50-200mm f2.8 vs 40-150mm 2.8 comparison

daveomd · Sep 14, 2025

I don't understand why there no direct comparisons of the 50-200mm f2.8 vs the 40-150mm f2.8?

I have the 40-150mm f2.8 and with or without the 1.4 TC the resulting images are tack sharp and the af on my OM-1.2 is excellent. The new lens cost a lot more and is much heavier so why isn't anyone showing us how much better it is, if it is better than the 40-150mm f2.8?

Both lens can shoot at f2.8 across the entire zoom range, so depth of field should be similar.

I would just like to see a comparison of how my photos will be better with the heavier, more expensive lens.

Almost seems like OM Systems is trying to sell the newer lens based on looking similar to their $7,500 Big White. If all the new tech is so much better Show Us !

drj3 · Sep 16, 2025

jjbinx said:
drj3 said:

Rafael Rivera said:

And frankly, those lenses are so good that for my needs, I can't imagine any scenario where the new lens is that much better to justify the significant cost and size/weight penalty.

Click to expand...

I will answer that with a simple image that I just took after reading your post. The bucks tend to be around late in the evening. It would be nice if I could lower the ISO somewhat below 10,000 and the Panasonic 200 f2.8 would not let me photograph the deer if it was a few feet closer. This one is young and appears to be missing the left antler.

Click to expand...

are you saying that in certain situations such you described with the deer, the 200mm f/2.8 has the low light advantage but as a prime it lacks the zoom flexibility if the animal is too close, and the 40-150/2.8 is too short for many wildlife situations . . .

The 50-200mm f/2.8 covers a wider range of scenarios

I have deer and Black Bear that regularly visit. The FTs 50-200 SWD covers closer targets and the 300mm f4 with TCs cover the ones farther away. The 50-200 f2.8 will allow either slower shutter speeds with dual stabilization or a lower ISO at the same shutter speed.

The majority of the deer images this time of year are between about 120 and 200mm while the Black Bear images are between 100 and 200. Since both move around when I photograph them, I need a zoom lens as they change distance and occasionally closer where the 50mm is useful (see below).

A little later I will also need the 300mm when they are eating the walnuts, chestnuts, and acorns from my trees at a greater distance. The 150-400 f4.5 would be better, but I want to keep the camera/lens to below 2kg so it is the 300mm f4 with TCs when necessary.

--
drj3

Art_P · Sep 16, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
the bluesman said:

That sinking feeling when you know you have one of the best with the 40-150mm f2.8 and it still is BUT there is a new kid on the block that's getting all the attention and for good reason, the new king has arrived

Yes I'm torn as I love my 40-150mm but simply can't ignore the new 50-200, WOW I want one!!

Click to expand...

I hear ya. Thankfully it’s white - makes it much easier to resist. I like to be as discreet as I can photographing events and waving a big white lens around doesn’t quite fit the bill there.

okaysee · Sep 16, 2025

Biggest differences are reach and IS. Those two things *can* make a better image, but not necessarily. I've done comparisons in the past myself with a cropped 2.8 image with shorter reach versus a 5.6 image with longer reach. The longer reach at smaller aperture with higher ISO looked way better because I was able to fill the frame which meant more megapixel detail. So if you're going to end up cropping, longer reach will always reward you. However, you have to figure out if that extra reach on this release is worth the extra $2-3k asking price over your 40-150. Only pro wild-life I imagine.

kbouk · Sep 16, 2025

Rafael Rivera said:
At least we've seen some posts comparing the two OM lenses. I was expecting to see a comparison between the OM and Panasonic-Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0, but it seems like that specific comparison is being avoided. That lens hasn't even been mentioned in the reviews, despite excellent reviews for the PL lens in the past. My guess is OM specifically asked the first reviewers to avoid doing so.

I also chuckle when I see posts saying that FINALLY there's a 50-200mm for MFT- when there's been an excellent one for YEARS.

The Panasonic Leica lens is roughly:

Half the weight (1.44lb [655g] for PL vs 2.8lb [1250g] for OM)

Half the price ($1900 US PL vs $3700 US OM)... OR...

A third of the price when buying used (~$1200 US PL vs $3800 US OM)

Little over half the length (132mm PL vs 226mm PL)

Half stop better combined IBIS/OIS on native camera (Panasonic 7.5 stops, OM 7 stops)

1 stop slower on telephoto end

Both accept their respective 1.4x and 2.0x TC's

Both are weather sealed

Black, while the other is white

For Panasonic users, I can't see many people buying the OM lens- the value proposition for most users simply isn't there. Panasonic users needing this range would be better served with the PL lens. It's excellent, much smaller, helluva lot cheaper, and has fabulous DualSync IS or whatever it's called. For OM users who want SyncIS and the OM name on the lens, then it's trickier. Given the large size- it's as heavy and significantly longer than my Samyang 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 for full frame, a big lens- and hefty price tag, I would also gather it'd be a tough sell for all but the most ardent OM fans.

Also interesting that now that this new OM lens came out, I'm seeing criticism of the OM 40-150mm f/2.8 that I had rarely seen before (e.g., it's too short on the long end, no OIS, etc).

I find it good news however that OM seems to have designed and is manufacturing this lens themselves. Kudos to them for that. If I were them, I would have worked on making the popular lenses smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Don't see them pulling any extra market share from Panasonic MFT or FF with this offering.

It’s not only 1 stop slower at the telephoto end. The PL behaves almost as a f4 lens after 50mm

50mm - f/2.8

70mm - f/3.3

80mm - f/3.4

100mm - f/3.6

150mm - f/3.9

190mm - f/4

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany · Sep 16, 2025

Photongraphy said:
With all respect for the reviews that have been made, I very much agree that it would be helpful to actually see the differences with our own eyes: side to side shots from the 40-150 2.8 and the PL 200/2.8

Shouldn't be to hard to do

Yep. Makes sense to me to wait for Dpr forum members comparisons.

Not having that much disposable spare change for gear, I read up Dpr forum members analysis views on photogrpahy gear for nearly all my photography purchases.

Photongraphy · Sep 17, 2025

drj3 said:
Rafael Rivera said:

And frankly, those lenses are so good that for my needs, I can't imagine any scenario where the new lens is that much better to justify the significant cost and size/weight penalty.

Click to expand...

I will answer that with a simple image that I just took after reading your post. The bucks tend to be around late in the evening. It would be nice if I could lower the ISO somewhat below 10,000 and the Panasonic 200 f2.8 would not let me photograph the deer if it was a few feet closer. This one is young and appears to be missing the left antler.

Yes, obviously the zoom is more flexible then the 200mm prime. And sometimes 50-200 is more useful then 40-150, sometimes the other way around. But we're not talking about range.

The point is that all reviewers claim that the new 50-200/2.8 has (much) better IQ and some also claim nicer bokeh.

Some of us want to see this with our own eyes, compared to the existing alternatives. So we can see if and how much better the new lens is, and evaluate if it is worth the extra cost and weight (for ourselves).

J4Hug · Sep 17, 2025

I think we will only get good comparisons after the general release. These will probably come from OM users who are not OM ambassadors but do have and are very comfortable using the 40-150 f2.8. I'm not saying that ambassadors are biased, and there are many very well-balanced reviews already.

But....

The real problem after release will be sorting the wheat from the chaff.... who will you trust...?

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany · Sep 17, 2025

kbouk said:
It’s not only 1 stop slower at the telephoto end. The PL behaves almost as a f4 lens after 50mm

50mm - f/2.8

70mm - f/3.3

80mm - f/3.4

100mm - f/3.6

150mm - f/3.9

190mm - f/4

This is worthwhile info. How quickly PL 50-200/2.8-4.0 becomes slower.

Similar to fast compacts built in zoom f/1.4 or f/1.8 they quickly become slower.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

JamieTux · Sep 17, 2025

Rafael Rivera said:
JamieTux said:

When I was looking up reviews earlier in the year the 40-150 f2.8 Pro was consistently stated to be optically superior to the PL 50-1200, especially at longer focal lengths (obviously not 200 )
So if that is generally true then the new OM 50-200 will be a step above the PL version, even ignoring the difference in aperture.
I would be surprised if OM Sytems had bput a block on the first reviewers making the comparison.

Click to expand...

I have had both, and honestly I don't see a meaningful difference in image quality. To be fair, I haven't compared each lens side by side with identical photos at 100% magnification, and if I did, maybe I might have seen some difference. But that's not relevant to me as I don't see the utility of pixel peeping- it's not why I photograph things or how I enjoy the photographs afterwards. When deciding to make the switch I checked out many reviews, and the video by Rhett Thompson resonated the most with me and seemed the most objective/least biased.

FWIW, he posted a follow-up video wherein he ended up going with the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 because the PL 50-200 wasn't wide enough for him. Here's that review if anyone is interested:

Thanks for the feedback, interesting videos. The other reason now I've thought about it is that the PL lens was almost double the price of the OM one when I bought it after discount and cash back in the UK.

