1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Upgrading 40-150mm/F4.0-5.6. Which one ?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by dipan000, Feb 11, 2016.

  1. dipan000

    dipan000 New to Mu-43

    3
    Feb 11, 2016
    Hello all,

    I am looking for some suggestions on upgrading my lens for Olympus E-M1. I have 12-40mm zoom and 45mm & 75mm in prime. I have 40-150mm/F4.0-5.6, which is in question here. I have options to discuss about 50-200mm (heavy with slow AF, needs good hands to get amazing pictures), 40-150mm/f2.8 (little short of reach but EC-14 can fulfill that ?) and Olympus 75-300mm ii (inexpensive but slow).

    Why I need to change 40-150 ? I am not looking for extra ordinary reach, but 150 feels little short. If I need to take picture of birds or wilflife, I always want to get them, when Sun is going down. At that light, lens was slow and slow in AF, specially when subject is inside bushes and trees. Taking pictures of wildlife is one part, apart from it, I love to do landscapes and during family and friend gathering, I love to take capture.

    IF, I need to upgrade it, what do you suggest between 50-200mm, 40-150mm/f2.8 and Olympus 75-300mm ii ?

    Thanks in advance
     
  2. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    150mm gives you the field of view of 300,the TC puts that out to 420mm FOV.

    If you need more reach than that and good light is not in the cards, your options are then the Panasonic 100-400mm, which is still a bit on the slow side, but not as bad as the Oly 75-300mm, or the new Olympus 300mm f/4.

    With the above options, you are looking at FOV in the range of 600mm to 800mm. The 300/4 can also use the MC-14 teleconverter which gives you 840mm FOV.

    Any way you slice it, you are probably not going to get out of this without spending some good money on an optic. The good news is that the Panasonic 100-400mm and the Oly 300/4 are great to best in class optics.
     
  3. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I have the 40-150 2.8 and it is short when I try to shoot birds, and I don't have the teleconverter. I think the 40-150 2.8 with mc14 after cropping will still be a better combo than 75-300, obviously more expensive though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. dipan000

    dipan000 New to Mu-43

    3
    Feb 11, 2016
    Then 75-300mm ii is out of this debate. Olympus 300mm f/4 is way expensive (for me), I do not want to go till that. Panasonic 100-400mm is also expensive, but I can still wait for sometime to save some money for that. Along with that, should I consider 50-200mm and 40-150mm/f2.8 (both with EC14) ?
    I am not exactly in BIF, but I love wildlife.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2016
  5. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I really should make a really long post so I can just point people to it. I just made a long reply about TC's and 4/3 lenses that covers a lot of different stuff. It can be found here: The E-M1 and teleconverters (EC-14, EC-20) with four-thirds lenses

    If you search on 50-200 you can find some other threads where I have talked a lot about this lens.

    The 50-200 is the best bargain out there. Image quality wise with the EC-14 it is way better then the 75-300, there is really no comparison, and it's only 20ish millimeters shorter. Compared to the 40-150 Pro they are equal in IQ and if you and the TC to the 40-150 to get equal reach the 50-200 is better. The only major differences are the Pro will focus slightl faster (not really worth the price difference for the slightly faster focusing) and in C-AF the 50-200 will only do about 6.5fps (in S-AF it will do 10fps just like the Pro)

    Follow that link above and there are links to a bunch of other threads I started. If you have more questions just ask and I'll try to answer.

    Regards,

    Ronnie
     
  6. ashburtononline

    ashburtononline Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Jan 21, 2015
    New Zealand
    Well, I use the 40-150 f2.8 and sometimes (tho not often) with the MC14 .... Its a stunning lens that can be used wide open .... Speed is everything to me and so the 50-200 never interested me but by all accounts its a very decent lens. I was close to getting a 35-100 f2 but don't regret getting the 40-150 instead.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016
  7. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Hi,

    1. The EC-14 only fits 4/3 ZD lenses such as the 50-200mm

    2. The MC-14 only fits the m.ZD 40-150 Pro & m.ZD 300mm
    It will not work with the MMF adapters so it cannot be used with ZD lenses.
    However, it will fit in most legacy adapters for non AF lenses.

    3. If you find 150mm too short for birds, 210mm may not be much better... I'd consider:
    ZD 50-200 + EC-14 & EC-20 (+MMF-3)
    Pana 100-400
    ZD 150/2 + EC-14 & EC-20 (+MMF-3)
    m.ZD 300mm + MC-14
    ZD 300/2.8 + EC-14...

    4. What ISOs are you using?

    Barry
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. AussiePhil

    AussiePhil Mu-43 Top Veteran

    774
    Jun 1, 2014
    Canberra, ACT, Aust
    Phil
    The 40-150Pro with the EC14 gives a sharper image (slightly) than the 50-200 and is therefore more croppable. The 50-200 can be sluggish to focus in comparison and I personally prefer the 40-150Pro for wildlife/birds
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Or wear camouflage or use a blind, to get closer.
     
