Playing With Zuiko Digital 40-150mm Lens

I've been experimenting with the Zuiko Digital 40-150mm lens for a few weeks. I probably wouldn't pay any attention to a lens like this because it's such a consumer lens - plastic lens mount, variable aperture, etc. However, it's tiny. And it's comparable to an 80-300mm lens on a 35mm camera. So I thought I'd give it a shot.

I first used it with the E-P1. Image quality seems pretty good with the E-P1, but the auto focus is, well, horrendous. I shot a little mountain biking with it and then some NASCAR pit photos a couple of weeks ago. When they're in focus, the images are nice. But focus is difficult - too difficult to bother with, I think.

So this weekend I finally put the 40-150mm on the E-620 and took it for a ride. I'm happy to say the auto focus is much more responsive with the E-620. It's still not perfect, though. In the mountain bike photo I'm posting here, I tried to focus on the flowers to the right of the trail and ended up getting the background. Since I shot a sequence, the first shot, which shouldn't have been good, was barely usable. So if I want critical focus, I now know I'll have to prefocus more carefully. For this photo I should have had Jenni stand in the trail where I wanted to take the picture so I could pre-focus.

The other three photos were taken today. I wanted to play with it some more so I could make this post. I will do some more and then I think I'll do an actual review. But after using the 40-150mm lens on the E-620 I think I like it. It's so tiny, light and inexpensive yet it offers a whole lot of reach. I wouldn't recommend trying to use it with the E-P1, though.

I've had both the 40-150 lenses at one point [at the same time actually] and decided to keep the older larger one because the aperture was a faster 3.5-4.5 instead of 4-5.6

All of these except the second one were taken wide open, so very sharp.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/...e4956066_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/...ecb4b8f8_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2341/...56fdb104_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/...0e4609e1_o.jpg

I agree John. Even though now I use the 70-300mm focusing is a pain at times. The 70-300mm is about the same or at times worse than the 40-150mm. At times I have to turn my E3 off and back on again to get the 70-300mm to focus, but when it does it really works well. Over all I am happy with the lens. Considering the price not bad at all.

Funny - I learn a lot of stuff from you, Atomic. I didn't realize that there were two versions of this lens until I read your reply. Now I know. And I'm using the slower aperture ED version.

Thanks for adding your photos. They look great. There are a couple of things left as far as testing this lens goes. I need to do a brick wall test and I need to see how the AF does in LIve View with the E-620. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the E-P1, which is terrible with the 40-150mm ED lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

Funny - I learn a lot of stuff from you, Atomic. I didn't realize that there were two versions of this lens until I read your reply. Now I know. And I'm using the slower aperture ED version.

Thanks for adding your photos. They look great. There are a couple of things left as far as testing this lens goes. I need to do a brick wall test and I need to see how the AF does in LIve View with the E-620. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the E-P1, which is terrible with the 40-150mm ED lens.

---

John - here is the older version - used at B&H for $109........

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Zuiko_EZ.html

I actually just returned the Panasonic 45-200 and ordered the 40-150 ED as a replacement - it should arrive tomorrow. Hmmmmm.....we'll see! :rolleyes:

The older version of the 40-150 is too big & heavy for me (it's heavier and larger than the 45-200)

Liz

The older 40-150 isnt very heavy at all actually, IMO. Its much lighter than the 12-60 I have so going from that, it feels weightless. Its the lightest zoom lens I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomic2

The older 40-150 isnt very heavy at all actually, IMO. Its much lighter than the 12-60 I have so going from that, it feels weightless. Its the lightest zoom lens I have.

---

Yes, I think it's all relative! I have a back problem - the reason I had to sell my Canon equipment as I couldn't carry it around for long periods of time anymore. According to B&H specs, the older version of the 40-150 weighs 15 oz and is 4.2" long......so for me personally, it's a bit too heavy.

I didn't realize the 12-60 was heavy. I've looked at quite a few of the Panasonic lenses since you don't need an adaptor for the M4/3 lenses. However, I ended up buying the 4/3 to M4/3 adapter anyway - for the 25mm/f2.8 pancake lens which I just received this afternoon (still in the box).

I look forward to seeing more of your photos from different lenses!

Liz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liz

Yes, I think it's all relative! I have a back problem - the reason I had to sell my Canon equipment as I couldn't carry it around for long periods of time anymore. According to B&H specs, the older version of the 40-150 weighs 15 oz and is 4.2" long......so for me personally, it's a bit too heavy.

I didn't realize the 12-60 was heavy. I've looked at quite a few of the Panasonic lenses since you don't need an adaptor for the M4/3 lenses. However, I ended up buying the 4/3 to M4/3 adapter anyway - for the 25mm/f2.8 pancake lens which I just received this afternoon (still in the box).

I look forward to seeing more of your photos from different lenses!

Liz

---

Well, which lens do you want to see. Right now in my arsenal are

12-60mm [actually two of these for now]
40-150mm F3.5-4.5
70-300mm
Sigma 30mm F1.4
Zenit 58mm F2
Sears [Ricoh] 55mm F1.4

Previous lenses:
14-45mm
14-42mm
40-150 F4-5.6
Hanimex 55 F1.7

But I'm selling one of the 12-60 [obviously] and the 70-300. I already have an offer for the 12-60 of $650, anyone here willing to go higher?

Have not put the 70-300 up for sale yet.

Atomic2, if it's not a rude question, why are you selling the 70-300, I've just bought one and find it goes from excellent to a pain in the etc; on occasions. Mostly I love it.. Just curious.. lang

I'm not sure if this might help, but I recently downloaded sowtware updates for both the kit lenses in the Olympus Master software.

This seems to have helped, although focus does seem to hunt a little in lower light, both of mine seem to snap into focus most of the time

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lang

Atomic2, if it's not a rude question, why are you selling the 70-300, I've just bought one and find it goes from excellent to a pain in the etc; on occasions. Mostly I love it.. Just curious.. lang

---

I hear everyone delighted with the 70-300, but personally I'm disappointed. Maybe my standards are too high, but the focus is just so frustrating. If maybe it were an SWD lens and I could have better control over the focus manually, it would be better, but the focus system it has now is very difficult to work. It should have a selector for autofocus where you can tell the AF the aprox range you're working with [like 3m-inf], Ive seen other lenses with such a selector,

Not to mention that in the year of ownership, I've only had 4 uses for it. Its just not worth keeping for me. When I have the money, I'll get a Sigma 70-200 2.8. I feel 200mm will be enough zoom, and with a sharper lens, I could then crop more. The 70-300's softness at 300mm means that even a perfectly focused image couldn't be cropped all that much.


The actual reason I bought this lens was to use it at American Lemans racing [that second picture I posted] however when I got there, the lens I ended up using MORE often was the 40-150 which I luckily brought as a backup lens. The reason I used the 40-150 more was because with C-AF that lens was always locked on for focus even with the VERY fast moving target. The 70-300 just fumbled around looking for focus the entire time. I did manage a few good photos with it when it would somehow find focus, however I was close enough with the 150mm that I didn't even really need to get any closer. This one was shot at 300mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/...ab268c46_o.jpg
And I love that photo, but its actually the only good one I got from that lens. I actually got more photos that I really like from the 12-60mm in just a few minutes of using it than I did with the 70-300 in the hour I was using it.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/...9a57f67f_o.jpg


Also heres an example of the softness at 300mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/...d248473e_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/...b6215621_o.jpg

Yes those are GREAT photos, but I can't help but think that I could probably crop to that magnification and still have a similar quality photo if I had used a sharper lens.

Really liked the pic of the racing car with the blurred background,was the camera set in manual or the sport mode
thanks