Old Friend Revisited.
After much soul searching and flip-flopping, I have decided the easiest path to kit completion (for now), is the buy the 40-150 Pro back.
As I have said before, the lens is not demonstrably better optically than my current lenses, in real world terms anyway, but it does offer several fixes to my current options.
Compared to the 75mm F1.8 it is longer and reasonably fast. F2.8 and 150mm is in reality the “dream” lens from my past (a 300mm F2.8 equivalent). There are times, especially when I am looking to get images of all of the children in a class from limited locations, that 75mm is too short and my longer lenses are too slow.
This is a relatively rare situation, but common enough to feel like I am short changing my current employer.
From a personal perspective, I made my peace with the limitations of my kit a while back, but this is different. This is the world of professional expectations. No excuses territory.
The other two lenses I have (40-150 kit and 75-300 kit+) always punch well above their weight. Comparing them recently, only the obvious things are relevant.
A lack of aperture choice, weather proofing and durability are why the big pro lenses are bought over well performing lesser options. AF on the 75-300 surprises, so that one will be used in good light for field sports.
Indoor sports are, I have found, easier to do with the 75mm and the extra reach of a longer lens is better for field sports, but that is when light allows. The 40-150 is the ideal other option in both situations. It also has the classroom, stage and court sports range nailed.
The lens impressed in the past, providing some really sharp files stopped down or wide open. Early on I accused it of being a little patchy sharpness wise, but……
The QC team found it was often user error and unusual Bokeh transition of near misses rather than actual lens softness to blame. Even with M43 format, F2.8 can be unforgiving.
The sleeper though, is contrast. Shooting Football on a dull day highlighted the crisper and generally brighter look of the images. In good light I actually prefer the 75-300’s smoother and gentler rendering, but when it counts, the Pro lens is designed to, and does deliver.
At ISO 3200 and 6400 on an EM5 mk1, I found the micro-contrast produced sharper looking files, allowing for noise reduction to be done to taste rather than in desperation. The 75-300 on the other hand is a poor performer in low light as much for it’s smooth and gentle (read; post-plasticky) files, as it’s obvious slow aperture, which forces heavy handed processing more often than not.
On even closer inspection…..
I have found the lens offers very finely detailed and flexible files. Olympus weaving their magic? Maybe so.
Regardless, the files are ideal for a working pro who appreciates occasional brilliance, but needs dependable goodness.
No small thing is the lenses performance on my “lesser” cameras. In the early days of owning it I successfully shot indoor sports and swimming with old EM5 mk 1’s. Remember, these cameras have no tracking capability. The lens and camera combo was quick enough to get near instant first grab keepers at f2.8 (just do not hesitate).
I am looking to add a camera to the mix soon (another EM1 mk2 or EM1x) partly to handle my current and future volume and to deepen my pro camera stocks. This lens will likely jump again in capability and help finalise the Olympus journey for me. The 100-400 is still in my thoughts, but is now really a luxury item.