It is my favorite MFT lens by a wide margin. It has a superb rendering. To me better than the 17mm f1.2 pro and 45mm f1.2 pro. I have an 8 x 10” large format camera, the look of my B&W 20 x 25 cm prints from the 25 f1.2 pro reminds me the look of the contact prints I do from the 8 x 10” negatives taken with my Schneider 355mm G Claron lens. I would say the 25 f1.2 is a very analog lens instead of a digital ultra sharp lens.
I bought it for cheap so I don't know. The bokeh is beautiful but you need to get good distance between your subject and your background ( it's only 50mm f2.4/f2.5 equivalent). The 45mm f1.2 is defintely better for portrait both for perspective and amount of blur. Sharpness is very weak wide open (this can be see seen as a drawback or a benefit), but get much better at f1.4, and the size of the lens is huge for a 50mm f2.4 equivalent. So why buying a lens that is not very sharp wide open and pretty big for the equivalent full frame aperture ? Because the rendering is special, microcontrast is high even wide open despite the softness, giving some depth to the pictures. I recently bought the 25-50mm ans it also has high microcontrast and in my opinion better colors, this lens is more versatile and very sharp, so I struggle to use my 25mm Pro now, but to be honest each time I use it, I really like the output !
Just a note about using these lenses on Lumix cameras: 1) In case the autofocus doesn't work, check the clutch ring before returning it. 2) The manual focus using the clutch in the lens doesn't open the focus magnification - something that I particularly like. When setting the Lumix to autofocus the magnification gets enabled. Obs: all this based on the 17mm f1.8 I bought recently.
I have the 45mm and17mm from the same range, and together they are almost all I need for very high quality work. I shoot a lot of gigs in very low light, and these give great action shots with subtle artistic flair. I don’t think I need the 25mm (to complete the set) because the 17 is so good, I can crop-down the images and still find great detail and subtlety in the results .
What's your opinion about using protective filters. Mr. Verhoef? Thanks! (i always use them because I can't afford to have the lenses damaged - they are expensive here in Brazil)
I hardly ever use my 25mm pro because for me it‘s usually too big and heavy. I prefer the PanaLeica 25mm. But I‘m not good at pixelpeeping and many say the Olympus is better. I even bought the 12-45 f4 because I rarely liked to use the 12-40. That‘s different if I use these lenses for commissioned work. After watching your video I‘ll give the lens another go for daily photography. Veel success met de TH-cam-kanal. (Sorry I never learned to *write* dutch).
I do only use it with my OMD’s as well. Feels a bit big on a PEN or similar body. Curious about that leica 25, I’ve read good things about it but between the 25 1.2, 25mm 1.8 and a lumix 25 1.7 I think adding that one might be overkill (sell the latter two and fund the leica might be the way to go perhaps). I’m not that big on the f4 zooms although they are much smaller and lighter than the 2.8 ones. I love having the extra light and better subject isolation they offer. But it all depends on what you use it for I guess. I very happily bring the small pancake 14-42mm ez on a PEN for a city trip or whatever for example. Anyway, love to hear what you think after putting that 25 1.2 to work again!
@@bartjanverhoef Ok, I used it in various situations for a couple images. Originally I thought it was too soft at 1.2. But I guess I should know that this is normal. But I‘m very impressed by it‘s sharpness when the aperture is closed a bit. As if my camera has more megapixels! If it just wasn‘t so big and heavy.
Yes! I struggled far too long with trying to use the 25mm as a normal, 20mm is the perfect normal for my vision as well. But I think most people are different in that respect, especially most male photographers. 😂
@@bartjanverhoefif you always have to take a step back with the 25mm to get what you see, you should definitely consider it! Else if you really love the 25mm as a normal, I would rather consider the 17mm as 20mm is just a bit too close to 25mm. Or just have them all, LOL. 😂
I got both the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L and the Olympus 25mm f1.2. The Olympus blows the Canon out of the water in every aspect: build quality, weight, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, auto-focus, manual focus, minimum focus distance. If I had to drop one off a cliff, it'd be the Canon.
Well, you will certainly need a micro 4/3 camera body to use it. If that is not your system of choice, you will have no use for it, OK. Besides that, it is a 25mm f/1.2 lens. A great one. I will probably not buy it because I prefer the 20mm f/1.4 for its size and focal length, the perfect normal for me.
