Om 90mm or 40-150

[Oct8]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

 

[Sam Bennett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

 

[James Stirling]

Might I suggest a compromise and go for the 60mm macro and the 40-150mm F/4 . The 60mm macro is a great performer in a smaller form factor than the 90mm and 1:1 may be enough for your use case. I don't have the 40-150mm F/4 but reviews seem to be very positive

The 90mm macro being a 2x is more of a specialist lens with more challenging possibilities . I have the 40-150mm F/2.8 and it is an excellent performer but I feel it is large enough to be in the only pack it if you are certain you will use it.

The 60mm and 40-150mm F/4 next to your 12-40mm for scale





The 90mm and 40-150mm F/2.8







--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Rafael Rivera]

I was coming on here to also recommend the 40-150, but the f/2.8 version. I own that lens, really enjoy the FL range and bright aperture, and it's great on my G9II. I don't do much macro, and so can't justify the price of the 90mm, but I do own and have been happy with the 60mm as Jim describes. Great lens, and easy to put in a pocket- can't say the same with the 90.

 

[ahaslett]

That’s a big jump. The 90mm is a specialist and expensive macro lens that sounds as though it meets your uses, along with focus stacking etc.

The 40-150/2.8 is a great and flexible tele zoom with a modest magnification of 0.2.

On the face of it, there is only one answer. Unless you are going to be all in on macro, I’d take Jim’s suggestion.

Andrew

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[ahaslett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Andrew

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

Same. Have owned the 40-150 since early m4/3 days and it's a must-have part of the kit, many many cameras later.

Macros are fun, the 90 looks amazing, and their flexibility is far narrower. I'd perhaps look at getting the zoom and a clean used 60/2.8 for the true macro work at not much more money.

Will add the 40-150 focuses quite close and with either MC, closer yet. In-camera stacking gives great results with small subjects.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[jalywol]

If you are doing macro work, get the 90mm.

I do a lot of flower work, and the 90mm is really a dream lens for that. It is an exceptional lens in all ways.

I have the 30mm Oly macro, and briefly had the 60mm. The 90mm is a better lens in all ways than the 60mm, so if you have the option to get one, you should.

The minimum focus distance of the 40-150mm is 2+ feet. The minimum focus distance of the 90mm is 3.5 inches. That is a very big difference when you are shooting very small subjects.

If your primary use is for general work, the 40-150 is a great option, esp if you add in extension tubes. But if macro is what you will be using it the most for, the 90mm is the way to go.

-J

 

[Regor250]

Consider your subjects. For one the 90mm macro is a specialist lens aimed at the 1:1 to 2:1 magnification ratios, i.e. true macro that is. What you described is mostly close-up photography not macro. A 90mm will have a narrower fov than a 60mm or even more so 30mm and that affects perspective. Those who specialise in macro-photography love the 90mm for good reasons, but it would not be my preferred choice for close-up photography. The 40-150mm /2.8 on the other hand is a versatile general purpose lens. Much more useful as such IMO and a magnificient lens. So if it were me I'd buy the one that would get the most use. Unless you are serious about "macro" photography, the 40-150 may be the better option in that regard. So how often are you chasing tiny bugs?

--
Roger

 

[Sam Bennett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

 

[ahaslett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

A

 

[James Stirling]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

The 90mm is I feel a more specialist tool with the added challenge of offering 2x macro. The 60mm macro even tested on a lower res camera has a higher peak resolution . The red lines are Lenstips "decency level" for the respective combinations




The OP's macro use case sounds as if the 1:1 of the 60mm will be enough . The 60mm is smaller, lighter a lot cheaper a very good performer and faster . It is weather resistant and has the usual focus limiters. The 90mm is heavier larger , more expensive . It has the 2:1 ability, faster AF which is helpful the . So better is very much a matter of opinion

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Sam Bennett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

 

[ahaslett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

At 150/300mm they are f2.8/5.6, so the same light collection. I have both lenses because they serve different purposes.

I was commending the MFT lens for what it is, optically very good at 150mm. Forced to choose only one, it would be the GM because there are no high resolution MFT bodies.

If you shoot concerts, what are your thoughts on the PL 200/2.8?



A

 

[Sam Bennett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

At 150/300mm they are f2.8/5.6, so the same light collection. I have both lenses because they serve different purposes.

I don't want to get into the whole "total light collection" argument here - but as far as the PDAF sensors that are using that light to focus with, f/2.8 is "brighter" than f/5.6, is it not?

I was commending the MFT lens for what it is, optically very good at 150mm. Forced to choose only one, it would be the GM because there are no high resolution MFT bodies.

Totally get that - high rez isn't really something I pine for. Even my FF body is only 24MP.

If you shoot concerts, what are your thoughts on the PL 200/2.8?

Never used it, but being stuck at 200mm wouldn't really work for me if I was in the pit. Would be a very specialist thing I only used if I was constrained to working from the soundboard - which happens, but not very often. The most specialist lens I drag around with me is the 75/1.8, which only comes out if the light is really low and I'm not close to the action.

 

[ahaslett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

At 150/300mm they are f2.8/5.6, so the same light collection. I have both lenses because they serve different purposes.

I don't want to get into the whole "total light collection" argument here - but as far as the PDAF sensors that are using that light to focus with, f/2.8 is "brighter" than f/5.6, is it not?

I was commending the MFT lens for what it is, optically very good at 150mm. Forced to choose only one, it would be the GM because there are no high resolution MFT bodies.

Totally get that - high rez isn't really something I pine for. Even my FF body is only 24MP.

If you shoot concerts, what are your thoughts on the PL 200/2.8?

