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

Martin Ocando wrote:

I'd think you review is not very fair with the 40-150mm. You can't compare a premium lens like the 75mm with one of the less expensive lenses in Olympus lineup. The 40-150mm delivers very good quality for the price, is slow, no question on that matter, but you can almost buy 8 40-150s and one 75 with the same money. So, you can have a bag with a few lenses, covering a wider range of focal lengths, instead of one single telephoto lens.

I'd say, get your lens collection first, maybe not spending too much in a single focal length, until you decide what is your style, and you preferred photographic subject, and then start investing in specialty lenses, like fisheyes and super fast telephotos.

Unless you are rich, and this conversation have no meaning at all.

Saying that investing on the 40-150 you should save for the 75, is like saying don't get that toyota corolla, instead save for an Aston Martin.

Martin

Thofinn's sparse comments are right on the button.  None of the wishy washy precision testing and sample images.  "The slow long lens does the job in its limited field of endeavour" -- but why it is (must be) cheap is reasonably highlighted.

That everyone cannot afford an Aston Martin is a certain fact but no point in putting an Aston Martin grille on a Toyota Corolla and expecting the same level of performance.

Facts are fact and pointing out the money side of things hardly changes the situation where big money sometimes gets better performance (as if having money to splash makes a better photographer). The latter conclusion was not a necessary part of Thorfinn's review.