Olympus 100-400mm IS VS 40-150mm Pro, which one?? - RED35 Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июл 2024
- For about the same money, and if you are in the market looking for your first high quality tele zoom, would you choose the Professional Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 Pro or the brand new 2020 100-400mm f5-6.3 IS?? In this video, Jimmy looks at various aspect of these lenses and compare them to help you make that decision. If you already have the 40-150 Pro, do you want to get the 100-400 IS too? #Olympus #microfourthirds #M43
Support me and this channel
buymeacoff.ee/jimmycheng
paypal.me/jimmychengphoto
For more information about #Olympus gear. Visit www.olympus.co.uk
For Jimmy's Olympus Ambassador Page - www.olympus-imagespace.co.uk/...
Claim your 2-month extra music subscription from our music provider "Artlist". Visit the website here: tiny.cc/artlist
Remember to also follow us at the following links:
FB - / red35photography
Instagram - / red35photography
Twitter - / red35photo
Please support us by subscribing to our channel @red35photography.
I'm just happy with my 14-150. No more mzuiko craving now, till 8-25mm pro comes out
Thank you. I have the 100-400mm for bird- and dragonflies photography. I use this lens often with the MC14 (1120mm!). I nevertheless also bought the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro for its brightness, sharpness and portability during walks. It’s the better lens, but I still can’t miss the 100-400mm!
2 years later, you solved my dilemma, relieved gas, and now I'm rethinking my entire bag. :) Thanks for the hangover soup in the form of your thoughts and this video!
Thanks for review. Exact questions I've been pondering with the release of the new lens.
Thanks for watching mate and glad you found it useful.
Glad you did this comparison. It speaks to what many of us are wondering about.
Cheers Craig!! Glad you find this video useful
Hi Jimmy !! Thanks a lot for your videos. Not easy in fact to make a perfect choice between the close compactness of one and the splendid less luminous focal length of the other ... !! Admittedly, the focal converter solution brings a great opportunity on the 40-150 but a certain reduction in its good quality will appear ... It would be wonderful if Olympus could foresee a new stabilized version of the 40-150 and why not a new 50-200 like Panasonic , whose increase in focal length is very useful in animal photography. Best wishes from Belgium
Very good review Jimmy. Loads of practical points to consider. Thanks.
Thanks Howard!
Great comparison. I'm very happy with my combination of the 40-150mm and the mc20. Together with the 12-40mm, pretty much have something for almost any circumstance and they all have great optical quality and in the field performance.
Thanks Darren for watching, this is exactly the point for this video and especially for those who already have the pro lens, it makes more sense to get a teleconverter unless you really want that maximum reach, which is, I must say, pretty exciting when you can go so far to your subject.
I guess you have done it right, as most of us dreaming too much about the latest gear, we often forget the treasures we own already
Love the review - very precise review like the Pro lenses, and very to the point. Like it. Thanks - I'm just about to purchase the 40-150mm Pro, after great experience with the 12-40mm Pro (my only Pro lens). Thanks
me too. i would love to own all the pro lenses. they are the best you can get for mft
Great review Jimmy!
Love watching your videos, Jimmy. I was wondering about buying one as I have the 40-150 Pro and 1.4X converter but now I won't bother. Nothing to be gained.
Glad you enjoyed the video. Unless you need the potential 800mm, which is valuable for certain type of photographers, then it makes more sense to get the MC14 or 20 for your 40-150 instead. But shooting long is some unique experience
Some months ago I got the 40-150 F4.0 PRO for my landscape and travel photography. It is so light, compact and good! On the other hand, I need something longer for wildlife. So I am waiting if OM System brings out new lenses in the 50-250mm range in the near future.
Excellent video, very informative. Subscribed.
Looks like many of us MFT shooters are in the same boat here: I have the 40-150 PRO and MC14, as well as the 75-300 II. This new super tele-zoom is very appealing for several reasons:
- I want more reach than the 40-150 x 1.4
- I've never been happy with the images from the 75-300--low contrast and not super sharp compared to my PROs. It's also not weather-sealed, which is something I rely on as I do a lot of nature and wildlife shooting. (I bought it early on in my transition to MFT to have SOME kind of super-tele in the bag)
- IBIS struggles to tame hand shake at the long end of 75-300, so OIS would be welcome
- I also own the 12-100mm f/4 PRO, so the 100-400 f5-f6.3 would be a great pairing.
As others have commented (and I saw your reply) I would be interested in seeing sample shots comparing 40-150 + MC20 at 300mm vs this new lens at 300mm and 400mm (maybe with a crop-in at the 400 end to see if the extra reach makes up for being slightly less "crispy").
It also sounds like the lens IS isn't enough of an improvement over IBIS-only to tilt the scales. The lack of SYNC-IS is probably the main drawback I see and could be the deciding factor for getting the MC20 instead. IIRC, the 40-150 + MC20 is still a stop faster than the 100-400 f5-f6.3 at 300mm.
The 100-400 is a great lens on its own. It makes sense for those who really needs the reach. If people can handle the PanaLeica 100-400, then they will find the Olympus version a lot better even without Sync IS. It's proven by many other reviewers who did comparison between the two. The Olympus Lens IS is so great that it alone beats the Dual IS from Panasonic! With the new firmware for EM1 II & III and EM5 III, you can kind of use Sync IS and use the sensor for rotation. Not bad. But if you already have 40-150, and don't really care about the potential 800mm! Then it makes more sense just to get the MC converters for the 40-150 pro.
I was thinking about 100-400, and you suddenly changed my perspective. Yes, 40-150 would be better. Better suited for action and low light.
Got the 40-150 used in almost as new condition from Adorama for very cheap. Gonna add one of the teleconverters to it, yes
great video for comparison, i agree many times in wildlife photography you can sacrifice the long reach in favor of the bigger f. thats why i still dream of an equivalent m4/3 to the legendary 4/3 90-250mm f2.8. even if its going to be very heavy and expensive. at those ealry morning winter days they work the best.
Oh yeah, the 90-250mm 2.8!! That's a beast!!
Great video Jimmy; although these two lenses are great for those that need them, unless you are into wildlife where you need to separate yourself from your subject, these lenses are not needed by the majority of photographers. The weight and size make them impracticable for most users to carry around unless your on a specific shoot that requires them.
Totally George, they are not for everyone, hence I made the statement right at the beginning. "For those who are looking for their first tele zoom lens" It's easy to forget sometime when someone may not have too much experience to get confused. Veterans are fine, you and I know what we want :) And, I want that white beast, even if I have to sell one of my arm.
I have the pro lens with the two Tele converters. Was wondering what to do if i need more reach, so now I know, save up for the 300 or move a little closer. I use the MC14 most of the time when out walking as the MC20 is tricky to freeze birds if the light drops. The pro is great around town and coupled with the Leica 12-60 f2.8-4 is all you need in the bag. Thanks for great reviews.
Cheers David. Glad you enjoyed my video.
Thanks Jimmy, great comparison video. I have an unrelated question. It's about he new 100mm macro that is coming out sometime. Do you think it will be compatible with the 2x adapter? Not so much for the macro end but wondering if the teleconverter would be compatible so the lens could serve double duty? Thanks so much for any opinion you may have and thanks for all the videos in the past.
I just fitted the dress ring from my 300mm f4 pro (when not using tripod ring) onto my 100-400 Olympus lens. Nice! I was trying to find the dress ring for the 100-400, but it does not exist.
Hi there. Thanks for the review. Would you be able to do a FOV comparison between the 40-150 with the 2x converter (300mm) and the 100-400 at 400. Side by side composition. If not I understand.
Thanks.
Missed more comments on video. The advantage of 40-150 is continous aperture along the focal range. If it is about compactness: Where is the sweetspot of the 100-400 compared to the 75-300 II?
Thanks Jimmy. 40-150 f2.8 for me. It can handle my gig photigraphy in low light, then with a teleconverter it can get me up to 300mm (600mm equiv) f5.6 for wildlife. Massive flexibility with less weight. If I only shot wildlife it may be a different story.
Yes, they are totally different but same price (RRP), I thought this video will help some who wanted a long tele to decide which one. Also, for those who have the 40-150 already, whether they think the new lens is for them :)
Red35 Photography hi it’s Hayden
@@haydengto Hi Hayden!
Solved my dilemma! I have the 40-150, was considering the 100-400 mostly for wildlife. But no more. I’ll shoot wider, crop, and denoise. Similar result, vastly cheaper.
Red35, congratulations and thanks for your review. I started very shy with Olympus lens and I’m impressed with their quality.
I have noticed that the lens I have (non PRO) allow macro photos. Can you make a comparison of PRO lens suitable for macro shooting?? Thanks
This war really very good! None of both would be for me, but I was curious and learned something. :-)
Good comparison video. I own the 40-150/2.8 and it is my most used lens. I also own the MC14 and MC20. So at times my kit will be the 12-100/4.0 and the 40-150/2.8 with the MC20. It makes a nice two lens lit. but I do find 300mm to be a little limited for my nature/wildlife hikes. So I I got the 100-400/5.0-6.3 on order.
I have the 40-150 Pro and MC20 but I'll still thinking of the 100-400 for wildlife. My understanding that the 100-400 with the MC20 has IS equivalent of 1.5 stops due to the 2x TC. Kinda a trade off I guess
Interesting comparison. I'd also be interested to know which has more resolving power: the 100-400mm at 400mm or the Olympus 300mm F4 (cropped to 400mm angle of view) or 300mm with 1.4x tele-converter.
Also 100-400mm with MC-20 (1600mm equiv) vs 300mm with MC-20 (1200mm equiv).
for me it's not about resolving power but about the flexibility of zooming between 100-400 ( 200-800 ) without changing lens. I have done lots of Safaris ( and lived in South Africa ) and the animals/ birds etc can be really close or some way off.
Well, new gear is always fun to learn about.. Ya never know when it just might be the 'replacement' you were looking for.. Right? As for now, I will be keeping my 40-150 Pro, along with the MC-14..
I'm also continuing my hunt for a good price on a used MC-20..
Once I get my hands on one, I'll be pre-ordering the new Olympus MC-4X!
If you haven't heard yet, that's the clever little adapter that goes 'between' the MC-14 & MC-20!
They haven't released the specs, but it's rumored to extend the focal length by a factor of almost four times!! Hence the model MC-4X..
And the best part, even this will be less expensive than a new pro lens..
Gotta luv Olympus...
Are you saying this with tongue firmly planted in cheek? ;-D I'd love something like that, but there's nothing on Google. You may also lose 4 stops of light too (but then it'll turn the Olympus PRO zooms into the same f/8 lenses as the new ones from Canon!)
Canon (compatible) tele-converters can be stacked natively, without an adapter in between. Same for Nikon with a couple of restrictions. So the idea, while perhaps tongue-in-cheek, is not so crazy. I would worry though about compounded image softness and 4 stops loss.
By the way, stacking 2x and 1.4x would give 2.8x (not 4x) which is 3 stops loss.
@@Centauri27 Oh yeah, quite firmly! :-)
@@tizio54 I didn't know that? Very cool!
@@Centauri27 I think that f/2.8 + 4 stop would be f/11 (1 stop = f/4.0, 2 stop = f/5.6, 3 stop = f/8.0, 4 stop = f/11), not f/8.0, am I wrong?!
Get 2 for one
I think the 40-150mm with 2.0 tele would be used more?
The one you will use the most
Really good review... short and to the point... subbed...
Because in the beginning you mentioned 40-150mm + mc20... I was expecting some sample comparisons between 40-150mm+mc20 at 150mm/300mm vs the 100-400 at 150/300/400mm...
Is it possible you could do the quick review/comparison with cropped/''pixelpipe'' samples?
best regards
Thanks Sash! I know, I don't have a MC-20 here and I did ask Olympus to send me on with the new lens to test out the maximum reach, but none was available at the time. I only own the MC-14 LOL. But I did test and review the MC-20 before with the 40-150mm, so I could only use sample photos but not a direct comparison. I will try to get one at some point and do some more comparisons.
Red35 Photography that would be great!
That would be good Jimmy
I have the 40-150 so should I buy the 100-400 or get the OM-D EM-1 Mark 111 ? Or just but both !
Good shout Jimmy 👍🏻
Thanks Shane! Glad you found the video :)
Useful comparison. I own the 40-150/2.8 + both the 1.4 and the 2 TCs. I often wish I had more reach.
* 40-150/2.8 + IBIS... In my experience, the 12-100/4 with Sync IS is *noticeably* better stabilized than the 40-150.
The longer the reach, the more difficult it is to stabilize the lens, I guess.
* Would you guess that the 150-400/4.5 would be noticeably better stabilized than the 100-400/5-6.3, or will the focal length limit the possibility of stabilization so that the 150-400/4.5 and the 100-400/5-6.3 will behave similarly?
Hm... the 100-400/5-6.3 is lacking in micro contrast... I have the 75-300 mark I, and that lens has poor micro contrast -- most images look mushy.
* Is the 100-400/5-6.3 better than the 75-300 when it comes to image quality?
Hi Bernt, Yes, in terms of non-Pro M.Zuiko zoom tele lenses, the new 100-400 is much better, almost pro level performance, so it's definitely better than 75-300
Thanks Jimmy. This was the comparison review I needed. I have the 40-150mm. But have bee tempted to get the 100-400mm and sell the 40-150mm. Your advice welcomed. I'll keep the 40-150mm and get the MC20 for when I feel I want the xtra reach..
Thanks Brian! I am glad you find this video useful :)
Your L-Bracket is the 3-Legged Thing Ellie, right? Are all the ports still usable? I am considering getting it buck am worried about this + the usability of the screen. Thanks for the video!
Hi Thomas, yes it's Ellie in my video. All the ports remain usable, the screen however, can't flip out. But so it depends on your camera, if you have a normal flip screen like the one on EM10, then you will be good, for fully articulated screen, you can only use the screen when it's flat on the camera or at 90° to the body and can't be flipped out fully. Mind you, all L bracket are designed for photography and full articulated screen isn't a priority for the application, otherwise, it will be too 'off centre'. Hope this helps.
Thank you very much for the quick and specific reply. I didn't really expect that. I have the E-M1 III and you just answered all my questions!
@@Nekyar23 You are welcome mate. Glad to help.
Great video. But my boat is that I have neither of those lenses and right its winter cash back and Im not sure what to choose. I have the 75-300 ii mm lense and I'm not super happy with it. So I'm torn. Do I want pro image quality or focal length? I feel like the pro is more versatile while the 400 mm will make taking fotos of wildlife easier. But 300mm has been enough for me so far. So pro image quality plus mc 20?
May be new 150-600?
For the time being I use the $99 40-150 on my EM10.2. Maybe someday I can justify spending more money but for now I will just dream.
I have it and it is just amazing!
I mean the cheep 40-150
One thing to bear in mind is the 40-150 f2.8 Pro lens takes twice the frames when using ProCapture than the 100-400 does. With the OM1 this means 50fps with focussing each frame (SH2) compared to only 25fps with the 100-400 f5.
How about comparing the 100-400 vs the 75-300? I have the latter and wondering if it makes sense to upgrade to the new 100-400. Would appreciate your and other's insights. Thanks.
I could see Olympus discontinuing the 75-300, it’s been on the market for a long time.
@@k6usy I've heard it's not a very sharp lens. As I recall, it's rated worse than the Panasonic 100-300 and when I got my 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro and MC-20, I noticed a HUGE difference in the sharpness of my images compared to the Panasonic 100-300. I would love to see Olympus make a 150-300mm lens that's at least f/5.6 at the telephoto end and compatible with teleconverters. The 75-300 is really showing its age.
Personally I have the 12-100 so it made more sense to get the 100-400. Got it for $1050 two weeks ago. Didn't have time to really test it yet. Seems like it's built very solid, the zoom ring stiff, stabilization seems good enough.
Hi, how did you get along with the 100-400 if I may ask? I'm looking at getting the identical setup that you describe. Currently I have the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f4, but the 12-100 f4 covers 90% of what I'd use these two lenses for, so I've ordered it and will be selling the other two that it replaces. Have had an eye on the 100-400 as it will open up a whole new range of telephoto/wildlife options and I imagine would work very well in conjunction with the 12-100. Have you had a chance to test it out since you got it and did it meet your expectations?
@@originaljamtracks The 100-400 is a different animal. It does not feel like an Olympus lens (and it isn't really since all I hear is that it's mostly rebranded Sigma). It is big. Big that makes the 12-100 look small. At first I thought I had a problem with mine, but it turns out it takes practice. It's not as casual as the other lenses. Not only you need to be very still, but the time you take the photo matters if it's a far away subject (heat\haze). Quality wise it's great if you get a sharp image, just be aware that it will take practice. I didn't take it out a lot to be honest since it's summer and I live in the middle east. Need to wait for september at least to have more fun with it.
@@MorkusReX thank you very much, very helpful!
I'm still using my E.Zuiko 50-200 F2.8-3.5 on my E-M1 ii with great results. And if needed, I can have 400mm with the EC-20, LOL!
