Should I sell 75-300 for 40-150mm ?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by abhisheks77, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013

    I have OMD E-M1 along with 12-40mm/F2.8, 45mm/F1.8, 75mm/F1.8 and 75-300mm/F4.8-6.7.
    What I love to shoot - I am more into National Parks, landscapes, nature, mountains and obviously my wife when she goes with me to these places.
    Will it be a good idea to sell 75-30mm and buy 40.150mm/F2.8 (with MC) ?
    I really love sharpness and color tenderness of 75mm, I am not sure, if I should let this also go.
    I think, I will be using 40-150mm when I am out in parks and for wild-life. Being far, I will be using it with MC, which will stop down a bit. Will I still get considerably sharp pictures in comparison to existing 75-300mm ?
    What will be your suggestions ?

  2. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler Subscribing Member

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Hi, if you're using the long end a lot, I'm not sure you'll be satisfied with 'only' 210mm with the MC-14.

    If wider aperture isn't your main concern, perhaps the Pana 100-400 would be a better choice?

  3. franklyadam

    franklyadam Mu-43 Rookie Subscribing Member

    Mar 3, 2014
    Not quite the same move but I recently acquired a 50-200 swd, since I got it I don't think my 75-300 has take a single shot. However I do plan to keep the 75-300 as a tele lens for when I travel for work. The 50-200 is a bit big to lug around in my work backpack :) I've gotten many good shots from the 75-300, it just has to be a sunny day :)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013
    For that only I am confused, if replacing 75-300 with 40-150 will be fair move or not. I have 75-300 few times (not regular) but my 12-40mm is way sharper and I assume same quality in 40-150. I am not sure, if Pana 100-400 will give similar sharpness and color rendition ?

    franklyadam, do you feel long end of 50-200 swd (or 40-150mm with MC) will not be able to surpass long end of 75-300 ? For you, it was not replacement, but more of add-on.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016
  5. marlof

    marlof Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Jun 18, 2010
    The Netherlands
    After I got my 40-150 with TC I never used my 75-300 again. There is a difference in image quality, even when the 75-300 is not too bad in itself. In the end I sold it, since I preferred someone else having fun with it.

    That said, I hardly ever use the TC, which only shows that I'm not really into tele lens shooting. I do like the compression of a tele lens in portraits or landscapes. If you shoot a lot between 210 and 300, selling the 75-300 might not be wise...

    I kept the 75, since it is a great lens, and a nice compact set with the 12-40.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    This is a similar thread: upgrade from Oly 75-300mm 4.8-6.7 II to 40-150 2.8 pro for wildlife?

    This is one homemade upscaled comparison:

    My Review: 40-150, vs 40-150 + TC, vs 75-300.: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

    The 40-150 upscale is done with the "zoom wheel". Done properly, with a little sharpening, would help a little. This means to crop down to 3300x2500 (8.2 MP, upscaled 1.4x). Upscale magnify noise too.

    Using both wide open you have half-stop of extra speed, not much, while setting the 75-300 to f8 you get a full stop of ISO or shutter speed that could matter more then the small IQ difference.

    If you take most of your shots near 300mm, maybe heavily cropped, I think that the Pana 100-400 is the best option (f/5.6 at 300mm) but is much more specialized then the 40-150 (with and without TC). There are no official samples yet, these are some of the best ones around:

    Panasonic 100-400mm lens shots
  7. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Here is my take on it having used the 75-300 and replaced it with the 50-200 SWD. The 50-200 is 2/3 of a stop slower then the 40-150 when no TC is in use, but at 150mm is only a 1/3 stop slower. When you add the TC to the 40-150 you have a lens that is slightly longer but a full stop to 1/3 stop slower. Honestly, the 40-150 is not better in IQ then the 50-200 (I feel the new Pro lenses are on par with the HG glass from the 4/3 systems) and is only superior in focus speed but not by much. If you add the EC-14 to the 50-200 you are now looking at a very good alternative to the 75-300. I never used my 75-300 past 280 and tried to stay around 250 because I felt it was just to soft. The 50-200 with EC-14 gets you to 280 at a faster aperture and much better IQ, the lens loses little to nothing in IQ when using the EC-14. You can even add the EC-20 to the 50-200 to get even longer reach at apertures that are only slightly slower then the 75-300 and honestly better IQ as the 75-300 at 300.

    Here are a few shots using the 50-200 SWD with the EC-20 from when I was doing a comparison against the ZD 150mm ƒ2.0 at the zoo (my favorite place to test lenses).

    View attachment 456375
    ZD SWD + EC-20 at 200mm No. 1 by Bohicat, on Flickr

    View attachment 456376
    ZD SWD + EC-20 at 200mm No. 2 by Bohicat, on Flickr

    View attachment 456377
    ZD SWD + EC-20 at 200mm No. 3 by Bohicat, on Flickr

    That Flickr album also has other test shots from the 50-200 with the EC-14 and with no TC if you care to look thru it.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. abhisheks77

    abhisheks77 Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 26, 2013
    I checked these pictures very carefully and was impressed. I can safely rule out 75-300mm and it left me comparing 40-150mm/f2.8 and 50-200 with the EC-14. With this discussion and other posts, it gives me impression that apart from little hunting on AF and weight, I should not see big difference in IQ. Am I assuming it correctly ?
  9. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    As far as IQ goes I honestly believe there is no real world difference between the 50-200 and 40-150. I am sure all those test charts and stuff will show some kind of difference, I have never looked at any and have just compared photos. The biggest difference between the two from a performance aspect is shooting speed. The 4/3 lenses will top out around 6.5fps when shooting in C-AF, they just have slower aperture mechanisms that do not allow them to shoot at 10fps while in C-AF. Now in S-AF they will easily shoot 10fps, unless you stop down....then the 50-200 will slow to around 6.5fps but even with the EC-14 the lens is perfectly sharp wide-open. I can't think of one time that I did not shoot the 50-200 wide-open. You can get the 50-200, EC-14 and MMF-3 for a really great price and it really is the greatest bargain out there in any system. You can add the EC-20 if you want to get even more reach and it will basically give you a very slightly slower version of the upcoming Panny 100-400.

    Edit - forgot to add get the SWD version over the none so you can have the instant access to mechanical focus for the times you miss focus and the lens starts to hunt.
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
  11. franklyadam

    franklyadam Mu-43 Rookie Subscribing Member

    Mar 3, 2014
    The FPS limit is a good point, the 50-200 won't be as consistent on its shot to shot speed. I was seriously considering the 40-150f2.8 for my e-m5 but decided to buy a used e-m1, mmf3 and 50-200 for about the same price :) ultimately I suspect the new lens would be better for focus speed, size and convience but the 50-200 has been impressing me quite a bit.

    I do plan to acquire the tele converters someday but it's not really a priority yet :)
    • Like Like x 1
  12. I have quit using my 75-300 since I got my 40-150 f/2.8 + MC-14. The 40-150 f/2.8 + MC-14 is on one of my bodies almost all the time. In my Flickr photos, I have taken over 4X as many shots with the MC-14 as I have without. I like my 75-300, I can just get a better final image with the 40-150 f/2.8 + MC-14.
  13. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Hi Abisheks77,
    I have the 50-200 SWD+EC-14+MMF-3 combination and love it. I got them all used for at least $1,000 less than the 40-150 Pro + TC-14 would have cost me. The Pro is a lovely lens, but I needed reach out to at least 200mm to shoot kids soccer games and I couldn't justify the cost. With the EM1, the 50-200 SWD focuses fast enough to use C-AF to catch the game action. Very pleased with the results. I used an Oly 40-150 R and a Pana 45-200 previously, and the 50-200 SWD is far better than either. It's substantially bigger and heavier, but not much more than the 40-150 Pro. I didn't go for the Oly 75-300 Mk II or the Pana 100-300 because I felt the 50-200 SWD was sharper, faster, and a better choice for me.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1