Rafael Rivera said:
Rafael Rivera said:

Rafael Rivera said:

The Panasonic Leica lens is roughly:

Half the weight (1.44lb [655g] for PL vs 2.8lb [1250g] for OM)

Half the price ($1900 US PL vs $3700 US OM)... OR...

A third of the price when buying used (~$1200 US PL vs $3800 US OM)

Little over half the length (132mm PL vs 226mm PL)

Half stop better combined IBIS/OIS on native camera (Panasonic 7.5 stops, OM 7 stops)

1 stop slower on telephoto end

Both accept their respective 1.4x and 2.0x TC's

Both are weather sealed

Black, while the other is white

Click to expand...

Genuinely curious here as I'd prefer the extra reach but didn't go PL due to the reviews...
Is that weight with a tripod foot? It's removable on both the Oly/OM System ones, is the weather sealing given a rating? I'm pretty sure the L-mount Leica gear is rated similarly to the OM System so I am curious if the m43 ones are too or that's reserved for Leica only branded lenses.

Click to expand...

I sold the OM 40-150 f/2.8 and went with the PL 50-200 f/2.8-4 for several reasons. First was weight and size- this was the primary reason, as I want my MFT kit to be smaller than my FF kit, otherwise I'll shoot with the latter. The PL is significantly smaller, sleeker, and lighter than the OM, and because of that, it doesn't come with or require a foot pod.

I took the foot off on day 1 which makes is significantly lighter and more packable. I put it back on for a shoot last week (40 players headshots where I'd set up the lights and camera and needed consistency). Before that I've happily used the big FF lenses for action so even the 50-200 f2.8 is going to feel tiny and lightweight

Rafael Rivera said:
The next two reasons were somewhat less important in my calculus. One was autofocusing. The OM focused well on my G9II in good light, but I tested it out in dim indoor light and my old Olympus EM5III did better focusing the lens, with the Panasonic/OM combo hunting more. Wasn't a deal-breaker since I use lenses in that focal range for my sports shots, and generally that means outdoor events with good-decent light. But it is one of the cross-platform annoyances I wish OM and Panasonic would work out. The third was dual IS 2. Again, not a dealbreaker for the OM lens, but it is a very nice feature to have.

I never really thought much about the difference in focus speed in actual use in the early days of m43, but I guess it's why I loved some of the PL glass on Panasonic bodies and didn't have quite the same joy on Olympus bodies. The IS can be a big game changer too.

Rafael Rivera said:
I used the PL50-200 on my G9II last at the end of August. I had just run my last track mile for the season, and the pro's were about to run the 800m. I ran back to my camper van to pick up my camera, and managed to get back to the track just in time to catch them. Unfortunately, between my post-race fatigue and lack of time to set things up, I didn't have time to tweak my camera settings (e.g., wrong AF settings, shutter speed likely too high given available light sun was about to set, JPEG only when I wanted RAW+JPEG, wrong LUT, etc.). I also use Luminar, which doesn't have anywhere near as sophisticated noise reduction as Topaz. Finally, I think I have to modify my JPEG settings. So pics far from optimal. Suggestions for improvement welcome.

Nice, I've only just started running again after knee injuries and a separate operation - I bet your miles are quicker than my kilometres at the moment haha, looks like a pretty big meet!

The photos look very golden hour, I like them. My personal preference is to keep noise reduction as low as possible and shutter speeds as high as possible, I find it easier to edit away noise than try to add in detail, even as a batch process. RAW would give you more flexibility, but I know what you mean about settings. I had been messing around with my OM1.2 the other week and when I was best man at a wedding knew I wanted to set it to monochrome and aperture priority but completely forgot about the drive mode so ended up with a lot of very similar shots of during the other speeches haha.

So yeah if wanted suggestions - keep the shutter speed as high as you can - generally at that time that means wide open lenses and shoot raw to recover detail. I found a long time ago that I find colour noise a lot more noticeable and annoying than luminance noise so personally I only really correct for colour noise but camera bodies seem to see them as the same thing.

Rafael Rivera said:
Monmouth Mile Women's Pro 800m

Race leaders

Finish- missed the winner on the right, and the banner slipped from the official's hand prematurely

Allie Wilson looking far more comfortable than me immediately after an 800m!

That las one is great!

