11GTCS
Regular
I think that’s the upgrade path I’m leaning towards. 75-300 for now to cover down on tele requirements, and then 40-150/4 down the road if I want something in between/weathersealed
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Micro 4/3 Olympus 40-150 vs 40-150 (Battle of the Pros)
archaeopteryx
Regular
As a comment from the Panasonic side―I've the 45–175 and 45–200 II―the focal length range discussed here is friendly to lens design and, having owned half a dozen lenses of the type in four different mounts over the years, the optical details really haven't mattered. The 45–200 II is same weight as the 40–150 f/4 with greater reach and OIS, also weather sealed, and the copy I have was 15% of what the 40–150 f/4 is selling for at the moment in in used it once condition. Unless there's an Olympus only requirement here it's perhaps a slightly different set of tradeoffs worth considering.
11GTCS
Regular
That's entirely reasonable! I do have a Panasonic lens in my bag (the 8-18), so I'm not entirely opposed to Panasonic gear at all. One of my favorite lenses in my last foray into MFT was the original 25/1.4. I have that lens as a must buy if I ever find the second gen weather sealed model for sale at a good price used. That said, I do prefer Olympus lenses on the whole, partially because they just jive that little extra bit better with my Olympus body, and partially just because I like the handling/build and weather sealing a bit more, at least on the premium/pro lenses. If I went budget, I'd probably just get an Olympus 40-150R; it's even cheaper than the 45-200, which is actually the same price as the 70-300 right now.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
My 75-300 MkII cost me AUD$299 when the AUD$ -> US$ was about $0.73. That is, it was far cheaper here than it was (is) in the USA.
Apart from not being w/d sealed, it is an excellent lens. Being extremely light makes it hard for this particular old fart to hold steady, but using full electronic shutter helps greatly.
It is about as good optically as my FTs 50-200 MkI, which was about AUD$1,750 new price. Of course, slower optically, not w/d sealed, but much faster AF on my E-M1 MkII and particularly on my E-M1 MkI.
Apart from not being w/d sealed, it is an excellent lens. Being extremely light makes it hard for this particular old fart to hold steady, but using full electronic shutter helps greatly.
It is about as good optically as my FTs 50-200 MkI, which was about AUD$1,750 new price. Of course, slower optically, not w/d sealed, but much faster AF on my E-M1 MkII and particularly on my E-M1 MkI.
- Location
- Central Ohio, USA
- Name
- Andrew
For me the Oly 40-150/4 is less compelling with used Panasonic 35-100/2.8 being so inexpensive, relatively.
I picked up a well used 35-100/2.8 years ago for $250. Cosmetically the body is beat, but the OIS and the glass are still top notch.
I use it with the Oly 12-100/4 Pro when I want that extra stop of light on the long end.
Yes, the Oly 40-150/4 has that extra 50mm, but as others have mentioned and I have, the capable of you take the time to learn use the Oly 75-300 and gets you that longer field of view without a large size/weight penalty. The slower aperture can be a turn off for some that need better low light performance.
I picked up a well used 35-100/2.8 years ago for $250. Cosmetically the body is beat, but the OIS and the glass are still top notch.
I use it with the Oly 12-100/4 Pro when I want that extra stop of light on the long end.
Yes, the Oly 40-150/4 has that extra 50mm, but as others have mentioned and I have, the capable of you take the time to learn use the Oly 75-300 and gets you that longer field of view without a large size/weight penalty. The slower aperture can be a turn off for some that need better low light performance.
Last edited:
11GTCS
Regular
I definitely don’t need the light for most things I’m shooting. I still have a Sony FF with plenty of bright glass; this is just my travel kit. The number one reason why I’d never get the P35-100 2.8 is the P35-100/4-5.6. That lens was a favorite of mine last time around and was plenty sharp for my needs.
I think people are coming on to the new Pro lens a little harsh. I’m sure once it’s been out a while and a sale takes it down 100-150 bucks or the used market starts to populate people will get more excited. It really is an amazing lens by all review accounts for those who don’t need 2.8.
- Location
- Central Ohio, USA
- Name
- Andrew
I ran the Oly 40-150/4-5.6 and would get that lens again if I wanted that range in a non pro lens. Took many a great shot with that little thing.
As is, I’ll probably never get rid of that P35-100/2.8. So small and not really worth selling in its current condition.
As is, I’ll probably never get rid of that P35-100/2.8. So small and not really worth selling in its current condition.
- Location
- Tanagra
The 35-100 2.8 is good, but it has one major shortcoming for me--the long MFD. If it could just get 6-12" closer, it would be a winner. I suspect it would have to be a fair-bit bigger to do so, though. The 40-150 2.8 and 4 have the same great MFD, which should make them far more versatile. If up-close photography is your thing, at least.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
So has the 12-100. Brilliant lens.
11GTCS
Regular
Don’t get me started on that one, I’m slowly falling into the vortex of wanting it due to how much everyone loves it. Mostly worried about the size, but I think it’ll be inevitable at some point.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
Don't be
. My E-30 + 14-54 MkII is almost identical in weight to my E-M1 MkII + 12-100. The E-30 kit is just slightly heavier (30-50gms).It's even nice on my E-PM2 which is somewhat less than half its weight! The ILIS in the 12-100 is far superior to the native IBIS in the E-PM2.
11GTCS
Regular
I’m sure it’s not too bad, though some people haven’t like how it worked on the E-M5 MkIII. But that said, I’ll probably pick it up before my next big outdoor adventure. I don’t really need it before.Don't be
It's even nice on my E-PM2 which is somewhat less than half its weight! The ILIS in the 12-100 is far superior to the native IBIS in the E-PM2.
Like many thing it depends on YOUR requirements.
Example1, I shoot APS-C with a 70-200/4 rather than the f/2.8 lens. For primarily daytime shooting, the f/4 lens did just fine. So if you are primarily a daytime shooter, the 40-150/4 should do you fine.
Example2. I was shooting a graduation event with the 40-150/2.8. And I was glad that I brought that lens. They turned off the lights
I told them "no light, no pictures." I got the ASB advisor to turn on ONE set of lights. I was pushing the exposure down at 1/60 sec and sometimes slower. I had to cull out a bunch of subject motion blurred shots. With a f/4 lens, I would be down at 1/30 sec.
Old saying, in LOW light, fast glass wins.
Example3. For travel, at my age, I am weight sensitive. 1 pound more may not seem like much, but when lugging the gear EVERY DAY, NON-STOP (no rest day in the middle), it gets tiring. It is no fun when you are so worn out by lugging a heavy kit, that you don't want to lift the camera to take a pic. That is why I switched from APS-C to m43.
If you are weight sensitive, then the lighter 40-150/4 would be the better choice.
Example1, I shoot APS-C with a 70-200/4 rather than the f/2.8 lens. For primarily daytime shooting, the f/4 lens did just fine. So if you are primarily a daytime shooter, the 40-150/4 should do you fine.
Example2. I was shooting a graduation event with the 40-150/2.8. And I was glad that I brought that lens. They turned off the lights
I told them "no light, no pictures." I got the ASB advisor to turn on ONE set of lights. I was pushing the exposure down at 1/60 sec and sometimes slower. I had to cull out a bunch of subject motion blurred shots. With a f/4 lens, I would be down at 1/30 sec.
Old saying, in LOW light, fast glass wins.
Example3. For travel, at my age, I am weight sensitive. 1 pound more may not seem like much, but when lugging the gear EVERY DAY, NON-STOP (no rest day in the middle), it gets tiring. It is no fun when you are so worn out by lugging a heavy kit, that you don't want to lift the camera to take a pic. That is why I switched from APS-C to m43.
If you are weight sensitive, then the lighter 40-150/4 would be the better choice.
- Location
- Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
- Name
- John ...
- Location
- Rutland, UK
I had the 2.8, then got a good deal on the new 4.0. After trying various direct comparisons, I found my 4.0 to be quite a bit sharper than the 2.8 at most focal lengths and appertures.
no TC compatability of course, but with the compact size/weight and the iq, I decided to sell my 2.8 on.
no regrets.
no TC compatability of course, but with the compact size/weight and the iq, I decided to sell my 2.8 on.
no regrets.
In my case, since I had the 40-150/2.8, adding the MC20 TC was a cheaper option to get to 300 than to buy the 100-400.
With the 40-150/4 not being able to use a TC, I would have to buy the 100-400.
Someday I might buy the 100-400 anyway, but I'm putting that off as much as I can.
Holoholo33
Regular
- Location
- Hawaii
- Name
- Walter
I have the 40-150 f2.8 Pro, but not the f4 Pro. Because the 12-100 is my main walk around/travel zoom, I would need a lightweight telezoom that significantly extended the range to make it worth packing in a travel kit. The 40-150 f4 Pro doesn't do much for me. I used to have a ZD 50-200 SWD and I loved that range. With an EC-14, it would get close to 300. I wish that OMDS had produced a light and compact 50-200 f4 Pro instead of another 40-150, and even if it wasn't TC compatible, a 50-200 would still be a useful range. Instead, I use the 40-150 f2.8 Pro+MC-14 for 56-210 f4. Great range, but it's still a bit big and heavy for travel. I picked up a 75-300 II used and have found it to be a useful travel telezoom because it's relatively small and light, albeit not weather-sealed, as some have already mentioned.
- Location
- Gloucester, UK
- Name
- Mark
Yesterday I used the 40-150 f2.8 out and about for the first time. (Kids water park outing in >30 degree heat.) I was delighted to find it easy to use and no strain at all. Good photo results and excellent video in my inexperienced hands (rookie error: I should have used a smaller aperture for greater DOF).
I have zero regrets about getting this 'big' lens. However, this might be because I spent more than a few years hauling around Canon kit - never again.
I have zero regrets about getting this 'big' lens. However, this might be because I spent more than a few years hauling around Canon kit - never again.
Holoholo33
Regular
- Location
- Hawaii
- Name
- Walter
BTW, the 40-150 f2.8 Pro works pretty well as a macro lens if you add a short extension tube to it. Here's an example shot with a 16mm auto extension tube.
Weed flowers. 100mm, f4, 1/640th, ISO 200. I dunno if it is, but must be pretty close to 1:1.
Here's another one with the extension tube. 150 mm, f4, 1/1250th, ISO 200. Tiny drops on another weed.
One can get closer close-ups when you use one of the teleconverters.
Weed flowers. 100mm, f4, 1/640th, ISO 200. I dunno if it is, but must be pretty close to 1:1.
Here's another one with the extension tube. 150 mm, f4, 1/1250th, ISO 200. Tiny drops on another weed.
One can get closer close-ups when you use one of the teleconverters.
archaeopteryx
Regular
Max with either a 16 mm extension or 1.4x TC is likely about 0.3x, 0.4x with a 2x TC. Easy to check with a ruler, tape measure, or similar.
