Has anybody switched from [Panasonic Leica 100-400mm] to [Olympus 40-150mm Pro + MC20]?

gary0319 wrote:

I paid particular attention to the comparison of the 40-150 at 150mm + the MC20 (300mm, f/5.6) and the Penny at 300mm (f/5.7)..... the Panasonic was sharper.

This was exactly what I was interested in. It seems like for people who already own both lenses, it's not worth getting MC20 replacing Pana Leica 100-400mm. Of course, one advantage is you carry one lens and small item instead of two big lenses. However, you don't have a reach of 400mm. So there are pros and cons.

By the way, the lens I'm interested in in this chart is that "Super Telephoto Zoom Lens" in non-Pro category. That looks like 100-400mm, so depending on performance, if it's on par with Panasonic Leica, it might be a better option for people who uses Olympus bodies(hopefully sync IS). Since Pro 150-400 f4.5 will be launched early next year, I doubt that Olympus will release a lens that covers similar focal lengths. We will see.

Minolta_A2 wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

I paid particular attention to the comparison of the 40-150 at 150mm + the MC20 (300mm, f/5.6) and the Penny at 300mm (f/5.7)..... the Panasonic was sharper.

This was exactly what I was interested in. It seems like for people who already own both lenses, it's not worth getting MC20 replacing Pana Leica 100-400mm. Of course, one advantage is you carry one lens and small item instead of two big lenses. However, you don't have a reach of 400mm. So there are pros and cons.

By the way, the lens I'm interested in in this chart is that "Super Telephoto Zoom Lens" in non-Pro category. That looks like 100-400mm, so depending on performance, if it's on par with Panasonic Leica, it might be a better option for people who uses Olympus bodies(hopefully sync IS). Since Pro 150-400 f4.5 will be launched early next year, I doubt that Olympus will release a lens that covers similar focal lengths. We will see.

I would like to think that the non Pro100-400 on the chart would be an alternative to the PL 100-400, but I suspect it will not have the resolution that the Olympus Pro lenses have, and less than the PanLeica 100-400. Hope I'm wrong but if it doesn't have the "Pro" rating it will most likely be inferior in some way....no free lunch.

gary0319 wrote:

Minolta_A2 wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

I paid particular attention to the comparison of the 40-150 at 150mm + the MC20 (300mm, f/5.6) and the Penny at 300mm (f/5.7)..... the Panasonic was sharper.

This was exactly what I was interested in. It seems like for people who already own both lenses, it's not worth getting MC20 replacing Pana Leica 100-400mm. Of course, one advantage is you carry one lens and small item instead of two big lenses. However, you don't have a reach of 400mm. So there are pros and cons.

By the way, the lens I'm interested in in this chart is that "Super Telephoto Zoom Lens" in non-Pro category. That looks like 100-400mm, so depending on performance, if it's on par with Panasonic Leica, it might be a better option for people who uses Olympus bodies(hopefully sync IS). Since Pro 150-400 f4.5 will be launched early next year, I doubt that Olympus will release a lens that covers similar focal lengths. We will see.

I would like to think that the non Pro100-400 on the chart would be an alternative to the PL 100-400, but I suspect it will not have the resolution that the Olympus Pro lenses have, and less than the PanLeica 100-400. Hope I'm wrong but if it doesn't have the "Pro" rating it will most likely be inferior in some way....no free lunch.

Well it almost certainly will not be a costant f4.5.  It would not have an included internal 1.25TC.  It may not be usable with the MC14/MC20.  These would make it "inferior" to the 150-400 f4.5.

drj3

drj3 wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Minolta_A2 wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

I paid particular attention to the comparison of the 40-150 at 150mm + the MC20 (300mm, f/5.6) and the Penny at 300mm (f/5.7)..... the Panasonic was sharper.

This was exactly what I was interested in. It seems like for people who already own both lenses, it's not worth getting MC20 replacing Pana Leica 100-400mm. Of course, one advantage is you carry one lens and small item instead of two big lenses. However, you don't have a reach of 400mm. So there are pros and cons.

By the way, the lens I'm interested in in this chart is that "Super Telephoto Zoom Lens" in non-Pro category. That looks like 100-400mm, so depending on performance, if it's on par with Panasonic Leica, it might be a better option for people who uses Olympus bodies(hopefully sync IS). Since Pro 150-400 f4.5 will be launched early next year, I doubt that Olympus will release a lens that covers similar focal lengths. We will see.

I would like to think that the non Pro100-400 on the chart would be an alternative to the PL 100-400, but I suspect it will not have the resolution that the Olympus Pro lenses have, and less than the PanLeica 100-400. Hope I'm wrong but if it doesn't have the "Pro" rating it will most likely be inferior in some way....no free lunch.

Well it almost certainly will not be a costant f4.5. It would not have an included internal 1.25TC. It may not be usable with the MC14/MC20. These would make it "inferior" to the 150-400 f4.5.

drj3

I’m talking more about the resolving power of the lens itself, not the features. Olympus “Pro” glass usually has more resolving power than their non-pro glass as measured in Line Pairs per Millimeter

gary0319 wrote:

drj3 wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Minolta_A2 wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

I paid particular attention to the comparison of the 40-150 at 150mm + the MC20 (300mm, f/5.6) and the Penny at 300mm (f/5.7)..... the Panasonic was sharper.

This was exactly what I was interested in. It seems like for people who already own both lenses, it's not worth getting MC20 replacing Pana Leica 100-400mm. Of course, one advantage is you carry one lens and small item instead of two big lenses. However, you don't have a reach of 400mm. So there are pros and cons.

By the way, the lens I'm interested in in this chart is that "Super Telephoto Zoom Lens" in non-Pro category. That looks like 100-400mm, so depending on performance, if it's on par with Panasonic Leica, it might be a better option for people who uses Olympus bodies(hopefully sync IS). Since Pro 150-400 f4.5 will be launched early next year, I doubt that Olympus will release a lens that covers similar focal lengths. We will see.

I would like to think that the non Pro100-400 on the chart would be an alternative to the PL 100-400, but I suspect it will not have the resolution that the Olympus Pro lenses have, and less than the PanLeica 100-400. Hope I'm wrong but if it doesn't have the "Pro" rating it will most likely be inferior in some way....no free lunch.

Well it almost certainly will not be a costant f4.5. It would not have an included internal 1.25TC. It may not be usable with the MC14/MC20. These would make it "inferior" to the 150-400 f4.5.

drj3

I’m talking more about the resolving power of the lens itself, not the features. Olympus “Pro” glass usually has more resolving power than their non-pro glass as measured in Line Pairs per Millimeter

It probably will have somewhat less resolving power since it will almost certainly have a smaller maximum aperture, at least if Lenstip is correct about mFTs lenses with smaller apertures limiting their ultimate performance.

However, you are probably correct in that a non-pro lens would not have the same careful manufacture of the more expensive lenses.  For example Imaging Resources indicated that the gyros in the 300mm f4 were hand selected to ensure they performed well.  I would expect a consumer lens manufacture to be completely automated with fewer checks on performance.

I would personally love to have the 150-400mm f4.5, but I suspect the price and weight would both be prohibitive, so I will almost certainly keep the 300mm f4 and use my old FTs 50-200 SWD for those less frequent situations where I want a shorter lens.  A zoom with 300mm or more, but slower than my 300mm f4 would not be of particular interest to me, even if it was very sharp.

Nope,

However I swapped G4 and 100-400mm to EMimkii and 300mm and am loving it, I rarely use the 1.4tc (well apart from on my 60mm Macro lens ;-))

Skeeterbytes wrote:

My assumption is same as yours--the non-pro lens will compete directly with the 100-400 and won't appear until after the new Pro super-zoom is on the street.

Dual-IS I doubt, that seems reserved for select Pro lenses. Weatherproof is likely, similar to the 12-200.

If everything on that roadmap appears we'll have an amazing lens selection!

Cheers,

Rick

The non pro lens will not tempt anyone who would buy the f/4.5 lens. Just because the focal lengths are similar doesn't mean that the lenses fulfill the same mission.

Brian Wadie wrote:

Henry Stamm wrote:

Not exactly on topic and for the small & light crowd, this won't be very appetizing. But, consider the original 4/3 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 TC (or 2.0TC). Those who used these combinations on the older E-series cameras swore by the results and had the images to back them up. For m4/3 use, it will require an adapter, but these are the combos I would seek if I could afford the tariff. Even used, they're still pricey.

also very heavy!

Brian, I think I noted that in my post above. But for sheer IQ, which I value over weight or size, it's still the lens combo I prefer to anything offered so far in the m4/3 lens lineup. That may change when the m4/3 150-400 gets released.

amtberg wrote:

Or, get the PL 50-200mm with the Panasonic 2x TC. Image quality is quite good if you can handle the f/8 minimum aperture.

Good idea.  In my case, it's a non-starter.  I own the Olympus 50-200swd and the 2.0TC.  And it yields f7.1 at the long end and quality is still quite nice.  And I don't care that it's heavy compared to the PL version.