Will the upcoming Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 be inferior in shallow DoF compared to the 75mm f/1.8?

blindinglight

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
37
Location
Thailand
Real Name
Rommel
The prime has bigger Aperture so I was wondering if I should just buy this now and save a bit more money. Of course the 40-150 has better focal length legroom but if we talk strictly bokeh effects/shallow DoF/background blur, will the bigger aperture prime still be a better glass for this case?

Thank you for the thoughts and opinions.

Keith

Edit: I'm using the E-M1 body.
 

blindinglight

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
37
Location
Thailand
Real Name
Rommel
Thank you for the quick reply, Barry. So basically if I step back to maintain equal framing and use the 150mm at its longest, I might get better shallow depth of field than the prime (newbie lesson for me). That's good to know since having flexibility in focal length might after all make the newer Pro lens a glass to strongly consider for a bokeh whore noob like me :) . Thanks again.
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,482
Location
Canada
Use an online DOF calculator and plug in some random numbers.

At 75mm, definitely. At 100-125mm? They'll likely be close. At 150mm? Who knows...the 150 might edge out the 75. (Since 150 2.8 equates roughly to a 200 f4 on APS-C or a 300 f5.6 on full frame, you could always check out pictures made with those combinations to get a ROUGH idea on what sort of images you'd be looking at out of this lens at 150mm wide open).
 

blindinglight

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
37
Location
Thailand
Real Name
Rommel
Use an online DOF calculator and plug in some random numbers.

At 75mm, definitely. At 100-125mm? They'll likely be close. At 150mm? Who knows...the 150 might edge out the 75. (Since 150 2.8 equates roughly to a 200 f4 on APS-C or a 300 f5.6 on full frame, you could always check out pictures made with those combinations to get a ROUGH idea on what sort of images you'd be looking at out of this lens at 150mm wide open).
= 300mm f/5.6 for FF systems. Will jot down those figures, thanks. Yeah I like dofmaster calculator but was curious more insight from the photo community.

Thanks, Lowrider.


Edit: Klorenzo thank you for the awesome link.
 

blindinglight

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
37
Location
Thailand
Real Name
Rommel
I updated your choices and narrowed the lenses down to two.

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-75mm-f1.8-and-2x-150mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

So basically, if the subject to background distance is 10 meters, they both have roughly/approximately (of course barring the quality of each lens) the same amount of background blur?
 

Klorenzo

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,905
Real Name
Lorenzo

blindinglight

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
37
Location
Thailand
Real Name
Rommel

arch stanton

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
419
Location
London
Real Name
Malc
Just as an aside, if you want to take a landscape full-length shot of someone (<6ft tall) with a 150mm lens you have to stand 70 feet away.
Bring a megaphone! ;)
 

eteless

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,889
I think the 40-150 will be far better at 40-74 and 76-150, but at 75 the prime will always win.

You don't generally buy a zoom for bokeh (I laugh every time someone uses the word bokeh, I don't think that word means what you think it does... common usage aside), it's more for how it can work in a variety of situations and be very flexible. To get that flexibility you give up some performance, use the right tool for the right job - they're just different tools for slightly different situations.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom