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

[OldRex]

I am thinking of switching from the F2.8 40-150 Pro to the F4 40-150 Pro

I am well aware of the negatives i.e. no support for converters and poorer lower light performance (and I have the MC20 and MC14)

I am feeling compelled because of the smaller size and weight.

One of the reasons I switched to m43 was that I no longer took my larger camera gear on trips because of the size and weight and I lately I have been having that same feeling.

I will still get use of the MC14/20 on the 100-400, but the 100-400 will only be travelling with me if there is a very specific reason to.

My expected travel kit would be just my OM-1 the 12-100 F4 Pro and the 40-150 F4 Pro.

I guess the point of this post is a last minute sanity check on my thinking before I sell the 2.8

 

[griffljg]

If you were really looking at saving weight, then I suppose you could also ditch the 12-100 in favour of the 12-45mm f/4 PRO. You would still have all the focal lengths covered with no loss of IQ.

 

[Phocal]

I really don't see why you would want those two lenses as a travel setup. I could see taking one or the other based on expected subjects, but taking both seems pretty redundant, given they are both ƒ4.0. The only difference is a bit of extra reach. You could carry the 12-40 ƒ2.8 and 40-150 ƒ2.8 and only be a few grams heavier, have no overlapping focal lengths and have faster lenses. Would also have the option of using the TC's for more reach if needed (it would be a bit of extra weight tho).

As posted while I was typing this, you could switch to the 12-45 and 40-150 ƒ4 lenses and be even lighter.

 

[OldRex]

While I get the point about the overlapping focal lengths, for me there is some amount of happiness with overlapping focal lengths in so far as it tends to reduce the number of lens swaps for a given shoot, and frankly sometimes I just take the 12-100. In that context, I suppose that means that the 12-100 is great for me but sometimes I want a little more reach without the size / weight of the 40-150 f2.8. I guess my thinking is that sometimes I would just take the 40-150, sometimes the 12-100, sometimes both. Let's face it, I am talking about travel photography, so Lakes, Mountains, Rivers, Wildlife, Cities, Monuments, Buildings, People. Anything and everything.

 

[MFToutdoor]

I don't know what you shoot with the 40-150 when traveling. Only you know by reviewing the EXIF of your images whether you previously needed 2.8-4 with the 40-150. If your style is changing, then the info is possibly less relevant.

It is my personal preference to have minimal overlap of focal lengths and it seems like a lot of overlap between your potential kit of 12-100 and 40-150.

I prefer the 12-40/2.8 Pro II with the 40-150/4. Both weigh 13.5 oz (combined less than just the 40-150/2.8) and take 62mm filters. The 12-40 is my EDC and used for a myriad of images that sometimes include a shallower DOF and low lighting conditions. The 40-150 I use primarily for landscape and rarely in low light.

As a side note, the Leica DG 9/1.7 is the 3rd (and final) lens in my travel kit. I occasionally take pics of wildlife but only if I am close enough to use <300mm (FF Eq)

FWIW - I sold my Sony FF, GM zooms, GM primes to go lighter and smaller. The 12-100 has no appeal to me @ 20 oz, F4 and similar dimensions to FF zooms for Sony. Compact Camera Meter

 

[gryphon1911]

If you want f/2.8 and light you may want to consider the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. A used one is not very expensive and is small. When I want that low light I take that the Panasonic 9mm/1.7 and Panasonic 14/2.5.

 

[Avondale87]

I love my 40-150 2.8 and it's used for all manner of photos.
But it lives on its own body.
Seeing weight is a requirement probably not acceptable but is that an option?

I'm not familiar with your other option but agree on the f4 f2. 8 difference. Does that influence?

 

[John King]

While I get the point about the overlapping focal lengths, for me there is some amount of happiness with overlapping focal lengths in so far as it tends to reduce the number of lens swaps for a given shoot, and frankly sometimes I just take the 12-100. In that context, I suppose that means that the 12-100 is great for me but sometimes I want a little more reach without the size / weight of the 40-150 f2.8. I guess my thinking is that sometimes I would just take the 40-150, sometimes the 12-100, sometimes both. Let's face it, I am talking about travel photography, so Lakes, Mountains, Rivers, Wildlife, Cities, Monuments, Buildings, People. Anything and everything.

I agree completely with you, Mark. I also prefer lots of overlap.

And, for a one lens kit, it is very, very hard to look past the f/4 12-100. Sharp at all apertures and focal lengths, lovely focus transitions. Optically as flawless as a lens can be.

Nothing else holds a candle to it IMO.

The f/4 40-150 makes a lot of sense, FL wise.
However, I have not researched it at all.

 

[griffljg]

My personal preference is to always take the Oly 12-100mm f/4 IS PRO to limit lens swaps. If I am going to the trouble of carrying an extra lens for extra reach over 100mm, then 150mm isn't worth the effort. - I just take the Oly 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 IS along too. If I think that I might need something wider than 12mm, then the Oly 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO comes along for the ride. But I always take the 12-100 along with me.

