Olympus 14-150mm Lens Review vs. 14-42mm & 40-150mm ep.276

[@catalincatalin587]

Hands down one of the best reviews on KZbin. I appreciate the effort you've put into it. Subscribed!

[@RobTrek]

Wow, thanks!

[@pjay3028]

That is an absolutely brilliant video. I have never seen anyone test at different focus distances before, I never realised that would have any impact. Thanks very much for doing this it's really helped me.

[@RobTrek]

Glad it was helpful!

[@carmenfissenden2530]

I really understand the conclusion and the suggestion given to get 40-150. Having said that, my personal choice was to go to a small prime instead , where a good used prime could cost the same amount . It doesn’t distract from the points you raise, but knowing the direction of travel the individual photographer wants to travel. Thank you for doing the test - very informative .

[@allanosantiago5955]

Thanks Rob for the in-depth comparison of these lenses. Also helped me understand its characteristics where its strength can be best applied. Loved how you presented the photo's side-by-side while still seeing you on the lower portion of the video. Great work and the best.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks, Allen.

[@chrisgrieves1468]

Thoughtful video as ever Rob! Watching this retrospectively: I have the EM-10 IV which I bought with the 14-42. An as-new 40-150 at a bargain price was a no-brainer. Without actually receiving the (good) advice I bought the 25/f1.8 for 'fast glass' in the nifty-fifty kinda way. All I need. On forest walks, the 40-150 picks birds out of trees so well. All these lenses are so light and nice to handle. The 14-150 weighs as much as both these zooms together. I've thought about the 12-45/f4 but in truth my images are best improved by being a better photographer :)

[@rodmehta5356]

Hi Rob, thank you for the interesting video. When I wanted to upgrade to the 12-100mm for it's weather sealing, and tried it in the store, I realised what a heavy beer can it is, defeating my personal mft preference of small and somewhat light when walking in the bush or the beach. Dust, sand, rain and strong winds, ocean spray, etc are real issues where I live, and so weather sealing is a must and you can forget about constantly swapping lenses. I ended up buying the 14-150 and my only gripe with it is that is does not work well at all with CDAF in low-ish light conditions like indoors or even in the forest on an overcast day, which is a pity. I would go so far as to say that my Canon EF-S lenses combined with the fotodiox fusion adapter focus better in low light on the olympus em5ii - but all this only applies to CDAF, not PDAF as far as I can tell. The little 14-42 works much better with CDAF in low light, but obviously, a pelican looks like a sparrow if you can't zoom in. The 40-150 is a great lens when new. After about two weeks of using it I realised it had turned into a salt and pepper shaker due to dust etc getting in, and I try to look after my gear. It also produced interesting sound effects when turning the zoom ring. Definitely not a travel lens, but fantasticly light. What bugs me most about all this is the amount of electro rubbish it leaves behind. I am rebuilding a system around Lumix FF for business work after my Canon decided to have a quantum heart attack after only two years. It had already displayed symptoms of robot dementia for weeks. Cheers from down under, good to see your dog is still there!

[@RobTrek]

This is the first time I've used the 14-150mm on a cdaf camera. I noticed when making one of the test shots it was having trouble focusing. I've always used this lens on my e-m5iii or em1iii. In this video, I used it on the e-m5ii. On another topic, I found a Nikon F to Leica L dumb adapter for my S5. I'm really excited to start using my old Nikon glass again on a full frame camera. I have my 35mm Zeiss Distagon that has been collecting dust.

[@rodmehta5356]

@@RobTrek Haha, great minds think alike, I bought the S5 in Perth a few weeks ago when they "accidentally" put it on special, despite it being a new Panasonic camera and lens, and me being nearly broke, and I also ordered a fotodiox adapter for my old Canon glass :-) Keep up the good work!

[@1957PLATO]

Great comparison, Rob. Well done. 45 mm seems to be the longest lens I need so I am perfectly happy with my 45 mm f 1.8.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks, Plato.

[@zempacz]

Answers exact question i had in mind by looking for review of 14-150mm. Thanks ❤

[@RobTrek]

Happy to help!

[@imagenatura]

This video really illustrates a good point: lenses perform differently depending on distance from subject. However, you really need to pixel-peep to see it.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. I'm not really a pixel peeper myself, but it's important when comparing lenses. Otherwise we'd all just probaly use a pin hole lens. LOL.

[@aceytoja]

When I bought the E-M10 a couple of years ago it came with the 14-42mm & 40-150mm. Absolutely brilliant for a beginner like me.

[@RobTrek]

Great to hear!

[@truewarrior1980]

just came across the 14-150mm lens today and was wondering the same thing you tested. thanks a lot for your effort! it helped a lot

[@RobTrek]

Glad it was helpful!

[@matthew2410]

Great video Rob. Just saved me £300. I'll stick with my existing lenses and primes. Thanks once again

[@RobTrek]

Glad to save you some bucks!

[@alangamble3236]

Hi Rob I’ve literally just purchased the 14-150 after a lot of ‘should I shouldn’t I’ and in end it was down to the weather sealing. It is a used lens and I think I got it for a good price. I am a bit concerned about your findings especially with the closer ranges. If it doesn’t suit my needs I will just sell it on. I already have the 40-150 which I bought on your recommendation over a year ago and the images I get from that are great for my use. Thanks again for the time you take to create these informative videos , stay well

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. If you look back in the video, you'll see that the portrait shot at 100mm improved on the 14-150mm. I was only about 5 meters from the camera. I bet you only need to get to about 10 meters before this lens performs at least as good as the other two. I'm encouraged from the testing I did and won't hesitate to take this lens with me anymore. I honestly didn't even know myself until today. For portraits I will pull out a prime anyway.

[@alangamble3236]

@@RobTrek thanks Rob I also have the 45 mm Olympus 1.8 for portraits , once again one of your recommendations !!

[@basujayanta1]

Thanks for the detailed review. Let me share my personal experience. I bought my omd em10 ii with twin zoom kit, 14-42mm ez lens and the 40-150mm R lens. Within two years of purchasing the motor in the 14-42mm lens is gone, rendering it useless. After another one year the plastic mount of the 40-150mm is gone, rendering it useless as well. So now I am left with my beloved camera but with no lens to mount. Thus, I would sincerely urge everyone to stay away from these cheap but unreliable options and opt for a weather-sealed lens like the 14-150mm mark ii, so that you can worry less about your gear and concentrate more on your photography, which is the reason that you bought the camera in the first place.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

[@RonaldBrown59]

Very detailed testings, and results were interesting. I have the 14-150 lens, I used to own the 40-150 and I have the pancake 14-42 lens. I never discovered that the 14-150 had issues at shorter distances. But I mostly use it for longer focal lengths, which turns out be it's strength. Great video, and thanks for sharing.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks for watching!

[@HenryFalkner]

I got the E-M10 II kit with the 14-42 and the 40-150 kit lenses at a vastly reduced price. Since I dried out the whole kit with a blow-drier, it has performed like a new one, for 2 years now. But changing lenses back and forth for a cruise ship departure was a pain. Covid-19 killed the cruise ships, but five months ago, my budget allowed the purchase of the 14-150 II, which has overcomes the inconvenience since. Stills over the whole range confirm I have a good one. Focusing is as reliable as with the 40-150 for stills, more reliable for night videos with moving ships. Last month I bought the E-M10 IV, and on it the 14-150 is more reliable still. Now I do night videos with the E-M10 IV with the 14-150, and handheld stills with the E-M10 II and the 40-150 while the video is running.

[@RobTrek]

Yes, I rarely bring the two kits lenses and just use the 14-150mm. Swapping lenses can be cumbersome sometimes.

[@Lordvader330]

I love the 12-200. It's my travel lens. Just got back from vacation. I have some great pictures with that lens.

[@RobTrek]

That is awesome!

[@Ed-bj5eq]

14-150 ii is a great travel kit specially for daylight, I pair it with the 17mm f1.8 for lowlight as a quite practical travel combo

[@RobTrek]

Great combo!

[@LeighKempPhotoArt]

Hi Rob, hope you're keeping well. I have both of these lenses and I prefer the 14-150mm over the 40-150mm. It's a great all-round lens. Best wishes, Leigh

[@RobTrek]

Thanks, Leigh. Hope you doing well too. The 14-150 is my go to lens now for casual photowalks.

[@LeighKempPhotoArt]

Hi Rob, yes, all fine here thanks, enjoying the change of scenery after our move to the coast. The 40-150,mm is a pretty sharp lens. If I had to choose only one lens to take when travelling this would be it. All the best, take care and stay safe my friend

[@samwang5831]

14-150 with E-M5iii is a good travel companion for my walks. It is a weather sealed system that takes reasonably good pictures of nature, and if I am lucky, some birds in flight as well. I researched extensively before I made the purchase and I am happy with it. I agree that having a short fixed prime and a 40-150 is a better option for most people. I just do not like to swap out lenses in the field and weather sealing is a must-have for me

[@RobTrek]

Thanks for sharing!

[@Estirvana]

Rob, I've been watching you do these test shot videos and you've made me realize how I can really up my photography in getting a dedicated flash! Always been hesitating in trying out flash photography.

[@RobTrek]

It's not hard. I have a several videos on flash you can check out.

[@Forthejoyofphotography]

I just went for the Olympus 12-20mm 3.5-6.3 weatherproof (not freezeproof) lens. I decided on this as my 'swiss army' knife of lenses. Covers the 24-400mm (35mm equivalent) focal lengths. Yes, variable aperture. But since this is mainly for landscape and general-purpose for which I tend to shoot at f4-f8, in general, is fine for me. I have a bunch of f1.8-f2 primes for occasions (low light or street) for my other photography needs

[@RobTrek]

I really like the wide end at 12mm on the 12-200. I don't like the size/weight though.

[@Forthejoyofphotography]

@@RobTrek At 455g and just over 3" by 3.89" isn't too bad for me. Obviously it is a personal preference.

[@norakernisant8735]

I love this review. I sold my 12-100mm pro lens and bought a used 14-150mm lens. The pro lens is sharper but due to its weight, I found myself leaving it home and just using my prime lenses. What good is a lens if it stays at home right? I had the 40-150mm lens and found the images to be lacking overall. For me the 14-150mm will be a walkabout lens during the day and my primes for nighttime, indoors and also street photography.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks for sharing!

[@observerstation]

Thanks for this video Rob. I was considering the 14-150 for convenience but I already have the 40-150. The 14-150 is a bit of a disappointment close up but as a 1 lens landscape option it’s a tempting buy as it’s so cheap to buy here in Malaysia. Brand new less than £200!

[@RobTrek]

That is a great deal! Tough call but I'd probably buy it at that price.

[@peternumber19]

Great video. I have all 3 lenses and the EZ 14-42. I've been planning to get rid of the 40-150 as I didn't see the point of it but your video is food for thought. You were using the 40-150 at it's extreme (40mm) whereas the 14-150 is almost in mid range at 40mm and perhaps that was an unfair comparison. The 14-150 is perhaps now welded to my camera.

[@RobTrek]

I think the 14-150mm can replace the two kit lenses. I've done some additional testing since this video and found it to be much closer in sharpness across the zoom range, particularly in the portrait shots. I still think it's better to get the 40-150mm and use the difference to buy a prime, but the convenience of not swapping lenses in the field and weather sealing could easily justify the cost of getting the 14-150mm.

