Micro 4/3 Thinking of switching 40-150 F2.8 to 40-150 F4

[griffljg]

Larry, the MMF-3 is weather/dust resistant. It's also "plastic".

The MMF-1 and MMF-2 are not w/d resistant, and are made of metal. They are possibly more readily available, and cheaper, but I haven't checked recently.

Another alternative is the Panasonic adapter, but it's also not w/d sealed, but is also metal.

I've never come across anyone who had a problem with any of the brand name adapters, but alignment issues are apparently a commonplace with after-market adapters.

Thanks John. I have two MMF-3 adapters. The reason I have two is that I was a bit wary of having my use of all of my beautiful four-thirds lenses being curtailed by the breakage of a bit of plastic. When I noticed that the MMF-3 adaptors were becoming hard to find, I went out and bought a second one 'just in case'.

I was wondering a bit about the MMF-2 and MMF-1 adaptors and whether they might be a bit more robust. Apart from a lack of weather sealing, are there any other disadvantages of which you are aware?

 

[John King]

Thanks John. I have two MMF-3 adapters. The reason I have two is that I was a bit wary of having my use of all of my beautiful four-thirds lenses being curtailed by the breakage of a bit of plastic. When I noticed that the MMF-3 adaptors were becoming hard to find, I went out and bought a second one 'just in case'.

Good thinking, mate.

I was wondering a bit about the MMF-2 and MMF-1 adaptors and whether they might be a bit more robust. Apart from a lack of weather sealing, are there any other disadvantages of which you are aware?

No. I'm not sure what the difference is between the MMF-1 and MMF-2.

Search the Olympus website under accessories, or whatever they call it.

 

[OldRex]

I succumbed to a sale. I think I am going to like this lens quite a lot. Waiting to see what they will offer for the 40-150 2.8 to save me the hassle of selling privately. I know I will get ripped off, but so long as it is not highway robbery, I will probably do it.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[DaveJP]

I did the same as you. Back in September I traded my 40-150 f2.8, the 1.4x and 2x converters, and the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 for the OM-S 40-150 f4; and so far I have no regrets at all. Mind you, if I was more of a wildlife or sports photographer I would've been more reluctant to get rid of the faster 40-150 f2.8. However, the f4 lens makes a great partner with my Olumpus 12-40 f2.8, and I've been carrying a 45mm f1.8 around, just in case I need a bit more speed than the f4 aperture on the 40-150 can give me, but so far I haven't needed it once.

 

[ac12]

I did the same as you. Back in September I traded my 40-150 f2.8, the 1.4x and 2x converters, and the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 for the OM-S 40-150 f4; and so far I have no regrets at all. Mind you, if I was more of a wildlife or sports photographer I would've been more reluctant to get rid of the faster 40-150 f2.8. However, the f4 lens makes a great partner with my Olumpus 12-40 f2.8, and I've been carrying a 45mm f1.8 around, just in case I need a bit more speed than the f4 aperture on the 40-150 can give me, but so far I haven't needed it once.

Agree, the primary thing that I use the 40-150/2.8 for is sports. Primarily night games where the f/2.8 comes in handy.
Once I stop shooting sports, I may replace the 40-150/2.8 lens with the f/4 lens.

 

[Leica43]

I suppose it depends on your photography. But, looking at the focal lengths in the EXIF of my photos, there are very few between 100mm and 150mm. For some weird reason, most are quite a bit below 100mm, or above 200mm. I suppose that I could argue for a 150-400mm..... But at that price! Maybe not!

In any case, the 100-400mm has that focal length range covered too.
Y
Edit: I still have all of my 4/3 gear. On my last overseas trip with that gear, to South Africa in late 2012, I took I’ll p us, , 12-45, an E-3 with an E-300 as backup. For lenses I took the Oly 12-60mm f/2.8-4 SWD, the Oly 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Oly 70-300mm f/4-5.6. As expected, I used the 12-60 for almost all of the photos, until we reached the Kruger National Park, when I used the 70-300mm for most of the photos, occasionally swapping back to the 12-60 when I required a shorter focal length. I fitted the 40-150 to the E-3 on a couple of occasions, but didn't take many photos. - I found myself constantly swapping it out for one of the other two lenses. The ropable focal lengths prequired were either too great or too small for the 40-150. For me, taking the 40-150 with me is just a waste of space and weight.

Larry, thanks for this input. I’m planning a trip back to South Africa/Zim later this year, with game park visits featuring high in the itinerary. I have the complete line up of f4 Oly Pro’s along with the 75-300 f4.8-6.7 II, so 12-100 and the 75-300mm and a fast prime will probably be my travel kit.