Those are my choices, but the most efficient combination for covering the 12-150mm focal length in PRO lenses weight wise is the 12-45mm f/4 PRO combined with the 40-150mm f/4 PRO. If you're looking at an f/2.8 combo, then the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO and the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO will perform that role at the expense of a bit more weight and bulk, and no focal length overlap.

 

[Giiba]

I loved my 40-150/2.8, but I've yet to regret switching to the f/4 version.

The 2.8 is big and I often choose to leave it behind, whereas the f/4 feels very svelte in comparison.

I never used a TC and only sometime shot indoors so I really don't miss the benefits of the bigger lens.

The f/4, imho, includes all the best features of the f/2.8 in a much smaller package. I love the 40-150 range, the weather sealing is robust, the 70cm close focus is amazing, and both handle great.

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

The f/2.8 also has pretty strange bokeh wide open so I usually stopped down to soften that. With the f/4 the backgrounds turn out nicer easier when shooting close up.

 

[OldRex]

I don't understand why people think that 50% more reach is not worth it. That is like saying there is not much difference between a 200mm full frame lens and a 300mm full frame lens. In my book that is quite a bit of difference.

 

[griffljg]

I don't understand why people think that 50% more reach is not worth it. That is like saying there is not much difference between a 200mm full frame lens and a 300mm full frame lens. In my book that is quite a bit of difference.

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.

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 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 focal lengths required 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.

 

[Avondale87]

As for ranges we use, from my use it's what I have in my hand that dictates what shows up in on-line exif
If I had a lens that went from 20 to 400 I'm sure there'd be a lot of variation across the board.
There's been many a time I wished for longer, or shorter but made do with what I had in my hand.
Maybe that puts me in "you'll never please 'im" category
One of the reasons I often carry 2 cameras with different lenses

Mark I'm with you 100% on your last comment.

 

[davidzvi]

While I get the point about the overlapping focal lengths, for me there is some amount of happiness with overlapping focal lengths in so far as it tends to reduce the number of lens swaps for a given shoot, and frankly sometimes I just take the 12-100. In that context, I suppose that means that the 12-100 is great for me but sometimes I want a little more reach without the size / weight of the 40-150 f2.8. I guess my thinking is that sometimes I would just take the 40-150, sometimes the 12-100, sometimes both. Let's face it, I am talking about travel photography, so Lakes, Mountains, Rivers, Wildlife, Cities, Monuments, Buildings, People. Anything and everything.

I also like overlap, but 60mm of overlap? A bit much between these 2 for me. I'm still hoping one of the 2 Pro zooms on the chart is something to 200-240mm.

@OldRex could cropping a handheld high-res shot equal the extra 50mm for you? I've looked at the 40-150 f/4

 

[ac12]

If weight is an issue, then YES, go with the f/4 lens.
I have a 70-200/4, because the 70-200/2.8 was TWICE the weight. That was/is a BIG difference for me.

To ME, the value of the f/2.8 lens is the speed, for shooting in low light.
If you do not have that low light requirement, then the f/4 lens is fine.

As for the overlaps, to me, it depends on what you are shooting and the FL range you need.
Sometimes I will shoot just with the 12-100, other times just the 40-150.
I use the 12-100 for infield softball/baseball and on the tennis court. I would use it for basketball and volleyball, IF the gym had more light.
I use the 40-150/2.8 for football, soccer, lacrosse. More reach, but primarily for the f/2.8 at night.

The 12-200 would be a good single lens option.
If I shot more baseball/softball, I would probably get this lens. Then I can shoot infield and outfield, without changing lenses.

 

[ac12]

The thing about the 40-150/2.8 is, I think it is the longest Olympus m43 f/2.8 lens.

Yes there are longer fast lenses; Nikon sells a 300/2.8, for $5,500. And a 400/2.8 for $11,200.​

So, if you have that need, you NEED it.
"In LOW light, FAST glass wins."

THAT is why I use my 40-150/2.8, for night field games (football, soccer, lacrosse), and in the theater. LOW light.

 

[lokatz]

Don't have the f/2.8, but having switched from much 'meatier' FF gear a year ago, I can testify to the 40-150 f/4 delivering excellent sharpness and overall IQ. Your decision makes perfect sense to me.

 

[John King]

The thing about the 40-150/2.8 is, I think it is the longest Olympus m43 f/2.8 lens.

Yes there are longer fast lenses; Nikon sells a 300/2.8, for $5,500. And a 400/2.8 for $11,200.​

So, if you have that need, you NEED it.
"In LOW light, FAST glass wins."

THAT is why I use my 40-150/2.8, for night field games (football, soccer, lacrosse), and in the theater. LOW light.

There are always the FTs f/2.8 90-250 and f/2.8 300, if you're desperate. Both magnificent lenses, but expensive, big, and heavy.

You need to get the Olympus MMF-3 adapter too, and they are scarce ...

 

[griffljg]

There are always the FTs f/2.8 90-250 and f/2.8 300, if you're desperate. Both magnificent lenses, but expensive, big, and heavy.

You need to get the Olympus MMF-3 adapter too, and they are scarce ...

John, what are the advantages of the MMF-3 over the MMF-2 and vice versa?

 

[John King]

John, what are the advantages of the MMF-3 over the MMF-2 and vice versa?

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.