For the first time you have a $100 off on the Olympus 40-150mm PRO lens sold at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and GetOlympus. The full list of Olympus US deals can be seen at GetOlympus (Click here).
For the first time you have a $100 off on the Olympus 40-150mm PRO lens sold at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and GetOlympus. The full list of Olympus US deals can be seen at GetOlympus (Click here).
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
18 Responses
No point buying huge lens for using on a tiny sensor. Save the money for a fullframe system. You won’t regret it.
Saw this at SonyAlphaRumors, its cheaper than the olympus : )
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/500G-700×238.jpg
and its full-frame!
and its No.1 BEST SELLER on amazon now : )
And it’s a price mistake! (and the orders got cancelled!)
And you had no point!
“You Save: $11,701.99 (90%)”
“For the first time you have a $100 off on the Olympus 40-150mm PRO”
And THAT is the extent of discounts you will ever get. Still way too overpriced.
*for you.
I really missed this lens the day before yesterday during a state championship shoot. But, I am unable to push myself to buy this lens given how badly overpriced it is.
$1400 or $1500, does not matter. To put things into perspective, a new Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD for FULL FRAME DSLRs is $349 right now, and it is equivalent to 35-150/2-2.8, which would be a much better lens than the Olympus 40-150/2.8. And it is just 5 g heavier, despite having build-in stabilization, wider range and brighter equivalent aperture.
Unstabilized Nikon 70-300/4-5.6 is $129 – not QUITE in the same league maybe, but 11 times cheaper! And even lighter! You can easily buy D610 on the difference alone!
Olympus should really get their house in order. One day they price 40-150/4-5.6 at just $80 in a double-lens kit, which is a blatant underpricing, and then they turn around and price a similar lens which is only 1 to 2 stops faster almost 20 times higher, and 3-11 times higher than FF competition. WTF!?!
I’m not sure what your beef is. There’s already an cheap, slow, stabilized tele lens – the pana 45-150.
Is this an issue of defoced background? Constant f/2.8 tele lenses are expensive in any format.
“I’m not sure what your beef is. There’s already an cheap, slow, stabilized tele lens Is this an issue of defoced background?”
I could not care less about defocused background. My issue that the light is such that with f/5.6 lens I hit ISO 25,600 even at 1/300s, and it is atrocious on m43, not suitable even for small size. For sports in such ugly light, I need f/2.8.
If your issue is light, you are inventing a discrepancy between formats.
If you need ISO 25,600 for correct exposure, then 2 stops is not going to give you a much more usabe image (6400). 1 stop will do little to nothing for you (12800).
Really appears your inventing issues with MFT and artificially inflating the benefits of FF Sony. Your admiration for the hulking 24-240 says it all.
6400 is certainly usable for my purpuses. 25600 is not. The difference is huge (4 times the noise specifically).
If you care about aperture equivalencies you probably bought into the wrong system. Besides, lens production costs have nothing to do with equivalency calculations. All constant f/2.8 zooms are expensive, no matter the format or brand.
BS, FZ600, RX10 and Pentax Q have very cheap f/2.8 zooms, with larger ranges than 40-150. Quit being apologist for serial overpricers.
Figures since I just ordered mine on Thursday from B&H and received it today.
Return and repurchase.