Will I miss my 75m?? (purchase 40-150 pro)

Hello.

I would like to buy the zuiko 40-150 Pro 2.8 but i would need to sale my 75mm 1,8.

Wil I miss my 75mm if i i replace it with the new zoom?

I use the 75mm for theatre photo with low light and few portrait outside. It is too long inside. I also doing basket photo of my dauther. The focus of the 75mm is however to slow and I maul use the 45mm that focus much more fast. Or a least it hesitate less.

I have the 17, 45, 60mm for my e-m5 I.

I like mainly to do macro and the new 40-150 could be a good complement of my 60mm for butterfly pictures. the zoom will also be nice for the theatre and live music of my children. Portait with a nice bokeh should be alright also for the children. basket ball would also be fine.

Other question. Wich filter would you recommend. Hoya pro1 or B&W. UV or neutral glass?

Thank you for your help.

Depends but at the current $959 for the 40-150/2.8 on the Olympus site you will miss it a little less.

I think you will miss your 75mm, as with m43 the faster the aperture more subject isolation can be achieved. The 40-150 pro is also substantially larger, so you will stand out more when you are taking those theater type shots.

There is no doubt though, for close up butterflies, insects, birding and sports, the 40-150 is the correct lens choice. Maybe you can find a way to have both!

Currently I have using B&W and find it to work well with my Olympus and Panasonic lenses

I have both. Both lenses are very sharp and excellent in every way.

I carry and use the 75mm f1.8 every day. I carry the 40-150 when I think I'm going to need a longer lens.

Advantages to the 75: much smaller and a better fit on the E-M5, a little more than a stop faster.

Advantages to the zoom: greater flexibility, weather proof construction.

I think the 40-150 is a brilliant lens. In FF terms, it's the equivalent of an 80-300mm f2.8. Include the tiny 1.4X teleconverter and you have the reach of an 80-420mm lens. For a little over $1500 US. That's pretty remarkable. In absolute terms, it's a small lens, about the size of a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f4 with a lot more flexibility than either. In Micro 4:3 terms, it's huge.

That said, I still consider the 75mm f1.8 as my principal telephoto. That's because I'm a prime guy (my other lenses are the Oly primes) and the 75mm f1.8 is about the sharpest lens in the Olympus inventory. I think it equals the Canon 135mm f2 L.

Honestly, if I had to choose between the two, and if I did not shoot night sports, and given that I travel - I'd probably stick with the 75mm. Both are beautiful lenses but the 40-150 takes you back into 'DSLR' territory, size-wise.

Lucky I don't have to choose. I love both lenses.

40-150 Gallery :

75mm Gallery :

That Snoqualmie photo is fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

Bhima78 wrote:

That Snoqualmie photo is fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks!  I've had a number of comments on that particular one and it goes to show, you never can tell what other people will like. I only included that one in the gallery because a few others insisted on it.

jackkurtz wrote:

I have both. Both lenses are very sharp and excellent in every way.

I carry and use the 75mm f1.8 every day. I carry the 40-150 when I think I'm going to need a longer lens.

Advantages to the 75: much smaller and a better fit on the E-M5, a little more than a stop faster.

Advantages to the zoom: greater flexibility, weather proof construction.

I think the 40-150 is a brilliant lens. In FF terms, it's the equivalent of an 80-300mm f2.8. Include the tiny 1.4X teleconverter and you have the reach of an 80-420mm lens. For a little over $1500 US. That's pretty remarkable. In absolute terms, it's a small lens, about the size of a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f4 with a lot more flexibility than either. In Micro 4:3 terms, it's huge.

That said, I still consider the 75mm f1.8 as my principal telephoto. That's because I'm a prime guy (my other lenses are the Oly primes) and the 75mm f1.8 is about the sharpest lens in the Olympus inventory. I think it equals the Canon 135mm f2 L.

In full frame terms the DOF will be much wider though, so equivalent wise 80-300 (f5.6 for doetph of field) and f2.8 for light gathering.

This is another advantage to the 75mm f1.8, is it's ability to maintain a very shallow depth of field.

As far as size/weight is concerned, the  P2,8/35-100 is nearer to the 75mm, also in price.

And I think, resolution is on the same level as the O2,8/40-150.

Peter

I do folklor shot, so catching stage on medicore light. I do with 50-200 if far behind. But in smaller halles i used Pana 20 mm, but needed zoom, so bought Zuiko 45 mm. Wish 75 mm also, which will come in future.

I wouldnt change 75 mm for zoomer, unless always far back. Also 75 is considered as best m4/3 lens.

Fri13 wrote:

Sharpness is same, your question is can you live with f/2.8 or d you need the f/1.8?
How about focal length?

Look your photos metadata what they have been shot at and it tells you what you need.

Another key difference is the size. The 40-150, though smaller than its' 'pro' equivalents in the DSLR world, is still a 'big honker'. The 75 is incredibly unobtrusive. If that is of importance to you.

Everyone has an opinion about the need for front element protection. If you're in the 'protect it' camp then consider the Marumi brand thoughtfully sold by 2filter.com. The Super DHG Clear has been trouble free for me on all my lenses with no indication of image loss. You can 'buy up' to the Marumi EXUS offerings if you have B+W money. Remember that digital sensors are not sensitive to UV so UV 'protection' is not needed.

eques wrote:

As far as size/weight is concerned, the P2,8/35-100 is nearer to the 75mm, also in price.

And I think, resolution is on the same level as the O2,8/40-150.

Peter

The Oly is definitely sharper at 100mm and goes to 150mm. Having said that, I personally wouldn't want to lug the Oly around and find the Panny 35-100mm to be a great balance of size, performance and price.

Paul Auclair wrote:

great galleries.

do you shoot jpg or RAW?

Sometimes shoot RAW + JPG (low res) when I know I'll be Tweeting photos via my iPhone, i.e. for sports events etc.