Incredible lens

Outstanding. Gorgeous results.

Retractable lens hood a bit fragile, does not detract from the overall wonderful optics.

ctlow wrote:

Outstanding. Gorgeous results.

Retractable lens hood a bit fragile, does not detract from the overall wonderful optics.

too heavy as walk-around tele zoom. For me.

For 2-4h appointments, yes, great. Outstanding, Gorgeous.

So I wish for a F4 version. And no, the 4-5,6/40-150 R is NOT a F4 version of this outstanding lens. Less sharp, not close focus, 1 stop slower at the important long end.

Peter

eques wrote:

too heavy as walk-around tele zoom. For me.

For 2-4h appointments, yes, great. Outstanding, Gorgeous.

So I wish for a F4 version. And no, the 4-5,6/40-150 R is NOT a F4 version of this outstanding lens. Less sharp, not close focus, 1 stop slower at the important long end.

Peter

Thank you Peter and the others who have replied.

I had instinctively only been using this lens with the TC 1.4 at f/5.6 anyway, so that's good - pretty well always on a sturdy tripod (IS engaged, still worrying within a certain critical zone of shutter speeds).

Weight vs. utility is always a concern. On some mobile shoots I start by thinking about what I can remove from my bag. I collected a few numbers for comparison, not definitive data which proves anything but I find this interesting:

First, price of Oly lenses in Canadian dollars:

• 40-150 mm f/2.8: $1,700
• MC-14: $450
• Total: $2,150
• 300 mm f/4: $3,330

Weight in grams:

• My now-sold FT 50-200 f2.8-3.5 ED: 1,070
• MMF-3: 42
• Total: 1,112
• 40-15 mm f/2.8: 880
• MC-14: 170
• Total: 1,050
• 300 mm f/4 PRO IS (w collar): 1,475

(I can't tell if the weights of the other two lenses are with or without collars - it's about a 200 g difference with the 300.)

So, way back when with the 50-200 I just mentioned the weight as an issue in a review here, and was "reminded" very clearly what an amazing lens it was. The weight is comparable, just a hair more, to this slightly more powerful lens-combo.

And of course I am in no way negating the numbers if I say that our viewers don't care to anywhere near the degree that we do. I recently had an image with a serious flaw in it (to my eyes) which the customer and everyone else has loved and which has boosted my reputation locally, and one nit-picker found something else of no significance, but no one has seen what I do.

This isn't that image, but just to illustrate that the customer loves, loves, loves this, and I used the 40-150 f/2.8 PRO with the TC1.4 ... wide open.

210 mm, 40-150 f/2.8 PRO with TC 1.4 at f/4(!)

So, would I take the 40-150 canoe-camping? Absolutely, ditching other gear for it if I had to. I find it that useful. The MC-14,? Probably not, although it's fairly light and small - just not an adequate trade-off in the pack for other supplies. (The sturdy tripod: nope!)

And that is nothing other than personal opinion. Thanks again Peter for posting yours.

Hello, first post here ...

I bought the 40-150 f/2.8 as part of a bundle with the EM1 Mk2 + 12-40 f/2.8, I find the 40-150 f/2.8 sharper than the 12-40 but not by much, and almost as sharp with the 1.4x TC @ f/4 as it is without, although a lot depends on what you're shooting, of course, with the TC fitted I'm generally going for further away subjects and it could be the subject being further away that's the issue, not the lens.

In general I find it easy to carry around (on my Peak Design shoulder strap) for any length of time, easy to use hand-held, and I've even filmed 10 minute short oval track races with it hand-held.

Considering I came from a APS-C Nikon + Sigma 150-600 at twice the size and weight it's a no-brainer, this thing screams quality and is every bit as good as I could ever have hoped.