I find the new 50-200 lens with a 1.4TC probably the ultimate walk-around lens.
While it does not have the reach of the 100-400 it takes sharper pictures, focuses quicker and has a higher f/s rate (50 f/s) than that lens and is about the same size and weight.
The combo is a joy in the hand. The shape and controls are much superior to the 100-400 and if focuses closer making semi-macro a real option while walking around. I find that with my hand on the zoom ring I can extend a single finder to the focus ring and slightly adjust focus. The 100-400's shape and stiff controls compared to the 50-200 make this more difficult.
I find 50 f/s very valuable in ProCapture or stacking images in-camera.
The 40-150/2.8 is a much smaller, lighter (ca. 400g with tripod mounts included or ca. 300g without) and cheaper option (½ of the price if bought new and can be had as low as 1/3 price used) if the loss of the 50mm (FF 100mm or 140mm with the TC14) or 70mm with the TC14 isn't a major concern. So as a walkaround lens that makes a difference (to me), especially with an extra 10mm at the wide end (20mm FF) that makes a real difference in a walkaround lens.
In a recent test of the two, that I saw mentioned by Thomas Starr (not his review), he claims the reviewer found zero difference in sharpness until zoomed in at 200% and then only minor differences.
Is this confirmation bias on my behalf so I don't have to raid our savings again? Maybe
However no matter how much I love the superb 40-150/2.8 I'll very very rarely use it for birds, I have done (with the TC14 attached) by necessity (traveling without the 300/4) as IMHO it simply isn't long enough so that needs to be weighed into any discussion between them.
Personally I prefer (and bought) the 300/4 for birding/wildlife (it's also cheaper and superb used samples are available MUCH cheaper than the 50-200). Super sharp, superb IS and it is rare anyway that we ever fill the frame with the subject, so shots lost to not having a zoom are even rarer. Of course the 50-200 (and 40-150) has a far wider variety of uses than a fixed FL prime and is 200g or so lighter.
However let me be clear - I'm not dissing your choice of lens ! Everyone who has bought it seems to be very happy with it. I'm merely stating options for specific use cases. Whichever lens someone chooses; 40-150/2.8, 50-200 or 300/4, they are getting a stellar lens!
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I find the new 50-200 lens with a 1.4TC probably the ultimate walk-around lens.
While it does not have the reach of the 100-400 it takes sharper pictures, focuses quicker and has a higher f/s rate (50 f/s) than that lens and is about the same size and weight.
The combo is a joy in the hand. The shape and controls are much superior to the 100-400 and if focuses closer making semi-macro a real option while walking around. I find that with my hand on the zoom ring I can extend a single finder to the focus ring and slightly adjust focus. The 100-400's shape and stiff controls compared to the 50-200 make this more difficult.
I find 50 f/s very valuable in ProCapture or stacking images in-camera.
Thank you for your real world experience. I've been eyeing this lens, but due to the price and only slightly improved IQ, I've been looking for any best alternatives (40-150/2.8 + 1.4TC). Many reviewers noted the obvious improvements such as more focal length and sync-IS, but IQ only marginally or even subjectively better.
For me, it would be my "goldilocks" if OM System included a built-in TC like the 150-400/4.5 Pro. Alas...
I have never owned the 40-150 so I can't compare. My experience is with the 100-400 so I naturally compare with it. As I reported, I simply found the 50-200 just simply more usable and enjoyable in my hand.
I also have a 150-400 and it plus the 50-200+1.4tc completes my lens collection.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I have never owned the 40-150 so I can't compare. My experience is with the 100-400 so I naturally compare with it. As I reported, I simply found the 50-200 just simply more usable and enjoyable in my hand.
I also have a 150-400 and it plus the 50-200+1.4tc completes my lens collection.
I sold my 40-150/2.8 and my 300/4 to buy the 50-200mm. I didn’t use the 40-150 much, because while it’s a great lens, I tended to use the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 because it’s so much smaller. I only used the Olympus lens when I needed that extra reach. And I had the 300mm for travel in case I may want it.
So, the 50-200 is now the lens I travel with if I’m not sure I will find wildlife where I go. For me, it’s two lenses in one. The 150-400 is the lens I will only take when I know for sure I’ll be shooting wildlife.
johnvanr wrote:
I sold my 40-150/2.8 and my 300/4 to buy the 50-200mm. I didn’t use the 40-150 much, because while it’s a great lens, I tended to use the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 because it’s so much smaller. I only used the Olympus lens when I needed that extra reach. And I had the 300mm for travel in case I may want it.
So, the 50-200 is now the lens I travel with if I’m not sure I will find wildlife where I go. For me, it’s two lenses in one. The 150-400 is the lens I will only take when I know for sure I’ll be shooting wildlife.
Thank you for your input. Hmmm, now you're giving me pause on skirting around the 50-200/2.8 by trying to find alternatives; namely the 40-150/2.8 + 1.4TC. I love my 300/4 and don't know if I'll ever part with it, but having some flexibility with a quality zoom lens is very convenient at least for my skill level in getting that shot.
johnvanr wrote:
I didn’t use the 40-150 much, because while it’s a great lens, I tended to use the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 because it’s so much smaller.
Echo the feelings about the 35-100. Somehow it flies under the radar despite being so good. A gem, exactly how I imagine m43 lenses to be - small, light and yet having excellent IQ. Cherry on top, internal zoom too. I replaced my 40-150 f/4 pro with it. For smaller bodies like OM3/5 that lens is a perfect match.
jcl2k6 wrote:
Thank you for your input. Hmmm, now you're giving me pause on skirting around the 50-200/2.8 by trying to find alternatives; namely the 40-150/2.8 + 1.4TC. I love my 300/4 and don't know if I'll ever part with it, but having some flexibility with a quality zoom lens is very convenient at least for my skill level in getting that shot.
It depends a lot on what you want to do with these lenses. I liked the 40-150/2.8 when I wasn’t going to cities, but it’s just too large to carry around all day. The f/4 zooms have never appealed to me. The 50-200 takes the converters too.
Amol Thorat wrote:
Echo the feelings about the 35-100. Somehow it flies under the radar despite being so good. A gem, exactly how I imagine m43 lenses to be - small, light and yet having excellent IQ. Cherry on top, internal zoom too. I replaced my 40-150 f/4 pro with it. For smaller bodies like OM3/5 that lens is a perfect match.
It’s indeed a great MFT lens that’s easy to carry and provides a great reach for its small size. Actually never understood why Olympus didn’t make one.
I would have not sold my 300f4. What happened is that I lost it in the L.A. fire. I replaced it with the 150-400. However, even if I still had my 300f4 I would still have purchased the 50-200 because of its flexibility as a walk around lens when I want to shoot wildlife + semi-macro. I do carry a 2.0TC when I see wildlife and need the reach.
I live near the Los Angeles Arboretum. Some wildlife and lots of plants, flowers and bugs. The 50-200+1.4 is perfect.
johnvanr wrote:
It depends a lot on what you want to do with these lenses. I liked the 40-150/2.8 when I wasn’t going to cities, but it’s just too large to carry around all day. The f/4 zooms have never appealed to me. The 50-200 takes the converters too.
I plan to use it for outdoor landscape and some wildlife/macro images. Something along the lines from these fine photographers:
For birding specifically, I'll use the 300/4 + TC. Which I don't mind carrying for several hours if needed.
You mentioned that the 40-150/2.8 is too large to carry around all day. Is the 50-200/2.8 easier to carry or did you mean vs a different lens altogether. Sorry if I missed something.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I would have not sold my 300f4. What happened is that I lost it in the L.A. fire. I replaced it with the 150-400. However, even if I still had my 300f4 I would still have purchased the 50-200 because of its flexibility as a walk around lens when I want to shoot wildlife + semi-macro. I do carry a 2.0TC when I see wildlife and need the reach.
I live near the Los Angeles Arboretum. Some wildlife and lots of plants, flowers and bugs. The 50-200+1.4 is perfect.
Sorry to hear about your loss from the LA wildfires ... We have relatives in Northridge that were fortunately spared. I hope the recovery is moving along.
Thanks for sharing your Oly lens experience. Next time I'm in the LA area, I'll venture to the Arboretum and try my luck.
For birding specifically, I'll use the 300/4 + TC. Which I don't mind carrying for several hours if needed.
