Very preliminary thoughts on the 40-150 F2.8

rsmithgi wrote:

s_grins wrote:

So, now you can use F2.8 instead of F5.6 at FL=150.

Does it worth the pain of having all this hassle with bags, tripods, and other problems you have so vividly described?

Think of it less being able to use F2.8 instead of F5.6 and more being able to use ISO200 instead of ISO800 or 1/1000 sec instead of 1/250 sec.

1/1000 sec produces sharp action shots while 1/250 may produce a blurry mess.

Is it worth it? Only each individual can answer that for themselves and I don't have enough experience yet to answer it for myself.

i agree with this logic for action-at-a-distance with m4/3 in general.

The high ISO performance of my FF dSLR kit is so dad-gum good that i've successfully resisted the urge to spring for big, heavy, and very pricey fast FF tele glass.   The case for fast tele m4/3 is much firmer though; ISO 1600 is the edge of what i'm willing to go, and prefer 800 or less.  But movement means you gotta keep the shutter speed at least 1/500 and preferably 1/1000.  So aperture is very valuable.

But . . . that brings up some other m4/3 buggaboos: EVF lag and AF-C tracking performance.  i'm using an older model -- EM5 -- and the EVF isn't state-of-the-art and LOrdy knows the AF isn't.  So far i've resisted the f2.8 m4/3 tele temptation and bring out the FF kit or such tasks. A contemporary dSLR with a modern AF module simply makes AF-C tracking a doodle.

But i'm hopeful that the EM1 mkii will convince me to re-consider.