Olympus 75mm f/1.8 vs Rokinon 85mm f/1.4
 

Thoughts?

Olympus
Pros: Incredible optics, small, auto focus
Cons: Expensive, focus by wire, not as fast

Rokinon
Pros: Fast, traditional focus ring, cheap
Cons: Large size, not as sharp fully open

Re: Olympus 75mm f/1.8 vs Rokinon 85mm f/1.4
 

I tried to get around the high cost of the Oly by ordering a very lightly used Rokinon, the cine version with geared rings and declicked aperture. The standard version max aperture is marked f/1.4 while the cine is marked in T stops (T/1.5). After a month of testing I sold it. I didn't "dislike" it but it's images "lacked" the character I saw in Robin Wong's tests of the Oly 75mm in Kuala Lumpur.

I made the decision to "spring for" the $899 price on the Olympus 75mm at B&H when I happily found an "open box" special from an amazon vendor for $729. To me, the Oly runs circles around the Rokinon, color tones look better, flares FAR LESS, works will all features of the m43 bodies, is lighter, and generally just suits me better.

And I'm flexible enough that "focus by wire" doesn't bother me any. Except for two Nikon F mount lenses I really never use, all of my lenses for the Panasonics and Oly I have are "focus by wire".

Hope you find my comments useful.

Re: Olympus 75mm f/1.8 vs Rokinon 85mm f/1.4
 

I had the rokinon 85mm lens for my nex-ea50, certainly not a bad lens considering it's price, Afterwards I got a gh3 and I still liked the rokinon lens on that body with a adapter, it's a heavy solidly build lens with a smooth focus ring. I didn't have the cine version so it was clickable iris ring which I didn't like.

I didn't see any reason getting the oly 75mm for my gh3 as it was 3 times more expensive but some time ago I sold my nexea50 with the 85mm rokinon lens and my intention was to get the rokinon cine version instead with the smooth iris ring but eventually got the oly 75mm as I have read many great reviews about it and it's supposed to be one of the best m4/3 lenses.

I wish I could do a side by side test with the rokinon but even without that I can see the lens provides a superior image, eventough I prefer a all manual lens it's so easy to work under run and gun situations with my micro 4/3 lenses now, I have it set to autofocus to a target area I point to when I press the shutter button and it's very fast and accurate and I can switch to full manual focus easily on the gh3 if needed. Only iris changes are not stepless but I find it manageable.

What I like most about the 75mm oly lens is how sharp it is and how it renders the image, it's hard to explain but the images I get out of that lens in combination with my gh3/g6 are just beautifull and the same applies for my other m4/3 lenses. They are all quite expensive but worth the price.

Another big advantage is size and weight, these lenses are tiny compared to a similar lens from canon for instance so for me thats a lot of less weight in the backpack.

Re: Olympus 75mm f/1.8 vs Rokinon 85mm f/1.4
 

Patrick - If it helps, the Bower version of the Rokinon 85mm cine lens is just $299 at Adorama - about $50 less than the Rokinons for most mounts.

Good luck!

Bill

Re: Olympus 75mm f/1.8 vs Rokinon 85mm f/1.4
 

Thanks, guys. Bill, that Bower, as well as the previous Rokinon, use the standard 4/3 mount, which requires an adapter. There is now a micro 4/3 mount version at the same price as that Bower: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1018527-REG/rokinon_85m_mft_85mm_f_1_4_as_if.html
One thing I read was that in terms of still photography there is a big difference in optics, but not in video. Does that statement carry any weight?