Decisions, decisions

So I've been shooting Micro Four Thirds for about a year and a half now. I love what I've been able to do with my short prime lenses, but all of the things I really need telephoto for (namely sports and wildlife) are, well, lacking.

I'm just a hobbyist on a very tight budget, so there are things I know I could do that are, well, out of reach for me.

So currently I have an Olympus Pen E-PL5 and the Olympus 40-150mm f4.0-5.6R lens.

On July 11, I am going to be taking part in a special photography workshop from a local camera dealer involving our local professional soccer franchise, the Indy Eleven. I will get some training beforehand, but more importantly, I will get something akin to a press pass that will give me access all around the sidelines. It's a night game, so light will be a challenge. The lights at this stadium are not great. When I have attended games in the past there, I have had seats right behind one of the goals and did my best to shoot down the field for other action.

Of course, keeping the shutter speed high is crucial for sports (as well as for birds in flight, which I attempt to shoot frequently). So when the sun starts to go down, I have to dial up my ISO to as high as 6400 to be able to shoot at the telephoto end. And that's still not really long enough -- I often have to crop those photos extensively to frame them properly. So the noise makes most of the photos totally unusable even at small sizes.

So I'm trying to figure out what I can do without spending an arm and a leg to make the most of this opportunity.

Here are the options as I see them:

1) Replace my Olympus lens with the Oly 75-300mm. Sure I would lose some of the wider focal lengths, and it's bigger, but if I'm breaking out my longest lens, I'm probably not using those wider focal lengths anyway. At each of the overlapping focal lengths, the 75-300mm has the exact same maximum aperture as my 40-150mm does.

2) Replace my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 45-200mm. That would give me a bit more reach so I don't have to crop quite so much, but I'm not sure if it would be enough additional reach to make a significant difference. So if anyone has experience with these two lenses, it would be great to know.

3) Supplement my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 100-300mm.

4) Rent the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens and the MC-14 teleconverter. Of course, the cost just to rent these items for a few days would cover the cost of me upgrading to the Panasonic 45-200mm permanently or cover about half of the cost of upgrading to the 75-300mm permanently when you factor in selling my existing lens.

The press pass should help me get closer to the action and let me move around so I don't have to zoom quite so far down the field.

I don't have any illusions about being a professional or publishing / selling these photos. I know Micro 4/3 isn't the best for capturing fast-moving subjects and I will have a lot of throwaways regardless of the lens, but I'd just like to end up with a few shots from this that I'm really proud of.

Option 4. Nothing else is even close.

danieladougan wrote:

So I've been shooting Micro Four Thirds for about a year and a half now. I love what I've been able to do with my short prime lenses, but all of the things I really need telephoto for (namely sports and wildlife) are, well, lacking.

I'm just a hobbyist on a very tight budget, so there are things I know I could do that are, well, out of reach for me.

So currently I have an Olympus Pen E-PL5 and the Olympus 40-150mm f4.0-5.6R lens.

On July 11, I am going to be taking part in a special photography workshop from a local camera dealer involving our local professional soccer franchise, the Indy Eleven. I will get some training beforehand, but more importantly, I will get something akin to a press pass that will give me access all around the sidelines. It's a night game, so light will be a challenge. The lights at this stadium are not great. When I have attended games in the past there, I have had seats right behind one of the goals and did my best to shoot down the field for other action.

Of course, keeping the shutter speed high is crucial for sports (as well as for birds in flight, which I attempt to shoot frequently). So when the sun starts to go down, I have to dial up my ISO to as high as 6400 to be able to shoot at the telephoto end. And that's still not really long enough -- I often have to crop those photos extensively to frame them properly. So the noise makes most of the photos totally unusable even at small sizes.

So I'm trying to figure out what I can do without spending an arm and a leg to make the most of this opportunity.

Here are the options as I see them:

1) Replace my Olympus lens with the Oly 75-300mm. Sure I would lose some of the wider focal lengths, and it's bigger, but if I'm breaking out my longest lens, I'm probably not using those wider focal lengths anyway. At each of the overlapping focal lengths, the 75-300mm has the exact same maximum aperture as my 40-150mm does.

2) Replace my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 45-200mm. That would give me a bit more reach so I don't have to crop quite so much, but I'm not sure if it would be enough additional reach to make a significant difference. So if anyone has experience with these two lenses, it would be great to know.

3) Supplement my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 100-300mm.