That's a beast lens!!! The only E.Zuiko lens I still have is the 35-100mm f2 :)
@@Red35Photography That lens is very special, top notch, but big&heavy! From the 'old' days I still have the 50mm F2.0 macro and the 11-22 F2.8-3.5. With the phase detect AF of the E-M1 ii/iii (and adapter), these lenses are still a pleasure to use.
Base line: use what you have, it's about the creativity, not about the newest, latest, more pixels, etc. And it takes to time to get to 'know' your equipment and for most people changing gear every year, it doesn't propel the pictures they're making...
I'm also using E.Zuiko 50-200 F2.8 SWD on my EM-1 ii!! AF not as fast as native m 4/3 pro lenses but can produce great result. Is EC-20 compatible with MMF3 adapter?
@@tingyingchung Yes!
@@j.s.talsma8499 Thank you for the info!
Does the 150-400 focus faster than the 100-400 (which seems quite slow)?
compared to popular 70-300 ii, how does it fare?
Hello, this is a good comparison but...
You say that MC-20 is ok for the 100-400 when Olympus - ahem OM-1 - only mention ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO and ED 300mm F4.0 IS PRO as compatible...
How is it so ?
I got both
Got the 40-150 f2.8 pro used for around $800, added the MC-14 used for $150, now I just need to find a good price on the MC-20. This new lens isn’t worth considering until the price comes down.
What was the price back then? I got it for $1050 two weeks ago.
Funny how you call the 40-150 f2.8 pro compact for travel... i struggle to fit it into my bag and usually end up taking the 75-300 with me. Not quite the same image quality, but SO easy to carry.
That depends. I used to travel with my 70-200 2.8 full frame system, comparatively, 40-150mm is a baby in size. You should see my latest bag review, I put the 40-150 2.8 with the hood, EM1 with 17mm 1.2 attached, plus 25mm 1.2 and 45mm 1.8 in my mid size bag. Yes, I consider that travel friendly :)
Hey, what type of L-bracket are you using on the m1 II ?
3 Legged Thing :)
Thanks!
Just watched the video but it seems a bit unfair, you did compare the 2 lens at 100mm I think a fair comparison would be 40-150mm + tc20 vs 100-400mm at 300mm
I got to the same conclusion I’ve ordered the MC-20 for my 40-150 Pro. But that is not the same as I will not buy the 100-400 later. I am afraid that the comming 150-400 pro will be priced out of my reach.
I know Kim, it's more logical unless you really need that ultra long range. The 150-400 will definitely be the crown jewel for Olympus and for that reason alone, I may just sell one of my kidney to buy it hahaha
I can't see much difference between both pics at 100mm when you said that the Pro lens is crispier. In my humble opinion, the pro lens is just a little bit sharper but darker with less clarity. I think sometimes is not worthy paying for the pro versions.
Got them both in the end :-) LOL
One is not better than the other. They complement each other and have different use cases. Ideally, you would buy BOTH lenses. The 40-150mm is more essential for most photographers, whereas the 100-400mm is a specialized lens for wildlife that not everyone needs.
Thx Jimmy! I already got the 40-150 pro and waiting for a good price to buy the MC-20. Just curious, are u from Hong Kong?
Hungry Spaghetti yes I am from HK :)
Unless I am going to need the longer focal length some time in the future, I'm going to stick with the 40-150mm Pro (+ mc-14). :)
Yeah, that's what most would do if they already have 40-150mm 2.8. However, there's still a convincing case for those who wants that crazy 800mm and can't afford the upcoming beast!
@@Red35Photography Yeah, I'm afraid that upcoming beast will be very expensive. But if it turns out to be just affordable enough for me, I just might go for it...
@@theosolberg I am saving every penny at the moment, that beast is mine!!!
@@Red35Photography Haha! OK! :)
Theo Solberg it’s going to be expensive and they are only going to make a limited number of them.
You realize that the lenses double in focal length before you use the tele-converters? The 100-400 is 1120mm with the 1.4x not 560mm.
Are these lenses have hard stop focus ring?
only the 40-150mm 2.8 Pro has hard stop focus ring. This is almost a pro lens exclusive in Olympus but there are a few mid level lenses that have them, like 12mm and 17mm lenses, they both have hard stop focus ring when manual focus is engaged.
