Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro / MC-14 with no warranty...cause for concern? Or go ahead?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by LowriderS10, Oct 3, 2016.

  1. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Hi all,

    Sooo...I've been lusting after a 40-150 Pro and the MC-14 for years, and am about to buy one...however, it would be coming from overseas (since it's substantially cheaper...I can not justify the prices they're asking here), and thus may not have any warranty at all.

    How worried should I be? (By the way, chances are that even though I live in Canada now, I will be in Asia or Europe in 4-5 months...so even if I had a Canadian warranty, I highly doubt I'd be here for the full 12 moths).

    Is the quality control of Pro lenses and the TC good enough that I shouldn't be worried?

    Thanks!
     
  2. Giiba

    Giiba Something to someone somewhere

    281
    Aug 19, 2016
    Burnaby, BC
    People with warranty issues tend to be very vocal on forums and I've never heard of a problem with that lens... for what that is worth.
     
  3. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    That's EXACTLY what I've been thinking!

    I've read hundreds of user reviews (amazon, B&H, etc), nothing...I even Googled "40-150 Pro DOA" and came back with ZERO hits.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Giiba

    Giiba Something to someone somewhere

    281
    Aug 19, 2016
    Burnaby, BC
    It's a consumer psychology thing. For every negative review/feedback/whatever there are probably 100+ happy people (or more). For every positive review there is likely just as many that didn't bother writing anything.

    Whereas one unhappy customer writes a negative review on every available outlet.

    :biggrin:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Starfleet

    Starfleet Mu-43 Veteran

    263
    Feb 14, 2015
    Michigan, USA
    Alex
    Go ahead. It's a terrific lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Thanks!!! I can't wait...hoping to order it tonight!! :D
     
  7. spdavies

    spdavies Mu-43 Top Veteran

    971
    Apr 9, 2013
    Hawaii
    Stephen
    Very sharp, quite heavy compared to any other m4/3 lens I've used.
    Sometimes I take another lighter option when I go out because of that.
    But, very sharp and excellent build quality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds Mu-43 All-Pro

    My only regret with this lens is that I didn't snap up the TC in the bundle that was $100 extra at the time... :doh:

    Coupled with my EM1, it's handheld low-light performance is insane! :thumbup:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Thanks!

    That's actually a huge dilemma for me right now. The seller I was talking to sold out (grr!), so now I have time to think. This lens is amazing, and for the performance, its price is untouchable in the photography world.

    But...I got into m4/3 for the size/weight advantage, and while I realize it's a small lens compared to others in its class, it's a massive lens by m4/3 standards...I certainly wouldn't be taking it with me on a backpacking trip. So, it would be my most expensive lens, and yet, also the only one I would be unlikely to take with me, unless I knew I was going to use. (Especially when I'm travelling, when I try to avoid flashy/expensive/big equipment).

    On the other hand...I went to China a while back, and got to shoot pandas in a conservation place (basically their natural habitat with a fence around it), and since it was raining for 6-7 hours, I had to use my only weathersealed lens: my 12-50. Needless to say, that experience made me want this lens more than anything else!
     
  10. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Yeah, I'm definitely getting the TC. :D
     
  11. spdavies

    spdavies Mu-43 Top Veteran

    971
    Apr 9, 2013
    Hawaii
    Stephen
    There are other solutions.

    The Panasonic 35-100 has equal IQ but is small and light.
    That covers you through the 100mm range (with a wider low end).
    Then you could use the Panasonic 45-175 or 100-300 for the longer range (and have more reach but less speed).
    Another creative choice would be to get an old film Nikon 200mm 4.0 or even the 200 Micro 4.0 (very small and light).
    That with the 35-100 gives you the same reach and speed as the 40-150 with the 1.4 telextender.
    You give up autofocus on the long end.
    If you get the 1.4 telextender (by itself), you can put it on the Nikon 200 for a sharp 280mm 5.6 -
    that's a 560mm 5.6 in 35mm terms - not too shabby!
    Of course, none of these options give you the convenience (mostly autofocus) of the Oly long zoom.
    But they save you a lot of money and a lot of weight.

    I'm seriously considering selling the 40-150 because I choose not to carry it so often in favor of lighter gear.
    I actually bought it thinking to put together a very high quality travel kit.
    Now I know I would never haul that thing around in my luggage or camera bag on a trip.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  12. moonhawk

    moonhawk Mu-43 Regular

    44
    Feb 12, 2016
    Dave Cherry
    The micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 is about 1 lb heavier and two inches longer than the Oly 40-150 Pro. I own both and just checked.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Hi...thanks for your post! Yeah, there are tons of options...I've been looking for a long time, and still haven't been able to decide.

    - If the Panasonic 35-100 went to 150mm, I would already have it! I think it really embodies what m4/3 is about: Small, light, excellent performer. My problem is that it's so short on the long end, and it doesn't have a TC. It's still in the running...but I'm having a tough time convincing myself, even though I really, really want this lens (more so than the 40-150 Pro), but I'm scared I would be disappointed with it in the field.
    - The 100-300 is something I've almost bought a dozen times...but...it's fairly pricey (albeit not 2.8 pricey), pretty slow, big-ish, and optical performance - especially at the long end - is fairly ho-hum. As much as I have been tempted by this lens, if I went that big, I think I'd rather spend the extra and get the 40-150 Pro.
    - The 45-175 is out, as I already have the Olympus 40-150 R...no point in getting the Pan.
    - I'm just coming out of an adapted lens phase...there are some great legacy lenses out there, but for the most part, I haven't been blown away by them. Fun and good, but not truly excellent. If I'm going to get something as big/heavy as a Nikon 200 f4, I might as well go 40-150 Pro + TC. (I just sold my Pentax 200 f4 because I just wasn't really feeling it anymore...I still have a Canon FD 70-210 Macro that I play around with, but, honestly, my 40-150R gets better IQ than either of those lenses at a fraction of the size/weight).

