Micro 4/3 Olympus 40-150 vs 40-150 (Battle of the Pros)

[11GTCS]

Has anyone shot with both the 40-150 2.8 and the newer 40-150 4? I’m strongly tempted to go with the 2.8 because of the price of the new f4, but obviously the new f4 is compact enough to be tempting, since it’d be a dual use landscape/near field wildlife option. The ability to use TC’s is another point in the direction of the 2.8, but for the size I could almost get a second lens in the same space, so that’s mostly a cost savings.

All that to say, anyone have experience with both? What did you think?

 

[John King]

I don't have either.
However, I'm usually after more DoF rather than more light with a long FL lens.

I rarely shoot my FTs 50-200 wide open (f/2.8 up until ~98mm, then straight line to f/3.5 at 200mm).

FWIW.

And to the forum.

 

[marlof]

I think it also depends on your type of use. I don’t usually shoot with longer lenses, but when I do, I need all the light gathering abilities I can get (often in lower light, like stage performances, or shooting in twilight). The set of an E-M1, 25 1.2, 12-40 and 40-150 (with 1.4TC) fits nicely in a relatively compact bag like a Billingham Hadley, so the size of the 40-150 2.8 is not an issue for me. To me it’s also a benefit that I can use one lens with a TC and don’t need a longer lens that I’d use even less.

That said: I never shot with the f4. The expense of the f2.8 was a hard pill to swallow with my limited use. At the time, I didn’t have much choice. Now, I’d really be tempted by the f4. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help, but wanted to show the size of the 2.8 doesn’t have to the issue.

 

[11GTCS]

I don't have either.
However, I'm usually after more DoF rather than more light with a long FL lens.

I rarely shoot my FTs 50-200 wide open (f/2.8 up until ~98mm, then straight line to f/3.5 at 200mm).

FWIW.

And to the forum.

For landscape use the 40-150/4 would be perfect, because absolutely DOF and sharpness would be the primary goal. For my landscape needs, the 8-25/4 and the 50-200/4 would be a pretty perfect two lens setup. That said, a used 40-150 2.8 with a tc can also double as a wildlife and event lens, so that’s part of the draw from that end. Thanks for the welcome!

I think it also depends on your type of use. I don’t usually shoot with longer lenses, but when I do, I need all the light gathering abilities I can get (often in lower light, like stage performances, or shooting in twilight). The set of an E-M1, 25 1.2, 12-40 and 40-150 (with 1.4TC) fits nicely in a relatively compact bag like a Billingham Hadley, so the size of the 40-150 2.8 is not an issue for me. To me it’s also a benefit that I can use one lens with a TC and don’t need a longer lens that I’d use even less.

That said: I never shot with the f4. The expense of the f2.8 was a hard pill to swallow with my limited use. At the time, I didn’t have much choice. Now, I’d really be tempted by the f4. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help, but wanted to show the size of the 2.8 doesn’t have to the issue.

Yeah, ironically it’s the other direction for me funding wise, it’s hard to justify the f4 when a used 2.8 is so similar in price. And since (as mentioned above) it’s useful for other things, the 2.8 could possibly do double duty. That said, the f4 is still tempting from a pure compactness perspective.

 

[emorgan451]

I haven't used the f4 version, but I have the 2.8 and it's the best optic I've ever owned. I also have the plastic 40-150 f4-5.6 version and have had the FT 50-200 lens. For me, I will put up with the weight and size of the 2.8 for almost any outing, even up to a ~4-5 mile fun/day hike. To me it's optically that good and I'd rather have it with me. I make opportunities to use it especially with the close focus ability. I had the plastic fantastic for years before and took it because it was light, but hardly ever took it out of the bag (mine falls off over ~100mm). I took a sling bag with the EM1.3 12-40 & 40-150 2.8 PRO's + 7.5 FE and on a 5 mile hike with some water hanging from the bag and I was pretty much over it by the end. But that was down to my poor bag choice. If landscape was my main goal or only goal, I would opt for the f4 (or proper bag for over 5 miles lol). I gather that optically there won't be much to choose between other than the shallower DOF between f4 & f2.8.

However, it's not my main objective. I use it as a multipurpose lens for family (kids running around doing what they do), wildlife, and my kid's events. All of those things require enough shutter speed to freeze the action, so the 2.8 is important. Also, I like the separation that's possible at the magnification levels of the lens at 2.8. Adding the TC does make it more versatile. I have the MC20 to help with wildlife, but it does come with noticeable drop in both image quality and focus performance. I have gotten some great shots with it, but it's not a magic bullet. But the MC20 is just a bit cheaper than the 75-300 can be had used, so I'll continue with the MC20. MC14 could be in my future to try not to lose that extra stop of light for some situations. All of this flexibility combined with really good used prices on the 2.8 would make me very hard pressed to buy the new f4 over a used f2.8.

