Re: Super-telephoto comparison?
olyham wrote:
I have a 70-300 II and a 40-150 2.8 TC1.4, The only thing that I felt I lost from the 70-300 is weight for hiking in the back country, everything else is equal or better and loss of reach has not been an issue. Specifically to your issue I find that I can do better cropping from 210 than from the 70-300.
Perfect, that's exactly what I was hoping to hear!
40=70 mm (huge amount of opportunity in this range)
I'm not too sure I'll use it this much, but I guess it can allow for less lens-changing to my trusty but soft 12-50.
MF instant clutch
This I hope to make good use of.
Better and faster focus
Hopefully it will make for a significant improvement in continuous/tracking modes. Not counting on that, as my E-M5 is holding it back somewhat (I'm sure the E-M1 does better), so any improvement at all would be welcomed.
Extra weight (generally a negative) on this point I must warn you the 40-150 2.8 is so versatile you will want to use it all the time, it will let you take your general photography up a notch but the penalty is weight. I am very happy to live with the extra weight and keep my 70-300mm II in the bottom of my bag for when I do long hikes in to the mountains.
If you can manage the extra weight then it is a no brainer.
Yes, I think I would be the same. In fact, I've been thinking about buying an L-plate for my camera for a long time now and for some reason haven't got around to it, so I guess the tripod collar can be a nice bonus for me to easily rotate over to vertical orientation with the telephoto.