I really love these real life landscape comparisons. Much more useful than in-studio setups. And it tells much more about you as a photographer. Thanks for sharing.

Good comparison. Of course one big advantage of the 50-200 (over the 40-150) is the Sync-IS stabilisation, which makes it more useful in low light and is also a reason why it is more expensive.

Beautiful pics, man !!! I'm blowned away...

Great comparison video. I owned a 40 - 150 mm f2.8 11 years ago, but part exchanged it for a 300mm f4 as soon as that lens was released (you can never have a long enough lens for shooting birds in flight). But last year I gave up shooting birds in order to just concentrate on macro - mainly insects. I was about to purchase another 40 - 150mm f2.8 for insects in flight (and to compliment my 60 mm f2.8 and 90mm f3.5) when OM Systems announced the 50 - 200mm f2.8 lens. So, having watched the videos and checking the specs, I have pre ordered one. Yes it is three times the price of the 40 - 150mm f2.8, but there are no pockets in shrouds and we are a long time dead.

I too own an OM1 and 40-150. Congrats, your photos are great !

Awesome and extremely helpful. Both are amazing but I can see what you are saying about why, for you, the 50-200mm is worth the money. I bought and just took out for a wildlife shoot the Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 II lens on my OM-1 Mark II. It is a good lens for the money. But, I will sell it. Why?

Because there was, to me, a noticeable difference to my OM System PRO lenses. Most people would not even see it. But, yah, I do. And it diminishes the joy. But that’s just me. So, I’ll save and upgrade… hopefully to the 50-200mm.

For travel, I can’t get over what a good lens the 40-150mm f/4 PRO is. For the weight and compactness, that lens is a screamer.

Excellent real-world comparison. I am a long term user of both the 40-150mm F/2.8 and Big White 150-400mm TC and have confidently pre-ordered the new 50-200mm F/2.8 blind. As you say, the differences with the 40-150mm are small but not insignificant in enabling the potential for improved photography. I think that for me the biggest advantage of the new lens over the 40-150mm will be for the sports action which I shoot every week. Thanks for creating and sharing! Robin.

Thanks for sharing, saved me a lot of money!

Thanks for this comparison.

Back in 2013, july 8th, I was at the pier here in town, and managed to snap just one closeup of a the profile of a duck, before the duck got startled. I got a sharp portrait really showing the eye. I used my E-5 + 50-200 f.2.8-3.5 at extended 200 at f.3.5. That little reach was essential, but not the f.2.8 for that picture in particular. You can see the town and building reflected in the eye, as well as my reflection, proning there on the pier.

Nice comparison, Jarard. I just ordered the OM 150–400. Can’t wait to get my hands on it.

Ahora además, con la salida del 50-200, puedes encontrar el 40-150, prácticamente nuevo por 800€ o menos. Una gran inversión.

I really appreciate your effort! Everyone is wondering. Your video makes this a more difficult decision.

So good

Great shots and interesting comparison, the new lens is on my wish list for 26

Wow Jerred just stunning images you’ve taken using 2 wonderful lenses.
I have a Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 Mark 1 which has similar quality & much smaller, but as I long term traveller I often wish I had space (& bank balance) for the 40-150 for that extra reach. All 3 lenses absolute gems.

Nice work and kudos for keeping the framing and settings fairly even between the two.   I'm not as convinced here (as you are) that the backgrounds are significantly better.   The 'slightly' in each case gets to make a point - the 40-150 is fantastic for its price and age.   But your conclusion is good.  I never really liked the 40-150 with the 1.4x so if reach alone is important spend the extra couple of grand.    If we are overlapping with any of the big zooms 100-400 II, 150-400 or the 150-600 then the extra reach could be moot?   (other than the forced swap a little sooner at 150mm).    I think I'll stand pat...

the 40-150 lens is a great lens close up, feather details are sharp. It falls over at distance though - we call it 'mush'
for the birding folk, any chance you can do a later test for perched birds at distance, with teleconverters.

This is really where the increase cost is for any lens, for the resolving power at 'distance' (distance is different concept for size of bird - a robin is a good test because it doesn't fill the frame compared to a heron)

That's a tough decision. Very close. Love the crispy images as always.

I think you can see the difference easly. The 40-150 2.8 is great but the it has the issue with bokeh being to hash which means the out of focus areas are still having contours. and that can be very distracting pending on the subject vs background seperation and the type of background. That for me is a big improvement. And then also the other thing you have mentioned. I have ordered mine. And I also plan to use with OM3 ( pairs very well).

Thanks for sharing mate. I need it 😂