Oops, I bought a 40-150 f2.8 + TC

Martin.au wrote:

Denjw wrote:

Resistant was futile, wasn't it?

I hold you responsible!!!

Hey Martin

have you looked at the Olympus au site recently ?

http://olympusphere.com/aus

If you have a look at the images there you might notice a familiar looking Azure Kingfisher.

And a Spotted Pardalote

I think Dennis may soon be responsible for a lot more 40-150 pro purchases

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

Denjw wrote:

Resistant was futile, wasn't it?

I hold you responsible!!!

Hey Martin

have you looked at the Olympus au site recently ?

http://olympusphere.com/aus

If you have a look at the images there you might notice a familiar looking Azure Kingfisher.

And a Spotted Pardalote

I think Dennis may soon be responsible for a lot more 40-150 pro purchases

Peter

Interesting. I might have to have a play on that site.

invitation only! 

Just kidding, more the merrier!

neil holmes wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

Paul De Bra wrote:

A weather sealed lens means that the chance the lens breaks when there is a bit of moisture is lower than with a non-sealed lens. But if it breaks, don't count on any weather sealing warranty! They will always say the wetness was excessive. I have read this many times here and elsewhere.

I would be terrified going out in a kayak with any expensive gear, weather sealed or not. If the kayak tips over, good luck!

The 40-150 f/2.8 is an excellent lens and the TC is great too. I'm very happy with them but I would never ever take them for a spin in any environment where there is a risk of them getting really wet.

I generally don't capsize kayaks. Also, my kayaking experience also includes shallow water bathymetry with thousands of dollars of gear on board. I'm used to having a degree of risk while paddling.

Geez, I do.

I still have the scar on my neck from being dumped out in the surf when I was in my twenties.

No way I would take anything beyond a point and shoot unless it water proof......maybe one of the Nikon AW cameras.

Well, for bad conditions I've also got a Pelican Case, that cameras can go in. Not sure if the 40-150 will fit in that though.

Actually, I've also got a few other cases. I'm sure I can find something.

Nice buy Martin you will not regret it. A little short reached for a lot of small or shy things but a very versatile lens.

I took mine out in my kayak not long ago and had some fun with it, normally I only take a point and shoot with me (FZ18) because I'm a crazy fresh water lure fisherman and I love to run rapids but for photography the kayak will not be running major rapids so the 40-150 pro is just fine and no need to worry about rain and also I can put it in one of many drybags I have for the boat or my kayaks.

Seriously most kayaks are impossible to roll anyway especially if fishing types etc. Justkeep a dry bag handy anyway incase a storm blows over or when launching like solo man. Solo man is soft drink commercial all aussies are familiar with

Martin.au wrote:

I figured with the 300f4 being quite late, I'd just say 'sod it' and buy the 40-150 combo. I had a think about it and decided the 40-150 might be quite versatile, as for some trips I could take it rather than the 75 f1.8 and 75-300 (approximately the same weight).

I'm hoping to get out on the kayak this summer too, so a weather sealed tele will be very useful.

Can't wait for it to get here.

Martin.au wrote:

I figured with the 300f4 being quite late, I'd just say 'sod it' and buy the 40-150 combo. I had a think about it and decided the 40-150 might be quite versatile, as for some trips I could take it rather than the 75 f1.8 and 75-300 (approximately the same weight).

I'm hoping to get out on the kayak this summer too, so a weather sealed tele will be very useful.

Can't wait for it to get here.

No oops in that purchase.  I have both the lens and the teleconverter, and I am very glad that I have them.  Enjoy the combination.

Martin.au wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

I figured with the 300f4 being quite late, I'd just say 'sod it' and buy the 40-150 combo. I had a think about it and decided the 40-150 might be quite versatile, as for some trips I could take it rather than the 75 f1.8 and 75-300 (approximately the same weight).

GREAT rationalization! I mean, seriously. Excellent.

Well, that wasn't the only rationalisation, I have more.

I am kinda impressed I held out this long though, as it's also ideal for my indoor sports.

Ah, now you raise the indoor sports. I thought of that earlier and how handy the weather proofing should be in case of some terrible multi-wheel tangle where blood flies, but my sensibilities were too delecate to mention it.

But now you bring it up…

Mostly though I blame Dennis and Vass. They've been posting too many bird photos with that combo.

My mum used to give me belt over the ear if I started blaming others for leading me astray! Weak, martin. (Retires shaking oscillating the bean in a horizontal plane, sadly.)

…when Olympus announces the f4 300 and Martin goes weak at the knees and succumbs AGAIN!

Then we can have lots of fun pointing out to him that he already has…

But, hey, we wouldn't do that, would we?

You betcha!!! LOL.

Paul De Bra wrote:

A weather sealed lens means that the chance the lens breaks when there is a bit of moisture is lower than with a non-sealed lens. But if it breaks, don't count on any weather sealing warranty! They will always say the wetness was excessive. I have read this many times here and elsewhere.

I would be terrified going out in a kayak with any expensive gear, weather sealed or not. If the kayak tips over, good luck!

The 40-150 f/2.8 is an excellent lens and the TC is great too. I'm very happy with them but I would never ever take them for a spin in any environment where there is a risk of them getting really wet.

The reason they do not warranty water damage is it would be a hassle to determine if the camera was totally submerged or if it was a seal problem.  Over the years tho, I have learned to trust Olympus weather sealing.  As a wildlife and sports photographer you kind of have to trust in your gears ability to handle the elements. Manufactures make this gear to withstand a lot because the professionals require this kind of protection.  I have had my EM1 and 50-200 SWD or 150/2 in some really nasty rain without a single problem.  I also crawl thru the swamps of east Texas photographing gators and it's nice knowing that my gear can survive the wet nasty environment. Sure something could happen, when it does I will let my insurance replace it for me. A full replacement rider on your homeowners/renters insurance is actually really cheap and a great way to protect all your toys (I have a separate rider to cover my camera gear, bicycles, kayaks, fishing gear, and camping gear).

Modern day kayaks designed for recreation and fishing (not talking about the sea kayaks or river kayaks also known as Sinks or sit inside which are designed to roll over and if you know what you are doing comeback up right side up) are really hard to turn over, it really does take a lot to roll one over. I use a ThinkTank Digital Holster for my camera and lens (the V50 will fit the 50-200 SWD or 150/2 with lens hood on) inside a dry bag for the times I know I could roll, mostly when entering or exiting and in areas with lots of submerged stuff that overcompensating for a tilt could roll me.  There is also a lot to be said about photography from a kayak.  You can get views that are not available any other way.  You can get a lot closer to wildlife and find wildlife that would be really hard to observe from the ground.

One of the reasons I switched to Olympus was because of the line of Pro lenses that at the time were announced but had yet to be released (I think the 12-40 was out when I switched) and I knew that would provide me the system that not only had great IQ but was light enough to lug around deep into the swamps and had the weather sealing to survive the places I go.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Heh. To satisfy my curiosity and lacking one of the native 300 zooms, I've been shooting soccer with the 150/2 with the two ECs, one converter per half. This gives me 212/4 (equal to the Pro zoom and MC14) and 300/4 (equal to the Pro tele). Paired with the 40-150 Pro on camera 2 I'm liking the double-reach of 300 for anything farther than (SWAG) 30 yards or so, common shooting distances on the pitch (end-to-end the players are still small at 12X magnification). At the same time racking out to 40mm allows nearby action when the players are scooting past my position at the sideline or the lucky break when I happen to be by the net for a goal. (That last is RARE.)

I learned several seasons ago, as the girls got faster, the teams larger and the fields longer, that soccer is a two-camera sport. No super zoom gives adequate speed and subject separation and EVERY fast zoom is compromised by its zoom range. Two fast zooms are okay but the crossover always seems to be at an awkward point. e.g., the 12-60 + 50-200 or the 12-40+40-150.

Long-zoom fans will have their 100-400 some day but I'm seeing the brilliance in Oly's path. It's going to work out splendidly.

Cheers,

Rick

I recently got the 150/2 and have really fallen in love with that lens. I originally got the 50-200 because I knew I really needed more reach. The 40-150 Pro with TC gives me 420mm vs the 560mm of the 50-200 with TC, that extra 140mm of reach really is a lot. But now I find myself trying to only use the 150/2 without any TC and just relying on my skills to get me closer to the animals (I use the TC's when I need the extra reach). When faced with which lens to use for a wakeboard competition I went with the 150/2 over the more convenient zoom and never regretted the decision. I am really loving that lens...........

I agree, the 300/4 and 40-150 will make a great sports combo. As will using one of the other combos (7-14, 8, 12-40) depending on the sport and your positioning. I am anxious to try the 7-14 (going to buy it here soon) on a turn of a motocross track while using one of my other lenses to catch other action.

oh, forgot to add........not really interested in the 100-400 as it really is pretty slow.  My 50-200 with the EC-20 is almost the same thing (a little slower) and I only use that combo when it is really bright. That alone has made me decide to not even consider that lens, sucks because I would like a 100-400 in ƒ4 constant aperture.