Super-telephoto comparison?

Has anyone done some test to compare the Olympus 75-300mm II at 300mm, against the 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter at 210mm cropped to match the former?

I currently have a 75-300mm II and I'm looking to replace it with a faster lens. I have the budget for the Olympus 300mm f/4, but I think the 40-150mm f/2.8 can be more useful for me overall. Just when to know what I should expect from the 40-150 + TC, and if I would really lose any reach.

Thanks!

I have both lenses and the MC-14. I haven't done any specific tests, but after a day of shooting both on EM-10's, the 75-300 got put in my storage bag. The 40-150 is just much sharper than my 75-300 is.

I'm not really trying to match the capabilities of the 300mm f/4; more trying to exceed the capabilities of my 75-300mm II without really sacrificing reach. If anyone has some shots that are comparable between the 40-150mm f/2.8 + TC at 210mm, and the 75-300mm II at 300mm, that would be fantastic.

And yeah, I guess the 40-150 is a better choice for me than the 300. While I use the 300mm end a lot when I shoot birds, I also use the shorter focal length on my 75-300 when I use it for landscapes, which I probably do more often.

Thanks!

Thanks! If you have a couple of samples with the 40-150 + TC against the 75-300, both at the long end of their zoom ranges, I'd really appreciate it if you upload them here. It does look like the 40-150 + TC will be it, though, and the 300 will wait for the next round of spending. 

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Ah, I took having the budget for the 300 prime as meaning it was in the mix.

It sort of is  but I think I'm getting over that lust and starting to think more rationally now. The 40-150 will be more useful for me.

Ido S wrote:

what I should expect from the 40-150 + TC, and if I would really lose any reach.

You could use Google translation to get a rough translation of the article that I've written in French about the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 + M.Zuiko MC-14:
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/04/12/m-zuiko-40-150-mm-mc-14/ (in French)

Sometimes, that lens hunts to make focus, especially when in the previous shot, the subject was far and in the new short, the subject is near. When it fails to make focus, I'd put the news in manual mode, make focus (roughly) and put back the lens in automatic-focussing mode.

I don't have the M.Zuiko 300mm F/4,0 but from what I've read, teleprime is faster than the combo.

The main reason why I like the combo is its buttery bokeh at its long end...
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/04/17/trois-papillons-orange/ (skip the French text)

... which is a lot better than its bokeh at its close end:
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/03/24/coryanthes-macrantha/ (skip its French text).

I have both. At f7.1 my 75-300 is tack sharp up to 440mm, and its very light.

The 40-150 + tc1.4 is also very sharp at 420mm when stopped down to f5, but its really heavy. The big bonus is regarding it's wider field of view at 80mm compared to 150mm for the 75-300.

Plus without the tc fitted it is silly sharp even wide open at f2.8.

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

You could use Google translation to get a rough translation of the article that I've written in French about the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 + M.Zuiko MC-14:
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/04/12/m-zuiko-40-150-mm-mc-14/ (in French)

Thanks, will do.

Sometimes, that lens hunts to make focus, especially when in the previous shot, the subject was far and in the new short, the subject is near. When it fails to make focus, I'd put the news in manual mode, make focus (roughly) and put back the lens in automatic-focussing mode.

Fortunately, the clutch mechanism where you pull the focus ring towards the camera to engage manual focus, should help a ton with this.

olyham wrote:

I have a 70-300 II and a 40-150 2.8 TC1.4, The only thing that I felt I lost from the 70-300 is weight for hiking in the back country, everything else is equal or better and loss of reach has not been an issue. Specifically to your issue I find that I can do better cropping from 210 than from the 70-300.

Perfect, that's exactly what I was hoping to hear! 

40=70 mm (huge amount of opportunity in this range)

I'm not too sure I'll use it this much, but I guess it can allow for less lens-changing to my trusty but soft 12-50.

MF instant clutch

This I hope to make good use of.

Better and faster focus

Hopefully it will make for a significant improvement in continuous/tracking modes. Not counting on that, as my E-M5 is holding it back somewhat (I'm sure the E-M1 does better), so any improvement at all would be welcomed.

Extra weight (generally a negative) on this point I must warn you the 40-150 2.8 is so versatile you will want to use it all the time, it will let you take your general photography up a notch but the penalty is weight. I am very happy to live with the extra weight and keep my 70-300mm II in the bottom of my bag for when I do long hikes in to the mountains.

If you can manage the extra weight then it is a no brainer.

Yes, I think I would be the same. In fact, I've been thinking about buying an L-plate for my camera for a long time now and for some reason haven't got around to it, so I guess the tripod collar can be a nice bonus for me to easily rotate over to vertical orientation with the telephoto.

I support every word Rick and Adrian have written above. You won't loose any reach with the 40-150. Maybe under perfect condition a little bit, but in non-perfect conditions the 40-150 is much better. You will gain many new opportunities like f2.8 or Macro.

Before I bought the 40-150, I struggled with a similar question as you do: 75-300 versus 50-200.

I posted sample images for 75-300 and 50-200. As the 40-150+TC is very similar in IQ to the 50-200+TC, while it is not exactly what you were asking for, it might be allowed to reference the old comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3709665

Read it and replace 50-200 with 40-150. You will get a rough impression ...

Christof

Ido S wrote:

Sometimes, that lens hunts to make focus, especially when in the previous shot, the subject was far and in the new short, the subject is near. When it fails to make focus, I'd put the news in manual mode, make focus (roughly) and put back the lens in automatic-focussing mode.

Fortunately, the clutch mechanism where you pull the focus ring towards the camera to engage manual focus, should help a ton with this.

Yes, absolutely.

No need to go to the menu: we just need to pull the toggle ring, to make focus (roughly), and to push that ring. It takes three seconds.

mike_smith_uk wrote:

I did a quick and dirty test recently whilst sitting on my patio supping a glass of wine. I tried to keep things fairly even so shot at same ISO, both shot at F8 being sweet spot of the Panny Zoom, hand held, electronic shutter on GX7 and 0s time lag on M1 both hand held, processed from raw files on equal basis and cropped to about the same size for 100% pixel peeping comparison. Make your own mind up.

What you pay for in the pro lens is f2.8 aperture isolation ability, solid build, ability to use TCs, faster AF ability and weather proofing, but when shot at similar sweet spot aperture with static subjects the differences in image quality can be fairly small.

Panny 100-300 on GX7

Oly 40-150 plus 1.4tc on OM D M1

One of the major advantages of the PRO lens is that you don't have to shoot at f/8.0.

Ido S wrote:

Has anyone done some test to compare the Olympus 75-300mm II at 300mm, against the 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter at 210mm cropped to match the former?

I currently have a 75-300mm II and I'm looking to replace it with a faster lens. I have the budget for the Olympus 300mm f/4, but I think the 40-150mm f/2.8 can be more useful for me overall. Just when to know what I should expect from the 40-150 + TC, and if I would really lose any reach.

Thanks!

When I first started my conversion to Olympus I used a Canon FD 400mm ƒ4.5 on my EM5.  This worked pretty well but I decided I wanted AF so I got the 75-300 to use.  It was decent lens for what it was but I thought beyond 250mm it was soft and never used it pass 280mm because of the softness.  After playing with this combo for awhile I had decided I wanted to make a bigger commitment to µ4/3 and bought the EM1 and the 50-200 SWD (as well as the EC-14) to use as my wildlife lens until the 300mm ƒ4.0 Pro was released.  Went this route because there is little difference in IQ between the 50-200 and 40-150 Pro and the extra reach was really nice to have.

If you had an EM1 I would recommend the 50-200 with both the EC-14 and EC-20 if budget is a concern.  Since you are using the EM5 I would get the 40-150 and TC.

Ido S wrote:

Has anyone done some test to compare the Olympus 75-300mm II at 300mm, against the 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter at 210mm cropped to match the former?

I currently have a 75-300mm II and I'm looking to replace it with a faster lens. I have the budget for the Olympus 300mm f/4, but I think the 40-150mm f/2.8 can be more useful for me overall. Just when to know what I should expect from the 40-150 + TC, and if I would really lose any reach.

Thanks!

How lucky that I was wandering by. That is exactly what I did.

My Review: 40-150, vs 40-150 + TC, vs 75-300.

Here you go.

Martin.au wrote:

Ido S wrote:

Has anyone done some test to compare the Olympus 75-300mm II at 300mm, against the 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter at 210mm cropped to match the former?

I currently have a 75-300mm II and I'm looking to replace it with a faster lens. I have the budget for the Olympus 300mm f/4, but I think the 40-150mm f/2.8 can be more useful for me overall. Just when to know what I should expect from the 40-150 + TC, and if I would really lose any reach.

Thanks!

How lucky that I was wandering by. That is exactly what I did.

My Review: 40-150, vs 40-150 + TC, vs 75-300.

Here you go.

Great review and after many months of use I fully agree with your findings. Sadly however I really struggle with the weight of the 40-150 f2.8, so if shooting in great light (rare in southwest UK) or if not fast action, I do now use the 75-300 (often with a raynox 2.2x teleconverter on the front), it is slightly soft at 1000mm, but I get amazing shots that I could not get any other way.

The Raynox 2.2x also works well on the front of the oly 40-150 f2.8, but is awful if the tc14 is fitted!

Hope that info helps someone.