Olympus lens question

[Disneymad]

This quite possibly could be a very dipsy question but I'm going to ask it anyhow

To set the scene a little, I live in the UK and prices in general are much higher over here for many things than in the States, therefore we do like to do a bit (lot!) of shopping while visiting the Mouse

I've been looking in to buying a lens for my Olympus E520, nothing fancy - I'm generally just a point and click girl with it anyhow so I was just thinking of adding a Zuiko Digital 40-150mm to my set just to give me some more options for a bit variety.

In the UK I've found this lens on Amazon. In Walmart (which is very handy for me as I can order in advance and have it sent to the store where I can pick it up while grabbing supplies) I found what appears to be to my uneducated eyes, the same lens - except it's massively cheaper. Like MASSIVELY. £219 = approx $330 (inc tax) - so it appears on the surface to be saving me in the region of $200...except being a natural pessimist it just sounds too good to be true.

So....could anyone who knows their techy stuff tell me whether I'm missing something glaringly obvious and that these are in fact different lens? Or is it really the bargain it appears to be?

Thanks!

 

[PrincessInOz]

The Olympus Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f/4.0 - 5.6 is retailing at $399 in Australian dollar terms. It's currently on special at AU$299 here.

At a 90 cent AUD to USD exchange rate, this lens would be US$270, at the *special* rate.

Australians, like the Brits, pay a premium for electronic equipment! We also do a bit (lots) of shopping when we are in the US; or find websites with reasonable (or free) shipping rates to Oz .

 

[Pugrpooh]

Yes, it's the same lens. I know Oly is higher in Europe, but that's a huge price difference! For what you would save, you could pick up the 70-300 for just a little more. It's running around $300 now, but I've seen it recently for around $250.

Do you just have the 14-42mm lens now?

 

[Disneymad]

Yes, it's the same lens. I know Oly is higher in Europe, but that's a huge price difference! For what you would save, you could pick up the 70-300 for just a little more. It's running around $300 now, but I've seen it recently for around $250.

Do you just have the 14-42mm lens now?

Wooo-eeee! Thankyou that's wonderful news. Yes, in general we do get ripped off on prices for some things over here...though not generally to such a large degree. I couldn't believe the difference in price - that's why I was just inclined to believe it was me being an idiot, LOL.

Yes, I just have the 14-42 lens at the moment I was just thinking of the 40-150 because a) carrying it around and b) I thought the larger lens might start to put me in the realms of also requiring a tripod for decent pics? Or would you still consider 70-300 'portable'. If as an example in a WDW situation that we can all relate to, would that size lens still be practical on the Safari?

 

[Pugrpooh]

Wooo-eeee! Thankyou that's wonderful news. Yes, in general we do get ripped off on prices for some things over here...though not generally to such a large degree. I couldn't believe the difference in price - that's why I was just inclined to believe it was me being an idiot, LOL.

Yes, I just have the 14-42 lens at the moment I was just thinking of the 40-150 because a) carrying it around and b) I thought the larger lens might start to put me in the realms of also requiring a tripod for decent pics? Or would you still consider 70-300 'portable'. If as an example in a WDW situation that we can all relate to, would that size lens still be practical on the Safari?

I never use a tripod. I don't get as many keepers with the 70-300 as with my other lenses, but you can get some nice ones with it. Here are a few I took during the Safari with it on my 520.

And this was at Animal Kingdom but not on the safari.

The 70-300 can also be used for macro shots. I think I only took it to Animal Kingdom when we were at Disney and I have a backpack for my camera gear which I would let my DH carry a lot. So it wasn't too bad.

 

[Disneymad]

Oh I'd love to be able to get shots like that!

The 70-300 can also be used for macro shots. I think I only took it to Animal Kingdom when we were at Disney and I have a backpack for my camera gear which I would let my DH carry a lot. So it wasn't too bad.

Mwhahaha - sounds like a good plan to me


Clearly the bigger lens is something else for me to ponder on then. Decisions decisions...but they're fun decisions at least