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

Oly 40-150 f4-5.6 vs Oly 75 f1.8 - Both at f4?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by IDLookout, Mar 7, 2014.

  1. IDLookout

    IDLookout Mu-43 Regular

    124
    Apr 26, 2012
    Northern Idaho
    I was curious if there was any kind of caparison of the Oly 40-150 f4-5.6 vs Oly 75 f1.8 with both at the same f-stop (f4-5.6) as far as sharpness, etc..?

    I searched around a bit and couldn't find much. I imagine that the 75 is better, but is it $700 better? (I guess it depends on the definition of "better"...lol)

    I am tempted to pick up a 40-150.
     
  2. IDLookout

    IDLookout Mu-43 Regular

    124
    Apr 26, 2012
    Northern Idaho
    And yes, i do understand that the zoom doesn't go down to f1.8 (where all the money is), but i was just wondering about the quality of the 40-150 compared to a pro lens. :)
     
  3. LowTEC

    LowTEC Mu-43 Regular

    The question you are asking is like if a Ferrari worth the extra 150k over a BMW regarding the driving performance differences at speed limit; rather or not the 75 @ f4 worthes the $700 is irrelevant, since the 75 is tack sharp corner to corner from 1.8 all the way to f16 with beautiful bokeh. And able to keep iso relatively low and usable shutter speed in low light while at it worths every penny
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    940
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    It is worth the price of admission, in my opinion...I've had it only a short while, but it rarely leaves the camera, let alone the camera bag.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    The 75mm has f4?

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 5
  6. las Palm as

    las Palm as Mu-43 Regular

    :smile:
     
  7. lightmonkey

    lightmonkey Mu-43 Veteran

    480
    Dec 22, 2013
    If you're interested I can post a raw and jpeg of both
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    Ellicott City, MD
    Chris
    I shot tests of this a while back but do not have the images handy. I had two of the 40-150s. What I found was that the 40-150 was surprisingly sharp but not as sharp as the 75. The other thing I found was that the two 40-150s gave different results. One was softer most of the time. The 40-150 is a great lens. I would recommend getting it first. If you can live with f4-f5.6 you will like it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. IDLookout

    IDLookout Mu-43 Regular

    124
    Apr 26, 2012
    Northern Idaho
    That'd be great!

     
  10. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Mu-43 Veteran

    335
    Feb 20, 2010
    Someone is selling a 40-150mm on the board for a great price right now.

    The sample images should help of course with your decision. But if you shoot tele around ~75mm a lot, the 75mm will be very desirable regardless. I shoot normal a lot more, and for me there is no comparison between a 14-42mm kit lens and a 25mm fast prime.

    I think a more interesting comparison for you might be between the Oly 75mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 60mm f/2.8, much closer spec/speed/IQ-wise but still big price difference. The Sigma 60mm seems like a genuine budget alternative for the Oly 75mm, the Oly 40-150 is a 'generalist' lens like the 14-42mm.
     
  11. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Yes, please post the comparison images. Thanks!

    And yes, the 60 would be a very good alternative if you're price-conscious. But the way I think, I either get the BEST, or I get the CHEAPEST.

    So, my first lens was a 14-42 kit and since it's only $99, why WOULDN'T I buy the 40-150? It clearly has advantages over the 75, one of which is that you really don't care if your kids get greasy fingers on it!

    Or, is 50mm long enough, or 57? You can get a 57/1.4 for under $100 on ebay if you're okay with MF and you can get a 50/1.7 for like $30. I'm a thorough reader before buying things and everyone recommended buying a 50/1.7 or 50/1.8 first to see if I need more or less tele, more or less speed, etc., and only spend $50 in the process. So, one of these was my third lens and I still use it a lot. Thing is, I still want the 75. It has no equivalent.

    The closest lens IMO is actually the 45/1.8, which similarly has no equivalent. Nothing within 15mm in either direction in m4/3s mount with anything close to the same speed and price.

    So, IMO, if you're going to get the 45 anyway (or the 40-150, or a 50/1.8), why not get one of those cheap ones now to help you decide if you want the 75? IMO if you have the 75 the 60 will be sold.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Mu-43 Veteran

    335
    Feb 20, 2010
    If he wants/needs a fast telephoto then the 40-150mm is stopgap at best, but as you say cheap enough to buy and keep for other reasons.

    The Sigma is a legitimate alternative to the Oly 75 as it is basically in the same class of lens. Moderate telephoto focal length, it's not too much slower, is a lot cheaper, and offers very nice IQ (I haven't used it but it seems universally praised).

    Or the Oly 45 is a match of course if you are looking at aperture instead of focal length.

    Just depends on his needs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. cptobvious

    cptobvious Mu-43 Veteran

    238
    Jan 8, 2013
    I have both lenses but only briefly compared them. Keep in mind that the 40-150 @ 75mm can't open up to f/4 - its max aperture at that length is around 4.5 if I remember correctly. I did shoot both on a tripod at 75mm and found that they resolved similarly in the center. The 75mm has higher contrast and is excellent straight from f/1.8 whereas the zoom sharpens up when closed about 1 stop or so.

    They are not really comparable lenses, however. The 40-150 is great bang for the buck but it's not an indoor/low-light lens, and the 75 is amazing but obviously limited to one length. There's also about a 3 stop difference between them at 75mm which is huge.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. LowTEC

    LowTEC Mu-43 Regular

    I second that, 3 stops of light difference is like shooting ISO 1600 vs 12800, no comparison
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    I have both lenses, and since the question pertains to sharpness at the same apertures, I'll restrict my comments to that. The 75/1.8 is sharper, but that isn't very useful. The real question, that almost no one every asks, is if the difference is visible? The answer to that question depends on what is done with the image and the technique used in taking the image. You may be able to see a difference if you view the images on a monitor at 100% and the images were shot at base ISO and a high shutter speed or a tripod was used. For web images or prints (of any size) viewed at normal viewing distances there is no practical difference. There is no good reason to buy expensive prime lenses if you're going to shoot them at moderate apertures.
     
    • Like Like x 2