Used Oly for a while but micro 4/3 is just not worth it. A disaster in low light especially if you live in a country where winter is long. Found Oly build quality not up to scratch, too many moving parts and flimsy metal. Bought a Fuji and the difference is night and day in every single aspect. Don`t waste your money, 4/3 is not worth it.
Curious which Olympus you used and what you used it for? I‘ve had very little issues shooting in low light (I do try and keep iso down but my recent OMD‘s, with good IBIS it’s not much of an issue compensating that with longer exposure) and no problems with any of the bodies even though they get a lot of use. But our experiences are all very personal ofcourse :).
I get your point about MFT not being great on low light but what’s with the comment on build quality? Olympus pro lenses are built like tanks. The point about high ISO shooting is also largely exaggerated. Use DXO or any of the softwares to remove noise and you’re golden. Good for you that Fuji works for you but no need to shit on MFT.
😂 I think this is a wind up! Bulld quality not up to scratch? Different league compared to Fuji and Sony, only recently have they started to catch up with Olympus/OM. A disaster in low light? Try night shoots and light trails with Live Composite, amazing results, IBIS mitigates the difference unless needing to freeze motion in which case, yes of course they lag behind modern larger sensors in higher ISO but if you think it’s a disaster, then that’s inexperience and user error mate.
It is my favorite MFT lens by a wide margin. It has a superb rendering. To me better than the 17mm f1.2 pro and 45mm f1.2 pro. I have an 8 x 10” large format camera, the look of my B&W 20 x 25 cm prints from the 25 f1.2 pro reminds me the look of the contact prints I do from the 8 x 10” negatives taken with my Schneider 355mm G Claron lens. I would say the 25 f1.2 is a very analog lens instead of a digital ultra sharp lens.
I bought it for cheap so I don't know. The bokeh is beautiful but you need to get good distance between your subject and your background ( it's only 50mm f2.4/f2.5 equivalent). The 45mm f1.2 is defintely better for portrait both for perspective and amount of blur. Sharpness is very weak wide open (this can be see seen as a drawback or a benefit), but get much better at f1.4, and the size of the lens is huge for a 50mm f2.4 equivalent.
So why buying a lens that is not very sharp wide open and pretty big for the equivalent full frame aperture ?
Because the rendering is special, microcontrast is high even wide open despite the softness, giving some depth to the pictures.
I recently bought the 25-50mm ans it also has high microcontrast and in my opinion better colors, this lens is more versatile and very sharp, so I struggle to use my 25mm Pro now, but to be honest each time I use it, I really like the output !
The lens cap on my 12-40mm self destructed a few weeks after I got it. I threw the pieces in the trash just today. Great review of the 25mm f/1.2.
I love using this lens on my EM1 Mark III!!
Nice review. I have the PL 25/1,4 and the Olympus 25/1,8. Always use the Olympus!
Interesting, can you precise why ? Thank you
@@CC-wr7zo Smaller and more comfortable to use
Love your channel Bart, and the comments by your subscribers 👍 Subbed 👍
Just a note about using these lenses on Lumix cameras:
1) In case the autofocus doesn't work, check the clutch ring before returning it.
2) The manual focus using the clutch in the lens doesn't open the focus magnification - something that I particularly like. When setting the Lumix to autofocus the magnification gets enabled.
Obs: all this based on the 17mm f1.8 I bought recently.
I have the 45mm and17mm from the same range, and together they are almost all I need for very high quality work. I shoot a lot of gigs in very low light, and these give great action shots with subtle artistic flair. I don’t think I need the 25mm (to complete the set) because the 17 is so good, I can crop-down the images and still find great detail and subtlety in the results .
What's your opinion about using protective filters. Mr. Verhoef? Thanks!
(i always use them because I can't afford to have the lenses damaged - they are expensive here in Brazil)
I hardly ever use my 25mm pro because for me it‘s usually too big and heavy. I prefer the PanaLeica 25mm. But I‘m not good at pixelpeeping and many say the Olympus is better. I even bought the 12-45 f4 because I rarely liked to use the 12-40. That‘s different if I use these lenses for commissioned work.
