Performance of a much more expensive lens

Once again, never claimed it had the same efov. Still don't get what your going on about. Anyways, if you don't like mft forums you don't have to come. Can if ya want to, I just figured I'd point out that no one is forcing you to be here.

They are actually fairly similar. The fl is sharper, pro has better microcontrast. Pick your poison. Fl has much worse rendtional distortion and perceptual depth however.

I'd love to hear your solution to the problem...hmm maybe tomorrow I will buy a speed booster and mount my Zeiss lenses on it and use it on my gh5. Oh wait, I almost forgot I loose complete compatibilitiy with features such as indexing and metering...

Thanks I promise, it's all technical skill

I just reread your comment. I feel like trying to decipher your grammer gave me a stroke. What do you want me to explain again?

Yes, I used both lenses, and the cheap 40-150 f/4-5.6 is indeed very nice and sharp compared to it's Panasonic counterpart, but there is no comparison to the pro 40-150 or 12-100.
However, for my need I carry around the small, light and cheap version much more often than the near perfect big and heavy (and both of them gather a lot of dust, since I have the 12-100).

Peter

faunagraphy wrote:

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.

I gave you explanation of TN's finding on resolution difference. For 600+tc samples please use google search.

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.

Comparing 40-150mm to 120-300mm does demonstrates intelegents.

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?

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

Telling that 300mm prime shooters has no problems of 80-400 zoom shooters on safari - doesn't demonstrate .... choice of FL.

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.

Gary from Seattle 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

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 burst out laughing. 😄 Thank you!

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

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

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

I have purchased many lenses that way. In fact I have currently have only one lens that was purchased at retail prices and that was a gift.

My 17mm F1.8, 25mm F1.8, 12-40 F2.8, 40-150 F2,8, 14-150 II, 40-150 F4-5.6, Macro converter, Wide converter, E-P5 body, E-M10 with 14-42 were all purchased reconditioned. Most were purchased during 20% off sales.

I purchased a 45mm F1.8 and a 12-32 F4-5.6 used and got the Panasonic Kit lens and 14mm F2.5 as part of a kit.

My only current lens that was purchase new is my 60mm macro. I did purchase a Sigma 19mm and 60mm as well as a Panasonic 45-200 F4-5.6 new also.

I have since sold the sigmas, 14mm, 40-150 F4-5.6, 45-200 F4-5.6, Panny kit lens, and Oly kit lens.

OM Digital Solutions has raised the prices significantly on many reconditioned lenses but they are still good deals if you hit a sale.

12-40 was $640 is now $800. I paid $640. This makes no sense because you can get it new for $800.

17mm was $320 is now $400. I paid $256

25mm is still $320, I paid $256

40-150 F4-5.6 was $60 is now $160. I paid $60

14-150 II was $450 is now $480. I paid $360

Not sure what the 40-150 Pro goes for since it is out of stock, but it used to be $1200. As I said, I paid $960.

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

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.

I gave you explanation of TN's finding on resolution difference. For 600+tc samples please use google search.

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above.

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.

Comparing 40-150mm to 120-300mm does demonstrates intelegents.

Intelegents?

What's the opposite of that? Inteleladies?

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?

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

And other forum members here share their knowledge and we all benefit from that. That's how I started here, asking basic questions and learning everyday.

But you clearly think you know it all, and aren't arguing in good faith. Anyone can see that you have no understanding of long lenses and no self-awareness of this fact.

So instead of taking you seriously, I'm going to laugh instead. 😂

Telling that 300mm prime shooters has no problems of 80-400 zoom shootersafari - doesn't demonstrate .... choice of FL.

😂

Clearly reading isn't your strong suite, but I was speaking of the impracticality of taking a 600mm on safari, and the IQ compromise of using a weaker lens like the 80-400.

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 --

Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

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.

I gave you explanation of TN's finding on resolution difference. For 600+tc samples please use google search.

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above

Is this one good enough for 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

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

Comparing 40-150mm to 120-300mm does demonstrates intelegents.

Intelegents?

What's the opposite of that? Inteleladies?

Typo

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?

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

Show me where I said anything about DOF?

And other forum members here share their knowledge and we all benefit from that. That's how I started here, asking basic questions and learning everyday.

But you clearly think you know it all, and aren't arguing in good faith. Anyone can see that you have no understanding of long lenses and no self-awareness of this fact.

So instead of taking you seriously, I'm going to laugh instead.

Telling that 300mm prime shooters has no problems of 80-400 zoom shootersafari - doesn't demonstrate .... choice of FL.

😂

Clearly reading isn't your strong suite, but I was speaking of the impracticality of taking a 600mm on safari, and the IQ compromise of using a weaker lens like the 80-400.

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 --

Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

-- hide signature --

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

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

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

It is not just effective diagonal AOV it is DOF control/ subject isolation and most critically total light gathered. In other words a FF 80-300mm F/5.6 on a FF camera will do the same job as a 40-150mm F/2.8 om m43. 70{-80}-300mm lenses are widely available and often very inexpensive. The reason being that such a slow lens is pedestrian low end in FF

Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens 1928 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

While amongst a few of the hard of thinking posters here , denial of equivalence and it's unavoidable consequences is a constant. Alas reality does not support their nonsense , equivalence applies equally to all sensor sizes from the smallest to the largest. Sadly you are not the first or no doubt last to make the same old BS fact dodging claims, it is an embarrassing tradition in the forum

Now to be clear the 40-150mm  pros is a great lens for m43 but it is not  the same as  FF F/2.8 lens. Just as a lens on a smaller sensor format covering the same effective focal range is  not the same as the 40-150mm .

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

I owned the r, maybe for a beginner it's great.

First. You didn't specify the level of the owner of the lens. But I assure you that not the lens make the level of photographer, but the photographer itself. I own cheap and good lenses because I'm just a humble amateur, who has this expensive hobby (+ astrophotography with telescopes, even more expensive). If I was a PRO, one who live from photography, I would have definitely bought PRO lenses.

And second. The 40-150 mm PRO lens IS NOT CHEAP. Period. Plastic fantastic 40-150mm R has better performance/price ratio.

My 2 cents.

jonnieb wrote:

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

True to me as well. But I sold both recently as I now used my Lumix S1R + Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art and Lumix 70-200 F2.8 more often than mFT. I love Olympus E-M1.3, but planned to use only when I don't want to carry heavy and bulky FF stuff, so planned to just keep two compact lenses for my mFT system 8-25 F4.0 and 45 F1.2. Edward

Wow, fabulous images! Your images would temp everyone wants to have a copy of the same lens, hoping as long as getting the same lens, he/she would become a great photographer like you. Olympus should send you a check for prompting the 40-150 F2.8.

Love your images.

God bless, Edward

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

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

And to add further, it is an f2.8 lens regardless, but also benefits from a DoF equivalent to f5.6 on a 300mm FF lens. At 300mm efov, more DoF is not a negative, it's an advantage.

RSTP14 wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

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

And to add further, it is an f2.8 lens regardless, but also benefits from a DoF equivalent to f5.6 on a 300mm FF lens. At 300mm efov, more DoF is not a negative, it's an advantage.

Close aperture on 300mm  FF lens to f/5.6.

RSTP14 wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

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

And to add further, it is an f2.8 lens regardless, but also benefits from a DoF equivalent to f5.6 on a 300mm FF lens. At 300mm efov, more DoF is not a negative, it's an advantage.

There is no DOF advantage  the two lenses on their respective systems  shooting wide open { F/2.8 and f/5.6 will gather the same total light as well as having the same DOF

Being F/2.8 on m43 gives no additional DOF to the FF lens at F/5.6. The longer the focal length the more likely { not always of course} you are to be shooting subjects at a distance where DOF is not much of an issue . For example at 30m the 300mm lens on FF at f/5.6 will have roughly 3.4m DOF , pretty much the same as the 40-150mm at 150mm at F/2.8 and again shooting at 30m

It is an embarrassment to this forum that so often simple factual data is contested for nonsense