Have the 75-300...considering 40-150/2.8...any feedback?

[kai0815]

Lately feeling the need for a more midrange, fast, stabilized lens. Admittedly, I was happy w what I had until the 50-200/2.8 came out, but can't justify the cost of that lens, and not looking like my other lenses, a white one would be hard to sneak into the house!

same here. I feel there is a gap in the midrange.

I wish OM Systems would release a lens in the range 50-200 or 70-250, f4, possibly stabilized, of similar quality to the 40-150, f4.

 

[jerseyinHK]

I bought a 75-300 a few months ago to go with a 12-40/2.8 that I use for a travel kit. While I find it is a great lens in there is adequate light and the reach is excellent, the lens falls over in low light. I am considering selling it and getting a 40-150/2.8.

I am thinking the better IQ of the 40-150 can be cropped to give similar results to the 75-300.

Does anyone else travel with the 40-150/2.8 and/or the 75-300 and can share your experience?

JerseyinHK,

As a travel lens, I would not recommend you get the 40-150/2.8.

It's an outstanding lens, to be sure, but it’s big. Too big for me as a recreational travel lens, although others may be willing to carry any amount of gear to have all their bases covered. If you feel you are willing to carry it, good for you. But there is an alternative.

Since you are saying the 75-300 is too slow, especially in the evening, that is very fair, and you feel the 12-40 is too short sometimes, but the 40-150 range is a good complement.

So I suggest you consider the 40-150 f4 Pro.

It will give you the same shutter speed throughout its range, just 1 stop slower than the 12-40/2.8, and yet considerably faster than the 75-300. It is also nice and compact, about the same size as your 12-40, and exactly the same weight.

It’s half the size and half the weight of the 40-150/2.8. And quite a lot cheaper.

If you want to do low-light sports, of course the 40-150/2.8 can’t be beat. But are you willing to lug around something that size and weight just for those unusual circumstances?

When you’re traveling recreationally (as opposed to being on a photo excursion) the number one priority is that you enjoy yourself. I think that not being overly burdened with gear helps with that.

I'm not going to claim it’s as good optically as the 40-150/2.8, but it is much more appropriately sized for recreational travel. It’s a compromise lens, which is not necessary a bad thing. Speed costs, and you’ll pay for that 1 stop in size, weight, and cash. The f4 version gives you a much smaller, lighter, cheaper lens at the cost of 1 stop.

If you feel it's too much of a compromise, there's also the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4, which is in between the two in size and weight, gives you a bit more reach, and is priced about the same as the 40-150/2.8

Think about what your priority is for travel use.

Just something to consider. I hope this helps.

Thanks for the perspective...losing one stop and some on the long end is not a deal breaker. The 40-150 F4 might be the right ticket.

When I know I have something where IQ is REALLY important, I carry a GFX with a specific lens. This is more for travel and weight is more or less important.

 

[zotynimon]

Typically on a trip, the 12-40 is on the camera when walking around for street photography. Whenever we do some kind of event, the 75-300 comes out, so it is not a typical 'carry everywhere' when travel lens.

I only occasionally go to 300mm, but on just about every trip take a few shots. I nearly always take a few street shots in the 150-300mm range to convey urban density, and a few portraits at those lengths to show people 'in their own head space', disconnected from the chaos around them. These are seldom cornerstone shots for a series. They are, however, key to the story by setting the location and atmosphere.

As an example, a few weeks ago in Thailand. The biggest use of the 75-300 was when we went to see the Muay Thai fights. The 12-40 was good for the environment, and the 70-300 was good for close up action shots to capture the fighter's expressions. Low light, fast shutter speeds, and high iso....so lots of grain. Other shots from the long lens were to compress the streets, and a few of people who have clearly made some 'questionable decisions' they were regretting. Nearly all these shots were from golden hour until late int he evening. The biggest limitation is shooting at 6400 or above...hence looking for a bit more speed on the lens.

Based on your usage while traveling I will make a different suggestion. Try some AI denoise software on your high ISO shots. You may be very pleasantly surprised. It would allow to you to keep using the relatively small, light 75-300mm for travel.

DxO PureRaw and PhotoLab are said to be the best and are usually there are Black Friday sales. DxO also has builtin lens profiles that make the optical quality and sharpness better. Almost like shooting with a better lens. There are probably free trials to try on some of your existing high ISO shots.

If you already use Lightroom then it also has AI denoise built in.

 

[john isaacs]

Lately feeling the need for a more midrange, fast, stabilized lens. Admittedly, I was happy w what I had until the 50-200/2.8 came out, but can't justify the cost of that lens, and not looking like my other lenses, a white one would be hard to sneak into the house!

same here. I feel there is a gap in the midrange.

I wish OM Systems would release a lens in the range 50-200 or 70-250, f4, possibly stabilized, of similar quality to the 40-150, f4.

The Panasonic 50-200/2.8-4 is the lens that travels well and covers the gap.

 

[jerseyinHK]

Typically on a trip, the 12-40 is on the camera when walking around for street photography. Whenever we do some kind of event, the 75-300 comes out, so it is not a typical 'carry everywhere' when travel lens.

I only occasionally go to 300mm, but on just about every trip take a few shots. I nearly always take a few street shots in the 150-300mm range to convey urban density, and a few portraits at those lengths to show people 'in their own head space', disconnected from the chaos around them. These are seldom cornerstone shots for a series. They are, however, key to the story by setting the location and atmosphere.

As an example, a few weeks ago in Thailand. The biggest use of the 75-300 was when we went to see the Muay Thai fights. The 12-40 was good for the environment, and the 70-300 was good for close up action shots to capture the fighter's expressions. Low light, fast shutter speeds, and high iso....so lots of grain. Other shots from the long lens were to compress the streets, and a few of people who have clearly made some 'questionable decisions' they were regretting. Nearly all these shots were from golden hour until late int he evening. The biggest limitation is shooting at 6400 or above...hence looking for a bit more speed on the lens.

Based on your usage while traveling I will make a different suggestion. Try some AI denoise software on your high ISO shots. You may be very pleasantly surprised. It would allow to you to keep using the relatively small, light 75-300mm for travel.

DxO PureRaw and PhotoLab are said to be the best and are usually there are Black Friday sales. DxO also has builtin lens profiles that make the optical quality and sharpness better. Almost like shooting with a better lens. There are probably free trials to try on some of your existing high ISO shots.

If you already use Lightroom then it also has AI denoise built in.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have been using Topaz denoise and sharpen with good results, although they are a bit older. I do find printing at A3 or A2, and it is noticeable.

 

[kai0815]

Lately feeling the need for a more midrange, fast, stabilized lens. Admittedly, I was happy w what I had until the 50-200/2.8 came out, but can't justify the cost of that lens, and not looking like my other lenses, a white one would be hard to sneak into the house!

same here. I feel there is a gap in the midrange.

I wish OM Systems would release a lens in the range 50-200 or 70-250, f4, possibly stabilized, of similar quality to the 40-150, f4.

The Panasonic 50-200/2.8-4 is the lens that travels well and covers the gap.

True.

Owning (and loving the Pana 35-100/2.8), I would prefer a little bit more reach. Also if coming from OM Systems it would allow for dual stabilization.

 

[imrryr38]

The 40/1450 F:2.8 is insane....

i was not interested at first beacause of it's size..

i mainly do travel and portrait photography, so, the 40-150 f4 was more my goal.

but an opportunity was so good in price that i make the jump.

i've forgot all my objections and arguments against it !

super sharp, and a fast and reliable autofocus...it overkill my 25 and 45mm pro 1.2 because of it's precision and speed to achieve the AF ( OM1mk2 and OM5mk3)

only one cons: the bokeh can be too harsh with specular highlights and vertical straight lines ...but i learned to deal with and the results are reliable and strong.


a killer of a lens for what i do ...portraits and travel.

i have full confidence for the results with this lens.

 

[plantdoc]

Ditto on the 75-250mm F4 Pro to complete the excellent series of F4 Pro lenses for us who can live without 2.8 bulk, weight and expense. Also, not white.

Greg

 

[zotynimon]

Based on your usage while traveling I will make a different suggestion. Try some AI denoise software on your high ISO shots. You may be very pleasantly surprised. It would allow to you to keep using the relatively small, light 75-300mm for travel.

DxO PureRaw and PhotoLab are said to be the best and are usually there are Black Friday sales. DxO also has builtin lens profiles that make the optical quality and sharpness better. Almost like shooting with a better lens. There are probably free trials to try on some of your existing high ISO shots.

If you already use Lightroom then it also has AI denoise built in.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have been using Topaz denoise and sharpen with good results, although they are a bit older. I do find printing at A3 or A2, and it is noticeable.

From what I have read and seen over the years almost everyone says that DxO does a much better job of denoise than the old Topaz products. Also, DxO has the special lens profiles.

 

[Kevin Stephens]

I sold my Panasonic 100-400 after getting a good used deal on a used 300m f4 with both teleconverters. I’m so pleased with the upgrade, but I’m missing shots in the 100-300 range. As I have both teleconverters the 40-150 f2.8 pro seems to be a more cost effective way to close this gap; much cheaper than the new Little White 50-200 f2.8 pro? Would the image quality of the 40-150 f2.8 pro with 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverters significantly surpass the Panasonic and OM 10-400 lenses? But I assume not quite up to the 300mm f4 pro or the Little White?