After watching your video I‘ll give the lens another go for daily photography.
Veel success met de TH-cam-kanal. (Sorry I never learned to *write* dutch).
I do only use it with my OMD’s as well. Feels a bit big on a PEN or similar body. Curious about that leica 25, I’ve read good things about it but between the 25 1.2, 25mm 1.8 and a lumix 25 1.7 I think adding that one might be overkill (sell the latter two and fund the leica might be the way to go perhaps). I’m not that big on the f4 zooms although they are much smaller and lighter than the 2.8 ones. I love having the extra light and better subject isolation they offer. But it all depends on what you use it for I guess. I very happily bring the small pancake 14-42mm ez on a PEN for a city trip or whatever for example. Anyway, love to hear what you think after putting that 25 1.2 to work again!
Pana on oly is ok, as long you stay away from F4 😊
@@bartjanverhoef Ok, I used it in various situations for a couple images. Originally I thought it was too soft at 1.2. But I guess I should know that this is normal.
But I‘m very impressed by it‘s sharpness when the aperture is closed a bit. As if my camera has more megapixels!
If it just wasn‘t so big and heavy.
50mm the best and only focal length for life
Great if it is for you! I am more a 40mm (equivalent) normal vision guy so I am most happy with my 20mm f/1.4 ❤
This lens seems like a Nocticron with a more useful focal length - the percect prime!
Anyone try this for indoor sports?
Nah. You would buy 20mm f1.4 instead 😉 40mm is the new nifty fifty
Definitely tempted. Tried that 20mm once and was quite impressed.
Yes! I struggled far too long with trying to use the 25mm as a normal, 20mm is the perfect normal for my vision as well. But I think most people are different in that respect, especially most male photographers. 😂
@@bartjanverhoefif you always have to take a step back with the 25mm to get what you see, you should definitely consider it! Else if you really love the 25mm as a normal, I would rather consider the 17mm as 20mm is just a bit too close to 25mm. Or just have them all, LOL. 😂
25mm 1.2 sounds fancy until u remember it's micro 4/3
I got both the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L and the Olympus 25mm f1.2. The Olympus blows the Canon out of the water in every aspect: build quality, weight, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, auto-focus, manual focus, minimum focus distance. If I had to drop one off a cliff, it'd be the Canon.
This lens is a masterpiece. Once you use it for a while, you'll understand.
Having a canon ef 1.2 and found that everything is out of focus because of how shallow of the depth😊
Well, you will certainly need a micro 4/3 camera body to use it. If that is not your system of choice, you will have no use for it, OK. Besides that, it is a 25mm f/1.2 lens. A great one. I will probably not buy it because I prefer the 20mm f/1.4 for its size and focal length, the perfect normal for me.
Odd comment.... likely made from a point of ignorance.
Used Oly for a while but micro 4/3 is just not worth it. A disaster in low light especially if you live in a country where winter is long. Found Oly build quality not up to scratch, too many moving parts and flimsy metal. Bought a Fuji and the difference is night and day in every single aspect. Don`t waste your money, 4/3 is not worth it.
Curious which Olympus you used and what you used it for? I‘ve had very little issues shooting in low light (I do try and keep iso down but my recent OMD‘s, with good IBIS it’s not much of an issue compensating that with longer exposure) and no problems with any of the bodies even though they get a lot of use. But our experiences are all very personal ofcourse :).
I get your point about MFT not being great on low light but what’s with the comment on build quality? Olympus pro lenses are built like tanks. The point about high ISO shooting is also largely exaggerated. Use DXO or any of the softwares to remove noise and you’re golden. Good for you that Fuji works for you but no need to shit on MFT.
@@thrallingFRgloryjust another troll, pathetic
Too late. I already have MFT gear. I moved from FF and APS-C Nikons and I love my MFT gear. Sorry to burst your FF mantra/diatribe.
😂 I think this is a wind up! Bulld quality not up to scratch? Different league compared to Fuji and Sony, only recently have they started to catch up with Olympus/OM. A disaster in low light? Try night shoots and light trails with Live Composite, amazing results, IBIS mitigates the difference unless needing to freeze motion in which case, yes of course they lag behind modern larger sensors in higher ISO but if you think it’s a disaster, then that’s inexperience and user error mate.