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


Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2013
New Hampshire
Real Name
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.
I am wondering what features the PL 50-200 doesn't support. I've been looking at the lens, since I have the PL 8-18 and the PL 12-60 and they are just about my favorite lenses.


Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Jun 20, 2015
Massachusetts, USA
I am wondering what features the PL 50-200 doesn't support. I've been looking at the lens, since I have the PL 8-18 and the PL 12-60 and they are just about my favorite lenses.

I would assume he is referencing such things as Sync IS and an extra programmable Fn button.


Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Apr 24, 2018
SF Bay Area, California, USA
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.

Totally agree.
A FF equiv to the 40-150/2.8 would be a 80-300/2.8.
A 300/2.8 prime is a BIG HEAVY lens. A zoom would be even more so.

In fact I was watching someone shoot a lacrosse game, and he had his FF 300/2.8 kit on a monopod, because of the weight.
I generally prefer the flexibility and larger arc of coverage of free-hand shooting

So as the pros are lugging their big heavy FF gear, I am smiling with my lighter kit.

In the case of the 75-300 vs 40-150/2.8, which one to use is a matter of decision.
  • The 75-300 gives me more reach and is lighter. The lighter weight is the reason it is my choice for shooting baseball and softball, where I am doing a LOT of walking. I usually go 1-1/2 times around the outside of the field. And the walk up to the BB field is about as long as a walk around the field.

  • But the IQ of the 40-150/2.8 at f/2.8 is absolutely surprising, to me.
    I was shooting at a graduation event last week, and from the top of the bleachers shooting across the football field, I could resolve the eyes of the performer. 😮

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

I admit that not all the images were that good. But it does show what is possible, when things align.​
It was a combo of the IQ of the lens and the camera being able to focus on a small subject. I think the AF point covered her from head to waist.​
The major decision factor was that this was a night event. So while I may have used the 75-300 during the day, at night it was just too SLOW. I was shooting the 40-150 wide open at f/2.8. Old saying, "in LOW light, FAST glass wins."​
  • I do not have the 100-400, so I cannot comment on it.
    But I am looking at it or a MC20 for my 40-150/2.8.

Latest threads

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:
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY:
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom