Why I am not getting rid of my 40-150 F2.8

I had a long day yesterday, savoring the last bluebird day in a while by hiking my butt off after work. Then I stumbled into the studio in mountaineering boots for my radio show. Then on the way home, something about the lights on the water and the moon made me consider a shot I had never thought of before, so I went home, grabbed the 40-150 pro and tripod, and got this shot.

Now that lens admittedly is not my everyday lens, and it has gotten much less attention since I got a better option for the really long focal lengths I crave for wildlife, but boy do I enjoy what I can do with it when given a good opportunity.  Plus, it is incredibly compact for what it is, I chuckled a bit at seeing the difference between this lens, EM5II, and the little Sirui T025X tripod compared to the beastly rig with manfrotto tripod and gimble head I have to use for the big guns.

Mt. Wood above Captain's Bay

I love the mood of this image, although I would probably bump the contrast just a hair. It is beautiful however, just as it is.

I would love to have the 40-150mm, but just can't justify it right now -- however, I can see myself grabbing a clean used one down the road.

It is without question one of the finest lenses available -- an optical masterpiece.

I like that shot. It is really neat. Is that moonlight illuminating the mountain or disappearing twilight?

Wonderful shot Wally.

This lens is on my "to buy" list this year. Shot like yours with this lens just makes me want to get it sooner. I wish I can but I will    Thanks for sharing.

Thanks.  It was moonlight.  Unfortunately, there were some high clouds diffusing it more than I would've hoped, but it still got enough light to work.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Nice! Background mountains are illuminated "just so."

Despite an absurd amount of overlap in my lens collection (as in probably ten or so lenses that share a chunk of its range) there are things the Pro zoom do for me none of the others can. Mine's not going anywhere, but I probably should weed out some of the redundancy.

Yeah, I sold my 150mm F2 to finance the 40-150 initially, and I don't regret it much, just because of the amount of versatility I gained, even if I do miss the little tuna on occasion.

"Bluebird day?"

A bluebird day is when it's calm, cloudless, and serene....  We don't get too many of them.  Here's an example that wasn't from yesterdays climb, but was the exact same kind of day.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

terrific shot

Wallybipster wrote:

Thanks. It was moonlight. Unfortunately, there were some high clouds diffusing it more than I would've hoped, but it still got enough light to work.

That answers it. It looked like moonlight but there were no shadows. The diffusing I think gave you a nicer, more even light, even if not as bright.

Wallybipster wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Nice! Background mountains are illuminated "just so."

Despite an absurd amount of overlap in my lens collection (as in probably ten or so lenses that share a chunk of its range) there are things the Pro zoom do for me none of the others can. Mine's not going anywhere, but I probably should weed out some of the redundancy.

Yeah, I sold my 150mm F2 to finance the 40-150 initially, and I don't regret it much, just because of the amount of versatility I gained, even if I do miss the little tuna on occasion.

Not sure I could ever trade my Little Tuna for the 40-150.  Now, I will eventually get the 40-150 (for shooting sports as it is a bit faster then my 50-200 SWD)...but it is not even in the same class as the 150mm ƒ2.0 optically.

"Bluebird day?"

A bluebird day is when it's calm, cloudless, and serene.... We don't get too many of them. Here's an example that wasn't from yesterdays climb, but was the exact same kind of day.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Phocal wrote:

Wallybipster wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Nice! Background mountains are illuminated "just so."

Despite an absurd amount of overlap in my lens collection (as in probably ten or so lenses that share a chunk of its range) there are things the Pro zoom do for me none of the others can. Mine's not going anywhere, but I probably should weed out some of the redundancy.

Yeah, I sold my 150mm F2 to finance the 40-150 initially, and I don't regret it much, just because of the amount of versatility I gained, even if I do miss the little tuna on occasion.

Not sure I could ever trade my Little Tuna for the 40-150. Now, I will eventually get the 40-150 (for shooting sports as it is a bit faster then my 50-200 SWD)...but it is not even in the same class as the 150mm ƒ2.0 optically.

You know, I don't think in terms of sharpness, the 40-150 is really significantly different from the little tuna, as far as what I've seen from shooting with both.  The only thing I miss is F2, and amazing OOF rendering.  But I also gain so much versatility, better functionality, and compactness.  Since I very often found the 150 too short for what I really wanted to do anyways, it wasn't a hard decision, though if I were in the same position now, I suppose I would keep both because I could afford to.

"Bluebird day?"

A bluebird day is when it's calm, cloudless, and serene.... We don't get too many of them. Here's an example that wasn't from yesterdays climb, but was the exact same kind of day.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

I can recall years in Seattle where we seemingly didn't "bluebird" at all, but climatewise things have changed a lot since I last lived there. In Alaska I can well imagine any blue day is cause for playing hooky--the inverse of everyone's current "snow day" back east.

Out here, I've actually gone to a local business on one of our "bluebird" days, and there was a sign on the door saying "closed due to weather."  I can respect those priorities.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Wallybipster wrote:

Thanks. It was moonlight. Unfortunately, there were some high clouds diffusing it more than I would've hoped, but it still got enough light to work.

That answers it. It looked like moonlight but there were no shadows. The diffusing I think gave you a nicer, more even light, even if not as bright.

Yeah, it certainly was still bright enough to help the cause, as the clouds were thin.  I was curious to see what it would've looked like with direct light, but then it may have just made for harsher shadows on the peaks.

Nice shot

Since you were using a tripod, why did you shoot at f2.8 ? There's a definite lack of crispness especially in the houses part .

108 wrote:

Nice shot

Since you were using a tripod, why did you shoot at f2.8 ? There's a definite lack of crispness especially in the houses part .

I shot it at different apertures, but to be honest didn't see any meaningful difference, and the ones I shot stopped down a bit had a subtle change in the wind that made the light on the water not as attractive.