    Your final point is a very strong one. I travel a lot and I like to travel light. It's really coming down to this:
    Panasonic 35-100...and live with its limitations (but...I already have the Olympus 75, which is even smaller, and gets me 3/4 of the way there...)

    OR

    Olympus 75 for trips where I don't anticipate using the telephoto much...and then the 40-150 Pro on trips where I do as well as for wandering about the town/country where I don't mind lugging it around for a day/weekend trip.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Levster

    Levster Mu-43 Top Veteran

    If it went to 150mm it would be a beast just like the 40-150! What camera do you own? Is the 50-200 an option (needs E-M1)? I've bought and sold the 40-150 twice now; each time I ended up selling it because it was just too heavy for me. The 35-100 is perfect and for me it sits nicely in the range where you'd use a 75mm. I wanted something for family trips outs where a large telephoto wouldn't really be required.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    As much as I like the 40-150/2.8, after handling it for an hour or so at an Olympus photo walk in London I came to the conclusion that it's too big, heavy and conspicuous for casual use. At 300 equiv it's too short for serious long lens stuff too. So, it's not on my lust list.

    I have the 35-100/2.8 and that's a very nice lens. At 200 equiv it's fine for general purpose tele use and it's small and light.

    I have the 50-200 4/3 lens and that does a pretty good job when I need a longer lenses and it's pretty cheap these days.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Haha I know!! (About your first point...but I want it all, dang it!!! I want a 40-300 f2 lens in something no bigger than the 60 Macro! ;) ).

    I have the original E-M5...I'll likely have it until the E-M5 Mark III comes out (which will be likely another year or so). You're right, the 40-150 is pretty heavy, especially with the tripod mount. I remember handling the Panasonic 100-300 in stores many times, and each time thinking "This is just too big/too heavy for me." But then I see the results out of the 40-150 and fall in love. (Although, and this isn't sour grapes, I'm not all that impressed with its bokeh...it looks a bit too busy).

    To be honest, I don't use telephoto lenses much, but when I do, I really enjoy it, so I think if I had a decent one, I'd use it more often. The question is, however...is how often I'd leave the 40-150 at home, due to its size/weight.

    By the way...would you feel confident buying a 35-100 without a warranty?
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  17. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Thanks, this is definitely very valuable information!

    Your first point is interesting...the ONLY REASONS I got into m4/3 and sold my Canon full frame body and L lens collection is because I wanted something smaller, lighter, less conspicuous. With that in mind, the Panasonic is an obvious winner. That's been the biggest thing that's been holding me back from the 40-150...I absolutely would not take that on many of my trips, simply because it's too big/heavy/flashy. The reason I have the 9-18 and not the 7-14, again, is because it's smaller, lighter, and doesn't warrant a second glance.

    Do you ever use your 35-100 for wildlife? I do like capturing the odd wildlife (ie: monkey in my profile picture, which I think was taken with the 75, pandas, etc, but I've usually either had my 45 or 75 primes with me, and they're not exactly the best tools for that).

    The 50-200 is out, simply because it's already a heavy lens (1,070g), plus I'd need an adapter, making it even heavier and bigger...at that point, I might as well go 40-150.
     
  18. Giiba

    Giiba Something to someone somewhere

    281
    Aug 19, 2016
    Burnaby, BC
    The 40-150/2.8 is a good bit smaller than the 50-200/2.8-3.5 in use on an e-m1, plus the 50-200 extends when zooming; don't forget there is an adapter in the mix too.

    I was surprised at the svelt nature of the 40-150 myself and while there are times I won't carry it because of weight, it's size is the same as a 500ml water bottle (50-200 is like a 1L bottle and fatter).

    I kept the 40-150 and sold my 35-100 because when shooting indoors I found the closer focusing to come in real handy; the 35-100 states 1m or so in the specs but as you zoom that goes up to 1.3-1.5m which oftern did not work for me.

    Sure compared the 40-150 is bigger than the 35-100 but the 50-200 is humongus.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I went to m43 for exactly the same reason as you, selling a 5dii and several L lenses in the process. That's probably why I feel like I do about the 40-150. I reckon it's probably bigger than the 70-200 f4 L I had.

    As for the 35-100 being long enough for wildlife, well I guess it depends on the wildlife. BIF is probably a non-starter, but the bigger, tamer stuff is definitely within its reach:

    29684366152_dd5ffd0c9c_b.
    Bull Elk
    by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

    If I were big into wildlife though I'd obviously have to jettison the aversion to heavy gear and TBH, if the E-M1ii finally delivers good CAF then that plus the 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4 would be an extremely smart choice.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  20. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    I literally went "Oh, wow!" when I saw your post. Thanks! :)

    I'm not really interested in BIF...definitely interested in bigger wildlife, though!

    Hmm...very, very interesting...thank you, you've given me a lot to think about... :)