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 !

pipituni · Sep 29, 2025

after posting a video of the 50-200 with some lovely sample photos, Jerred Z has now posted a new video with some useful comparison examples. not much in it really IQ wise... maybe a smidge smoother bokeh?

Sam Bennett · Sep 29, 2025

pipituni said:
after posting a video of the 50-200 with some lovely sample photos, Jerred Z has now posted a new video with some useful comparison examples. not much in it really IQ wise... maybe a smidge smoother bokeh?

Yep. My takeaway was mostly "Okay, the 40-150/2.8 really is as good as I thought it was!"

This really seems to come down whether you need the extra reach. If you love your 40-150 but it's simply too short, this lens is for you.

Rafael Rivera · Sep 29, 2025

Art_P said:
Weather sealing between OM and Panny may not be reliable, and of course dual IS only works within brand, so even if the lenses are optically comparable, the Panny lens is not as suited to an OM body, and vise versa.

True and fair. Would also add that there are additional limitations, including subpar AF at times (noticed that on my 40-150 f/2.8), lack of full functionality (e.g., aperture ring on PL lenses not working on OM bodies), etc.

An area where L-mount excels over MFT- a Sigma lens performs as well on the S1RII as it does on the BF, with all the same functionality. Another example of MFT shooting itself in the foot.

the bluesman · Sep 29, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
pipituni said:

after posting a video of the 50-200 with some lovely sample photos, Jerred Z has now posted a new video with some useful comparison examples. not much in it really IQ wise... maybe a smidge smoother bokeh?

Click to expand...

Yep. My takeaway was mostly "Okay, the 40-150/2.8 really is as good as I thought it was!"

This really seems to come down whether you need the extra reach. If you love your 40-150 but it's simply too short, this lens is for you.

Yes the 40-150mm f2.8 still holds it's own when compared to the 50-200mm f2.8, I'm going out today to compare them along with some other lenses, should be a bit of fun so if I get some decent images I'll post them up later side by side, the new Lens is fantastic though and a pleasure to shoot with

James Stirling · Sep 29, 2025

Rafael Rivera said:
Art_P said:

Weather sealing between OM and Panny may not be reliable, and of course dual IS only works within brand, so even if the lenses are optically comparable, the Panny lens is not as suited to an OM body, and vise versa.

Click to expand...

True and fair. Would also add that there are additional limitations, including subpar AF at times (noticed that on my 40-150 f/2.8), lack of full functionality (e.g., aperture ring on PL lenses not working on OM bodies), etc.

An area where L-mount excels over MFT- a Sigma lens performs as well on the S1RII as it does on the BF, with all the same functionality. Another example of MFT shooting itself in the foot.

Rafael , Given the excellent lenses Sigma has been putting out having full access to them with no restrictions is a bonus . Even Sony with their "open mount" applies restrictions to adapted lenses such as lower fps etc which could be a downside for some of the new high end options ( such as the 135mm F/1.4 , 200mm F/2 and 300-600mm F/4 )

Sam Bennett · Sep 29, 2025

the bluesman said:
Sam Bennett said:

pipituni said:

after posting a video of the 50-200 with some lovely sample photos, Jerred Z has now posted a new video with some useful comparison examples. not much in it really IQ wise... maybe a smidge smoother bokeh?

Click to expand...

Yep. My takeaway was mostly "Okay, the 40-150/2.8 really is as good as I thought it was!"

This really seems to come down whether you need the extra reach. If you love your 40-150 but it's simply too short, this lens is for you.

Click to expand...

Yes the 40-150mm f2.8 still holds it's own when compared to the 50-200mm f2.8, I'm going out today to compare them along with some other lenses, should be a bit of fun so if I get some decent images I'll post them up later side by side, the new Lens is fantastic though and a pleasure to shoot with

Thanks! It looks like a lovely lens and I'm looking forward to trying it out for myself!

Art_P · Sep 29, 2025

Well, I had already decided to take the plunge and pick up a 40-150/2.8. Yes, the extra reach would be nice, but I do have the 12-200 and 300/4, just want a faster mid range zoom. And if the 40-150 is producing nearly the same results (for flowers and critters in the field) it make little sense for me to take on the extra weight and much higher cost.
Actually had a bid on one on eBay, but it went over my target cost.

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

the bluesman · Sep 30, 2025

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

tomhongkong · Sep 30, 2025

the bluesman said:
Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

I think that if you look at the comparable images of the fairy wren (I think, we don't have it) you have your own answer.

The 40-150 is sharp, the 50-200.......?

