As you know the next Olympus PRO lens will be the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens. It will be released in 2014 but exact pricing and availability are still unknown. Mathieu Gasquet had the pleasure to “touch” a mockup of the lens (see the video on top). And those of you interested in the lens design should know that Egami (translation here) just spotted the lens design patent. There is also a description of a new 1.4 Teleconverter.
Great lens, just let’s hope Olympus will not go crazy high with the price!
100 Responses
As I expected, that thing looks huge.
While the ‘huge’ attribute may be important for certain body parts, I bought into the m4/3 system for its portability. I chose to go with the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 as they seem like the ideal match for the system in terms of quality zooms.
huge?! Have you ever get in touch with 2013 photo gear, those long large usually white lenses people on this planet still use for these scenarios?
Errr..I have a D800 with the Holy trinity lens.
How is your 35-100 at 150?
Haven’t really got much time to use it (Received it last week from a seller in Japan. Great price $1040 with free Fedex shipping).
Just shot a few pictures around the house. Quality seems same as the 12-35, which is..Good.
I wasn’t aware that it was compulsory to buy this lens.
The advantage of m43 is that you can go small when you want to and when you want the highest quality lenses you can go larger.
With larger formats you are more limited.
I wasn’t dissing the lens. Just pointing out the alternatives and the reasons behind those alternatives. Those who want to go up to 300mm @ f2.8 (and don’t mind the size), will obviously buy this.
it’s a40-150mm lens, not a 300mm.
The effective focal length (due to the 2x multiplier of the 4/3 system) is 80-300mm f2.8. So it is 300mm FOV at the tele-end.
Are you dumb? He obviously means 300mm f/2.8 (f/5.6 dof) FULL FRAME equivalent.
“The advantage of m43 is that you can go small when you want to and when you want the highest quality lenses you can go larger.”
I’ll correct that for you:
…and when you want the highest quality you can get a proper camera.
I find it hilarious how noobs who bought oversized & overweight junk get anxious and feel compelled to troll the superior competition.
🙂
Haha, so true, sometimes it’s getting way too ridiculous. Why even bother going to a blog or forum related to a system you don’t like and don’t use to just simply spam? Feel threatened or what?
Wow, so much negative answers, when person simply said this lens too big for him. Size difference is huge indeed, really need to think hard if you need those extra 50mm or not.
I will accept a huge lens for better image quality than my 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. My alternative is to use my Four-Thirds lenses, which are much bigger indeed.
Jesus, this is an old video 🙂 Wasn’t it here allready posted at it’s original release date?
nope 🙂
It’s been around for a while. Saw it first a couple of weeks ago.
What’s interesting is that he at the end mentions a super-tele zoom, not a fixed FL. Would be awesome, if the PRO series could be comprised of 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, 150-350/4 🙂 A 150-350/4 will still be fairly compact and lightweight, and fullfill a gapless range from 7-350! If so, count me in 🙂
7-14mm f2.8, drool!
7-14 with filter mount!
I have been campaigning for years now for filter turrets for for lenses where it’s hard or practically impossible to make effective filter threads. A wide angle zoom (e.g., the 4/3 7-14/4) is such a lens. Others are large aperture super tells (e.g., 4/3 300/2.) and specialty lenses (e.g., a pro quality 12/2.8 tilt & swing lens).
Hoping for an 8-17 f/2.8, instead. =\
You have been able to read & see photos of it hand held here too since 13th Sept. http://fourthirds-user.com/2013/09/this_is_what_the_olympus_mzuiko_40150mm_f28_pro_will_look_like.php
+1
1,4TC is very welcome 🙂
Nice, casual first look. The lens is prototype, so form factor is the only real evaluation so far.
At 4 minutes, Mathieu mentions there will be 2 more Pro zoom lenses: extreme wide, and extreme telephoto. Other than that, it’s all speculation (assuming the two zoom Pro lens information is for real).
7-14mm f/4.0?
150-300 f/4.0?
A great addition to the lens line-up. Too bad its just a mockup.
I hope the 1.4x teleconverter will work well with pany 35-100. That would make a nice 50-140 f4 lens…
If you think this will be huge, then take a look at this: http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.294,487.392,ha,t
And the Sony is f4 only and 200mm vs the 300mm equiv of the Oly. How about the A7 compactness now?
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
Hate to say this, but the a7(R) is about the same size as the E-M1 and the FE 70-200/4 is about the same size as the 40-150/2.8. Admittedly, 150 is FOV-equivalent to 300 not to 200. On the other hand, f/4 gives you less light (which is compensated by the better ISO performance of the 35mm sensor) but at the same time the background blur of f/2 on an mFT. So, basically you get the much better IQ of 35mm but 100mm less reach in a package that has the same size and the same weight. I wouldn’t call that ‘huge’.
Cheers
Heiko
Excuse me I don’t get it (ptrobably me): why would you get a better IQ if you have to rise up the ISO to compensate lens speed (f2.8 vs f4)?
This is only true if you use the lens wide-open. Otherwise you don’t have to compensate anything.
Unles you happen to want equivalent DOF…
Read Steve huff on this, his finding is that any gain you might have with ISO on the A7 is pretty much lost because of the lack of IBIS
I unfortunately didn’t have good experience with IBIS in my Oly E-PL2. It suffered from Shutter Shock badly. The E-M1 doesn’t seem to have that problem but the E-P5 still has, according to sources like dpreview. Oly doesn’t seem to be able to solve that problem in the smaller PEN bodies. If I always have to think about whether a certain shuttter speed will possibly give me double contours because of shutter shock IBIS is worth nothing. For me this is an always-on feature.
In addition, I got the impression that the best results are still to be had using a tripod if you really want to get the max out of your equipment. And it’s not as if the Sony doesn’t have IS at all, it just doesn’t have IBIS. Using a tripod helps composition anyway. If you use a tripod you could just as well use a Nikon D800e you say? Not true, I have a very light Gitzo tripod that I stabilize using rocks hanging from the center column inside a shopping bag, and I’m very thankful to not have to carry 11kg of equipment up that 3000m hill but only 3kg.
Also, I was just arguing against Andrei that the combo a7R + 70-200/4 is no larger or heavier than the E-M1 + 40-150/2.8, no more and no less. As someone who mainly does landscapes the extra reach is not strictly necessary. So, even if 35mm wouldn’t give me better IQ (and it does by quite a margin), I cannot see how I pay a significant size or weight penalty.
Definitely, the a7R is not for everyone. If I were into street more I would probably rather grap a E-P5 + 17/1.8 (if it were not for the IBIS problem, that is).
That 35mm that was announced together with the A7(r) only gives you better image quality if all you care about is the center of the image. