Do I need the 40-150/2.8 PRO?

Having the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 and 100-300/4-5.6, and a single GH4 body, I have been rationalizing the Olympus 40-150/2.8 for a few weeks. I handled it at a local store, and it was big but not too unwieldy. (50% longer & heavier than the 100-300)

The issue is I could not justify having both the 35-100 and 40-150. I will have to sell the 35-100 to finance the 40-150. Actually, if I am to get the 40-150/2.8 I will most likely sell the 100-300 as well.

I have been carrying the 35-100/2.8 everywhere because of its small size and weight, and I am doubting I will enjoy doing that with the 40-150/2.8.

What I will gain is 100-150mm range at f2.8. The 100-300 is f4 (1-stop diff) at 100mm and f4.8 (1.5-stop diff) at 150mm. The 35-100 has OIS. The 40-150/2.8 will have better image quality.

My main subject is family (4yo daughter) and travel.

Would you switch?

I have the 40-150 f/2.8 now and I had the 35-100 f/2.8 Panasonic before.

There is no difference in image quality/sharpness between the 2 lenses, the 35-100 every bit as sharp as the Oly 40-150. The only reason I purchased it to have the extra 50mm and the matching 1.4x extender which makes it a 110-420mm f/4 zoom lens which is just as sharp with the extender and wide open at f/4.

I just got the 40-150 Pro 2 weeks ago and I could not be happier. Image quality is the king. The lens is new and works well. Weather sealed to use anytime.

I was occasionally resting my 40-150 and EM1 in the dirt and never had a worry. It is not the cheapest, but with the 1.4x teleconverter you will get some extra zoom. This is my primary lens in this range now. Not planning on using the others, but I never sell anything.

Unless you really need that extra reach, I think the panny 35-100 is the better choice as is has built in OIS!. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only Panasonic body with IBIS is the GX7. With the GX4, depending if you are using a monopod, or have an extremely steady hand, having large telephoto focal length with no stabilization can result in a very shakey composition experience. Plus without stabilization, higher shutter speeds may be required to reduce camera shake.

If you are capturing birds and animals, the Panasonic 100-300 is a smaller lens, that has greater reach than the 40-150 pro even with MC-14.

Chrisada wrote:

Having the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 and 100-300/4-5.6, and a single GH4 body, I have been rationalizing the Olympus 40-150/2.8 for a few weeks. I handled it at a local store, and it was big but not too unwieldy. (50% longer & heavier than the 100-300)

The issue is I could not justify having both the 35-100 and 40-150. I will have to sell the 35-100 to finance the 40-150. Actually, if I am to get the 40-150/2.8 I will most likely sell the 100-300 as well.

I have been carrying the 35-100/2.8 everywhere because of its small size and weight, and I am doubting I will enjoy doing that with the 40-150/2.8.

What I will gain is 100-150mm range at f2.8. The 100-300 is f4 (1-stop diff) at 100mm and f4.8 (1.5-stop diff) at 150mm. The 35-100 has OIS. The 40-150/2.8 will have better image quality.

My main subject is family (4yo daughter) and travel.

Would you switch?

Probably not.  For me, however, I am very glad I have the PRO lens.

Even if you need the Oly Pro you won't get the best out of it using the GH4 since it doesn't have IS

You better off staying with the Pannys

I had both but sold the 35-100 after I acquired the 40-150

I need the reach and the use of teleconverter

I have Oly bodies so the 40-150mm makes sense

Don't look over the greener grass, it may not be that green once you step on it

Cheers,

dv312 wrote:

Even if you need the Oly Pro you won't get the best out of it using the GH4 since it doesn't have IS

I missed this very important piece of information.

Where there is doubt, there is no doubt.

I have the 40-150 f/2.8 and TC and absolutely love it. But there is no way I would use this on a body that does not have stabilization.

Thank you everyone for your comments. The message is very clear: stay with my current kit unless I'm switching to Olympus body.

Maybe that could happen with EM-1 II, so for now I am staying put and enjoying what I have

Gidday Chrisada

I think that's a very sensible, wise decision, mate.

bigley Ling wrote:

If you are capturing birds and animals, the Panasonic 100-300 is a smaller lens, that has greater reach than the 40-150 pro even with MC-14.

The Pansonic 100-300mm is not an option for birds in flight. It is just to slow to focus. It's not the camera but rather the moters in the lens itself. If your main subject matter is kids and daily life I think the Olympus 40-150mm would b overkill. That said, the lack of IS on a GH4 is not as much an issue as you would think since the Olympus lens has a very fast F/2.8 maximum aperture and we can shoot the GH4 at ISOs only dreamed of a few years back. If you want more information on how well the GH4 works with the 40-150mm you can see an extensive review highlighting both at http://naturalexposures.com/one-year-shooting-the-panasonic-lumix-gh4/

Chrisada wrote:

Having the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 and 100-300/4-5.6, and a single GH4 body, I have been rationalizing the Olympus 40-150/2.8 for a few weeks. I handled it at a local store, and it was big but not too unwieldy. (50% longer & heavier than the 100-300)

Size Comparison
The 40-150 is not 50% longer than the 100-300. The 40-150 is 160mm long, while the 100-300 is 126mm long, a difference of 34mm (27%), or 1 & 1/3 inches. For all intents and purposes, it's basically the same length.

The weight difference is about 50% though, with the 40-150 weighing 760g, and the 100-300 weighing 520g. Compared to the 35-100 (360g), the 40-150 is over 2x as heavy.

I have been carrying the 35-100/2.8 everywhere because of its small size and weight, and I am doubting I will enjoy doing that with the 40-150/2.8.

There is a significant weight difference between the two lenses, which may influence whether you want to bring the 40-150 with you compared to how you use the 35-100 now.

What I will gain is 100-150mm range at f2.8. The 100-300 is f4 (1-stop diff) at 100mm and f4.8 (1.5-stop diff) at 150mm. The 35-100 has OIS. The 40-150/2.8 will have better image quality.

My main subject is family (4yo daughter) and travel.

Do you shoot a lot of fast action sports? If not, then the 40-150 may prove to not be as useful as your current kit of lenses. If you do video at all (which I think you would, given that one of your main subjects is your 4 yo daughter), I would definitely recommend keeping the 35-100.

How often do you use your 100-300 between 200-300mm? If you don't use it all that often, I would suggest looking at selling the 100-300, and picking up a 45-175 PZ. You get more reach than what the 40-150 would offer (without the TC), it has Power OIS rather than Mega OIS in the 100-300, and has Panasonic's Nano Crystal Coating to help control flare/ghosting/etc. It's definitely a better lens for shooting video compared to the 100-300, and is MUCH smaller and lighter (Size Comparison).

I have the 40-150 f/2.8 now and I had the 35-100 f/2.8 Panasonic before.

There is no difference in image quality/sharpness between the 2 lenses, the 35-100 every bit as sharp as the Oly 40-150. The only reason I purchased it to have the extra 50mm and the matching 1.4x extender which makes it a 110-420mm f/4 zoom lens which is just as sharp with the extender and wide open at f/4.

That's 56-212mm
--
AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com

There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

I prefer primes. This zoom is just too big.

Remember there is no OS/IS on the Olympus lenses.