Rafael Rivera said:
One last thing. I was standing next to a professional photographer I knew with his Canon 100-400 on a monopod- and it absolutely dwarfed my setup. To be fair though, in that dusky environment, the FF sensor likely did a better job with noise than MFT. Still, overall I was happy with the images- far happier than I was with my individual mile race performance. I should stick with the 800!

Never been a fan of monopods, I always hand held that set up and then the 100-500 in the RF mount. Algthough the sensor is bigger they are also both relatively dark aperture. Maybe suggest to him that he should try a m43 50-200 f2.8 instead

Thanks for responding to my questions without taking offence!

--
James

James Tucker

Explore James Tucker’s 1,674 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

James Tucker Photography

I am a frustrated artist! I took to photography to show people the world the way that I see it and to show the moments of emotion that I love to see. I have been a full time professional in the past but now I have the luxury of being able to only focus on the aspects that I love which normally...

www.jamestux.com

pipituni · Sep 17, 2025

was brushing my teeth earlier and saw these 2 pigeons on the roof. never done any wildlife photography before but in the spirit of this thread and all the wildlife discussion on here i grabbed my OM5 which currently has the 40-150 attached and took a couple of shots

this was at max zoom and the birds are small in the frame so not sure if the image is of any use but it does highlight the busy bokeh

imo it also highlights the impressive sharpness of the lens - the grey pigeon is nice and crisp even at 100% - but i would need to get a lot closer to some animals to get a better idea of how it compares to the 50-200 images that i've seen, or see some sports images taken with the new lens and see how they compare to images i've taken

would the extra 50mm reach have helped here? of course, but it still wouldn't have been enough and i honestly didn't think the birds were that far away... plus they're pretty big compared to some of the birds that are posted here

anyway, tdlr: first ever wildlife pic and doesn't conclusively demonstrate anything

i'll get my coat

James Stirling · Sep 17, 2025

pipituni said:
was brushing my teeth earlier and saw these 2 pigeons on the roof. never done any wildlife photography before but in the spirit of this thread and all the wildlife discussion on here i grabbed my OM5 which currently has the 40-150 attached and took a couple of shots

this was at max zoom and the birds are small in the frame so not sure if the image is of any use but it does highlight the busy bokeh

imo it also highlights the impressive sharpness of the lens - the grey pigeon is nice and crisp even at 100% - but i would need to get a lot closer to some animals to get a better idea of how it compares to the 50-200 images that i've seen, or see some sports images taken with the new lens and see how they compare to images i've taken

would the extra 50mm reach have helped here? of course, but it still wouldn't have been enough and i honestly didn't think the birds were that far away... plus they're pretty big compared to some of the birds that are posted here

anyway, tdlr: first ever wildlife pic and doesn't conclusively demonstrate anything

i'll get my coat

I agree the potential for busy bokeh is about the only significant downside of the otherwise very good 40-150mm . I also have the 1.4x which works quite well though I seldom need longer than the 40-150

With some judicious use of the lens blur filter in ACR you can tweak the background to improve the bokeh

Hope you don't mind I gave your photo a touch of lens blur

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

James Stirling · Sep 17, 2025

J4Hug said:
I think we will only get good comparisons after the general release. These will probably come from OM users who are not OM ambassadors but do have and are very comfortable using the 40-150 f2.8. I'm not saying that ambassadors are biased, and there are many very well-balanced reviews already.

The ambassadors of every brand are absolutely biased

I am also leery of the YT channels that get early access to the latest gear , as they have a vested interest in generating views. This is my opinion of all brands not just OM

J4Hug said:
But....

The real problem after release will be sorting the wheat from the chaff.... who will you trust...?

I like to see some more decent raw samples . I am happy with the 40-150mm F/2.8 and though bokeh in busy backgrounds is a potential issue but not a deal breaker. I don't need the extra 50mm and the white lens also puts me off. But from the limited samples available the 50-200 F/2.8 looks to be very good and the limited shots I have seen with a busier background do look better.

