Is kit O40-150 still useful with P14-140 coming?

[Magua]

I've got the 40-150R and it's not going anywhere. It's light, cheap and sharp. I'd keep it as a back up as you won't make enough selling it to be worth the hassle and you may need it one day. (or just end up preferring it)

 

[tkbslc]

Thanks, tkbslc.

Do you know one good FD 1.4x TC? I only need one.

Yes, my nFD 50/1.4 is not sharp until f/1.8 or f/2.0. It gets better (and usable) at f/1.8 and much better at f/2.0. That is why I wrote "good 70mm f/2.5 or f/2.8" (after 1.4x TC extension).

Last time I searched, 100mm f/2.8 FD lenses are not cheap (and I usually don't spend much for vintage manual primes).

You could probably get a 100mm for $70-80.

The only 1.4x for FD that I know of is the Canon brand one and it was designed for specific Canon super telephotos. It wouldn't even mount on a 50mm. It's also not much cheaper than the 100mm even if it would fit.

If I was shelling out on a helicopter ride I'd just take two bodies. 14mm is not wide enough for me.

I've not shot from a helicopter, but I think if you went too wide, you'd have more helicopter in the shot than scenery.

 

[tkbslc]

I'm sorta in the same boat, though I went with the newer model and have the Panasonic version of the shorter tele-zoom. Haven't used the p45-150 since, though I'd agree that the long end of the p45-150 is sharper than the p14-140II, it's not a huge difference. I should off it but I'm lazy...

Along similar lines, I'm kind of wondering if I should trade the free 45-200 II I just got with my G85 for a O14-150II. Almost as much reach plus the wide range and still weather sealed.

 

[zzffnn]

If I was shelling out on a helicopter ride I'd just take two bodies. 14mm is not wide enough for me.

Depending on when we are going to Hawaii, I may actually bring two bodies. The other body may be an E-M1 I or II and the other lens would be O9-18. But I will make my wife carry and use the other body/lens combo

 

[wjiang]

I've not shot from a helicopter, but I think if you went too wide, you'd have more helicopter in the shot than scenery.

There's always the shot of the interior. I've shot UWA from an airliner before and sure you get the wing. But being open door, you'll only get a little of the helicopter in at the edges, which can give useful context. When I'm thinking UWA I'm thinking 8-18mm which is fairly flexible. I'd not want to be stuck with a 7.5mm.

 

[Stanga]

If I was shelling out on a helicopter ride I'd just take two bodies. 14mm is not wide enough for me.

If I was shelling out on a helicopter ride I would prefer a zoom with IS, than a wide angle prime without IS.

 

[tkbslc]

There's always the shot of the interior. I've shot UWA from an airliner before and sure you get the wing. But being open door, you'll only get a little of the helicopter in at the edges, which can give useful context. When I'm thinking UWA I'm thinking 8-18mm which is fairly flexible. I'd not want to be stuck with a 7.5mm.

I'd probably prefer normal to short telephoto, I think. It just depends how far off the ground you are. The landscape features will appear so tiny when shot from a distance and you'll have no foreground to anchor them. Honestly, I'd probably go 12-60, but 14-140 seems useful, too.

 

[Tool Crazy]

I just bought a Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 and wonder if I would have any reason to keep my Olympus kit zoom 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6.

The advantage of O40-150 kit lies in its light weight (190 grams vs 460 grams of the P14-140) and faster aperture at some focal length. That aperture difference is not a lot, though I wonder if it will help in automatic macro focus bracketing in-camera? I sometimes do that with a Raynox DCR-150 or 250 clipped in front of O40-150.

I do have a P100-300 though, so I mostly only use O40-150 for macro focus bracketing between 40-90mm.

I do realize that the minor weight difference of 270 grams may not matter in real life.

The kit O40-150 seems to sell for $55 shipped on eBay now, even though I bought it for $90 a few years ago. So I won't recover much funds from selling the O40-150, if I should bother to sell it at all.

I bought the P14-140 for convenience in travel. We just went to Keystone Colorado for a family ski trip with E-M10 II and kit zooms O14-42 and O40-150. I actually used O40-150 a bit more than O14-42 there (especially at around 70-100mm) and found that changing lens or carrying 2 cameras won't work well for my travel. However, I don't want to spend that much for newer versions of 14-140/150 (would rather get used primes or pros at those prices), so I went with a deal on an older used P14-140 f/4-5.8.

Your comments would be highly appreciated. Happy New Year!

Sell it locally on craigs or offer up. I sold one a couple of months ago for $60 a couple of days after posting so it sold quickly. No fees to creep in on your profit.

 

[zzffnn]

Sell it locally on craigs or offer up. I sold one a couple of months ago for $60 a couple of days after posting so it sold quickly. No fees to creep in on your profit.

I much prefer OfferUp, 5miles, Letgo and Nexrdoor over Craiglist (with which I have had some poor experiences; buyers/sellers there seem less decent/professional).

 

[John M Flores]

I think the P14-150 would indeed be the only lens on my only camera 95% of the time, when I go to Hawaii next time. I will likely ride a windowless helicopter tour with that lens there.

I will also have, in my Hawaii backpack, an O9-18, a Samyang 7.5; but I may not use them much (maybe only 5%). Most likely, I will bring Raynox DCR-150/250 macro converters to add on P14-150, but won't bring my P100-300. Not sure yet.

As I mentioned above, I brought my O14-42 and kit O40-150 on my Colorado family ski trip with a single E-M10 II and switch between those lenses A LOT. So much so, that I would rather trade image quality for convenience. I actually never wanted a super zoom lens until that ski trip (even though super zoom has been mentioned for family travel many times; reason being one should focus on light, the moment/mood and composition, instead of changing lenses constantly - I have to agree with that now) and I knew O40-150 might be optically superior.

