p.2 #1 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
gmccroskery wrote:
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.2 #2 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
jcl2k6 wrote:
That Moon photo is amazing with your Pany lens!
Thank you for the comment.
I agree that it's amazing that the detail came out that well. We were on vacation in Maine, and my Brother-in-law had a hard time believing that I took that with a 175mm lens, when I showed it to him on my LCD zoomed in.
p.2 #3 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
I expected to pick up a 35-100/2.8 as I rebuilt my μ43 kit. I was undone by a great used OM 40-150/4 deal, another compact and excellent lens if not as bright as the Lumix. I did not own them at the same time, but both are really solid lenses!
p.2 #4 · The reason I have never bought the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro
I have both lenses. While I use the 35-100 occasionally, I’d never sell the lens due to its compact size and weight. It’s incredible convenient to take it to a casual hike and walk in the park. For more serious landscape or travel photography, though, I still take my 40-150 2.8. Pair with 1.4, it’s poor man’s 50-200 2.8 and is lighter and smaller.
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 →
