Reading mode: Light Dark

OM System 40-150mm f/4.0 Pro lens

Go to last post
M

MikeB2000

Well-known member
Messages
182
Reaction score
139
So I've owned this lens' little brother, the 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6, for six years now. Got it for use with an E-M5.2, which was my entry into ILC digital photography. A few years ago, I bought a very nice used E-M1.2 , which is all I use now. My go-to lens is a 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro, but the little old 40-150 also gets some use.

I absolutely love my 12-40 f/2.8, and have been lusting after the 40-150 f/4. It's hard to justify the expense to gain one f stop, but I simply like the size and feel of the Pro lenses. Give me some more reasons for buying the 40-150 f/4.0 while it's on sale for $599.
 
The IQ from the 40-150/4 shooting detailed subjects at a distance and just the overall appearance of images will be much better. I'd start there.

A
 
MikeB2000 said:
So I've owned this lens' little brother, the 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6, for six years now. Got it for use with an E-M5.2, which was my entry into ILC digital photography. A few years ago, I bought a very nice used E-M1.2 , which is all I use now. My go-to lens is a 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro, but the little old 40-150 also gets some use.

I absolutely love my 12-40 f/2.8, and have been lusting after the 40-150 f/4. It's hard to justify the expense to gain one f stop, but I simply like the size and feel of the Pro lenses. Give me some more reasons for buying the 40-150 f/4.0 while it's on sale for $599.
Click to expand...
Price alone a good reason :) even if you dont like it, you are not going to loose on resale.
 
ahaslett said:
The IQ from the 40-150/4 shooting detailed subjects at a distance and just the overall appearance of images will be much better. I'd start there.

A
Click to expand...
I watch posts and questions like these related to the 40-150 f4 pro; the reason being is that I have the 12-40 f2.8, and also the 12-100 f4.

I absolutely love the 12-40, the quality is just a little better than the 12-100 (understandably so) but it's hard to notice unless you really look for it. I've been tempted to trade in the 12-100 for the 40-150 f4 pro, gain 50mm at the long end, and just carry two lenses. It doesn't bother me too much changing lenses as if I really want to zoom that far then I'll pop it on (and being small means it's quicker and easier to do).

It's quite difficult to find quality comparisons between the 12-100 and the 40-150 for that 40-100 range difference.
 
tomrandall86 said:
ahaslett said:
The IQ from the 40-150/4 shooting detailed subjects at a distance and just the overall appearance of images will be much better. I'd start there.

A
Click to expand...
I watch posts and questions like these related to the 40-150 f4 pro; the reason being is that I have the 12-40 f2.8, and also the 12-100 f4.

I absolutely love the 12-40, the quality is just a little better than the 12-100 (understandably so) but it's hard to notice unless you really look for it. I've been tempted to trade in the 12-100 for the 40-150 f4 pro, gain 50mm at the long end, and just carry two lenses. It doesn't bother me too much changing lenses as if I really want to zoom that far then I'll pop it on (and being small means it's quicker and easier to do).

It's quite difficult to find quality comparisons between the 12-100 and the 40-150 for that 40-100 range difference.
Click to expand...
I have had the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 12-100 f/4, and now have the 12-45 f/4 and the 40-150 f/4.

I replaced the heavier 12-40 f/2.8 with the smaller and lighter 12-45 f/4 specifically for use as a travel lens with my OM-5. Actually, my copy of the 12-40 was sharpest when stopped down to f/4 anyway. For some reason the 12-40 f2.8 produced better images when used on my older 16mpx Olympus bodies, but seemed not up to par with my newer 20mpx cameras.

Along the same line, the 12-100, while a super single lens travel solution, always seemed to big and heavy on my OM-5 and I always seemed to be wishing for a bit more reach. So, the 40-150 f/4 was the replacement. It also replaced my old 40-150 f/2.8 Pro.

I find all the f/4 lenses I have had to give equal IQ across the board, just different focal lengths to suit one’s needs.
 
Last edited:
gary0319 said:
tomrandall86 said:
ahaslett said:
The IQ from the 40-150/4 shooting detailed subjects at a distance and just the overall appearance of images will be much better. I'd start there.

A
Click to expand...
I watch posts and questions like these related to the 40-150 f4 pro; the reason being is that I have the 12-40 f2.8, and also the 12-100 f4.

I absolutely love the 12-40, the quality is just a little better than the 12-100 (understandably so) but it's hard to notice unless you really look for it. I've been tempted to trade in the 12-100 for the 40-150 f4 pro, gain 50mm at the long end, and just carry two lenses. It doesn't bother me too much changing lenses as if I really want to zoom that far then I'll pop it on (and being small means it's quicker and easier to do).

It's quite difficult to find quality comparisons between the 12-100 and the 40-150 for that 40-100 range difference.
Click to expand...
I have had the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 12-100 f/4, and now have the 12-45 f/4 and the 40-150 f/4.

I replaced the heavier 12-40 f/2.8 with the smaller and lighter 12-45 f/4 specifically for use as a travel lens with my OM-5. Actually, my copy of the 12-40 was sharpest when stopped down to f/4 anyway. For some reason the 12-40 f2.8 produced better images when used on my older 16mpx Olympus bodies, but seemed not up to par with my newer 20mpx cameras.

Along the same line, the 12-100, while a super single lens travel solution, always seemed to big and heavy on my OM-5 and I always seemed to be wishing for a bit more reach. So, the 40-150 f/4 was the replacement. It also replaced my old 40-150 f/2.8 Pro.

I find all the f/4 lenses I have had to give equal IQ across the board, just different focal lengths to suit one’s needs.
Click to expand...
I have the 40-150/2.8 for my general kit with an OM1. The extra light and subject isolation is appealing for certain uses, along with the ability to use the MC14.

I have a reasonable copy of the 40-150 R plastic fantastic as my emergency tele lens for my OM5 kit. It is acceptable for an emergency lens if a bit weak optically and with a bit much SA for subjects like flowers in sunlight. My 35-100 kit lens is very weak, sort of an emergency emergency lens. Already paid for itself as an emergency lens, so no worries.

I've compared the f2.8 and R directly and tested the R for landscape.

The current 40-150/4 offer is very tempting, but I've spent all my budget!

Andrew
 
OK, I'm convinced. I just now ordered the lens from Amazon. Price was $599 and I was able to use my Amazon Prime Visa card to pay off the lens interest-free over 12 months. They simply bill my card $50 + sales tax every month just like any other purchase.

About the sale price of $300 off list price: Yes, this lens should hold its value, as has my 12-40 f/2.8 that I bought new for around $550 through an overseas company 4-5 years ago.
 
ahaslett said:
gary0319 said:
tomrandall86 said:
ahaslett said:
The IQ from the 40-150/4 shooting detailed subjects at a distance and just the overall appearance of images will be much better. I'd start there.

A
Click to expand...
I watch posts and questions like these related to the 40-150 f4 pro; the reason being is that I have the 12-40 f2.8, and also the 12-100 f4.

I absolutely love the 12-40, the quality is just a little better than the 12-100 (understandably so) but it's hard to notice unless you really look for it. I've been tempted to trade in the 12-100 for the 40-150 f4 pro, gain 50mm at the long end, and just carry two lenses. It doesn't bother me too much changing lenses as if I really want to zoom that far then I'll pop it on (and being small means it's quicker and easier to do).

It's quite difficult to find quality comparisons between the 12-100 and the 40-150 for that 40-100 range difference.
Click to expand...
I have had the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 12-100 f/4, and now have the 12-45 f/4 and the 40-150 f/4.

I replaced the heavier 12-40 f/2.8 with the smaller and lighter 12-45 f/4 specifically for use as a travel lens with my OM-5. Actually, my copy of the 12-40 was sharpest when stopped down to f/4 anyway. For some reason the 12-40 f2.8 produced better images when used on my older 16mpx Olympus bodies, but seemed not up to par with my newer 20mpx cameras.

Along the same line, the 12-100, while a super single lens travel solution, always seemed to big and heavy on my OM-5 and I always seemed to be wishing for a bit more reach. So, the 40-150 f/4 was the replacement. It also replaced my old 40-150 f/2.8 Pro.

I find all the f/4 lenses I have had to give equal IQ across the board, just different focal lengths to suit one’s needs.
Click to expand...
I have the 40-150/2.8 for my general kit with an OM1. The extra light and subject isolation is appealing for certain uses, along with the ability to use the MC14.

I have a reasonable copy of the 40-150 R plastic fantastic as my emergency tele lens for my OM5 kit. It is acceptable for an emergency lens if a bit weak optically and with a bit much SA for subjects like flowers in sunlight. My 35-100 kit lens is very weak, sort of an emergency emergency lens. Already paid for itself as an emergency lens, so no worries.

I've compared the f2.8 and R directly and tested the R for landscape.

The current 40-150/4 offer is very tempting, but I've spent all my budget!

Andrew
Click to expand...
I have the 40-150 plastic as well and have had some really good images with it. I have it paired with the 14-42EZ and my E-M10 IV as a lightweight kit for fishing vacations. But, as good as the plastic fantastic is, the 40-150 f/4 is noticeably better.

Best save up some pennie’s…..
 
Last edited:
Had it for quite some time and wouldn't leave home without it. I also had the 40-150 f/2.8 for a while, and just sold it again.
 
I think you notice how sharp these pro lenses are when you peep or have to crop.

They just crop much better and that's probably more important with a lens of this reach.

I had the plastic fantastic and thought it was great. Looking back though it is probably the softest lens I have. My cats fur just doesn't look as detailed as it does with other lenses

It's not bad though. Just not as good as the pro lenses.

I think getting the F4 Is going to be worth it.
 