[@sl-rt5kv]

Thanks for your clear and detailed comparison. My em5 Mark III came with the 14-150 and I like that the lens's weather sealing complements that of the camera, The 14-150 has been a good general purpose travel lens for me. It also works well for landscapes as a lot of an image typically lies at a considerable distance from the camera where, as you have shown, the lens is at its best.

[@RobTrek]

Yes, I think anything over 10 meters will be best. Thanks.

[@RobShootPhotos]

Very good video! Yeah, I agree, the 14-150mm is more controlled with color fringing and flaring. Those are things that really make the 40-150 fall apart but if you don't have weather and back lit situations, the 40-150mm many times seem sharper. Maybe if you didn't have the bright background of the sky, likely the sharpness would have been better with the 40-150. On the flip side, you get better minimum focus distance with the 14-42mm. At 40mm at f/4 with the 40-150mm can be a great head shot portrait lens. That's a detail to consider too. I got the travel kit that came with the 17mm and 14-150mn for $699 new. I got it because my wife likes bridge cameras and it freaks her out thinking about changing lenses. She really likes the setup with her E-M10 III. Also it was nice to have an all in one lens for an environment such as Niagara Falls where you don't want to switch out the lens. I was thinking if I didn't like the 17mm I could sell it but it became my favorite prime lenses.

[@RobTrek]

I know what you mean about the 17mm. I didn't think I'd use it much but it's my favorite lens too!

[@nimkal]

Your testings are so thorough and educational, thank you. I've learned very useful information. I'll be picking up the 40-150mm simply because it's a lot sharper close range.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks.

[@kidbouji283]

The 40-150mm is exceptionally good even though it's not a pro lens! 👌🏽

[@cato12346]

That was so very useful, thank you! One of the most useful reviews I have seen.

[@RobTrek]

Glad it was helpful!

[@steveworthington930]

It,s the weather sealing that is important to me Rob. Last year,s Scotland trip, had to snatch shot,s between squall,s. This year determined to have weather sealed gear. (camera body EM1 is sealed). Can,t afford the pro range optic,s, however have a selection of primes, cover,s most bases. Take a brolly!!

[@RobTrek]

Yes, weather sealing is very important for many.

[@soilomasbello1156]

I have the 14-150 and I am pretty happy with it. I'm not professional just an enthusiast and overall picture quality is good for me. I have this lens in my camera body more than 95% of the time because I shoot most of the time outside with plenty of light. So for me the convenience of no lens change is a thing of beauty.

[@RobTrek]

I use my 14-150 most of the time also. It's very convenient.

[@marklaurendet1861]

A very good comparison, I really like the all in one super zooms for convenience. I wish the 12-200 was a little better. Don't know if you can borrow one but it would be see a comparison between the Panasonic 14-140 and the Oly 14-150

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. I'm with you on the 12-200. As for the Panasonic, don't know anyone local that shoots Panasonic.

[@tedphillips2951]

I have the 14 to 150 & have used it extensively for travel & I am very pleased with results. I use it with my EM1 II & have been really glad they are both weather sealed as you can't always pick your weather. I also bring the 25mm f1.8 to complete the kit. I have found the lens to be sharp for portraits when I do the focusing & was wondering if maybe the shots you took could be off focus since the camera was tracking. For me there is no other choice than the 14 to 150 for travel. No changing lenses & light & small. Thanks for the work you do on your channel. It is the best!

[@RobTrek]

I'll do a follow up with manual focus. Maybe the focus is off? Thanks.

[@Ed-bj5eq]

good point Ted, I thought the same. A trick with auto-focus in mine that usually works: press to focus at least twice, the first focus is off quite frequently and then the second or third nails it. I also do that with the 14-42mm EZ kit, perfect travel street photography. Use the 14-150ii for nature travel and hiking. Double tapping is natural for me now with zooms.

[@clarkejones8090]

What a neat test! Really well conceived, exhaustive enough, clearly explained and analysed. I happen to like your presentation style very much. And, finally you give us helpful purchasing advice. Well done and thank you.

[@RobTrek]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@datapro007]

Great comparison and sage advice. I own the Lumix 14-140 but rarely use it. I'd rather shoot with a prime.

[@RTFM70]

Interesting review Rob. Look forward to seeing you and Robin on Sunday 👍

[@jeffdrew625]

$99 for the 40~150mm was a no-brainer for my Pen-f kit. Sharp too! 😃 Add#2: I rented Pro f2.8 versions which were amazing and wonderful, and I kept the 12~40mm. A lightweight carry kit compromise-2zoomers.

[@RobTrek]

Pretty much covers all the bases. I really only like the 12-40 on my EM1. Like bread and butter.

[@2Old4Toys]

Results were a surprise to me. Good job Rob. My little collapsing 14-40 EZ is pocketable mounted on a small body and 40-150 take up very little no space and weigh nothing so an absolute delight to carry when out and about on holiday. Yeah, if you have the range covered by 2 lenses already, no real need to rush out to buy the bigger 1-does-it-all as a replacement. You don’t even gain in weather-sealing.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. Good to hear from you. Yes, better to get a prime if you already have the kit duo.

[@k6usy]

The 14-150 is weather sealed.

[@wicckedman]

Hi Rob, thanks for the comparison. I switched my two kit lenses to 14-150 and I was worried that it will dissapoint me. So far I am very satisfied with the lens, it's super convenient to just have one lens on the body during my journeys. Recently I bought Topaz AI Denoise which also sharpens up the images and combined with the lens, the photos look great. Cheers!

[@RobTrek]

Yes, I use mine all the time. It works great.

[@jf9979]

Excellent comparison. I'm in the process of getting rid of my 2 kit lenses for the 14to150. A compromise on the short focus sharpness, but hey, you can't have everything.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. So true.

[@50mmnikonainikkor55]

Learned so much with respect to Olympus gear/photography from you. Thank you. I bought a beat up em10 i sometime back to to test out some non Nikon vintage lenses. It came with a 12-50 and a 40-150, all at roughly 175 dollars. That's a camera body and 2 lenses( 24-300mm) and it all fits on my palm.

[@thomasanderson5929]

Recently bought an E-M10 ii with an Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3, Panasonic 25 f/1.7 and an Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 with 2 chargers and 2 batteries for $185 USD. This is my first experience with a M43 setup (also own a Canon 70D with some L grade lenses.....). First impression is that the camera is loaded with features and customization. However, noise levels are disappointing, but that's expected (might upgrade to a E-M1 iii). White balance on the M10ii seems to be 'off' (also have a Sony A7ii and did some comparisons and the Sony does an excellent job with colours). Can't complain about the price I paid, but what I'm really looking to do is to replace my 70D for travel as its my main camera for street and landscape photography.

[@robertcudlipp3426]

Another excellent review thanks Rob. I admire the manner in which you do not simply say the Pro version of any lens is " the go to". That said, have only seen mega positive reviews of the Pro version, but it is expensive, even 2nd hand. Additionally, the extra light gathering abilities of the Pro version appeal. That said, I am very pleased with the results with the non pro version which is unbeatable value for money. Many thanks for your very sensible and practical reviews.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks, Robert. I prefer the non-pro lenses because the smaller and cost a lot less.

[@natsbubbast781]

Agreed. I am so sick and tired of constant recommendations to “just get the pro lens.” It’s frustrating to the point that it makes me wonder if to get any decent photos at all I’d need to spend a whole lot of money. This in turn means I keep leaning back towards my Canon DSLR gear because a bigger sensor is “easier” to manage and their gear is much cheaper. I moved to Olympus in the first place because the bulk of the DSLR was driving me nuts.

[@robertcudlipp3426]

@@natsbubbast781 Just go with the non pro glass. The primes are both fast enough and give excellent images. The only exception is the great 12-40 2.8 Pro- purchased mint example and it's just a great lens.

[@robertcudlipp3426]

It really does seem that the shorter of the Pro zooms is excellent value for money, though not cheap. It has all the reach I would need.

[@wahtanov]

Thanks Rob, as always your video are informative and entertaining. Thanks for the advice at the end of the video. My 40-150 f4-5.6 just arrive and now I got 3 lenses (two kit 14-42, 40-150 & one prime 45 f1.8).

[@RobTrek]

Thanks!

[@johnyutzey6504]

Olympus has been making good glass for a long time, including consumer lenses. I've only had one Oly lens I just couldn't come to love: the 17mm 2.8. Otherwise been very happy with both zooms and primes. I don't own any pro lenses, because for what I do, the consumer lenses are quite sufficient for me. So the good news here is that when it comes to the 40-150 + prime vs. the 14-150, I don't think you can make a bad decision, at least on comparative image quality. Wallet maybe.

[@RobTrek]

Totally agree. Thanks.

[@gregm6894]

Rob, thanks for going to all the effort. However, I do have all three lenses -- the 14-150mm is the one that stays glued to my E-M1 Mkll when I'm not doing a professional shoot. It bothered me that your test at 40mm showed such poor results for the 14-150mm vs the 40-150mm @ 39/40mm. I set my camera up in my studio on a tripod, using window light and did shots of a baseball cap that I have at ISO200, f/5.6 using the 2 Sec timer -- I did shots at 40mm and 100mm. In both cases the shots were extremely sharp with excellent detail, with the very slight edge going to the 14-150mm. I only compared focus point sharpness, since my concern was the obvious difference in your portrait test. That said, there may have been a focusing issue with your test shots, or your 14-150mm is just not as sharp as my copy. As an aside, one reason I love my 14-150mm is that I bought it used in 'mint' condition, and it only cost me $19. :-) I had won an online photo competition and was awarded a $300 gift certificate to Adorama. They had this lens listed in their 'Used' Department for $319. I love it when stuff like this happens. :-)

[@RobTrek]

Hi, Greg. Thanks for your feedback. You are not alone in this observation. I have since retested the 14-150mm at these focal lengths on my E-M1 Mark III. The results were much improved and I'd say it was at least equal to the other lenses in my new tests. I may do a follow up video to share this but I think my recommendation at the end would still stand. It's a great lens but money might be better spend on the 40-150 R and choice prime.

[@gregm6894]

@@RobTrek Thanks for the reply Rob. Your videos are a great learning resource. I fully agree about your conclusion, if someone is not looking for a 'do it all' travel/walk about lens. Another greatly overlooked lens is the amazing Oly 12-50mm. That lens along with the 40-150mm give you an even wider capability with very light weight, good macro capability, and smooth video zoom. I don't use mine real often, but I wouldn't part with it due to its versatility.

[@zayacz123]

Thank you for working so hard! Excellent video!

[@RobTrek]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@san-chil]

Nice and a useful video. Can you do the same test with 12-200mm thrown into the mix as well, Rob ?

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. Unfortunately I don't own the 12-200mm, so can't compare them. From what I've seen, the 12-200mm is about the same up to 150mm.

[@randybodenner626]

Hi Rob, thanks for your hard work. Very much appreciated. I was very surprised at how well the 14-150 did. Tell me, did you manually focus the tests and have you heard whether ver.2 of this lens is a lot better than ver1.

[@RobTrek]

I used the auto focus for the test. I've heard the ver.2 is better but don't have a ver.1 to compare. Thanks.

[@randybodenner626]

@@RobTrek Thanks Rob for the reply. For some reason I thought you were using ver1 of the 14-150.