4) Rent the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens and the MC-14 teleconverter. Of course, the cost just to rent these items for a few days would cover the cost of me upgrading to the Panasonic 45-200mm permanently or cover about half of the cost of upgrading to the 75-300mm permanently when you factor in selling my existing lens.

The press pass should help me get closer to the action and let me move around so I don't have to zoom quite so far down the field.

I don't have any illusions about being a professional or publishing / selling these photos. I know Micro 4/3 isn't the best for capturing fast-moving subjects and I will have a lot of throwaways regardless of the lens, but I'd just like to end up with a few shots from this that I'm really proud of.

Having owned the 45-200 since my first M43 camera back in '09, I won't recommend it to you for your use. It is a reasonably good lens specially of its low price and if you could work within its limit. However, it is heavy, a little bit soft on the far end (some comment it be soft from 150mm onward) and not good for low light shooting because of its slow speed.

BTW, EPL-5 might not be the best for your upcoming job.... as I could imagine a lot of action, low light shooting shooting would require fast AF, good tracking ability, ergonomically good gear enabling split second setting plus fast lenses.

alcelc wrote:

danieladougan wrote:

So I've been shooting Micro Four Thirds for about a year and a half now. I love what I've been able to do with my short prime lenses, but all of the things I really need telephoto for (namely sports and wildlife) are, well, lacking.

I'm just a hobbyist on a very tight budget, so there are things I know I could do that are, well, out of reach for me.

So currently I have an Olympus Pen E-PL5 and the Olympus 40-150mm f4.0-5.6R lens.

On July 11, I am going to be taking part in a special photography workshop from a local camera dealer involving our local professional soccer franchise, the Indy Eleven. I will get some training beforehand, but more importantly, I will get something akin to a press pass that will give me access all around the sidelines. It's a night game, so light will be a challenge. The lights at this stadium are not great. When I have attended games in the past there, I have had seats right behind one of the goals and did my best to shoot down the field for other action.

Of course, keeping the shutter speed high is crucial for sports (as well as for birds in flight, which I attempt to shoot frequently). So when the sun starts to go down, I have to dial up my ISO to as high as 6400 to be able to shoot at the telephoto end. And that's still not really long enough -- I often have to crop those photos extensively to frame them properly. So the noise makes most of the photos totally unusable even at small sizes.

So I'm trying to figure out what I can do without spending an arm and a leg to make the most of this opportunity.

Here are the options as I see them:

1) Replace my Olympus lens with the Oly 75-300mm. Sure I would lose some of the wider focal lengths, and it's bigger, but if I'm breaking out my longest lens, I'm probably not using those wider focal lengths anyway. At each of the overlapping focal lengths, the 75-300mm has the exact same maximum aperture as my 40-150mm does.

2) Replace my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 45-200mm. That would give me a bit more reach so I don't have to crop quite so much, but I'm not sure if it would be enough additional reach to make a significant difference. So if anyone has experience with these two lenses, it would be great to know.

3) Supplement my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 100-300mm.

4) Rent the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens and the MC-14 teleconverter. Of course, the cost just to rent these items for a few days would cover the cost of me upgrading to the Panasonic 45-200mm permanently or cover about half of the cost of upgrading to the 75-300mm permanently when you factor in selling my existing lens.

The press pass should help me get closer to the action and let me move around so I don't have to zoom quite so far down the field.

I don't have any illusions about being a professional or publishing / selling these photos. I know Micro 4/3 isn't the best for capturing fast-moving subjects and I will have a lot of throwaways regardless of the lens, but I'd just like to end up with a few shots from this that I'm really proud of.

Having owned the 45-200 since my first M43 camera back in '09, I won't recommend it to you for your use. It is a reasonably good lens specially of its low price and if you could work within its limit. However, it is heavy, a little bit soft on the far end (some comment it be soft from 150mm onward) and not good for low light shooting because of its slow speed.

BTW, EPL-5 might not be the best for your upcoming job.... as I could imagine a lot of action, low light shooting shooting would require fast AF, good tracking ability, ergonomically good gear enabling split second setting plus fast lenses.

Thanks. I agree it's not ideal for this, but it's what I HAVE. I'm pretty budget-constrained here. Someday I'd like to get the OM-D E-M1 or maybe a Pen body that has phase-detect autofocus if Olympus ever decides to make one. But that's a wish-list item for someday down the road.

What about the Panasonic 45-200mm for wildlife, specifically birds in flight? Obviously you'd rather have more focal length there if you can, but would it be a significant bump from my current lens?

400trix wrote:

Option 4. Nothing else is even close.

Thanks. But, remember, it's Option 4 as a rental for three days, or one of the other options permanently. I simply don't have $1,800 to toss around for a lens / teleconverter.

It did just occur to me that I've had to switch to my 45mm f1.8 just to get anything when it gets dark there, so that's A LOT less reach and more cropping. So maybe aperture > focal length in this case. Hmmm, maybe I could save a little on the rental by not getting the teleconverter.

There's also the matter of wildlife, so wouldn't the longer lenses somewhat make up for the difference in aperture in those situations? Maybe not for the soccer game, but long term since I tend to do that more often.

Allan Brown wrote:

danieladougan wrote:

So I've been shooting Micro Four Thirds for about a year and a half now. I love what I've been able to do with my short prime lenses, but all of the things I really need telephoto for (namely sports and wildlife) are, well, lacking.

Here are the options as I see them:

1) Replace my Olympus lens with the Oly 75-300mm. Sure I would lose some of the wider focal lengths, and it's bigger, but if I'm breaking out my longest lens, I'm probably not using those wider focal lengths anyway. At each of the overlapping focal lengths, the 75-300mm has the exact same maximum aperture as my 40-150mm does.

2) Replace my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 45-200mm. That would give me a bit more reach so I don't have to crop quite so much, but I'm not sure if it would be enough additional reach to make a significant difference. So if anyone has experience with these two lenses, it would be great to know.

3) Supplement my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 100-300mm.

I have the EPL5 and both the Panasonic 45-200 and 100-300. If you buy Olympus lenses, the problem with the longer lenses will be holding the subject steady in the frame as there will be no IBIS till you actually take the photo - i.e. no stabilized live view. The Panasonic lenses definitely have the advantage here.

The 45-200 is often reported as being very soft. This is nonsense and it does well. I got some very sharp photos of Australian Football. For this event, I found the 100-300 too long and the 45-200 just fine. Unlike its competition, it does go to 200mm. Could it be better?, yes but there is no other option.

As far as the Oly 75-300 goes, you will not see any difference between it and the Panny 100-300 at 300.

4) Rent the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens and the MC-14 teleconverter. Of course, the cost just to rent these items for a few days would cover the cost of me upgrading to the Panasonic 45-200mm permanently or cover about half of the cost of upgrading to the 75-300mm permanently when you factor in selling my existing lens.

See above.

I have an old Nikon 105 f2.5 lens and I find it difficult to use on my EPL5 due to the lack of Live View stabilizing. However, it works well with my EP5 which does have a stabilized live view.

Here is one with the 45-200 at 200 using my G5.

Allan

Panny 45-200 @ 200

Looks like a great photo -- but, of course, that's in daylight. I'm going to an evening game. Now since it's July there will be at least some daylight until halftime or even later, but at the very least I will be dealing with twilight if not true darkness (and poor artificial lighting) by the end of the game.

danieladougan wrote:

400trix wrote:

Option 4. Nothing else is even close.

Thanks. But, remember, it's Option 4 as a rental for three days, or one of the other options permanently. I simply don't have $1,800 to toss around for a lens / teleconverter.

It did just occur to me that I've had to switch to my 45mm f1.8 just to get anything when it gets dark there, so that's A LOT less reach and more cropping. So maybe aperture > focal length in this case. Hmmm, maybe I could save a little on the rental by not getting the teleconverter.

There's also the matter of wildlife, so wouldn't the longer lenses somewhat make up for the difference in aperture in those situations? Maybe not for the soccer game, but long term since I tend to do that more often.

It all depends on the results you want. You've got a chance to shoot professional sports, why use substandard equipment?

Sometimes the right decision is to rent. I've got a project coming up in two years that I simply will be unable to purchase the equipment to do, so I'm planning on renting 3 bodies and six lenses, and maybe a Phantom Flex if I can pull in some grant money, in order to get all of the shots that I need. Its better to have temporary use of the right equipment than permanent use of the wrong.

Working in a poorly lit stadium with a slow lens is simply going to be an exercise in frustration. Even the 40-150 + TC is going to a bit rough at 210-f/4.  The 40-150 + TC + E-M1 (which you'll want to be using for sports) is a $200/week rental. With that setup, you'll get keepers, and you will learn a lot more than you will struggling with a camera that has very poor C-AF and weak ergonomics for sport.

From my point of view, it comes down to not wanting to find myself in a wonderful photographic opportunity, and then getting poor shots because my equipment wasn't up to snuff. Been there, done that. It wasn't fun.

Soccer(and most other sports) would require a faster shutter speed, so you might want to start by determining what is a minimum SS.  For my use cases, 1/250 SS is my minimum for my kids' track, basketball, martial arts and soccer.

For low-light or indoors situations, my 40-150mm(non-pro), 75-300mm can't muster that speed unless I bump my ISO to max but IMO, the IQ suffers drastically beyond ISO1600.

My fastest m43 lenses is the 45mm.  At f1.8, I can comfortably shoot at 1/250(or higher) while maintaining max ISO1600.  If 45mm is not long enough, I switch to my Nikon dSLR with Tokina 50-135 (75-200mm equiv) at constant f2.8.

In short, option 4 because you need a fast lens.  If manual focusing is OK, maybe rent a APSC 70-200mm f2.8(Nikon, Sigma, Canon) with adapter?  They might be cheaper than 40-150 pro.

400trix wrote:

danieladougan wrote:

400trix wrote:

Option 4. Nothing else is even close.

Thanks. But, remember, it's Option 4 as a rental for three days, or one of the other options permanently. I simply don't have $1,800 to toss around for a lens / teleconverter.

It did just occur to me that I've had to switch to my 45mm f1.8 just to get anything when it gets dark there, so that's A LOT less reach and more cropping. So maybe aperture > focal length in this case. Hmmm, maybe I could save a little on the rental by not getting the teleconverter.

There's also the matter of wildlife, so wouldn't the longer lenses somewhat make up for the difference in aperture in those situations? Maybe not for the soccer game, but long term since I tend to do that more often.

It all depends on the results you want. You've got a chance to shoot professional sports, why use substandard equipment?

Sometimes the right decision is to rent. I've got a project coming up in two years that I simply will be unable to purchase the equipment to do, so I'm planning on renting 3 bodies and six lenses, and maybe a Phantom Flex if I can pull in some grant money, in order to get all of the shots that I need. Its better to have temporary use of the right equipment than permanent use of the wrong.

Working in a poorly lit stadium with a slow lens is simply going to be an exercise in frustration. Even the 40-150 + TC is going to a bit rough at 210-f/4. The 40-150 + TC + E-M1 (which you'll want to be using for sports) is a $200/week rental. With that setup, you'll get keepers, and you will learn a lot more than you will struggling with a camera that has very poor C-AF and weak ergonomics for sport.

From my point of view, it comes down to not wanting to find myself in a wonderful photographic opportunity, and then getting poor shots because my equipment wasn't up to snuff. Been there, done that. It wasn't fun.

Interesting. How important would the teleconverter be in this scenario? Could I do reasonably well without it considering I have all that access and don't have to spend the whole game shooting from one end of the field?

I suppose renting the E-M1 could tell me a lot about whether it even makes sense for me to continue down the Micro 4/3 road or just start over and get a real DSLR kit. With the new firmware, it looks like it can do C-AF at 9 fps. That's blazing fast.

addlightness wrote:

Soccer(and most other sports) would require a faster shutter speed, so you might want to start by determining what is a minimum SS. For my use cases, 1/250 SS is my minimum for my kids' track, basketball, martial arts and soccer.

For low-light or indoors situations, my 40-150mm(non-pro), 75-300mm can't muster that speed unless I bump my ISO to max but IMO, the IQ suffers drastically beyond ISO1600.

My fastest m43 lenses is the 45mm. At f1.8, I can comfortably shoot at 1/250(or higher) while maintaining max ISO1600. If 45mm is not long enough, I switch to my Nikon dSLR with Tokina 50-135 (75-200mm equiv) at constant f2.8.

In short, option 4 because you need a fast lens. If manual focusing is OK, maybe rent a APSC 70-200mm f2.8(Nikon, Sigma, Canon) with adapter? They might be cheaper than 40-150 pro.

Thanks. No way I'm going to try do focus manually for soccer. I'm just not anywhere close to that skilled. This will be about continuous AF and burst shooting.

I think I'm hearing a consensus here.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

danieladougan wrote:

400trix wrote:

Option 4. Nothing else is even close.

Thanks. But, remember, it's Option 4 as a rental for three days, or one of the other options permanently. I simply don't have $1,800 to toss around for a lens / teleconverter.

It did just occur to me that I've had to switch to my 45mm f1.8 just to get anything when it gets dark there, so that's A LOT less reach and more cropping. So maybe aperture > focal length in this case. Hmmm, maybe I could save a little on the rental by not getting the teleconverter.

There's also the matter of wildlife, so wouldn't the longer lenses somewhat make up for the difference in aperture in those situations? Maybe not for the soccer game, but long term since I tend to do that more often.

You need speed above all else and might be best off haunting the goal waiting for the action to draw near, than going for reach. Lack of a viewfinder is something you'll just have to work around.

I shoot a lot of youth soccer and it's quite challenging even in full sun with very fast lenses. We're all waiting for the 300 Pro to give us decent across-field reach.

Enjoy the opportunity and don't sweat the photos too much.

Cheers,

Rick

I should mention I do have the VF-4 viewfinder attached to my E-PL5.

No EVF either? Wow, that's limiting. Edit; I see you have one. Good.

I wouldn't make any money, but might have fun with your press pass using fast legacy lenses, monopod if allowed, and pre-set focus. Maybe not. Most of the great sports shots show the athlete's emotions. Look for that?

-Shots of the goalie in concentration.
-The moments during a penalty kick.
-The lucky shot in burst mode when they run past you.
-Arguments, facial expressions on the protaganists. Celebrations when someone scores.

You may be underestimating how your photos with the zoom can get better when you're much closer. In the stands, it's just stick figures jumping up and down. You should be able to get eyes and faces.

baxters wrote:

No EVF either? Wow, that's limiting. Edit; I see you have one. Good.

I wouldn't make any money, but might have fun with your press pass using fast legacy lenses, monopod if allowed, and pre-set focus. Maybe not. Most of the great sports shots show the athlete's emotions. Look for that?

-Shots of the goalie in concentration.
-The moments during a penalty kick.
-The lucky shot in burst mode when they run past you.
-Arguments, facial expressions on the protaganists. Celebrations when someone scores.

You may be underestimating how your photos with the zoom can get better when you're much closer. In the stands, it's just stick figures jumping up and down. You should be able to get eyes and faces.

Thanks. I don't know how much closer I will be; when I have shot photos from the stands in the past, I was always in the first 2-3 rows behind the goal. The most recent time I was in the very front row behind the goal. There were pros sitting right under me. But, of course, this is still just one end of the field. Being able to walk along the sidelines could make things easier.

I've always had fun getting the crowd shots due to all of the colorful people and emotion there...and because it's attainable.

I'm hoping for some good shots of headers, acrobatic leaps, things like that.

Here are a few that I have gotten already with just my existing equipment. E-PL5 and either the 40-150mm f4.0-5.6R or the 45mm f1.8.

Indy Eleven goalkeeper Kristian Nicht booting it out. A really cool combination of motion blur and sharpness on the jersey that was just a happy accident.

Waving the Indiana state flag.

This guy was leading the crowd in chants. (Yes, he is an amputee.)

A lot like what I'm really going for, but awfully noisy.

The crowd during a tense moment during the game. The people in the front are friends of mine.

Minnesota United FC goalkeeper Sammy Ndjock preparing to strike the ball. This was easy because he was basically right in front of me.

One of the chants goes, "Come on, you boys in blue. Indy is red and blue!"

Indy Eleven mascot Zeke and a fan posed for my camera.

Is second hand not an option? OM lenses are not an option I think because of manual focus.
If you will be very close to the side of the field tou might want to use some of you primes when the soccer players end up very near your position. Might even deliver a very nice action photo.

I'd have to go with Option #4, also. I shoot my grandchildren (gymnastics, dance) and, honestly, unless you have a fast lens, you're not going to be able to get the shutter speeds you need to keep up with the action. I find I need to shoot gymnastics at at least 1/400 and realistically, 1/500 or 1/600 is even better for the minimum, and even that doesn't entirely eliminate all the blurring in her extremities. At least it's not objectionable.

I have an older Olympus 50-200 non-SSD F2.8-3.5 and can usually manage some nice shots. It's heavy, but I can live with that. If I can get by with it, I'll mount my 75mm f1.8 lens. It gives me a lot more latitude, but, of course, it's a fixed focal length, which isn't always ideal.

To switch to m4/3 in the first place, I sold off all my DSLR gear. I sometimes think I should have kept a DSLR body and 70/200 f2.8 lens, but hindsight is always 20/20. I do appreciate the lighter weight of the mirrorless camera and lenses, so it's still all good.

danieladougan wrote:

So I've been shooting Micro Four Thirds for about a year and a half now. I love what I've been able to do with my short prime lenses, but all of the things I really need telephoto for (namely sports and wildlife) are, well, lacking.

I'm just a hobbyist on a very tight budget, so there are things I know I could do that are, well, out of reach for me.

So currently I have an Olympus Pen E-PL5 and the Olympus 40-150mm f4.0-5.6R lens.

On July 11, I am going to be taking part in a special photography workshop from a local camera dealer involving our local professional soccer franchise, the Indy Eleven. I will get some training beforehand, but more importantly, I will get something akin to a press pass that will give me access all around the sidelines. It's a night game, so light will be a challenge. The lights at this stadium are not great. When I have attended games in the past there, I have had seats right behind one of the goals and did my best to shoot down the field for other action.

Of course, keeping the shutter speed high is crucial for sports (as well as for birds in flight, which I attempt to shoot frequently). So when the sun starts to go down, I have to dial up my ISO to as high as 6400 to be able to shoot at the telephoto end. And that's still not really long enough -- I often have to crop those photos extensively to frame them properly. So the noise makes most of the photos totally unusable even at small sizes.

So I'm trying to figure out what I can do without spending an arm and a leg to make the most of this opportunity.

Here are the options as I see them:

1) Replace my Olympus lens with the Oly 75-300mm. Sure I would lose some of the wider focal lengths, and it's bigger, but if I'm breaking out my longest lens, I'm probably not using those wider focal lengths anyway. At each of the overlapping focal lengths, the 75-300mm has the exact same maximum aperture as my 40-150mm does.

2) Replace my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 45-200mm. That would give me a bit more reach so I don't have to crop quite so much, but I'm not sure if it would be enough additional reach to make a significant difference. So if anyone has experience with these two lenses, it would be great to know.

3) Supplement my Olympus lens with the Panasonic 100-300mm.

4) Rent the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens and the MC-14 teleconverter. Of course, the cost just to rent these items for a few days would cover the cost of me upgrading to the Panasonic 45-200mm permanently or cover about half of the cost of upgrading to the 75-300mm permanently when you factor in selling my existing lens.

The press pass should help me get closer to the action and let me move around so I don't have to zoom quite so far down the field.

I don't have any illusions about being a professional or publishing / selling these photos. I know Micro 4/3 isn't the best for capturing fast-moving subjects and I will have a lot of throwaways regardless of the lens, but I'd just like to end up with a few shots from this that I'm really proud of.

Press pass gets you inside the media tribune, but usually it's better you get there early to stake your place and get the best shot angle.  The minimum reach for a soccer game is 300mm in full frame, which means that's 150mm for m43.  So the 40-150 f/2.8 with MC-14 would be ideal for the job.  I would suggest renting with insurance since you don't plan on being a professional or selling those photos, though you could.  But the market rate for these photos are shockingly low, so I would advice renting because the lens itself is not cheap but is necessary for this type of photography.  You can probably get by with slower telephoto lenses, but attaining fast enough shutter speed is going to be a problem unless you're willing to push pass ISO 6400 will mean noisy images.  If you simply want to be there at the media tribune for the experience and don't mind noisy images, then the Panasonic 45-175 would be the ideal replacement for your 40-150 because, with its MegaOIS VR, you can maximize full burst rate of your E-PL5 while turning off its built-in IBIS.  In fact I think MegaOIS will be more effective than E-PL5's IBIS.

Hope this helps.

The lumix FZxxx series might be a better fit.  Lesser sensor but greater zoom and f2.8

the panny 100-300 seems to be sharpest at 7.1 or 8, so that goes against you as well

can you get to same location ahead of the 11th for practice shooting?   To me, what would make a shot good is more the moment you captured rather than the technical merits. I think the free kick shot is a good example of that  You won't be selling these, so the bar is more on how you see it

smaller prints should counteract the long distance / large crops

and sometimes having more in the frame gives context - ie you wouldn't  want every shot to have only a single player in the frame

will you be able to "roam" or largely at a fixed spot? Is monopod an option? You might try different lenses as the players move closer and farther.  The 45/f1.8 might be great when the action is close(r) but would be tough if that's all you had

good luck - I'm sure you'll learn a lot. Be sure to have fun too