Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 and mc14 and cropping vs Panasonic 100-300mm.

[humzai]

I have extensively used the Panasonic 100-300m lens and while I am endeared to it I still realize it's flaws. It is a limiting factor in c-af and even in burst shooting. I wonder if cropping the 40-150mm plus mc 14 will give me at the minimum similar results to the the Panasonic 100-300mm lens. Anyone have any idea if that is even possible?

Thanks

 

[50orsohours]

I am guessing that you are after sharpness, so I'd think that the 40-15 will do a much better job all around.

 

[Turbofrog]

I am guessing that you are after sharpness, so I'd think that the 40-15 will do a much better job all around.

Do you think that even with the teleconverter, the 40-150 (now 56-210) will be sharper when cropped than the 100-300 at its full extension? I am considering the 100-300 for a trip to the Galapagos, and it really doesn't look like it's that bad a lens.

 

[50orsohours]

I would think that the 40-150 2.8 would still be sharper. Although it depends on your needs. Would the 100-300 be good enough?

This is at 300mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

_8080034.jpg by savingspaces33, on Flickr

 

[Turbofrog]

I would think that the 40-150 2.8 would still be sharper. Although it depends on your needs. Would the 100-300 be good enough?

This is at 300mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

_8080034.jpg by savingspaces33, on Flickr

That certainly looks quite decent to me, at least at the embedded size. I can't view the original on Flickr.

In my particular case it certainly wouldn't be competing with the Olympus. The 40-150 is entirely off the table for me. Too expensive, too large, too heavy, not stabilized (I have a Panasonic body), too short, and just generally out of place in my system.

 

[50orsohours]

If you click the image in Flickr, it will show you the full size.

If you can get a good copy, you can be happy with the 100-300.

 

[m4/3boy]

Yes of course.

 

[Clint]

That depends on how large your final images will be and if the USD $600 vs USD $1850 cost is worthy of the differences. For web images, 11x14, 8x10, A4 prints, or if I were to only shoot the 40-150mm at 5.6 or so, it would not be worth the cost difference to me.

However the 40-150mm ability to further control DOF, broken, and low light useage from the smaller f/4-5.6 stops of the 100-300mm and close focusing ability of the 40-150mm - could easily make the more expensive lens worth the cost for some. Especially if large prints are going to be made.

However considering the cost of a trip to Galapagos I would rent the rent the lens.

A viable alternative is the Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 with the 1.4x 4/3 teleconvertor.

 

[humzai]

I am just curious if the lens will have much use for my birding. I like the focal range but it might not replace the panny for me. I guess I might have to wait for the 300mm pro for a fast birding lens.

 

[kwalsh]

Do you think that even with the teleconverter, the 40-150 (now 56-210) will be sharper when cropped than the 100-300 at its full extension?

Unlikely, a 210 crop to 300 is a very significant crop - takes you to about 7MP. The 300 is not as sharp as the 40-150+TC I suspect but it isn't as far behind as that.

I am considering the 100-300 for a trip to the Galapagos, and it really doesn't look like it's that bad a lens.

300 might be overkill for the Galapagos. I shot that with an Canon APS-C and a 70-200 along with a 1.4TC. And I rarely used the TC. So in m43 terms that 200mm FL was 160mm. So I'd feel the 40-150 plus TC would be excellent for the Galapagos. Which is not to say the 100-300 isn't a great lens, it certainly seems it is. And since you aren't allowed on land after sunset anyway you rarely need a lot of speed.

It is hard to tell anyone to leave some reach behind when it comes to wildlife, and if small birds are your thing then there is practically no limit to how much FL you can use. But in the Galapagos you are often practically stepping over animals on the trail. I used a 17-40 quite a bit along side the 70-200. So don't consider the longest possible FL to be the sole determining factor. But with wildlife there is always that "if only I had more reach" moment no matter how big a lens you have. You'll have to set a reasonable limit at some point.

A different issue is that you can't control backgrounds very well at all. You are constrained to the trail or if on the water the panga. So you might find the DoF control of 2.8 useful even if you rarely need the light.

 

[Turbofrog]

Unlikely, a 210 crop to 300 is a very significant crop - takes you to about 7MP. The 300 is not as sharp as the 40-150+TC I suspect but it isn't as far behind as that.



300 might be overkill for the Galapagos. I shot that with an Canon APS-C and a 70-200 along with a 1.4TC. And I rarely used the TC. So in m43 terms that 200mm FL was 160mm. So I'd feel the 40-150 plus TC would be excellent for the Galapagos. Which is not to say the 100-300 isn't a great lens, it certainly seems it is. And since you aren't allowed on land after sunset anyway you rarely need a lot of speed.

It is hard to tell anyone to leave some reach behind when it comes to wildlife, and if small birds are your thing then there is practically no limit to how much FL you can use. But in the Galapagos you are often practically stepping over animals on the trail. I used a 17-40 quite a bit along side the 70-200. So don't consider the longest possible FL to be the sole determining factor. But with wildlife there is always that "if only I had more reach" moment no matter how big a lens you have. You'll have to set a reasonable limit at some point.

A different issue is that you can't control backgrounds very well at all. You are constrained to the trail or if on the water the panga. So you might find the DoF control of 2.8 useful even if you rarely need the light.

Interesting, good to hear your experience. I'm not a birding afficionado - as far as they're concerned, I would just be taking snapshots of ones that struck me as pretty. At that point, I feel like I might get away with just my 14-140mm, with perhaps the 20mm/1.7 and my 7.5mm fisheye or an old macro to round things out. I don't really want to make this into a "photography vacation" per se, and something like the 40-150/2.8 really loses any appeal for travelling with, to my mind. But as I said, it's both out of the budget, and out of the question on my Panasonic bodies. The 14-140 doesn't blow me away with its quality, but it also doesn't make impositions on my real life in order to get there...so that's appealing. One of these days in the not-too-distant future, some company will make something like the FZ1000 that's packaged more like the LX100, and I'll have to re-evaluate what I'm doing with all these lenses I've accumulated...

 

[chargedmr2]

We were in the Galapagos in 2012 and I carried a DSLR (APS-C) with a Canon 70-300 (non L) lens. Like many telephoto zoom lenses, it loses some sharpness at 300mm and I often backed off to 250mm for this. However, there were many, many situations where the full 300mm reach (and more) was needed. My recommendation is to bring the 100-300mm with you. Forget about quibbling over sharpness. If you don't even get the shot due to limited focal length, that is a far bigger problem to deal with. Obviously if you are choosing between two lenses with similar focal length, then sharpness may become a deciding factor. Just my thoughts. And one last comment, you will have a great time, even if you have a lens that is a bit short. Life is not all about taking pictures, and you seem to have this balance all figured out. Good luck!

 

[MarcG19]

To the OP: The 40-150 or 300 f/4 might give better C-AF results on an EM-1. Olympus lenses are supposed to AF best on Olympus bodies, the higher grade of lens might have better AF, you have two stops more light (one with the TC), and you have less focal length so focusing is easier. But less DOF might work to your advantage. My limited experience with C-AF with telephoto lenses and the EM-1 has led me to think that it's OK but not really great. I'd think you might get a little better performance, but not really that much better.

If you want decent C-AF performance with telephoto lenses, especially for birds, I think you really need a DSLR (a 7Dm1 or a D7000 with a properly tuned 300 f/4 or 400 5.6 lens is a far better bet, and these days will run you not much more than the 40-150 if you buy used).

The reason to buy the 40-150 (if it's much like the 50-200, or the other recent Oly lenses) would be that the optics are stellar - excellent sharpness and bokeh, and excellent overall rendering. The only telephoto I've used in the same league as the 50-200 was my 300f/2.8.

As far as the Galapagos, I'd definitely take the 40-150 f//2.8 (or even the 4x-200 4-5.6) if it's an either/or proposition with the 100-300. Mainly for the (expected) optical quality, and the fact that, especially when animals are close up like in the Galapagos, you might find yourself with too much focal length, and the whole point of a zoom is to zoom in/out quickly if need be.

I think the 14-140 is a good idea if you're satisfied with the optical quality. With that, I'd personally take a macro lens, and then maybe the 100-300. (if I had a chance to go again today, I'd take the EM-1+mid range zoom and then my choice of APS-C or Full frame DSLR and the latest x0-400 4-5.6 zoom)