Oly 14-42 or 14-150 iq same?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by unikulin, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. unikulin

    unikulin New to Mu-43

    Dec 15, 2011
    Hi everyone!

    I've own Oly 14-150 and look for some small, portable, not bulky without long telephoto end.
    The question is the olympus 14-42 lens have same image quality as Oly 14-150 on short end?

  2. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    I don't think you would notice a image quality difference.
  3. Photophil

    Photophil Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 24, 2012
    Atlanta Georgia area
    The two lenses are pretty much the same in terms of color rendition and sharpness. If anything, the 14-42 is slightly sharper. My wife has the 40-150, but the images she's getting with it are quite good. I continue to be impressed with the 14-42, particularly for the price.
  4. bigbluebear

    bigbluebear Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 2, 2013
    I have a similar question. How does the 40-150 compare with the 14-150 on the long end? I've heard great things about the 40-150mm and it seems like a cheaper option to the pricey 35-100mm
  5. Vague

    Vague Mu-43 Regular

    May 20, 2013
    Theoretically, the longer the range, the lesser the quality. That's why primes tend to have the best IQ.
  6. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 16, 2012
    Qld Australia
    I have had the 40-150 and the 14-150. I had them at the same time so I compared them from 40 up at matching focal lengths. 40-150 easily beat the 14-150 for image sharpness and much more detail.

    The 14-150 has good sharpness in the 14-70 range and is a very handy walk around lens. If you are happy with the image quality you are getting from it in the lower focal range I would suggesting complementing it with the 75-300mm. This would give you a good crossover range where the 14-150 is weak and then you will have even more reach. Two lenses going from 14-300 (28-600). Just a thought.

    I sold both of them. I prefer faster lenses and I had the money to afford the 12-35 and 35-100. I also picked up the 75-300 as my long lens that I take when I know I will be needing it (surf shots, football, etc)
  7. bigbluebear

    bigbluebear Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 2, 2013
    Thank you for sharing. I don't shoot in the 100-200mm range often unless I'm at the zoo or something. For this reason, I was thinking the 35-100 would be wasted on me. This is why I'm sticking with the 40-150 at the moment. If I were to take a trip to somewhere sandy like another trip to africa, then I would be more inclined to pick up the 35-100 for it's weatherproofing and better optics.

    By any chance did you happen to own the 40-150mm at the same time as the 35-100mm? How big was the difference in IQ?
  8. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 16, 2012
    Qld Australia
    I didn't actually test these against each other as they are very different lenses for me. I know they cover the same focal lengths but I purchased the 35-100 as I would be using it at f2.8 and it is an amazing lens. Have no hesitation in using it at f2.8. (check my flickr sets page on the link below and view the Abbey set which were shot on the weekend).

    I think the 35-100 would be the winner if I pitted it against the 40-150 at the same focal lengths with the 40-150 wide open but I can't be sure and they could possibly be similar. I only just sold the 40-150 yesterday so could have tested them if it wasn't for that.

    The 40-150 is indeed the winner for price but you can't shoot it at f2.8. If you are happy to shoot with a lens that doesn't have a constant aperture then the 40-150 is well worth the money.
  9. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2011
    14-42mm II will be quite sharper.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.