Our reader Willy discovered a nice addition on the E-M1 brochure. It now shows the camera with the new 40-150mm PRO zoom. I attached the image here on top while the new brochure can be found here: http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/em1_brochure
Now you can get a nice idea of the camera-lens dimension 🙂 And here is the description from the brochure:
M.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 PRO 80-300mm (35mm camera equivalent) Available in 2014
Incorporating the same powerful optical and digital technologies developed for the top-of-the-line Zuiko Digital lenses, M.Zuiko PRO series lenses are designed to bring the highest level of professional imaging performance to our line of compact Micro Four Thirds system cameras. The second model in this series is a telephoto zoom lens with 35mm camera-equivalent zoom range from 80mm to 300mm. Built tough to stand up to the harsh demands of professional use, this high-grade lens boasts optical performance with f2.8 brightness throughout the zoom range and a durable dust-/splash-proof structure. Together with the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO standard zoom lens, this new lens enables the PRO series to cover the widest possible range of photographic requirements.
Note: There is also a 1.4 times teleconverter patent along the 40-150mm f/2.8 patent discovered by Egami.
201 Responses
The size of the lens is nuts.
The whole point of m43 is smaller and lighter hardware, with little to no compromise in IQ.
If I was willing to carry such large lenses, I’d go DSLR.
For this focal lenght at f2.8 it looks pretty small and lightweight. Way smaller than a typical 35mm 70-200 and it’s range is even bigger.
I agree….that lens is equivalent 80-300mm…and it is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY smaller than a larger format 70-200mm. So why the complaining….??????????????
I would love to see this lens next to a Sony, Nikon or Canon 70-200mm F/2.8…. and the Olympus lens has WAAAAAAAAY more reach!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, reasonable in size for its specification but the quality needs to be there for this to sell. I’m talking about a decisively marked improvement from the current 40-150mm bargain lens. That one I bought for only $100. If the difference is not greatly significant then what’s the point?… Also, by looking at the size of this monstrosity, it most better be an internally zooming lens!
What’s the point? Depending on your needs a lens that is a couple stops faster makes all the difference. How is hat lens a monstrosity, when it replaces a whole bag of prime lenses (some of which don’t even exist)?
The point is, based on your wants and needs, you are not the right photog for the lens! 😛
You’ve misunderstood. I said IF there is no significant difference, THEN there is no point. Of course I know this will be a faster lens, transmitting 2x the amount of light at the short end and 4x the amount of light at the long end, but I am sure the price will be much more than 8x as much!
If there are no ADDITIONAL significant gains made elsewhere (e.g. optical quality, distortion, CA, etc.), then many will have a difficult time justifying its purchase!
You’ve also misunderstood the point.
Same quality but with 2 stops shutter speed + 2 stops DOF = a better lens for some applications. If you don’t need them then it isn’t better *for you* and you don’t buy it.
If the lens has these attributes and comes with better image quality then all the better.
I think so too, already the gain in stops is good enough for me and i dont need a gain in sharpness, less fringing or other stat improvement except for the stops. Assuming that the IQ is not less then the slower version. And in most cases double the speed can quadruple the price in many cases. It’s normal, accept it or not).
and 100 was not the introduction price of the cheap 40-150, it was triple that price. Many people compare the list price of new items with discounted streetprices of older versions….its rather naive.
This lens will be superior to the 40-150 you tout (and I own and use) that is $99. It’s stellar performance is best compared to the budget lens at f2.8-f4. Get the idea?
The new lens will be stellar? I would hope so, but will wait for the tests before I decide! Still, that is a fair assumption, much like the assumption that it will be bloody expensive as well. The real question is, compared to the $100 version, will it be proportionately higher in quality or in price?
“The 40-150 f/2.8 is not a small lens, especially if you are used to the relatively diminutive m.Zuiko 40-150mm f/4-5.6. But the new lens will transmit twice the light at 40mm and four times the light at 150mm thanks to its constant aperture throughout the zoom range.” Yes, significantly better.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0007Y794O/ref=aw_d_dsc_photo
the Canon one has similar range, and is less than $500.00
also, even though it has a lower f.stop, shouldn’t it match the four third sensor in DoF?
this is a rip-off.
Complete jerk.
Time to feed the Troll.
Thank you Mr. AllCapps, I sincerely appreciate your effort. I understand you have seen the Light and you have devoted your life to save us. It is your mission to spread the gospel of the full frame. You KNOW that glory can only be reached with BIG cameras. The problem is that we fanboys belong to this Cult. We have devoted ourselves to tiny sensors, expensive lenses and small cameras with little buttons for our little hands. We have been brainwashed and have no will. Keep trying, maybe you can save some souls. Not mine certainly.
how long has that lens been on the market? how much did it cost when introduced?
Why is the lack of DoF so important? I suppose you haven’t shot in a studio with a FF and having to stop down a fast lens down to f/5.6 or smaller so your entire model is sharp?
Have both FF and OMD. Sucks when I use my FF 50mm f1.4 (not to mention it’s huge size) to take shots of my gf over a dinner table in dim light never can get her in focus front to back unless I stop down which then i can camera shake because it’s too dark. Renders the 1.4 usless.
When i take out the omd with 25mm f1.4 get much better front and back focus and no shake in dim light.
Size is one thing but weight is totally different story. After shooting 70-200 at events for a longer period i hate it and lose interest in the shoot because of the weight of the gear. I can imagine the 40-150 f2.8 being so much more fun to shoot and handle for longer shooting sessions. Can’t wait to buy it.
Yes, it is too bad that there are no small lenses available for m43.
+1
I see posts here nearly every day where Oly buyers are pleading with Olympus Corp. to produce these exotic lenses, including tele-primes, extreme zooms (like the one pictured), Super FAST, Ultra Wides, T&S Cine lenses, and all the most expensive lenses and then DEMAND that they be sold CHEAP. Olympus fans seem to want tiny pocket cameras with HUGE lenses?!?
Olympus must be getting confused by the frenzied, conflicting demands of their user base and the unwillingness of said users to pony-up for the “exotic” products they demand.
The people that WANT them know what it costs to buy them.
The complainers are a different bunch entirely… and entirely clueless.
