40-140 f2.8 + MC-20 vs 75-300mm f5.6-6.7 ii

I have had the 40-150 f2.8 for a while now and I love the lens. Nice weight, sharp and AF is superb. I recently acquired the MC-20 to replace the 75-300 in my bag, but am disappointed by initial test results. I've attached two comparison shots below (both untouched raws exported to jpeg). There is an obvious brightness and warmth to the 40-150/mc-20 combo, but what it brings in color it loses in sharpness. Most noticeably in the details of the snow on the branches. This is also the case when I stop down the combo to match the 75-300, but I decided to compare both wide open, since that is the supposed benefit to using it with the pro lens.

I'd like to hear your thoughts and if any of of you have had similar experience or have solutions. I'd love to chalk this down to user error, but the ease in which the 75-300 creates a sharper result is encouraging the prospect of returning the mc-20.

ISO 800 / 300mm / f5.6 / 1/1250 cropped : 40-150 f2.8 + MC-20 : E-M1 ii

ISO 800 / 300mm / f6.7 / 1/1250 cropped : 75-300 f4.8-6.7 ii : E-M1 ii

Did you mean the 40-150?

I have the 40-150 pro and have both the x2 and 1.4 and the 1.4 is definitely better, of course most extenders do take something away but the 1.4 is very good. Depends on what size your finished image is needed at and whether you can get a large enough print without the the 75-300.

oops, botched that.

Yes, that's what I had been reading online. I've a bad habit of pixel peeping and in reality, both will do fine for my line of work. Was just disappointed by the lack of performance from the pro combo and pleasantly surprised by the ol' 75-300.

Boto88 wrote:

oops, botched that.

Yes, that's what I had been reading online. I've a bad habit of pixel peeping and in reality, both will do fine for my line of work. Was just disappointed by the lack of performance from the pro combo and pleasantly surprised by the ol' 75-300.

Honestly, in your example I find the 40-150 unacceptable.  I would return the MC-20 and use the 75-300.  The 75-300 is not a bad lens, especially if used within its limits.

P!ssed that I wasn't level and fixing that cut off his feet.  Still a good example of what the lens can do.

my two copper pieces

Phocal

Phocal wrote:

Boto88 wrote:

oops, botched that.

Yes, that's what I had been reading online. I've a bad habit of pixel peeping and in reality, both will do fine for my line of work. Was just disappointed by the lack of performance from the pro combo and pleasantly surprised by the ol' 75-300.

Honestly, in your example I find the 40-150 unacceptable. I would return the MC-20 and use the 75-300. The 75-300 is not a bad lens, especially if used within its limits.

P!ssed that I wasn't level and fixing that cut off his feet. Still a good example of what the lens can do.

my two copper pieces

Phocal

Nice shot.

I didn't shoot in optimal lighting for either, but that was intentional. In better conditions the MC-20 performs fine, but I have gotten similarly great results with the 75-300. It would've been nice to have the same focal length without two lenses, but there is quite a discrepancy in quality.

I tried out the mc-20 to with my 40-150mm. The combo was really quite soft. Tested it for instance on some cooperative local geese at 300mm wide open and even with the bird filling most of the frame, there was hardly any feather detail visible.

Then again it seems that some people do seem to get nice results out of it. Sample variation maybe?

Marko

Marko_Finland wrote:

I tried out the mc-20 to with my 40-150mm. The combo was really quite soft. Tested it for instance on some cooperative local geese at 300mm wide open and even with the bird filling most of the frame, there was hardly any feather detail visible.

Then again it seems that some people do seem to get nice results out of it. Sample variation maybe?

Marko

That's the frustrating thing, ain't it. There are some incredible results out there with ridiculous shutter speeds like 1/50. I know with AI you can get some decent results in sharpening, but a mud cake's still a mud cake even with all the frosting.

I'll have a few more days to fiddle with it before I need to make a decision.

James Pilcher wrote:

No one has mentioned this yet. Before coming to a final decision on your lens and TC, you really should fine tune the AF on both the lens and the lens+tc combo.

I get what I consider extremely good images with my Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro + MC20.

Good luck to you. 👍

Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is good on the Gulf

Jim

I think the trouble is that 40-150 is so blooming good (one of the best lenses I have ever owned) it doesn`t take much to just knock the edge off of the IQ but I find the 1.4 not bad at all but of course there are so many other things that can happen as you fire the shutter. I shot an image of a common black bird yesterday,(12-100 pro) she was standing on a fence with snow on the ground behind her and luckily raw managed to bring her back but because of the high shutter speed the IQ was superb.

Keep safe

Dave

James Pilcher wrote:

No one has mentioned this yet. Before coming to a final decision on your lens and TC, you really should fine tune the AF on both the lens and the lens+tc combo.

I get what I consider extremely good images with my Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro + MC20.

Good luck to you. 👍

Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is good on the Gulf

Keep in mind that the micro focus adjustment only applies to CAF and in this case it will make no difference.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this one test. For one, I can see there is a breeze from the falling snow. Perhaps the branch was moving or you were swaying as you shot - either of which would change the focus when you are near. Your DOF may only be a few mm.

I don't have the 40-150 - but all accounts and reviews acclaim it's performance. I suspect the 75-300 would have more sample variation. My copy is very sharp, but the lens cannot match the consistency of performance of the 300. It is very difficult to handhold 300mm without topflight stabilization.

Most folks here have said the MC-20 performs well with the 40-150. I have the MC-14 for use with the 300. The loss of IQ is not really noticeable, but the extra long telephoto does makes certain aspects of imaging more difficult.

That MC-20 is doing ou no favors. I'd return it and go back to the 75-300. The first picture is not acceptable nor representative of what that 40-150 Pro lens can do. Mine is tack sharp, even with the MC-14 attached. Just MHO.  Almost looks like it missed focu on the first one.

Peace.

John

Since you didn't mention it in your post, did you use a tripod? Did you use a shutter delay or a shutter release? Did you take the best one out of multiple shots? The 40-150mm + 2x teleconverter doesn't look quite right. It should be capable of much more.

Boto88 wrote:

I didn't shoot in optimal lighting for either, but that was intentional. In better conditions the MC-20 performs fine, but I have gotten similarly great results with the 75-300. It would've been nice to have the same focal length without two lenses, but there is quite a discrepancy in quality.

I don't think you can make an effective comparison in dim light and weather conditions like that. Try again in brighter light. Having said that, the 75-300 did pretty well. But it is a much slower lens, so that would be a deal breaker for me.

I think both my 40/150 f/2.8 and my 75-300 do a fine job when used within their limits. For bugs and such, I prefer the smaller 75-300. But, the 75-300 won’t do nearly the job the 40/150 pro can deliver in fast action like rodeo and other sports.

40-150 Pro

75-300