|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on October 01, 2022 Pros: Price, full aperture yield at all focal lengths, weight, overall dimensions Cons: Materials, bayonet, I do not know how long af and diaphragm motor will last Opinion: Once the fetishist part of the photograph has been removed, its merits are appreciated. It is dapperutto. You don't have the anxiety to ruin it. It is very light and therefore as canvases, to avoid micro-shake and shock shutter, it needs a minimum of anti-shock type attention on the first curtain or electronic shot. Here perhaps to find the hair in the egg the minimum distance of maf could have been less. What can I say. Advised |
 | sent on August 25, 2022 Pros: Economical, lightweight, compact, surprising yield, sharp Cons: If I really have to find one the plastic bayonet Opinion: Bought at 89€ new. With the prejudice that it would be crap I was happily surprised. Sharp and excellent yield even at TA. I expected a decay of quality to 150mm (physiological in the zooms so pushed) instead I also managed to make portraits sharp and full of detail. Never expected such a yield, I kept it and still use it! The only flaw, the plastic bayonet. As much as I'm careful, it's still plastic that could break with some wrong movement |
 | sent on August 23, 2022 Pros: At the price I paid it (93.90 shipped, NEW from kit) I would say EVERYTHING: sharpness included, at all focal lengths, even at 150. Cons: Clearly it is all plastic, including bayonet: so if you are a photographer from the Kalahari desert or Antarctica use something else, but with very different costs. Opinion: As said I find it an absolutely FANTASTIC zoom (Plastic Fantastic deserved!): I would never have imagined that such a cheap glass could have an optical yield that in my opinion has very little to envy to its brother Pro2.8 (who owns a friend of mine and with whom I compared it)... I was really amazed by the general sharpness (even at 150, even all open, whatever you say, at least for my specimen) that manages to churn out this small pocket miracle. The files it returns are rich in color, well balanced, and with a remarkable microcontrast that contributes greatly to the overall impression of sharpness. Clearly being plastic it must be treated with a minimum of respect, both as regards any shocks and if it happens to use it in very dusty places, or very hot, very cold, or in the pouring rain ... but with a little care I guarantee you that, little brightness apart (but you know) and with its 86 mm. of length (or rather "shortness") will not make you regret lenses of similar or equivalent focal length but with a cost 7/8 times higher or even more: not to mention weights and dimensions. Mounted on a Pen-F in just 616 grams of total weight you go around with the equivalent on full frame of a quality 80-300, and with a negligible cost What more do you want from life ... a Lucanian? :)) |
  | sent on July 24, 2022 Pros: Cost, lightness Cons: Construction Opinion: I have to tell the truth, I didn't use it very much, but I made a couple of outings and in my opinion it finds its maximum in landscape use when lightness makes the difference. In the past I had on apsc the 55-300 Nikon, an almost equivalent in apsc. At the time I paid the Nikon more than double what I paid this Olympus. In general the optical quality seemed superior to me as a final result, not excellent but still good ... doing a bit of testing the quality seemed to me to improve a lot by just closing the 6.3/7.1 aperture at the maximum focal length, while at the minimum or in any case at the medium / short focal lengths it seemed to me to be fine even at the maximum aperture. The construction instead the Nikon seemed better, more solid and easy to handle and also the stabilizer worked very well. Unfortunately I used it only on om10 first series and I can not express myself neither on the stabilizer, which at long focal lengths (over 100) did not go much, nor on the autofocus, only in contrast of the first series, which was quite slow. Probably on more modern machines it will certainly be better. I expressed my doubts a bit, but in the end you also have to consider the price... at less than 100 euros an 80-300 equivalent does not exist, and if it exists it is worse than this, ok it will not be a top of the range but it is absolutely worth more than the price at which it is found around. |
