Comparison Olypmus 40-150 Pro with 75/1.8, 100-300, 14-140 mk2

gccg88 wrote:

slartz wrote:

I'd say that in terms of center sharpness - the diff is negligible in my eyes, and for now "justified" my decision to buy the 35-100/2.8 as my highend telephoto for portable everyday usage, and complement it with 100-300 (or 75-300 - I still need to decide ;)) for wildlife. When I shoot wildlife, I care mostly about Center resolution.

WITH THAT SAID - I think the big diff between the 40-150/2.8PRO and the 100-300/75-300 is the Contrast and microcontrast. They render better - and as such - using the 75-300/100-300 will require some more PP to compensate for that (and may not reach the same overall quality).

For my personal taste - I only do Wildlife on occasion, and I can live with that compromise. In all honesty - it's smaller than I thought... I expected the 40-150/2.8 to be much better, even with TC.

The difference in sharpness at 210mm is larger (in favour of the 40-150 pro):

Center crop:

210mm F5.0 - center crop

Edge crop:

210mm F5.0 - edge crop

Honestly? The difference is small. Yes, I can see it at 100% crop, but it requires some close looking. if you put them without telling me which is which, I'd have to spend a few seconds to examine the photos to tell which one is the sharper one. Once you see it you can't unsee it of course and it's clear, but - I've seen people pay a lot less diff on the glass for a lot more improvement.

I have to say - I'm quite impressed as how well a "cheapo" 200-600 equiv lens delivers. I know it stops delivering around 250, but it's still a "worthy" 200-500 lens.

I just have to decide if I'm getting the 100-300 or the 75-300 II.