 

[11GTCS]

I haven't used the f4 version, but I have the 2.8 and it's the best optic I've ever owned. I also have the plastic 40-150 f4-5.6 version and have had the FT 50-200 lens. For me, I will put up with the weight and size of the 2.8 for almost any outing, even up to a ~4-5 mile fun/day hike. To me it's optically that good and I'd rather have it with me. I make opportunities to use it especially with the close focus ability. I had the plastic fantastic for years before and took it because it was light, but hardly ever took it out of the bag (mine falls off over ~100mm). I took a sling bag with the EM1.3 12-40 & 40-150 2.8 PRO's + 7.5 FE and on a 5 mile hike with some water hanging from the bag and I was pretty much over it by the end. But that was down to my poor bag choice. If landscape was my main goal or only goal, I would opt for the f4 (or proper bag for over 5 miles lol). I gather that optically there won't be much to choose between other than the shallower DOF between f4 & f2.8.

However, it's not my main objective. I use it as a multipurpose lens for family (kids running around doing what they do), wildlife, and my kid's events. All of those things require enough shutter speed to freeze the action, so the 2.8 is important. Also, I like the separation that's possible at the magnification levels of the lens at 2.8. Adding the TC does make it more versatile. I have the MC20 to help with wildlife, but it does come with noticeable drop in both image quality and focus performance. I have gotten some great shots with it, but it's not a magic bullet. But the MC20 is just a bit cheaper than the 75-300 can be had used, so I'll continue with the MC20. MC14 could be in my future to try not to lose that extra stop of light for some situations. All of this flexibility combined with really good used prices on the 2.8 would make me very hard pressed to buy the new f4 over a used f2.8.

I’ve actually had the 2.8 before. It’s definitely great, but I also noticed degradation when on the TC. I think my gut is still saying the f4 for my use case, since I think I’d probably go straight to the 300 f4 if I decided to do wildlife in the system, and in the meantime
I can make do 300mm equivalent, since that’s still fine in some cases for larger animals. The close focus on the f4 is actually still pretty respectable, certainly enough for all but true macro use.

It is tough with prices as they are, but I’m sure if I keep an eye peeled I can find an open box or lightly used model of the f4 for 650 to 700 or so, and that’ll make it good bit cheaper than the 2.8, even used. If I found the right deal on a 2.8 in the meantime though, that’d probably be enough to push me the other way.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

From what I gather, the 40-150 F4 extends to operate, but then mirrors the 2.8's optical formula and zooms internally once extended, which is quite a marvel, really. That also means they have equal MFDs. I think it comes down to what you are wanting to achieve. In terms of absolute performance and results, I don't doubt the 2.8 wins, but you also get to lug it around as your reward. If you're wanting smaller and lighter, that makes the F4 the winner to me. I haven't used the F4, but it's anything like the 12-45, it should be a real treat. For me, M43 shines the most when minimizing size and carry weight is high on your priority list.

As for used, it might take a while, but keep watch. I saw an excellent condition 8-25 for sale at KEH for $750 once, which is a substantial bargain, IMO.

 

[11GTCS]

From what I gather, the 40-150 F4 extends to operate, but then mirrors the 2.8's optical formula and zooms internally once extended, which is quite a marvel, really. That also means they have equal MFDs. I think it comes down to what you are wanting to achieve. In terms of absolute performance and results, I don't doubt the 2.8 wins, but you also get to lug it around as your reward. If you're wanting smaller and lighter, that makes the F4 the winner to me. I haven't used the F4, but it's anything like the 12-45, it should be a real treat. For me, M43 shines the most when minimizing size and carry weight is high on your priority list.

As for used, it might take a while, but keep watch. I saw an excellent condition 8-25 for sale at KEH for $750 once, which is a substantial bargain, IMO.

I knew it extended to operate, but the internally zooming once extended was news to me and is honestly pretty genius. There is such a dearth of coverage for it online and on YouTube, partially because it’s so unsexy to YouTubers and probably also because of the bridges omds seems to have burned with a bunch of the visionaries.

I agree that a bargain will show up eventually, and I’m sure I’ll probably just make a list of lenses and start looking for good deals!

 

[jbruce]

I’m a bit old-school, but my carry combo of Oly 8-18, 12-24 Pro, 40-150 Pro and 1.4TC with one of several Oly cameras is my go to for most uses. The weight isn’t much after carrying Canon full-frame for years. If needed, I can also leave the 40-150 and TC behind and choose the Oly 100-400 for distance wildlife as needed. I bought most of my kit used and reasonable, and can’t envision changing any lens in my kit at this time.

 

[11GTCS]

I’m a bit old-school, but my carry combo of Oly 8-18, 12-24 Pro, 40-150 Pro and 1.4TC with one of several Oly cameras is my go to for most uses. The weight isn’t much after carrying Canon full-frame for years. If needed, I can also leave the 40-150 and TC behind and choose the Oly 100-400 for distance wildlife as needed. I bought most of my kit used and reasonable, and can’t envision changing any lens in my kit at this time.

If I didn’t have Sony full frame I’d be absolutely with you there. But I can run a 16-35, 28-75, and 70-200/4 for not much different weight/volume, so the goal for the MFT stuff is pure lightweight. I’ve carried the 12-40 and 40-150 with tc in the past, and it wasn’t big for sure, especially compared to dslr gear, but it also wasn’t incredibly small. The new f4 MFT lenses are absolutely tiny by comparison.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

The 75-300 isn't weather sealed, but it's extremely capable. It's almost too light for the equivalent range it provides. It's no 40-150 2.8 or 300 f4, but it has surprised me time and again for what it can do for what it costs--usually around $350 used.

 

[11GTCS]

The 75-300 isn't weather sealed, but it's extremely capable. It's almost too light for the equivalent range it provides. It's no 40-150 2.8 or 300 f4, but it has surprised me time and again for what it can do for what it costs--usually around $350 used.

I’ve heard that, which is kind of amazing honestly. I think that might be a great stop gap way to reach out to 300mm, if that’s what I want to get to, before I go play with some of the big boy lenses like the 300 f4 or one of the wildlife zooms. I don’t think I’d sub it for the 40-150 f4, but definitely an awesome way to get that big more reach on a budget.

 

[John King]

I’ve heard that, which is kind of amazing honestly. I think that might be a great stop gap way to reach out to 300mm, if that’s what I want to get to, before I go play with some of the big boy lenses like the 300 f4 or one of the wildlife zooms. I don’t think I’d sub it for the 40-150 f4, but definitely an awesome way to get that big more reach on a budget.

At 300mm, and 200mm, the 75-300 MkII is very similar in IQ to my FTs 50-200 MkI. Not bad considering that (new) it was about 1/3rd the price!

One 'problem' is that the 75-300 MkII is very light, so very susceptible to slight movements and shutter shock vibrations. I have best success on my E-M1 MkII using electronic shutter. The 75-300 is a fraction of the weight of the 50-200 MkI.

 

[11GTCS]

At 300mm, and 200mm, the 75-300 MkII is very similar in IQ to my FTs 50-200 MkI. Not bad considering that (new) it was about 1/3rd the price!

One 'problem' is that the 75-300 MkII is very light, so very susceptible to slight movements and shutter shock vibrations. I have best success on my E-M1 MkII using electronic shutter. The 75-300 is a fraction of the weight of the 50-200 MkI.

That definitely seems to be the case, given the high percentage of mixed reviews from people new to ultra telephoto and not used to very light tele lenses. It’ll probably still come down to what lens I find a particularly good deal on first, but I think there is easily room for both in my bag depending on what I’m looking for.

 

[Avondale87]

Coming in late
Have the 2.8 version, MC14.
As said above its an exceptional lens IMO.
I wouldn't entertain the later version if mine packed it in.
Image quality, ease of focus, robustness, weather proofing. All excellent.
I'd recommend it any day.
The lower end of lighting is where this would shine over the other. Plus other attributes.
I was fortunate to get mine in days when price was sensible. Gone through the roof now!

 

[11GTCS]

Coming in late
Have the 2.8 version, MC14.
As said above its an exceptional lens IMO.
I wouldn't entertain the later version if mine packed it in.
Image quality, ease of focus, robustness, weather proofing. All excellent.
I'd recommend it any day.
The lower end of lighting is where this would shine over the other. Plus other attributes.
I was fortunate to get mine in days when price was sensible. Gone through the roof now!

I’ve shot with it before, it’s definitely an awesome lens. It’s absolutely a tricky call for me, both lenses have their merits, and both would form excellent parts of an overall setup. It really just depends on what deals exist when I go to move that way in the lens world. For now it’ll be great to explore the 12-45/4 and the 20/1.4 in the short term!

 

[DJT20]

Have sold my 40-150mm F2.8, and the 40-150mm F4 is on pre-order, but not arrived yet. I liked the 2.8 lens, but it felt a bit big compared with my other lenses, and as I have the 12-45mm and 8-25mm I think the 40-150mm F4 will fit in nicely. Just a shame they don't share the same filter size.

 

[11GTCS]

Have sold my 40-150mm F2.8, and the 40-150mm F4 is on pre-order, but not arrived yet. I liked the 2.8 lens, but it felt a bit big compared with my other lenses, and as I have the 12-45mm and 8-25mm I think the 40-150mm F4 will fit in nicely. Just a shame they don't share the same filter size.

Definitely let me know how it does when it arrives! I quite enjoy the (relatively) compact size of my Sony 70-200 f/4 G, so I think I’d also enjoy the equivalent in this system for the same reasons

 

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

I find the 75-300II a bargain IF you know that you need good BIS and fast shutter speeds to use it. Although I have Panasonic cameras my travel kit is the 9-18/75-300II. With the advent of AI noise reduction, I shoot no slower than 1/2xzoom setting and have found that even at 6400/12,500 ISO & AI Noise reduction my Gx85 does great. Is the 75-300II as good as my PL100-400 no, but I got it refurbished for $400 about 6 years ago and would not sell my copy. It is very hard not to want one of each lens (even in the same focal lengths) now-a-days. We are very lucky to have the Panasonic and Olympus lenses that are available IMHO.

 

[davidzvi]

I'd have the 40-150mm f/4 if 150mm was long enough. Since it's not I don't have the f/4 or the f/2.8. I know I could just use a TC with the f/2.8 but I don't need f/2.8 and do want something a little longer than 150mm so it doesn't make sense for me.

But from everything I read so far the new f/4 is a great addition to the lineup.