*Olympus Telephoto Zoom Lens M.Zuiko Digital Ed 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 R Silver

I moved from a digital all-in-one with a huge zoom to M4/3, so I knew that I would miss my telephoto shots, so this lens was a fantastic add on. It was incredibly inexpensive for pretty darn good reach, and it also focuses reasonably close as well, so that I didn't feel that I had to swap out lenses just to get a chance to capture something nearby. It is also ridiculously light and portable, compared to a equivalent full frame telephoto lens.

This lens makes sense in a cost/value comparison. At one tenth the cost of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens (which I also own), it's practically free. These days, you can easily spend $150 going out to dinner with a few friends. At only 6.7 oz., it's super light and won't be making your belt tighter and wallet thinner, unlike that fried catfish, cornbread, and beer you had the other night.Realistically, this lens is all plastic, has mediocre optical performance, doesn't autofocus particularly well, is a poor lens for macro photography, isn't fast enough for indoors or low light, and isn't sharp enough for good portraits or detailed landscapes. It fails to produce the high quality images that the Olympus E-M5 or E-M1 or Panasonic GH5 can deliver. It is not water ... MoreThis lens makes sense in a cost/value comparison. At one tenth the cost of the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens (which I also own), it's practically free. These days, you can easily spend $150 going out to dinner with a few friends. At only 6.7 oz., it's super light and won't be making your belt tighter and wallet thinner, unlike that fried catfish, cornbread, and beer you had the other night.Realistically, this lens is all plastic, has mediocre optical performance, doesn't autofocus particularly well, is a poor lens for macro photography, isn't fast enough for indoors or low light, and isn't sharp enough for good portraits or detailed landscapes. It fails to produce the high quality images that the Olympus E-M5 or E-M1 or Panasonic GH5 can deliver. It is not water resistant and therefore neither is your camera when you have this lens attached. Looking only at image quality, it's glaringly inferior to the more expensive telephoto zoom lenses from Olympus and Panasonic. It's also clearly inferior in optical performance compared to the very nice Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 kit lens, which is surprisingly sharp, does very nice macros, portraits, and landscapes, and is also compact and lightweight. But that lens costs $600. I own all of these lenses and have made detailed back to back comparisons under identical conditions. This $150 lens is not my first, or second, or even third choice to put on the camera when I'm going out shooting. Here's a photography rule that was true up until smartphones came along, because they cheat with software. Always put the best glass on your camera that you can afford or manage to carry. Always.So why own it? Once again, it's practically free. It's super lightweight and compact. You can carry it around it rough conditions and if it breaks, throw it away and get another. You can put a $10 UV filter on the front instead of the $40 one. If the grocery store sold camera lenses, this would be in the hamburger case and the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens would be in the filet mignon case. Sometimes, you buy both places. Sometimes, we have hamburgers at home and enjoy them very much. Sometimes, I'm using my camera for casual snapshots, or low resolution internet images, or rough travel conditions. Those circumstances occur often enough to justify spending $150 for this lens.

It feels a bit cheaply made, it isn't weather sealed, and it is a bit slow. But images are sharp and auto focus is fast. It is light, cheap, and relatively small for a lens with an 80-300mm full frame equivalence. It is probably the second lens you should get to go along with the kit lens. Makes for a great second lens in a travel kit.