Oly 40-150 R vs. Oly 75-300 II

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Vivalo, May 27, 2016.

  1. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus Loser

    941
    Nov 16, 2010
    Finland
    Hi

    Olympus EU has a 100€ cash back promotion on Oly 75-300mm mk2 so I decided to buy one and keep it, if it is any better than my cheapo 40-150mm f4-5.6 R lens. After all, I could score myself lots of mm's for just 360€ after the 100€ cash back. So this is only the day one of my comparison, but the results are really promising. I like the small size of the 40-150, but IMO the 75-300 is not that much bigger, although quite a bit heavier. The main reason I never really liked the 40-150 was its poor contrast and lots of CA. Sharp it is, but it has poor contrast, especially when the light source is behind the subject. So that was the scenario I had to test first. Below are the results. These are both taken at 150mm and with the same exposure. I think the 75-300 is a keeper! :)

    20160527-C5270062-Small.

    40-150 test 150.

    75-300 test 150.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    My thoughts:
    Capturing images is only one part of the image creation process. I'm not so much concerned about the contrast of a lens at time of capture. I have a whole post processing workflow and getting a wide dynamic range is more important to me than having a contrast bump in camera.

    Almost every lens is weakest at it's longest end. Comparing the IQ of a consumer grade 40-150 at 150 versus the 75-300 at 150 is not really a fair fight, to be honest. Look at the 75-300 from 250-300 and you'll see image quality degrade some.

    Each lens has a different reason for existance. I find the 75-300 compelling from a standpoint that even with the slow aperture range, you cannot really beat it IQ/price ratio. I shoot it in good light mostly, but I love having the 600mm FOV in a sub $500 lens.

    To some people weight is a HUGE factor and they do not really shoot past a 300mm FOV. In that case, the $100 40-150R is almost a no-brainer option.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I have the 40-150 and I really like it because it is so small. It is part of my always with me kit that includes my EM5 w/ 17mm attached and my 40-150 plus 7.5mm fisheye. The size difference between the two a lot bigger then you make it seem, it's what.... around 3 times the diameter and at least twice as long. Oh, I don't say this because I am biased towards the small size of some aspects of µ4/3 because I regularly spend all day in the swamps with my ZD 150mm ƒ2.0. But, there is a rather huge difference in size.....enough that one can easily be part of an always with you kit in a small bag and one that is just to big for that purpose. I also have the 75-300 but no longer use it, bought it to shoot on my EM5 before getting the EM1 and some of the 4/3 lenses. For what they are, both lenses perform very well. I would not use the 40-150 if I need 200-300mm of reach and I would only use the 40-150 when I wanted small and only needed 150mm of reach.

    This part I find interesting given all the discussions I get into comparing the Panny 100-400 and Olympus 300/4. When discussing the above lens or the Panny 100-300 people have this attitude that's it a good lens when it's bright and for the money it's a good lens. But if I express that about the new Panny 100-400 people get all defensive and insist it is more then what it really is, a replace meant for the very aging 100-300 that happens to have a pretty name on it and is now weather sealed.
     
  4. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Some people do have some very emotional responses about camera gear, that is for sure.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus Loser

    941
    Nov 16, 2010
    Finland
    I'm no expert in math, but I disagree with your facts.
    40-150mm size is 63,5mm x 83mm and weight 190g
    75-300mm size is 69mm x 116,5mm and weight 423g

    As I said, there isn't a big difference in size, only in weight. They both have 58mm filter thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus Loser

    941
    Nov 16, 2010
    Finland
    I agree to some extent with you. And I know it is unfair to compare a 100$ lens to 400-500$ lens. But my personal need for longer lens has almost always been in situations where I find myself at 150mm and even then usually cropping a bit. My comfort zone is in the wide to normal FOV and usually I like to zoom with my feet. I shoot in RAW format, but I don't want to spend my time in front of a computer correcting the photo any longer than I absolutely need to. So I prefer good colors and contrast SOC.

    I think both of these lenses are consumer grade and the next logical step up from 40-150 is 75-300 in Olympus lineup. Let's remember the next step isn't a 300-400$ step, but 1000$ to the 40-150 2.8. So in that sense it is fair to compare the results between these lower end lenses, especially if the FOV need is somwhere around 100 to 200mm. Which is true in my case. Even the max aperture values are pretty much the same in the 75-150mm range between these lenses. I think weather sealed 150mm f4 or 200mm f5.6 prime lens would be awesome for my needs...
     
  7. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I think you misunderstood me. Price is not the baseline for comparison, but focal length and friend of view. Most lenses at their extended are bigger compromises than the middle of their range. The"unfair " part is that of completing the 40-150 at the extreme long end to the 75-300 in the"sweet spot" of its range. The 75-300 is always going to have an advantage.

    Based on what you're saying, you are wanting something longer then the 150mm end and the 75-300 or panny 100-300mm seem the right direction.
     
  8. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus Loser

    941
    Nov 16, 2010
    Finland
    I quess my point was, that if one isn't satisfied with the performance of the 40-150 in its long end, the 75-300 is a good "budget" upgrade even if one doesn't need the zoom range all the way to the 300mm. I always thought that I don't need a lens with such a reach and 150mm is long enough, but the problem was that I was using my 40-150 at its extreme end. Which I don't need to do with the 75-300.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    For me, the advantage of the 40-150 is psychological. I'm far more
    likely to take it since it's so light. OTOH, if I were going on a nature heavy trip like a national park or Africa, I would definitely pick up the 100-300.