  10. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    There's also some adapted options if you don't mind MF... lots of 300/4 lenses out there that are cheaper than the new Oly.
     
  11. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I will have to argue this one. The 40-150 is about equal in sharpness to the 50-200 and using the mc-14 with the 40-150 is definitely not going to be sharper then the 50-200. If a proper micro focus adjust is performed on the 50-200 it is as sharp as the 40-150. All of the Pro lenses are about equal to the 4/3 HG lenses. Yes, it focuses a little slower but $1,000 slower and is more then capable of shooting sports or BiF.
     
  12. AussiePhil

    AussiePhil Mu-43 Top Veteran

    774
    Jun 1, 2014
    Canberra, ACT, Aust
    Phil
    That's cool, different experiences count plus I've not done a micro focus adjust nor would the average user generally.
    I have a thread somewhere where I've said that the two are essentially the same but as I've used both over the last 12 months I've found the 40-150Pro to edge out the 50-200 over a range of images.
    I reach for the 40-150 when I know I want the last little bit of quality or focus speed.

    BTW - good second hand 50-200's are still hovering about 50-60% of the new price of a 40-150 here in Oz so it does change the value discussion
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The Oly 75-300 is a great lens for its price & size & worthwhile on that basis (I also modified the 40-150 lens hood to make it more compact in the bag). As far as aperture goes, you can think of it as an extension to the 40-150 lens because at 150mm it is f5.6 (the same for the 40-150 lens) & the aperture changes in a parallel value to the 40-150 lens.

    The other lens that can be had but needs the MMF-3 (or similar) at a good price is the ZD50-200 SWD f2.8-35 lens (unfortunately with a big lens hood) & I recommend it, especially for low light situations. I do use the EC14 teleconverter with it for extra reach, but that adds more cost.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2016
  14. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The only real upgrades are the 40-150 PRO or 50-200 SWD. Both are a lot bigger and heavier though, not sure you'll like lugging them for casual family snaps. The 40-150 will be useable on other bodies while you're stuck with some kind of E-M1 for the SWD. The 75-300 is not an upgrade as you're going from a telephoto to a supertelephoto - different beasts. A nice portable upgrade is the 35-100 f/2.8 which is good for portraits but you lose reach for wildlife.
     
  15. dipan000

    dipan000 New to Mu-43

    3
    Feb 11, 2016
    Barry, I still need to learn on MF and I am learning. Would other 300 lenses (adapted) come with lesser weight then these ones ?
    I can go up to 1600 or 3200, when pushed. But most of the time, depend on scene. Nature photography being my primary interest, I don't normally go above base ISO.
    If I consider weight, it seems all of them are very close. 40-150mm is 880g vs 50-200mm is 995g (Panasonic 100-400mm too). Though 50-200 may look big due to external zoom.

    Phocal, I read your post and it was really good explanation with lot of examples. On longer end also, 50-200 seems equally good at long end of 40-150 (with extender). I am looking at it correctly ? It seems to be its weight is compensating price and extra reach.

    wjiang, I have 75mm, so would not want 35-100. It is close enough. And I already ruled out 75-300mm from options. So yes, real options are 40-150mm/F2.8 and 50-200 SWD.
     
  16. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Probably not lighter, but the price could be much better than the m.ZD 300/4.
     
  17. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Atlanta
    And you will not be doing Synch IS with any adapted lens either. Plus I have yet to see anyone have as sharp an image with an adapted lenses as I have seen from the 300 Pro.
     
  18. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Comparing bare lenses, the 50-200 and 40-150 are equal when it comes to IQ. If you add the MC-14 to the 40-150 to give you the same reach as the 50-200 (ok, it would be 10mm longer) then the 40-150 is not going to provide equal IQ and it will be 1/3 stop slower at the long end and a full stop slower at the short end. You can also add the EC-14 to the 50-200 to give you even more reach, out to 280mm which gives almost equal reach to the 75-300 (which I know you are not interested in) at a much faster aperture and better IQ.

    If you are looking for around 300mm of reach on a budget and you have an EM1, the 50-200 with EC-14 is the way to go. You may or may not have to do a micro focus adjust on the 50-200, but that is pretty simple and easy to do. All photos I have posted using my 50-200 and EC-14 are with no micro focus adjust (have not used it since doing the adjustment because I basically only use my 150mm ƒ2.0 now), so it is not always needed. Now this Saturday I am taking the 50-200 with me because I want to play around with using the EC-20 on it. Want to test if it is viable from an IQ perspective to use as a 400mm lens, making it good alternative to the Panny 100-400.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1