None of your other examples previously posted are tack sharp

I would take it back, but before doing so do a proper back to back test with a lens test chart so that you have something to show the retailer which does not leave room for dispute

It's bad luck, and I hope you get it sorted out

tom

SonyX · Sep 30, 2025

the bluesman said:
Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

If this is a bokeh comparison, then ok, the 50-200 wins, otherwise, I don't know what to add to what was said earlier - the lens needs to be changed.

--
Alex

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

the bluesman · Sep 30, 2025

tomhongkong said:
the bluesman said:

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

Click to expand...

I think that if you look at the comparable images of the fairy wren (I think, we don't have it) you have your own answer.

The 40-150 is sharp, the 50-200.......?

None of your other examples previously posted are tack sharp

I would take it back, but before doing so do a proper back to back test with a lens test chart so that you have something to show the retailer which does not leave room for dispute

It's bad luck, and I hope you get it sorted out

tom

Thanks so much for your feedback, I fully agree and really think I have a bad copy, I was trying to love the 50-200mm and sure I can but this copy is doing my head in

the bluesman · Sep 30, 2025

SonyX said:
the bluesman said:

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

Click to expand...

If this is a bokeh comparison, then ok, the 50-200 wins, otherwise, I don't know what to add to what was said earlier - the lens needs to be changed.

I very much appreciate your good eye, your right it does need to be changed and the shop already said they would, I did my best to like the new lens and I do but there is defiantly something wrong with my copy, it cost me to much money to be in denial, I hate going through the procedure of taking it back etc and I really appreciate your feedback in this thread and the other one

Rafael Rivera · Sep 30, 2025

James Stirling said:
Rafael Rivera said:

Art_P said:

Weather sealing between OM and Panny may not be reliable, and of course dual IS only works within brand, so even if the lenses are optically comparable, the Panny lens is not as suited to an OM body, and vise versa.

Click to expand...

True and fair. Would also add that there are additional limitations, including subpar AF at times (noticed that on my 40-150 f/2.8), lack of full functionality (e.g., aperture ring on PL lenses not working on OM bodies), etc.

An area where L-mount excels over MFT- a Sigma lens performs as well on the S1RII as it does on the BF, with all the same functionality. Another example of MFT shooting itself in the foot.

Click to expand...

Rafael , Given the excellent lenses Sigma has been putting out having full access to them with no restrictions is a bonus . Even Sony with their "open mount" applies restrictions to adapted lenses such as lower fps etc which could be a downside for some of the new high end options ( such as the 135mm F/1.4 , 200mm F/2 and 300-600mm F/4 )

Completely agree with you James. Sigma's putting out some really fabulous lenses. Every single Sigma I've had- including the sole 56mm f/1.4 I've had for the MFT mount- has been excellent. The 500mm telephoto prime is fabulous, even with the 1.4x TC. And the 85mm f/1.4 has such exquisite bokeh and shallow DOF, yet is razor sharp in the focal plane.

And as you note, no shenanigans between the L-mount vendors to handicap or not support their competitors' lenses' features. THAT is the way it should be- not the way MFT has handled cross-manufacturer compatibility where they're clearly more competitors than collaborators. At least for L-mount, that competitor/collaborator relationship is more balanced.

SonyX · Sep 30, 2025

Rafael Rivera said:
At least for L-mount, that competitor/collaborator relationship is more balanced.

How were the DFD and Dual IS functions implemented with Sigma lenses in this alliance?

tomhongkong · Sep 30, 2025

the bluesman said:
SonyX said:

the bluesman said:

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

Click to expand...

If this is a bokeh comparison, then ok, the 50-200 wins, otherwise, I don't know what to add to what was said earlier - the lens needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

I very much appreciate your good eye, your right it does need to be changed and the shop already said they would, I did my best to like the new lens and I do but there is defiantly something wrong with my copy, it cost me to much money to be in denial, I hate going through the procedure of taking it back etc and I really appreciate your feedback in this thread and the other one

Based on your photos in this thread, and your previous postings, there is definitely something wrong with your new lens.

However to make sure and to avoid dispute I recommend that you download and print a lens test chart and take shots with your 40-150 and 50-200 under identical conditions...take the 50-200 at 150mm and then move it back to give the same image size at 200mm

Its bad luck that this has happened, and good luck with your exchange.

Let us know what happens

tom

Sam Bennett · Sep 30, 2025

tomhongkong said:
the bluesman said:

SonyX said:

the bluesman said:

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

Click to expand...

If this is a bokeh comparison, then ok, the 50-200 wins, otherwise, I don't know what to add to what was said earlier - the lens needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

I very much appreciate your good eye, your right it does need to be changed and the shop already said they would, I did my best to like the new lens and I do but there is defiantly something wrong with my copy, it cost me to much money to be in denial, I hate going through the procedure of taking it back etc and I really appreciate your feedback in this thread and the other one

Click to expand...

