Do I really need to upgrade? And which lens would benefit me more....

B0baFett

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
26
Location
Eastern Ohio
Hello, any suggestions would be helpful with this. I currently have the M. Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 R lens and was wondering if should upgrade to the pro version. I know other than build quality, weather sealing and number of f stops they are similar but are the images that much better in good daylight? I currently have an OMD Em1 mark II, 12-40mm f2.8 pro, the 40-150r, and the 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II lenses. I shoot a variety of things from landscapes, to my sons, to animals at the zoo.... I was also considering getting the 60mm macro instead and going down that rabbit hole. I am not interested in extension tubes though so please don't mention that. Thanks
 

scb

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
113
Location
North Ridgeville, OH
Real Name
Steve
The 40-150 Pro is an incredible lens and is great if you enjoy wildlife photography or frequently need that amount of range. I purchased it to replace the 75-300 mm lens that I've used for a long time. However, it is a larger heavier lens. When I purchased it, I sold my 40-150 f4-5.6 lens. That was a mistake as there are times when I don't want to carry the 12-40 Pro and 40-150 Pro such as when I'm with my wife and we are sight seeing or headed out somewhere where I don't want a heavy bag. So, I ended up purchasing a 40-150 f4-5.6 so I have it available. After all, it's a gem considering the price and the image quality it produces. But, my favorite area of photography is nature/wildlife, and I always have the 40-150 Pro and MC 2X converter with me. You can easily see the difference in images captured by the Pro model as they are much sharper and, of course, low light performance is better.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong having the 12-40 and 40-150 Pro lenses along with your E MI Mark II as a basic kit. Add either the 1.4 or 2X converter for the 40-150 and you have a lot of range. Then, depending on what you like to shoot, add less expensive prime lenses for added flexibility and fun. Unless you are an avid macro photographer, I would think purchasing the 40-150 Pro would be a logical next step if the budget allows AND if you currently use the 75-300 mm lens a lot. On the other hand, if you don't use it a lot, then heading down the road to macro or prime lenses may make more sense. It's hard to go wrong with the 17, 25 or 45 mm f/1.8 prime lenses or either of the macro lenses.

The 60mm macro lens is incredible, and I've gotten some great shots with it. Recently, I picked up a used 30 mm macro, and I find that lens easier to use and it can be more fun than the 60 mm macro. They both have their advantages, but the 30 mm macro can be purchased for such a low price that it may be an attractive option. But the 60 mm is definitely better for shooting smaller insects and bees as you don't have to get as close to the subject as you do with the 30 mm macro.

I'm at the point where I find that I enjoy having the ability to pack a bag according to what I want to do. For my nature hikes, I use a backpack and carry two bodies along with the two Pro lenses (12-40, 40-150) and a macro lens along with a monopod. But for other occasions, I prefer to travel light with one body, the 12-40 Pro, the budget 40-150 and a prime lens or two. I've got some prime lenses that I haven't really taken advantage of, and I hope to do more with them in the coming months. It's taken some time, but it's nice to have an assortment of lenses. I've had great luck purchasing used gear, and it made it possible for me to purchase the costlier Pro lenses!
 
Last edited:

scb

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
113
Location
North Ridgeville, OH
Real Name
Steve
I haven't used the MC 20 enough to say that much about it nor have I ever used the 300m lens which has an outstanding reputation. I've thought about the 300mm lens, but I think I would find it very limiting for what I do as I like to take photos of just about anything. If I were only interested in bird photography, I could see where the 300mm lens would work.

There is considerable discussion about the two converters for the 40-150 Pro with some preferring the 1.4 converter. What I have found is that the sharpness of the 40-150 lens makes it possible to crop images quite a bit and still have a great image for normal viewing/printing purposes (up to 13" X 19"). I need to spend more time practicing with the converter attached to the 40-150 and learn what I can do with it, especially if handheld or on a monopod (I'm not a fan of hiking around with a tripod!).

You also have the option of getting the Panasonic 100-400 f/4-6.3 lens which is a very good lens. A friend of mine has it and it's a very capable lens.
 

B0baFett

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
26
Location
Eastern Ohio
Thanks for the helpful advice. I think I'm going to go with the 40-150 pro lens and I completely forgot about those teleconverters working with it so I might just sell my 75-300mm to help offset the costs of the lens and a teleconverter. I love the weather sealing on the Olympus gear and that was the main reason I went with their system over other camera companies. Like you mentioned I might keep the regular 40-150 for weight savings but we'll see. I will eventually get that 60mm macro since it has the weather sealing over the 30mm but that's down the road. For right now I'm going to concentrate on the 40-150 pro then get the teleconverter. Thanks again.
 

scb

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
113
Location
North Ridgeville, OH
Real Name
Steve
Thanks for the helpful advice. I think I'm going to go with the 40-150 pro lens and I completely forgot about those teleconverters working with it so I might just sell my 75-300mm to help offset the costs of the lens and a teleconverter. I love the weather sealing on the Olympus gear and that was the main reason I went with their system over other camera companies. Like you mentioned I might keep the regular 40-150 for weight savings but we'll see. I will eventually get that 60mm macro since it has the weather sealing over the 30mm but that's down the road. For right now I'm going to concentrate on the 40-150 pro then get the teleconverter. Thanks again.

You are so welcome! And, I'd agree to keep the budget 40-150 as you can't really sell it for that much money. I think you've got a good plan. You may want to check prices at KEH.com as they have a 180 day warranty and you can save quite a bit compared to buying new. Good luck!
 

emudojo

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 30, 2020
Messages
79
I haven't used the MC 20 enough to say that much about it nor have I ever used the 300m lens which has an outstanding reputation. I've thought about the 300mm lens, but I think I would find it very limiting for what I do as I like to take photos of just about anything. If I were only interested in bird photography, I could see where the 300mm lens would work.

There is considerable discussion about the two converters for the 40-150 Pro with some preferring the 1.4 converter. What I have found is that the sharpness of the 40-150 lens makes it possible to crop images quite a bit and still have a great image for normal viewing/printing purposes (up to 13" X 19"). I need to spend more time practicing with the converter attached to the 40-150 and learn what I can do with it, especially if handheld or on a monopod (I'm not a fan of hiking around with a tripod!).

You also have the option of getting the Panasonic 100-400 f/4-6.3 lens which is a very good lens. A friend of mine has it and it's a very capable lens.
Panasonic 100-400 is a tempting option as used is relatively cheaper than the 40-150 2.8 and the 100-400 5.6 (from olympus) and is weather sealed (and I believe smaller and lighter than both)
 

Photon

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
84
I have the M. Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 and recently purchased a used 40-150 f2.8 pro. Below are some of my impressions.
  • The pro is a much larger lens. It is smaller than a 70-200mm f2.8 full frame lens, but it is large. However, the build quality is fantastic.
  • The pro lens is better optically. I could get good results with the 40-150mm f4.0-5.6, but i think the difference is noticable. I think my 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 suffered from some chromatic aberrations wide open at 150mm (where I typically used it). Nothing that could not be solved with some post processing. And, of course the pro lens is a couple of stops faster at the long end (not a big deal to me for a walk-around lens).
  • As mentioned before, the pro lens can use the teleconverters, which can make the lens quite versatile.
For a walk-around or zoo lens I would probably stick with the 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 unless I really wanted the best image quality. Below are some pictures I took with the 40-150mm f4.0-5.6.

Output-1170537.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Output-220035.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Output-220061.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I purchased the 40-150 pro because I found a like-new copy for a fantastic price ($600) and my daughter will be starting sports soon (so f2.8 will be helpful).

The 60mm is a fun lens, but it is best used as a dedicated macro lens. I personally would not use it as a walk around lens (focus is a bit slow), but others may have a different opinion. However, if you want to get into macro photography it is a fantastic option (note: it will take some practice). Below are some sample pictures I like.

IMG_20210216_013326_317.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Output-041485.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Output-9201253.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Hope this helps a bit with your decision making process.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
960
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
Great answers here and not much to add. I'd also keep the 40-150mm cheapo lens. It's great to have such a lens when you want to go out with a small light kit in good light, or even for traveling. That lens might fetch you 60-80€?, so not really a big deal.

60mm macro is the best for small insects, and I mostly use it with a flash. I got Olympus 30mm for 140 € new, and it's really nice and fun lens to use in walks, very small too. But very hard to use and get quality shots with small insects which move, because the lens will block all the light when so close.

But I like to have both, as I can have one camera always with my macro setup on, and I can take this small lens easily with me.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,106
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I know other than build quality, weather sealing and number of f stops they are similar but are the images that much better in good daylight?

