Lenses and slightly different coverage

[waltonksm]

I have been very close to purchasing TWO lenses: the Olympus TC 1.4x, and the 40-150 F2.8.  I own the Olympus 100-400mm zoom, and I also own the 50-200 with 1.4x TC, and the adapter to mount this 4/3 on to a MFT mount. The 40-150 f2.8  gets wonderful reviews.

 

But how does it compare to using the 50-200 4/3 lens adapted to fit on a current MFT body? And is getting a 1.4 x TC and the "new" focal length for my 50-200 is 70-280mm. Has anyone tested/compared these two lenses? The 50-200 is a very sharp lens; will the 40-150 f2.8 be as sharp, or sharper?

 

And can you really make use of the 1.4 TC on the 100-400?  I do not need the 1.4 TC for the lower range lens; but can you really shoot at 560mm or more (equivalent to over 1000mm full frame 35mm??)

[Dallas]

I tried the 40-150/2.8 and 1.4x TC on a number of occasions. In short it doesn’t measure up to the older 50-200mm with it’s 1.4x TC. The bokeh on the new lens is not pleasing so if you intend using it as a subject isolating lens it doesn’t do a good job of that at all. Also, I found that when shooting subjects at about 20-30m distance it seems to not be as sharp as it is when shooting closer subjects. 

 

That said I think this lens would be a great asset in my studio set up because of its close focusing ability and very good sharpness at closer focusing distances. I would have bought it if it was cheaper, but I got a used Panasonic 35-100/2.8 instead. 

[danielm]

10 hours ago, Dallas said:

That said I think this lens would be a great asset in my studio set up because of its close focusing ability and very good sharpness at closer focusing distances. I would have bought it if it was cheaper, but I got a used Panasonic 35-100/2.8 instead. 

Olympus OM-D E-M5 II & OM-D E-M1 II / M.Zuiko 40-150mm F2.8 Pro 😉!

[waltonksm]

Dallas:

I am not doing any studio work, so the close focusing comparison is of little advantage to me now.  I also have that wonderful 35-100 4/3 zoom lens.  It is really a beast to deal with; so I have used it very little since I first purchased it.  Traveling with the 50-200, or the 35-100 requires a lot of extra space. Traveling with both of them would be a real hassle. They weigh a ton!

Danielm,

Your images are fantastic. There is certainly little to complain about when viewing them.  And the bokeh is really nice in both of your images. But I think I need to spend more time with what I have before I spring for more glass. At least for now, I can not see any advantage to having these other lenses.

 

And I particularly like the small figure.  It has wonderful detail.   And thank you both for responding.  Walton

 

 

[Dallas]

I did a review of that lens here, Walton: 

 

 

The 40-150/2.8 is a LOT bigger than the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, so if you don't want additional bulk then the Olympus lens is definitely not going to ring your bell. 

 

 

[danielm]

7 hours ago, waltonksm said:

Danielm,

Your images are fantastic. There is certainly little to complain about when viewing them.  And the bokeh is really nice in both of your images. But I think I need to spend more time with what I have before I spring for more glass. At least for now, I can not see any advantage to having these other lenses.

Thank you for your nice comment.
It is true to mention about the large size and the heavy weight of the Olympus M.Zuiko ED 50-140mm F2.8 Pro. On the other side I have really appreciated the tripod accessory ring that allows quick and precise switch between horizontal and vertical framing. Since I am not involved anymore in action photography, I have decided not keeping the zoom lens especially considering its dimensions. But for its image quality, it stays an above average tool.
Happy New Year 2023!