1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

E-M5 vs. E-M1 & 50-200mm vs. 40-150mm

Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by MAubrey, Oct 10, 2013.

  1. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    So I have an Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD already. It's beautiful. ButI only use it for manual focusing.

    So you would think I'd be a solid candidate for getting an E-M1. And its true. I am. I'd also love to have 1/8000 SS, too. And C-AF track would be really nice for once. But I don't have the funds for a $1400 body right now. I just moved from Vancouver to Chicago, there are too many other issues right now.

    But I would love to have a fast telephoto that focuses well for my camera. So...maybe I could sell the 50-200mm and wait for the 40-150mm f/2.8. I loose out on tracking and 1/8000th SS, but I cover the majority of the cost of the new lens, while also gaining useable AF. I don't know...

    Thoughts? Advice?
     
  2. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    I'd wait for the 40-150, then maybe sell the 50-200. It's hard to recommend swapping a lens you have for one that doesn't exist.

    Be patient.

    Fred
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    The 40-150 is not a replacement for the 50-200. Yes it is marginally faster by about 100 or so, but it loses 50mm of reach and more importantly can't be used with the 1.4 or 2 TC.

    The 12-40 and 40-150 are too short and too inflexible to replace the 12-60/50-200 + TCs. If they bring out a TC for m43 then I think both the native lenses will be great choices, until then the 12-60 and 50-200 are the best choices.

    The interesting thing is the 12-40, 14-54 and 12-60 are all the same relative size. If you do the math on the lines the 54 measures 1.34x the 40 which is the ratio of their reach and the 60 measures 1.50x the 40 which is also the ratio of their reach (ironically including the MMF-3 adapter).
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  4. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Thanks, Fred. That's what I was hoping to hear.

    I don't really use long telephotos in the winter anyway. Minimally I'm waiting to see length & weight specs. If I like what I see I'll probably go for it sight unseen. I trust Olympus to make a high quality, sharp professional lens. They have a solid track record in the regard--particularly for telephotos.

    Larry, that's true about reach. And maybe the 12-40/40-150 are too inflexible replace the 12-60/50-200, but I honestly don't care about replacing the set. I'm only interested in replacing the telephoto one. Yes there is a big difference between 150mm & 200mm. But I don't really have much need to shoot beyond 150mm. There was a time when I thought I did, but when I look through my photo library, I see rather clearly that its not the case. The frustrating thing about the size of the 12-60mm is that its larger than a 24-120mm for FF, even though it has less glass. In fact, with MMF-3, its gets worse. All the while have a large minimum DOF. That's not appealing at all to me. For the normal-ish range. I'm only interested in primes. But beyond that, nothing you're said solves the problem of slow focusing for me...
     
  5. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    I'm in a similar bind with respect to the 12-40/2.8 and 12-60/2.8-4.0 as well as the 50-200/2.8-3.5. Long term, I think I'd be better off with the E-M5 and the native lenses, but there's no question that the E-M1 and 4/3 lenses gives better reach and will be less expensive. Plus, it looks like I was wrong and 4/3 lens prices have not recovered at all, so I'd have a very hard time selling my current lenses. It's a conundrum.
     
  6. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    It's still early. Most people haven't gotten their E-M1's in hand yet. Prices might still improve a bit...maybe?
     
  7. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    Fast glass with good light gathering is never small:

    24-120 f4 Nikon - 103mm x 84mm

    12-60 f2.8-4 Oly - 79.5 x 98.5 mm

    I dunno I'd call that a wash (and the Nikon is not sealed). But no the 12-60 is not small. My point was none of these are any different in size. The 12-40 which is native is proportionately the same size.

    For me the 200 is too short. Ideally I want 1000mm FF equivalent. I have been toying around with the idea of getting the 300 f2.8 but I just can't justify it. I may pick up a 500 FD and live with manual focus now that I have focus peaking.

    The E-M1 will solve the focus speed issues with the 50-200. I won't say guaranteed but I am pretty confident. Birds in flight is easy with the E-M1 50-200 combo.

    I was in the same boat as you. I really wanted to keep the E-M5 and use it with a good long-ish tele lens. The E-M1 works great with the 50-200 and is actually smaller than the E-M5 with the horizontal grip. And yes the fully native solution - may - focus faster than the 50-200 but only time will tell.
     
  8. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
  9. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    em1-zoom-lens-comparison_zpsdacb9e6b.

    Someone is thinking the way I did. At roughly the same aperture it is uncanny how well the ratios work out.

    The winner is still the 14-54ii.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    The comparison to the Nikon 24-120 was about DOF...which would be like a 12-60mm constant f/2 in depth of field. The size of the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 isn't appealing at all. It just isn't fast enough. Like I said, I shoot primes at that range. The 40-150mm f/2.8, along with the Voigtlander 17.5mm and 42.5mm f/.95's would be a very comfortable kit for me.

    Beyond that, I can't argue with your preferences/wants/needs. I have no idea what I'd shoot at 500mm (1000mm-e) with μ43. I rarely use 200mm. I've shot 15 photos at 200mm thus far in 2013. Last year I shot just over 50. And most of those with close-up shots.

    We'll see what happens. Maybe I'll have the money for an E-M1 in six months. But if not, then selling the 50-200mm is a good way to be able to afford the 40-150mm.

    I do appreciate all the info you've give. A lot to think through.
     
  11. I have two lenses remaining from the Four Thirds gear I once owned: The 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 non-SWD, and the Panasonic Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5. I guess I held onto them in hope of using them properly once again on a Micro 4/3 camera. The 50-200mm would obviously get a new lease of life from the PDAF in the E-M1, but I just don't know how much use I'd get out of that monster. The 14-50mm is still a wonderful lens that I've still used from time to time despite the awful AF, but the best E-M1 deals I have found are the kits with the new 12-40mm f2.8. At the moment I'm not so sure if the new-found support of Four Thirds lenses by the E-M1 is quite going to work out for me.
     
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    A lens which if they made, even if it were as big as the 24-120/4, I would be happy to pay for and carry! But that's also not in the cards...