Olympus 75mm f1.8 or 40-150mm 2.8

[mugge]

I can not afford both. The 75mm is brilliant and with a tele converter very nice.
I am confused as I do like the 75mm lens. I need some serious help.

[JR1]

What I don't understand is why anyone would want a set/prime these days

I bet you could afford both if you looked for quality pre owned

[John 2]

Mugge, the prime gives you an extra half a stop and would undoubtedly give you slightly better quality although modern zoom lenses are very good over most of their range. My choice would be based on the sort of photography I intended to use it for. As a medium telephoto, the 75 mm has more limited application. Its not long enough for wild life and it is too long for comfortable general use. It would probably be an acceptable portrait lens though. The Zoom on the other hand is much more flexible in this respect and if you are an opportunistic photographer as I tend to be, this would be the better bet. Although quality would perhaps not be up to the prime's standard, being an Olympus lens, it will be more than acceptable. Hope this helps.

[Shadowman]

Which focal length do you normally shoot at? That will be at least one way of narrowing the decision. Also, what other lenses do you currently have and what's your hurry in selecting a new lens?

[Venser]

I own the 75mm and have the 40-150 on pre-order.
Of all the lenses I own, I would consider the 75mm to be the sharpest of the bunch, constantly producing solid images (assuming I did everything else right first).

As the 40-150 isn't out yet, I can only speculate. The reason I plan on owning both is I shoot a lot of track and field where the zoom will come in handy since I'm not able to move around all that much. When I had my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, I found that maximum aperture was more than sufficient, so I don't anticipate any problems using the new Olympus lens.

Without actually testing the new Olympus, it's just a matter of speculation for any other recommendations in this regard.

[dubaiphil]

What I don't understand is why anyone would want a set/prime these days

I'm not going to rise to the bait, Jeremy! C'mon though, you seriously don't understand....?!?!?!?

[dem]

The 75 mm one is probably a tad sharper and it is more than a stop faster (there is one stop between f/2.0 and f/2.8) + with f/1.8 aperture you'll get noticeably better subject/background separation. Are you a big bokeh fan?

Note that a 75 mm lens on the M43 sensor gives 150 mm full frame equivalent focal length. I'd find 150 mm already a bit too long for portraits (use it for macro work?).

I much prefer the 80-300 mm ff eq range offered by the other lens. This one sounds like a sensible addition to the kit lens, i.e. the standard two lens solution many people go for.

But if you are already in love with the 75 mm, you probably don't want to be sensible

[mugge]

Which focal length do you normally shoot at? That will be at least one way of narrowing the decision. Also, what other lenses do you currently have and what's your hurry in selecting a new lens?

I tend to use the 20-40mm 1.8, but after having the use of a fixed lens such as the 75mm I actually need to think about what I am doing.

[mugge]

Why own the two lenses? How would you use the 75mm after purchasing the 40-150 lens?

[Shadowman]

I tend to use the 20-40mm 1.8, but after having the use of a fixed lens such as the 75mm I actually need to think about what I am doing.

I have an 85mm 1.8 and love to use the lens but realize I often need more or less reach and couldn't/wouldn't want to be out in the field with only one lens. I can function but there are always those moments that make you wish you had lens variability. So for me, an all-in-one or multiple lenses is how I travel.

[Venser]

Why own the two lenses? How would you use the 75mm after purchasing the 40-150 lens?

Aside from the obvious:
- size
- 4/3 stops faster
I guess there isn't much else. Without the lens I can't compare IQ or anything along those lines.

If I wanted to be compact in an outing and didn't anticipate the need for the reach offered from the 40-150mm, I'd simply bring the 75mm and call it a day.

[JR1]

I'm not going to rise to the bait, Jeremy! C'mon though, you seriously don't understand....?!?!?!?

The only prime I have is a 30 year old f2 Nikon on my Nikon F Photomic Ftn, and the fisheye as obviously you can't get zoom fisheye lenses

Primes, why

Zooms (quality ones) as I have do all that is needed as far as I am concerned, I do not believe ANYONE in day to day working/living could ever tell the difference between a shot taken on/with a prime and a zoom

[JR1]

Why own the two lenses? How would you use the 75mm after purchasing the 40-150 lens?

100% agree

[Venser]

Zooms (quality ones) as I have do all that is needed as far as I am concerned, I do not believe ANYONE in day to day working/living could ever tell the difference between a shot taken on/with a prime and a zoom

In portraiture you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between a photo, shot decently close, with someone using the 70-200mm f/2.8 wide open @ 85mm and another using the 85mm f/1.4 wide open?

If you're talking about sharpness or aberrations I'll completely agree if we're talking about professional lenses. The minute you start talking about DOF, you're most definitely wrong.

[ajohnw]

When you get to very long focal lengths a prime generally will give noticeably better performance so the only question really is just how good the 40-150mm will be. As the current but rather slow 40-150mm isn't by any means bad I'd expect the F2.8 version to be brilliant and doubt if Olympus would put anything else out. From my point of view I would rather have seen a light weight semi pro 40-150mm F4.

For portrait work I would use the 45mm F1.8. It also has excellent bokeh. Olympus's pet UK pro recommends the 60mm F2.8 macro for this. That has good bokeh too and has the advantage that it's semi pro - splash proof. He might just do this to increase Oly's sales figures though.

I saw mention of a converter - as far as I am aware Olympus currently do not make any m 4/3 converters? I have seen one for use with the 40-150mm in a pro's trial review but can't find any info on the web which suggests it will come but when?

John
-

[Venser]

... so the only question really is just how good the 40-150mm will be.

Sample images from:
Frank Ruckert
Robin Wong

[dubaiphil]

Zooms (quality ones) as I have do all that is needed as far as I am concerned

"As far as I am concerned" - you hit the nail on the head there - your opinion, based on what and how you shoot. So it's a little presumptive to steer a fellow poster away from a prime lens without knowing what or how he/she shoots.

Isn't it? Really?

I'm not going to get on the subject of why I use primes (sometimes instead of, sometimes supplementing my zooms (quality ones, as well)). They have advantages and disadvantages creatively and for image quality which some people may or may not see or understand, but it's a fact.

Need a shot - got a pro zoom on board, need shutter speed. Oops, I'm wide open on a pro zoom at f2.8 and I can either shoot at ISO12800 to freeze motion or quadruple my shutter speed and get motion blur. Oh wait a minute, if I've got an f1.4 then I'm only at ISO3200 - just one little example....

So to chime in as the 'first responder' to this thread with such a comment is a bit naughty.

Just my 2 cents...

[inkista]

Aside from the obvious:
- size...

To put it mildly.

A lot of folks get into mirrorless to go small and light. And, after all, only one of them is going to be really good at shooting at f/2. This is pretty much just the 70-200/2.8L vs. the 135L argument all over again. Chacun à son goût.

[ajohnw]

To put it mildly.

A lot of folks get into mirrorless to go small and light. And, after all, only one of them is going to be really good at shooting at f/2. This is pretty much just the 70-200/2.8L vs. the 135L argument all over again. Chacun à son goût.

Love that link Kathy. It illustrates what bugs me perfectly - size and weight - but as I see it F2.8 is a mistake. Basically the lens will be a similar size and weight to any 40-150mm F2.8 lens for any format. The only thing it's really lighter than is an 80-300mm F2.8. or a 53-200mm F2.8 crop lens. If they had made it an F4 that really would reduce the size and weight for just a 1 stop reduction in aperture - depth of field - not worth commenting about. If that is really wanted go full frame as there is the 2 stop loss over full frame anyway and 1 extra is irrelevant as is 1 stop in other respects.

John
-.

[Georgelee]

Hi, I own the 75mm 1:8 and use mostly for portraits and some sports. Its the least used lens in my bag, the 12-40 2.8 being my go to lens. It is my favourite lens to use and I love the fact it is compact and weighs little compared to a zoom such as the 40-150 2.8 and is easy to keep handy in my bag. I love the results too. I could be tempted at the latter but I cannot justify ownership in terms of my personal requirements but I am sure many will and will be highly satisfied.

Best wishes