Olympus 100-400mm F5-6.3 vs Olympus PRO 40-150mm F2.8 + teleconverter

Brian Wadie wrote:

the 75-300 mk2 is a superb value for money lens which I have produced many excellent images from but for my use its shortcoming are

- no IS

- too short

-not water sealed

Which is why I went to the PL100-400 (after experimenting with the sigma 150-600C via metabones)

The zoom problems + hood failure + poor / non-existent customer service (I believe it is now better?) resulted in that being ditched

So, for me the 100-400 meets my specific need, whoever designed it and the fact it is "plastic on metal" construction is irrelevant (my judgements should in no way influence anyone else) each to there own choice

There was no Olympus 100-400 when I chose the PL100-400....in fact the 300 f/4 had not been released at that time. I have had good luck with my PL100-400 so will keep it and not opt for the Olympus/Sigma. But, in my quest for an ever lighter Olympus kit for casual travel and visits to the local botanical gardens for bugs and butterflies, and at the current price deal, I thought I'd give the 75-300 try. Not looking for distance shooting  looking for a longer working distance than my 14-150 can get.

I can understand your point Gary and if I had had better experiences with the two copies I had may well still be using it as it does produce great images for my work BUT it just wasn't usable the way my copies were

I think your question is premature and any answer, invalid at this point. Unless it comes from one of the reviewers who got the lens. How can anyone make any conclusions about IQ, IS, etc without using it?  unless you are judging just by known, objective factors like size(nothing wrong with that) all this chat is just hot air.

I have  Olympus 40-150 pro 2.8 lens which i have been using on my OMD-5 II . This lens is so great for me that i never use any of my old Olympus lenses that i have on this camera. I just bought a OMD-E1 II body and moved the pro lens to it. I am using my old lenses on the 5II. Here are two photo  which you may have seen which i have posted on this forum before.

Henry Richardson wrote:

valerio18 wrote:

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

I suggest you consider the excellent Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II also. Smaller, lighter, and less expensive, but very good quality. I also have the Olympus 14-150mm and they are a nice pair for times you want something much longer.

If you are considering 75-300, I will suggest you to look at Panasonic 100-300 MK2 as well. Similar size and optical quality, but the OIS is really important in super tele shooting. I switched from the 75-300 to 100-300 and I think the OIS definitely make the difference, plus it's weather sealed too.

Funny Valentine wrote:

Honestly I would stay away from the 100-400, it has an outdated IS unit and is too big. But I highly recommend the 40-150 f/2.8 pro because it's cheaper, brighter, has better built quality and can also do telemacro. If you want more reach you can buy an extender, 1,4X or 2,0X, or buy an additional 75-300 for the supertelephoto. I always recommend the 75-300 because it's cheap, gives very good sharpness at close distance even at 300mm. It falls apart at 300mm when shooting distant subjects, but this also holds true for the 100-400.

That's basically my solution: use the 40-150mm and sometimes with a 2x TC.

But I find the 300mm to 400mm pretty much a waste for stuff I shoot and because of how I shoot.

And I need the lower end focal lengths and faster speed, and can just carry the TC in my pocket.

Henry Falkner wrote:

valerio18 wrote:

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

150 + x2 TC only gives you 300mm, and you lose 2 stops or more in the TC.

Plus - changing lenses from 14-150 to 40-150 + TC needs removing one lens, and attaching two lenses. That is alright if you don't really take photographs, but enjoy making an exhibition of yourself changing lenses. I have seen tourists changing lenses and never taking a photo.

If the 100-400 is just outside your budget, consider the 75-300 II. It has good reviews here.

When I do get my tax return, I may go for the 75-300 , and put off the new E-M10 IV for later. The lens is about US$ 500.-.

Henry

Well, two stops is 5.6. Still faster than much of the range of the Oly longer lens. And of course much faster at 150mm without the TC.

And query: why would one buy an interchangeable lens camera if you're worried about how you look changing lenses? that's just strange. Maybe you need to be in the compact camera forum? or did you just weld your lens of choice on, never to change it?

I sold my 70-300mm, but it is a pretty good lens for the price and given the slowness. The 40-150mm, even with a TC, is better, however. I'm not the only one to think so, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4197417

robgendreau wrote:

Well, two stops is 5.6. Still faster than much of the range of the Oly longer lens. And of course much faster at 150mm without the TC.

Does the 40-150 Pro have f2.8 for the whole range?

And query: why would one buy an interchangeable lens camera if you're worried about how you look changing lenses? that's just strange. Maybe you need to be in the compact camera forum? or did you just weld your lens of choice on, never to change it?:

I do keep my SH-50 and SH-1 pocket zoom for that very reason. For Sandra's fashion rush jobs (just as the light goes down), I use the E-M10 II with the 14-150 now. I can use a higher ISO with the E-M10 II than with the pocket zooms.

I retain the 14-42 and the 40-150 kit lenses as backups, but when Sandra had to wait for me to change between kit lenses, it caused irritation.

I sold my 70-300mm, but it is a pretty good lens for the price and given the slowness. The 40-150mm, even with a TC, is better, however. I'm not the only one to think so, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4197417

No other woman has even attempted to live with me (Sandra has almost for 20 years now), so I have to remain prepared, with the 14-150 on the E-M10 installed after playing with my kit lenses.

Thanks for coming back.

Henry

Photo Pete wrote:

robgendreau wrote:

Henry Falkner wrote:

valerio18 wrote:

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

150 + x2 TC only gives you 300mm, and you lose 2 stops or more in the TC.

Plus - changing lenses from 14-150 to 40-150 + TC needs removing one lens, and attaching two lenses. That is alright if you don't really take photographs, but enjoy making an exhibition of yourself changing lenses. I have seen tourists changing lenses and never taking a photo.

If the 100-400 is just outside your budget, consider the 75-300 II. It has good reviews here.

When I do get my tax return, I may go for the 75-300 , and put off the new E-M10 IV for later. The lens is about US$ 500.-.

Henry

Well, two stops is 5.6. Still faster than much of the range of the Oly longer lens. And of course much faster at 150mm without the TC.

And query: why would one buy an interchangeable lens camera if you're worried about how you look changing lenses? that's just strange. Maybe you need to be in the compact camera forum? or did you just weld your lens of choice on, never to change it?

I sold my 70-300mm, but it is a pretty good lens for the price and given the slowness. The 40-150mm, even with a TC, is better, however. I'm not the only one to think so, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4197417

Agree with this. The 70-300 was OK, but the 40-150 with 2x tc is better (particularly at 300 at the edges and in the corners). It is in a different league without TC.

The 40-150 with 2x TC is about the same as the Pana-Leica 100-400 in the centre at 300mm but slightly worse in the corners. I wouldn’t call the corners bad though... you can see a test image of sharpness across the frame in an old post of mine here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62955968
One thing going for the 40-150 + MC20 is that, unlike the 100-400, it doesn’t extend when zooming and so handling is really nice and balanced.

My comparisons between my 40-150 f/2.8 Pro with the 1.4 and 2X converters vs my PL 100-400 are quite different. In all overlapping focal ranges (100-300) the Panny was significantly sharper than the 40-150 with converters. Without the converters the 40-150 was the winner. I tried with my PL100-400 and my wife’s 40-150 Pro and her PL 100-400 and 2 copies each of the 1.4 and 2x converters. We both kept our 40-150 Pro but  sent the converters packing

First of all IMHO every one should have the 40-150 pro lens, I use mine on the G9 and the IQ is second to none, the 40 end is a bonus as is the close focus that does most of my flower shots now. I also have the 1.4 and the IQ doesn`t drop much at all, I also have the 2x and you can see a slight drop in IQ but nothing serious. I also have the PL100-400, it can be a superb lens if you need the long end and have good light ( IQ is probably somewhere between the 40-150pro with the 1.4 and x2 )

I don`t use the supplied hood on 40-150, I purchased a metal screw in hood of about30mm in length and it is fine with no flare. Over 50 years of photography I have never owned a lens that satisfies  me as much as the 40-150 pro in so many ways, yes you do often want/need something a bit longer but that is why the lens is so good because they have limited it to the 150 end.

I have the panny 100-400 and find it more than capable of producing good images. Here are a couple samples. Both at 400mm.

Photo Pete wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

robgendreau wrote:

Henry Falkner wrote:

valerio18 wrote:

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

150 + x2 TC only gives you 300mm, and you lose 2 stops or more in the TC.

Plus - changing lenses from 14-150 to 40-150 + TC needs removing one lens, and attaching two lenses. That is alright if you don't really take photographs, but enjoy making an exhibition of yourself changing lenses. I have seen tourists changing lenses and never taking a photo.

If the 100-400 is just outside your budget, consider the 75-300 II. It has good reviews here.

When I do get my tax return, I may go for the 75-300 , and put off the new E-M10 IV for later. The lens is about US$ 500.-.

Henry

Well, two stops is 5.6. Still faster than much of the range of the Oly longer lens. And of course much faster at 150mm without the TC.

And query: why would one buy an interchangeable lens camera if you're worried about how you look changing lenses? that's just strange. Maybe you need to be in the compact camera forum? or did you just weld your lens of choice on, never to change it?

I sold my 70-300mm, but it is a pretty good lens for the price and given the slowness. The 40-150mm, even with a TC, is better, however. I'm not the only one to think so, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4197417

Agree with this. The 70-300 was OK, but the 40-150 with 2x tc is better (particularly at 300 at the edges and in the corners). It is in a different league without TC.

The 40-150 with 2x TC is about the same as the Pana-Leica 100-400 in the centre at 300mm but slightly worse in the corners. I wouldn’t call the corners bad though... you can see a test image of sharpness across the frame in an old post of mine here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62955968
One thing going for the 40-150 + MC20 is that, unlike the 100-400, it doesn’t extend when zooming and so handling is really nice and balanced.

My comparisons between my 40-150 f/2.8 Pro with the 1.4 and 2X converters vs my PL 100-400 are quite different. In all overlapping focal ranges (100-300) the Panny was significantly sharper than the 40-150 with converters. Without the converters the 40-150 was the winner. I tried with my PL100-400 and my wife’s 40-150 Pro and her PL 100-400 and 2 copies each of the 1.4 and 2x converters. We both kept our 40-150 Pro but sent the converters packing

Blimey! You don’t think much of sharing do you! It’s a shame Olympus don’t do a family discount.

You are right, we each have our own. The only drawback is when we each want a new camera or lens, the bank accounts (we each have our own accounts, too) take a double hit.

My wife gets my photo gear that I don't like that well.  She has my E-M5.2, the 12-50 kit lens, the 14-150 MkII and the 75-300 MkI.  If I don't like the new 100-400/5.0-6.3 I will pass it down to her.

rich33584 wrote:

I have the panny 100-400 and find it more than capable of producing good images. Here are a couple samples. Both at 400mm.

For my E-M10 II I am interested in a lens with a reach beyond 150mm. I have now the 40-150 and the 14-150.

Last night I did the following with my SH-1 pocket zoom with 4x DZ set in the camera. Your example has clearly more detail than mine -

I cannot put detail into the shot that is not there in the first place.

But price-wise I probably have to make do with the 75-300 (advertised in New Zealand for about US$ 500.-), and get a 2x tele-converter later.

Thanks for showing me what I can reasonably aim for.

Henry