I must admit to a love hate relationship with my 40-150 pro.
This stems from the dual problem of buying it untried (which I don’t usually do, often purchasing when working in the industry) and some troublesome early results.
My first professional use of the lens resulted in some oddly “hazy” sunny day files and nervous Bokeh. The Bokeh was my issue, as no one else cared, but the haziness sewed a seed of doubt.
I put it down to a new lens on an older camera, sometimes missing focus combined with iffy Bokeh transition. Not a complete answer. My greatest fear is a lens with a de-centring or focal length specific issue that is hard to predict, so equally hard to control. It seems very sharp across the frame when stopped down a little and can perform well at it’s extremes (where I need it).
Subsequent images went a long way to reducing this doubt and I sold the lens confident there was nothing wrong with it and I even bought it back based on reviewing some of my old files.
The problem;
The two images above are both roughly 300% crops of the same subject at a similar angle, facing the sun at the same time of the day. The same settings (150mm at or near wide open). The distances are different and the shutter speeds are also very different (the focus point is the same). The left image falls into the normal range (1/4000) at about 10m. The right hand is 1/16000 electronic at 50m.
Maybe the electronic shutter is the issue although my first images were taken on an EM5 with normal speeds? If the issue is electronic shutter related, then the answer is easy. Don’t use it.
Two parts of the focal point of the same image, not pointing at the sun. There was a lot of smoke haze also, but nothing obvious in this image. Again a high electronic shutter speed at higher ISO.
At pixel level (medium format thumbnail?). Still sharp at a high ISO wide open and at 150mm and very clean at normal sizes.
I have replaced big hood, because i think it is either the electronic shutter or flare where the issue lies. The only reason I removed the hood was because of it’s fragile nature. I have an early one, prone to breaking.
I replaced it with a screw in metal one for a couple of reasons;
The metal one allows the lens to go nose first in a bag without retraction or removal.
The screw in one allows a polariser to be used, rotating the filter and hood together.
The metal hood is smaller helping the lens fit (on camera) into a couple of bags, that the retractable one is either too fat for or needs a cap also and makes the lens look a little less obvious.
The solution for now is to leave the metal one on for the robustness it offers and the retractable one also, which fits around the outside. The metal one allows safe storage, it reinforces the plastic Olympus one and gives me the option of removing the bigger one if needed without any fuss.
The third variable is distance. Most of the poor images are of subjects at over 50 meters. This is a real issue if it is the problem , because I bought the lens to do field sports.
Again wide open at 150mm and almost pixel level (400%+). The subject is a chimney two houses down the road. Contrasty and sharp enough to max out 13x19” print’s resolution and a good distance for sports.
Of course, longer distances may have atmospheric considerations.
More testing required.
Ok…..back from some quick tests.
The reference image left, then a processed RAW, then a LSF jpeg just for comparison. The Raw file has more fine detail, but the jpeg looks fine at normal size or up to 100%. The Raw was a little hazy (dull overcast day?), but a little clarity and de-haze brushed on fixed that. I think I have a 85-90% copy, which is fine for what I need.
I think that the reality is, I have a good enough lens, even a spectacular one in some circumstances, but it does have a slightly erratic nature in as yet undefined circumstances. Do I trust it? I have already for a couple of jobs and it has done as needed (with few exceptions).
For pro work, as odd as it sounds, my standards are less strict. For almost all applications the lens takes a very nice looking image suitable for publication, enlargement for the occasional sign or poster.
If used carefully I know it can bring home fine art grade files, but so can most of my lenses.
Another Raw jpeg comparison at 150mm f2.8. In this set the added colour and cruder, but effective sharpening of the jpeg (right) do make a difference. Again, some slight softening in a hazy direction, fixed by the Lightroom sliders.
The simple solution may be to avoid electronic shutter for now, and set up a preset for the lens to apply as needed with a little clarity, de-haze and deeper blacks.
Am I being too picky?
Probably. Bad habit pixel peeping that should be avoided early on with new gear because “he goes looking for trouble usually finds it”. We (I) should let a lens first show it’s best, not look for it’s worst.