how foolish am I ; Oly em10 + oly 40-150 2.8

I used to make pictures with a Nikon D80 + 18-200 VR for several years; because I felt that the combination was to heavy and bulky the last years I hardly used it, instead I used a Panasonic DMC-TZ7.......

I wanted more and better,last year I bought the OMD-EM10+ 14-42 EZ, like the EM10 but not the 14-42EZ, too soft and don't like the electric zooming...

So... I bought the Oly 25 1.8, Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 14 2.5 . Much nicer pictures. I missed a zoom,wanted the " best" and bought the Oly 12-40 2.8.

Most of the time I use the 12-40, if I want to go light or in darker situations most of the time the 50 1.8. I am very satisfied with all those lenses,but.....miss tele..

How often will I use the tele, I am just a enthusiastic photographer not a professional!

So the 14-145 4.0-5.6 ? Cheap but I am afraid I won't like the quality of the taken pictures, spoiled as I am with the 12-40 and primes.

The 40-150 2.8 ? I can afford it, but.... still pricy, heavy.... What was the reason I left Nikon.. too bulky and heavy.... ?

And the combination with the EM10 ( with grip) Anyone experiences with the combination?

So what a fool am I when I buy the 40-150 2.8?

Thanks,

Rien

Have you considered the 75mm, or Pana 35-100, or are they too short? If you're worried about size they're pretty awesome options.

Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is smaller and lighter (and cheaper when Oly is not on sale or discounted), and offers similar image quality (maybe with the exception of 100mm at f/2.8, which is its weakness). It's not as long and there's no option of using TC with it, which is probably its biggest con vs Oly 40-150.

Agree with Martin. I shoot the 35-100 and it is stellar. If most of your shooting is between 100 & 150 then there's your answer if not look hard at the 35-100, it is a compact wonderful zoom.

B

I thought... it's a beast, too large, too heavy, too expensive, don't need it, ...

Also, I had the 75-300 and hardly ever used it although it was a very good copy.

So why? I hardly ever used the 75-300 because it was too long and too slow. On the other hand the 12-40 was sometimes not long enough. So I did need something, but what?

I got the 40-150 f/2.8 and TC a few months ago and I have already used it way more than the 75-300 in almost 3 years. It simply does everything so well that is over 39mm...

Everything I "throw at it" just comes out beautifully!

67mm f/4

70mm f/4

210mm f/4 (with TC)

95mm f/2.8

150mm f/5.6

I have absolutely no regrets and I know for sure that for what I use this lens the 35-100 would have been a disappointment because it simply isn't long enough.

Think I'd like the extra 50 mm

I have an Em-10 and the 40-150mm f/4-5.6.  I figured for 100 bucks what the hell.  I am very surprised at the image quality with this lens.

Thanks, Paul

Nice quality of the pictures.

How about the portability? Combination Em10+ 40-150 2.8 weights about 1.3 kg. Balance with Em5 , do you use the extra grip?

I don't think I can try out in my neighborhood (Arnhem,NL)

I often use a small (Hama) bag which can hold either a lens (the 40-150 f/2.8 just fits) or my large flash unit at the bottom and then the E-M5 with one lens (7-14 or 12-40 but not the 40-150) at the top. A small front pocket holds spare battery and the TC. The whole thing is incredibly small. I only need a larger bag when I want to carry all three lenses and then also the flash and when I don't have my wife with me who can put a lens and/or flash in her purse.

I'm afraid Arnhem isn't a camera store hotspot... I ordered mine from Foto Mignon in Amsterdam. I also ordered the 7-14 from them. For both lenses they were the first to have them (without pre-ordering). But then... no trying it out before making the sale.

I use the 40-150 handheld only, with the E-M5 and no additional grip.

The lens is stellar and not too heavy

third son wrote:

I have an Em-10 and the 40-150mm f/4-5.6. I figured for 100 bucks what the hell. I am very surprised at the image quality with this lens.

What a great lens!  Wow!

Hello Paul,

Curious which Hama bag you have..

How about focusing with Em5-40-150; there was a firmware update for the Em1, not for the 5 and 10, to better continuous focussing.

rienm wrote:

I used to make pictures with a Nikon D80 + 18-200 VR for several years; because I felt that the combination was to heavy and bulky the last years I hardly used it, instead I used a Panasonic DMC-TZ7.......

I wanted more and better,last year I bought the OMD-EM10+ 14-42 EZ, like the EM10 but not the 14-42EZ, too soft and don't like the electric zooming...

So... I bought the Oly 25 1.8, Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 14 2.5 . Much nicer pictures. I missed a zoom,wanted the " best" and bought the Oly 12-40 2.8.

Most of the time I use the 12-40, if I want to go light or in darker situations most of the time the 50 1.8. I am very satisfied with all those lenses,but.....miss tele..

How often will I use the tele, I am just a enthusiastic photographer not a professional!

So the 14-145 4.0-5.6 ? Cheap but I am afraid I won't like the quality of the taken pictures, spoiled as I am with the 12-40 and primes.

The 40-150 2.8 ? I can afford it, but.... still pricy, heavy.... What was the reason I left Nikon.. too bulky and heavy.... ?

And the combination with the EM10 ( with grip) Anyone experiences with the combination?

So what a fool am I when I buy the 40-150 2.8?

Thanks,

Rien

I spent six months just using my E-M10 with the EGC-1 grip, 12-40mm f/2.8, and the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. I looked at the 40-150mm f/2.8 but anything that comes with its own tripod mount is too big and heavy for me. The 35-100mm f/2.8 is a great lens, is slightly longer but lighter than the 12-40mm, and the image quality is excellent.

The tripod mount come off ....

bs1946 wrote:

rienm wrote:

I used to make pictures with a Nikon D80 + 18-200 VR for several years; because I felt that the combination was to heavy and bulky the last years I hardly used it, instead I used a Panasonic DMC-TZ7.......

I wanted more and better,last year I bought the OMD-EM10+ 14-42 EZ, like the EM10 but not the 14-42EZ, too soft and don't like the electric zooming...

So... I bought the Oly 25 1.8, Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 14 2.5 . Much nicer pictures. I missed a zoom,wanted the " best" and bought the Oly 12-40 2.8.

Most of the time I use the 12-40, if I want to go light or in darker situations most of the time the 50 1.8. I am very satisfied with all those lenses,but.....miss tele..

How often will I use the tele, I am just a enthusiastic photographer not a professional!

So the 14-145 4.0-5.6 ? Cheap but I am afraid I won't like the quality of the taken pictures, spoiled as I am with the 12-40 and primes.

The 40-150 2.8 ? I can afford it, but.... still pricy, heavy.... What was the reason I left Nikon.. too bulky and heavy.... ?

And the combination with the EM10 ( with grip) Anyone experiences with the combination?

So what a fool am I when I buy the 40-150 2.8?

Thanks,

Rien

I spent six months just using my E-M10 with the EGC-1 grip, 12-40mm f/2.8, and the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. I looked at the 40-150mm f/2.8 but anything that comes with its own tripod mount is too big and heavy for me. The 35-100mm f/2.8 is a great lens, is slightly longer but lighter than the 12-40mm, and the image quality is excellent.

rienm wrote:

I used to make pictures with a Nikon D80 + 18-200 VR for several years; because I felt that the combination was to heavy and bulky the last years I hardly used it, instead I used a Panasonic DMC-TZ7.......

I wanted more and better,last year I bought the OMD-EM10+ 14-42 EZ, like the EM10 but not the 14-42EZ, too soft and don't like the electric zooming...

So... I bought the Oly 25 1.8, Oly 45 1.8 and Pana 14 2.5 . Much nicer pictures. I missed a zoom,wanted the " best" and bought the Oly 12-40 2.8.

Most of the time I use the 12-40, if I want to go light or in darker situations most of the time the 50 1.8. I am very satisfied with all those lenses,but.....miss tele..

How often will I use the tele, I am just a enthusiastic photographer not a professional!

So the 14-145 4.0-5.6 ? Cheap but I am afraid I won't like the quality of the taken pictures, spoiled as I am with the 12-40 and primes.

The 40-150 2.8 ? I can afford it, but.... still pricy, heavy.... What was the reason I left Nikon.. too bulky and heavy.... ?

And the combination with the EM10 ( with grip) Anyone experiences with the combination?

So what a fool am I when I buy the 40-150 2.8?

Thanks,

Rien

That lens is quite something.  Mine is finally getting a respite as I work with the 7-14 PRO lens I just bought.

I have no idea how much you will use it.  What I do know is that the lens is superb, and I use it regularly with my E-M1.  I also have the E-M10, and will give it a try on that body too.

As an owner of the PRO 7-14, 12-40, and 40-150, as well as the MC-14, I am glad that I have them all.  Others might (and do) consider me a fool for various reasons, but I pay them no never mind and keep on shooting.  

The main thing:  Enjoy photography, whatever path you decide.  

My Hama bag is from 2004. So whatever it is called it won't be available any more. But any camera store should have a wide selection of bags. Mine is a small shoulder bag in which you can just (but only just) lay the 40-150 flat (including collapsed lens hood). Then a flap over it and there is just enough room left for the E-M5 plus either 7-14 or 12-40. Such size should be relatively easy to find.

I own the e-m10 + 40-150 f/2.8 combo. I don't use a grip and I wouldn't say it is heavy. I would even say that it's small(I've used some Canons before :)). It's razor sharp and very fast (but not for BIF with the e-m10 - for this you need e-m1). I really like the lens very much - great for portraits, OK for sports(table tennis). Also I owned the 75-300 and sold it - too dark for me but the reach is great. If I was you I would think about waiting for the Pana 100-400 and Oly 300 f4 and then decide. If you don't want to wait - just by the 40-150 PRO cause it's a great lens in all aspects. And with the TC you have quite the reach (though you'll have to close the aperture to 4.5 or even 5.6 for sharper images).

But answering your questions - I don't consider anyone being a fool buying a big lens for the small m43 system. If you need a tele zoom with great IQ - it can't be small.

I hope my english is understandable

Djinnie is my grammar guardian