@@Red35Photography thanks, great to know.
Olympus lenses are best and sharpest i ever seen. no Pana can hold up with quality and sharpness, pro Lenses are even better
The 40-150 with the 2x converter is about the same price as the 100-400 in the real world. A constant F2.8 without the converter or 5.6 with, greater flexibility, lighter and better image quality, metal build instead of plastic, verses 200m more reach . It has to be the 40-150, except if you need to go very long and have plenty of light, then the 100-400 is the one (except if you are strong and rich then you could wait for the white monster). Sometime choice is an annoying thing.
Aren't they hahah. That's why I made this video, it's not a direct comparison for apple to apple. it's more about budget and needs, for the same money :)
@@Red35Photography Damn Olympus for giving us choice, the buggers!
I would go for 40-150 with the 2x as it is cheaper , very fast focus , very sharp at the long end and also 300mm is still ok for a small bird ..
How is this even a reasonable VS comparison?! Oh yeah, I’m gonna buy a 40-150 to photograph wildlife and birds in flight aren’t I.....
I don't see any image quality difference between the two lenses in the examples that you have put.
I bought the 100-400 and to be perfectly honest I think I wasted my money as I get better results from my 40-150 pro with teleconverter for surfing and kitesurfing shots. Oh well that’s the way it goes so will put it on Gumtrees tomorrow. 😂
I‘m still waiting for a 70-300/4.0 Pro...
Even a 5.6 would be Kool and perhaps affordable.
I want to invest more into Olympus. But this sale to JIP has got me concerned.
I wouldn't but in my eyes, it's photography and they are tools, as long as I can create what I want to create, I am happy. I buy them just for that. But if you are concern, there's nothing I can make you feel better apart from what I've been told from the inside, business as usual and you can see the roadmap for some upcoming products, indeed I am excited with lots of stuff from Olympus/JIP. We shall know more towards the end of next month when the contract is finalised and complete.
You forgot to mention that the 150-400mm will weigh more than both of these lenses together 😅
Before i see this video ...the 40-150 + 2.0 converter. Compare with the 300mm + 1.4 tele. please .
I will add this to my list, need to get the 300mm back from Olympus LOL. I did review one though.
Hi Jimmy ....could you compare the 100-400mm with the 40-150 Pro + 2.0 converter ...its about the same range and the same aperture ? Kind regards
Hope to see Saori and Zoha modelling soon, rather than animals
Unfortunately no one is coming out due to Covid. I hope things can get back to normal for everyone. Hard even for my normal photography work.
@@Red35Photography I'm with you, pal. Stay safe and well!
Red35 Photography Everything is back to normal now, I can take photos of you modeling in front of camera if you like
I'm suggesting a zoom photo session with them 😏
Apples and oranges
Exactly. Should have compared it against the Leica 100-400
I know David. But that's exactly the reason I made this video. It's more about needs, and budget. I won't compare the Leica as others have done it and to me, both PanaLeica and Oly are great but different at the same time. Different look/rendering, slightly more compact and brighter for PanaLeica and ability to use tele converters and better stability for Olympus. That's pretty subjective.
Same for me.
Love your work,. Thanks again. I shoot the 100/400 with MC 2.0. I shoot from a mile away and enjoy both kidneys while doing it! PEACE!
Thanks mate and glad you enjoyed the video!
Bottom line: "If you're interested in photographing something a mile away..." HA! (And why not a kilometer away, mate?)
it would have to be 1.6Km :-)
@@peterbudd1803 I just knew that someone would call me on that. You win ;)
😂😂😂
One mile and beyond e.g. the moon
Someone’s been watching dave2d
Glad you watched til the end mate ahahah, I did steal his line, thought it's pretty cool.
What? They don't have remotely comparable focal lengths!
Chill mate. They are different, but this video is aiming for those who don't have anything long to shoot but have about £1k budget. These two lenses RRP are same and it's logical that they will look at them. I've listed out the reasons. Also, for those who already have the 40-150 2.8, to see if they need to get the new 100-400 as well. nothing more, nothing less.
No synch IS on the Sigma Lens (100-400) is a DEALBREAKER!!!! In Other words I am really disappointed by Olympus for the First time !
Hi Jimmy, would u say the Image quality of the 40-150 Pro with MC20 Converter is better as the 100-400 without converter?
Yes
thank for reply@@Red35Photography