Interesting comparison on Oly 40-150 f2.8+teleconverter vs PL 100-400

https://satosky.com/2019/07/05/mc-20%E8%A3%85%E7%9D%80%E3%81%AE40-150pro%E3%80%81%E3%83%91%E3%83%8A%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AB100-400%E6%92%AE%E3%82%8A%E6%AF%94%E3%81%B9/?fbclid=IwAR3DA9yUo_HRK0P56U1d1We75oy0pmuTJuOYXjXoohd1xb9SEZ6BgHAbXvg

I don't read Japanese but this is pretty straight forward (and google translate can help too =P). It seems that the Oly 40-150 f2.8 can get similar results with using either the MC-14 or MC-20 teleconverter. The IQ difference is non-existence between both converter, which is a good thing for MC-20 given it is a 2 time converter. However, the IQ at 300mm simply is not as good as the PL 100-400. It is still usable, but the PL 100-400 is just better.

So, the decision comes down to whether you want better long range capability (better IQ at 300 and having the 400 FL) or better mid range capability (f2.8 from 40-150 and extremely sharp image at this range). I think I am going to get the PL 100-400 in the future because of its advantage for birding. But if you focus mostly on sports or other mid range stuffs, the Oly does have its advantages.

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

https://satosky.com/2019/07/05/mc-20%E8%A3%85%E7%9D%80%E3%81%AE40-150pro%E3%80%81%E3%83%91%E3%83%8A%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AB100-400%E6%92%AE%E3%82%8A%E6%AF%94%E3%81%B9/?fbclid=IwAR3DA9yUo_HRK0P56U1d1We75oy0pmuTJuOYXjXoohd1xb9SEZ6BgHAbXvg

I don't read Japanese but this is pretty straight forward (and google translate can help too =P). It seems that the Oly 40-150 f2.8 can get similar results with using either the MC-14 or MC-20 teleconverter. The IQ difference is non-existence between both converter, which is a good thing for MC-20 given it is a 2 time converter. However, the IQ at 300mm simply is not as good as the PL 100-400. It is still usable, but the PL 100-400 is just better.

So, the decision comes down to whether you want better long range capability (better IQ at 300 and having the 400 FL) or better mid range capability (f2.8 from 40-150 and extremely sharp image at this range). I think I am going to get the PL 100-400 in the future because of its advantage for birding. But if you focus mostly on sports or other mid range stuffs, the Oly does have its advantages.

I have the 40-150, the 1.4 TC, and the PL100-400.

My personal experience is that without the TC, the 40-150 is a tad sharper in the overlapping focal lengths (100-150). With the 1.4 TC attached to the 40-150, the PL 100-400 is noticeably sharper in the overlapping focal lengths (100-210). If I recall, this is also borne out by the Lenstip resolution tests. Because of this I rarely use the 1.4 TC on the 40-150.

I have not had a chance to try the new 2.0 TC, but if it creates sharper images than the 1.4, I might do a swap. This would make my 40-150 an f/5.6 at all focal lengths. The PL100-400 is f5.7 at 300mm and faster below that FL, so might perform better up to that focal length, however.

gary0319 wrote:

Po Sen Tsui wrote:

https://satosky.com/2019/07/05/mc-20%E8%A3%85%E7%9D%80%E3%81%AE40-150pro%E3%80%81%E3%83%91%E3%83%8A%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AB100-400%E6%92%AE%E3%82%8A%E6%AF%94%E3%81%B9/?fbclid=IwAR3DA9yUo_HRK0P56U1d1We75oy0pmuTJuOYXjXoohd1xb9SEZ6BgHAbXvg

I don't read Japanese but this is pretty straight forward (and google translate can help too =P). It seems that the Oly 40-150 f2.8 can get similar results with using either the MC-14 or MC-20 teleconverter. The IQ difference is non-existence between both converter, which is a good thing for MC-20 given it is a 2 time converter. However, the IQ at 300mm simply is not as good as the PL 100-400. It is still usable, but the PL 100-400 is just better.

So, the decision comes down to whether you want better long range capability (better IQ at 300 and having the 400 FL) or better mid range capability (f2.8 from 40-150 and extremely sharp image at this range). I think I am going to get the PL 100-400 in the future because of its advantage for birding. But if you focus mostly on sports or other mid range stuffs, the Oly does have its advantages.

I have the 40-150, the 1.4 TC, and the PL100-400.

My personal experience is that without the TC, the 40-150 is a tad sharper in the overlapping focal lengths (100-150). With the 1.4 TC attached to the 40-150, the PL 100-400 is noticeably sharper in the overlapping focal lengths (100-210). If I recall, this is also borne out by the Lenstip resolution tests. Because of this I rarely use the 1.4 TC on the 40-150.

I have not had a chance to try the new 2.0 TC, but if it creates sharper images than the 1.4, I might do a swap. This would make my 40-150 an f/5.6 at all focal lengths.

From what I see from the link above, for the 40-150 pro, the new MC-20 has nearly identical effect on IQ as the MC-14, which is not a bad thing at all considering the extra reach, so I think you can swap it if you want to have more flexibility on the reach.

The PL100-400 is f5.7 at 300mm and faster below that FL, so might perform better up to that focal length, however.

I am currently renting the PL 100-400 from lensrentals.

The lens appears to be in great shape (little wear), however the mechanics of the lens are atrocious. It really feels bad when I attach it to my em-1 ii, and the zoom ring is as bad as you have read about (or maybe worse).  Stiff, rough and jerky. The OIS seems pretty great though (although with my olympus camera it is always on when the switch is set to on, probably not so great for battery life)

I was considering buying this lens, but now I have totally lost interest.  I do have the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4x teleconverter, and i don't notice much difference between this lens (with converter) and the P-L, although to be fair I have not "pixel peeped".