The 40-150 2.8 is an incredible lens. It packs some weight, but boy is it sharp. Ironically, it's the default lens on my EM5.3, but I have primes for when I want super-light weight. I went with the MC20 with mine, which will come in handy for winter bird shooting. With the relatively short min focal distance, you can do a lot with 40-150 2.8. It's my butterfly lens-of-choice.Almost exactly four weeks ago I posted on this thread saying I'd just purchased an Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro zoom lens. I'd deliberated for some time about this lens, as it wasn't something I needed (I already have the Oly 12-40 f2.8 and the Pan 35-100 f2.8), but so many photographers seem to love it and sing it's praises, so I wanted to know if it would suit me. I had two weeks to decide whether to keep it or return it for a full refund. I sent it back!
The 12-100 is a very versatile lens; it's very sharp, and the stabilisation, particularly with the EM1 Mk3, is exceptional. But, for me, it was just too big and too heavy. It was a relief to go back to my 12-40 and not have the size and weight of the 12-100 pulling the camera down all the time. After all, I changed from full frame to Micro 4/3rds to get away from that sort of thing. So why have I just purchased another lens; this time one that is even bigger and heavier than the 12-100 ... the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 Pro zoom?
For me, the difference between the 12-100 f4 and the 40-150 f2.8 is simple; the 40-150 doesn't have to stay on the camera all the time. With the 12-100 there is really no respite; it's designed to cover pretty well all the focal lengths I might need, so was on the camera constantly. With the 40-150, I'll still use my 12-40 for most of my shooting, only changing to the longer lens when required. It's a heavy lens, but I don't mind the weight if it's in my bag on my shoulder.
I look upon the 40-150 as a specialised lens; when I need the extra reach it's there, otherwise the smaller, lighter 35-100 will suffice with no loss of speed. I'm really appreciating the long range of this lens, and I'm even thinking of getting the MC-14 converter to give me the occasional option of a 56-210mm zoom. This lens will definitely not be going back!
I just tried out a KP with the 35mm f2.4 - optically the lens seemed very decent. But man, that build quality. The only MFT lenses I can think of that would be similar are toy lenses. Even the budget Olympus 17mm f2.8 is vastly better feeling.I've had the 35mm f2.4 for 18mths or so and use it very lightly. I mainly got it because the Sigma 17-35mm f2.8 that came with my K-7 seemed very soft but now I realise it was probably just the K-7 being a K-7. I knew there was a 50mm DA out there too but was fine using the manual-focus 50's (I had a K-mount and M42-mount Pentaxes).
Anyway, I saw another eBay bargain and picked up a 50mm f1.8 DA - super cheap & almost obnoxiously budget-build (just like the 35mm) but the pics seem fine. Its weird because I'd struggle to think of an original manufacturers lens that feels this cheesy in Nikon or Micro-Four-Thirds land (maybe the Oly body-cap lenses?). Will slap it on the K-5 and see how it performs - ultimately its the pics that count.
View attachment 848251_9210055 by Walter Kernow, on Flickr
I have the 40-150 Pro and both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. Image quality is excellent with either teleconverter.I've sent for an MC-14 converter and will play around with that for now. However, I may invest in the MC-20 later as well; it seems a really simple and lightweight way of increasing the range to 300mm, and I believe the IQ is very good too.
Not bad at all, that body seems matched perfectly for either the 17 1.8 or the 25 1.8.So, I ordered this yesterday and it arrived this afternoon.
View attachment 851512
After charging the battery, I just had time to slap the 17mm f1.8 lens on and nip outside to get this.
View attachment 851513
SOOC, and apart from selecting aperture priority, I've no idea what was set in camera.
It's a used body with around 8,000 shots and seems in pristine condition, was boxed, with all the accessories.
Not bad for £300 methinks.