Do I need the 40-150/2.8 PRO?

You state that the 40-150 will have better IQ than the 35-100.  NOT!  I have both, and I think the 35-100 is every bit the equal of the 40-150.  It's much better as a "walk around" lens and is my choice for street photography.

I mainly got the 40x150 to use with the 1.4 TC  to take the place of my beloved 50-200.  It does that OK.  However I would not give up the 35x100 in order to get the 40x150.  You are simply looking at 4X  vs.  6X.    If you are not in dire need of the extra two magnifications, keep the 35x100.  Especially since you are using a Panasonic body.

Julius wrote:

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.

56-210mm F4

or 112-420mm F8 equiv.

It's not a 112-420mm F4.

F-stop = Focal length/aperture diameter.

You can not multiply one without the other. Simple mathematics.

-- hide signature --

Julius
http://www.pbase.com/jkovatch

BarnET wrote:

Julius wrote:

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.

56-210mm F4

or 112-420mm F8 equiv.

It's not a 112-420mm F4.

F-stop = Focal length/aperture diameter.

You can not multiply one without the other. Simple mathematics.

Without sparking yet another equivalence debate, it's an f/4 lens in terms of exposure (shutter speed for a given Av and ISO), and an f/8 lens in terms of DoF.

ijm5012 wrote:

BarnET wrote:

Julius wrote:

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.

56-210mm F4

or 112-420mm F8 equiv.

It's not a 112-420mm F4.

F-stop = Focal length/aperture diameter.

You can not multiply one without the other. Simple mathematics.

Without sparking yet another equivalence debate, it's an f/4 lens in terms of exposure (shutter speed for a given Av and ISO), and an f/8 lens in terms of DoF.

True,

It's physically a 210mm F4 in that set-up.

So it will gather the light intensity of a F4 lens.

But it doesn't magically become a 420mm lens. The tighter crop makes it look like a 420mm lens on fullframe. But the larger sensor gathers more light(same noise at 2 stops higher set ISO with the D750 vs m43) and the physics of a 420mm F4 lens will give it shallower depth of field.

Now whether or not that is a good or bad thing is personal. Photography gear is about compromises. M43 hits a nice balance between decent quality, good versatility, excellent size/weight.

BTW. You can get this set-up on fullframe. The Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. will be arround $6000,- with a D750. Not to mention it's massive size and weight.

I think you're smart to keep the Panasonic, for the lens based IS and the overall size. I've also found that panning the 35-100F2.8 to keep pace with my youngsters is a little bit easier than it is the 40-150 pro (I've tried it but don't own it) or the Oly 35-100F2.0, both of which are larger lenses.

It's possible that the IS may be less of an issue if you are trying to capture a fast moving child (is there such a thing as a slow moving child?), as you'll have the shutter speed cranked up to freeze the motion anyway, but for portraits, landscapes, or other types of photography, the lens based IS will be helpful on your Panasonic.

danieljcox wrote:

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/

Not impossible though

birds in flight is possible with the panny 100-300 on the E-M1 with C-AF. Motors may not be the fastest, but they just go the correct direction.

Airmel wrote:

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 know how to multiply 40-150 x2.

What I meant is the equivalent focal length is 110(rounded from 112)-420mm. I figure you knew that just tried to be funny.

BarnET wrote:

ijm5012 wrote:

BarnET wrote:

Julius wrote:

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.

56-210mm F4

or 112-420mm F8 equiv.

It's not a 112-420mm F4.

F-stop = Focal length/aperture diameter.

You can not multiply one without the other. Simple mathematics.

Without sparking yet another equivalence debate, it's an f/4 lens in terms of exposure (shutter speed for a given Av and ISO), and an f/8 lens in terms of DoF.

True,

It's physically a 210mm F4 in that set-up.

So it will gather the light intensity of a F4 lens.

But it doesn't magically become a 420mm lens. The tighter crop makes it look like a 420mm lens on fullframe. But the larger sensor gathers more light(same noise at 2 stops higher set ISO with the D750 vs m43) and the physics of a 420mm F4 lens will give it shallower depth of field.

Now whether or not that is a good or bad thing is personal. Photography gear is about compromises. M43 hits a nice balance between decent quality, good versatility, excellent size/weight.

BTW. You can get this set-up on fullframe. The Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. will be arround $6000,- with a D750. Not to mention it's massive size and weight.

Are you having fun starting this nonsense debate again or just think that you are the only smart person on this forum.

Are you having fun starting this nonsense debate again or just think that you are the only smart person on this forum.

It's not a debate it's high school physics. The formula is so simple that even a 14 year old can understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

N=f/D

N= F-stop

f= focal length

D=pupil diameter which is just the physical diameter of the aperture

multiplying one without the other is nonsense since the calculation that formed the basis of the F-number falls apart

or are you saying that the aperture becomes physically larger by mounting the lens on a smaller sensor?

Now that is proper nonsense.

-- hide signature --

Julius
http://www.pbase.com/jkovatch

LTZ470 wrote:

BarnET wrote:

ijm5012 wrote:

BarnET wrote:

Julius wrote:

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.

56-210mm F4

or 112-420mm F8 equiv.

It's not a 112-420mm F4.

F-stop = Focal length/aperture diameter.

You can not multiply one without the other. Simple mathematics.

Without sparking yet another equivalence debate, it's an f/4 lens in terms of exposure (shutter speed for a given Av and ISO), and an f/8 lens in terms of DoF.

True,

It's physically a 210mm F4 in that set-up.

So it will gather the light intensity of a F4 lens.

But it doesn't magically become a 420mm lens. The tighter crop makes it look like a 420mm lens on fullframe. But the larger sensor gathers more light(same noise at 2 stops higher set ISO with the D750 vs m43) and the physics of a 420mm F4 lens will give it shallower depth of field.

Now whether or not that is a good or bad thing is personal. Photography gear is about compromises. M43 hits a nice balance between decent quality, good versatility, excellent size/weight.

BTW. You can get this set-up on fullframe. The Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter. will be arround $6000,- with a D750. Not to mention it's massive size and weight.

Lets compare 36mp Full Frame vs 16mp m43 same tripod same day same time...folks do a lot of talking about equivalency, but I spend a lot of time shooting...FF can't touch m43, and when Oly does turn loose of the 300mm f/4 it's going to be some super shots posted from it...note the ISO and shutter speed as well, the FF chose ISO 800 to get the shutter speed up...

I see different exposure the Sony image is a lot brighter.

The fullframe did not get the shutterspeed up more then the Olympus both were 1/320th

Then these images were cropped in post and they have different aspect ratio's.

So there really is no point in comparing them for technical reasons. Now we can compare them based on both being images of a nice bird.

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/

Yep, 300mm vs 300mm, the m43 excels again...and again...and again...FF's just go into denial...

there are too many variables in these 2 images to even start comparing.

1. The fullframe image was cropped to kind of match the FOV of the m43 camera. Therefore the fulframe sensor was already reduced to m43 size negating it's advantage.

2. The camera picked a higher ISO to increase the exposure. probably since the larger scene captured by the fullframe camera was darker so the metering compensated. i can't tell for sure without the original images.

3. it wasn;t at the same time. The image capture date was 6 hours apart

4. the images were captured at a different angle since the background does not line-up

So why even try to compare what is happening here. there are way too many variable. Which makes making conclusions pointless.

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/

LTZ470 wrote:

BarnET wrote:

Yep, 300mm vs 300mm, the m43 excels again...and again...and again...FF's just go into denial...

there are too many variables in these 2 images to even start comparing.

1. The fullframe image was cropped to kind of match the FOV of the m43 camera. Therefore the fulframe sensor was already reduced to m43 size negating it's advantage.

Correct nullifying any advantage the FF has...speaking of reducing size, the FF is HUGE comparatively...

Not really. If your using the same m43 lens on the a7r the combo is roughly the same size as the em1. You just have to crop the centre out of the image. Which will be little under 10mp i think. which makes the olympus image have a tad more detail.

now if you would mount a 150-600mm lens on a fulflrame sensor. Which would be the same equiv. focal length. there is no doubt that the fullframe will hold a lot more detail. The problem then is ofcourse a massive penalty in size/weight

2. The camera picked a higher ISO to increase the exposure. probably since the larger scene captured by the fullframe camera was darker so the metering compensated. i can't tell for sure without the original images.

I was shooting for minimum 1/320mm to get sharp shots, the FF chose it's poison to get that speed...

it meters a much larger scene. put it off full matrixe and let it meter the centre of the frame. Then the exposure should be a bit similar

3. it wasn;t at the same time. The image capture date was 6 hours apart

I work in West Africa, 6 hrs difference in time, it was the same time, had been using the A7r in West Africa, you actually think I shot that shot at 9:00 PM at night?

I don't know where when what time zone. for instance in mid summer it can be rather bright outside at 9 PM arround here.

Southern coast australia for instance may have daylight at that date/time

4. the images were captured at a different angle since the background does not line-up

The tripod was never adjusted or moved, the offset on the cameras differ as well as the tripod mount screw hole...look at the scratches on the wood at the feet of the bird...they are the same...

yup they are.

Looks like the Sony was more to the left. some how.

So why even try to compare what is happening here. there are way too many variables making that renders comparing them useless.

Maybe to you, but to me it was an easy choice the FF A7r is too slow and not as competent as the EM1 for Nature and Birding...for Landscapes it's a marvel...

true,

But this has nothing to do with m43 vs fullframe. The A7r is just not a great action camera. The Nikon D750 is but that is a much larger camera.

300mm equivalence is horse $hite at it's best...I have proved it to myself over and over...

m43 size vs reach vs IQ can't be beat....

Depends on your priorities. If size is really high on your list then your right. especially when the 300mm F4 is out. 420mm F5.6 or 300mm F4 on modern m43 sensors is tough to beat.

Remember that most wildlife shooters love Crop sensor Dslr's as well. Just to give them extra pixels in the middle of the image circle. Since they often have to crop anyway.

If IQ is higher on your list then it's not. Then it's a Dslr with a long prime 1.5x crop or not.

Side-note is that gaining reach or light over the m43 combo mentioned above would require a VERY serious investment. And a similar investment can be made on m43 by using old 43 glass. especially on the em-1

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/

Since you have the 35-100 already -that is btw IQ-wise on par with the 40-150 Pro- the Olympus makes only sense together with the teleconverter. But only if BIF or sports would be in your interest. That's not the case, so stay with the Pana. It's the better choice for your purposes, imo.