e620: 40-150 mk I or40-150 Mk II ?

[kenc184]

My wife has an e620 with the 14-42 kit lens and the 70-300. She would like a lens that fills in the gap.
I've looked at reviews of the 18-180 and don't find them too encouraging.

I like the fact that the older 40-150 lens is a tad faster than what she currently has, and I don't think I'd be too worried about losing the latest and greatest LV focus mode since I've rarely seen her use LV.

IS the old 40-150 a better choice than the new 40-150 if LV is of no interest?
Any alternative ideas for $600-ish or less?

TIA
Ken

 

[ginsbu]

There's a lot of overlap between a 40-150 and 70-300, so I think trying to fill the gap between 42 and 70 with one doesn't make a lot of sense unless your wife wants to avoid the bulk of the 70-300 (in which case the Mk II would be preferable). She would gain more, I think, by replacing the 14-42 with either the 14-54 (under $600) or 12-60 (more, but if you buy used maybe not by too much).

To put it in perspective, the gap between 42 and 70 is a difference in diagonal angle of view of about 10º. The 14-54 would narrow that to 5º -- enough to be noticeable, but not enough to bother filling, IMO -- while the 12-60 closes it to 3º.

So the 14-54 halves the gap, and is a much faster (aperture and focusing), sharper and all around higher grade (!) lens. The 12-60 has further advantages at a higher price. Of course either of these are bulkier than the 14-42, but personally I find the 14-54 to be a great match for the 620. It would also allow her to keep her kit to two lenses.

 

[The Big One]

I found the Mk I was a nicer lens overall, but the Mk II is more portable. If you care about portability, go for the Mk II, otherwise go for the Mk I. Both are about the same price (used).

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

 

[GeorgeH]

I have the E-600 witht he older 40-150mm lens. The old lens is bigger but I can tell you the quality is very good. As for the new 40-150, I've heard the lens is as good or even better. It is smaller, but loses a bit on the F-stop. So the decision is: 1) for compact size get the new 40-150mm. 2) for lower f-stop, get the old 40-150mm.

My wife has an e620 with the 14-42 kit lens and the 70-300. She would like a lens that fills in the gap.
I've looked at reviews of the 18-180 and don't find them too encouraging.

I like the fact that the older 40-150 lens is a tad faster than what she currently has, and I don't think I'd be too worried about losing the latest and greatest LV focus mode since I've rarely seen her use LV.

IS the old 40-150 a better choice than the new 40-150 if LV is of no interest?
Any alternative ideas for $600-ish or less?

TIA
Ken

 

[Klarno]

I'd tell your wife to save her money; no one needs to have every mm covered (if they did, then it's a wonder how people get by with a few primes). That's just a good way to ensure that you inevitably have the wrong lens on for any given shot. Generally, people upgrade to the 70-300 from the 40-150 and stop using the latter altogether.

Between the two 40-150s, however, my opinion is that the image quality of both is the same with some sample variation in both. You're better off with the mk II because of its compact size, its ability to be focused properly in live view and its ability to focus closer, .9m instead of 1.5m.

The difference in their f/stops is on the order to 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop, and neither range is worth bragging about; they're both really slow. A shutter speed of only 2/3 of a stop faster on the long end isn't going to get you many more keepers, the smaller size encouraging you to bring it with you is.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com

 

[LinusP]

I have an E-620 with both the 40-150mm Mk II and the 70-300mm (among others, see my profile). Klarno is right in that the 40-150mm has become my least-used lens, but I don't do much portrait shooting. When I do, though, it's my go-to lens. Constantly switching between the 14-42mm and 70-300mm would drive me crazy and I'd miss a lot of good candids. The 14-42mm and 40-150mm make for a pretty killer travel combo, too.

 

[Wolfe_boy]

1. This question has been asked and answered half a hundred times already. Search the forums, and ye shall be enlightened.

2. Talk to your wife about why she would want a lens to fill the gap between 42mm & 70mm. Frankly, the difference between the two is negligible, and investing in a lens simply to have every milimeter covered is money wasted, especially as the 40-150 overlaps range with the 70-300 so much.

3. If she STILL feels the need to get something in that range, seek other alternatives. The 50 2.0 is a great fit - it straddles the gap between 42 & 70, outperforms either lens in terms of sharpness, and is a stellar macro lens to boot. Much more versatile than the 40-150.

--
Jayson Dean Merryfield
http://www.inthemomentphotography.ca
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysondeanmerryfield/

 

[vincent filomena]

The 40-150(new) is light as a feather and sharp as a tack: almost all my gallery 620s are with this lens !

Vjim

 

[baxters]

Credible arguments can be made as to the utility of filling that 40-70mm gap, but the 40-150 MKII still is a nice compact lens, easy to carry, and reasonably good results for its cost, which was like an additional 100 dollars when purchased as a two lens kit. If you can get one used for $100-130, why not?

I still own the MKI as well as the MKII. Might be a few occasions where I will take the older one to an indoor venue just for the slight speed advantage, but for a generic photo junket, the smaller MKII is what I will pack. Portability is more important to me, I also own the 70-300mm, but that is such a long lens that I will bring only for specific occasions, and when I do bring it, portability is cast aside. it's on a second body

I think the interest in micro 4/3 bodies has revived interest in the 40-150mm MKII and caused ebay prices for it to rise.. With an adapter, it is fairly useable on a PEN system camera.

 

[thatsnoordinaryrabbit]

2. Talk to your wife about why she would want a lens to fill the gap between 42mm & 70mm. Frankly, the difference between the two is negligible, and investing in a lens simply to have every milimeter covered is money wasted, especially as the 40-150 overlaps range with the 70-300 so much.

I can relate to wanting something in between a normal zoom and the 70-300. Lots of times I've gone out with the 70-300 because I know I'll want to get well out past either the 14-42 or 14-54, and while out I spend most of my time at 70mm and occasionally wanting to go wider. So a 40-150 covers a very important range, even if there is lots of overlap.

If the OP's budget is up to $600, that's pretty close to a used 50-200 Mk1.

--
STFU and do it.

 

[papillon_65]

I don't know why anyone would not own the 40-150mm mk 2 if they like to travel light at times. It's massively smaller than any other telephoto I've seen (Except m4/3's) and it's also sharper than a lot of much more expensive lenses. It's so small it doesn't look out of place on an m4/3's camera. I have the 50-200mm, the 12-60mm and the 9-18mm but the one lens I would never part with is the 40-150mm mk2, for it's price, size/weight and quality it epitomises what 4/3's should have always been about IMHO. It's also CDAF enabled (via a firmware update), so should you ever get an m4/3's camera, it will af and at the long end it is reasonably fast to do so. On an EPL-1, with it's better resolution and weak AA filter it's becomes the best medium telephoto in m4/3's and the output is razor sharp on this camera.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[Larry Lynch]

My wife has an e620 with the 14-42 kit lens and the 70-300. She would like a lens that fills in the gap.
I've looked at reviews of the 18-180 and don't find them too encouraging.

I like the fact that the older 40-150 lens is a tad faster than what she currently has, and I don't think I'd be too worried about losing the latest and greatest LV focus mode since I've rarely seen her use LV.

IS the old 40-150 a better choice than the new 40-150 if LV is of no interest?
Any alternative ideas for $600-ish or less?

TIA
Ken

I have used the the "older" 40-150 since I got it with an E-300 way back when the 300 was a "new" model...so Ive used it on E-300/330/500/510/Panny L-1/E-520/620 and the E-1.

Both of them are really great for "kit" lenses.

Given a choice between the new one and the old one, I choose the old one every time (even on my diminutive E-620)...

I always need light, I dont always need small.

--
Larry

 

[John King]

Gidday Ken

My wife has an e620 with the 14-42 kit lens and the 70-300. She would like a lens that fills in the gap.
I've looked at reviews of the 18-180 and don't find them too encouraging.

I like the fact that the older 40-150 lens is a tad faster than what she currently has, and I don't think I'd be too worried about losing the latest and greatest LV focus mode since I've rarely seen her use LV.

IS the old 40-150 a better choice than the new 40-150 if LV is of no interest?
Any alternative ideas for $600-ish or less?

I have both (see my profile ... ).

Both are optically very, very good.

Build quality on the MkI wins by a country mile. Optically faster, enough to matter.

The MkI lives in my E-30 bag, occasionally swapped out for my 50~200.

The MkII lives in my E-510 bag.

I have taken some really terrific images with both, at all FLs (IMO ... ... ).

How about the f2/50 macro? Instead of either ...
Just to throw the whole conversation in another direction ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[kenc184]

Great advice from you all - many thanks!

So, after going backwards and forwards, used/new, I bought her the 14-54 mkII lens from B&H for $478. I really thought about ebay, but for the extra $175 over a mk I used, I got her the mkII lens which seems to have a slightly higher resale value and even though I've never seen her use live view - who knows? I really wanted the one year factory warranty versus nothing on ebay. again, who knows?

Since they were so darned cheap I also picked up a 40-150 mkI off ebay for $60.

Even if it only gets used as a knock about lens once in a while it'll be worth $60.

So, she's got the 14-42 kit lens (probably going in a drawer), a 40-150mkI, the 14-54 MkII and a 70-300.

Not what a pro would want for sure, but we're just hobby types so I think it's a nice setup.

Thanks again!

ken

 

[John King]

Gidday Ken

Great advice from you all - many thanks!

So, after going backwards and forwards, used/new, I bought her the 14-54 mkII lens from B&H for $478. I really thought about ebay, but for the extra $175 over a mk I used, I got her the mkII lens which seems to have a slightly higher resale value and even though I've never seen her use live view - who knows? I really wanted the one year factory warranty versus nothing on ebay. again, who knows?

Good thinking ...

Since they were so darned cheap I also picked up a 40-150 mkI off ebay for $60.

Even if it only gets used as a knock about lens once in a while it'll be worth $60.

Both versions of this lens are greatly underestimated by many. They are both optically excellent, with the MkI having excellent build quality as well.

So, she's got the 14-42 kit lens (probably going in a drawer), a 40-150mkI, the 14-54 MkII and a 70-300.

Not what a pro would want for sure, but we're just hobby types so I think it's a nice setup.

Thanks again!

Thanks for letting us all know how it turned out, mate.

It is a nice setup.

I have 14~42, 14~45, 14~54 MkII, 40~150 MkI & MkII - apart from my other gear (in profile).

My 'normal' kits consist of:

• E-510 + f2.8/25 pancake (mounted), 14~42 and 14~150 MkII (1.4 kgs in bag).
• E-1 + 14~45 and a bunch of legacy lenses with my old Sunpak flash (haven't weighed this ... )
• E-30 + 7~14, 14~54 MkII, f2/50 macro, and either 50~200 MkI or 40~150 MkI; along with FL-36R, remote trigger and table-top tripod. This bag also contains a copy of all my image files on a 500 GB portable HDD. Weighs about 5~5.5 kgs.

Each bag also contains connection leads, a charger, spare battery and spare memory cards. E-510 and E-30 also have "in-camera memory" by way of an un-loved and unlovely xD card in the second slot.

Since I am more than a little bit health "challenged", my E-510 kit gets plenty of use as I can carry it a long way (most days ... ). Anyone who says that size and weight don't matter is either 20 something, has a thing for pain, or has no health problems. EVEN Louis Dobson has changed his tune on this after lugging his D3 kit around for a couple of years, he now prefers to lug his E-3 kit except for some things ...

IMHO, I have taken some startlingly good images with my 'humble' E-510 and SG lenses. Anything that is interesting to at least one other person, and can be printed sharp at A1 size counts in this category AFAIAC.

ALL my kits and lenses get a run from time to time. I also play mix-n-match with everything (except memory cards ... ).

I can actually fit my E-510 + f2.8/25 mounted and E-1 + f2/50 mounted in my E-30 bag with my E-30 kit, but starts to get too heavy for me to carry far ...

My point?
Don't be too quick to relegate the 14~42 to a drawer somewhere ...

When you want small and light, it beats the heck out of the 14~54 for size and weight ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[kenc184]

Thanks for the reply John,

My wife solved the weight thing on holiday by letting me carry her E620 bag and my Pentax K-x (18-55 &55-300 kit lenses) bag as well......

Of course now that I've bought HER a nice lens or two, I can get around to buying myself that Tammy 70-200 f/2.8 for my K-x!

Still that's a comment for another forum I guess.

Cheers mate!
ken