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

Tony8232 wrote:

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.

To me the difference is quite significant in sharpness and especially contrast. I won't be buying the Pro because right now I can't afford it. I want to save up for the new 300 mm lens. The big deal with the Pro zoom is it expands the morning and evening hours when its not easy get HQ wildlife photos with the existing lenses. I suspect that includes AF performance also. For the right customer its worth every penny.

Yes, exactly. The faster zoom offers several stops improvement in ISO. So obviously it is worth it for the fat wallet right customer.

But ... looking at the final crop comparison, you say that the difference is "quite significant" to you. I look at the full sized crops and I see the chimney being sharper for the Oly and the branches at the top against open sky being sharper for the Panny.

What that says to me is that the focus is off in this test. One focuses much further back than the other, making one sharper at the chimney and one sharper at the branches way back there.

The point being that it has not really earned your level of respect here. It's other attributes remain as important as always, but contrast and sharpness is not at all a spanking against the 100-300 that you purport ...

I have the 100-300 and have always found it to be really sharp and surprisingly contrasty for a consumer zoom. YMMV