Also consider the shooting scenario on a windowless helicopter. Switch lens would be too slow and nearly impossible (wind, debris and possibility of dropping camera or lens). A super zoom would be a lot faster than two cameras with O14-42 and O401-50 too.

12-60 won't work for me, as I have many shots taken at 70-100mm.

I rode in a helicopter in Feb with a GX85 and 12-35 F2.8. I also had the 8mm fisheye and the 35-100 F2.8 with me too but most of my shots were with the 12-35. I found the 12-35 just about perfect, although something like the 12-60 might be good too. Now that I have the 8-18 I probably would use that.

Here are some shots from my ride:

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

Flying upriver (Rio Soler, Chile) by John Flores, on Flickr

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

The river is low now but the flood plain fills the valley, Parque Nacional Laguna San Rafael, Chile by John Flores, on Flickr

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

The river etches patterns in the soil, Parque Nacional Laguna San Rafael, Chile by John Flores, on Flickr

And here's a video showing how effective the Dual OIS is:

 

[zzffnn]

......
View attachment 707349 Flying upriver (Rio Soler, Chile) by John Flores, on Flickr
...............
QUOTE]

Nice illustration, thank you very much, John! That helicopter had windows on all sides, correct?

Composition of the above photo may be worthy of magazine cover, if it can be captured without pilot's shoulder and helicopter parts (if the flight direction allows capturing that exact composition from side). Did you get such a chance?

If not, I am guessing a long telephoto zoom lens aimed just over pilot's shoulder (towards frame center) might help "cropping" out helicopter parts and pilot's shoulder (if one does not want those other things in the frame and has such a telephoto zoom in hand, that is).

Composition of John's 2nd photo is almost perfectly tight and it looks as if there was no window in front of lens (was there, John?). Composition depends on how (height/direction) the helicopter is flying, I guess. I would prefer to use a super zoom like 14-140 for flexibility of composition, if I have no control of flight height and direction.

 

[zzffnn]

I have used the P14-140 for a day now and like it very much for convenience and family travel.

Its longer end actually works pretty well for portrait DoF and background compression.

Most of its criticisms are correct through:

1) it is not a good wild life lens. On my E-M10 II, focusing is no fast and its 140mm end is not very sharp (worse than my P100-300 version I). I tested it with dolphins and a few napping brown pelicans - some feather details are missing, even under near perfect light/shutter speed/stable hand holding (I can tell missing details right away, after reviewing photos at 2x-3x EVF zoom).

I think its 140mm end sharpness is decent for casual landscape, as long as you don't crop a lot.

For fast and noncooperating kids, this lens may be slightly too slow. But remember my E-M10 II does not have phase dection auto focus like E-M1 II or I, so my camera itself is slow to focus.

2) its weight is not light, as expected. Though not too heavy either.

 

[ac12]

You are correct, the 14-140 is about convenience. And you sacrifice for that convenience.

I have the P-Lumix 12-60 for light travel, and made 2 major compromises:
1 - I gave up the optical performance of the 12-100, to get the lighter smaller lens for travel.
2 - I gave up the long end of a lens like yours for 2mm on the wide end. So then to reach beyond 60mm, I have to carry a 2nd lens to get me out to 150mm.

Expensive specialist/pro lenses will almost always do better than general purpose consumer super zooms.

But in the end, the lens is "good enough" for what I/you want it for, within our budget, and that is all that matters.

As funds allow, you can add other lenses for specialized tasks.

Fast and uncooperating kids can be hard for ANY camera to handle. You need a Go-Pro type camera on your hat, and have it constantly running.

 

[zzffnn]

.........
Fast and uncooperating kids can be hard for ANY camera to handle. You need a Go-Pro type camera on your hat, and have it constantly running.

Or maybe use a high frame rate 6k video camera (like GH5/G85?) and get stills from video. Few reasonably priced cameras can do that (if one does not want to spend over $1800).

Yes, good enough and convenient is all that matters for family travel. I don't always need to count eyebrow hairs on faces

 

[snaimpally]

FYI, the O 14-150mm is exactly the same size as the O 40-150. Since you have an Olympus body, you might consider the O 14-150mm. You will get the extra reach in the same sized lens. I find the P 14-140mm a bit "fat" on smaller bodies, e.g., as compared to the O 14-150mm.

 

[ac12]

FYI, the O 14-150mm is exactly the same size as the O 40-150. Since you have an Olympus body, you might consider the O 14-150mm. You will get the extra reach in the same sized lens. I find the P 14-140mm a bit "fat" on smaller bodies, e.g., as compared to the O 14-150mm.

The O-14-150 is 90 grams or 50% heavier than the O-40-150R. Probably due to the metal barrel on the 14-150 vs. plastic on the 40-150R.
It is only 20 grams heavier than the Panasonic 14-140. So essentially the same weight.
Max diameter is 2.5 inches for the Olympus vs. 2.64 inches for the Panasonic. About 1/8 inch difference, pretty close to same.

 

[tkbslc]

The O-14-150 is 90 grams or 50% heavier than the O-40-150R. Probably due to the metal barrel on the 14-150 vs. plastic on the 40-150R.

I'd say it's due to the glass required to cover 14-39mm range, too.

 

[comment23]

The O-14-150 is 90 grams or 50% heavier than the O-40-150R. Probably due to the metal barrel on the 14-150 vs. plastic on the 40-150R.

The 14-150 has a plastic barrel.

I'd say it's due to the glass required to cover 14-39mm range, too.

I also think the volume of glass is more likely the reason.