Olympus 14-150, 40-150 pro and 70-300. Comparison at 150mm

You are correct about the Oly 14-150.  Its very good performance fits my needs perfectly since I don't go around taking pictures of maps, brick walls, newspapers, etc.  My subjects are in the portion of the image where the lens is at its best.  My only comment is that it is a little weak (not super crisp) at 14mm, but then again, most lenses of this sort are.

kbouk wrote:

Thanks for the effort and the test results, I have one question : what was the distance from the map?

Maybe you will find more differences between the 3 lenses when you increase the distance from the target, I have found that 14-150mm is much better on 150mm up to 7-10m but IQ drops on targets > 10m, on the contrary 40-150 pro holds it's IQ on close and far targets especially at f5.6 and last the 75-300mm II quality (at 150mm) stands between of them and very close to the pro (at least on the center).

About 4m.

Controlled tests are more problematic at longer distances, although a slanted horizon test tends to back up your comment that the corners of the 14-150 get markedly worse than the centre. Still a good little walkaround lens where the subject is in the centre though.

Photo Pete wrote:

1 - There is little practical difference at the centre of the frame between any of the lenses. if you are primarily only interested in the sharpness at the centre of the frame and do not need anything wider than f5.6 then the little 14-150 walkaround lens will serve very well at this focal length. But, if you need detail out to the edges then the 14-150 is a bit of a disaster.

When I use the 14-150mm (I have 2 of them, versions I and II) I almost never care that much about the edges when I am zoomed out to 150mm.  They are most of the time oof anyway.  One thing that I have often wondered about is if one reason the edges are less sharp is because of field curvature so a flat subject such as your photo might make things appear worse than in the 3D world?  I don't know the answer and have never tried to check, but it is just something I have wondered about.

Henry Richardson wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

1 - There is little practical difference at the centre of the frame between any of the lenses. if you are primarily only interested in the sharpness at the centre of the frame and do not need anything wider than f5.6 then the little 14-150 walkaround lens will serve very well at this focal length. But, if you need detail out to the edges then the 14-150 is a bit of a disaster.

When I use the 14-150mm (I have 2 of them, versions I and II) I almost never care that much about the edges when I am zoomed out to 150mm. They are most of the time oof anyway. One thing that I have often wondered about is if one reason the edges are less sharp is because of field curvature so a flat subject such as your photo might make things appear worse than in the 3D world? I don't know the answer and have never tried to check, but it is just something I have wondered about.

Field curvature could also make things worse in the real world. It depends which way it goes and whether the corners of your image go the same way relative to the centre

I suspect the corners are just mushy though.

Fun! Were I more ambitious I could do a giant test of two 40-150 kit lenses, the 40-150 Pro, the 50-200, the 150 SHG and for the laughs, the 35-100+EC14.

But I probably won't. Thanks for your effects,  regardless.

Cheers,

Rick

I shoot primarily primes, and not so much telephoto. Yes, the 75mm f/1.8 is outstanding and it will remain in my stable of lenses. I had the M.Zuiko 75-300mm Mk I for a couple of years, but I was never thrilled with it. I traded it for the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO and I was astounded at the quality of that lens. I can see very little difference between it and the 75mm f/1.8.

Since I don't do a lot of telephoto, I wanted a really good quality single zoom that would cover the range competently when telephoto-itis sets in. I made the right choice.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods

Photo Pete wrote:

Field curvature could also make things worse in the real world. It depends which way it goes and whether the corners of your image go the same way relative to the centre

Yes, true. Also that is the reason a flat field lens can be bad in the real world, depending on what you are photographing, i.e., non-flat subjects. In fact, it may be awful more often than one with a curved field.

Henry Richardson wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Field curvature could also make things worse in the real world. It depends which way it goes and whether the corners of your image go the same way relative to the centre

Yes, true. Also that is the reason a flat field lens can be bad in the real world, depending on what you are photographing, i.e., non-flat subjects. In fact, it may be awful more often than one with a curved field.

I'd take a lens with a flat field over one with field curvature. Judging depth of field and getting predictable results is a nightmare if a lens has severe field curvature.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Fun! Were I more ambitious I could do a giant test of two 40-150 kit lenses, the 40-150 Pro, the 50-200, the 150 SHG and for the laughs, the 35-100+EC14.

But I probably won't. Thanks for your effects, regardless.

Cheers,

Rick

You're welcome.

I can see the test was useful to you as your lens collection has an excess of options to shoot at 150mm. Easy to do if you don't plan your kit purchases properly.