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

Martin Ocando wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

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.

More to my point, Tom. There is no point in putting the 75mm against the 40-150, and expecting similar performance. It will be night and day.

I agree.  You are quite right.  Thorfinn simply thought that for his purpose he would prefer to invest in the "75".  He can choose what he like but apparently he does not need even a free "40-150" although he doesn't really criticise the zom other than in his rating.

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.

Indeed, and I'm not arguing that, just the fact that is not fare to compare them in the same level, as they are in a complete different league.

Agreed, the "league" was not argued as a comparison.

If I had the 1500$ readily available, and I were in the search of a fast tele zoom, I won't even look at the cheap 40-150, I'd be comparing the Pro 40-150 against the Panny 35-100, which, disregarding reach, they are both in the same league on build quality and performance.

The Pro 40-150 is in the 35-100 league - I am impressed.  The  Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is a nice lens - let Thorfinn have a smack at it and I would have to protest.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

At the end of the day, Tom and Thofinn, I apologize if I have misunderstood something about the whole argument. English is not my mother tongue, and sometimes I fail to get the facts precisely straight.

Martin, you are doing well with your English and no problems have arisen.

-- hide signature --

Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell