Telephoto for landscapes - 40-150mm f2.8 or something else?

Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 has a good reputation, it's light and very inexpensive.

Do you need those two stops at the long end?

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 has a good reputation, it's light and very inexpensive.

Do you need those two stops at the long end?

totaly agree, i shoot a side by side comparison between my 14 150 and the 40 150 pro and couldnt tell the difference in image quality, the advantage of the pro is f2.8. so the cheep 40 150 should be just as good.

Don

The Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 is really sharp and much lighter than the 40-150mm f2.8 For landscapes you really don't need the extra 2 f stops with IBIS. If you taking photos of moving objects like indoor sports or birds in flight or bugs in flight, it would be a different story. but landscapes go for the 40-150mm f/4-5.6.

I love and still tote my plastic mZD40-150 but it's no way as sharp as the Pro, which is the best all-around mid-tele I've used.

The Panny 35-100/2.8 might be an option, as it's rather smaller but when I have the space to pack it I don't hesitate to carry the Pro.

The someday-we'll-see-it Panny 50-200 could be interesting if it ever arrives.

Cheers,

Rick

I'm a bit surprised nobody has mentioned the Lumix 45-150; I have it and the m.Zuiko 40-150 4/5.6 and prefer the Lumix.

Neither is expensive, both are small and light, and you don't need 2.8 for landscape.

The OLY 40-150 is not as sharp as the PRO but it is a good lens and very cheap, small, light. Not as small as the Panny 35-100 but only about a half pound. You can hike with it easy. You can buy one for less than $100. A good lens for the money.

I didn't like the Panny 45-200, sold it. Found it inconsistent, subject to a lot of purple fringing. Maybe they improved it.

The 45-175 has a good reputation. I have not used it. Also relatively small and light.

Nothing I used in the system matches the 40-150 PRO. It is clearly superior. I found a good used one for $750 without the tripod mount. Still a lot of cash, but worth every penny. You will see the quality. Don't rent/borrow one. You will have to have it. (Not a bad thing). I also have the 1.4XTC PRO. Can't see deterioration in IQ. Amazing TC. Takes it out to 420mm.

Not the same as hiking with the 35-100. The PRO lens and TC are almost 2lbs. combined But the image quality is worth carrying them. They are also weather sealed.

I like the 40-150 but on IQ I disagree. Cropped 100% there is no contest. The PRO is WAY better and you can buy a 1.4XTC for it and get out to 420mm. It is also weather sealed.

I went to the PRO lens because sometimes the light falls and I have to boost the ISO too much when I need to shoot 1/800 and higher. The images lose too much detail, are too noisy for me.

I like shooting in low light for reduced shadows and glare. If you shoot a landscape with the 40-150 at a slow shutter speed it works, but if you need a fast shutter speed it doesn't. The images are usable without cropping, but you can see a noticeable difference in IQ between ISO 200 and ISO 800-1000 with this lens.

If you like clarity and low noise, the camera performs much better at ISO 200 than ISO 800 when you lose the light, so the value of the PRO lens depends on if you find yourself in need of F/2.8 to keep the ISO down if the IQ difference matters to you.

Subject separation is also much better at f/2.8 than it is at f/5.6. But in landscapes you might be stopped down with a slow shutter speed anyway to get as much as you can in focus rather than isolate the subject.

Blanket statement - the PRO version is much better. It is much sharper at all focal lengths and apertures. Depending on what you are trying to do it may not matter. Enough to spend the money for it? Subjective. I'm glad I did and I paid 50% more for it than the next most expensive lens I own. I wouldn't take $1000 for it - a $300 profit. Its that good.

Another possibility is the 50-200 Four Thirds and the 1.4XTC with an adaptor. It is not as sharp as the 40-150PRO, but it is sharper than the 40-150 and it renders beautifully, even better than the 40-150PRO, but it focuses slow and is big and heavy. When I look at the images I made with it I can't give it up. MSRP $1,200, can be bought for $250, TC $150 = 560mm. Adaptor $100?

Good suggestion. I have the 75-300 too. I think its optically better than the 40-150, overlaps much of the FL of the 40-150, and reaches 2X further. F/6.7 is pushing it sometimes, but that's on the long end. With 300mm, when you don't have to reach out that far, you can keep the aperture at least as open as the 40-150. More expensive but a very good lens. It's only about 10oz., noticeably heavier, and bigger than the 40-150, but still easy to hike with.

I use the 75-300 above 210mm for motorsports where f/4-6.7 works well. Its consistently good in good light, but a little slow on the long end when the light drops.

I think the PL 50-200 will be expensive. The 45-200 was a mediocre lens. I had it, sold it. The PL 200 prime is $3,000.

I love the Four Thirds 50-200, would like an M43 version of it, but it will have to be f/4-5.6 to keep the cost down. I don't think we will see such a lens for less than $800-1,000. OLY and Panny may not make one. I think an F/2.8 version will be $2000-2500.

An OLY rep told me OLY is going to make more PRO lenses, go in that direction. They only make good profit on the EM1 MKII, PRO and fast lenses. That's where the M43 lens market is going for Panny too.

They are shooting for the IQ of midrange to high end DSLRs at 2/3 to 3/4 the price when you add lenses to bodies, at half the size/weight. A good two lens kit like this is going to cost $4,500 minus $800 kit discount for PRO quality gear and image quality from 24mm to 420-800mm with 1.4X TC depending on long zoom selected.

Another thought. I replaced the 40-150 with the 14-150 I bought for $400, a lens of about the same optical quality. No PRO lens, but surprisingly good on the long end. Great travel lens because for the 28-300mm range, a one lens solution for me when I don't know what I need, and think I need a good lens but not a great one.

A little heavier and longer than the 40-150, but very compact and light for the range. Its also weather sealed like your camera body. You can shoot it in rain, snow, in the desert.

andybryant wrote:

At the moment I'm using the super tiny Panasonic Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6 , which is awesome for hiking, but it isn't as long as I would like; and I'm sure that on my EM-1 MkII, I could benefit from a sharper/longer lens.

Is there an alternative in the 40-150 / 45-200 range that I should be considering?

Consider renting the Panasonic Lumix 45-150mm f/4-5.6 to see if if meets your needs.

I used it on two trips -- photographs here:

Panasonic 45-150mm

- Richard

I think you would like to have something weatherproof anyway... It's going to rain there now and then.

There will also be a lot of wildlife (birds, whales etc) that might interest you, so a longer lens will be handy.

You said earlier, that you have the PanaLeica 8-18... Don't know about the middle range in your bag, but I would like to have either the 12-40 or the 12-100 mm there; both seem to be exellent lenses.

And then the longer versions... 40-150 f2.8 Pro is the only one weatherproof - except the 14-150mm superzoom. IQ is different, anyay.

The other way to go is the old (and used) D.Zuiko 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD. Get also the older TC14. Works fast on Em1, but not as fast as the 40-150 mm Pro. More reach, weatherproof. Also heavy and large, but not too much compared to 40-150 mm lens.

The SWD-version is the mkII of that lens and has a faster focus system. Solid performer.

I have that, bought it used about seven years ago (?). My main tele since then, especially in low light (and we have that in Finland a lot). For sunny days, hikes and travel I also have the small and light m.Zuiko 75-300 mk1 - a nice lens, no problems with IQ, but no weatherproofing. If you go that way, remember to buy a lens hood. Protects the front lens from the drops. With 50-200 you should get one anyway.

Have a nice trip!

PS. If you buy the 50-200, do the focus adjustment before the trip and test the fine tuning... Mine needed some -3 setting, and a bit more with the TC. Easily done, but needs a tripod.

Jouko

'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://www.instagram.com/jouko.k.lehto/
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/2015/12/what-to-dowith-camera-during-winter.html

If you compose something close you don't need long. If you go someplace like the Palouse where you can forever, I find 150mm - even 300mm very useful. (300-600).

I need 420mm to photograph the Olympic Mountains beyond Lake Washington from my house in Kirkland without cropping. I use it on the Puget Sound. Depends on the kind of landscape you are photographing, where it is, how you want to compose it.

More landscapes are photographed with a long telephoto than you think.