p.1 #1 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
I've been tempted a few times to get the Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro lens, but every time I stuck my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 on my camera and did shots with it, I just could not get over the quality that lens gave me -- and it is so small and lightweight. It is a special lens that I don't use enough these days -- but these images of our sweet 'BJ' who is no longer with us, popped up on my computer screen this evening and reminded me of what special lens that is.
p.1 #2 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Totally agree. I also have this lens and for my needs of casual photography during family vacations - it's perfect! As you said, the lighter weight (compared to the alternatives) makes it a great choice for travel. I'd only consider the Oly alternatives if I was doing pro work... otherwise, the inconvenience in weight, portability, and price isn't worth it.
p.1 #3 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
mannyfresh79 wrote:
Totally agree. I also have this lens and for my needs of casual photography during family vacations - it's perfect! As you said, the lighter weight (compared to the alternatives) makes it a great choice for travel. I'd only consider the Oly alternatives if I was doing pro work... otherwise, the inconvenience in weight, portability, and price isn't worth it.
Thanks for the comment. The funny thing is you mentioned pro work, and I retired from pro work 5 yrs. ago, but prior to that my bread and butter was shooting corporate conferences. My bread and butter lens for that work, as well as for executive portrait work was my Pany 35-100mm f/2.8.
For much of what I needed during conferences, especially shooting breakout/educational sessions in various conference rooms without using flash, the 35-100mm was perfect. Pro full frame shooters in those situations would generally be using their heavy and large 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. I was able to easily and unobtrusively move about and shoot in ambient light and still get the same focal reach and speed with that excellent Pany lens.
p.1 #4 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Despite it being larger and heavier, the Oly is still easy to carry and shoot with. It has greater reach and still gives great results with both the 1.4X TC & 2X TC, making is much more versatile and useful for shooting wildlife.
The Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 is more compact and includes optical stabilization, while the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro offers greater telephoto reach, superior weather sealing, and advanced features like a closer minimum focusing distance and teleconverter compatibility.
p.1 #6 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
I had both. The Panasonic for travel and in cities etc. The Olympus for landscapes and when I needed the reach. I’m now selling the Olympus 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4 to get the new 50-200/2.8.
p.1 #7 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
gmccroskery wrote:
I've been tempted a few times to get the Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro lens, but every time I stuck my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 on my camera and did shots with it, I just could not get over the quality that lens gave me -- and it is so small and lightweight. It is a special lens that I don't use enough these days -- but these images of our sweet 'BJ' who is no longer with us, popped up on my computer screen this evening and reminded me of what special lens that is.
Greg
Well, that’s no fair… boxers make any camera/lens look good.
Sorry for your loss but cheers on that lens…and the memories.
p.1 #9 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Erich6_ wrote:
Well, that’s no fair… boxers make any camera/lens look good.
Sorry for your loss but cheers on that lens…and the memories.
Thanks, Erich. I do really miss 'BJ', and he was a favorite photo subject when he was with us. We're coming up on the 1 year anniversary of losing him -- some sadness, but a lot of wonderful memories.
p.1 #10 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Imagemaster wrote:
Today with the 2X TC
Lovely capture, Tony.
I hope my post didn't imply that I think that the 40-150mm f/2.8 isn't a super good quality lens. My point was that I have never had a legitimate reason to own it due to already owning the Pany 35-100mm f/2.8, which I bought before Olympus came out with the 40-150mm f/2.8.
I actually bought the 35-100mm to shoot corporate conferences and portraits, which has been my main use and which worked because of it's very light weight and small size. I also have the old Olympus ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, which I used for shooting ballroom session keynote speakers. Consequently, I just never needed the Oly 40-150mm Pro lens -- even though I was often tempted. It's without question a great lens.
Since I have the 100-400mm for birds and wildlife, I feel I have that covered as well.
p.1 #13 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
mannyfresh79 wrote:
Wow... what a sharp image with the 2x... curious if you cropped any?
Is this also the recommended lens for m43 sports photography (like outdoor soccer)?
From my experience shooting numerous rugby 7s events (paid), amongst others, a lot would depend on the pitch size however it's not going to be enough for solo portraits (at distance - say in the centre circle or goalmouth area) but would be for 'environmental portraits' those consisting of 2 or more players competing for the ball for example.
There's a reason lenses such as the 400/2.8 are a sports shooters favourite lens (and of course add a x1.4 for that 580mm reach)! And of course lenses such as 100-500mm are becoming much more popular due to their flexibility.
For me I always had lenses (equiv. 75-225mm and 450mm) mounted on two cameras. Nowadays I guess that would be 3 lenses + cameras : 24-70 (if you can get pitchside), 70-200 and a 400mm.
p.1 #14 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
I've always considered ADDING a 35-100/2.8 to my 40-150/2.8. Not as a replacement. One for travel and one for more serious use (that isn't to denigrate the 35-100 just that the reach is often important).
However the 40-150 has a LOT more reach esp when adding a x1.4 (210mm - FF eff. 420mm) or x2.0 (300mm - FF eff. 600mm) which makes them effective substitutes when larger lenses can't be carried or transported.
So much so that I used the 40-150+ x 1.4 as a emergency birding lens on a recent trip to Madeira (really really regreted not taking the 300/4 in the end since I ended up hiring a car for the full 17 days there).
p.1 #15 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
The 40-150 does not quite fit in combos that I would want to have in m43. The 35-100 and 40-150 f2.8 options is one of the reasons it was great when Panasonic and Olympus developed their respective lens ranges the way that they did back then, though everything has slowed in the last few years. I still thoroughly enjoy the 35-100 f2.8. Interestingly, my m43 bodies are Olympus/OM but all my zooms are Panasonic. The promise for Sync IS has not been strong enough to sway my choices thus far. From memory I think focus stacking and starry sky focus are locked out as well.
p.1 #16 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Frogfish wrote:
I've always considered ADDING a 35-100/2.8 to my 40-150/2.8. Not as a replacement. One for travel and one for more serious use (that isn't to denigrate the 35-100 just that the reach is often important).
However the 40-150 has a LOT more reach esp when adding a x1.4 (210mm - FF eff. 420mm) or x2.0 (300mm - FF eff. 600mm) which makes them effective substitutes when larger lenses can't be carried or transported.
So much so that I used the 40-150+ x 1.4 as a emergency birding lens on a recent trip to Madeira (really really regreted not taking the 300/4 in the end since I ended up hiring a car for the full 17 days there)....Show more →
I fully understand and also see the benefits of the 40-150mm f/2.8. For me it just isn't (and wasn't) enough benefit to sway me to invest in that lens, because for my use the Pany lens was more than adequate -- as I mentioned, it just seems that every time I use that lens, I am just super impressed with the results. In addition, as you mentioned, the 35-100mm f/2.8 is small (about the size of a can of soda) and is an internal zoom. Being a sharp f/2.8 lens, I can get a lot of cropping mileage if needed.
If I need to go really light and small, I use my Pany 45-175mm f/4-5.6, which is another crazy sharp lens.
Here is a moon shot I did using that lens on my E-M1X, the DTC (Digital Teleconverter), and a substantial crop in post. Pretty crazy for a lens that weighs 7 oz.
p.1 #17 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
pbraymond wrote:
The 40-150 does not quite fit in combos that I would want to have in m43. The 35-100 and 40-150 f2.8 options is one of the reasons it was great when Panasonic and Olympus developed their respective lens ranges the way that they did back then, though everything has slowed in the last few years. I still thoroughly enjoy the 35-100 f2.8. Interestingly, my m43 bodies are Olympus/OM but all my zooms are Panasonic. The promise for Sync IS has not been strong enough to sway my choices thus far. From memory I think focus stacking and starry sky focus are locked out as well....Show more →
Actually, most of my lenses are Olympus/OM, but I also do have a decent selection of Pany lenses and find them to be optically outstanding (some more so than others). Two that I would not be without are the 35-100mm f/2.8 and the 45-175mm f/4-5.6 -- both are optically excellent.
It's great to have all these lens options and is one of the real benefits of m4/3's.
p.1 #18 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
gmccroskery wrote:
Lovely capture, Tony.
I hope my post didn't imply that I think that the 40-150mm f/2.8 isn't a super good quality lens. My point was that I have never had a legitimate reason to own it due to already owning the Pany 35-100mm f/2.8, which I bought before Olympus came out with the 40-150mm f/2.8.
I actually bought the 35-100mm to shoot corporate conferences and portraits, which has been my main use and which worked because of it's very light weight and small size. I also have the old Olympus ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, which I used for shooting ballroom session keynote speakers. Consequently, I just never needed the Oly 40-150mm Pro lens -- even though I was often tempted. It's without question a great lens.
Since I have the 100-400mm for birds and wildlife, I feel I have that covered as well.
Thanks Greg, no problem. Whatever works best for you. For me and shooting wildlife I like to have the option of putting one of the TC's on the Oly when I am out with just that one lens.
p.1 #19 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Thanks for sharing your perspective with this lens! I didn't know about this one, and having a more compact carry sounds great, especially for the shots you're getting.
p.1 #20 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
Maybe another alternative is the Oly 40-150 f/4.0 for light weight and traveling? However, even with redundancy, I'm interested in getting the 40-150 f/2.8 for the TC compatibility.