 | sent on December 30, 2021 Pros: Sharp at all lengths (yes, even at 150mm), 300mm equivalent, economical, small, lightweight Cons: All plastic, a bit dark, is history that those of olympus do not give you the hood, AF not really at the top Opinion: Coupled with the 9-18, on two em10mkii bodies, they were my "all-rounder" targets. One for near and one for far. It's all plastic but it really weighs nothing and I've never had any problems (I even fell to the ground once and only the metal of the protective filter bent). A bit 'dark at 150mm, especially considering that you are shooting on m43 with all the problems that start at 1600 iso, but if there is light goes to god. I will say more: very often I came home with better photos of my friend with the 5Dmk3 and the 70-200 f2.8... Af is painful, but that can also be the body certainly not performing. I didn't take a thing on the fly if it stood still in the middle. |
 | sent on August 18, 2021 Pros: size and weight, excellent sharpness, cost Cons: darkness and construction Opinion: 80-300mm equivalent in less than 9cm and 200gr! As for the transportability and the cost leaves you speechless. Of course it's not metal, it's not a 2.8 etc... however, it is robust enough to digest many mistreatments and, shooting during the day, hardly goes into crisis due to the brightness. As for IQ there is nothing to say. Compared with the Olympus 45/1.8, at the same focal length, it returns virtually overlapping images. And the sharpness is not lacking even at maximum length. I do not know if there is homogeneity of copies, however, if all are like the one in my possession, you want to travel light, you do not make photographic hunting your purpose (for that there are the PRO Oly), it is categorically to have. |
| sent on October 29, 2020 Pros: Cons: Nothing, given the cost Opinion: Bought new for 78 euros (miracle of a White box) he takes more than good photos. Not very bright, but with olympus bodies stabilized the move does not create many problems. Of course it makes an impression to hold something that looks like a plastic toy, but the results are impressive in relation to the price, nothing to envy to a 70-300 of my previous Sony kit paid about 10 times more. With little money I (at the moment) completed my newly purchased kit: M5 mark III with the 12-45 f4 pro (what optics). Even at full price you can not miss in an Olympus kit. |
 | sent on October 12, 2020 Pros: Cheap, light, great value for money Cons: None for the cost. The only flaws found: the zooming ring is a bit hard at first and the lack of zoom scrolling block, seen scrolling externally. Opinion: We tried Zuiko 40-150 because we were looking for a telephoto for our excursions. We preferred it to the brightest brother for a matter of price and especially weight. Paid 120th, weighs only 190 grams and measures 83mm (length) × 63.5mm (diameter). Great to have behind in the mountains for wildlife sighting! It takes up very little space in the backpack. It is not a very bright lens but, used in good light conditions, it makes very pleasant and pleasant shots. Difficult to use indoors if the light conditions are not good. The sharpness is great at 40mm and surprisingly good even at 150mm. We have not noticed any particular chromatic aberrations. However, nothing that cannot be easily corrected. We loved it. You can also get a nice bokeh when you shoot at 100/150mm. In short, there is nothing to be said given the cost of the objective. If we really want to be fiscal, the only flaws are the dial of the zooming is a bit harsh at the beginning and the lack of the zoom scrolling block, seen scrolling externally. |
 | sent on December 21, 2019 Pros: Good value for money Cons: Plastic; dive slow manual focus Opinion: Bought at 150 euros to complete a kit for the Olympus OMDE10II I did not have many expectations, given the price and reviews. With this system I am not looking for the highest quality, only lightness and portability and I have to say that I got what I was looking for. For me the only negative note is the slow manual focus dial, in the sense that you have to turn a lot, you have to move a lot, it is not direct. For the rest, like plasticity, the toy effect, I do not consider them defects but characteristics that given the price I can not twist the nose. |
 | sent on October 23, 2019 Pros: Very light, good sharpness, cheap, holds well flare and ghost Cons: All plastic, missing the lampshade Opinion: I was amazed, I admit. It has a pleasantly unexpected yield. To hold it in its hand it looks (and is) a plastic object from which to claim little. It actually returns very sharp shots at any opening, even at 150mm it is still well defined. It holds up the backlights very well and does not suffer from flare or ghost. It is very light and very compact, so it never misses from the backpack or bag. The only defect, but very marginal, is given by a slight chromatic aberration at the edges in case of strong contrasts. Unfortunately, there is no lampshade that costs as a percentage at the price of the lens a disproportionate! I still have some doubts about the durability, being also the plastic bayonet, but at the cost of less than 150 euros for a new one, surely in case it breaks I will buy another one! |
user68000  | sent on October 21, 2019 Pros: It weighs little, cheap, good sharpness Cons: Delicate to use Opinion: His nickname, Plastic Fantastic, says it all; it's perfect for light mountain rides to pair with a wide angle; moreover, although the reproduction ratio does not make him think, he does very well in the pseudo-macro; love at first sight, but lasting even after almost a year of use; I did not find particularly hard the dial of the zoom, if not at the beginning, perhaps because of some scrap in the barrel joints |
 | sent on March 14, 2019 Pros: Value for money. Good definition. Compactness and lightness. Cons: It lacks the lens hood. For what it costs has no other flaws. Opinion: Ideal focal length to be joined to a 12-40 or 12-35 maybe bright. I bought it again at €150. I have to say I was surprised by the sharpness at full aperture and at all focal lengths. Taking into account the size and lightness is a very good goal. Combined with the 12-40 Pro cover the focal 24-300 equivalents. The plastic bayonet does not affect the optical quality, just treat it with regard. In short, very good judgement if you know what to expect from a little object like this. |
 | sent on December 28, 2018 Pros: Quality/price, lightness, focal length, contained dimensions. Cons: Plastic Bayonet, chromatic aberration Opinion: Rated 8: Excellent price quality considering that with 100/120 € you can take one used. 80/300 focal length Exploabilissima. F 4-5.6 Good by day (of course evening fatigue). Good sharpness for its price, you notice chromatic aberration in the contrasts. Manual mass infinite focus ring like all Olympus base lenses. Zoom difficult to exploit on video. |
  | sent on October 04, 2018 Pros: General yield, focal range, lightness, price Cons: Hard Zoom Ring Opinion: At an incredibly low price it offers a remarkable quality already at full aperture, important thing since it is a little light optics. Taken to complete a kit M43 secondary covers all needs in the field Tele (is a 80-300 FF equivalent). He suffers a little at the highest focal but nothing dramatic. MAF precise and reasonably fast on OMD 10 mkii, color rendition a bit chilly but it easily system in PP. If you do not need an ultrarisolvent at full aperture is highly recommended. As others have done I also point out that the zoom ring is particularly Hard. The all-plastic construction, including bayonet, is of excellent workmanship and with quality materials helping to keep the price low. Recommended. |
 | sent on September 22, 2018 Pros: Weight (light), footprint (minimum), sharpness from 5.6 up (over 100 mm from F. 8!) but still discreet at T.A., price. In short it is a good lens even if it is not a real excellence. Cons: I can't find it. Maybe the brightness, but it would weigh more and cost more (see EZ version, for example that weighs double and is brighter than just half diaphragm, almost and does not solve the problem of MAF difficult in low light conditions) Opinion: Practical, light, discreet. I'm taking him to the purse with the 14-42 machine body. The auto focus suffers a little bit in low light conditions, but just set the manual focus and you're done. Great for going light, traveling, for Street View, trekking. Very manageable so the stabilization of the camera was almost unnecessary and often exclude it completely to the advantage of battery life. For those who want more (and can or want to spend more) there are the focal (almost equivalent) versions of the "Pro" or the most cumbersome FF. |
 | sent on September 19, 2018 Pros: Weight: Feather footprint: Minimum sharpness: Beyond any real necessity in 98% of cases price: negligible Cons: Whatsoever. The lens hood is missing but it is not a defect of the objective, it is a defect of Olympus. Opinion: This lens is a boon for those who want to go light albeit with a lens that pulls a lot (corresponding angle of field on FF: 80-300). The weight is below the two-so lighter than the hood of a pro lens. The price is so low that it is almost outrageous. Given its characteristics is a lens that lends itself well to photography street "timid", the one that does not put the camera in front of the mouth of the subject. The Straconsiglio. |
