Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2016, 7:15 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default 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
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 27, 2016, 9:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 294
Default

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.

Last edited by BBbuilder467; Nov 27, 2016 at 9:28 PM.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 11:39 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

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
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 1:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor View Post
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
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 1:52 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

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
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2016, 5:54 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor View Post
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.

Last edited by Steven R; Nov 28, 2016 at 6:03 PM.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 9:07 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
folob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 855
Default Just to make sure

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor View Post
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,
__________________
Portfolio: http://agilephotography.deviantart.com/

Gears: OM-D E-M5 Mark II and E-M1 MK 1 with 14-150mm Mark II, 12-40mm f2.8, 15mm f8 cap lens, 60mm Macro, 75-300mm, Olympus Trinity -> 25/45/75mm f1.8. On the 4/3 side: 9-18mm and 50-200SWD with the MMF-2 4/3 adapter, FL-36R and FL-50. Also Rokinon mFT 7.5mm f3.5 Fisheye, Pentax 50mm f1.7 with K to m4/3 adapter, Olympus OM 200mm with OM to m4/3 adapter.
folob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 11:11 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor View Post
...
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.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 11:17 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7
Default

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!!
scbwr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2016, 12:30 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
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.
SammyKhalifa is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:32 AM.