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

[dionhouston]

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

Oh we are all quite safe, thanks for asking. I've somehow lived most of my life near active volcanoes, so this wasn't a big deal. I didn't even know anything was up until a comment came on WhatsApp not to drive on the roads.

I'm glad you had a chance to come out here. Sicily is beautiful. I got one more year left, and then back to the U.S. Hopefully I'll get lots of birding in...

 

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

I have a full complete of the Pany f2.8's and the Pany Lecia Lenses, but when I travel (most to the SW) I take only the Oly 9-18 and the 75-300II. And sometimes I switch the 75-300 for the 35-100 f4/5.6 ( My Pany 2.8 is a monster compared to this very tiny, sharp, stabilized lens). Every once counts in the desert where water and heat determine what I Can take.

 

[groot]

My travel kit is 12-100 pro + 20 f1.4 pro.
I don't see the logic in taking both 12-100 and 40-150, hardly any benefit here.

 

[OldRex]

Apart from a full 100mm of FF equivalent FOV

 

[Holoholo33]

I have a friend who just came back from a Yellowstone/Grand Teton trip. She had taken an 8-25, 12-100, and 40-150 f2.8 Pro+MC-14. She used the wide and telezoom, but not the 12-100. She wished she had a longer lens, often using the telezoom at its longest setting. Yup, either landscapes or wildlife. Not much in between, although she did use her iPhone for other photos. What's the point? I agree that the 40-150, even with a TC, is not always long enough. Kinda in-between, but with the MC-14 at least it's in a usable range. I find the straight 40-150 range to be kinda meh. Unless I need the speed, I almost always use the 40-150 f2.8 Pro with the MC-14. Not being able to use a TC with the 40-150 f4 Pro limits its usability, IMO. The big things in its favor is compact size and light weight.

 

[OldRex]

Yep, fair point. I would be taking my 100-400 and the MC-14 and/or MC-20 on a trip like that for sure, but when I want to travel light but still want a bit more reach, now I can.

 

[dionhouston]

I just got back from about three weeks in Poland, and I have to admit my opinions have changed quite a bit! As a bit of context, I have a Manfrotto Street CSC waist bag (don't know the rule about product links, so please google if you want to see it). For a guy with back and knee problems it's a good size. For grins, I brought the E-M1.2 with the 12-40mm f/2.8, the 40-150mm f/2.8, the 45/f1.8 and a couple Laowas. I also brought a tripod, thinking I'd need it for the beast (also for 360s).

So first surprise -- even after three weeks, I didn't have any particular problems with the weight of the beast - neither in the bag, nor hand-held (the trip overall was a different story - lot of walking!). I actually found the tripod collar useful for steadying everything. It is quite a bit larger than the 40-150mm/f4, but the end result of it - with the f/4 I can include the camera in the bag, with the f/2.8, it goes in the bag, and I wear the camera. Not a huge difference.

The extra reach of the lens with the MC-20 is noticeable. For that reason alone, I'll probably bring it along when I think birding will be a focus.

The second surprise -- the tripod on the other hand was quite a strain and I ended leaving it at the hotel most of the trip. I attached it to the bottom of the bag, at first, but between the weight dragging on the whole bag, and how effective the f/2.8 is handheld, it just wasn't necessary.

Now that said - I think the reason I developed my initial impressions was at the time, I was using the stock camera strap that came with the camera, and that is quite a bit of weight on the neck. I now use a - I guess harness for lack of a better word - that distributes weight quite a bit better.

So, that's that. I no longer will say that the f/2.8 isn't useful for travel - I made it work on the most demanding travel I've had lately. I really, really, really like the fact that the f/4 uses the same filter size as the 12-40mm f/2.8. For that reason, the f/4 might continue to be my go-to travel lens, but I'm still delighted with how well the f/2.8 did.

Here's a bird shot with the beast - hand-held (And my OM-1 just came in so even better soon!)

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

 

[Holoholo33]

The 40-150 f4 Pro is a good combination with a 12-40 f2.8 or 12-45 f4, especially the latter. With the 12-100, not so much.

Ditto your comment about tripods though. Although I spent some time and money trying to settle on a good travel tripod, I found that I just didn't bring it along very much on trips, and most times, with the excellent IBIS on my Olympus cameras, it was not really needed. I might pack a pocket tripod for those rare times when I want to shoot at really slow speeds or get some night sky photos.

