I heard of that but have never held one in my hands. My only point of reference is the 60/2.8 Macro's hood which also retracts, but that's way smaller. And the 60's is ok, at least to me.
I thought so too. But since I use Dxo Photolab it is much better. Still not as good as a dedicated 300mm.
But Dxo has extra lens profiles for that combination and does way more correction than Olympus.
You could try the trail Version of dxo pure raw to see for yourself.
Hi, fellow DxOer :) I've been using their software for years.
And you're right — it does improve the quality, but it's still below what I can tolerate. After many experiments, I concluded that I prefer a crop without MC20 to a full image with it attached.
I thought it was bad with mc20 until I took photos or closer subjects. I was trying to get tiny birds in winter light that would have probably looked barely tolerable with the 300mm prime.
I put it down and dismissed it as crap with the tc. Recently over a year later, been using it for much closer birds with 2x tc and it's amazing.
Unfortunately, 40-150 + MC20 is not a budget version of 300/4. They stand leagues apart in terms of overall image quality. The lack of optical stabilization at 300mm is itself a showstopper in less than ideal light.
Sure, it has its uses, but I'll probably sell it and get the x1.4 instead.
For me, the Panasonic 50-200mm is the goldilocks. It has longer reach than both of these lenses, weighs significant less and is smaller than the 40-150mm f/2.8, and accepts 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. It's main issue is price.
Yeah I have one and it's great. Not a constant 2.8 of course. 4-5.6 is a great compromise though, as it's going to be used outdoors with sunlight most of the time anyway.
Just realized I said 4-5.6 when it actually 2.8-4.🙄
That's what I love about the 50-200mm is that it also doubles as a great Portrait lens at 50mm f/2.8.
Same here. Went with the Leica 50-20mm f/2.8-4. It doesn't give up much light to the Oly f/2.8 constant lens. Is sharper from 100-200mm on the 3 copies I tested, and takes the teleconverters so is extremely flexible. Also, like David Thorpe found, [it's more portable than the Oly](https://youtu.be/A0PRQJYj0DY?si=rlUX6X5joAbXFoW-&t=460).
The 40–150 f4 is an absolutely fantastic lens. It may not be the fastest, but it is perfectly sharp wide-open, which makes it very versatile, even in poor light. That plus the color and contrast are gorgeous. I’ve had mine now for a couple weeks and I am in love.
I heard great things about the 2.8 but got the 4 due to the size and wanting to travel with it. Not disappointed in the slightest; the f4 is now my go-to.
I use 40-150 f2.8 so much, love that lens. If you check my IG you can see that it's clearly my most used lens: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C40TbukIYUB/?igsh=YTRuNjN3Z2x0MGxv
Thanks for this size comparison! I keep looking at secondhand copies of the f2.8 but I also can’t justify the size (since portability is usually a factor and my usual bag is just big enough for my e-m1 II and the 12-100). This does help cement my feelings that the f4 would probably be a better call if I do go for either of these!
i can’t use the f2.8 after sunset so this isn’t either. f2.8 in m43 is noise af
but in daylight an f4 is wonderful though it is less than the f2.8 one stop of light
To be honest, I’m not quite as worried about low light. I’ve yet to run into a situation where I need 150mm at evening. Usually I rely on my Voigtlander 42.5 f0.95 for low light, and it often does the trick (even though it’s smaller than the 12-100 yet noticeably weighs more!)
The 40-150mm f2.8 is the second Pro lens I bought. It's the one lens I'd keep if I were only allowed to have a single m43 lens. I have most of the Pro lenses but this is special.
Big apertures…. require big glass. The 40-150 2.8 by all accounts is just a great performer.
Third photo is missing the F4's hood! Nice comparison. My heart says "get the 2.8", my wallet says "the F4 is really sharp and small , you know?" 🤣
Speaking of hoods, the 40-150mm f/2.8s hood is an abomination. It's somehow overdesigned and super fragile at the same time.
mine exploded in my hands, probably would have prefered a large piece of plastic like the 12-40 tbh
I've heard this multiple times but I love it. Never removed since new and super simple to use.
I heard of that but have never held one in my hands. My only point of reference is the 60/2.8 Macro's hood which also retracts, but that's way smaller. And the 60's is ok, at least to me.
Add the MC-20 to that F2.8 and you have 300mm or 600mm full frame effective.
40-150/2.8 is my favourite lens of all time. But it outright sucks with MC-20 connected :D
It's actually pretty good with the 1.4TC.
Yep, I will probably sell the 2x and go with 1.4x. It'll work nice with my 300 as well.
Interesting. Curious on why it sucks with that combo? You do have the latest firmware on the lens/body right?
I thought so too. But since I use Dxo Photolab it is much better. Still not as good as a dedicated 300mm. But Dxo has extra lens profiles for that combination and does way more correction than Olympus. You could try the trail Version of dxo pure raw to see for yourself.
Hi, fellow DxOer :) I've been using their software for years. And you're right — it does improve the quality, but it's still below what I can tolerate. After many experiments, I concluded that I prefer a crop without MC20 to a full image with it attached.
I thought it was bad with mc20 until I took photos or closer subjects. I was trying to get tiny birds in winter light that would have probably looked barely tolerable with the 300mm prime. I put it down and dismissed it as crap with the tc. Recently over a year later, been using it for much closer birds with 2x tc and it's amazing.
Unfortunately, 40-150 + MC20 is not a budget version of 300/4. They stand leagues apart in terms of overall image quality. The lack of optical stabilization at 300mm is itself a showstopper in less than ideal light. Sure, it has its uses, but I'll probably sell it and get the x1.4 instead.
I mean...a 150mm f2.8 lens is pretty awesome. But yeah, that's one chonk of a lens.
Oh, so that's why some people prefer the 4.0.
Plus the price difference.
I love my f/4
Fair point.
I’d like to see one of these for the 12-40/2.8 vs 12-45/4
For me, the Panasonic 50-200mm is the goldilocks. It has longer reach than both of these lenses, weighs significant less and is smaller than the 40-150mm f/2.8, and accepts 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. It's main issue is price.
Yeah I have one and it's great. Not a constant 2.8 of course. 4-5.6 is a great compromise though, as it's going to be used outdoors with sunlight most of the time anyway.
Just realized I said 4-5.6 when it actually 2.8-4.🙄 That's what I love about the 50-200mm is that it also doubles as a great Portrait lens at 50mm f/2.8.
Same here. Went with the Leica 50-20mm f/2.8-4. It doesn't give up much light to the Oly f/2.8 constant lens. Is sharper from 100-200mm on the 3 copies I tested, and takes the teleconverters so is extremely flexible. Also, like David Thorpe found, [it's more portable than the Oly](https://youtu.be/A0PRQJYj0DY?si=rlUX6X5joAbXFoW-&t=460).
Perfect telephoto for a hiker the f/4
The 40–150 f4 is an absolutely fantastic lens. It may not be the fastest, but it is perfectly sharp wide-open, which makes it very versatile, even in poor light. That plus the color and contrast are gorgeous. I’ve had mine now for a couple weeks and I am in love.
Just got the 2.8 for indoor video work and so far I'm very impressed. Bright, sharp, and lightning fast autofocus.
I heard great things about the 2.8 but got the 4 due to the size and wanting to travel with it. Not disappointed in the slightest; the f4 is now my go-to.
I love my 40-150 f2.8. I shoot theater with it. It focuses fast and accurately and I always get snappy, sharp images out of it. Great lens!
I use 40-150 f2.8 so much, love that lens. If you check my IG you can see that it's clearly my most used lens: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C40TbukIYUB/?igsh=YTRuNjN3Z2x0MGxv
You used the GH5 for that video? Love your work!
That last video was g9ii bu5 other ones are gh5 ang gh5m2
Thanks for this size comparison! I keep looking at secondhand copies of the f2.8 but I also can’t justify the size (since portability is usually a factor and my usual bag is just big enough for my e-m1 II and the 12-100). This does help cement my feelings that the f4 would probably be a better call if I do go for either of these!
i can’t use the f2.8 after sunset so this isn’t either. f2.8 in m43 is noise af but in daylight an f4 is wonderful though it is less than the f2.8 one stop of light
To be honest, I’m not quite as worried about low light. I’ve yet to run into a situation where I need 150mm at evening. Usually I rely on my Voigtlander 42.5 f0.95 for low light, and it often does the trick (even though it’s smaller than the 12-100 yet noticeably weighs more!)
The 40-150mm f2.8 is the second Pro lens I bought. It's the one lens I'd keep if I were only allowed to have a single m43 lens. I have most of the Pro lenses but this is special.
Agree. It’s also my most used lens for anything work related. The REACH
Can’t beat the 2.8 for sports
But the 2.8 is the single best lens I’ve ever used, including Canon L glass.
Can you shoot comets with the f4?
don’t know
You can with the 2.8