Olympus 75-300 vs. Upcoming 40-150 2.8 Pro - Speculation

What do you folks think? Based on a decade or more of all sorts of lenses coming out, what do you think the result of comparing an image shot at 150mm on the 40-150 compared to an image shot at 300mm on the 70-300mm mark II?

In the one cornerr, the 300mm will be able to place more pixels on a given target. On the other, the 40-150 will be of significantly higher quality (one hopes), and so its 150mm will yield more information, though on fewer pixels.

How do you think the battle would go? To the bigger zoom, or the smarter zoom?

Slightly refined view:

• Probably the thing you are looking for is a comparison at max zoom. Accordingly:
• If you just need the light (aperture), the 300 won't come close to the 2.8. Handheld or moving subjects in not-great light.
• If you really need pixels on small subject in good light, the 300 will just win. It's a pretty decent lens.
• Fairer competition is the 40-150 with a 1.4 teleconverter, which I'm guessing it will have. Then, with 210 mm, it's a closer match for distant subjects.
• If you just don't need a lot of pixels (often happens, e.g., I make blu-ray slide-shows at 1080p), then using the digital tele convertor with the 40-150 puts you directly to compete with 75-300. Daddyo on this site has shown some great DTC shots.

No text.

With all due respect, I got into the Oly m43 system to get away from LENSES of large size and weight. I'm sure the 40-150 f2.8 will be much smaller than comparable FF and APS-C lenses though.

I'd note that a Canon 70-200 f2.8 used on an APS-C body(~100-320 in FF) will likely be much larger still than the Oly 40-150 f2..8, but comparing it to any existing m43, then no. It's going to be both large and heavy-- not to mention expensive-- I looked into my crystal ball to confirm this re expense:>). I'm quite happy w/ the 75-300 II.

the 40-150 f2.8 should be a good sports and action lens though--  for those willing to pay for it and pack it around . All IMO of course.

JL

Israel119 wrote:

What do you folks think? Based on a decade or more of all sorts of lenses coming out, what do you think the result of comparing an image shot at 150mm on the 40-150 compared to an image shot at 300mm on the 70-300mm mark II?

In the one cornerr, the 300mm will be able to place more pixels on a given target. On the other, the 40-150 will be of significantly higher quality (one hopes), and so its 150mm will yield more information, though on fewer pixels.

How do you think the battle would go? To the bigger zoom, or the smarter zoom?

The 150 cropped to the equivalent of the 75-300 at 300mm would be 4MP.  I would think the 70-300 would be better using the full 16MP, even if it is not great at 300mm.  With a 1.4 tele-converter for the 40-150 then maybe not.

it's all in your head.

Just a speculation: you will not afford it.

Well, once you are into telephoto zoom, things arent that small anymore. The 75-300 is not that small either.

Once you've carried the 90-250 or the 300mm f/2.8, you see that the 75-300 is

tiny.

There's been a rather contentious thread over in the Pro Forum about pros switching to m4/3's and mirrorless systems in general.

While many people still operate on the assumption the 'pro gear' means big, heavy, and seriously expensive -- that is not the case with an increasing number of professional shooters who have come to realize that the top m4/3's cameras and lenses are more than capable of providing what they and their clients need at a lower cost and much less weight and bulk -- I happen to be one of those who has completely converted since the introduction of the E-M5.

While I would be the first to say that Olympus still needs to implement some features like dual memory cards slots, simple laptop tethering, etc., I still understand that Olympus genuinely intends for the E-M1 and many of its lenses to appeal to professional shooters -- and the upcoming 40-150mm f/2.8 is certainly one of those lenses.

While it should be a desirable lens for any enthusiast, it will be a 'must have' for just about any professional m4/3 wedding/event shooter. I have used my 75-300mm for a lot of my event shooting where low light is not an issue, and am pleased with the results I've gotten (as are my clients). Right now I have to rely on either my Pany 35-100mm or my ZD 50-200mm for low light telephoto shooting -- the Pany is a bit wanting on the telephoto end and the 50-200mm is fairly big and heavy, and doesn't focus as well as I would like in low light situations (I doubt that the 40-150mm will be as big or as heavy).

So the 40-150mm will certainly be on my 'buy' list, assuming it is not too big or heavy. The beauty of the 40-150mm to me is that given the expected optical quality, I will not hesitate to use it with the DTC Function at reasonable ISO's. That would give me the capability to shoot in low light situations with a 35mm equivalent FOV of 600mm @ f/2.8 from a reasonably compact lens. Professionally, I can think of all kinds of situations where that would be a great benefit.

So what do we think the RRP will be?  USD1500 or closer to 2000?

Taken with the mandatory hunk of sodium chloride, the rumor site today quotes a source as saying US$12-1300, which is slightly below where I've been guessing. Early 2015 shipping.

Cheers,

Rick

If that rumour is true I'll start saving. I had a 80-210/2, 8 with a 1, 4 TC to my 40D and I loved that lens although it was gigantic. If you look at accutance test at DxO the 75-300 doesn't seem too impressive. I strongly expect the new 40-150 to be something quite else. Now I use the 40-150 R as my tele lens, although a good lens it can't match my 12-40/2, 8 in colour, sharpness and contrast. I expect the new 40-150 to be in the same league as the 12-40.

to daddyo:

Credit where credit is due. I'm glad you post frequently when the quality of DTC comes up. I think people should pay attention.

JohnLock wrote:

With all due respect, I got into the Oly m43 system to get away from LENSES of large size and weight. I'm sure the 40-150 f2.8 will be much smaller than comparable FF and APS-C lenses though.

I'd note that a Canon 70-200 f2.8 used on an APS-C body(~100-320 in FF) will likely be much larger still than the Oly 40-150 f2..8, but comparing it to any existing m43, then no. It's going to be both large and heavy-- not to mention expensive-- I looked into my crystal ball to confirm this re expense:>). I'm quite happy w/ the 75-300 II.

the 40-150 f2.8 should be a good sports and action lens though-- for those willing to pay for it and pack it around . All IMO of course.

JL

I'm with you on size and weight. I think the new lens will be a wonderful addition for those that acquire it, but I find I don't use tele enough to warrant the cost and weight of this new lens. I also have the 75-300 II, and it works quite well for my needs, when I need it.

I left DSLR land to downsize, and my EM1 is simply a joy to take and use. I do use the 12-40 2.8 most of the time, and that's as heavy as I want for that range of lens. Compared to my old L-glass Canon gear (28-70) it's still tiny and I like my results with it better too.

I was looking at every review I could find on the 12-40 2.8 before I bought it. In one of the videos, the presenter had a mock-up of the 40-150 that he supposedly got from Olympus. It looked quite large, more than twice as big as the 12-40 and it had a tripod foot on it.