45mm + 75mm in comparison to 40-150mm f/2.8

[abhisheks77]

Hello,
I am currently using 12-40mm. Do you guys think that 45mm+75mm combo will be better serve than 40-150mm f/2.8 ? Zoom is definitely a plus, but if we crop image from 75mm, can it be equivalent of 100mm on 40-150mm ? On other side, extra stop on prime is a plus. I am asking in regard to IQ, bokeh and sharpness.
What are your thoughts ?
Thanks

 

[EarthQuake]

Virtually nobody has the 40-150/2.8 yet so its a near impossible question to answer at this point. The 75mm is certainly sharp enough to crop down to 100mm equivalent and get a nice medium sized print, and probably down to 150mm equiv and get a small print or web sized image. So it depends on your use really.

The real question is one that only you can answer, can you live with swapping primes or do you need the connivence of a zoom?

 

[Replytoken]

Not if you need to shoot long and print large, which I tend to do. I have the 75, but it is no substitute for a 150mm lens, as I normally consider cropping as a last resort. If you go that route, why not find a used 40-150 kit lens?

--Ken

 

[David A]

What Ken said, with caveats. I use the current 40-150 for bird photography but it's slower than I want, especially at the long end. I've used the 75 but I have to crop with it since I usually shoot at 150mm with the zoom. I've got a couple of good bird shots with the 75 but they're all cropped, cropped severely actually, and I even find myself cropping with the 40-150 occasionally.

There's a trade off with what I use the 40-150 for and using the 75 for the same thing. I can give up lens speed and push ISO setting higher with the 40-150 and still sometimes end up cropping or I can use the 75 and crop every time, sometimes severely, and still sometimes run into trouble with high ISO settings when the birds are moving and in shadow. If I could always get what I wanted without cropping with the 150, preferably at 100mm or less, I might just be prepared to replace it with the 75 mm al the time but I can't always get what I want without cropping and without having to go to 150mm most of the time,

If all that counts is IQ, bokeh and sharpness, and I was not worried about anything else at all, especially reach and cropping, then I'd say I'd be using the 40-150 at less than 100mm, and probably at 80mm or less, nearly all of the time. Under those conditions I'd stick with my 75 and I wouldn't consider the new 40-150. If you need more reach and you can do without the extra stop and a bit of speed, I'd be seriously considering the new 40-150 based on the shots I've seen so far and the comments of those who have used it.

 

[mattia]

Depends on what you want to do with the images. I already find 150 fairly short for what I do with this type of telephoto range (wildlife), and 16 mp does not provide me with huge latitude in terms of cropping.

They're very different beasts. Back in canon land I had a 135/2.0, a 70-200/2.8 IS and a 100-400L. The 135 got by far the most use for people shots and non wildlife telephoto shooting, because of the way it rendered - a form favorite lens. The 70-200 for almost no play and was the first lens to be sold due to size and not enough extra reach, and the 100-400 was glued to the camera whenever wildlife came into he picture.

 

[vbi]

Different horses for different courses.

When you know what you will be shooting and what to expect in terms of distance, background, DOF then the 45 and the 75 are superb.

When you are out and about and taking pictures of whatever catches your eye in windy or rainy conditions the 40-150 gives you versatility and no need to swap lenses, thereby keeping dust off the sensor. It can also mean the difference between getting the shot or losing it because you were busy swapping lenses at the critical moment.

And cropping a 75 will never give the same IQ as a 150.

 

[abhisheks77]

I usually do not go for wildlife in a big park, if I need to take their pictures, it will be mostly zoo. For portraits, I am just a hobbyist so I am not doing it for my earning. That means, I do not need super tele-zoom. I think 100mm should be ok for me.
I thought of picking 35-100mm initially, but later started comparing it with 45+75mm. Can it be a wise comparison ?

 

[Dayam]

Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm F2.8 PRO Lens Review by Robin Wong

http://robinwong.blogspot.sg/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens.html

It looks SHARP!

 

[vbi]

The thing with most animals, including those in the zoo, is that you can never move closer or further away and that makes a zoom more versatile. Secondly, usually you will need a significant zoom if you want to fill the frame, and that will probably require more than 75mm focal length.

 

[broody]

As others have said, the 40-150mm will be the best choice for shooting wildlife, by far.

However, I _think_ (this is highly subjective from looking at just a few preview images) that the primes offer better bokeh; hence they may still be preferrable in situations where you can sacrifice the great versatility of the zoom (portraits mostly).

It's up to your needs. Personally, am not interested in the 40-150mm, but I've been eyeing the 75mm for a while.

 

[benjimouse]

Maybe its his website's jpg compression, but Robin's shots aren't as sharp as I get from my 75mm at it's best.

 

[Edmunds]

At this focal range (around 75mm), I find zooms to be more useful than primes. When using primes, more often than not, I find myself I am either too close or too far away. Unlike with wider primes, this cannot be fixed by just taking a step back or forward, and with the 75mm the field of view is often simply too narrow. At the same time, when you want to take a picture of something far away, the 75mm doesn't really get you very close at all.

If you are looking at the 40-150mm f/2.8, I recommend also looking at the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. I personally think that the 45mm is often too narrow, and the 35-45mm range is extremely useful.

If you are taking shots of fixed subjects, you will know where you need to be, and this is of course no longer an issue.

 

[sammykhalifa]

At this focal range (around 75mm), I find zooms to be more useful than primes. When using primes, more often than not, I find myself I am either too close or too far away.

Very true. The people who say to "Zoom with your feet" probably aren't taking pictures of bears.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

Heck, if you want that kind of reach and fast glass is not an issue - look more toward the Oly 75-300(which I have and love) or the Panny 100-300. I also have the 40-150/4-5.6 and it is a great lens for the money, nice and light....but there is no substitute for a good full resolution optically rendered image. The 75-300 is slightly bigger and heavier than the 40-150/4-5.6, but not by much.

If you need fast and want to have the best subject isolation you can get from m43 - then the primes are the best option to go with.

 

[m43happy]

I think the 75 serves a different purposes with it's faster aperture. I love it as a portrait lens in blurring out the background in portrait situations, as well as in situations where light is limited. I was on a shoot using a rented Panasonic 35-100mm, which worked great until daylight started creeping in and having the option to switch to a lens with more light gathering capability was very useful. Like the 35-100, the 40-150 f/2.8 serves a completely different purposes than the 75 with it's zoom range. Can't wait to own both.