For example, this April 2015 photo of the Lincoln Memorial was taken around 8:24 pm handheld at 1/8s, f5.6 at 19 mm, ISO 2500 on my EM1 and 12-40 f2.8. SOOC JPG.

 

[groot]

Apart from a full 100mm of FF equivalent FOV

Yeah, not worth it IMO.

 

[magicboyguccino]

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?
View attachment 382382
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.
View attachment 382383

Dear OldRex,
Can you share the PowerShell file that you have written? Also can you pute some notes how to use it. Thanks!

 

[wt21]

Interesting thread. I purchased the 40-150/4 to explore an upgrade to my Panasonic 45-150 kit. TBH, the IQ is not any better (color, sharpness) EXCEPT the f/4 of course is one stop faster at the long end - the backgrounds are better blurred out and the ISO is lower. Is that worth $700 (vs. the $50 I could sell the P45150 for)? I just picked up a used 40-150/2.8 to try out. Much bigger of course, but I could see myself keeping the P45150 and the O40150/2.8. I can see them coexisting whereas the O45150/4 is a tweener and a bit dear for what it offers.

That being said - the F4Pro is actually a beautiful lens and is very buttery smooth to use and feels great on my EM5.3. It's also WR whereas the Panny is not. If it was something more like $499, I'd say it's well worth it. At $699 on sale, it's a bit pricey, but is gorgeous. I might return it and in a year or so buy a used one to replace the Panny.

 

[N1c0la]

That being said - the F4Pro is actually a beautiful lens and is very buttery smooth to use and feels great on my EM5.3. It's also WR whereas the Penny is not. If it was something more like $499, I'd say it's well worth it. At $699 on sale, it's a bit pricey, but is gorgeous. I might return it and in a year or so buy a used one to replace the Panny.

I purchased a very good condition used one for £350 minus the lens hood which cost me an extra £35 earlier this year (I think someone must have wrongly priced it). New they are currently £749 and I've not seen them that cheap used before or since, they're generally over £500 used. I really like the lens but I also have the 2.8 version and the P40-150. That said I don't really like the Pany much so will be selling it when I get around to it.

 

[wt21]

I purchased a very good condition used one for £350 minus the lens hood which cost me an extra £35 earlier this year (I think someone must have wrongly priced it). New they are currently £749 and I've not seen them that cheap used before or since, they're generally over £500 used. I really like the lens but I also have the 2.8 version and the P40-150. That said I don't really like the Pany much so will be selling it when I get around to it.

That is the price that would make this lens an easy buy.

 

[Holoholo33]

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.

(Hahaha... I just noticed that @DaveJP and I used almost exactly the same words. No, I didn't read his post before writing this. I swear these are my own words. Great minds think alike, eh?)

I agree with you about overlapping focal lengths. I like to have some overlap so you're not forced to change lenses because you've run into a hard boundary. I like the 12-100 as a walkaround lens exactly because it minimizes lens changes especially on travel. However, if you want to go longer, then there's a multitude of choices you could make. 40-150 doesn't give you much extension over the 12-100, which is one reason why the 40-150 f4 Pro didn't appeal to me. I liked the range my old 50-200 SWD gave me, but it was too big and heavy for travel. I find that the 40-150 f2.8 Pro + MC-14 gives you 56-210 f4 range which is a significant extension over 100mm. However, it's still a bit big and heavy for a travel kit. Instead, I'd probably take a 75-300 II for telezoom extension, although it's not as sharp nor is it weather-sealed. Fair weather lens in daylight for sure. I think the 40-150 f4 Pro is a very nice lens, but IMO not very useful as a supplement to a 12-100.

Here's a real example from travel. When I was visiting Japan in 2013 we got a lot of rain in Tokyo, Kyoto, and Hiroshima. Thankfully, I had the EM5 and 12-50 which were weather-sealed. I could still take photos even in terrible conditions. That combo was often the only gear I took out with me. Unfortunately, the 12-50 just wasn't long enough for some subjects and I sorely wished I had a longer lens that was weather-sealed. No such thing available to me with only the 17 f1.8 and 40-150 R in my kit. That experience drove to me to get the longer, weather-sealed 12-100.