Which is better? 75-300mm or 40-150mm crop

>>IMO the 40-150mm cropped would still have a better quality image then the 75-300mm at full focal length.<<

Very interesting comment. I'd love to see evidence backing this statement. I'm saving for a long tele and it would be very useful know.

Thanks

Okapi001 wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

>>IMO the 40-150mm cropped would still have a better quality image then the 75-300mm at full focal length.<<

Very interesting comment. I'd love to see evidence backing this statement. I'm saving for a long tele and it would be very useful know.

No. 40-150 2x cropped (to 300 mm) is remarkably good, but nowhere near as good as 75-300 at 300 mm.

Just a very quick test, done a minute ago from a window in my apartment.

75-300 mm

40-150 mm pro x2

If you zoom in on the cap's strap, the shirt seams or the plastic clip on the dog's collar I can clearly see more detail on the 40-150mm f2.8.

This doesn't proof anything conclusively, but now I know that I should carefully research the matter before I buy...

Thanks!

daddyo wrote:

There is no question about the quality of the 40-150mm Pro. I don't own it, but have seen enough images from it to know that it is an outstanding lens.

However, it is questionable whether there is enough benefit over the 75-300mm if you are talking about a 300mm field of view. Given the cost, size, and weight of the 40-150mm vs the 75-300mm, I would be hard pressed to upgrade just to be able to crop to 300mm or near.

The 75-300mm is a very impressive lens in my opinion -- if it is use properly. Contrary to a lot of comments, I am very pleased with the image quality I get at full zoom and wide open with mine. Yes, it is sharper at less than full zoom and stopped down a bit, but it is barely perceptible -- you have to be pixel peeping to really see any difference.

Here are a couple examples from my 75-300mm at full zoom and wide open -- I can live with this IQ.

That shot of the bird sticking its head out of the tree trunk is priceless!  The squirrel one is good, too.

M_digicapt wrote:

If you zoom in on the cap's strap, the shirt seams or the plastic clip on the dog's collar I can clearly see more detail on the 40-150mm f2.8.

This doesn't proof anything conclusively, but now I know that I should carefully research the matter before I buy...

And if you look the photographs, you should immediately spot that the 75-300mm is focused to background of the head, on the ground, rendering  the man as the dog OUT OF FOCUS!

So no wonder you will see more details with 40-150mm cropped one!

If you want even more fair comparisons, look at the cigarette stump on the ground just right from the mans head. Even when it is just partially out of focus with 40-150mm, you can see how 75-300mm will clearly render far more details in the grass blades and the stump itself!

The 75-300mm is no louche at 300mm, and it doesn't really matter in the scenarios it is most often used as the thermal waves in air will render most often all long telephoto lenses to same ball park.

The real differential comes when you go to very close ranges or in situations where everything are optimally so that sharper lenses like 300mm f/4 can really capture sharper images instead same blur that heat waves distorts.

This is huge differential that makes most sharpness tests moot because they are done either in the laboratory, indoors or ultra low distances, instead in purposed distances.  Alone close-focusing can be softer than far focusing as the lenses focal length and sharpness is optimized for infinity (macro for 1:1).

So example on soccer match that is photographed in direct sunlight, a more important thing is magnification and fast shutter speed than the sharpness.

Doing a common 8x10" prints and it renders lenses like 300mm f/4 moot by sharpness compared to 75-300mm @ 300mm as you are wasting resolution benefit in small print.

Requirement to increase the ISO is as well one thing that makes sharper lenses benefit negligent. But in situation like ISO 200 vs ISO 800 there can be a benefit. So f/4 is the difference maker over f/6.3 that is just 1.3 stops slower (ISO 200 vs 500) and it can be very tiny even in many cases (unlike example ISO 3200 vs 8000).

Add there some motion blur and again the sharper lens has lost its benefit.

Subject that doesn't have good contrast (low light situations) and again the sharper lens loses the benefit, but then again it can offer the better separation if the subject has strong contrast but it is in low light situation.

So it is up to many many variable when a technically sharper lens (like 300mm f/4) can reveal its benefit over less sharp (75-300mm) and if such times when it would are rare (<10%) then question is, is it worth it? Does the subject really benefit from that tiny sharpness benefit then? Rarely.

If we talk about differences between lenses like 100-300mm (mk1 vs mk2) vs 75-300mm, it is negligent difference (between good copies on all).

So it mainly comes to only a technical argumentary and choice making, that makes it personal justification to boost the ego "I have the better one" and "I made the good choice" than for actual use and results making.

And this is what the sensible photography equipment manufacturers are doing. They don't go by the numbers, charts etc. They go by the final result.

If their customer audience is 80% of people that are doing 98% of the time prints size of 16x11" and 2% just little bigger and otherwise photos are on Full HD or HD displays, that is the starting point where the comparison will be made as it is the output that rules everything.

And if you can make smaller and lighter without sacrificing the image quality in the output compared to best possible product you could manufacture, it is huge benefit. But when pixel peepers and gear heads gets their hands on the product, they throw the product out of the context and just trash it or praise it.

Tommi K1 wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

If you zoom in on the cap's strap, the shirt seams or the plastic clip on the dog's collar I can clearly see more detail on the 40-150mm f2.8.

This doesn't proof anything conclusively, but now I know that I should carefully research the matter before I buy...

And if you look the photographs, you should immediately spot that the 75-300mm is focused to background of the head, on the ground, rendering the man as the dog OUT OF FOCUS!

So no wonder you will see more details with 40-150mm cropped one!

If you want even more fair comparisons, look at the cigarette stump on the ground just right from the mans head. Even when it is just partially out of focus with 40-150mm, you can see how 75-300mm will clearly render far more details in the grass blades and the stump itself!

The 75-300mm is no louche at 300mm, and it doesn't really matter in the scenarios it is most often used as the thermal waves in air will render most often all long telephoto lenses to same ball park.

The real differential comes when you go to very close ranges or in situations where everything are optimally so that sharper lenses like 300mm f/4 can really capture sharper images instead same blur that heat waves distorts.

This is huge differential that makes most sharpness tests moot because they are done either in the laboratory, indoors or ultra low distances, instead in purposed distances. Alone close-focusing can be softer than far focusing as the lenses focal length and sharpness is optimized for infinity (macro for 1:1).

So example on soccer match that is photographed in direct sunlight, a more important thing is magnification and fast shutter speed than the sharpness.

Doing a common 8x10" prints and it renders lenses like 300mm f/4 moot by sharpness compared to 75-300mm @ 300mm as you are wasting resolution benefit in small print.

Requirement to increase the ISO is as well one thing that makes sharper lenses benefit negligent. But in situation like ISO 200 vs ISO 800 there can be a benefit. So f/4 is the difference maker over f/6.3 that is just 1.3 stops slower (ISO 200 vs 500) and it can be very tiny even in many cases (unlike example ISO 3200 vs 8000).

Add there some motion blur and again the sharper lens has lost its benefit.

Subject that doesn't have good contrast (low light situations) and again the sharper lens loses the benefit, but then again it can offer the better separation if the subject has strong contrast but it is in low light situation.

So it is up to many many variable when a technically sharper lens (like 300mm f/4) can reveal its benefit over less sharp (75-300mm) and if such times when it would are rare (<10%) then question is, is it worth it? Does the subject really benefit from that tiny sharpness benefit then? Rarely.

If we talk about differences between lenses like 100-300mm (mk1 vs mk2) vs 75-300mm, it is negligent difference (between good copies on all).

So it mainly comes to only a technical argumentary and choice making, that makes it personal justification to boost the ego "I have the better one" and "I made the good choice" than for actual use and results making.

And this is what the sensible photography equipment manufacturers are doing. They don't go by the numbers, charts etc. They go by the final result.

If their customer audience is 80% of people that are doing 98% of the time prints size of 16x11" and 2% just little bigger and otherwise photos are on Full HD or HD displays, that is the starting point where the comparison will be made as it is the output that rules everything.

And if you can make smaller and lighter without sacrificing the image quality in the output compared to best possible product you could manufacture, it is huge benefit. But when pixel peepers and gear heads gets their hands on the product, they throw the product out of the context and just trash it or praise it.

Thanks. I originally checked them on the phone screen and mistakenly assumed both where focused on the same place. I just loaded them to the computer and you are right. Then again a fair comparison would have both lenses focus on the same place...

I don't even print, but do a lot of cropping. After checking the price difference, the 75-300mm looks even better...

I agree with the rest of you post.

I own both lenses and use them with an E-M5 MkII. They're primarily used for perched birds in forrest/bush conditions where I can often get with 4-10 metres of my subjects. Processed images at flickr (see sig).

I haven't analysed the heck out of it, but I'm not missing the 75-300 much. I do seem to be able to crop a lot for web/screen presentation.

I think this is a tough call. People here are arguing both ways. It may depend on what you're shooting and whether you want to print big or just view on screen. Maybe you're after one really sharp lens to complement the 75-300. Maybe you're always out at 300 mm.

It seems the primary reason you're thinking about the 40-150 f/2.8 is low light. Same for me. In my case this means winter overcast and rainy days. I wanted to be able to walk with the camera in the rain, so that pushed me strongly to a purchase.

When I only had the 75-300 I primarily used the small single focus square. When applying the same technique in darker conditions with the 40-150, I think it may hunt and miss more than with the 75-300. I think this is because the wide open depth of field available to the AF mechanism is smaller for the 40-150. When the birds are not well lit the AF has less to work with. It always focuses wide open, so stopping down doesn't help. Perhaps I need to work differently when the light is really bad or the DOF really shallow. The E-M1's focus limiter seems like it would be very useful for my circumstances.

The other DOF issue is the lack of it.  At f/2.8 or f/4 I need to be careful about what parts of the bird are in focus.   With the 75-300 I default to f/8 to reduce the DOF issue's, but I can't do this in poor light.

Depending on what you mean by darker and what kind of subject you're targeting, you may find some wins due to a wider aperture, but maybe also some losses due to narrower DOF.

Other things to note:

The 40-150 lens hood is complicated and many here report it falling to bits. Mine failed at around 6 months (waiting for a warranty replacement). I've bought a $10 JJC LH78II from ebay as a stand in.

The DR-66 decoration ring that sits in place of the tripod ring is not included. Mainly this is a comfort issue if holding the lens without the tripod ring. Some people use a wide black rubber band.

The lens is mainly metal, gloves required in winter.

These things aside, I'm happy to be carrying this lens around in the forest without regard to the rain. It's not too heavy for day walks - but not my cup of tea for travel or multi-day hikes. It's nice to be able to use a very sharp lens.

The 40-150 looks sharper to me - there are probably other differences (higher contrast on the 40-150), and perhaps the 75-300 could do with some additional sharpening, but if these were the final images, I would prefer the 40-150 photo out of these two.
Another consideration is, of course, light - shooting at f/2.8 vs f/6.7 gives you a factor of ~6 in exposure time. At these focal lengths, and if you care about pixel-level resolution, you probably want to be shooting at 1/500, so unless you shoot in very bright light, the 75-300 introduces either blur (both shake and subject movement) or noise.