For any new users another consideration is price the 40-150mm F/2.8 is on offer here in the UK so you can get it for £999 the 50-200mm is £2999 . The OM-1 II + 12-40 II is also on offer with £400 cashback. So if new to the system or just upgrading the OM-1 II + 12-40mm II, 40-150mm F/2.8 comes in at £3199 compared to the 50-200mm alone at £2999

Camera Price Buster - Compare UK Stock Prices

Compare genuine UK stock prices for Camera Equipment. New & Used prices.

www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

For the bird and nature guys it looks like a good match with the longer lenses. At the high end the new 50-200mm with the 150-400mm f4.5 is a heck of combination

pipituni · Sep 17, 2025

James Stirling said:
I agree the potential for busy bokeh is about the only significant downside of the otherwise very good 40-150mm . I also have the 1.4x which works quite well though I seldom need longer than the 40-150

With some judicious use of the lens blur filter in ACR you can tweak the background to improve the bokeh

Hope you don't mind I gave your photo a touch of lens blur

not at all

was that automasked or did you have to do some manual adjustment?

if it's automatic then you have to wonder if bokeh with this lens is still an issue? definitely an improvement though i'd still like to see how the new lens' bokeh compares

i'm using PL6 which doesn't have AI selection but the latest version does and i believe it should do a good job of selecting the background on shots like these. rather upgrade PL than the lens...

James Stirling · Sep 17, 2025

pipituni said:
James Stirling said:

I agree the potential for busy bokeh is about the only significant downside of the otherwise very good 40-150mm . I also have the 1.4x which works quite well though I seldom need longer than the 40-150

With some judicious use of the lens blur filter in ACR you can tweak the background to improve the bokeh

Hope you don't mind I gave your photo a touch of lens blur

Click to expand...

not at all

was that automasked or did you have to do some manual adjustment?

if it's automatic then you have to wonder if bokeh with this lens is still an issue? definitely an improvement though i'd still like to see how the new lens' bokeh compares

It does it automatically and there is a good selection of adjustment tools with it. The filter is definitely a less is more deal

Some folk get carried away with it but it can give very decent results

pipituni said:
i'm using PL6 which doesn't have AI selection but the latest version does and i believe it should do a good job of selecting the background on shots like these. rather upgrade PL than the lens...

It will be a lot cheaper to update the software than the lens

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

Steve Balcombe · Sep 17, 2025

James Stirling said:
For the bird and nature guys it looks like a good match with the longer lenses. At the high end the new 50-200mm with the 150-400mm f4.5 is a heck of combination

We'll see what the take-up is amongst wildlife photographers, but I shoot a wide range of birds, mammals, herps and macro and I don't see a place for this lens in my collection. I need the reach of the 150-400/4.5 TC, and the magnification of the 90 Macro, often with the 1.4x. The 50-200 is less capable than either of these, except perhaps for the rare occasion when I might need f/2.8. I can't remember the last time when that would have made a difference.

The 50-200 looks like a truly wonderful lens and a great addition to the lineup, but not for me.

pipituni · Sep 17, 2025

James Stirling said:
I also have the 1.4x which works quite well though I seldom need longer than the 40-150

doh... i have the 1.4x too and can't believe i didn't think to take the same shot with it

drj3 · Sep 17, 2025

Photongraphy said:
drj3 said:

Click to expand...

Yes, obviously the zoom is more flexible then the 200mm prime. And sometimes 50-200 is more useful then 40-150, sometimes the other way around. But we're not talking about range.

The point is that all reviewers claim that the new 50-200/2.8 has (much) better IQ and some also claim nicer bokeh.

Some of us want to see this with our own eyes, compared to the existing alternatives. So we can see if and how much better the new lens is, and evaluate if it is worth the extra cost and weight (for ourselves).

I would be very surprised if the 50-200 f2.8 has significantly better resolution than the 40-150 f2.8 up to 150mm. However, I would be extremely surprised if it did not have better resolution than the MC14 + 40-150 f2.8. See the Lenstip resolution for the 40-150 below with a 12MP sensor (including the 210mm with the MC14). For those of us who would almost always use the 40-150 f2.8 with the MC14, the new lens should give much better resolution. The problem with always using a TC with a zoom lens is that it has a significant effect at all focal lengths, even if you only need the 210mm some of the time.

I think it might have a little better resolution than the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4, given the comparison of the Lenstip resolution graphs with a 16MP sensor for the Panasonic and 12MP sensor for the Olympus. However, either is acceptably sharp, so this is not a major issue. I hope the lens is somewhat better than the Panasonic against bright light since this is often a potential problem with wildlife photography.

I hope the new lens has nicer bokeh than the 40-150 f2.8, but if not, this is a problem that can be minimized in PP. However, this does add to PP difficulty.

--
drj3

James Stirling · Sep 17, 2025

drj3 said:
Photongraphy said:

drj3 said:

Click to expand...

Yes, obviously the zoom is more flexible then the 200mm prime. And sometimes 50-200 is more useful then 40-150, sometimes the other way around. But we're not talking about range.

