Stunning iamges from the new 40-150!

[letsgofishing]

Man, this lens looks good.....
http://pen3.de/40-150/40-150.html

 

[OzRay]

I just posted this in the other thread and I don't think the photos really show all that much greatness, not on my screen anyway (and as I said, I hate the horizontal scrolling).

 

[ErnieH]

Man, this lens looks good.....
http://pen3.de/40-150/40-150.html

It is a good lens, especially considering the pice, and that's beautiful work. Well done!

 

[letsgofishing]

I just posted this in the other thread and I don't think the photos really show all that much greatness, not on my screen anyway (and as I said, I hate the horizontal scrolling).

That's a pity - on my Dell 24" colour calibrated screen the detail on those butterflies is amazing....

 

[David A]

Pekka Potka has posted a review of a pre-production sample on his site http://www.pekkapotka.com/zuiko4015028/

Click on the link to the blog for the review, and links to more images than the one shown on the linked page. He also had the teleconverter and some of the images he's posted use it as well. One of his comments is "My only expectation and hope beforehand was that it was on the same level as M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO. It was. It is even better." That says something about quality because I think the 12-40 has very good image quality. I got my 12-40 a couple of weeks ago and I have to wonder why I waited so long.I think it's a superb lens and if the 40-150 is better then it will really be something.

 

[DennisC]

Pekka Potka has posted a review of a pre-production sample on his site http://www.pekkapotka.com/zuiko4015028/

Click on the link to the blog for the review, and links to more images than the one shown on the linked page. He also had the teleconverter and some of the images he's posted use it as well. One of his comments is "My only expectation and hope beforehand was that it was on the same level as M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO. It was. It is even better." .

Sorry but I see nothing about those images to match the narrative.

 

[Turbofrog]

Sorry but I see nothing about those images to match the narrative.

Wow. Okay.

Well, I guess I'm just really easily impressed, or I don't know anything about photography. Maybe both! But I find shots like this one pretty incredible.

http://www.pekkapotka.com/zuiko4015028/9gzrmgruu0cs9zp1jy2hsfwtc6hm2x

 

[David A]

Sorry but I see nothing about those images to match the narrative.

That's fine. The only thing I would say is that if you don't have the chance to try one, then wait until a lot of people have tried it and/or tested it and there are a lot of opinions and examples available to look at. You haven't tried it, I haven't tried it, and neither of us is in any position to say whether it's good or bad. For me, I'm impressed by quite a few of Potka's photos and I've found information on his site about things like exposure very helpful in the past so I tend to give his views a bit of weight.

 

[OzRay]

I'm not suggesting that the shots shown are in any way poor or the like, but that the ones that I've seen could have been taken with almost any lens of reasonable quality. I'd also like to see some crops or full sized images from the shots, so I'm not just looking at a reduced screen image (on a 23" calibrated monitor). I guess that will come in time.

 

[newphoto]

Wow. Okay.

Well, I guess I'm just really easily impressed, or I don't know anything about photography. Maybe both! But I find shots like this one pretty incredible.

http://www.pekkapotka.com/zuiko4015028/9gzrmgruu0cs9zp1jy2hsfwtc6hm2x

I think the detail and resolution in these images made with the new 40-150 are absolutely first class and I have been shooting wildlife for twenty years!

 

[biza48]

Wow. Okay.

Well, I guess I'm just really easily impressed, or I don't know anything about photography. Maybe both! But I find shots like this one pretty incredible.

http://www.pekkapotka.com/zuiko4015028/9gzrmgruu0cs9zp1jy2hsfwtc6hm2x

It's no doubt a fine lens, and a fine shot. This specific photo it says it was taken at 210mm f4, the problem I have with the photo is that the background is just too distracting, the bird has just a small degree of isolation. This is because the depth of field is not enough to really blur the background.

Now, I know that taking this shot say with a 400mm f4 lens on a FF camera would result in a more blurred background, but at the cost of extra weight!

 

[drd1135]

Now question these are great images. But here is the image thread from the old slow version of the 40-150:

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=8166&page=79

If you look through this thread you see many great images. We need better comparisons to see the differences that make the new lens so much better. Obviously, it's faster and that will help in ways like background separation. I've often been amused at how a better photographer can make an inferior lens look better.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

There are some nice images in the links provided, but the streams could do with some more serious editing. Only show the best work, not every frame you took. A lenses reputation can be sullied by inferior works even if there are superior images in the mix. It can make the viewer wonder if the photographer just got lucky or if there is a serious issue with the lens that.

 

[Carbonman]

Now question these are great images. But here is the image thread from the old slow version of the 40-150:

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=8166&page=79

If you look through this thread you see many great images. We need better comparisons to see the differences that make the new lens so much better. Obviously, it's faster and that will help in ways like background separation. I've often been amused at how a better photographer can make an inferior lens look better.

It's always the photographer that makes great pictures. Equipment is almost always secondary beyond a certain point. Road cyclists (another group notorious for GAS and toys in general) have a saying, "You can't buy speed". Ours should be "you can't buy photographic talent".

 

[newphoto]

It's always the photographer that makes great pictures. Equipment is almost always secondary beyond a certain point. Road cyclists (another group notorious for GAS and toys in general) have a saying, "You can't buy speed". Ours should be "you can't buy photographic talent".

Well said!

 

[SpecFoto]

Man, this lens looks good.....
http://pen3.de/40-150/40-150.html

If you look at some of the other work at the pen3.de site, specifically the "Neue Fotos" link you will see exceedingly sharp close up and macro photos with 3 very sharp prime lenses, the Oly 75mm 1.8 and 60 macro, plus the Sigma 150.2.8 macro. The new 40-150 f/2.8 sharpness seems to be right in line with those lenses, even with the 1.4 teleconverter. Very impressive for a zoom lens.

 

[Turbofrog]

It's no doubt a fine lens, and a fine shot. This specific photo it says it was taken at 210mm f4, the problem I have with the photo is that the background is just too distracting, the bird has just a small degree of isolation. This is because the depth of field is not enough to really blur the background.

Now, I know that taking this shot say with a 400mm f4 lens on a FF camera would result in a more blurred background, but at the cost of extra weight!

Interesting. I find the separation quite distinct in this shot, and I enjoy that it gives real context to the environment. In general I don't find super shallow DOF to be particularly interesting. If that's all I wanted, I would just whip up a super quick layer mask or depth map and just blur it in Photoshop.

Clearly, just different preferences.