Never used it, but being stuck at 200mm wouldn't really work for me if I was in the pit. Would be a very specialist thing I only used if I was constrained to working from the soundboard - which happens, but not very often. The most specialist lens I drag around with me is the 75/1.8, which only comes out if the light is really low and I'm not close to the action.

Don’t call it “light collection”, if you mean exposure. Light collection is exposure x sensor area. Indeed low light PDAF is an advantage of smaller sensors. The unique PDAF technology of the OM1 seems especially good.

Maybe I understand the use case for the 75/1.8 better now, thanks.

A

 

[James Stirling]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

At 150/300mm they are f2.8/5.6, so the same light collection. I have both lenses because they serve different purposes.

I was commending the MFT lens for what it is, optically very good at 150mm. Forced to choose only one, it would be the GM because there are no high resolution MFT bodies.

If you shoot concerts, what are your thoughts on the PL 200/2.8?

A

Andrew ,looking at Dustin Abbott's reviews { a decent reviewer who goes quite deep) the Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 Di III RXD looks pretty good and it is very inexpensive ( £369 from a few retailers at the moment ) . I am not suggesting it is a "pro" level lens but from a few reviews it looks better than the Sony 70-300mm , which I hear is a bit of a dog

Loading…

dustinabbott.net

On the 61mp sensors it may be an inexpensive way to tip ones toes in longer focal lengths without to much cash

 

[ahaslett]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

At 150/300mm they are f2.8/5.6, so the same light collection. I have both lenses because they serve different purposes.

I was commending the MFT lens for what it is, optically very good at 150mm. Forced to choose only one, it would be the GM because there are no high resolution MFT bodies.

If you shoot concerts, what are your thoughts on the PL 200/2.8?

A

Andrew ,looking at Dustin Abbott's reviews { a decent reviewer who goes quite deep) the Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 Di III RXD looks pretty good and it is very inexpensive ( £369 from a few retailers at the moment ) . I am not suggesting it is a "pro" level lens but from a few reviews it looks better than the Sony 70-300mm , which I hear is a bit of a dog

https://dustinabbott.net/2020/11/tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-3-rxd-a047-review/

On the 61mp sensors it may be an inexpensive way to tip ones toes in longer focal lengths without to much cash

I have the 100-400 GM for longer FLs, although waving a big white lens around might not work in some situations. The 40-150/2.8 gathers a tiny bit more light at 150mm than the Tamron, and I have that too.

Dustin is pretty good.

A

 

[James Stirling]

Good morning,

I own a mirrorless OM-1 camera with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

I’m undecided about whether to purchase the 90mm macro or the 40-150mm f2.8 lens.

I enjoy photographing flowers, mushrooms, and insects, and I also use the camera for family photos.

I live right next to the woods, so I take photos like these on a daily basis.

I’d like to take advantage of the winter cashback offer, but I’m really struggling to decide.

Thank you for your help!

I know I probably sound like a broken record to some on this forum, but I really can't imagine being in the MFT system without owning the 40-150/2.8. It is one of the finest, most flexible lenses I've ever owned.

That said, if you're serious about macro photography the 90mm is supposed to be excellent.

I agree. These are different clicks for different tricks. Both are cutting edge M4/3 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is the most versatile. But if the OP is truly into macro then the 90mm f3.5 has to be a no nonsense choice. Better than the swag of other Macro lenses on offer.

These are lenses to be lusted after and no amount of cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives really compete.

If (less) size/weight and investment cost are paramount then there are other lenses that are thought to be quite good.

However if the best is what is wanted then look no further. In time we might get the opportunity to own both and be in large-lump lens heaven. (Alongside my own PL 200/2.8 broken record?)

M4/3 spends far too much time "proving" that their lenses are "smaller", cheaper, and quite good enough. For those less fixated by physical lens size there are some excellent choices to be had. The ephemeral "better than good enough"?

Some absolute nut-cases find that all of these lenses actually work fine on a GM5 camera body (more recently the G100/D). A great conversation starter .....

But the 40-150/2.8 is a small lens, just not as small as some other lenses.

Yeah, in terms of the capability you get out of it - 80-300mm equivalent focal length - it's very compact while still being internally-zooming, fully weather-sealed, etc. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, IMO.

and it goes head-to-head with a Sony 100-400 GM until you crop the hell out of the Sony image.

...which is slower (absolute light collection is still an issue for me as a concert photographer), external zooming, twice as expensive, almost twice as heavy, etc. That's not to knock the GM, but I still don't see them as being apples-to-apples. And of course, the Sony is "better" from a FL standpoint if you're really using the extreme tele end, but it comes at the cost of the 20mm on the front end, which I use much more often.

At 150/300mm they are f2.8/5.6, so the same light collection. I have both lenses because they serve different purposes.

I don't want to get into the whole "total light collection" argument here -

It is not an argument anywhere but "here "

but as far as the PDAF sensors that are using that light to focus with, f/2.8 is "brighter" than f/5.6, is it not?

AF for mirrorless cameras are far less impacted by slower apertures than their DSLR cousins . I don't think F/5.6 would be a challenge

I was commending the MFT lens for what it is, optically very good at 150mm. Forced to choose only one, it would be the GM because there are no high resolution MFT bodies.

Totally get that - high rez isn't really something I pine for. Even my FF body is only 24MP.

If you shoot concerts, what are your thoughts on the PL 200/2.8?

Never used it, but being stuck at 200mm wouldn't really work for me if I was in the pit. Would be a very specialist thing I only used if I was constrained to working from the soundboard - which happens, but not very often. The most specialist lens I drag around with me is the 75/1.8, which only comes out if the light is really low and I'm not close to the action.

i think for its use case the 75mm is a handy option and for the effective focal length very compact. And small enough to be get a spot in the bag