Disappointments and surprises of Olympus and MFT

Kharan wrote:

Hi everyone. I'm writing here because I find myself in a conundrum regarding my E-M1, and would like some input from other shooters. I've a fair bit of experience with cameras and photo equipment, but the E-M1 is my first "pro-level" camera. As such, I was expecting great things out of it, some of which it accomplished, and some others that it didn't. I love the build, the size, the control placement and versatility, the IBIS, and the picture quality in general. The EVF is fantastic. The WiFi sucks, and I'm kinda disappointed with it, as it is a feature I use. The JPEGs are terrible, to my taste (I really dislike the vaunted "Olympus color"), but the RAWs turn out pretty well, so I can't complain too much. But more importantly, its rear dial is failing, and getting worse by the day, and repairing it isn't an option (long story). Now, with all the other horror stories about strap lugs failing and EVFs getting blotched, I'm quite unsure whether to keep the camera or not. I really don't think I'll find a body that I'll like better on any system or platform, but I'm not willing to purchase another E-M1 to see if I luck out with it.

Another big disappointment were the lenses. I invested a bit on a range of lenses for different purposes and needs. My two Panasonic lenses are terrific; the 12-32mm is stunningly good, small and light, and between it and my Olympus 12-60mm SWD there isn't a big difference (well, yes, in size!). I am kind of disappointed on the SWD, as I expected better performance out of a lens so large and heavy, and I know I have a good copy. It flares quite a bit, and I won't attach a lens hood to it for fear of having the front element pop off at some point. My copy of the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 is simply outstanding - resolution, color and contrast are sublime, it works excellently in low light, and focuses very fast and accurately. For $99, it's a lens that is light years ahead of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8.

On the other hand, my Olympus 14-140mm mk. I is poor. From 14 to 50mm it works fine, and I tested it against an Olympus 14-42mm R and a Panasonic 14-42mm mk. I to show that it worked within spec. At the long end, however, it's a disaster. It focuses unreliably, and is soft. I wouldn't care much about this if it weren't for the fact that I bought other lenses to cover the long end, where I personally do much of my photography, in the form of the Olympus 70-300mm FT and the 75-300mm MSC II. I plan to do a comparative review of these two lenses shortly, but my executive summary is this: the old 70-300mm is a very good lens optically, with 0.5x maximum magnification (1:1 repro on 35mm terms) that left me very impressed, but with the most vile focus drive ever spit upon photographers in history. I'm not joking - it's a POS in AF AND MF, since it's focus by wire, and works in an imprecise, slow, and noisy manner. On the other hand, the new 75-300mm MSC is very quick in operation, has a reasonable build quality, but is softer at the long end, doesn't compare in maximum magnification, and has a noticeably slower aperture. That Olympus replaced one terrible lens with another, and both being weak at opposite things, I cannot for the life of me fathom.

So, not to bore people anymore, my questions are two:

1) I want a fast-ish tele lens that isn't in the two current options (Panasonic 35-100mm and Olympus 40-150mm PRO), since they're too short, and I don't want to budget the TC as well for the Oly. I can't afford the 300mm f/4, and the Panasonic 100-400mm leaves me in almost the same situation aperture-wise. Has anyone had good experiences with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and some smart adapter? Or maybe the 300mm f/4L IS, or the 200mm f/2.8L II? As long as any of those can AF faster than the Olympus 70-300mm I'll be happy.

I used the old Oly 4/3 70-300, and I know the AF is a bit clunky.  If you're looking for a relatively bright zoom in the 70-200mm range, I would consider the 50-200 SWD.  The only problem there is that you're going back to another SWD lens that's in a similar style as the 12-60, though I have gotten the feeling that plenty of people here do fine with the 50-200 on an E-M1.  If nothing else, it's a lens that can be had relatively cheaply used, and won't require any new adapters from what you already own.

I ended up getting the 40-150 Pro, even though I also wanted something longer.  But it has been a very useful lens for me, with quick focusing and plenty of IQ  But it sounds like it only makes sense to own for you if you have the TC.  I will say that if you only need to get out to around 200, it offers plenty of IQ for cropping, and worked as a nice holdover for me until I could finally get a native 300mm prime.  But the TC is one of the things that makes it.  I can to portraits or fairly lowlight at 40mm and 2.8, or shoot all the way to 210mm at a reasonable F4.

I've never tried adapted glass, but I doubt any adapted glass at this point is going to be a big upgrade as far as AF from the 4/3 70-300, which at least usually got to a focus point on the E-M1, if awkwardly at times, though I agree, that lens was horrible to use MF with.

2) Will the Panasonic 14-140mm II be a big difference over my Olympus 14-150mm? I really want a decent travel zoom. The Tamron 14-150mm also comes to mind.

Reviews differ, but I don't think either of those superzooms is leagues better than the other.  The old 4/3 Panasonic superzoom seems to be the most loved, but hard to find.  I can't say I have much experience there.

Thanks a lot to those who read this wall of text.

Personally, if you can't deal with the idiosyncrasies of  dealing with non-native glass, I would say you'll do better to either bite the bullet with a 12-40 and 40-150 F2.8 combo, and just focus on what you can do with that setup, or just go to another system that makes the lenses you want so much.