The point is that all reviewers claim that the new 50-200/2.8 has (much) better IQ and some also claim nicer bokeh.

Some of us want to see this with our own eyes, compared to the existing alternatives. So we can see if and how much better the new lens is, and evaluate if it is worth the extra cost and weight (for ourselves).

Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if the 50-200 f2.8 has significantly better resolution than the 40-150 f2.8 up to 150mm. However, I would be extremely surprised if it did not have better resolution than the MC14 + 40-150 f2.8. See the Lenstip resolution for the 40-150 below with a 12MP sensor (including the 210mm with the MC14). For those of us who would almost always use the 40-150 f2.8 with the MC14, the new lens should give much better resolution. The problem with always using a TC with a zoom lens is that it has a significant effect at all focal lengths, even if you only need the 210mm some of the time.

I think it might have a little better resolution than the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4, given the comparison of the Lenstip resolution graphs with a 16MP sensor for the Panasonic and 12MP sensor for the Olympus. However, either is acceptably sharp, so this is not a major issue. I hope the lens is somewhat better than the Panasonic against bright light since this is often a potential problem with wildlife photography.

I hope the new lens has nicer bokeh than the 40-150 f2.8, but if not, this is a problem that can be minimized in PP. However, this does add to PP difficulty.

Optical limits has tested both the 40-140mm and Pany 50-200mm on the same camera there is not a lot in it.

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

drj3 · Sep 17, 2025

James Stirling said:
drj3 said:

Photongraphy said:

drj3 said:

Click to expand...

Yes, obviously the zoom is more flexible then the 200mm prime. And sometimes 50-200 is more useful then 40-150, sometimes the other way around. But we're not talking about range.

The point is that all reviewers claim that the new 50-200/2.8 has (much) better IQ and some also claim nicer bokeh.

Some of us want to see this with our own eyes, compared to the existing alternatives. So we can see if and how much better the new lens is, and evaluate if it is worth the extra cost and weight (for ourselves).

Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if the 50-200 f2.8 has significantly better resolution than the 40-150 f2.8 up to 150mm. However, I would be extremely surprised if it did not have better resolution than the MC14 + 40-150 f2.8. See the Lenstip resolution for the 40-150 below with a 12MP sensor (including the 210mm with the MC14). For those of us who would almost always use the 40-150 f2.8 with the MC14, the new lens should give much better resolution. The problem with always using a TC with a zoom lens is that it has a significant effect at all focal lengths, even if you only need the 210mm some of the time.

I think it might have a little better resolution than the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4, given the comparison of the Lenstip resolution graphs with a 16MP sensor for the Panasonic and 12MP sensor for the Olympus. However, either is acceptably sharp, so this is not a major issue. I hope the lens is somewhat better than the Panasonic against bright light since this is often a potential problem with wildlife photography.

I hope the new lens has nicer bokeh than the 40-150 f2.8, but if not, this is a problem that can be minimized in PP. However, this does add to PP difficulty.

Click to expand...

Optical limits has tested both the 40-140mm and Pany 50-200mm on the same camera there is not a lot in it.

I thought I said that "However, either is acceptably sharp, so this is not a major issue."

While the Lenstip summary "performance against bright light could have been better" is a little concerning, my major problem with the Panasonic 50-200 was that it was f4, which would have made the ISO even higher at 12,800 in the above image.

I continued to use the 18 year old FTs 50-200 SWD since it is 1/3 stop faster than the Panasonic and the SWD has acceptable sharpness.

The new lens gives me the f2.8 at 200mm and f4 at 280mm instead of f4 at 200mm and the f5.6 at 280mm with the Panasonic using the very difficult to obtain Panasonic 1.4TC.

--
drj3

UrbaneHobbit · Sep 17, 2025

Quodz said:
UrbaneHobbit said:

IFor one thing, 50-200 f/2.8 Pro, which is indeed much larger than the 40-150 f/2.8 Pro, is less than 200g heavier.

Click to expand...

40-150mm 760g without tripod collar, 50-200mm 1075g. Less than 200g? Where did you learn subtraction?

I went by what’s shown on the specifications tables here on DPReview, which imply that 1075g - 880g = 195g.

40-150 f/2.8 Pro specifications

50-200 f/2.8 Pro specifications

I learned how to do this at a public elementary school. Perhaps it is the data sources that need an adjustment?

--
Enjoy your small world of photography

50-200mm f2.8 vs 40-150mm 2.8 comparison

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts