Zuiko 70-300 vs 40-150 Help

[BlueRob]

Ok Oly useres I want to put some money on a new zoom lens to complement my 14-42 Zuiko for my E-420.
My budget is low (thanks world economic madness) I was aiming at a cheap 40-150 (new version) but know I have doubts if I should take a deep breath an go a step further to the 70-300.
This last one is at least twice the price to its little brother. Do you think I´ll be happy with the 40-150? Or will I feel that I should have spent more for a longer range lens?.:idea:

I just want to have more reach with my Evolt, I take the camera to weekend trips, vacation and things like that...nothing fancy, but I dont want to regret the lack of zoom in the near future, so please guide me with your experiences an opinions that will be very welcomed.

Oh! BTW I have a 10% off coupon on fleabay that ends tonight so hurry up!

[Atomic2]

Well, I propose a third option.
I really like the first generation 40-150 3.5-4.5. The fast aperture makes it just that much more useful than the newer one, and you wont really care too much that its a larger lens, because a telephoto does not really need to be super compact in my opinion.

However you will regret not getting the 70-300mm, this I will say. You will love the reach of 150mm, and then want to go even further!

HOWEVER, if you do get the 70-300, I think you will find that its quite excessive, and you never actually needed more than 150mm. Also the picture is not very sharp from this lens.

I have had EVERY lens in this conversation at one point or another, and ended up keeping the 40-150mm 3.5-4.5.
I had the 70-300 for well over a year, and I counted only 4 instances where I actually got decent use out of it. And one of those times, I ended up using the 40-150 more often and more successfully anyway.

[Greg McCary]

Unlike atomic I sold my 40-150mm after getting the 70-300mm. As far as performance they are almost the same. But you do have the extra reach and yes I get out there quite often. The 70-300mm is pretty good for street work, keeping your distance from your subjects. Also the reach if you want to do nature and wildlife.

[BlueRob]

Well, I propose a third option.
I really like the first generation 40-150 3.5-4.5. The fast aperture makes it just that much more useful than the newer one, and you wont really care too much that its a larger lens, because a telephoto does not really need to be super compact in my opinion.

However you will regret not getting the 70-300mm, this I will say. You will love the reach of 150mm, and then want to go even further!

HOWEVER, if you do get the 70-300, I think you will find that its quite excessive, and you never actually needed more than 150mm. Also the picture is not very sharp from this lens.

I have had EVERY lens in this conversation at one point or another, and ended up keeping the 40-150mm 3.5-4.5.
I had the 70-300 for well over a year, and I counted only 4 instances where I actually got decent use out of it. And one of those times, I ended up using the 40-150 more often and more successfully anyway.

Thanks Atomic for that third option:thumbsup:
At the end of the road it`s a matter of taste I guess. But listening to your advice I did a quick check on side by side pics of the two versions of the 40-150. What is obvious is that the old one is a bit sharper...but what really caught my eye is that the old version delivers more appealing colors...at least for my taste, more natural and rich and with better contrast. All that plus the f3.5 makes it a winner.
Thanks for the enlightenment :aureola:

[BlueRob]

Unlike atomic I sold my 40-150mm after getting the 70-300mm. As far as performance they are almost the same. But you do have the extra reach and yes I get out there quite often. The 70-300mm is pretty good for street work, keeping your distance from your subjects. Also the reach if you want to do nature and wildlife.

Thanks Greg! Yeap that long range an quality is in fact very tempting. What scares me a little is its size...I know compared to others long range this one is compact, bu never the less I`m trying to keep my bag as light as possible.
I also read that some 70-300 users have trouble with AF...don't know if you suffer from this also.

[BlueRob]

Exploring Atomic`s third option, I started to look for an old version of the 40-150 lens....soon I was dissapointed...most of the ones been offered were the new ones...and the rest were overpriced IMO. I was then about to buy one of these new compact ones but I felt hungry..so went to grab some dinner while I watched a show on TV.
When I got back to the computer.....guess what? :ihih:
I found a newly posted 40-150 f3.5-4.5...used obviously, but it looks that is in good physical condition and excellent (according to the description) working order.

Took a deep breath and hit the button! Want to know the price payed? I`ll tell you anyway $76 US. I think the price is unbeatable.

I cant wait to have a test drive:23:

We`ll see how that new puppy fits my needs....in the meanwhile I`ll start to fill the piggy bank just in case I want to try a 70-300 in the future. :thumbsup:

[Greg McCary]

Thanks Greg! Yeap that long range an quality is in fact very tempting. What scares me a little is its size...I know compared to others long range this one is compact, bu never the less I`m trying to keep my bag as light as possible.
I also read that some 70-300 users have trouble with AF...don't know if you suffer from this also.

Yes the AF can be flaky. There are times I have to turn the camera off and back on to get it to respond. Even in good lighting. I had issues with the 40-150mm too but not as bad as the 70-300mm. The weight is not really an issue with me.

[rubeel]

I second what atomic said, 70-300 is a great lens no doubt due to the range but i feel that the first generation 40-150 is great if you are not looking for a huge range. this one works perfect as a middle point between ur 14-42 and 70-300 with a good range of aperture.

[Atomic2]

I second what atomic said, 70-300 is a great lens no doubt due to the range but i feel that the first generation 40-150 is great if you are not looking for a huge range. this one works perfect as a middle point between ur 14-42 and 70-300 with a good range of aperture.

Not to mention that because its the older generation, people assume its worse and the market price is super cheap.

[BlueRob]

Thanks chaps for all your comments! The lens is on its way...unfortunately I will have it until December when I get to visit my relatives and spend Xmass with them.
A trip to Big Bend national park is cooking after the holydays, I hope to test drive the new lens there;)

[blackxfire]

So which lens did you buy? You should still consider adding the 70-300. I miss mine terribly. Yes. lowlight is an issue.

[BlueRob]

So which lens did you buy? You should still consider adding the 70-300. I miss mine terribly. Yes. lowlight is an issue.

The 40-150 f3.5-4.5 which is the old version, the heavier, longer but with the all around better quality. Can`t be bad at all for the $76 USDls I payed
As a matter of fact...yes I`m looking for a good deal on a 70-300, but for the moment I`ll play with the 150 range and see how it goes.:thumbsup:

[BlueRob]

Not to mention that because its the older generation, people assume its worse and the market price is super cheap.

Agreed...some "old" things are better than new...now the tendency is getting everything smaller and cheaper...which is good, but sometimes the quality is compromised...which apparently is the case with this new smaller lenses.
Truth of myth...I read somewhere that the reason of the ED element in the newer version is to correct the "cheaper" construction. Sounds logic..the older one heavier and bigger didn't need the ED.

[smogu]

Could not help myself posting in this thread.
Have been using the 40-150/3.5-4.5 in my e-300
several years now. Have been happy with it.
Today I finally got the 70-300 because of obvious reasons.
It is already dark outside so no example pictures.
What can I say. The built quality seems excellent.
The lens seemed almost too tight but probably will
loosen a bit after some use. What made me buy
this lens was many positive reviews and sample pictures
in the net - and the (relatively) low price point.

[Justintoxicated]

I couldn't decide either and went for the 50-200 non SWD. Although, I rarely use it, I think it's my second sharpest lens. Sharpest being my 50mm prime, pictures are always amazing off that tiny compact lens. Might look odd on the 420 though its a beast for an Olympus