You mentioned that the 40-150/2.8 is too large to carry around all day. Is the 50-200/2.8 easier to carry or did you mean vs a different lens altogether. Sorry if I missed something.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I found the 40-150/2.8 too large to carry with me just walking around in a city or so. The 35-100/2.8 is better for that.
When I go for drives to places I’m not yet familiar with, previously I would take the 40-150/2.8 and sometimes also the 300/4. Now I can just take the 50-200mm plus 1.4x.
When I’m going out to a place where I know I’m going to shoot wildlife, I’d take the 150-400mm.
This would also apply if I were to fly somewhere, but I haven’t done that since getting the 50-200.
For me, the 40-150 is basically too long for what I’d use it for. Its alternative, for me, isn’t the 50-200, but the Panasonic 35-100.
johnvanr wrote:
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I found the 40-150/2.8 too large to carry with me just walking around in a city or so. The 35-100/2.8 is better for that.
When I go for drives to places I’m not yet familiar with, previously I would take the 40-150/2.8 and sometimes also the 300/4. Now I can just take the 50-200mm plus 1.4x.
When I’m going out to a place where I know I’m going to shoot wildlife, I’d take the 150-400mm.
This would also apply if I were to fly somewhere, but I haven’t done that since getting the 50-200.
For me, the 40-150 is basically too long for what I’d use it for. Its alternative, for me, isn’t the 50-200, but the Panasonic 35-100.
Would have liked to see more pictures from this lens, have seen some reviews, seems to be a very nice lens
40-150 f2.8 is a great lens that takes MC -14 and MC-20 well on subjects that are quite close .. at longer distances the quality drops a bit but then no IS which is a disadvantage that makes the 50-200
interesting but the question is as always is it worth the big price difference ?
50mm+ or 100mm with mc-20 .. then you have 10mm less on the lower end
clearly the 50-200mm is a replacement for the 40-150
but a replacement for the 300f4 pro I probably don't agree with that
more than that it is more usable than the 300f4 with the zoom
if you have both 40-150 and 300mm f4 even if you sell these used
then you should almost spend the same amount of money for a new one 50-200
which you get for 40-150 and 300f4 used
you can always discuss whether it's worth the money ? for some it is
also is 150-400 worth all this more money than 100-400 ?
I can't say I take better pictures or sharper with the 150-400 than I did with the 100-400 so
but there are other advantages
Better weather sealing
Internal Zoom
Built-in Tc
Brighter
better build quality
Sync IS (available on the Mark II 100.400)
if you talk about the value of the money then it is not that either
of course money is no problem so it doesn't matter
if you own a 40-150 you'll be fine with it
in my opinion one of olympus's best lenses even though it's starting to get old now.. was hoping there would be an updated version of this with built-in IS and full sync with the camera body, which won't happen now that 50-200 exist
but as I said it would have been nice to see more pictures
from us regular hobby photographers
Tom: can't you post some from it ?
Ronny
Some shot with 40-150 with and without MC no bird pictures but more semi macro
Olympus E-M1MarkIII M.40-150mm F2.8 + MC-20 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1MarkIII M.40-150mm F2.8 + MC-20 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
OM Digital Solutions OM-1 + OLYMPUS M.40-150mm F2.8 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1MarkIII+ Olympus M.ZUIKO 40-150/2.8 ED PRO + MC-20 Teleconverter 2x by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1MarkIII + OLYMPUS M.40-150mm F2.8 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
OM Digital Solutions OM-1 +M.40-150mm F2.8 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1MarkIII M.40-150mm F2.8 + MC-20 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1X + M.40-150mm F2.8 + MC-20 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1MarkIII M.40-150mm F2.8 + MC-14 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Olympus E-M1MarkIII M.40-150mm F2.8 + MC-20 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Some shot with 40-150 with and without MC no bird pictures but more semi macro
Hobbyest? That's an understatement. The images are absolutely stunning with that lens. It's difficult to know if the 50-200/2.8 would make your "hobby" more enjoyable
Those are great photo's and I think get to the heart of the question in this thread, will the lens help me take better pictures. My take on the photos you attached is no, I seriously doubt those photo's good be improved with the 50-200.
I don't dispute any of the pros and cons pointed out by others. Aside from possibly replacing the number of lenses one my need to carry, your photos are a great reminder that most of us have the lenses in our kit to take outstanding photos, we just need to get out shoot!
