I'm thinking about getting an Olympus 40-150 f2.8 pro, any advice?

Thomas Kachadurian wrote:

I'm going to try to reply to everyone in one message.

First thanks to everyone for giving me the info I was looking for.

Perhaps I'm a lens snob, and maybe it's in my head, but I'm pretty fussy about my lenses. There's more to a lens than sharpness. The 35-100f2.8 is a fine lens, but there's no magic there, nothing special.

There are M43 lenses that just sparkle. I have the 15mm f.17, 50mm f1.4 and 42.5 f1.2 all Pan-Leica, all bring something more to an image than sharpness. The Olympus 45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8 both have it as well (although I don't own those anymore.) The new Laowa 7.5mm f2 has the same quality. I get it from a few of my Canon lenses, the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, the 15mm FE and the Tamron 45mm f1.8VC are all special lenses.

I have the Panasonic 40-150 f4-5.6, so I don't need a cheap, small alternative. It works for those shots you need to get, but it doesn't make any magic.

I'm looking at the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 to use it at f2.8. (I don't think I've ever used my Canon 70-200 at more than f4.)

It's good to know that the teleconverter works, but I have never been satisfied with the results from any teleconverter, even the expensive matched ones. I also wouldn't want to give up the speed, so I don't expect I'll get one.

I think I'm going to watch the used one for a week or so and see if I can grab a deal, and If I can't I'll probably pick one up on the grey market.

If it's all the you are reporting I think I'll have a Canon lens for sale in a month or so.

Tom

The Olympus ZD 35-100mm f2.0 has it also, more so then the 40-150 Pro.  Which I don't really like as much as the images from the 50-200 SWD......they just have something a bit more special about them.