Is it because I do not like slow telephoto zoom lenses?

Martin Ocando wrote:

Thorfinn wrote:

Well, in this case, I believe you should compare pears to pears. Just the same as DPreview compares DSLRs with DSLRs, Mirrorless with Mirrorless, and P&S to P&S, and not between them, in the case of lenses, you should be comparing premium lenses with their alike's, so I'd compare the Oly 40-150 vs the Panny 45-150, which are in a similar price range, performance, and build quality. That way you can make an informed decision on which one to invest on. In the case of the 75, I'd compare it with the ones you just mentioned, a Vogtländer or a Zeiss, but not with a poor plastic zoom. Is just not fair.

But who tells the audience, that there IS a difference when you switch sensor size? Olympus & Panasonic do the opposite.

No I am not rich - I use m4/3 not Leica M. But there is a difference and it would not be fair tagging 4 for this lens and the same for the PRO version. What would be the meaning of spending all the money on a PRO lens?

Again, because you are not comparing similar lenses, just a pro with an entry level lens.

Yes that is right. I do not compare similar lenses. I want to open the audiences eyes for 'something completly different'.

Why is there no comparision between the 40-150 PRO and the entry-level 40-150 lens - even from the same manufacturer? How can the audience learn that there is a difference, and people stop asking for a 400mm 2.8 with a USD 200 price tag?

Hehe, no, I'm not into British cars, I just happen to like Aston Martins, just to watch them on the movies, and dream on being James Bond

James Bond does not need a Aston Martin. James Bond wins car races in a 2CV.

I know what you mean, in my case I always had a Nikon film camera, and sadly no access to nothing with a * in it. Just a few years ago I purchased a used m42 mount 35mm f:2.4 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon, and I was so excited, My God, my first Carl Zeiss, I though. Sadly, the front element is loose, ...

Ever thought why the Stasi made such poor pictures?

and I can't seem to find a way to center it correctly, so images are not sharp across the frame. There are no reliable shops here in Panama, maybe next time I travel to the US, I will bring it with me and leave it on a shop for repair. I really like the quality of the lens.

Maybee the used the best glue from VEB Plaste und Elaste IG FARBEN. Why do you like the quality of the lens, made in a way the front element will go loose?

After WW2 the know-how of Carl Zeiss Jena went west. The precise machinery went East. They continued with what was left. Its fun to have a Flektogon in a cabinet.
mass-marked west german lenses are hard to find. The Carl Zeiss T* for Contax were mostly made by Cosina. The same Rollei HFT lenses, but still, they are true Planar or Sonnar.

BTW: Something i really miss from NIKCANON: names!
names like: Flektogon, Sonnar, Planar, Super-Angulon, Tessar, Distagon, Curtagon, Summicron.
a few knowns the meaning, less can pronounce them, but they are fun for the rest of us.

You are right the 40-150 is like a kit zoom lens, and in fact it is, is mostly sold as a 2 lens kit with many cameras. Although, I think it performs admirably for what it costs, and that is why I believe it should get a very high rating, among their similar, and not compared to either the 75mm 1.8 or the Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 Pro.

I understand your way of comparison, but is thar really fair overfor a Pro lens? Why not challange the audience?

Henry Ford said: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
Luckily he did not asked and challanged.