Reading mode: Light Dark

150 mm f2

Go to last post
J

jamn

Leading Member
Messages
794
Reaction score
44
Location
Minneapolis, MN, US
I have located a 150 mm f2 from a private party for $1,800. It is reportedly in good condition (haven't had any extensive conversation about usage or any blemishes).

I saw a used 150 at BH not too long ago for $1.200 (am pretty sure). I suppose I could be remembering wrong and it was $1.300, but not more. That lens did show sins of use / wear, but was in good working order. I went back a day or two later and the lens was not on the web site, so sold. In any case, seeing this lens at this price did create an expectation that I could buy it for that amount.

So my question is what is a fair price for a used 150mm f2 in good condition? My concern is if I buy the lens being able to turn around and sell it should I change my mind after using it.

Thanks in advance for any help with this,

Jay
 
I wouldn't pay more than 1400.00 for the little tuna. Private party sale? 1300.00 tops. Just check eBay for recent auctions. 1800 is too high IMO.
 
Agree, $1800 is high as that's more than I paid for mine new. Condition-dependent, I'd expect a range from perhaps $1000-1400 or so.

A lens well worth owning for anybody with an E-M1.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Jay Reeves said:
I have located a 150 mm f2 from a private party for $1,800. It is reportedly in good condition (haven't had any extensive conversation about usage or any blemishes).

I saw a used 150 at BH not too long ago for $1.200 (am pretty sure). I suppose I could be remembering wrong and it was $1.300, but not more. That lens did show sins of use / wear, but was in good working order. I went back a day or two later and the lens was not on the web site, so sold. In any case, seeing this lens at this price did create an expectation that I could buy it for that amount.

So my question is what is a fair price for a used 150mm f2 in good condition? My concern is if I buy the lens being able to turn around and sell it should I change my mind after using it.

Thanks in advance for any help with this,

Jay
Click to expand...
I paid full retail price 6 years ago. If mine was lost or stolen and I had no insurance, I’d be willing to pay USD1800 if it was in pristine condition with front and rear caps, original soft bag and original undamaged packaging, ie just like mine.

But sombody who’s not an existing owner and looking to pick up a bargain on this lens and willing to trade condition and completelness for price, and is willing to bide their time waiting for the ‘good one’ might find one for $1100-1200

Peter
 
Last edited:
Messier Object said:
I paid full retail price 6 years ago. If mine was lost or stolen and I had no insurance, I’d be willing to pay USD1800 if it was in pristine condition with front and rear caps, original soft bag and original undamaged packaging, ie just like mine.

But sombody who’s not an existing owner and looking to pick up a bargain on this lens and willing to trade condition and completelness for price, and is willing to bide their time waiting for the ‘good one’ might find one for $1100-1200

Peter
Click to expand...
Hi Peter,

Just curious, what is the original price history of the 150? Seems to mostly be at $2,999 for new.

Jay
 
Messier Object said:
I paid full retail price 6 years ago. If mine was lost or stolen and I had no insurance, I’d be willing to pay USD1800 if it was in pristine condition with front and rear caps, original soft bag and original undamaged packaging, ie just like mine.

But sombody who’s not an existing owner and looking to pick up a bargain on this lens and willing to trade condition and completelness for price, and is willing to bide their time waiting for the ‘good one’ might find one for $1100-1200

Peter
Click to expand...
Thanks Peter,

As I replied to others, what was the original price? I don't know if the lens offered has packaging or soft bag - does have a B&W UV filter.

Jay
 
The 150mm f:2 has always retailed around $2600 new.

During Oly's final sale last year, it went out at half price, for $1300.

Paying anything above that would be - to put it mildly - unwise.

Oscillations in the price used used to be a function of flagship camera body renewal:

- It was low in early 2010, when people were speculating what the replacement for the E-3 SLR camera would be. Got close to $1200

- Went up after the E-5 was announced. Stabilized around $1600.

- Went down in early 2013, as speculations about the replacement for the E-5 were going wild.

- Stood stable in September 2013 when the E-M1 mk1 was announced. Demand went up as with any new camera body release, but price got stabilized by the few zealots who left the system kicking and screaming about Oly's "treason".

- Went down again after that. I bought mine in Summer 2016 for $915 shipping included, and this wasn't a smoking deal at the time. It was a very much OK price, but nothing to write home about.

- Went back up to a stable $1100 by the end of 2016 when the E-M1mk2 got released.

- Went a bit higher in 2017, and yet a bit higher

- Been stable since

Note: There has been a wave of Ebay sellers from Japan who sell these lately for anything north of $1700 and up. This might leave the impression that this is the average price. It is not. One has to check the "Sold listing" on the bottom left to see what they currently go for.

--
Time since last lens review: 13 months
 
Last edited:
Jay Reeves said:
Messier Object said:
I paid full retail price 6 years ago. If mine was lost or stolen and I had no insurance, I’d be willing to pay USD1800 if it was in pristine condition with front and rear caps, original soft bag and original undamaged packaging, ie just like mine.

But sombody who’s not an existing owner and looking to pick up a bargain on this lens and willing to trade condition and completelness for price, and is willing to bide their time waiting for the ‘good one’ might find one for $1100-1200

Peter
Click to expand...
Thanks Peter,

As I replied to others, what was the original price? I don't know if the lens offered has packaging or soft bag - does have a B&W UV filter.

Jay
Click to expand...
Jay, I recall the price was around US$2400-2500 for most of this lens’ life but in recent years it’s seen a big price drop and then surge to the current $2900 level

Loading…

static.photoprice.ca

Peter
 
I bought mine when IIRC it was US$1800 just as Oly raised prices on all the SHGs. It went to (by memory again) $2400 and stayed there the rest of the run.

The last time I saw them for sale by Oly was the anniversary sale the US site had a year or so ago featuring every 4/3 lens, including the 90-250 and 300 SHGs. All had significant discounts, the first time I'd ever seen that.

Cheers,

Rick
 
Appreciate all of the information. Now I just need to decide if I would committ at a certain price. So many choices and elements to consider.

Jay
 
Last edited:
I bought mine for $1400 AU (now about $1850 US but at the time about $1500 US) and sold it for what I paid for it. Good samples come up for about $1500 US occasionally on Fleabay and a couple hundred less occasionally. Mint in a box would be worth it at $1500 US I think.

This lens is gorgeous but not for everyone certainly as a daily user. Very heavy to have with one all the time if you have many other lenses you like to carry as well together. Compared to the m43 40-150 2.8 Pro it is hard to justify. However when you want action in low light you would really miss not having it. Yes the AF is slow in comparison which affects the keeper rate but those shots that are focused are superb in these conditions. It is not clinically sharp like software corrected m43 Pro lenses are until f 2.5 but it is sharp enough wide open if not pixel peeping and the rendering and bokeh has a more pleasant "look". In low light at f 2.0 it renders much better than brighter conditions also at f 2.0 when contrast can look low and purple fringing can be a problem. I never understood why a blown highlight in daylight had severe fringing yet the same in low light like a stage performer was not a major problem. The AF missed quite a lot (front and back focus) but I have not tested it with EM1.2 and FW2.1.

If you bought and later sold for a couple hundred dollars loss and you love epic glass with some flaws it would still be an enjoyable experience (for me anyway).

I do miss it but the funds I raised by selling were put towards stuff I use much more.
 
glassoholic said:
This lens is gorgeous but not for everyone certainly as a daily user. Very heavy to have with one all the time if you have many other lenses you like to carry as well together. Compared to the m43 40-150 2.8 Pro it is hard to justify.
Click to expand...
Is the rendering / bokeh of the 40-150 pro comparable to the 150 f2? I do not own the 40-150 pro. The initial appeal of the 150 is a percieved, on my part, mystique as to it's rendering / bokeh. Maybe I have blown that up in my mind? Perhaps my $'s would be better spent on that lens? I do own the 50-200 SWD which was dropped in the past year and now has a hitch, moment of resistance, at about 135 mm. It is an annoyance, but the lens is fully functional. I do like having the added 50mm of the 50-200, but I used to like the 12-60 and adapted to the 12-40 pro.
glassoholic said:
However when you want action in low light you would really miss not having it. Yes the AF is slow in comparison which affects the keeper rate but those shots that are focused are superb in these conditions. It is not clinically sharp like software corrected m43 Pro lenses are until f 2.5 but it is sharp enough wide open if not pixel peeping and the rendering and bokeh has a more pleasant "look".
Click to expand...
So I guess you answered the question I was asking above.
glassoholic said:
In low light at f 2.0 it renders much better than brighter conditions also at f 2.0 when contrast can look low and purple fringing can be a problem. I never understood why a blown highlight in daylight had severe fringing yet the same in low light like a stage performer was not a major problem. The AF missed quite a lot (front and back focus) but I have not tested it with EM1.2 and FW2.1.

If you bought and later sold for a couple hundred dollars loss and you love epic glass with some flaws it would still be an enjoyable experience (for me anyway).
Click to expand...
That was why I came here to seek advice on the price.
glassoholic said:
I do miss it but the funds I raised by selling were put towards stuff I use much more.
Click to expand...
I hear you on the "stuff used much more" . That is my biggest concern with the 150 ,momentary interest, then tapering off use. And then of course there is the siren call of the new trio of pro primes. Aaaggghhhh.

Thanks for weighing in,

Jay
glassoholic said:
--
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me. Make the best you can of every day!
Click to expand...
 
I don’t own the 40-150 Pro, but one of the first things I noticed when it was released with sample images was that many of the samples had quite poor rendering of background out of focus areas, especially if the background was busy with vegetation. The 300 Pro also has this ‘problem’. Both lenses are super sharp but their optical designs seem to be compromised IMO.

The 150 F2 is very sharp wide open and I’ve never even thought of stopping down for better IQ, even with the 1.4x. there is some CA in very high contrast backlight scenarios when using the 2x teleconverter, but nothing that cannot be easily dealt with in PP.

Like it’s big brother 300 F2.8 the 150 F2 has very nice out of focus rendering, perhaps the best that Olympus has produced in the digital era.

Peter
 
Jay Reeves said:
Is the rendering / bokeh of the 40-150 pro comparable to the 150 f2? I do not own the 40-150 pro. The initial appeal of the 150 is a percieved, on my part, mystique as to it's rendering / bokeh. Maybe I have blown that up in my mind? Perhaps my $'s would be better spent on that lens? I do own the 50-200 SWD which was dropped in the past year and now has a hitch, moment of resistance, at about 135 mm. It is an annoyance, but the lens is fully functional. I do like having the added 50mm of the 50-200, but I used to like the 12-60 and adapted to the 12-40 pro.
Click to expand...
They render differently WRT bokeh and OOF transition. The 40-150 Pro can throw "nervous" bokeh not unlike that of the old 50-200 and the 150 simply does not. Ever. Its OOF transition is smooth, elegant if you will.

Both have excellent contrast and color. The Pro could well be the sharper of the two, I haven't bothered with a head-to-head.

The DOF difference is obvious. I prefer the look of the 150+EC14 to the 40-150+MC14.

All the other stuff, the Pro run circles around the SHG when it comes to focus response and C-AF prowess. The Pro could sure use that distance switch, though.

In the real world I use the zoom far more but will not part with the 150 for when I want its look or the light goes dim.
jamn said:
Click to expand...
Cheers,

Rick
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Jay Reeves said:
Is the rendering / bokeh of the 40-150 pro comparable to the 150 f2? I do not own the 40-150 pro. The initial appeal of the 150 is a percieved, on my part, mystique as to it's rendering / bokeh. Maybe I have blown that up in my mind? Perhaps my $'s would be better spent on that lens? I do own the 50-200 SWD which was dropped in the past year and now has a hitch, moment of resistance, at about 135 mm. It is an annoyance, but the lens is fully functional. I do like having the added 50mm of the 50-200, but I used to like the 12-60 and adapted to the 12-40 pro.
Click to expand...
They render differently WRT bokeh and OOF transition. The 40-150 Pro can throw "nervous" bokeh not unlike that of the old 50-200 and the 150 simply does not. Ever. Its OOF transition is smooth, elegant if you will.

Both have excellent contrast and color. The Pro could well be the sharper of the two, I haven't bothered with a head-to-head.

The DOF difference is obvious. I prefer the look of the 150+EC14 to the 40-150+MC14.

All the other stuff, the Pro run circles around the SHG when it comes to focus response and C-AF prowess. The Pro could sure use that distance switch, though.

In the real world I use the zoom far more but will not part with the 150 for when I want its look or the light goes dim.

Cheers,

Rick
Click to expand...
 
Jay Reeves said:
glassoholic said:
This lens is gorgeous but not for everyone certainly as a daily user. Very heavy to have with one all the time if you have many other lenses you like to carry as well together. Compared to the m43 40-150 2.8 Pro it is hard to justify.
Click to expand...
Is the rendering / bokeh of the 40-150 pro comparable to the 150 f2? I do not own the 40-150 pro. The initial appeal of the 150 is a percieved, on my part, mystique as to it's rendering / bokeh. Maybe I have blown that up in my mind? Perhaps my $'s would be better spent on that lens? I do own the 50-200 SWD which was dropped in the past year and now has a hitch, moment of resistance, at about 135 mm. It is an annoyance, but the lens is fully functional. I do like having the added 50mm of the 50-200, but I used to like the 12-60 and adapted to the 12-40 pro.
jamn said:
However when you want action in low light you would really miss not having it. Yes the AF is slow in comparison which affects the keeper rate but those shots that are focused are superb in these conditions. It is not clinically sharp like software corrected m43 Pro lenses are until f 2.5 but it is sharp enough wide open if not pixel peeping and the rendering and bokeh has a more pleasant "look".
Click to expand...
So I guess you answered the question I was asking above.
jamn said:
In low light at f 2.0 it renders much better than brighter conditions also at f 2.0 when contrast can look low and purple fringing can be a problem. I never understood why a blown highlight in daylight had severe fringing yet the same in low light like a stage performer was not a major problem. The AF missed quite a lot (front and back focus) but I have not tested it with EM1.2 and FW2.1.

If you bought and later sold for a couple hundred dollars loss and you love epic glass with some flaws it would still be an enjoyable experience (for me anyway).
Click to expand...
That was why I came here to seek advice on the price.
jamn said:
I do miss it but the funds I raised by selling were put towards stuff I use much more.
Click to expand...
I hear you on the "stuff used much more" . That is my biggest concern with the 150 ,momentary interest, then tapering off use. And then of course there is the siren call of the new trio of pro primes. Aaaggghhhh.

Thanks for weighing in,

Jay
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, that is a tremendous help. Confirms my thoughts and reasoning for possibly buying the lens. I was thrown off track by the comment -

"glassoholic wrote:

This lens is gorgeous but not for everyone certainly as a daily user. Very heavy to have with one all the time if you have many other lenses you like to carry as well together. Compared to the m43 40-150 2.8 Pro it is hard to justify."

Just wasn't sure if glassoholic was saying the 40-150 could do what the 150 can do in regards to rendering and bokeh.

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sundre
  • User review User review
Sony 50-150/f2, a brief review
Replies
8
Views
76
Impulses
I
D
135GM vs 50-150 f/2 GM vs Sigma 200mm f2
2 3
Replies
42
Views
737
Dhomas
D
Alastair Norcross
Torture bokeh comparison of RF 85 F1.4 with RF 85 F2
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
1K
J A C S
J A C S
A
Which tele for Madagascar? 150 - 600 eq. or 225 - 900 eq.?
Replies
2
Views
3
mreynolds767
mreynolds767
sandipanafipafiap
Sony a7M3 and Tamron 35-150 mm f2-f2.8
Replies
1
Views
2
santoshvk
santoshvk

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top