 

[griffljg]

Larry, thanks for this input. I’m planning a trip back to South Africa/Zim later this year, with game park visits featuring high in the itinerary. I have the complete line up of f4 Oly Pro’s along with the 75-300 f4.8-6.7 II, so 12-100 and the 75-300mm and a fast prime will probably be my travel kit.

Alan, one thing that I did notice was that, on occasion, the maximum 300mm focal length was a bit short. If I were to go again, I would take the 12-100mm and the 100-400mm which, although not a Pro lens, is still acceptably sharp and robust.

We were driving slowly through the southern Kruger National Park, when we saw a line of cars parked on the side of the road. I asked the driver of an oncoming car what was happening. "Leopard!" was the reply, as he pointed towards a distant tree. There was indeed a leopard resting on a horizontal branch of the distant tree. I zoomed in as far as I could and took some photos. I really needed some extra focal length, especially as the 10 megapixel resolution of the old E-3 doesn't lend itself to cropping.

This was the result after a lot of editing using Capture One and Topaz software:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[DeeJayK]

Thanks John. I have two MMF-3 adapters. The reason I have two is that I was a bit wary of having my use of all of my beautiful four-thirds lenses being curtailed by the breakage of a bit of plastic. When I noticed that the MMF-3 adaptors were becoming hard to find, I went out and bought a second one 'just in case'.

I was wondering a bit about the MMF-2 and MMF-1 adaptors and whether they might be a bit more robust. Apart from a lack of weather sealing, are there any other disadvantages of which you are aware?

I think the differences between the three Oly 4/3 to M4/3 adapters are:

• MMF-1 has a silver metal outer case; weight: ~83g
• MMF-2 has a black plastic outer case, although the mounts are still aluminum; weight: ~42g
• MMF-3 is a weather sealed version of the MMF-2, which was introduced along with the E-M5; weight: ~42g

There's also the MF-2 which is an OM-to-M4/3 adapter, so be aware of that if you're shopping.

- K

 

[John King]

I think the differences between the three Oly 4/3 to M4/3 adapters are:

• MMF-1 has a silver metal outer case; weight: ~83g
• MMF-2 has a black plastic outer case, although the mounts are still aluminum; weight: ~42g
• MMF-3 is a weather sealed version of the MMF-2, which was introduced along with the E-M5; weight: ~42g

There's also the MF-2 which is an OM-to-M4/3 adapter, so be aware of that if you're shopping.

- K

Thanks for that info, Keith.
Truth be told, I was so knackered that I just couldn't be bothered looking it up!

 

[OldRex]

Just because someone planted the seed, and I was up for a small challenge, I wrote some PowerShell last weekend to extract meta-data from files on one of my NAS so I could load it up into Power BI and "slicey-dicey".
Here is a sample, but what is it telling me?

This one made me feel better because (I think) it is saying I have been shooting at f2.8 less and less. Anyway, I have fun doing it and thought I would share.

 

[OldRex]

I think my point was trying to analyse the data to support my decision to change from the F2.8 40-150 to the F4.0 40-150, but since I have already done that, the point is moot.

 

[gary0319]

I had both the 12-40 f/2.8 and 40-150 f/2.8. Once I opted for the OM-5 for li8ght weight travel and general all around shooting, both f/2.8's were sold in favor of the f/4 versions. No regrets. I also have the 12-100 f/4 but I must admit it is mostly gathering dust ..... too big for a walk around on the OM-5, and to little reach for good telephoto work.

 

[John King]

My widest and longest lens in my film days were 28mm and 200mm.
The 12-100 (EFL 24-200) is wider and same telephoto.
My 75-300 MkII or the 100-400 both way exceed in telephoto terms.
My 8-25 (16-50 EFL) is amazing for both FL range and optical quality.

All are affordable, even given that the 8-25 and 12-100 pair are not exactly cheap. However, there really aren't any other similar lenses that are comparable in every respect.

I don't really feel constrained by them being f/4.
When speed is needed, fast primes are the way to go, IMHO.

 

[dionhouston]

I am in the same boat. I currently own both lenses, and I got the f/4 primary because of the weight, and I don't regret it. It sits in my "light" kit bag. I particularly love the fact that it shares the same filter size as the 12-40/f2.8, so I have one set of filters for my two main lenses.

That said... I haven't sold the f/2.8. Between being faster, and having greater reach (with the MC-20) I can't quite let it go. In fact, I'm thinking of getting the MC-14. It spends quite a bit of time on a shelf... I keep going back and forth about it.

