These are all excellent suggestions—thank you all for your input.
For the wide-angle, I'm leaning towards the 8–25mm f/4.
As for the telephoto, I'm still undecided between the 40–150mm f/4 and the f/2.8 versions. There's a significant weight difference, and I’m keen to hear from those who’ve used both:
- How noticeable is the weight in real-world use?
- Is there a clear difference in image quality?
- And for your typical subjects, do you find the f/4 version sufficient?
Many thanks again.
As I posted elsewhere, last month my wife and I were on the big island in Hawaii. I was getting on the tour bus, and I fell backward, cracking two vertebrae and bleeding on the top of my head. At the time, it was rather painful, and I could not lift the full gear bag I had brought as carry on gear and stow it in the overhead. I wound up having to send the full gear bag back to the house via UPS.
My wife was insistent that for the next trip, I need to lighten the load, and I agree with that. After the trip, my boss said I was due for a large profit sharing bonus, so I spent some of that on a 2nd tier of lenses to replace the 1st tier when weight is an issue.
The big purchase also included the OM-3 to replace the E-m5 mark III as second camera. The OM-3 won't save much weight, except it will allow me to not take the cache of BLS-50 batteries and the chargers, since both the OM-1 mark I and OM-3 use the same BLX-1 batteries.
As an example of the 2nd tier vs. 1st tier lenses.:
- The 9-18mm f/4-5.6 can be used instead of the 7-14mm f/2.8
- The 12-45mm f/4 can be used instead of the 12-40mm f/2.8
- The 40-150mm f/4 can be used instead of the 40-150mm f/2.8
- The 14-150mm f/4-5.6 mark II can be used instead of the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3
- The 17mm f/1.8 mark II can be used instead of the 17mm f/1.2
- The 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 can be used instead of the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 or the 40-150mm f/2.8 + MC-20
In terms of the purchase, buying the 9-18mm was painful, since I had had it before, and I sold it when I bought the 7-14mm f/2.8. But if I need a little wide angle, it is much smaller and lighter than the 7-14mm f/2.8.
I had already had the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 mark II lens, but it has been sitting unused since I got the 12-200mm lens.
Of the lenses I got, I have my doubts about the 12-45mm f/4, since I'm so used to carrying the 12-40mm f/2.8, but it was part of the OM-3 kit, and it wasn't that much more to get it, just in case. I am also on the fence about the 75-300mm lens.
Sometimes I will likely still take some of the 1st tier lenses, because I have specific photos that may call for those lenses.
I can't answer your question about the 40-150mm f/4 vs. 40-150mm f/2.8 as I haven't done much shooting since I got the kit and I haven't used the 40-150mm f/4 lens at all.
Two of the 1st tier of lenses (17mm f/1.2 and 40-150mm f/2.8) when I got them in 2024, I felt they really, really excelled at producing special images. I don't know what makes their images jump out at me compared to other lenses.
One thing for me really gave me pause about the long lens selection. On the access road to our house is a small pond, and there are 3 logs the turtles like to sun themselves on. The first log needs a 300mm lens to capture the turtle. The log is clear, and it is easy to get a picture of the turtles from multiple angles. But on this log, the turtles are really wary, and will immediately dive into the pond if I approach. The other two logs typically need a 400mm lens, and they are also complicated because there is vegetation between the log and the road, which limits where I can take the picture from.
On April 1st, I brought out the OM-3 and the 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 mark II lens, and I needed to either crop the photo or use the 2x digital zoom option. On April 4th, I brought on the OM-3 and the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 mark I lens. In these shots, I didn't have to depend on cropping or using the 2x digital zoom. Thus, if you really need 400mm, the 100-400mm is the better lens to use than a 300mm lens and cropping. But it depends on how often you need 400mm. Of course, if you really need 500mm or 600mm, the 100-400mm lens will give you more room to crop the photo.
When we were in Hawaii before the accident, the condo we had rented overlooked a popular surfing beach, and I spent some amount of time capturing the surfers. Because I had brought the full kit, I used it as an opportunity to test the various combinations.
The sample size is somewhat small, but I would have to rate the lenses like (going from best to worse). Of course the lenses have different ranges they can shoot in, so it isn't a fair comparison:
- 40-150mm f/2.8 -- best lens
- 40-150mm f/2.8 + MC-14
- 100-400mm f/5-6.3, and 40-150mm f/2.8 + MC-20 are roughly equal for my usage in their common ranges (i.e. 100-200mm)
- 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 being a 16.6x superzoom lens probably is slightly worse in the 100-200mm range, but where it excels is not having to change lenses, and a lot of time, I'm willing to trade convenience for absolute quality. That being said, unlike some people, I find the 12-200mm to be good across its whole range.
- 100-400mm f/5-6.3 + MC-14 is acceptable
- 100-400mm f/5-6.3 + MC-20 is likely emergency use only
If you want to look at the surfing pictures, they are at:
These are mostly 'snapshots', and I tend to be interested in more how they look like when viewed on normal monitors. All pictures have been edited.
I also had done an earlier comparison of birds at our feeder in November, shortly after getting the lenses. Here, unlike the surfers, the focal length tends to be similar:
One place that the 40-150mm f/2.8 excels at compared to the 40-150mm f/4 or similar lenses is doing indoor shots, particularly theater shots where you need a faster lens. But it depends on how often you need that extra stop of light.
Regarding the wide angle lens, when I bought the 7-14mm f/2.8 last year, I had really wanted the 8-25mm f/4 due to it having more overlap with the standard lenses. But I kept finding really good deals for used 7-14mm f/2.8 lenses, and the used 8-25mm f/4 lenses were several hundred dollars more.