[@powerlink2000]

Thanks for the excellent review. Extremely well done!

[@RobTrek]

Glad it was helpful!

[@BobK58]

If money is an issue for $99 the 40-150 is a no brainer. Works great on my EM10.2. I'm saving up for the 100-400 next spring. I'll match it with my EM1.2 for wildlife shots. Nice video. Again!

[@RobTrek]

Thanks, Bob.

[@imagenatura]

It would appear to me that the "ultimate" kit would be the 14-150 for outside landscape and have a 45mm prime for portraits outside. For inside, you'd need a 17 or 25mm. Potentially, the Leica 25 f/1.4 would be a good compromise for both, especially since the version 2 of that lens is also weather-sealed. What do you think?

[@RobTrek]

If weather sealing is a priority, then the 14-150 + 25mm f/1.4. Another option would be to get the 12-100mm f/4 and 25mm f/1.4.

[@imagenatura]

@@RobTrek Thanks, Rob.

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

Great comparison Rob! Sorry I haven't been around as much, been busy with our channel and helping my mother buy a house. Hopefully things will settle down soon, and I will be back to the live feeds. Thanks for the video.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. No worries. Hope to see you soon!

[@angusbrown325]

Your videos resonate with me. I love your structured approach and your presentation style. Your videos are always awesome! My take is that the kit lenses are best for family photography and the 14-150 is best if you are into landscapes that are further away than typical family gatherings! 😄 This really helped me to make my buying decision as most of the time I am photographing my dog who is typically at close range, so the 40-150 is my go to complement my 14-42.

[@RobTrek]

I photograph my dog a lot too! I've been using my 25mm f/1.8 lately but the kit lenses are pretty reliable tools.

[@wahabdilawar]

Great review. Totally agree with all your points. I have the 14-42 EZ and the 40-150. I seldom use any of them, because I have become addicted to the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, because it ALWAYS does the job for me. I have to clean the dust off off the other lenses now that the weather is much better here. Still very dusty though. I really liked your indoor lighting in this video. Thank you very much for your time and effort.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. The indoor lighting is simple. Two 75w equivalent LED bulbs I bought from the hardware store. One is the normal ceiling light in the room, the other behind a soft white umbrella.

[@wahabdilawar]

@@RobTrek Great. I tried the same in this video, but yours looks much better. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXeceJuEacmYmZY

[@kevinlui8601]

Bear in mind with the 40-150mm, you get a faster aperture (f4.0) @40mm than with the 14-150mm (f5.4) @45mm .. according to ImageResources.

[@johannortner4193]

This is a great video. Like the tests at multiple focal lengths, and with practical examples. So many others just use test patterns when testing lenses. Very informative, you did a great job. Thanks

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. I try.

[@shortwavetube7652]

The 14-150 weather sealed. Perfect for my Philippines trip, Hot Humid and lots of Salty Sandy seaside adventures mixed with some good ole Manilla chicken barbeque Smoke and diesel Smog. Especially considering your usually wearing shorts and a tee. No need to bring anything other than spare battery and sd cards.

[@RobTrek]

Perfect!

[@lkaufman719]

Excellent comparison. More like this and fewer streams!

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. I'll try and make more videos. I've fallen behind with all that's been going on.

[@giuseppeesposito6312]

Interesting; thanks. But what do you think about the lens hood not locking onto the 14-150?

[@RobTrek]

I didn't have any problems with the lens hood. Always stayed on.

[@giuseppeesposito6312]

@@RobTrek I see. A locking step could be useful however. In my experience, especially if you have it slung over your shoulder and the lens rubs, for example, on your jacket, without a locking mechanism it risks twisting and slipping off

[@AKAndrew]

This is such a great video, and tells me exactly what I needed to know. Thank you SO much for great detail. I currently have the 40-150mm and the Panasonic 25 mm (1.7) What would be the next logical lens choice? I do a mix of street, landscape and wildlife photography. Thank you so much!

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. The 45mm f/1.8

[@AKAndrew]

@@RobTrek thank you. Much appreciated.

[@HenryFalkner]

My E-M10 II came with the 14-42 plus the 40-150 kit lenses. Changing lenses during cruise ship departures lost video footage. Then I got the weather-resistant 14-150 II, then recently the E-M10 IV body. The 14-150 is in use almost exclusively now on the E-M10 IV body, with more reliable focusing as I zoom.. As a rule of thumb, on video trips into town and back, I prefer the whole focal range without messing with lens changes. I use the E-M10 IV for video, and the E-M10 II with 40-150 for stills while the video is running. Another 14-150 II for the E-M10 II might be on the table when I get the next tax return.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. Yes, not having to swap lenses can get the shot!

[@markanderson6639]

Good review. I already have the 14-150 mm and I was wondering whether it was worth getting one or both of the the other two.

[@RobTrek]

Glad I could help!

[@xms111]

Thanks Rob for reducing my angst on whether I “should have “ done something different. Even though the sales guy swore by (not at) his 14-150, it was past my price point at the time so I picked up a 40-150 plastic fantastic refurb from him. Well satisfied with my choices. And after this comparison video I can why he would prefer the 14-150.

[@RobTrek]

The 14-150mm does perform well for what it is. But I think money is better spent on a prime. I got mine for next to nothing on a flash sale earlier this year. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

[@johnrayner8126]

Prior to my changing to M43 I had the Oly E-620 with the two kit lenses described here. Now that I have the OMD EM10 Mkii + 14-150mm, tho' a convenient lens (not having to constantly change lenses as the scene changes) it does fall short as described in your video. Another problem is lens-creep - while carrying the camera and lens I now have to hold the lens to prevent it from sliding out fully extended. It's a great pity that the two kit lenses don't have metal mounts; my old lens mounts (plastic)on the E-620 eventually wore out from all the lens changing.

[@RobTrek]

Yeah, plastic mounts are bad. I suppose by the time they wear out, it's cheap enough to get another one.

[@MichaelGerrard]

Thanks, that was a very helpful comparison. The E-M5 III is sold as a kit with the 14-150 II, that would make it a good deal.

[@RobTrek]

I know, they are practically giving the lens away for free right now as a kit.

[@richardgardiner9597]

Great video, Rob. I was wondering if the 14-150mm would be worth it if I already had the other 2 lenses. Now I can confidently focus (no pun intended) on deciding between the 17mm and the 25mm. Thanks for taking the time to do this video.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks, Richard. This is exactly why I made the video. It's important to compare a lens against what most people already have. There's no point to review a lens in a vacuum. As for the 17 vs 25, I'd recommend the 17. 25 just feels a bit tight to me. With the 17, you can get more in the frame when you need it and then just crop a little if you want the tighter shot.

[@peterashton5941]

Thank you for this review sir. Much appreciated. Is this lens a good fit for the new on-5? Take care and stay safe.

[@RobTrek]

Yes, very good match. However, if you can, go for the 12-100 f/4. It's a much better lens.

[@peterashton5941]

@@RobTrek Thank you sir.

[@Marco_Chiappetta]

This is interesting. I have a few questions, because your experience is the opposite of mine. The 14-150 continually impresses me, whereas the 40-150 has always seemed soft. 1) Because you used JPEGs, do the cameras do additional processing / corrections with the cheaper 40-150? Perhaps some additional sharpening? 2) Have you dropped your 14-150? 3) Have you tried manual focusing on a predetermined point and making the same comparisons?

[@RobTrek]

Hi, Marco. You must be a regular viewer of mine because you're asking very good questions! 1. Yes, jpegs are processed in-camera to reduce noise, slightly sharpen, correct for lens distortion, and chromatic aberrations to name a few. However, since I used jpegs for all lenses, the net result will be the same. 2. Probably, but I don't think it's damaged. Could just be a factory sample variation. Either my 40-150 is sharper than yours or my 14-150 is softer. Very plausible. No way for me to test since I only have one of each lens. 3. I don't think manually focusing would make a difference, especially on the landscape shots. The depth of field is sufficient enough. However, I did look around the frame to see if there were any differences in focus, checking different points in front of and behind the target focus plane. I believe I got all the lenses to focus properly on the same point. Try and duplicate what I did and let me know your results. You don't need to use flash as I did. Just pick subjects at various distances from 2 meters to 50+ meters and see.

[@hnahler]

I don’t have the 14-150 and don’t mind carrying the weight of the two f2.8 pro lenses. When I go out on a photo shoot, just myself, swapping lenses is not an issue either. When I go on a walk or travel with friends, family or my partner this becomes different. Carrying an extra bag is suddenly not so convenient when you also have to take the dog. Others who are with you don’t have the patience for you to evaluate a scene and then spend some more time swapping lenses. I will typically just have the 12-40 PRO on my camera which means any Tele shots are missed. Those are the cases when I think I would love the 14-150 or maybe saving up for the 12-100 f4 PRO IS which will also do a lot better in low light due to IS.

[@RobTrek]

That sums it up nicely. Thanks.

[@hauke3644]

Same situation for me! 12-40 is my very standard lens, but sometimes I want less weight and more reach. Meanwhile I got the 14-150 for a good price. For portrait shots or so I will often have the 45/1.8 or the Pergear 35/1.6 in the pocket. The 14-150 looks very well-made for the price, and it even came with a tulip lens hood.

[@friatankar]

In those cases I take my 12-200 mm lens.

[@philcool168]

Another great review Rob, I'm learning a lot watching your You Tube videos. I recently bought the 14-140mm and think I'll stick with that as I'm mainly in to Land and Seascape photography. I have also recently bought the 45mm 1.8 prime to compliment it.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks! Great combination.

[@HenryFalkner]

When Sandra wants a picture from a dress she bought for herself and her mum, she wants a picture taken 15 minutes before she asked. Having to change lenses first risks a panic. I did a series of 24 such shots on the 14-150. They all passed muster with her mum. But each shot has best focus in a different place, some on Sandra's face, others on different parts of her dress. Have a look at your self portraits to see whether you can observe a similar variation.

[@RobTrek]

I'm going to retest this lens because like you, many were surprised at the results for closer subjects. I myself hadn't noticed the stark difference until I made this video.

[@valdiskrebs566]

The 14-150 is my new fav lens - glued to my OM-D EM1 MK1. I don’t do pixel peeping, but like the photos from 14-150mm better than the kit lenses... maybe it is the increased contrast? The 14-150 is my “outdoor” lens while the Pany 20mm f/1.7 and Oly 45mm/f1.8 are my “indoor” lenses. Simple and light outfit.

[@RobTrek]

Good mix of lenses there. Ready for anything!

[@user735_]

1:12 from that moment I new the difference (if any) wouldn't justify the price. I mean... even if you got the body only, that pair of kit lenses is unbeatable.

[@RobTrek]

Agreed. Thanks!

[@TonyHiggins]

Some of these points have been mentioned, but since I own the same lenses I wanted to share my experiences. - Weatherproofing is very valuable unless you are a pure fair-weather photographer - When traveling or doing opportunistic shooting, the all-in-one aspect of the 14-150 is extremely valuable - I don't think you mentioned whether the 14-150 you tested was a first series or second series lens; there were some notable improvements in the series 2 (the version I own) - I also don't think you mentioned whether the 14-42 was the original (mechanical zoom, available in both an early series and a series 2) or the later EZ design (which I own); again, some optical improvements in the EZ and presumably the series 2 (haven't owned one of these so I can't say) - It's worth noting that there was also an early version of the 40-150 kit lens that is seen on the used market; it was not given the ED and MSC designations, and was a weaker offering, and I'm not sure whether it was sold in all regions. This early version would definitely be worth avoiding if you are going to use the lens for video, as the focusing noise would be audible - Shooting at ISO 200 and f5.6 was, in my view, not typical of how these lenses will often be used, especially the tele-zoom aspect. I usually shoot at f8 and ISO 400 or 800 for both the 40-150 and 14-150; the 14-42 I use across a wider range of f-stops. Shooting at f8 and at any distance over 15 meters, the 14-150 is as good or better than the 40-150, except in rare occasions such as heavy detail in the corners - Both of the longer lenses benefit markedly from a lens hood under almost all conditions - BTW, I do also use a 17mm f2.8, 45mm f1.8, 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 Series 2, and a Rokinon 7.5mm f3.5

[@RobTrek]

Thank you, Tony. I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. For clarity, I was using the series 2 versions of the kit lenses. I typically shoot wide open with these lenses in auto-iso. I tested at iso200 to maximize image quality for the comparisons.

[@samwang5831]

I have acquired 3 Panasonic lenses recently and so I did a little comparison with my 14-150mm ii. At 14mm, surprisingly, the Oly 14-150 landscaape shot is even a bit sharper than both the Panny 12-32mm and 14mm pancake. This corroborates with your findings. The contrast is slightly worse though. At 45mm it beats the Panny 45-175mm easily. But at 100mm the Panny is noticeably better and at 150mm the Panny is the obvious winner in both sharpness and contrast.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks for sharing your comparison.

[@k6usy]

Got the 14-42 kit lens and the 40-150 as a combo with my E-PL5 years ago. The 40-150 is a good light telephoto, even better when you get it for free as part of a promo. Now that I have an E-M5III and the 12-40 & 40-150 pro lenses the older kit lenses stay on the shelf but I still can’t bring my self to sell them. The 14-150 that came with my E-M5III went into my wife’s bag but I still have it available as an option.

[@RobTrek]

I know what you mean about not selling the kit lenses. They're not worth much on the used market and they are so small and light.

[@k6usy]

@@RobTrek I see the kit lenses pop up on eBay all the time and people seem to think they can get 80%+ of their money back.

[@finnwang1538]

Hi, Rob. Great video - again 🤗📷. You are amazing in the way you explain and present. Thanks so much 🥳

[@RobTrek]

Thanks!

[@WilliamWallaceRoss]

I have the 12-45 f4 Pro and just ordered the 75-300 f4.8-6.7, so, the 40-140 f4-5.6 probably makes more sense. As someone who shoots mainly landscapes and the occasional wildlife captures, at $130 US the 40-150mm would probably outperform my Panasonic Lumix 45-150 f4-5.6 I own. However, I am going to run one more test of the Panasonic Lumix today to see if I can get the sharpness to improve, but, I suspect it suffers at the long end.

[@RobTrek]

I've never used the Lumix 45-150. There can be some sample variation, so maybe your copy is a little weak? My copy of the 40-150mm is fantastic!

[@JyrkiKoponen]

Thanks, great review. I have both those kit lenses, but weather sealing (with my e-m1 II) is important for me. Plus 1 lens less what i need get with me for general shooting.

[@RobTrek]

The 14-150mm is my go to lens!

[@ronmorris4983]

Well that answered the question for me. Was thinking of the 14-150 because of the weather sealing but I have the 40-150 and a 12-40 f2.8 and I think I will stick to that. Love the 12-40!

[@RobTrek]

Agreed! You're all set.

[@robertocarlosgarciagarcia4520]

Rob, this is another great video. Another option, if you have both kit lenses and you are interested in landscapes, is getting a refurb or mild used 9-18mm for around the same 350 usd right? This is the option I am considering but recently I got the 45mm who performs so well that having a 17mm f1.8 is an attractive option ...

[@RobTrek]

Yes, the 9-18mm is awesome. I want that lens myself. It is significantly wider than 14mm and is ideal for landscapes and street photography.

[@neobluepill6051]

Nice comparative video, I already have both kit lenses that why as you adviced I invested in prime lenses (12mm, 30mm and 45mm). In the future I'm looking for some great deals on the 12-40 pro to upgrade my gears.

[@RobTrek]

I have some videos comparing the 12-40pro vs primes you can check out.

[@hauke3644]

The difference in performance between portrait and far away is very interesting, I would never have expected that, because even with a portrait, we have a scale of approximately 50:1 - not really macro...

[@RobTrek]

It surprised me too!

[@johnhazelroth899]

Great review! I currently have the 14-150 and this has been my most used lens. I also have the 75-300 for wildlife, however it is slow and bulky, but still useful. I am considering adding the 8-25mm pro. Thought this may help give me a wider lens which is sharper. However after your review, it appears that the 14-150 is sharp on landscape. My question, should I consider adding the 8-25mm? This would give me three lens which would cover most everything or would the 8-25mm be a duplication (and at the current price would be an expensive duplication). Thanks for your thoughts.

[@RobTrek]

I think if you happy with the image quality from the 14-150, then no need for the 8-25mm. If you need wider than 14mm, you can always take two pictures side-by-side and stitch them back together using the panorama feature. I do that all the time. You might want to consider the Oly 25mm f/1.8 or Pana 25mm f/1.7 for low light photography.

[@xmeda]

75-300 is not bulky :D Sigma 50-500 is bulky :D

[@jerry2357]

Personally, I use the 14-150 as my main lens, but I always carry the Olympus 12 mm f/2 (which is fairly small and light) in case I need something a bit wider in an urban environment. I also have the Olympus 17 mm, 25 mm and 45 mm f/1.8 prime lenses, which I sometimes use. Having seen this comparison, I will remember to swap to the 25 mm or 45 mm prime lens when taking portraits.

[@petedraper5185]

I bought a brand new Olympus 14 - 150mm II for £279 specifically for photographing family parties and my grandson. It is not the sharpest Olympus lens; but given that my family views the images I take on their smart phones, it is more than adequate. Coupled with my EM1 mark III it provides a compact, lightweight package with a brilliant focal length range. I mostly use it with an FL900R so the fact that it is not a fast lens is immaterial.

[@RobTrek]

Great deal on the 14-150mm! Yes, more people should use flash to mitigate low light situations.

[@absurdfool]

fantastic tests, thkU; i've gone for the 14-150, got 1 old version (not weather shield) for 60 quids from a friend and sold the 40-150 (used less than two years) in the market for the same price Cheers

[@absurdfool]

btw i'm using it w/ my old gear --- Ep3 plus a view-finder

[@RobTrek]

Nice 👍

[@marvincordova8956]

very good explanatory video. you should know that very much all the lenses perform better stepping down a little.

[@RobTrek]

Very true!

[@JonMadd]

Such great, useful, straightforward, effective, wholesome content! 👌

[@RobTrek]

Glad it was helpful!

[@wolfgangkurth6329]

Wow! Nice Review! Of course, it does not take into account individual copies of each lens. I think, considering the the distance issue, I will trade my 40-150 (my copy is more mediocre) and get the 14-150 instead. That way if I shoot close up, I can leave on the 14-42 and for distance shooting, use the 14-150.

[@RobTrek]

Thanks. I bring extension tubes for closeups with my 14-150mm.

[@stevemenez9122]

@@RobTrek A video of that would be interesting.

[@WMedl]

Please provide a written notice of the lebse used, especially here it is difficult to distinguish betwee 14 and 40 acoustically... By the way neither lense has resulted in accepable portraits...

[@RobTrek]

I intentionally did not put written text on the first pair of photos. This was to give a blind comparison without bias. However, all other photos did have written text over them when zooming in to clearly see differences. I agree that these lenses would not be acceptable for professional use in portraits, but general purpose is fine. Thanks.

[@kerry5586]

Another great video. Thank you!

[@RobTrek]

Thank you!

[@eduardtee]

Great comparison. Gives me Hague amount of info for my purchase decision!

[@RobTrek]

Glad it was helpful!

[@gilloupeltier9825]

From France ... Very, very good job , Rob ... as usual . Bravo My lenses (for my Olympus e m10 mk2) : Leica 15mm 1.7 ( Zuiko 17mm wad good but broken ...) Olympus 45mm 1.8 (excellent for portrait) Zoom Olympus 40-150 (cheap: 100 Euros)

[@RobTrek]

THanks. Excellent lenses you have there. Really all you need.

[@Mark_James_Hill]

My God this is crazy in depth! Thanks for all your hard work! I like the primes mostly and find the zooms to be not as fast and sharp. I already Have the 40-150( which I use in Tokyo for well lit slow sports like sumo) and 12-50 (for a weather sealed cheap/macro/travel lens). I like the idea of an all in one lens for event shoots but carrying 2 bodies and shifting focal length focus during the event is not a huge deal, especially if I can get great Bokeh. The primes are so damn small I can hold them between my fingers on one hand and change. I hav ethe Panasonic 15mm, Olympus 25m and the Panasonic 42.5....a holy trinity that produces lovely results for festivals.

[@RobTrek]

That's a great setup. You can do it all and easily carry it all.

[@wyvez4313]

Hi,. Great video! Do i buy the 14 to 150 used - if I have no lenses for my camera - I am thinking wilderness trip photography? Any advice?

[@RobTrek]

The short answer is yes, the 14-150 would be a good fit for your trip. Personally, I'd go with a 14-42 + 75-300mm on a budget. Money no object, the 12-100mm + 150-400mm.

[@xmeda]

Rob what about comparison between 14-42, 12-50 and 14-150 all on 20Mpix body? Manually focused to remove any AF differences. RAW only.

[@RobTrek]

Unfortunately, I don't have the 12-50 or 14-150mm anymore. Traded them to get the 300mm f4. :)

[@Sicklehead88]

based on this video I got the 40-150 as an addition to the 14-42 kit lense. To be honest, I'm still not a huge fan of swapping lenses and I am even thinking about buying the 12-200 (maybe a comparison for that would also be possible?), but for now I'll stick to my lenses and rather exchange the E-PL10 for an EM1 Mk3.

[@RobTrek]

I don't have the 12-200mm, but the images I've seen from it are not great. I think a better plan would be to get the 12-100mm after you get the em1.3.

[@Sicklehead88]

@@RobTrek thank you for the advice!

[@mc256]

Thanks for the video. Which lens (40-150 or 14-150) best accepts a teleconverter without degrading the image too much?

[@RobTrek]

The 40-150 and 14-150 kit lenses can't use a teleconverter. The 40-150mm Pro f/2.8 does. On that lens, virtually no loss in quality.

[@c.augustin]

Have you already done a comparison between the 14-150 and the 12-200? I would just save for longer and go with the 12-200, as it seems to be much better and even has more reach at both ends. The usual primes I do already have, including the 30 mm macro, so the 14-150 does not sound that attractive (to me). And the results of your test for larger distances make sense, if we look at the 14-150 as a typical "travel lens", while the other two are more for "universal use".

[@RobTrek]

Unfortunately I don't own the 12-200, so can't do a comparison. However, I'm not impressed with the 12-200 from the images I've seen from my viewers. My next long lens will be the 40-150mm Pro.