Comparison Olypmus 40-150 Pro with 75/1.8, 100-300, 14-140 mk2

I came to m43 with the purchase of the GH1 in 2009 and since then I'm often reading in these forums. And now after short 5 years I feel ready for my first posting ;-). So after this is my first post I try to be as objective as possible, otherwise a troll reputation is gained quickly here...

I purchased a E-M1 a few weeks ago and received my 40-150 2.8 (including the 1.4 TC) last friday. I want to compare the 40-150 at 210mm with the Panasonic 100-300 at 300mm to find out how the image quality of the 100-300 at 300mm is compared to the 40-150 at 210mm (cropped to the same size as the 300mm shot). I included also the Olympus 75mm 1.8 and the Panasonic 14-140 mk2 in the comparison.

I'm not really a pixel peeper, but I would like to see the heavy price tag of 1600 € for the 40-150 represented in its image quality to justify my spending. The weather wasn't that great, cloudy, no sun.

I did some 100% crops of the images to compare IQ, mostly at the same aperture, but added a few pics with wide open aperture. After writing this I noticed, that i forgot to turn off OIS on the two Panasonic lenses! So the comparison with the Panasonic lenses is a bit flawed. I included the crops anyway and will redo this test another time...

Camera settings:

Tripod
ISO 400
Shutter Shock 2s
self timer 2s
IBIS off / Forgot to turn OIS off on the Panasonic lenses
Aperture Mode
spot AF (on the olympic parc logo)

Scene @75mm with 40-150 pro at F2.8

40-150 and 75 both @F2.8 - this comparison ist not flawed -> no OIS on the 75mm 1.8 ...

Pana 100-300 and Oly 40-150 at 140mm both @5.6

Pana 14-140 (@F5.6) and Oly 40-150 (@F2.8) both at 140mm

Oly 40-150 (incl. 1.4 TC) and Pana 100-300 both with F5.0 at 210mm

Pana 100-300 @300mm with F5.6 and Oly 40-150 (incl. 1.4 TC) @210mm with F4.0

This is the first time i try to compare lenes in this fashion, so I'm open to some pointers how i could do this a better way next time (in addition to turning the OIS off on Panasonic lenses...)

What are your conclusions concerning the IQ of my copy of the Olympus 40-150 pro?

My conclusion regarding the 100-300 is the same I always had: The IQ of my 100-300 is better than my 50-200 + 1.4TC at the center of the frame, and it seems your 100-300 and 40-150 are pretty close at the center of the frame. Exactly what I'd expect with my copies.

Of course the 40-150 has other benefits, like faster lens, weather sealed, better at the corners, less CA. But if center sharpness is all you care about, the 100-300 is excellent.

L.

thanks for the comparison, I'd be particular keen to hear your thoughts on the pany 14-140ii used with the em1 with the OIS turned off.

I have this combination and intend to use it. From what I can see the 0sec antishock is reasonably effective removing shutter shock blurring with the lens. More interested in CA, fringing and contrast so you ongoing tests are of interest.

I don't see much point in repeating the test ... if the 100-300 does any better it will win the comparison outright. As it is, I don't see the difference being enough to spend the megabucks.

Of course, reach is not why you buy the "pro" lens combo .... it has other attributes, like better subject isolation at short focal lengths, and of course conspicuous consumption

If you wanted to repeat the test, then something with a little more detail and color with ISO = 200 would probably be better.  Not sure it is necessary, but more detail comparing the lenses might be informative to those interested in purchasing one of the lenses.

It's interesting to me, that the more expensive lens is not always necessarily the sharper of the two and in your testing for example the 75 vs the 40-150 the 75mm IS definitely sharper reading the text on the signs where it counts where the prime has it. The zoom perhaps is more versatile, but its expense does not necessarily always justify the outlay from what I am seeing in these and other photos.

M43 Dude wrote:

It's interesting to me, that the more expensive lens is not always necessarily the sharper of the two and in your testing for example the 75 vs the 40-150 the 75mm IS definitely sharper reading the text on the signs where it counts where the prime has it. The zoom perhaps is more versatile, but its expense does not necessarily always justify the outlay from what I am seeing in these and other photos.

I think the focus for this comparison is slightly off for the 40-150.  Looking at the branches behind the sign, they appear to be in better focus with the 40-150.  However, it would not surprise me if the 75 prime was sharper than even a professional zoom.

