Micro 4/3 40-150 Lenses

[BradSmith]

After years of shooting Canon APS-c, six months ago I purchased an Olympus E-M1 with the Oly 12-40 f2.8 PRO.  The lens is really impressive.  I love it.

I wanted a longer lens and have been tempted to go for the 40-150 PRO, but the cost, size and weight have given me pause.  I've wondered just how good (or bad) the really inexpensive Oly 40-150 f 4-5.6R is.  It has always been really inexpensive, but recently, Oly has slashed the price in half to only $99 US.  That's right.  Only $99.    It was too good a price to pass up giving it a try.  I've purchased and tested it, head to head, with the 12-40 PRO at 40mm.   Maybe I received the best copy they've ever produced, but my copy is extremely competitive with the 12-40 PRO at 40mm!  At 1:1 pixel peeping, with no adjustments except equal clarify and sharpening (my standard import settings in LR), the 12-40 PRO is only very slightly sharper at equal apertures.  But they are virtually identical if I stop the 40-150 down one more stop.  Ie, 12-40 @ 5.6 = 40-150 @ 8.   I've also tested it at 70mm and 150mm.  Very pleased with these results also.   Minor vignetting wide open, gone one stop down. Very minor CA, only visible in some images, not in others.  LR easily deals with both issues.

Yes, it is light, "plasticy" construction that doesn't feel anywhere near as substantial as the PRO lens, but my, oh my, it is only $99!  Easily the best value of any lens I've ever owned. 
Brad

[Mjollnir]

Yup.

Between 70-110mm at 5.6, it's as sharp a lens as there if for the system.

The BIG difference for me between it and the PRO is that the PRO is sharp everywhere, can do great near macro and is weathersealed.

[BradSmith]

I'm sure the PRO lens has some advantages as you described.  But the cost disparity, with the PRO costing  13 times as much, is stunning.  (and for me, the smaller size and greatly reduced weight is a plus to the f4-5.6 R lens)
Brad

[b_rubenstein]

I've had the 40-150 and it is optically very good. The drawbacks compared to the pro lens are AF speed and small maximum aperture. The pro lenses have much more powerful AF motors and can focus the lens faster. The small aperture in anything other than good light to have to use higher ISO settings, or use a tripod. Due to the size and weight of the Olympus 40-150 pro lens, I bought the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 lens, which is an excellent lens that's around half the size and weight of the Olympus lens.

[Mousecop]

I concur that the slower 40-150mm is surprisingly good, within certain ranges -- e.g. stopped down a little, and not at the extreme tele range.

With the Pro lens, you're paying for things like the faster aperture, more consistent image quality, weather sealing, robustness, etc.  I also suspect the faster 40-150 or any of the good 45mm lenses are better for portraits, due to the shallower DoF.

I rarely use telephoto ranges, so for me the slower lens was a no-brainer.