Based on your photos in this thread, and your previous postings, there is definitely something wrong with your new lens.

What makes you say that?

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

SonyX · Sep 30, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
What makes you say that?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68451735

MEDISN · Sep 30, 2025

Rafael Rivera said:
And as you note, no shenanigans between the L-mount vendors to handicap or not support their competitors' lenses' features. THAT is the way it should be- not the way MFT has handled cross-manufacturer compatibility where they're clearly more competitors than collaborators. At least for L-mount, that competitor/collaborator relationship is more balanced.

I still encounter incompatibilities with L-mount. For example, the manual focus clutch on Lumix lenses prevents BBF on Leica bodies. Leica OIS lenses will not give you DUAL IS on Panasonic bodies and vice-versa. AF of Sigma lenses work okay on Panasonic bodies but hunts on Leica bodies under the same lighting. In video, the Follow Focus feature on Leica bodies is incompatible with many Panasonic and Sigma AF lenses. Fn buttons on Panasonic lenses are not always recognized by Leica bodies. Leica L-mount bodies have built in corrections and EXIF for M-mount lenses but doesn't' work on Panasonic bodies. My Panasonic TC's were handicapped with Sigma lenses. It will physically mount but you need same brand TC's for full compatibility.

I have sold off all but one of my Sigma brand lenses. I was not impressed with AF speed/accuracy and turn around time for repairs was terribly slow. Now I stick to Leica lenses on Leica bodies in L-mount. No incompatibilities there!

tomhongkong · Sep 30, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
tomhongkong said:

the bluesman said:

SonyX said:

the bluesman said:

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

Click to expand...

If this is a bokeh comparison, then ok, the 50-200 wins, otherwise, I don't know what to add to what was said earlier - the lens needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

I very much appreciate your good eye, your right it does need to be changed and the shop already said they would, I did my best to like the new lens and I do but there is defiantly something wrong with my copy, it cost me to much money to be in denial, I hate going through the procedure of taking it back etc and I really appreciate your feedback in this thread and the other one

Click to expand...

Based on your photos in this thread, and your previous postings, there is definitely something wrong with your new lens.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that?

Bluesman has shown us in this thread that there is nothing wrong with his technique/settings..see his 40-150 Fairy Wren shot. Compare that with the 50-200 shot. His previous posts have not been sharp either, but the planes could have been atmospherics and I did not comment at the time, and his first shots could have been while he was getting used t the lens.

To eliminate any possibility of environmental error, I have suggested that he does a static test with a lens chart before finally concluding that he has a bad copy.

Do you disagree?

tom

Sam Bennett · Sep 30, 2025

tomhongkong said:
Sam Bennett said:

tomhongkong said:

the bluesman said:

SonyX said:

the bluesman said:

Here's a heap of images I got today with the OM-1 Mk2 and the OM-3 with the 40-150mm f2.8 and the new 50-200mm, I just don't know but perhaps there is something wrong with my copy of the 50-200 f2.8, I'm happy with it but then again am I, please feel free to be critical, first lot 40-150 then 50-200mm

40-150 f2.8

50-200mm f2.8

Click to expand...

If this is a bokeh comparison, then ok, the 50-200 wins, otherwise, I don't know what to add to what was said earlier - the lens needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

I very much appreciate your good eye, your right it does need to be changed and the shop already said they would, I did my best to like the new lens and I do but there is defiantly something wrong with my copy, it cost me to much money to be in denial, I hate going through the procedure of taking it back etc and I really appreciate your feedback in this thread and the other one

Click to expand...

Based on your photos in this thread, and your previous postings, there is definitely something wrong with your new lens.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that?

Click to expand...

Bluesman has shown us in this thread that there is nothing wrong with his technique/settings..see his 40-150 Fairy Wren shot. Compare that with the 50-200 shot. His previous posts have not been sharp either, but the planes could have been atmospherics and I did not comment at the time, and his first shots could have been while he was getting used t the lens.

To be honest, I see enough variability in the technique that I wouldn't draw any conclusions from these examples. The two shots above are really "hard" shots for any lens to render well - and MFT especially. The magnification isn't very high, the background isn't super far away so end up with a fairly busy background. A lens with shallower DoF would render this inherently better. But to me it doesn't indicate a problem with the lens - just pointing out a scenario where this lens does not shine.

Don't get me wrong, I see why people are concerned with some of the examples shown here, but most of this appears to be down to technique, as far as I can tell.

tomhongkong said:
To eliminate any possibility of environmental error, I have suggested that he does a static test with a lens chart before finally concluding that he has a bad copy.

Do you disagree?

No, I definitely agree with that.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

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

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts