Is it because I do not like slow telephoto zoom lenses?

Thorfinn wrote:

I was part of my fathers heritage. He got it as part of e-PL3 kit. I paid nothing. I do not use it.

The pictures are sharp enough, no reasonable pillow, no fugly bouquet. You get a 300mm compared to 35mm film - amazing and it is cheap.

It is just because it is a 5,6 on four thirds sensor. No indoor available light and a large depth of field. That are the reasons why Olympus makes the 40-150 2.8 PRO (with a totally different price tag). For the rest of us: Save the money, save some more and go for the Olympus 75 1.8.

An aperture pf f/4 ~ f/5.6  can still produce descent amount of DOF.
Do see samples below.
You must shoot this lens out in the correct application. Before you can appreciate it.
in my case, it is always included on my camera gear).

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Martin Ocando wrote:

I'd think you review is not very fair with the 40-150mm. You can't compare a premium lens like the 75mm with one of the less expensive lenses in Olympus lineup. The 40-150mm delivers very good quality for the price, is slow, no question on that matter, but you can almost buy 8 40-150s and one 75 with the same money. So, you can have a bag with a few lenses, covering a wider range of focal lengths, instead of one single telephoto lens.

I'd say, get your lens collection first, maybe not spending too much in a single focal length, until you decide what is your style, and you preferred photographic subject, and then start investing in specialty lenses, like fisheyes and super fast telephotos.

Unless you are rich, and this conversation have no meaning at all.

Saying that investing on the 40-150 you should save for the 75, is like saying don't get that toyota corolla, instead save for an Aston Martin.

Martin

Thofinn's sparse comments are right on the button. None of the wishy washy precision testing and sample images. "The slow long lens does the job in its limited field of endeavour" -- but why it is (must be) cheap is reasonably highlighted.

That everyone cannot afford an Aston Martin is a certain fact but no point in putting an Aston Martin grille on a Toyota Corolla and expecting the same level of performance.

More to my point, Tom. There is no point in putting the 75mm against the 40-150, and expecting similar performance. It will be night and day.

Facts are fact and pointing out the money side of things hardly changes the situation where big money sometimes gets better performance (as if having money to splash makes a better photographer). The latter conclusion was not a necessary part of Thorfinn's review.

Indeed, and I'm not arguing that, just the fact that is not fare to compare them in the same level, as they are in a complete different league.

If I had the 1500$ readily available, and I were in the search of a fast tele zoom, I won't even look at the cheap 40-150, I'd be comparing the Pro 40-150 against the Panny 35-100, which, disregarding reach, they are both in the same league on build quality and performance.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

At the end of the day, Tom and Thofinn, I apologize if I have misunderstood something about the whole argument. English is not my mother tongue, and sometimes I fail to get the facts precisely straight.

Thorfinn wrote:

Martin Ocando wrote:

Thorfinn wrote:

Well, in this case, I believe you should compare pears to pears. Just the same as DPreview compares DSLRs with DSLRs, Mirrorless with Mirrorless, and P&S to P&S, and not between them, in the case of lenses, you should be comparing premium lenses with their alike's, so I'd compare the Oly 40-150 vs the Panny 45-150, which are in a similar price range, performance, and build quality. That way you can make an informed decision on which one to invest on. In the case of the 75, I'd compare it with the ones you just mentioned, a Vogtländer or a Zeiss, but not with a poor plastic zoom. Is just not fair.

But who tells the audience, that there IS a difference when you switch sensor size? Olympus & Panasonic do the opposite.

How come? I think this forum is very informative.

No I am not rich - I use m4/3 not Leica M. But there is a difference and it would not be fair tagging 4 for this lens and the same for the PRO version. What would be the meaning of spending all the money on a PRO lens?

Again, because you are not comparing similar lenses, just a pro with an entry level lens.

Yes that is right. I do not compare similar lenses. I want to open the audiences eyes for 'something completly different'.

Why is there no comparision between the 40-150 PRO and the entry-level 40-150 lens - even from the same manufacturer? How can the audience learn that there is a difference, and people stop asking for a 400mm 2.8 with a USD 200 price tag?

I hardly believe someone might expect 200 $ price tag on a 400mm 2.8. But their eyes will indeed open very wide when they see the price of the 75mm

Hehe, no, I'm not into British cars, I just happen to like Aston Martins, just to watch them on the movies, and dream on being James Bond

James Bond does not need a Aston Martin. James Bond wins car races in a 2CV.

lol

I know what you mean, in my case I always had a Nikon film camera, and sadly no access to nothing with a * in it. Just a few years ago I purchased a used m42 mount 35mm f:2.4 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon, and I was so excited, My God, my first Carl Zeiss, I though. Sadly, the front element is loose, ...

Ever thought why the Stasi made such poor pictures?

Hmm, some say it has a character of its own, whatever that means.

and I can't seem to find a way to center it correctly, so images are not sharp across the frame. There are no reliable shops here in Panama, maybe next time I travel to the US, I will bring it with me and leave it on a shop for repair. I really like the quality of the lens.

Maybee the used the best glue from VEB Plaste und Elaste IG FARBEN. Why do you like the quality of the lens, made in a way the front element will go loose?

After WW2 the know-how of Carl Zeiss Jena went west. The precise machinery went East. They continued with what was left. Its fun to have a Flektogon in a cabinet.
mass-marked west german lenses are hard to find. The Carl Zeiss T* for Contax were mostly made by Cosina. The same Rollei HFT lenses, but still, they are true Planar or Sonnar.

BTW: Something i really miss from NIKCANON: names!
names like: Flektogon, Sonnar, Planar, Super-Angulon, Tessar, Distagon, Curtagon, Summicron.
a few knowns the meaning, less can pronounce them, but they are fun for the rest of us.

Oh yeah, they are really cool names.

You are right the 40-150 is like a kit zoom lens, and in fact it is, is mostly sold as a 2 lens kit with many cameras. Although, I think it performs admirably for what it costs, and that is why I believe it should get a very high rating, among their similar, and not compared to either the 75mm 1.8 or the Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 Pro.

I understand your way of comparison, but is thar really fair overfor a Pro lens? Why not challange the audience?

Henry Ford said: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
Luckily he did not asked and challanged.

I think I'm understanding your point, finally. Sometimes I'm slow at that. Now I see that is not fair to the Pro lens to get similar ratings as a cheap kit lens. And I understand. But I believe is actually the rating system that is flawed. They should not be able to be compared as similar. Maybe one day DPR will come up with a rating system that will give credit where credit is due, like they did with cameras.

I for one still see them differently. As it should, together in their own class. So for me a 4.5 rating to the cheap Olympus tells me is a great lens for its price, and in the top of its class. While the 5 rating on the pro 40-150, tells me is also on the top, but not necessarily in the same league as the cheap one.

I hope I'm making sense

Thorfinn wrote:

I was part of my fathers heritage. He got it as part of e-PL3 kit. I paid nothing. I do not use it.

The pictures are sharp enough, no reasonable pillow, no fugly bouquet. You get a 300mm compared to 35mm film - amazing and it is cheap.

It is just because it is a 5,6 on four thirds sensor. No indoor available light and a large depth of field. That are the reasons why Olympus makes the 40-150 2.8 PRO (with a totally different price tag). For the rest of us: Save the money, save some more and go for the Olympus 75 1.8.

Why even bother with a hands-on review? If the lens is condemned simply because it's slow, you could have reached that conclusion the instant Olympus announced it. My problem with this "review" is that it's completely worthless: you've added NOTHING to the knowledge base that would help someone decide whether to buy it or not. It's slow, we get it. Everyone KNOWS that.

Is the point of this thread really simply to announce to the world that you don't like slow lenses?

Is a very nice set, Robert. Really shows what the lens is capable of. Here are a couple of mine yesterday. Is sad the wire fence was so close to the hummingbird that if I got closer to avoid it, it will fly away. She was doing rounds and I saw her back today, so I might set the tripod next weekend and use remote wifi shooting and see if I can get it closer.