 

[OldRex]

I am in the same boat. I currently own both lenses, and I got the f/4 primary because of the weight, and I don't regret it. It sits in my "light" kit bag. I particularly love the fact that it shares the same filter size as the 12-40/f2.8, so I have one set of filters for my two main lenses.

That said... I haven't sold the f/2.8. Between being faster, and having greater reach (with the MC-20) I can't quite let it go. In fact, I'm thinking of getting the MC-14. It spends quite a bit of time on a shelf... I keep going back and forth about it.

While I found the 40-150 F2.8 pro a really super quality lens, it's lack of in-lens stabilisation always made it's use with the MC-20 quite tricky for me. 99.9% of my shots are hand-held and I am not a youngster. I do have the 100-400 and I found it quite good to use for longer shots even with the MC-14. I have not had any real need for putting the MC-20 on it so far.

 

[dionhouston]

While I found the 40-150 F2.8 pro a really super quality lens, it's lack of in-lens stabilisation always made it's use with the MC-20 quite tricky for me. 99.9% of my shots are hand-held and I am not a youngster. I do have the 100-400 and I found it quite good to use for longer shots even with the MC-14. I have not had any real need for putting the MC-20 on it so far.

Yeah, when I got the 40-150mm f/2.8 I didn't know a whole lot about teleconverters and the MC-20 just came out, so I thought I'd go for the latest and greatest. I'm sure most of it is my skills, but between the loss of an extra stop, and general softness at the wide end, I just haven't really effectively used the MC-20.

So... For a long time, I've considered buying the MC-14... Hard to justify the price when the f/2.8 sits on a shelf most of the time. Sigh

The f/4 is really nice, though. I've had no issues with the image quality, so it's a great choice for a lens. Just with both lenses the reach isn't quite there, at least for birding, which is where I really want to go to some day...

 

[ac12]

Yeah, when I got the 40-150mm f/2.8 I didn't know a whole lot about teleconverters and the MC-20 just came out, so I thought I'd go for the latest and greatest. I'm sure most of it is my skills, but between the loss of an extra stop, and general softness at the wide end, I just haven't really effectively used the MC-20.

So... For a long time, I've considered buying the MC-14... Hard to justify the price when the f/2.8 sits on a shelf most of the time. Sigh

The f/4 is really nice, though. I've had no issues with the image quality, so it's a great choice for a lens. Just with both lenses the reach isn't quite there, at least for birding, which is where I really want to go to some day...

If you need the "reach" then your lens is the 100-400.

One thing to consider, as the the camera to subject distance gets longer, and the FoV gets tighter (longer lens), the more you see the "stuff" in the air. Stuff like: smoke, dust, pollen, moisture, sun reflecting off the particles in the air, etc, etc. So lens "softness" could actually be due to that "stuff" in the air.

And you gotta nail your focus.
I have several shots from softball outfield, where rather than the batter in focus, the pitcher is

 

[John King]

If you need the "reach" then your lens is the 100-400.

One thing to consider, as the the camera to subject distance gets longer, and the FoV gets tighter (longer lens), the more you see the "stuff" in the air. Stuff like: smoke, dust, pollen, moisture, sun reflecting off the particles in the air, etc, etc. So lens "softness" could actually be due to that "stuff" in the air.

Agree. Here in Oz, we have the ubiquitous eucalyptus oil in all the areas within about 200 Kms of the coast. It is also explosive, which accounts for a lot of our problems with bushfires in these areas.

And you gotta nail your focus.

Always ...

I have several shots from softball outfield, where rather than the batter in focus, the pitcher is

The longer the lens, the worse the problem.
However, diffraction is a vastly overrated problem. Anything f/11 and wider is generally fine IME. With the really cheap lenses, keep to wider than f/8.

 

[dionhouston]

Yeah, I am absolutely certain that the weakest link in my bird photography is the photographer.

I see great pictures taken at 150mm, let alone 300mm, so I think I just need to wake up early, go to some good spots, and shoot more.

Diffraction at the moment might be a thing here in Sicily -- our local lady decided to make international news yesterday by tossing lots of ash in the air....

 

[OldRex]

Yeah, I am absolutely certain that the weakest link in my bird photography is the photographer.

I see great pictures taken at 150mm, let alone 300mm, so I think I just need to wake up early, go to some good spots, and shoot more.

Diffraction at the moment might be a thing here in Sicily -- our local lady decided to make international news yesterday by tossing lots of ash in the air....

Hope you are safe. I have briefly visited Sicily a few years ago. Quite beautiful!