Fast lenses are not cheap.
There are already plenty of cheap zooms available for M4/3: 40-150mm, 45-150, 45-175, 40-200. Want cheap? Buy those.
SOME of us want high quality, fast lenses and are willing to pay for them.
So what price does that equate to for this lens? $1,500? Given the 12-40mm PRO lens comes under a grand, I think $1,500 is absolutely the most it should be (but hopefully less)!
$1500 sounds about right.
I’ve been using the Panasonic 45-150mm lately and it’s really a useful lens. So, a high quality lens of a similar length would be great!
Don’t forget about the added, unseen cost of lugging that big boy around. I am sure it will be optically better, but with the added weight of the less (and the reduced weight of my wallet!) will it really be worth the trouble? I am beginning to think that the planned 300mm f/4 will be greater appreciated from a cost-benefit point of view.
I’d like to have a couple Voigtlanders – and those Kowa lenses are intriguing. I just can’t pay for them and I’m unwilling to demand that Voigtlander and Kowa lower their prices to what I can afford.
When I get the GH4 I plan to buy a high-grade, fast, all purpose lens (cine or nearly) and will have to pay the man, otherwise an EXTREMELY competent camera like the GH4 will be performing below it’s capability. 😉
Just ask them, they can lower the prices for you and then you can buy those lenses. It’s easy, just tell the price you want to pay.
“Olympus fans seem to want tiny pocket cameras with HUGE lenses?!?”
Tele lenses are always “huge” – it’s normal, the point you fail to catch is that a “huge” lense for M34 is two times as less than a “huge” tele for FF…
Fast, Light, Zoom. Pick any two.
This is not just an Oly problem. It is a cultural problem.
I can look at any number of gear oriented forums and see a litany of whining by dorks wanting magical products for free.
Part of this is human nature but some is the product of companies overstating the capabilities of technology while simultaneously touting low prices.
+1
The Olympus PRO line seems quite interesting. 7-14 f 2.8, 12-40 f 2.8, 40-150 f 2.8 and the 300 f 2.8. All of them weather sealed.
I already own a few primes, 12 f 1.8, 17 mm 1.8, 45 mm f 1.8, 60 mm f1.8 and 75 mm f 1.8.
Most certainly will buy this 40-150 and next year the 7-14 and 300 mm.
As a m43 user I feel fortunate with all the lens options we have from Oly, Pana, Sigma, Voigtlander, Samyang etc.
All is about having options and get what is good for your needs and budget.
The system is reaching a level of maturity which makes me confident to keep investing in it.
300 will be f4 not 2.8
However, you can also use a MMF-3 and 150 f2, 300 F2.8, 90-250 f2.8, … 🙂
My bad. I got carried away. A 300 mm f2.8 would be quite big,
I want a varied lens eco system, I want small + big fast lenses. The notion that µ4/3 is for pancake lenses only is absurd.
That’s cause your an idiot
Greatest internet-based example of irony: “your an idiot”
Olympus already have a lens for you: 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6. It is only 190gr!
And how big would a 40-150 f/1.4 lens for a 35 mm sensor be?
If this too lens is too large for your liking, don’t buy it, no one is forcing you. I and many others are more than happy with it.
There is also panasonic 35-100, same fast aperture but a lot smaller, less range – small size, bigger range – bigger size, don’t need fast aperture? Plenty of choice. Rather stupid to expect everything fit your belief of what m43 should be.
@presto
Resident troll/stirrer with a different name/ID with each post/day 🙁
If you want a zoom, not prime, with a constant, fast aperture, you’ll need a series of lenses with a large surface area and a diameter that allows for a big aperture opening. The size of this lens is a direct result of those requirements. It’s still going to be about 50% smaller and lighter than a full-frame equivalent, so I don’t see why you’re so negative. They could have made it even smaller at a higher expense, but let’s be realistic about consumer budgets.
Count me in for this lens. The extra range you get is worth the extra size, to me. Having a straight 2.8 with a 70-300 equivalent field of view is awesome
+ Oly Pro zoom line (12-40 and 40-150 f2.8) is more versatile than the Pany’s one (for stils).
– But it does not have OIS.
+ Pany’s cameras are better than Oly’s in several aspects.
– But they do not have IBIS to comfortably use the nice Oly’s Pro zoos.
There is a dilemma… somebody (or both) shall solve it…
GX7?
I love its range-finder and EVF form factor over PEN, but : as a RAW shooter I am really missing 1/2 stop increment for exposure (1/3 is too little and 2/3 – too much), and of course 2-axis IBIS is in the different league vs. 5 axis of Oly’s one
Seriously, if you’re going to get a lens this big for your M43 camera, you’re better off using a DSLR.
why rob yourself out of image quality? The overall purpose of M43 was to be small and light. This is an attempt to return to monstrous Four Thirds lens size!
why?
And then, how much more are you willing to get robbed by buying this lens instead of a real pro lens? This isn’t even funny, who’s really going to buy this? Then again, who’s going to foolishly waste their money on this lens? I mean look at it! It Dwarfs the E-M1!
can’t wait to hear the price on this one… we’re gonna have a laugh around the water cooler…
MRALLCRAP – you really are an idiot, as you continue to post your mindless, trolling crap. Those of us that have the corresponding 50-200mm SWD 43 lens do understand the value of this new m43 zoom. You simply are a clueless cheapskate. Go buy your crap Canon or Nikon zoom, if you have the guts to spend the money.
Holy over dramatic post.
Dont try to open their eyes man!
They DONT want to understand…
“Seriously, if you’re going to get a lens this big for your M43 camera, you’re better off using a DSLR.”
Canon 7D+70-300L vs E-M1+40-150.
Troll.
“camera, you’re better off using a DSLR.”
Never ever again….. hahahahaha… those old pieces of crap with mirrorboxes inside… 80’s technology… Exactly what CaNikon want, to have idiots still buying them…. LMAO….
Don’t you remember chorus: But fast zooms are still missing in m43 lens lineup. People always love the abstract idea of fast lenses but not the reality of size, price, and weight.
