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

Hen3ry wrote:

Thorfinn wrote:

I was part of my fathers heritage. He got it as part of e-PL3 kit. I paid nothing. I do not use it.

The pictures are sharp enough, no reasonable pillow, no fugly bouquet. You get a 300mm compared to 35mm film - amazing and it is cheap.

It is just because it is a 5,6 on four thirds sensor. No indoor available light and a large depth of field. That are the reasons why Olympus makes the 40-150 2.8 PRO (with a totally different price tag). For the rest of us: Save the money, save some more and go for the Olympus 75 1.8.

Try using it, Thorfinn, and you might find a place for it. It is an amazing little lens, very sharp, very smooth micro-contrast.

Bear in mind that at shorter focal lengths, it is f4 or thereabouts, only one stop slower than the 5x more expensive f2.8. That is not a lot of difference.

Geoff

You can see how lynch mobs organise - how dare you criticise my favourite lens ..

Re-read the short review I don't think he said it was a bad lens otherwise than that it was not exactly the best lens for indoor available light.  Find me one that is and I will suspect that you just robbed a bank ....

That it was not his ideal does not mean that many others have used this lens very successfully and he did promote it as cheap and that it had excellent quality for what it does best.

As a side issue I have just strapped my Takumar 200/3.5 on to my GM1 with focal reducer adapter.  Makes it a 280/2.5 (roughly) equivalent in FF terms.  I think I can feel free to roundly criticise this lens as much I feel like as I am probably the only fool in the world to try this and everyone loves to laugh along with a clown.

But this is serious stuff.  Just escaped (temporarily) from the little workshop up in the shed with my latest masterpiece red dot sight mount for the GM1 - more anon ......