My Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO Lens Review

Location
Boston Burbs
Real Name
David
Great writeup, thanks.

Looking at the size comparison it reminds me of the first versions of the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I'm not sure what Sigma was thinking when they redesigned it so it is the same size as the 70-200. But what can you do.
 

gryphon1911

All-Pro
Location
Central Ohio, USA
Real Name
Andrew
Yeppers!
That's exactly what I do with my 80-200. And it's a WHOLE LOT CHEAPER than the VR 70-200 II :bravo-009:
I often thought that if I needed the VR, I would just sell my 80-200 and get a 70-200/4 VR... The 80-200 is weather sealed and I have the Oly 40-150/2.8 and all the bodies I have contain IBIS. I'm able to cover just about ant contingency now.


** updated to correct a spelling mistake.
 
Last edited:
Location
Boston Burbs
Real Name
David
I often thought that if I needed the VR, I would just sell my 80-200 and get a 70-200/4 VR... The 80-200 is weather seller and I have the Oly 40-150/2.8 and all the bodies I have contain IBIS. I'm able to cover just about ant contingency now.

Technique is key, it's the only thing that got me through for years with both the 80-200 and old 50-150. I have to admit though VR does help. The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, my main telephoto.

But Andrew I would not recommend it for you. Why? Because I would recommend my other telephoto, the latest version of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. You have the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, that's about the same as f/4 on FX. The Tamron will cost about the same as the Nikon f/4 (I got mine used for about $975) and will give you more options when you need them. Just a thought.
 

gryphon1911

All-Pro
Location
Central Ohio, USA
Real Name
Andrew
Technique is key, it's the only thing that got me through for years with both the 80-200 and old 50-150. I have to admit though VR does help. The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, my main telephoto.

But Andrew I would not recommend it for you. Why? Because I would recommend my other telephoto, the latest version of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. You have the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8, that's about the same as f/4 on FX. The Tamron will cost about the same as the Nikon f/4 (I got mine used for about $975) and will give you more options when you need them. Just a thought.

I've always liked Tamron lenses, used them back starting in 2005. I definitely give them a serious consideration when looking at new lenses. I currently have a 70-300/4-5.6 VC Tamron abd it does great....actually just shot with it today on my Df for a local zoo trip.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom