Incredible lens

eques wrote:

too heavy as walk-around tele zoom. For me.

For 2-4h appointments, yes, great. Outstanding, Gorgeous.

So I wish for a F4 version. And no, the 4-5,6/40-150 R is NOT a F4 version of this outstanding lens. Less sharp, not close focus, 1 stop slower at the important long end.

Peter

Thank you Peter and the others who have replied.

I had instinctively only been using this lens with the TC 1.4 at f/5.6 anyway, so that's good - pretty well always on a sturdy tripod (IS engaged, still worrying within a certain critical zone of shutter speeds).

Weight vs. utility is always a concern. On some mobile shoots I start by thinking about what I can remove from my bag. I collected a few numbers for comparison, not definitive data which proves anything but I find this interesting:

First, price of Oly lenses in Canadian dollars:

• 40-150 mm f/2.8: $1,700
• MC-14: $450
• Total: $2,150
• 300 mm f/4: $3,330

Weight in grams:

• My now-sold FT 50-200 f2.8-3.5 ED: 1,070
• MMF-3: 42
• Total: 1,112
• 40-15 mm f/2.8: 880
• MC-14: 170
• Total: 1,050
• 300 mm f/4 PRO IS (w collar): 1,475

(I can't tell if the weights of the other two lenses are with or without collars - it's about a 200 g difference with the 300.)

So, way back when with the 50-200 I just mentioned the weight as an issue in a review here, and was "reminded" very clearly what an amazing lens it was. The weight is comparable, just a hair more, to this slightly more powerful lens-combo.

And of course I am in no way negating the numbers if I say that our viewers don't care to anywhere near the degree that we do. I recently had an image with a serious flaw in it (to my eyes) which the customer and everyone else has loved and which has boosted my reputation locally, and one nit-picker found something else of no significance, but no one has seen what I do.

This isn't that image, but just to illustrate that the customer loves, loves, loves this, and I used the 40-150 f/2.8 PRO with the TC1.4 ... wide open.

210 mm, 40-150 f/2.8 PRO with TC 1.4 at f/4(!)

So, would I take the 40-150 canoe-camping? Absolutely, ditching other gear for it if I had to. I find it that useful. The MC-14,? Probably not, although it's fairly light and small - just not an adequate trade-off in the pack for other supplies. (The sturdy tripod: nope!)

And that is nothing other than personal opinion. Thanks again Peter for posting yours.