Your comments and the $300 discount made up my mind. I have seen the lens on sale for $100 and $200 off, but $300 was just too much to pass on. With the inflation we're having in the USA, I'm surprised we haven't seen price increases, like we have with just about everything else. Some things are up 50% or more in the past 2-3 years!

I still have my E-M5.2 which I would like to sell along with a plastic fantastic 40-150 f/4-5.6R and a 14-42 EZ lens. As mentioned above, the body and lenses are great for travel, but the body is just too small for my hands. I did the online "sell used items" at KEH Camera, but got a really low bid: $388 for all three items. Tried to get my wife to use the gear, but she's happy with her iPhone camera. Kind of sad, because she is very good at composition.
 
I have that lens and absolutely love it. Small, great IQ, easy to pack and take along. I use it for my kids daytime sports events, landscape photography while hiking (along with 8-25 f4 make for a really small and versatile kit), some portraiture. Really versatile lens. For that price you cannot go wrong.
 
MikeB2000 said:
So I've owned this lens' little brother, the 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6, for six years now. Got it for use with an E-M5.2, which was my entry into ILC digital photography. A few years ago, I bought a very nice used E-M1.2 , which is all I use now. My go-to lens is a 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro, but the little old 40-150 also gets some use.

I absolutely love my 12-40 f/2.8, and have been lusting after the 40-150 f/4. It's hard to justify the expense to gain one f stop, but I simply like the size and feel of the Pro lenses. Give me some more reasons for buying the 40-150 f/4.0 while it's on sale for $599.
Click to expand...
Sharpness: it is the sharpest Micro 4/3 lens I own and works well at semi-macro. It is sharper wide open than the 40-150 F4-5.6 and also sharper than both copies I had of the 40-150mm F/2.8...

Oly EM-1 MkII with Oly 40-150mm F/4
Oly EM-1 MkII with Oly 40-150mm F/4

Oly EM-1 MkII with Oly 40-150mm F/4
Oly EM-1 MkII with Oly 40-150mm F/4

Oly EM-1 MkII with Oly 40-150mm F/4
Oly EM-1 MkII with Oly 40-150mm F/4
 
Don't own it but have the bookend 2.8 and kit 40-150, the lens that goes into the bag "just in case."

As a replacement for the kit 40-150 the f:4 warrants consideration. Better optically, constant-aperture, weathersealed, still quite smaller than the 2.8.

I suppose the 14-150 is some kind of middle ground, but not as sharp nor constant-aperture like the f:4.

Cheers,

Rick
 
MikeB2000 said:
OK, I'm convinced. I just now ordered the lens from Amazon. Price was $599 and I was able to use my Amazon Prime Visa card to pay off the lens interest-free over 12 months. They simply bill my card $50 + sales tax every month just like any other purchase.

About the sale price of $300 off list price: Yes, this lens should hold its value, as has my 12-40 f/2.8 that I bought new for around $550 through an overseas company 4-5 years ago.
Click to expand...
Cool. I hope you will enjoy it.

I was about to write a reply to your OP, but then I saw you had already bought it.

If you are curious about what I would have written, I did an user review of the lens, comparing it to the 14-150 II and the 40-150 R. The review is longer than what my reply would have been though. :)

The diet Pro zoom: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
 
I just received the lens. First thoughts were 1) It's weird that it has a "parked" position, and you have to rotate the zoom ring to get to the point where you can adjust the focal length. But that does reduce the lens length by 1 inch when parked.

And 2) I assumed I'd get a nice nylon lens bag like I did with my 12-40 f/2.8, but all I got was a felt "lens wrapping cloth". My 12-40 case works with the new lens, so I can always buy another one. At least OM System included a lens hood.
 
MikeB2000 said:
I just received the lens. First thoughts were 1) It's weird that it has a "parked" position, and you have to rotate the zoom ring to get to the point where you can adjust the focal length. But that does reduce the lens length by 1 inch when parked.
Click to expand...
You... didn't know that BEFORE buying the lens?
 
You’ll get used to the collapsing design quickly. It is nice that it makes it more compact for storage.
 
Justin_D7200 said:
You’ll get used to the collapsing design quickly. It is nice that it makes it more compact for storage.
Click to expand...
The 8-25, another great lens, is another example of a collapsible lens. Works very well and keeps lenses small when stored in the bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
A Month With the 50-200mm/f2.8 lens
Replies
2
Views
18K
DaveLBlack
D
frankliooxygen
OM System 75-300 II vs 40-150 F4 PRO Sharpness Comparison (OM-5 Body)
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
plantdoc
P
T
Forgive the naivety (OMS 40-150/4.0)
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
jeffharris
jeffharris
Jeroen1969
Personal Deep investigation in the MFT vs FF everlasting debate
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
13K
cba_melbourne
cba_melbourne
3dpan
My new "new" 40-150mm f/2.8 lens.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
409
Jeroen1969
Jeroen1969

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