Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus Micro Four Thirds (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/)
-   -   What's the difference (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds/224801-whats-difference.html)

FaithfulPastor Nov 27, 2016 8:15 PM

What's the difference
 
Hello,

Last year, I purchased an Olympus 4/3rds camera for my wife. She has an excellent lens for indoor shooting. However, she would like a telephoto lens.

I tried to steer her towards a pro-level lens, but the weight of the quality lens is a bit too much for her to lug around when we travel. So, having lost that argument several times, I now have a question that I haven't be able to find an answer for. Therefore I turn to the experts at Steve's.

There's a $300 difference between these two lenses and I don't know why.
Can you shed some light on that question?

Lens #1 - Olympus 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6 II Lens for Micro Four Thirds Cameras (Black) $399.00

Lens #2 - Olympus M. 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 R Zoom Lens $99

The prices quoted are from the same retailer.

Thank you so much for your insights

Faithfully Yours,
The FaithfulPastor

BBbuilder467 Nov 27, 2016 10:21 PM

A 14-150 and 40-150 are two entirely different lenses.

Didn't you notice the difference at the wide end?

The 14-150 would be like having two lenses in one.

FaithfulPastor Nov 28, 2016 12:39 PM

Hi BBuilder;

Thanks for your reply.

I did notice the difference of 14 vs. 40, but I didn't think that was worth the $300 difference in price.

Currently she already has the M.ZUIKO ED 12-40MM F2.8 PRO, so we're not looking heavily at the wide end, it's the 40mm and above that we're trying to figure out.

That's why a 40 to 150 and 14 to 150 are sort of the same lens. If we're shooting below 40mm, then we're probably swapping lenses.

Hope that makes some sense.

Again, thanks for your help.

Michael

Ozzie_Traveller Nov 28, 2016 2:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor (Post 1409204)
Hi BBuilder;
Thanks for your reply.

I did notice the difference of 14 vs. 40, but I didn't think that was worth the $300 difference in price.

Currently she already has the M.ZUIKO ED 12-40MM F2.8 PRO, so we're not looking heavily at the wide end, it's the 40mm and above that we're trying to figure out.

That's why a 40 to 150 and 14 to 150 are sort of the same lens. If we're shooting below 40mm, then we're probably swapping lenses.

Hope that makes some sense.
Again, thanks for your help.

Michael

G'day mate

If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, maybe the Panny 45-200 could be of interest ... let it follow on from the existing 12-40 and it still gives her heaps of 'long' lens capabilities

Phil

FaithfulPastor Nov 28, 2016 2:52 PM

I'm familiar with Canon lenses for a DSLR. With Canon, a lens that has the letter L in is means it's their pro-series, not their consumer series lens.

Is the M, as in M.Zuiko similar to the L for Canon?

Michael

Steven R Nov 28, 2016 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor (Post 1409208)
I'm familiar with Canon lenses for a DSLR. With Canon, a lens that has the letter L in is means it's their pro-series, not their consumer series lens.

Is the M, as in M.Zuiko similar to the L for Canon?

Michael

The M in "m.Zuiko" means the the lens only fits the micro 4/3 cameras and will not fit the original 4/3 dslr models. But the original 4/3 lens will fit the m4/3 cameras with an adapter, however they will only focus fast with the OMD-OM1 models. On the other m4/3 models the focus will be much slower.

I use the Oly E-3 which is an older 4/3 model and use the Zuiko 12-60mm for most of my regular shots and the Zuiko 50-200mm for telephoto. The range of those two lens covers 99% of my shots, and they are both outstanding lens. You may consider the m.Zuiko 12-40mm the closest equivalent to that 12-60 in the m4/3 lineup.

folob Nov 29, 2016 10:07 AM

Just to make sure
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor (Post 1409191)
Hello,

Last year, I purchased an Olympus 4/3rds camera for my wife. She has an excellent lens for indoor shooting. However, she would like a telephoto lens.

I tried to steer her towards a pro-level lens, but the weight of the quality lens is a bit too much for her to lug around when we travel. So, having lost that argument several times, I now have a question that I haven't be able to find an answer for. Therefore I turn to the experts at Steve's.

There's a $300 difference between these two lenses and I don't know why.
Can you shed some light on that question?

Lens #1 - Olympus 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6 II Lens for Micro Four Thirds Cameras (Black) $399.00

Lens #2 - Olympus M. 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 R Zoom Lens $99

The prices quoted are from the same retailer.

Thank you so much for your insights

Faithfully Yours,
The FaithfulPastor


Hi,

Can you let us know which camera you bought? You are mentioning "Olympus 4/3rds" ... not "Olympus Micro 4/3rds".

Olympus 4/3rds will be E5, E-3, E-30, E-620, E-5XX, E-4XX or even older.

Olympus Micro 4/3rds will be E-PL1/2/... or E-P1/2/..., or OM-D ...

Regards,

ramcewan Nov 29, 2016 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor (Post 1409191)
...
There's a $300 difference between these two lenses and I don't know why.
Can you shed some light on that question?

Lens #1 - Olympus 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6 II Lens for Micro Four Thirds Cameras (Black) $399.00

Lens #2 - Olympus M. 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 R Zoom Lens $99

Other than the difference in focal length that has already been pointed out it's worth noting that the 14-150mm mark II is weather sealed and constructed of higher quality materials like the 12-40mm f2.8 she already has. The 40-150mm is not weather sealed and mostly plastic in construction.

If her camera body is weather sealed (E-M5, E-M1, E-M5 II and E-M1 II) this would make a big difference.

Not to say the 40-150mm is a bad lens, although I don't own one everything I have seen from it shows it to be rather sharp. Likewise the 14-150mm mark II seems to be very sharp and a capable all-in-one zoom.

scbwr Nov 29, 2016 12:17 PM

Unless your wife wants to avoid changing lenses, the 40-150mm lens for the micro 4/3 system would be the better buy. The 14-150mm lens would give you just about the same range as the 12-40 plus the 40-150, but the 12-40 Pro lens is so much better at the 12-40mm range. I have recently purchased the 12-40 and I love it. I have the 40-150 and it does a great job with certain limitations i.e. not great for low light. If she ends up with the 40-150mm lens, then she could add the 75-300mm lens and have a nice kit with one pro level lens, and two "kit" level lenses. But, that 12-40 lens has made me think about spending the bucks to get the 40-150mm Pro lens or the 300mm Pro lens!!

SammyKhalifa Nov 29, 2016 1:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramcewan (Post 1409228)
Other than the difference in focal length that has already been pointed out it's worth noting that the 14-150mm mark II is weather sealed and constructed of higher quality materials like the 12-40mm f2.8 she already has. The 40-150mm is not weather sealed and mostly plastic in construction.

If her camera body is weather sealed (E-M5, E-M1, E-M5 II and E-M1 II) this would make a big difference.

Not to say the 40-150mm is a bad lens, although I don't own one everything I have seen from it shows it to be rather sharp. Likewise the 14-150mm mark II seems to be very sharp and a capable all-in-one zoom.


From what I've read the 40-150 is one of the best bargains in the format. It's just not wide aperture, etc.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2