Lots of great answers above. I will just add that when you are not talking about the times you need to stretch the abilities of a lens (e.g. when you don't need the Pro features), many of the so called "kit" lenses produce images that you would be hard pressed to pick out which one is which compared to a PRO lens image in a side by side comparison. I am talking about daytime, great light, base ISO, fast shutters, apertures of f4-5.6, & normal distances kind of things. However once you need faster aperture for better DoF control or faster shutter speed, closer up shots where the image quality will be most important, and of course weather turns bad, that is when the "kit" lenses show their weaknesses.

As others have mentioned, the "R" is so cheap and handy there is really no reason to try and sell it even if it only gets pulled out a couple times a year. I don't have the m43 PRO version but instead still use my old 4/3rds 50-200 which is also a bigger, heavier, weather sealed, pricier, better aperture, and nicer image IQ, but other than day outings it is not something I want to drag along on holiday usually. So the "R" fits the bill there since it is small and super light and the IQ is very good when conditions are good.


I am not interested in extension tubes though so please don't mention that.

Don't tell me what to do! "extension tubes" ;)
 

Bushboy

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
1,626
Extension tubes .... 😁
Years ago they were very popular for allowing the telephoto to focus a bit closer.
The cheap tele zooms I have, surprisingly focus so close, not needed anymore! 😁

Anyway, back to the subject. I would not do it. The size difference just not for me. The depth of field my kit lens at 150mm f5.6, is almost always insufficient, so even if I had f2.8, I probably wouldn’t go there...
I have instead, a big flash, which allows almost any shutter speed. A truly useful thing. I just have to, learn to use it... 😂
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,234
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The 40-150/2.8 has great optics, but it comes at a cost of bulk, weight and $$$$.
Personally, my primary reason for getting it was the f/2.8 max aperture, for night sports.
During the day, I am happy to use the 40-150R and 75-300. They are smaller and lighter to carry.

Selling the 40-150R will not get you much $$ back, so as was said, I would keep it.
Then in use, I would look at the shoot, then determine which lens to use.
 

JensM

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
933
Location
Oslo(ish), Norway
Real Name
As screename
As others have mentioned, the 40-150 Pro is a rather large beast and ready to go with shade, tripod foot and 1.4X weight in at 990 grams, I never bothered to carry mine for any other situation than knowing I would use it. I sold it off to get the P-L 50-200 instead and are much happier with that. Running the kit quality one and the pro would be a possibility, if you shoot enough to "warrant" the pro one.

I will do just that for a while, running the panasonic 45-140 which came as a freebie, when I bought a second hand GX9, had plans to offload that as I have the 35-100, but the 45-140 is just a tad larger but in the tiny segment, so I will horse around with it for a while.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,106
Location
Massachusetts, USA
The depth of field my kit lens at 150mm f5.6, is almost always insufficient, so even if I had f2.8, I probably wouldn’t go there...

:confused-53: DoF is insufficient in that you mean it isn't shallow enough? To me insufficient DoF would mean not enough Depth of Field which may be the opposite of what yahoo meant, hence my confusion.


Selling the 40-150R will not get you much $$ back, so as was said, I would keep it.

I paid $99 for mine brand new from Amazon. To put it in perspective, I could buy a case of "R"s and every time my family suggests I take them out for dinner, I could say no, grab one out of the case and chuck it into the woods and I would still have saved money! :p
 

mawz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
156
The R is a great bag lens, like the Panny 25/1.7, it's surprisingly good and cheap enough that it can live in your bag/car for emergencies and you aren't out anything. I recommend pretty much every m43 user own both these lenses even if they don't use them often (along with the kit 14-42 EZ or 12-32 zoom)

The Pro however is a definite upgrade over the R. Faster AF, sealing, better IQ and f2.8 if needed. If you use the R a lot and can live with the size increase, the Pro is a no-brainer.


Olympus has had a need for something in between the two for a LONG time. Hopefully that's coming in the next year or two as they build out their f4 lens line. But if buying now you pretty much have a choice between getting the PL 50-200 or the Pro as an upgrade, and the PL doesn't support a lot of the advanced body features on the higher-end Oly's.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
69
As others have mentioned, the 40-150 Pro is a rather large beast and ready to go with shade, tripod foot and 1.4X weight in at 990 grams, I never bothered to carry mine for any other situation than knowing I would use it.

I have the 40-150 pro on my dream list, for eventually.

But what you describe - the large beast - sounds comical to me coming from using the Nikon full frame equivalent, at 1.5 kg before anything, i.e. twice the Oly's weight. I guess I should sell the Nikon one I have, but it's reliable and a known quantity.

Now THAT is a lens that I do not take out lightly - pun intended. Every time I do, I'm impressed with the images - just gorgeous - but I really have to know I'm going to use it. (And multiply that by wanting better / heavier support and straps, etc.)

Come to think of it I could probably just use the 85/1.8 for the Nikon and crop and come out well ahead, and with better posture to boot. The Oly equivalent is just a normal sized lens on the Nikon full-frame side.

I guess there are some things I need to adjust to with the Oly system. Right now afraid I'll get TOO used to light and compact equipment.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,234
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I have the 40-150 pro on my dream list, for eventually.

But what you describe - the large beast - sounds comical to me coming from using the Nikon full frame equivalent, at 1.5 kg before anything, i.e. twice the Oly's weight. I guess I should sell the Nikon one I have, but it's reliable and a known quantity.

Now THAT is a lens that I do not take out lightly - pun intended. Every time I do, I'm impressed with the images - just gorgeous - but I really have to know I'm going to use it. (And multiply that by wanting better / heavier support and straps, etc.)

Come to think of it I could probably just use the 85/1.8 for the Nikon and crop and come out well ahead, and with better posture to boot. The Oly equivalent is just a normal sized lens on the Nikon full-frame side.

I guess there are some things I need to adjust to with the Oly system. Right now afraid I'll get TOO used to light and compact equipment.

Think of it like the back in the film days.
The GP camera was the 35mm RF or SLR.
The high IQ camera was a MF or LF camera.
Which one you use depends on the requirements.

So you have both m4/3 and FX.
Which camera/lens you use for the shoot depends on the shoot.
If I need high rez, like for a 600 student class pic, I would grab the D850 or Z7.
If I'm going on a 2 week vacation, I will take the EM1 + P-Lumix 12-60. It is about 45% lighter than my D7200 + 18-140.
If I"m going to shoot softball/baseball, I will take the EM1 + 12-100 + 75-300. Much lighter than a dSLR + 24-120 + 150-600
 

JensM

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
933
Location
Oslo(ish), Norway
Real Name
As screename
I have the 40-150 pro on my dream list, for eventually.

But what you describe - the large beast - sounds comical to me coming from using the Nikon full frame equivalent, at 1.5 kg before anything, i.e. twice the Oly's weight. I guess I should sell the Nikon one I have, but it's reliable and a known quantity.

It was what I thought somewhat as well, I had dabbed with my Canon 50D and some large pieces of glass that I inherited from my father and concluded that it was better sold off for something more portable. Cant recall what it was but it was a f:2.8 on some sort of a longish normal zoom, if I recall correctly. I think the entire thing with house and lens came in at 2 kilos, a tad over 4 pounds, and not something I cared to carry around, found much the same notion with the Oly combined with the GX8, to much hassle to carry around on a whim or the possibility of it seeing use. Cant really call it pocketability, but perhaps it has something to do with perceived "handiness" or some such notion.

Anyhow, I gladly carry the G9 and the PL50-200 for the possibility of use at about 1300 grams on the same PD strap I used on the GX8/Oly combo, so there are some oddities going on. Cant really explain it better than that. :drinks:
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
69
Which one you use depends on the requirements.

So you have both m4/3 and FX.
Which camera/lens you use for the shoot depends on the shoot.
If I need high rez, like for a 600 student class pic, I would grab the D850 or Z7.
If I'm going on a 2 week vacation, I will take the EM1 + P-Lumix 12-60. It is about 45% lighter than my D7200 + 18-140.
If I"m going to shoot softball/baseball, I will take the EM1 + 12-100 + 75-300. Much lighter than a dSLR + 24-120 + 150-600

Yes, you're right, it's definitely 'horses for courses.' What I really meant was that the rough-equivalent f2.8 telephoto zooms in Nikon full-frame land are a beast. I like the lens, but I really do not take it with me unless I really know that I will need it. And sometimes that choice is painful, in that there are circumstances where I'd like to use it, but given the weight trade-off, it has to be need.

The Oly 40-150 pro is a size/weight that I think would let me take it more frequently, and hence use it. And that does make a difference in how much use/enjoyment one gets out of equipment.

Smaller/lighter is the main reason I use M43 at all; love the Nikon fullframe kit and images but the size/convenience is an issue. For some travel especially I don't / can't take that one extra lens 'just in case' or just for fun.
 

Latest posts

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom