focuses quickly, silently and accurately on the E-M1, so there's really nothing to complain about in terms of operation.

Just a side note however: when the lens is not attached to the camera it has a very audible 'rattle'. This is the case with all the Sigma DN lenses (the 19mm, 30mm and 60mm) and is due, apparently, to some floating lens elements? It's rather disconcerting, but disappears completely once the lens is attached to the camera and is in use.

Fan Dance. Olympus OM-D E-M1 and 60mm Sigma DN lens. f2.8 @ 1/1250th, ISO 400

All of the images from this post were taken with the Sigma 60mm DN 'Art' lens at f2.8 - it's widest aperture, and all are tack sharp. Wide open this lens is a fantastic performer and can be used at f2.8 without any concerns over sharpness. Many will argue that f2.8 isn't actually that 'fast', especially when you factor in the smaller sensor size. The effective depth of field is equivalent to f5.6 on a full frame sensor, and about f4 with APS-C.

Of course sensor size is only part of the depth-of-field equation. Just look at the earlier Chinese New Year image to see the bokeh that you can achieve with this lens at f2.8 when you have decent subject to background separation. Would I prefer the lens to be f1.8 or faster? Of course. But f2.8 at 60mm (120mm equivalent for full frame) is a lot faster than any other lens I've got in that focal range, and the extra depth of field gained from the micro four thirds sensor helps with the excellent sharpness you can achieve at f2.8.

Fan Dance 2. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 60mm DN lens. f2.8 @ 1/1000th, ISO 400

The photos in this post were taken at the Chinese New Year Celebrations held at the Polytech where I work. It was the ideal event to use the short telephoto for candid portraits, and it performed flawlessly. Using face-detection autofocus the images were tack sharp every time, and the lens locked on quickly, quietly and precisely. Colours from the lens are true to life and edit beautifully in Lightroom. In the Tea Ceremony photo there was some obvious chromatic aberration (purple fringing) around the white cups, but these cleaned up nicely in post. None of the other images exhibited this, so I don't think it's a flaw in the lens as such - but it will be something to watch out for in areas of strong highlight contrast.

If you come across this lens and are considering getting a mid-telephoto prime for your micro four thirds system, I would say 'go for it'. Yes, the design may be a little 'funky', and the f2.8 aperture might not be the fastest kid on the block, but the IQ and sharpness from this lens is fantastic, all for an insanely cheap price. Sigma have been making some amazing lenses over the last few years, and this just happens to be one of them.

Olympus Zuiko 45mm focal length shoot-out

With both kit zooms and the 45mm f1.8, I've got this focal length covered with all 3 lenses. So should I have bothered with the 45mm f1.8 at all? Isn't it a bit redundant with the other two lenses in my bag? How good is it compared to the kit lens offerings? Couldn't I just use them instead when doing portraits? These are the questions I wanted answered when I nabbed my son Joshua to go out for an impromptu photo shoot to test all three lenses. What conclusions did I come too after looking at the images I took? Read on McDuff...

First up, the 12-50mm f3.5/6.3 kit zoom that I figure will be on my camera 80% of the time. The widest it can go at 45mm is f6, so not a great lens for blurry out-of-focus backgrounds (bokeh). Shooting the 45mm at f6 as well, it looks to be a little more contrasty, a lot sharper, and perhaps just a hair more blurry in the background. The 12-50mm at 45mm is ok, but the 45mm at the same f-stop is fractionally better. So even shooting at these large apertures, it might be worth swapping to the 45mm when I get to that end of the range on the kit lens? Having said that, the 12-50mm at 45mm isn't 'bad' - it's just ok.

Next up it's the turn of the 40-150mm f4/5.6 to go head-to-head with the 45mm at its widest opening of f4. Once again, the 45mm prime has a bit more contrast and 'pop', is sharper, and also has a creamier bokeh in the background even at the same f-stop. Same conclusion here as above - the 40-150mm is 'ok' wide open at the 45mm end, and sharpness is acceptable. But the 45mm prime is better (surprise, surprise).

What about the other focal lengths for the 40-150mm? Well, there's good news and bad news. The good news? If you can get decent separation between your subject and the background, then bokeh actually isn't too bad. You definitely get some 'pop' with portraits at 150mm wide open (f5.6), and the quality of the bokeh is actually quite decent and not too 'busy'. The bad news? Everything gets notably 'soft' wide open from 100mm onwards - so you probably want to stop down from wide-open to get a sharper image. Oh well, you win some you loose some :-)

Which brings us to the Olympus Zuiko 45mm f1.8 prime. Bokeh at f1.8 is gorgeous - and very nice at f2.8. Subject sharpness certainly increases when you open up to f2.8 or f4 (where it is excellent), but the great news with this lens is that wide open at f1.8 is very useable, and sharpness is very good. I wouldn't hesitate to use this lens at f1.8 if bokeh was my main concern, although f2 or f2.8 might be a decent compromise if subject sharpness and bokeh are equally important. For prints up to A3 I would shoot wide open all day. For anything bigger, stopping down to f2.8 might be advisable?

So can the kit lenses compete with the 45mm f1.8 prime lens and replace it as a portrait lens? Well, no, of course not. They are what they are - which is actually pretty decent for what you pay for them. But the 45mm f1.8 is several notches above, both in terms of sharpness and contrast, at the same apertures. And of course, it goes where the other two can not go - to wide open f1.8 bokehlichousness :-)

Luckily, the 45mm f1.8 stands out enough from the kit lenses that it's definitely worth having in my bag. Compared to the likes of the 12-40mm f2.8 though? Well, that's another story...

Olympus 45mm f1.8 initial thoughts

I weakened, and I bought one...

This weekend just gone, I went to Christchurch with my son to do two things; attend Promise Keepers and buy the HLD-8 grip for my OM-D EM-5 Mk2.

I did one of those things, and not the other :-)

Promise Keepers was fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The HLD-8, however, did not turn up in time. And then I had second thoughts about spending $400NZ on a battery grip when I could get just the grip itself for $175NZ and then maybe get another couple of lenses as well!

To that end, another camera store in Christchurch just happened to have an incredible deal on a new Olympus 45mm f1.8 for $385NZ (that's $180NZ off normal retail) - so yeah, I got one.

Joshua. Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mk2 with 45mm f1.8

It's small, it's light (although it does have a little heft to it) and it's largely made of plastic, albeit with a metal mount and lots of nice glass.

On the trip back home, I couldn't resist getting Josh to do a little model shoot - just to test the lens you understand. I'll be doing a much more comprehensive shoot soon, but initial impressions are obviously very good. It's known as a sharp, fast lens with decent bokeh - not to mention amazing portability. It really is a tiny lens, ideally suited to the size of the OM-D EM-5 (or EM-10 for that matter).

Olympus Zuiko 45mm @ f2.2, 1/100th ISO 320

I shot at f2.2 - opened up a little bit to increase sharpness - and kept an eye on the exposure compensation to make sure I didn't blow the highlights. These are the first portraits I've taken with the EM-5 Mk2, so it was the first time I had experienced face detection auto focus. I must admit, it felt weird watching the auto focus point move around over Joshua's face, without me controlling the point manually. But I forced myself to let the camera do its own thing, so I could gauge its accuracy afterwards. If it works as intended, then I can see it being an amazing help on a wedding shoot.

Face detection close-up. Check the bokeh as well.

Looks nice and sharp to me. Of course I intend to give it a decent work-out, but initial impressions are positive. And I'm pleased with the bokeh in the images, even opened up to f2.2. The forest behind Joshua isn't an easy background to blur nicely, but the lens did a decent job of it.

Joshua at Arthur's Pass. Olympus 45mm @ f2.2, 1/100th sec ISO 320

Many people argue that the whole reason to get a micro four thirds system is for their small, fast, sharp prime lenses. I'm not necessarily of that opinion. I like the idea of sharp, fast primes, but I would actually rather shoot with fast zooms. I really have my eye on the 12-40mm f2.8 zoom which, while heavier, will probably suit my shooting style a bit more. Having said that, the lens is about $1500NZ, which is way above my price range. So in the interim, maybe a small prime like the 45mm f1.8 will fill the gap? Yes, I have the 45mm range covered with my current 12-50mm f3.5/6.3 - but at 45mm that lens will open to f5.6 at best. That's 4 times slower than the 45mm f1.8 prime! Not to mention the difference in bokeh. I will test this soon to show the difference with the two lenses at the 45mm focal range, and I suspect that it will be like night and day!?

So yes, at the moment the 45mm f1.8 has a 'prime' (excuse the pun) place in my kit. Hopefully I will eventually get the 12-40mm f2.8 and then I might have to re-evaluate things. But for the price I paid for it, I can probably sell the 45mm in a couple of years time and not loose any money on it. That's the other upside of buying good fast glass.