1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Olympus 14-150 vs. 40-150 for sports

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by mbbinvt, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. mbbinvt

    mbbinvt Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 28, 2012
    I'm tempted by Olympus' current price on the 40-150--$99 on the Olympus web site through this week. I'm considering snapping one up to use to photograph my son's soccer games. These are middle/high school games, so I can stand on the sideline and I think that 300mm equivalent focal length is usually OK.

    But should I just put that money into the 14-150 instead? It is only 3oz. heavier and has a great range for a walk-around lens.

    However I've heard that the 14-150 is a bit weak (soft, I assume) on the long end of its range, which might make it a lame sports lens. It might also be slower at focusing, which would make it pretty much useless.

    And, finally, is the 40-150 even good enough to capture good results at school soccer games?

    Thanks in advance for any input!
  2. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    The 40-150 is acceptably sharp especially for a kit lens. It does get softer past 100mm but note that the 14-150 is reportedly softer at the extremes (towards 14mm and upwards of 100mm). AF is good for these 2 lenses except remember that the 14-150 is in effect slower because the aperture goes up quickly going from 14 to 150mm. I'd go with the 40-150 -- you can easily sell it later at no loss if you ever decide to upgrade. :) 
  3. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    I have a 14-150 but the current sale on the 40-150 is just too good to pass up.

    Never having had a 40-150, I can't comment on it. Though the 14-150 is a metal mount since it's a tad heavier. I believe the 40-150 is a plastic mount.

    Just can't beat $99 for a lens.
  4. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus loser Subscribing Member

    Nov 16, 2010
    I have both lenses and in my opinion there is no real difference at 150mm. 14-150 has aperture of 5.3 at 40mm setting. So at the widest setting of the 40-150 it's almost a stop faster than the 14-150. I think that and the lighter weight are the only pros for the 40-150 over the 14-150.

    I'm considering to sell one of the two and I think I'll keep 14-150. Its matte finish feels better, it has much nicer weight to it (for others this might be the other way around), it has very nice range of focal lengths and the larger front element looks better.

    I haven't noticed any differences in focus speed and they both focus very fast and silently when you have sufficient light available -> outdoors in daylight.

    With the latest generation of m4/3 cameras they both are very capable lenses for sport photography as long as you shoot in good light, with single AF and release priority set to OFF. So when you shoot, FULLY press the sutter button, the camera will first AF and immediately release the shutter. That way you are able to shoot subjects that are moving towards you.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    You're right. The plastic mount and tight zoom ring (not good at all for video) are pretty much the only complaints I have about the 40-150 -- while it does not affect IQ, it does make the lens feel cheap. :p  At least the new mk II version doesn't look cheap but I'm sure it'd still feel like a toy.
  6. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus loser Subscribing Member

    Nov 16, 2010
    Yes it feels
  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.