The next time I have a chance to take some pictures in sunny conditions, I will redo this test with a different scene ...

Yesterday the sun came out, so I redid the test with a different scene (with more detail).

This time I turned OIS off (IBIS too). Other changes: ISO 200 and Anti Shock 4 seconds.

Luisflorit is right - the 100-300 is very close in sharpness in the center wide open (F4) compared to the 40-150 pro with F2.8. In the corners it's quite different, here the 40-150 pro is alot sharper. The Pany 14-140 mk2 is the softest of these three lenses.

Oly 40-150 Pro at 100mm with F2.8

Pany 100-300 at 100mm with F4.0

Pany 14-140 mk2 at 100mm with F5.4

I did more shots of the same scene, but that might be too many pictures for this post. If somebody is interested in a specific comparison, I will post them...

There are

@ 75mm

Oly 75mm with F1.8, F2.8, F4.0

Pany 14-140 mk2 with F5.4

Oly 40-150 Pro with F2.8, F4.0

@ 100mm

Pany 14-140 mk2 with F5.4

Pany 100-300 with F4.0

Oly 40-150 Pro with F2.8, F4.0

@ 140mm

Pany 14-140 mk2 with F5.6

Pany 100-300 with F4.4

Oly 40-150 Pro with F2.8, F4.0

@ 210mm

Pany 100-300 with F5.0, F5.6

Oly 40-150 Pro (with 1.4 TC) with F4.0, F5.0, F5.6

@ 300mm

Pany 100-300 with F5.6

There isn't much point to this,,the pro wipes the floor with the cheaper lenses,,try shooting feather or fur,,then you will see a real difference as per another recent thread...

Tony8232 wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

I don't see much point in repeating the test ... if the 100-300 does any better it will win the comparison outright. As it is, I don't see the difference being enough to spend the megabucks.

Of course, reach is not why you buy the "pro" lens combo .... it has other attributes, like better subject isolation at short focal lengths, and of course conspicuous consumption

I see a noticeable difference between the 100-300 and the other two lenses. It's not as sharp in the center and especially the edges. If you are into shooting outdoors in poor light the faster lenses will give you much better photos in terms of IQ, noise reduction and better focusing. I'm not planning on buying the 75mm or the 40-150mm but I can see why someone else would.

We weren't really debating lens speed ... but yes, one always pays a lot more for speed at long focal lengths. And it is well worth it if you spend a lot of time shooting in low(er) light.

I'd say that in terms of center sharpness - the diff is negligible in my eyes, and for now "justified" my decision to buy the 35-100/2.8 as my highend telephoto for portable everyday usage, and complement it with 100-300 (or 75-300 - I still need to decide ;)) for wildlife. When I shoot wildlife, I care mostly about Center resolution.

WITH THAT SAID - I think the big diff between the 40-150/2.8PRO and the 100-300/75-300 is the Contrast and microcontrast. They render better - and as such - using the 75-300/100-300 will require some more PP to compensate for that (and may not reach the same overall quality).

For my personal taste - I only do Wildlife on occasion, and I can live with that compromise. In all honesty - it's smaller than I thought... I expected the 40-150/2.8 to be much better, even with TC.

slartz wrote:

I'd say that in terms of center sharpness - the diff is negligible in my eyes, and for now "justified" my decision to buy the 35-100/2.8 as my highend telephoto for portable everyday usage, and complement it with 100-300 (or 75-300 - I still need to decide ;)) for wildlife. When I shoot wildlife, I care mostly about Center resolution.

WITH THAT SAID - I think the big diff between the 40-150/2.8PRO and the 100-300/75-300 is the Contrast and microcontrast. They render better - and as such - using the 75-300/100-300 will require some more PP to compensate for that (and may not reach the same overall quality).

For my personal taste - I only do Wildlife on occasion, and I can live with that compromise. In all honesty - it's smaller than I thought... I expected the 40-150/2.8 to be much better, even with TC.

The difference in sharpness at 210mm is larger (in favour of the 40-150 pro):

Center crop:

210mm F5.0 - center crop

Edge crop:

210mm F5.0 - edge crop

Original Image (jpeg ooc) Oly 40-150 Pro @210mm (incl. 1.4 TC):

Oly 40-150 Pro 210mm (incl. 1.4 TC) F5.0

Original Image (jpeg ooc) Pana 100-300 @210mm:

Pana 100-300 210mm F5.0

gccg88 wrote:

slartz wrote:

I'd say that in terms of center sharpness - the diff is negligible in my eyes, and for now "justified" my decision to buy the 35-100/2.8 as my highend telephoto for portable everyday usage, and complement it with 100-300 (or 75-300 - I still need to decide ;)) for wildlife. When I shoot wildlife, I care mostly about Center resolution.

WITH THAT SAID - I think the big diff between the 40-150/2.8PRO and the 100-300/75-300 is the Contrast and microcontrast. They render better - and as such - using the 75-300/100-300 will require some more PP to compensate for that (and may not reach the same overall quality).

For my personal taste - I only do Wildlife on occasion, and I can live with that compromise. In all honesty - it's smaller than I thought... I expected the 40-150/2.8 to be much better, even with TC.

The difference in sharpness at 210mm is larger (in favour of the 40-150 pro):

Center crop:

210mm F5.0 - center crop

Edge crop:

210mm F5.0 - edge crop

Honestly? The difference is small. Yes, I can see it at 100% crop, but it requires some close looking. if you put them without telling me which is which, I'd have to spend a few seconds to examine the photos to tell which one is the sharper one. Once you see it you can't unsee it of course and it's clear, but - I've seen people pay a lot less diff on the glass for a lot more improvement.

I have to say - I'm quite impressed as how well a "cheapo" 200-600 equiv lens delivers. I know it stops delivering around 250, but it's still a "worthy" 200-500 lens.

I just have to decide if I'm getting the 100-300 or the 75-300 II.

Tony8232 wrote:

gccg88 wrote:

slartz wrote:

I'd say that in terms of center sharpness - the diff is negligible in my eyes, and for now "justified" my decision to buy the 35-100/2.8 as my highend telephoto for portable everyday usage, and complement it with 100-300 (or 75-300 - I still need to decide ;)) for wildlife. When I shoot wildlife, I care mostly about Center resolution.

WITH THAT SAID - I think the big diff between the 40-150/2.8PRO and the 100-300/75-300 is the Contrast and microcontrast. They render better - and as such - using the 75-300/100-300 will require some more PP to compensate for that (and may not reach the same overall quality).

For my personal taste - I only do Wildlife on occasion, and I can live with that compromise. In all honesty - it's smaller than I thought... I expected the 40-150/2.8 to be much better, even with TC.

The difference in sharpness at 210mm is larger (in favour of the 40-150 pro):

Center crop:

210mm F5.0 - center crop

Edge crop:

210mm F5.0 - edge crop

Honestly? The difference is small. Yes, I can see it at 100% crop, but it requires some close looking. if you put them without telling me which is which, I'd have to spend a few seconds to examine the photos to tell which one is the sharper one. Once you see it you can't unsee it of course and it's clear, but - I've seen people pay a lot less diff on the glass for a lot more improvement.

I have to say - I'm quite impressed as how well a "cheapo" 200-600 equiv lens delivers. I know it stops delivering around 250, but it's still a "worthy" 200-500 lens.

I just have to decide if I'm getting the 100-300 or the 75-300 II.

To me the difference is quite significant in sharpness and especially contrast. I won't be buying the Pro because right now I can't afford it. I want to save up for the new 300 mm lens. The big deal with the Pro zoom is it expands the morning and evening hours when its not easy get HQ wildlife photos with the existing lenses. I suspect that includes AF performance also. For the right customer its worth every penny.

Yes, exactly. The faster zoom offers several stops improvement in ISO. So obviously it is worth it for the fat wallet right customer.

But ... looking at the final crop comparison, you say that the difference is "quite significant" to you. I look at the full sized crops and I see the chimney being sharper for the Oly and the branches at the top against open sky being sharper for the Panny.

What that says to me is that the focus is off in this test. One focuses much further back than the other, making one sharper at the chimney and one sharper at the branches way back there.

The point being that it has not really earned your level of respect here. It's other attributes remain as important as always, but contrast and sharpness is not at all a spanking against the 100-300 that you purport ...

I have the 100-300 and have always found it to be really sharp and surprisingly contrasty for a consumer zoom. YMMV