user58495 | sent on October 21, 2017 Pros: For even two hundred euros and this yield, everything ... but that's all Cons: Sold without hood Opinion: Small, light, cute, all in all well constructed.I have for a couple of days, next to 7/14 Pro and 12/40 Pro on OMD M5MKII.rnSTRABILIANTE.rnLeggero, sharp even at full opening, a bit of softness is felt at the maximum focal point.rn Beautiful colors, great contrast and contrast, Oly stabilizer makes it usable in many critical situations.rnIt did not expect much for so little ... With this I completed my mini mini kit 4 / 3 and now, around taking photos, lightweight and weightless and bulky! RnPacked for the hood not included, otherwise it would be a full 10 and praise! |
user124620 | sent on September 29, 2017 Pros: lightness compactness optical quality price Cons: nobody Opinion: really spectacular, lightweight with a great image quality. perfect for excursions, af fast, my did not miss any hit at this time. I would recompress it without thinking about it if I had to break it. plasticous but if you need to keep the price low to me it's fine, with this quality then, I put the signature on it. It's a bit hard to zoom, but I prefer so, reminds me of the old zoom what now call vintage. |
 | sent on September 23, 2017 Pros: great value for money, light weight. Cons: he is not a handyman Opinion: I say I'm a neophyte, so I turn these impressions above all to those who still have the kit with a 14 42. Coming from the kit kit (14-42 EZ), I found in 40 150 the natural completion of the focals, but also a great a qualitative increase in contrast, and a slight improvement in brightness at least in comparison with the "boundary" focal area, ie 40mm. I'm sorry I can not use it as a handyman, otherwise I would not take it anymore now. In the choice I also evaluated the 12 50, but it would not be a completion, and then whoever tried it both found it inferior to optical quality. The next choice will be a fixed quality (I thought at 25mm f1.7 Panalei) not to think anymore at 14 42 EZ. |
 | sent on March 19, 2017 Pros: Lightness certainly and manageability, good definition Cons: Plastic bayonet and construction a little too cheap, zoom excursion a bit harsh Opinion: Purchased on the advice of my trusted dealer, I must say that it is an honest perspective that also returns excellent results in good light, both as colors, contrast and sharpness. Obviously being a little dark, in low light conditions you have to raise the ISO a bit, even if the stabilizer of the M1 always does a great job. The zoom hike is a bit hard and perhaps not very precise and the results at the maximum excursion are perhaps not striking, but for the cost of the optics in itself I would say that there can be, and used at intermediate diaphragms, it always behaves very well One thing that I can not digest is the plastic bayonet, which always forces us to pay attention to the assembly. In any case, I would recommend the purchase even for those who have no big budget to invest and also because it is fully respected the concept of portability ... it is really small and very light. UPDATE of 04/03/2018. After a good trial period, I have to change my mind about the performance of this onebody. The sharpness is really stunning even at 150mm. I took macro photos with extension tubes to reduce the focus distance a bit ... well, I was speechless !! Of course, given the low cost of the lens, I can not say if this prerogative can be found on all the specimens produced ... but so .... On balance, I think the only handicap of this lens is only the little brightness that can be a limit in some situations |
 | sent on February 25, 2017 Pros: Dimensions - Weight - Price - Quality Cons: Material - Plastic Bayonet - As usual, missing the hood Opinion: Obviously it is a telephoto lens from basic kit, for which the brightness is the standard in such cases. Still looks good at all, considering the price of optics. Good build quality that reflects only the plasticky material used. The bayonet is not metal, so better be careful enough (without going crazy) to avoid unnecessary problems. I recommend it to those who want a canvas to be attached to the standard 14-42. Lacks the stabilizer but the Olympus have all the stabilization on the sensor, so it is not a problem. |
 | sent on June 12, 2016 Pros: Price, sharpness (not absolute), leggerorn Cons: Plasticky, a bit 'dark, very little zooming fluid Opinion: I have a pana GX7 as the second body having a mirrorless for outputs without backpacks and heaviness SLR was one of the goals I had. Happy with the choice made as a body I needed a minimum profit objectives according to different situations. This canvases, doubled in M43, it becomes a 300mm teased me especially having a few more solid to spend. I finally gave in to the price, however, are amazed from usability of this lens: the sharpness is generally good, few defects both aberrations both flare, of course, is not exactly bright (but it must be said that I'm used to the other two coming to 1.7 and 1.8 for which they are not hurt:) rnUnico pretty obvious flaw is the lack of fluidity of the zoom mechanism, the friction is also quite annoying if the perception decreases with time and the rest uso.rnPer very light because plasticosissimo (then of one advantage it is offset by the disadvantage of appearance) in valuePrice then my final judgment is more than good. If you want to go pro lenses clearly switching to another world for prices and yields. |
 | sent on October 21, 2015 Pros: Size, weight, price. Cons: Bayonet plastic Opinion: I bought this lens, the Olympus PL7 tested a few days ago for the first time I must say I sodfisfatto for yield, the lens is not very bright, but doing her duty, I have the black version and I can not complain of the quality of plastic. I agree that the best performance will have between 60 and 90mm.rnconsigliato. |
 | sent on February 26, 2015 Pros: Price, weight, size, good extension of the focal length (almost 4x), handling. Cons: Bayonet-mount plastic, precise but to be treated with care. Rightly dim and rarely suitable for intensive use. Opinion: Objective "honest". Definitely worth all that it cost. Personally I enjoy more using the wide-angle and ultra-wide angle, requiring no more than just enough to optical tele. So it is a good compromise between investment and actual use. In other words I consider this perspective a good complement to the kit, just to take the 2-5 percent of the photos. For hunting with a mirrorless camera is the 40-150 2.8 to three million pounds ... |
 | sent on September 25, 2014 Pros: low price, light weight, grade 'very good optics. Cons: zoom ring is not very smooth, non-stabilized, economic construction. Opinion: the first 3 values ??expressed in the Pro are the reason why you should buy this context, unspoiled shots very sharp at f5.6 and the 150mm f8. Chance 'to make discrete portraits with aperture open, good resistance to flare, and' small, lightweight .... I do not know what to expect more 'from a lens from 100 € (used). If it were stable, it would be better on Olympus bodies, and if the ring was a bit 'more' smooth and free you would use in a more 'easy. I recommend it to those who appreciate above all the pros and needs no brightness 'to 2.8 or quality' high without compromise. |
 | sent on September 19, 2014 Pros: No one Cons: Can not be used Opinion: Hello colleagues, but because I can not mount it on my OMD E-M5 which is also a 4.3 olympus?!? But I tried the bayonet is clearly larger than that of the car ... What can I do? There are adapter rings? RNE especially considering that the lens cost me 75euro, it's worth it or make it better and take the panasonic? |
 | sent on September 18, 2014 Pros: It's cheap. IQ 60-80mm Cons: Low IQ at the extremes of the focal building too cheap, aesthetic toy (at least in silver finish) Opinion: The lens in question is not a miracle of q / p: cheap but it is the most honest. Performance is good, too much, between 60 and 80-90 mm. A 90mm do you beat the 45mm 1.8 (this is miraculous) 2x cropped. A 150 gets beat by himself .. 75 2x cropped. At the shorter lens, even at f / 5.6, a lot of chromatic aberration is visible even if the sharpness is good. Remains buio.rnLo recommend only for occasional use and not very demanding, in virtue price, new or used, that is truly affordable l "'experiment." Who does instead of that focal range the instrument "expressive" would do well, in my opinion, to pay attention on something else. |
 | sent on February 13, 2014 Pros: crisp and compact Cons: for the price, no. Not stabilized, suitable for bodies with stabilization on the sensor Opinion: Telephoto zoom lens is extremely compact and crisp, the price indicated by Juza is absolutely out of the market. I have purchased a new € 157 but advice to those wishing to enter the world of micro four thirds to buy the kit includes the camera body, 14-42mm standard zoom and telephoto 40-150 to tick even better prices. The standard 14-42 kit I put very early in the drawer to go towards brighter lenses. The 40-150 instead I can use it with profit and fun. Can be coupled to the macro converter Mcon-p01, getting a decent macro lens with a fee of € 45, if you do not want to make big investments on a dedicated macro lens. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
