Anyone with a m.Zuiko 40-150?

luguidomanski

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Curitiba, Brazil
Real Name
Luiz
I am willing to buy this lens as a Christmas gift for... myself. But I didn't find any review around. Since I like the 14-42, I am not willing to pay USD600,00 for a 14-150, but USD300 for a 40-150 seems reasonable.

Any thoughts and/or experience with this lens? Comments would be welcome.

Luiz
 

drpump

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
159
Don't buy it, buy the Panasonic 45-200mm instead, it's much better
Depends what you want. The Panasonic is double the weight (380g vs 190g) and significantly larger. Since no-one has reviewed the new Olympus in depth, it's hard to say that the Panasonic is better.

and cheaper
$260 vs $300 (Adorama). My guess is that they will reach parity once stock of the Olympus is readily available.

Note for the original poster, I not sure that the M.Zuiko 40-150 is available yet, hence no reviews. Adorama have it listed as "back ordered" with no estimated availability date.
 

luguidomanski

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Curitiba, Brazil
Real Name
Luiz
Depends what you want. The Panasonic is double the weight (380g vs 190g) and significantly larger. Since no-one has reviewed the new Olympus in depth, it's hard to say that the Panasonic is better.
Portability is essential for me. 380 grams is way too much.


Note for the original poster, I not sure that the M.Zuiko 40-150 is available yet, hence no reviews. Adorama have it listed as "back ordered" with no estimated availability date.
They are available at B&H.
 

playak47

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
297
i would love to see reviews on the m.zuiko 40-150 because its good price. I wonder how new it is?
 

drpump

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
159
Portability is essential for me. 380 grams is way too much.
Ditto, although I bought the 14-150mm in a kit with an E-PL1 because I wanted the versatility (it's 280g and quite compact). I'm expecting the 40-150 to be better at the long end, but mine is still quite decent. Exposure (light) is likely to be more of an issue than lens quality for me.
 

starlabs

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
856
Location
Los Angeles
It's available. If you search through the m43 forum on dpreview.com, I saw one or two threads from new owner(s) discussing it.
 

drpump

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
159
besides the price...which would you prefer more? 14-150mm or 40-150mm?
I haven't tried the 40-150mm, but for my purposes (travel and video lens), the 14-150mm makes a lot more sense. I bought a 20mm Panasonic as the walkaround lens, with the 14-150mm as a backup when I need some flexibility in focal length.

I've been pretty impressed with the image quality of the 14-150mm, although I find the zoom control a bit stiff for video (although they say you shouldn't zoom while filming).

Note regarding price that I bought the 14-150mm in a kit with an E-PL1. It was about AUD$250 more than a twin kit (14-42 and the old four-thirds 40-150mm). I wasn't especially impressed with the small kit lens and thought this option was better value.
 

playak47

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
297
Is it safe to get rid of my 14-42 kit lens if i get the 14-140mm? How is quality of the two lens at 14-42 range compared to each other?
 

drpump

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
159
Is it safe to get rid of my 14-42 kit lens if i get the 14-140mm?
Probably (I assume you mean the 14-150mm). The 14-150 is only slightly longer than the uncollapsed 14-42, but it doesn't collapse. So putting the camera in a pocket, even a large one, is impractical with the lens attached. Since I'm using a 20mm Panasonic as the primary lens and carry the 14-150 in a bag, I'm not concerned about this.

How is quality of the two lens at 14-42 range compared to each other?
I don't have the 14-42mm. The reviews I've read suggest that the 14-150mm is a little softer at the wide end but is otherwise as good or better than the kit lens. It should focus faster (making it better for video). Probably worth your while to read a few reviews: I'm working from memory.
 

starlabs

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
856
Location
Los Angeles
Alright, I finally have more time and luckily I knew I bookmarked the thread discussing the 40-150.

Zuiko-M 40-150mm f4-5.6 Very Nice!: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Re: buying olympus epl1 is the 40-150 worth the extra $200?: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Looks like a pretty solid lens. For me personally I think I might have to save up for the 14-150. I've found that changing lens "in the field" is a major hassle for me. Dunno... still haven't fully decided myself :rofl:
 

playak47

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
297
The price difference between those two lens is only $180 now in US. Seems like these lens prices are going down. So 14-150mm might be better choice overall if the image quality is the same.
 

Spuff

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
651
Location
Berkshire, UK.
Don't buy it, buy the Panasonic 45-200mm instead, it's much better:
Is it?
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Re: M.Zuiko 40-150 Tested (against 45-200): Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Some lucky blighters in the US got the 40-150 for $109 due to what I think was a mistake on the Staples site.
 

FlyPenFly

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
448
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


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


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


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

Mellow

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,122
Location
Florida or Idaho
Real Name
Tom
Just got it (I was one of those blighters!) and ran some tests against my old 4/3 40-150mm, which is a very good lens. Bottom line: just as good as the 4/3 version, but lighter, smaller, and cheaper! It's really amazing how tiny this thing is considering it has a reach equivalent to 300mm on FF.

The post above says all you need to know about performance relative to the Panasonic 45-200mm. If you go to the original link you'll see that the Olympus upsampled 133% even beats the Panny at 200mm; pretty darn impressive.

One negative: the lens doesn't come with a lens hood, like the original 4/3 version did. The 4/3 version fits perfectly though, and that's how I tested it.
 

Kosta

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Australia
it's not very prone to flare imo so I'm not sure it needs a hood...the performance is very good though. very light weight and portable. doesn't unbalance the camera.
 

stratokaster

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,502
Location
Dublin, IE
Real Name
Pavel
Spuff, thank you for posting these samples. It seems optically Oly lens is a good deal better than Panny 45-200. It's also twice as small and light. Hmmm. I'd say even for a Panny shooter like myself the lens is very tempting, considering the price. Of course, one could miss IS, but on the other hand - IS doesn't compensate for subject movement, so it's better to keep shutter speed high nevertheless.
 
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