1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

To sell or not to sell: 14-150mk2

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by mesmerized, May 4, 2016.

  1. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Dear Users,

    My E-M5mk2 was bought with 14-150mk2 and I'm wondering whether I should keep it or not. I used it last time during F1 Shanghai race and the extra focal length came in handy... On the other hand, I could put the money into 12-40 and probably be happier with the overall quality. What are your thoughts?

    Cheers
     
  2. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Personally I went with a 12-40 + budget f/4-5.6 telephoto (40-150R, 45-150, 35-100, or 45-175 in my case). I shoot far more in the 12-40 range where the fast constant aperture, better IQ and close focussing are great advantages day-to-day.

    There are few times I need true telephoto - wildlife, events and distant landscape. In those cases a light budget telephoto loses nothing compared to the 14-150 except in convenience and weather sealing - they're all f/4-5.6 and of similar IQ.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    It depends on your usage. I bought the 14-150II to have an all-in-one weather-sealed hiking rig. It replaced the kit zooms and eliminated lens changing. I am happy with the purchase.

    The 12-40 would keep the weather sealing and be faster through it's range. Maybe you should sift through your images to see how much you have used 40-150mm. And as wjiang said, you could always pick up the cheap 40-150R for those times.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I think the strength of the superzoom is entirely in the fact that it is a superzoom, and you'll be getting images you simply wouldn't get if you didn't have it. It's rare that people mount a telephoto without having a specific reason for it, but there are always interesting shots to be had if you happen to be using one. In any of the circumstances where I'm using a superzoom I'd find it hard to justify carrying another piece of kit just as big and heavy (or bigger and heavier!) as a complimentary lens that I might happen to use, but likely won't.

    If you aren't regularly using the 40-150mm part of the focal range, I wouldn't sweat it and just go for the 12-40/2.8. But there's a good reason why I don't own any of the slow telephoto lenses, and it's because they aren't much smaller or lighter than the 10x superzooms, and the marginal quality improvement vs. the huge convenience advantage of the 14-140 means it's not a tradeoff I'd be willing to make. The 14-150 has the extra advantage of being weather-sealed, which none of the other lightweight telephotos can offer.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Pstmstr

    Pstmstr Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Mar 22, 2016
    You should sell it....to me. PM me if you do decide to sell it. I'd trade a 40-150 to you to cover the high end and pay the difference or just buy it outright if the price is right.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    How do you use your images? Do you print very large, above 16" x 20" for example? Do you do a lot of heavy cropping?

    There's been another thread going here where the theme is generally that most of our equipment is "good enough" for the uses most of us put our images to. eBooks, prints up to the 16" x 20" range without heavy cropping, online postings, etc. Said another way, will the 12-40 produce any perceptible improvement in your images as you use them? Unless your use case is something different than most of us, the answer is "probably not."

    I have the 14-140mm Mk II and to paraphrase Charlton Heston: "If you want it you will have to pry it from my cold, dead, hands." I agree with turbofrog.
     
  7. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    If you're not using it, sell it!
     
  8. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    From what I gather, it is his/her only lens. So he/she has to be using it.

    A little research into what focal lengths that are being used currently would go a long way to figuring out if the debate on speed vs. convenience.
     
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Superzooms IMHO are a compromise too far. As wjiang says, unless you're into a lot of tele work (in which case you'll want something better at the 140 end), then the cheap and cheerful 4-150R is all you'll need and the 12-40 (or Panasonic 12-35) will give you notably better quality, speed (brightness) and convenience in everyday shooting. There's quite a difference between 14 and 12mm at the wide end too.
     
  10. flamingfish

    flamingfish Mu-43 Top Veteran

    771
    Nov 16, 2012
    Emily
    Ditto what TNcasual said. The 14-150 is a great travel lens, for times when you can't or don't want to stop and change lenses. I have the mk I version, and if Pstmstr hadn't beaten me to it, I would have thought about negotiating a deal for your mk II (I could throw in a 40-150, too.)
     
  11. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    It depends on how you think to replace the tele end of the lens, 40mm is not a lot. If you plan to get the 40-150 pro too then sell it, but later, not now, I do not think the used price is going to drop much (unless it is still under warranty). If you are happy with the small 40-150 (not sealed) then get it ($99) and sell it now.
    Then it depends a lot on how small you want to go: the 14-150 alone is practically smaller then the 12-40 + 40-150/4-5.6 or about any other combo (except P12-32+P35-100).
    IQ...it depends how much that matters to you personally and if your subjects/style are "IQ sensitive".
     
  12. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    941
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    Sell it...but that's just cause I've never been a fan of one lens suits all. That and the 12-40 is a wonderful lens.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2016
  13. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    I'm all about quality... Still can't get over the fact that m4/3 can't give me what Fuji XF56mm used to give me, but that's just a digression. Anyway, yes, quality is my top priority.

    Thanks for all the answers.
     
  14. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    PL Nocticron - not quite as sharp as the XF56 in the centre wide open but better at the edges.
     
  15. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    941
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    Buy a used 75mm or 42.5 1.2...it's about as close as you're gonna get
     
  16. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Top Veteran

    846
    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    This is not the first thread you have posted with these sentiments. In one of your earlier threads, many people recommended that you try out some primes maybe beginning with the O45/1.8 or O75/1.8 and see if you begin to get what you are looking for. Your last response there suggested that you would do so. Have you tried either of those lenses?

    Since you continue to compare a slow superzoom to a fast prime on a bigger sensor, I am thinking that you are not really serious about improving your images and would rather keep blaming the gear you have. In fact, if you had primes on Fuji, why would you not start off by buying one for m43 right off the bat? One big advantage of m43 is the abundance of cheap, good primes.

    [Edit]
    And this is not to mention your other thread on macro.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    @mesmerized@mesmerized, I am still curious to know how you use your images that causes you to pursue "quality" as if it had some value on its own.

    The first thing you learn in six-sigma or other quality training is that quality is not some vague thing where some is good and more is better. Quality is conformance with requirements. In the photographic context I take that to mean that if additional "quality" cannot be seen in my images the way I use them then it has no value. I think there are many here who would argue that the quality of almost any M43 lens, including the zooms, is entirely adequate for printing at least to 16" x 20" unless you are such a poor or unlucky photographer that you routinely have to crop heavily. So ... back to the question: How do you use your images?

    If your pursuit of "quality" means better and better pixel peeping, then there is no end to it and no point in these discussions. It's a fine hobby, closely related to GAS, but it is not photography.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    1) I have never made a comparison like that.
    2) The thread on macro was, as I said at the very beginning of the posting, started out of pure curiosity in reaction to the video that I had watched.
     
  19. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    I do print pics occasionally, but most of the time I keep my pics on my PC. Most of the time E-M5ii does the job and it does it well, but when it comes to portraits, I'm simply disappointed. I've tried the 45mm Olly, and it doesn't blow my mind away. It's a great lens and the price is right, but what the 56mm XF does is absolutely stunning.

    Anyway, this thread was just about 14-150mk2, which I'm going to sell probably, if I find a buyer. Bought it in Singapore in February.

    PS. Just for the record. Fuji doesn't heal all the world's problems when it comes to photography (foliage issues) but the portraits taken with it are just mesmerizing. And no, Sony's FF doesn't tempt me at all, so I'm not all about the sensor's size, as someone has suggested before.
     
  20. MJL

    MJL Mu-43 Regular

    199
    Feb 24, 2016
    Katikati, New Zealand
    Marinus