Any reason to wait for 40-150/2.8 MFT rather than 50-200/variable FT?

lightmonkey

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
479
havent seen a scaled side-by-side size comparison... but im guessing theyre approx the same dimension and weight as each other?

aperture is a push. this will be used outside in daylight or mounted.

50-200 is splash and dust proof.



seems like a used 50-200 SWD would be a bargain buy for telephoto performance?
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
One reason to wait is that the only Micro 4/3 cameras that the 50-200 lens will focus well on are the ones with on sensor PDAF. And even then, the native lens will probably focus faster, as Olympus has gotten better at fast AF in the last 5 years. And since this is likely a lens to shoot action, AF speed will matter.
 

lightmonkey

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
479
btw will be used on EM1 (PDAF) ... and not overly concerned with focus speed since it wont be used for birding , pro work wildlife or sports.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,308
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
The 50-200 works very well on the E-M1 especially with the 1.4 firmware. The only thing I wish it had was a focus limiter.

Shooting sports with the 50-200 is perfectly viable. It really doesn't have the reach for birding without a TC and it is really limited to the EC14 (you can get good success with the EC20 but the subject better be stationary and have good light).

I don't see the 40-150 as a replacement for the 50-200 personally.

50-200+EC14 shooting Lacrosse:

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


The sports lens in the 4/3 lineup is the 150f2 -

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

lightmonkey

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
479
i think mostly im concerned with weight and volume. would like for it to fit in a slot of the retrospective 7 which i think it should easily
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,308
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
i think mostly im concerned with weight and volume. would like for it to fit in a slot of the retrospective 7 which i think it should easily
This is all speculation but the 40-150 and 50-200 look like they are going to be fairly similar in size. Personally I think the size winner will be the 35-100. But if you need the reach I think the 50-200 is going to be a winner.
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,368
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
This is all speculation but the 40-150 and 50-200 look like they are going to be fairly similar in size.
When retracted, that's probably true. But the 50-200 nearly doubles in length at the long end, whereas the 40-150 has an internal zoom mechanism and doesn't change length at all.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,308
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
When retracted, that's probably true. But the 50-200 nearly doubles in length at the long end, whereas the 40-150 has an internal zoom mechanism and doesn't change length at all.
Yes for sure. Other than imbalance on a gimbal I've never had an issue with the zoom extension. The internal zoom will be more weatherproof though. But for more than 3x the used price and less reach, the 40-150 will have to be optically fantastic. I paid less recently for a 150 f2.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom