Performance of a much more expensive lens

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing.  The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

It's my second-most used lens next to the 12-100

Yes it is a very good lens.

I haven't been using mine since I got the 50-200 which offers dual iS with the G9 and has (slightly) longer reach but yes, it's a fine zoom, no matter the system.

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

Have it. Love it. Bought it reconditioned from Olympus during a 20% off sale for $960.

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

Comparing to 120-300 2.8 fl , it is 80-300/5.6 lens, with a price 1500 bucks

Lucky. Mine was only 600 bucks, the seller said it had fungus that didn't affect rendering. I just cleaned the front element and it was gone. I'm suprised they were so cheap reconditioned

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.  

I don't use mine often, since it's not the type of shooting I do often. I use it for little league sports, and it's a beautiful lens. Fast, sharp and top quality in terms of build. Would buy again.

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

SonyX wrote:

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

The converse is also true - it is a long-standing tradition from full frame users to talk down on smaller sensor systems, no matter how good (or better) they are. One that immediately jumps to mind is Sony Northrup's claim that you'd get more detailed photos with a Nikon 200-500 and a D850 than with a 300mm Pro on a 20MP sensor.

Would one use the 40-150 for the same use case as a 120-300, or not?

How about the 300mm Pro and the 600mm? Both would be used for wildlife, esp. birds. It isn't like one is used for wildlife and the other for portraits.

I know many full frame shooters who own the 600mm but carry the 80-400 on safari, so effectively take - what could have been their best photos - with a much inferior lens. 300mm Pro shooters would not have this problem.

I know that the two are not equivalent in image rendering, usability etc. and there are pros and cons. But these spec-sheet arguments are getting tiresome.

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!!

LOL, I could agree with your statement, if you talked about:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/lenses/oly_m_40-150_4-5p6_r

Indeed the so-called "plastic-fantastic" has performance of a much, much expensive lens, even like your 40-150mm PRO, under certain circumstances.

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

The converse is also true - it is a long-standing tradition from full frame users to talk down on smaller sensor systems, no matter how good (or better) they are. One that immediately jumps to mind is Sony Northrup's claim that you'd get more detailed photos with a Nikon 200-500 and a D850 than with a 300mm Pro on a 20MP sensor.

750mm ~20mp equivalent has more details than 600mm, what you are disagree with?

Would one use the 40-150 for the same use case as a 120-300, or not

No, if you gonna use both of them on 2x crop camera

How about the 300mm Pro and the 600mm? Both would be used for wildlife, esp. birds. It isn't like one is used for wildlife and the other for portraits.

I know many full frame shooters who own the 600mm but carry the 80-400 on safari, so effectively take - what could have been their best photos - with a much inferior lens. 300mm Pro shooters would not have this problem.

Lack of choice is not solution to the problem.

I know that the two are not equivalent in image rendering, usability etc. and there are pros and cons. But these spec-sheet arguments are getting tiresome.

-- hide signature --

Wildlife photography in central and western India, and the Pacific Northwest. Mostly Micro Four Thirds with some Nikon F.

Hi

You made your point clear with your pictures as proof. Amazing good work.

(That makes me feel a bit of a bad conscience with all the expensive stuff I aquired for my humble results. Sigh)

Emilio

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

The converse is also true - it is a long-standing tradition from full frame users to talk down on smaller sensor systems, no matter how good (or better) they are. One that immediately jumps to mind is Sony Northrup's claim that you'd get more detailed photos with a Nikon 200-500 and a D850 than with a 300mm Pro on a 20MP sensor.

750mm ~20mp equivalent has more details than 600mm, what you are disagree with?

Spoken like someone who either has zero experience with telephoto lenses (comparing a prosumer zoom with an exotic prime LOL ) or just trolling.

Fine, I'll bite. Here's one with the 300mm Pro and 2x TC. Please show me one with comparable detail from a 200-500 + TC. I'll make it easier: show me one with a 600mm + 2x TC that has proportionately more detail in it.

EDIT: I just viewed your gear list. Not a single wildlife lens there. No wonder you're confused.

Would one use the 40-150 for the same use case as a 120-300, or not

No, if you gonna use both of them on 2x crop camera

You know exactly what I meant. Feigned ignorance doesn't demonstrate intelligence - quite the opposite.

How about the 300mm Pro and the 600mm? Both would be used for wildlife, esp. birds. It isn't like one is used for wildlife and the other for portraits.

I know many full frame shooters who own the 600mm but carry the 80-400 on safari, so effectively take - what could have been their best photos - with a much inferior lens. 300mm Pro shooters would not have this problem.

Lack of choice is not solution to the problem.

Are you claiming that people who can choose between the 75-300, 100-300, PL 100-400, Olympus 100-400, PL 200mm + TC, 300mm Pro, 150-400 Pro and others are lacking options?

I know that the two are not equivalent in image rendering, usability etc. and there are pros and cons. But these spec-sheet arguments are getting tiresome.

SonyX wrote:

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

Yeah you are right the 300 F4 is probably a better lens. You can shoot it at a much lower SS and it is way smaller also. (for wildlife you know)

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

The converse is also true - it is a long-standing tradition from full frame users to talk down on smaller sensor systems, no matter how good (or better) they are. One that immediately jumps to mind is Sony Northrup's claim that you'd get more detailed photos with a Nikon 200-500 and a D850 than with a 300mm Pro on a 20MP sensor.

750mm ~20mp equivalent has more details than 600mm, what you are disagree with?

"I are disagree" with you.

Would one use the 40-150 for the same use case as a 120-300, or not

No, if you gonna use both of them on 2x crop camera

How about the 300mm Pro and the 600mm? Both would be used for wildlife, esp. birds. It isn't like one is used for wildlife and the other for portraits.

I know many full frame shooters who own the 600mm but carry the 80-400 on safari, so effectively take - what could have been their best photos - with a much inferior lens. 300mm Pro shooters would not have this problem.

Lack of choice is not solution to the problem.

You do seem to have a problem.

I know that the two are not equivalent in image rendering, usability etc. and there are pros and cons. But these spec-sheet arguments are getting tiresome.

I owned the r, maybe for a beginner it's great. For me, it made me want to pull my hair out trying to get it to focus and looking at the rendering it made me want to stab my eyes out. There's a reason the pro costs 7.5 times as much money. I also only owned the r because I needed a cheap lens and a cheap camera that was small. I needed the camera to be durable, and wanted a disposable lens. I was going to the oregon sand dunes for four days. Long story short the paint got beaten off the em1, and the 40-150 got sand inside of it within 15 minutes. My 40-150 2.8 would have been fine.

Didn't say it did. My advice would be go look at mtf charts, use both lenses, and study microcontrast, perceptual depth, renditional distortion, and linear transmissions. Then you'll know what I mean. And last time I checked, you can't mount a 40-150 2.8 on a 5dsr.