Nothing wrong with it as it serves a purpose for some. It is not too expensive I’d say if it is 1500 dollars. You get a lot of lens for that money, in fact for me you get too much of it. If I have to choce between this one and a 35-100 mm f2.8 at least from the look of it, it will be the 35-100 mm as it is probably that much smaller.
But if you need the extra 50 mm I guess it a fantastic lens!
The Panasonic also has the advantage of OIS, but presumably inferior weather sealing. It’s good there is some differentiation between the lenses, so everyone can choose the one that is right for them.
Yep, I think the Pany 35-100 hits a nice sweet spot for a portrait lens at a reasonable size. Beyond that, I think maybe a 150mm prime makes more sense.
Size concerns are presumably because an alternative is the four-thirds 50-200…This doesn’t look much smaller?
Given very similar optical performace, I’ll choose larger size and superior usability over smaller size and inferior usability every time. I also choose better optical performance and similar usability over smaller size and lower optical performace. In short, lens size is to me the least important metric – especially in case of a zoom.
Looks kinda big on the E-M1, but the only other high quality m4/3 long(ish) tele zoom is the Panasonic 35-100.
The decision comes down to Size vs. Reach.
And degree of weather sealing and if require OIS.
Tripod Collar would also be a factor for some.
Wow what a negative comment about the lens size, only by seen one picture…?
This lens looks about the same size as the Panasonic 100-300mm lens. Maybe a mini bit larger and heavier. We are talking about a 80-300mm/f2.8! Any idea how big and large for example the Sigma 120-300mm/f2.8 is? I do, I use to own one for using with my Canon full-frame dslr and a 7D. This new Olympus lens is a dwarf in comparison with that. Don’t forget that.
The E-M1 fits in your hand palm(male) so this new lens looks to have the lengt of a adult male hand. Fine by me. Can’t wait when in comes for sale.
For a lens that fits on the palm of your hand, it is FAR from “monstrous” or “big”. Coming from Olympus and Zuiko, it is a guarantee to be top notch.
Another pointless, very overpriced lens. IT’s a bad joke they will charge at least $1500 when the equivalent and even partially faster 70-300 f4-5.6 FF zooms are 1/3 that price. But, no problem, folks, buy this lens, because it’s sma…l…. eeehhhmmm…ho-hum…well, buy this lens and be happy.
Your comparison in equivalency refers to field of view of an equivalent lens. However, when you consider the physics of the lens, you have to compare the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 to a 40-150 f/1.4! Now tell me, how would such a lens compare in terms of size and price?
If you want to talk that stupid crap, then you need to compare it to a 80-300 f1.4. Oh look, there is none. Quit being a troll.
Aperture is aperture is aperture – there is no equivalence in aperture, only the DOF effect which is due to sensor size. You highlight that you have no clue whatsoever by claiming this should have anything to do with the lens.
You have no idea what you are talking about…
that said, i will stick with my 35-100 f2.8. Olympus is not appealing to anyone with panasonic cameras woth this..
Please be less stupid.
@Garlenepis
With how many different names do you intend to troll this post with???
When did f/4-5.6 become faster than f/2.8? Is it opposite day already? Idiots…
You mean this cheap lens?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732106-USA/Canon_4426B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6L_IS.html
Oh not again….. 🙁
That lens is 2 stops slower at the long end. F stops are the same no matter the format.
Photons are the same no matter the format. And how many of those hit your sensor, is light intensity (ie, per area which is given by the f-stop) times sensor area. And if opening the aperture one stop doubles the light intensity and thus for a given sensor size doubles the number of photons hitting the sensor, then doubling the sensor area at constant f-stop, ie, light intensity, also doubles the number of photons hitting the sensor.
You seem to have replied to the wrong post.
It wasn’t you who said f-stops are the same no matter of the format, implying that a f/2.8 lens on m43 provides the same low light performance as a f/2.8 lens on FF?
Yes, and your reply doesn’t negate that at all. f/2.8 on m4/3 provides less total light but the same amount of light per area as f/2.8 on FF. However, the smaller sensor requires less total light but the same amount of light per area as the larger sensor.
Therefore f/2.8 on m4/3 absolutely does provides the same low light performance as f/2.8 on FF.
The only difference is that the m4/3 sensor has more photosites per area. That is what introduces more noise, it is not the lens.
It’s really an interesting question why people are uninterested, unwilling, or unable to realise when they are wrong about something, in particular on such basic questions why images in low light are noisy. It may be because they feel that anything that is not immediately obvious to them is something they should not be required to understand, that it would be an affront to ask them to understand it. The simple truth here is that with modern sensors, the noise the sensor itself produces (ie, the signal it produces in complete darkness on its own) is pretty small compared to the noise that is inherent in the incoming light, the somewhat random timing and spatial distribution of the incoming photons which behave a bit like rain, which is also a signal that is varying in time and space. If you wanted to measure the spatial distribution of rainfall over a limited area by placing lots of small cups in a large grid on the ground and place each on a small balance, the reason when sampling a short period of rain only (eg, by opening and closing a shutter-like roof over all cups that there would be variations in the values the balances would display is not because the balances themselves even with zero rain would show slightly different values (comparable to zero light for sensors) but because the rain drops would over that short sampling time not be equally distributed over all cups.
Ah, you’re challenging that? Of course f/2.8 provides exactly the same low light performance in both formats, and this is easily proven.
If you put a full-frame lens on a micro 4/3 camera you’ll get exactly the same exposure as when you use a micro 4/3 lens at the same aperture. (And yes, I have done this).
The low light performance is affected by the sensor, not the lens.
It’s never about the lens alone, it’s always about the lens+sensor because you need both to take a photo. Whenever you compare a m43 lens to a FF lens, the use of a m43 and a FF sensor, respectively, is always implied. Not least because a m43 lens only has a m43 image circle and FF lens has FF image circle, not using a lens to it full potential, ie, image circle would be handicapping one lens unfairly (which you seem happy to do because for some strange reason, you feel happier living an imaginary world and if that requires to cheat where necessary, so be it).
Sorry, but no. We’re talking about lenses. You’re the one introducing extraneous elements into the mix. The fact that a smaller, denser sensor has more noise is a given, but the lens has nothing to do with it.
To drive the point home, a Nikon D800 accepts both FX and DX lenses. Using a DX lens is exactly the same as using an FX lens and cropping the image. No additional noise is introduced by the smaller format lens.
40-150 f2.8 means 80-300 f5.6 in tems of view angle and depth of field BUT it really means f2.8 in terms of light gathering and thus shutter speed. The higher DOF is great for tele zooms, especially with Pro Zuikos that don’t need to be stopped down to get a sharp image. The FT 50-200 (the classic 100-400L pendant with better image quality) was a great lens and so will be the 40-150.
So, the Panasonic FZ200 which has a 25-600 mm eqv. f/2.8 lens then must also have the same light gathering ability?
For the sensor it had, yes.
So, any comparison shots under the same lighting and shutter speed should then show that the FZ200, a current m43 and a current FF deliver about the same image quality when shot at f/2.8?
Of course you are right; but this place is infested with trolls who work for Oly or Pana “marketing”. I doubt many people will actually buy this pointless toy.
A reasonable price would change things a little, but no by much, since Canon 70-300s start at about 500 bucks. Let the liers lie…
You know what else is upsetting? They kept the “never-ending” focal ring. I love Olympus, but this thing drives me CRAZY!
That really drives the concept of ∞ home! 😛
I do a lot of shooting with telephoto lenses; birds, nature, surfing. My understanding is that the “lens size advantage” of the MFT sensor vs FF sensor is less with telephoto lenses than with shorter focal length lenses. I have used vintage telephoto lenses and the M.Zuiko 40-150 lens but recently I picked up a Zuiko 50-200 2.8-3.5 and am absolutely stunned with both the size of the lens (HUGE!) and in the quality of the pictures I get with this lens. Fast high quality telephoto lenses are big and expensive which is based on physics and can’t be changed. Once you have used one however you are not going back. This lens looks great and we are lucky to have this option. If it has the image quality of the Zuiko lenses (which I am sure it will) with better auto focus and slightly smaller size this is a dream lens, at least for me.
It’s certainly the lens I’ve been waiting for. It is the focal length that will get used a lot & be great for indoor concerts etc. with it’s reasonably bright lens & the quality.
It will be nice to have a choice. The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is a great lens and is very small. The Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is larger and has a nice reach. Matched with the 1.4xTC it will be enough reach for most situations except for birding.
I just might end up with both. The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 for events where I really don’t need the reach and the smaller size will be an advantage. Then the 40-150 f2.8 for a more general landscape-wildlife lens where the extra reach will come in handy.
Is comparable to the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 ($950), so at $1500 it’s looks more than reasonable for this zoom.
About the size, is not a monster lens, will be great if doesn’t extend when zooming, look here at hand:
http://fourthirds-user.com/2013/09/this_is_what_the_olympus_mzuiko_40150mm_f28_pro_will_look_like.php
For me is a must have lens for nature photography also the rumored 1.4X teleconverter.
Just my personal opinion, the 100-300 is acceptable in size for me because its a lens that i will use for short periods in very specific circumstances. This lens slots more into the “walking around” focal length for me. In this regard its far too big (and i assume, heavy) for this use…
It does look like a beauty though!
To those who say it “isn’t that big”, here is the lens next to the Panasonic 35-100 (which I submitted a few days ago, but Admin didn’t post it):
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Olympus-40-150mm-first-look-3-540×720.jpg
It’s MUCH bigger. I’m not saying it won’t be perfect for you or take great pictures … but it is MUCH bigger.
the size of the 35-100 is misleading as it will extend when zooming in. Olympus choosed here for fixed size barrel, prob because of easier/more reliable sealing implementation?
Nope. 35-100 doesn’t extend when zooming…
Right. The Panasonic 35-100mm is an internally zooming lens. I haven’t read any confirmation on whether the Olympus is or not. Judged by the size of it, I sure hope it is!
Wow, that is quite the difference in size. Let’s see, the Olympus has 50 percent more reach, but looks bigger than a 50 percent increase in size. I suppose the same is true for both companies’ standard pro zoom. 12-35mm vs 12-40mm, but the Panasonic is a lot smaller, even with OIS in both of their versions. I guess it ultimately comes down to what focal lengths you need. If you seldom use the 101-150mm range, I can’t see why you should wait for the Olympus.
And that’s why I love MFT – no let’s say Pana and Oly – and why I think this lens is a wonderful addition to the system. You’ve got the small Pana, missing 50 mm of focal length, and the bigger Oly.
You can buy exactly what you want!!
I’m opting for the Olympus btw.
Regards
Yes, it’s much bigger, but for a very good reason. It’s 150mm f2.8 at the long end, not 100mm. The OM Zuiko 250mm F2 – only 70mm in focal length more than the OM Zuiko 180mm F2, is 2Kg heavier.
Funny, my comments suddenly need to be moderated and then not published. Ived said nothjng offensive or controversial. Weird…
Wow, this lens looks awesome, wonderful addition to the system. The size is really compact compared to 300 mm f/2.8 on FF. It seems about the size of the canon 70-200L f/4, and will balance great on the E-M1/5 (with grip) or GH3/4,G6 etc. Of course it’s not a lens for the GM1 or E-Pl2
Taking in account that the compact Panasonic 35–100/2.8 is already one of the best zooms for Micro Four Fhirds (MUCH better than 12–35!) and it has OIS this monster is definitely too big and heavy for what you get.
Wow that was a smart comment! As stupid to choose Oly 45/1.8 instead of pany 35-100/2.8 because the Oly is much much smaller.
That depends on…
1) whether you *need* OIS (shooting on an Oly body, it’s just another set of stuff to break)
2) whether you need the extra focal length “reach”
Looking at the brochure and overlapping to the pictures of the 12-40 and 40-150 on the E-M1 in photoshop, the 40-150 lens looks 3″ longer. To me it looks to be roughly the length of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, which isn’t big at all given the focal length of this Olympus lens.
I wonder how ideal IBIS is for such a lens. Somewhere i read that OIS (stabilization in the lens, not in camera) has a real advantage on tele lenses.
But i don’t know – would be nice to get a comparison of stabilization effects with Pany and Oly tele zooms, the Oly on an Oly body.
I have shot hand held with my E-M5 and OM Zuiko 180mm and 300mm (360mm and 600mm equiv.) lenses and the IS seems to work very well. I have never had to wonder if
OIS would have been better. I believe the E-M1 IS is better still.
I haven’t tested the IBIS of my E-M1 vs my E-M5, but I have had no problems shooting with my 400mm on either – or at least no problems that would have been solved by any IS.
That’s a serious piece of glass. It’ll be pricy but if replaces the need to carry around 2 or 3 primes, it’ll be worth it.
At this focal length, 40-150mm – (FF equivalent 80-300mm), the lens appears to be a sports lens. On Full Frame cameras used to shoot sports, such lenses are large, heavy, expensive AND indispensable.
This new lens, when used with the 5-axis image stabilization of Oly’s E-M1 and/or the mono-pod mount on the lens, has the bona fides to compete in the sports arena depending upon it’s ruggedness and durability.
It seems that the m4/3 format is poised to challenge FF in Cine (GH4) and now sports journalism (E-M1 and lenses such as this).
I wish Olympus all possible success.
Have said it before and will say it again.
Have the privilege to own both OMD and Nikon FF full set up 9 out of 10 times I take my omd gear to shoot instead of the Nikon.
The 1 out of 10 time i use the Nikon is when I’m shooting paid and it’s not because I can’t meet the requirement with the omd photos but the client needs to see big cameras to consider you pro which is the sad truth about the industry.
It’s a fast zoom lens. Wonder why some people have expected the size of a pancake. Thanks to Olympus for producing this alternative for pros. Nobody is forced to buy. There are already cheaper and smaller zoom lenses availiable. Why complaining?
Funny that some people who never held this lens, never shoot with it, have no clue about its image quality, do not know its price yet somehow thinks this it is to expensive and to big.
My experience is that photographers who need/want a lens like this often do not care how big its is and usual are ok to pay a premium.
As a Sony NEX user I am awe struck by the breath and quality of Oly glass.
Well done !
Yeah, same thing happened when Panasonic announced the Leica 42.5mm f1.2 lens.
Many m4/3 users were upset by the price before knowing much about the lens.
It’s either an in-house, circular firing squad, or a Full Frame Frenzy.
+1 Many people forget that price will increase exponentially for top-notch products because basically there are no substitute. You can swap the Pana 12-35 for the Oly 12-40 or the cheap 40-150 for 45 -200 but I bet it will be hard to find an equivalent lens for this beast even across other systems. Adding to that the over-engineering philosophy of Olympus to have the best of the best, no wonder why the size and price will be very high. They can charge high price for this if the quality is justified and there is enough demand.
anything not pocketable is big, in a relative context. I’d prefer f2.0 lenses with same focal lengths accepting that they would be much larger. to me large is just large, and at that size that extra stop is worth it by technically increasing my iso to 52000 without having to have that iso rating. just another thought…
Not to mention slightly more expensive. A new OM Zuiko 100mm f2.8 on ebay, about $200, a new OM Zuiko 100mm F2 on ebay – $2,499 new and $1,200 SH.
New Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm F2.0 Zoom Lens from JAPAN – $3,872
Words are cheap. Do you actually own any lenses you have paid more than $3,800 for?
I’ve been doing some price checking on B&H for Full Frame, f2.8 lenses in this zoom range and found that this Zuiko lens doesn’t have ANY competition.
Here are a some f2.8 lenses in this class:
Nikkor 300mm f2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/672200-USA/Nikon_2186_AF_S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_2_8G.html
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
Canon EF 300mm f2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
Didn’t have time to check all possible lens manufacturers, but I didn’t find any other 80-300mm f2.8 (FF equivalent) zoom lenses. No doubt the Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 Pro series lens will be expensive but considering the price of “competitive” products it sure looks like a winner.
Sigma makes a 120-300 mm f/2.8 zoom. But I don’t understand why the comparison doesn’t work in both directions. Why is a Panasonic FZ200 with a 25-600 mm eqv. f/2.8 not compared with this lens. The Panasonic, the Olympus and the Nikon lenses all deliver 300 mm eqv. field of view and all three deliver that with f/2.8. If the Olympus provides that with a lot less weight and cost than the Nikon, the Panasonic equally delivers that with a lot less weight and cost than the Olympus.
The Panasonic FZ200 is a fixed lens camera, you are comparing an apple with a watermelon.
It still would be cool to see comparison images.
Well than take a 105 mm f/2.8 lens on a Nikon 1 (can be done easily via an adaptor that maintains AF functionality).
Or a 55 mm f/2.8 lens on a Pentax Q (Pentax offers an adaptor for K-mount lenses).
And we know all well how much an interchangeable lens would cost and what size it would be if Panasonic would sell the lens from the FZ200 separately. It wouldn’t cost more than the FZ200.
Now you are tryong to compare prime lenses with a zoom lens. Still not the same thing, apples to oranges. This is about a zoom lens, you compare it to other zoom lenses of similar range.
And the lens from a FZ200 would cost more if they made it for an interchangable lens. They would need to design and manufacture the rear mount for the lens. That’s an additional cost and could push the price higher than you think.
It may be so, what you have stated. I still believe that if this lens is durable, it has NO COMPETITION.
I am saying that this new Olympus Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 zoom stands alone and like the E-M1 will give the m4/3 format more credibility.
All things considered, this a GREAT achievement for Oly and I congratulate them.
In the interest of “full disclosure”, ALL my gear is Panasonic save for the Olympus 45mm f1.8. (pondering the O25).
Yes, within its niche it has no competition but that was not the point I was addressing which was the comparison with the price of a 300 mm f/2.8 lens.
No, you were comparing two lenses to a fixed lens camera. There’s a big difference. And consider the size of the sensors as well. A smaller sensor means a smaller lens. The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the size of FF, but that little sensor in the FZ200 is 1/8 the size of the 4/3sensor.
My whole point was to push you to add the sensor size to the equation. Unfortunately, I have the impression that you don’t believe it is possible to relate f-stop and sensor size directly in a simple equation. But trying to convince you about that is beyond the time I have (not least because I feel it would take an enormous amount of energy to make you change your opinion on anything).
I understand about different sensor sizes and how they relate to aperture. I don’t think you understad that fixed lens cameras are different from interchangeable lens cameras based on your post. If you had used the Pentax Q to start with, then I could see you having some knowledge.
And if your point was about the relation of the lens to sensort size, then you certainly would have known how ridiculous your post was.
To discuss the abstract point of the dependence of lens size (as in front diameter) and sensor size in regard to low light performance is completely immaterial whether the lens is interchangeable or not or whether it is a zoom or a prime. But the fact that you make that an issue just shows that have zero interest in discussing this abstract point because you feel you might end up having to admit you were wrong and you thus keep changing the subject.
Wrong. And this about the lens performance, not sensor performance. You can’t separate the two. And if you are goping to compare cost and size, it is material as to whether the lens is interchangeable or not because the design of interchangeable lenses makes them larger and more expensive. The fact that you don’t get this shows you don’t know what you are talking about. you deflect by trying to change the subject because you already know you are wrong.
It actually has a lot of competition: Canon and Nikon offer cheap 70-300 zooms already. Way cheaper and comparable in size. OK Oly bodies are smaller – and I will ignore their many flaws.
“Sigma makes a 120-300 mm f/2.8 zoom. But I don’t understand why the comparison doesn’t work in both directions”
The comparison works as long as it fits your needs. I’m perfectly fine using the FZ200 for casual use. For work (I work in a digital agency), the FZ200 won’t do at all, while both the Sigma you mentioned and this 40-150/2.8 do.
Of course it only works one way: plenty of Oly employees here. And they know neither photography nor optics, they are in marketing 🙂
Are you really comparing this to a 300mm F2.8?
Once again: this is simple marketing vs simple physics, the proper comparison is with a 300mm F5.6 and a 135 sensor (24×36). A larger sensor easily manages 4x higher ISO – yes, even Canon sensors, sorry but the DXO freaks are wrong. With that in mind, this thing has:
1) far worse autofocus
2) higher price
3) same size
The usual trolls and liers will obviously negate the obvious… Go on guys, you are paid for that 🙂
I am merely comparing lens range, max aperture, and price.
I am not implying anything of an intangible nature which would be subject to opinion. Just stating the facts.
You are merely comparing lens range, max aperture, and price.
This is the problem: sensor size is missing. An understandable error for a naive beginner, a cheap lie for a salesperson.
Get a life.
I worked in camera repair in 1972 when photographers were still shooting with REAL Full Frame cameras such as Linhoff Technika with Tilt and Swivel bellows and using 8×10″ sheet film backs with Kodachrome 10 and Kodachrome 25. In other words a color transparency 8″x10″. I never saw any better “IQ” from any camera or film or digital. So what “sensor size” is the “Holy Grail”?
Even the comparatively small 135 format was a compromise in quality made for news gathering photographers.
As a retired Tool & Die Maker the best journeymen I ever worked with taught me the following maxim: “The FIRST thing on any job is make yourself comfortable”. I still live by that which is why I use micro 4/3 camera and lenses.
BTW, I am too old to work for anyone. I don’t really have a “dog in this fight” as I use Panasonic cameras.
http://content.screencast.com/users/dolbydunn/folders/GM1/media/e0c2e35e-96af-4b8e-9c3d-a72163f45a63/Lumix%20GX7%20and%20GM1.jpg
Other cameras in use during the 1970’s (film era):
Crown Graphic – both 4″ x 5″ and 8″ x 10″
Linhoff 4″ x 5″ (Tilt & Swivel deluxe)
Mamiya 6″ x 7″ – roll film back
Hasselblad
RolleiFlex TLR
Pentax 645
Yashica 6×7
Attention Full Frame Fans, . . . ALL of these cameras used a “sensor” film frame size that dwarf the 135 so called FF Format.
This “ideal frame size” is an ever moving target. It IS possible that 135 will be the next victim. We sure don’t need “FF” for consumer video AND extremely capable cameras such as are available to the micro 4/3 community may make it less likely that we will “need” FF anymore than we need 4″ x 5″ or 8″ x 10″ etc.
With all that experience, why do you make such a flawed comparison then? I smell a rat.
M43 is ok as long as they keep the prices and/or size down; this is the crux here. How much does a 150mm lens cost, honestly? Those have always been cheap; but you already know that.
EnoughLies, you say . . . “I smell a rat”.
Maybe it’s time to take a bathroom break.
But the visibility of noise/grain in film (for the same light sensing area) is just much larger than for today’s digital sensors, which is why can you can a visibly noise-free large print from a FF sensor that with film require MF.
This is in no way specifically about the FF sensor size. It is nobody’s fault that the generally used convention is to use FF equivalents. There would be much less strive if we just stuck to AOV and entrance pupil diameter. AOV gives, well, AOV, and entrance pupil diameter gives us the size of the hole through which the light enters that camera. The bigger the hole, the more light can enter, nothing could be easier than that.
So, let’s just call this an 8.25º and 53.6 mm diameter lens and leave it with that.
The main appeal here (some might say, the only appeal), ie, with m43 in general is the system size which is smaller (and lighter). Of course, partly that is achieved with lenses that have no equivalent on FF camera.
SOME people will never get it. 😉
The advantage of m43 is, that you can have it aqlmost every possible way. Tiny, small and big! GM1, PM2 or GH3 and EM1. Same is true for the lenses…
If you want a small gear for vacation, fine, there is the tiny GM1 + 12-32 waiting for you. Hardly bigger than a Sony RX100 but with the iq rivaling – at least canons – apsc.
If you want to meet some professional standards, voilá, have one of the pro lenses and mount it to the EM1. Yes, it´s much bigger but even then nothing compared to the DSLR stuff.
Even better… it is a modular system. Assemble what you need whether small-small, small-big, big-small or big-big. Honestly, what can be better than this possibilities?
I really like the EM1 and its functions but I prefer the modularity of my EM5. Small and portable for vacation and a little bigger with the bg attached when shooting in a friends studio.
SOME people will never get it. 😉
The advantage of m43 is, that you can have it aqlmost every possible way. Tiny, small and big! GM1, PM2 or GH3 and EM1. Same is true for the lenses…
If you want a small gear for vacation, fine, there is the tiny GM1 + 12-32 waiting for you. Hardly bigger than a Sony RX100 but with the iq rivaling – at least canons – apsc.
If you want to meet some professional standards, voilá, have one of the pro lenses and mount it to the EM1. Yes, it´s much bigger but even then nothing compared to the DSLR stuff.
Even better… it is a modular system. Assemble what you need whether small-small, small-big, big-small or big-big. Honestly, what can be better than this possibilities?
I really like the EM1 and its functions but I prefer the modularity of my EM5. Small and portable for vacation and a little bigger with the bg attached when shooting in a friends studio.
I noticed that the comments on this thread stopped abruptly about a hour ago.
This is a test to see if I can post without registering with DISQUS.
It’s a trick. When you try to post without registering with DISQUS the post appears in the discussion/thread but a pop-up window asks for your photo for use in your DISQUS profile. DISQUS then sent me an e-mail to verify my account.
admin; I do NOT want any account with “DISQUS” . . . I want my name removed from their registry, and I don’t plan to post here again.
I DO NOT give DISQUS permission to use ANY data about me and will NOT verify my account with DISCUS
Then don’t give them any data about you! Have a look at mailinator.com or yopmail.com or guerrillamail.com or… and see if you can work out what they can be used for.
A Disqus disciple I see before me, this will be the end of rumours dot com, goodbye security hello spy on me.
I agree that some control (ideally self control) is needed but too much control will end the conversation.
I can see that this thread deteriorated after the DISQUS software was installed – therefore, it cannot be that only flamers are discouraged. Perversely, flamers are internet querillas who will circumnavigate the controls.
This forum could become a worse flame-throwing contest.
The inevitable trolls tossing in the DoF red herring. Here’s a heads up – the equivalency issue is a nonsense, always has been, always will be. The relationship between sensor size, focal length, aperture, yadda yadda is all simple physics, but the advantages cut each way.
For a lens with a narrow FoV (like 150mm on mFT), then more DoF is not a bad thing! If I can shoot a bird or animal and have enough DoF to have more than one eye in focus I’ll be happy. When I shot 135 I would commonly need to stop down enough to get enough DoF, which then left me with less light, which meant slower shutter, which meant blurred images. The smaller sensor has let me escape that cycle.
There are times when bigger is better, but that’s fine – I can shoot 6×6 on 120 when I need bigger.
If you want to keep believing that image noise is mainly a function of light density at the sensor and not a function of the total amount of light, be my guest. I don’t care what you believe. I do care however if you want to pass of your misconceptions as reality.
So, if you refrain from any comparison with another sensor size camera system, I will not touch that subject either. Simple as that. (And I don’t think I have ever touched that subject anywhere before somebody started the comparisons.)
El Aura, your comment would make more sense if you replied to the post you are responding to.
Admin – congratulations and thanks for adding Disqus !
Yay!
+100!
What is Discus?
Disqus is a sort of portable internet identity that a lot of sites use to allow you to comment. You register an identity with Disqus and then you can comment on lots of sites that use it without having to individually register with those sites.
Of course you don’t have to register details you don’t want to – see above.
It is also a central place where they follow and pass long your interests and commenting behavior to whomever…
Annoying also because you need to have various Disqus profiles if you don’t want a profile on every board.
After Youtube comment requirements, pretty much another big step closer to loosing your anonymity.
Take away a persons mask and he will not tell you the truth.
Not important to camera forum, but vastly important for speaking your own mind elsewhere.
It also loads slow on mobiles, becomes stuck many times, lets you see Raw comments, then hiding them with its animation while loading, if your connection is lagging on mobile.
So yes, thank you…
Over -9000
yep, so much damn better!
testing . . . testing . . . This is only a test. I am posting as a guest
Disqus is ruining this site it is a whole heap of garbage, good bye rumours.
+ 1
I would like to continue reading and posting to this site, but I do NOT want any involvement with DISQUS nor Google+ , facebook, LinkedIn, nor any other conglomerates whose main business is siphoning data from our computers and selling it to any buyers they can find.
Fully agree. It’s just too much work to create a new DISQUS account every week to keep the data they have about one to a minimum.
What data do they have? A fake name, a fake email address and a made up password. Oh my life will be ruined! The terrible things they can do with such information!
Noobs.
They have the list of websites I comment on, they know when and how often I post there, and know what I post there. A profiler in the police could already make a lot out of those pieces of informations. They might even know the IP address which means location and from the time of day and day of the week they can probably make out whether I am posting from home, from work, or while moving around. And since they know my password they have a decent chance of guessing the password my user name is using elsewhere on the web. And the more text written by me can be combined, the easier it is to do linguistic analysis on it and fingerprint my writing style. Do you remember the Fake Steve Jobs blog where for at least six months, nobody could figure out who was behind that blog. The writer was eventually found out by others comparing the writing style with that of journalists.
I suggest you get off the Internet immediately and then go off grid just to be really safe.
Every website you visit can log your IP address – with or without Disqus and you just don’t want to know what your ISP knows about you.
Another stupid comment, you really are a stig. Dors that mean tosser in your parts?
It is most interesting the comments that are made in defence of Disqus, having just read their ‘new’ statement on voting it is interesting to note that negate feedback will be ignored, wonderful system.
Sure, every website can log what I do on their website but once you can pull together information from multiple websites, you can learn much more about a person.
And don’t let us kid ourselves here, you are using a nick name because you want to remain anonymous, don’t want your whole life laid out to everyone (or even anyone). There is a reason why most people don’t want their whole online life to be under the control of one entity (eg, Facebook). While I don’t know your personal reasons for not using your/a Facebook identity here, since most people don’t do so and most people likely have a Facebook identity, they express their desire to not have their whole online life be available to one organisation or via one organisation to the rest of the world.
Sure, combing our online presence on a handful of websites via one Disqus account is only a small step, it grates us the wrong way because it seems to be unnecessary (or to the benefit of the admins of this site). And for whatever reason, I can post this again without needing to use Disqus.
You not The Real Stig? I real Isqueeze7feathers! I screwed now.
This lens is a monster!
I want a high quality 75-300 or 100-300 lens. Doesn’t have to be 2.8, just even higher quality than the current 75-300, which was not really an improvement on the first version of the 75-300.
Not that the 75-300 Mark 1 is bad, it’s actually ok, but still…..
One more thing. If this lens is big and heavy, why am I sticking it on a small EM-10, or even an e-m5? Kinda takes away the point of it all. I’d keep my current similar range lens, which is light, and not bad at all. (no, not the 75-300, the one that goes to 140 or 150, or whatever, the Olympus one….I cna’t keep track of all the minor differences)
I rarely buy a lens without extensive research, reading reviews, and looking at other factors. But after buying and using the 12-49 pro, I have already decided to buy this. The pro line of zooms, with just one lens, has already sold me.
I keep reading that this lens is coming the “2nd half of 2014”. I hope this means June and I’d love for them to surprise with an earlier release. The addition of this lens should hold me in my transition to m4/3 for awhile.
no, it will not come by June or in Summer , it will be out just a few weeks before next Christmas, I called Oly and confirmed it.
I would like to thank admin for allowing guest posting. I like the conversation to remain lively and believe forced participation with Disqus will shrink our user base and inhibit free exchange.
Naturally it is incumbent upon each of us to maintain our comportment and use good manners and good sense if we want the guest privileges to remain.
it is just too late, I have to get it now since I am going to shoot some sea eagles and frozen sea end of this month(I am leaving my house in 6 days), I’ve been debating Fuji XT1 vs Oly EM1 for that but I need a tele photo zoom and they both have no really long zoom option available now.
and honestly, I was really disappointed with the Fuji after actually trying it out in my local mall, it was still like in beta testing stage.
currently, I have the Sony A7R/A7,Canon6D, Nikon D800E and Pana GX7 but I really need a sealed compact system camera with some sort of fast focusing tele zooms.
I really want this 40-150 f2.8 pro zoom now, this is actually what I need for my next shooting but I guess it won’t be out till end of this year , so I will have to get the Pana 100-300 mm cheap zoom for now.
I have the 35mm-100mm f2.8 Pana zoom and I love it but it is not long enough for shooting sea Eagles or drift ice.
So I am now screwed, the best scenario is the Sony 70-200mm f4 ZA SSM out in this week , but it will not happen , so I need to buy a cheap Pana zoom or I might have to get the Fuji X-E2 with the cheap 55-200mm zoom and after I get back home sell them all.
Or I just curry my fat Nikon 300mm f2.8VR thing, but it is just too heavy shooting eagle from a shaky boat.
Anyway, good luck to Oly , but they will not get my business this time , I think Pana or Sony will get my money this time, but again I really want this lens now.
Get the 75-300mm Olympus zoom.
That lens is really bad – the Panny 100-300mm is much better, adapted 50-200mm 4/3 better still.
The 75-300mm is junk, though.
What about the E-M1 with the Olympus 50-200mm 4/3 lens and adapter? That gives you a pretty good range and a fast lens.
40-150mm f2.8! Yes please! I don’t imagine it’s going to be cheap, but if the IQ is good then I’ll get one.
Ok, lets get to the important info, when are we going to be able to buy it. I’d love to take it to Europe with me in July
How about not complaining about the size of the lens and just view it as another option. You do have choices.
Admin, when are you going to sort out the site and get it back to where it was. As it is with Disqus, the number of messages on a thread changes every time I look in and I don’t mean more comments it is an absolutely random number with messages disappearing and reappearing at will, it is nothing more than a complete shambles, completely unworthy of the content. Please, please, please return to WordPress.
I agree. DISQUS is absolutely terrible.
This latest video from SnapChick is very revealing and topical to this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWumAXeZGs
What is this? A lens for ants? This lens has to be at least. . .3 times bigger than this!
This comment system really sucks!
This is basically 80-300mm f/5.6
in terms of deep depth of field, yes. but it still gathers the same amount of light at f/2.8
f/2.8 at 40-150mm. you can’t break math. 2.8 is not 2.8 if you compare different sensor sizes. 2.8 on a 35mm full frame gathers more light than the 2.8 on m4/3 sensor. 80-300mm at f/5.6 is a 35mm ff equivalent because m4/3 sensor is cropped.
i may have worded what i meant to imply incorrectly. are you trying to infer that this lens is somehow going to be slower than its FF counterpart?
in my working experience, having gone from 35mm film to APS-C digital, to 35mm “full frame” digital, and now to MFT i can attest that this crop factor is only useful in determining the Field of View per given focal length and an increased Depth of Field per given aperture due to the smaller sensor.
the crop factor has no bearing on the speed of the lens.
that tony northrup youtube video is 40 minutes of mindless drivel.
40-150mm f/2.8 on m4/3 and 80-300 f/5.6 on FF are identical in terms of speed. Why? Because they gather the same amount of light. However, they have different light intensity. If you want to match the gathered light of a 35mm FF camera with an f/2.8 aperture lens you will need a lens with an f/1.4 aperture on m4/3. Remember that m4/3 sensor is cropped. It’s not the sensor that determines noise. It’s always the lens because lens control the amout of light hitting the sensor. I’m using E-M1 as my go to camera for 98% of the time. I think I know what I’m talking about. I hope I make myself clear this time.
f/2.8 light gathering is f/2.8 light gathering, no matter what size the sensor. Unlike DOF it’s not relativistic, it’s actual.
You obviously need to do more reading about this because you’re woefully misinformed.
Are you implying that an f/2.8 on a Full-Frame sensor has the same total light gathered on a Micro Four Thirds sensor at F/2.8?
An f/2.8 lens has identical light gathering capability whether it’s on an m4/3 sensor, an APS-C sensor, or a full frame sensor.
Moreover, what you’re referring to as “light intensity” is also identical across the sensor formats. Light “gathering capacity” is, however, a different matter and a function of the size of the sensor photosites … but that’s a function inherent to the sensor, not the lens.
Light intensity is the SAME but the total Light gathered is NOT. Full-Frame sensor has four times larger surface area than a Micro Four Thirds sensor. So f/2.8 is NOT f/2.8 (in terms of total light gathered) when when you compare DIFFERENT sensor sizes.
If you think what I’m saying doesn’t make sense I suggest do a test yourself. You’ll be amazed how physics work. I was. 😉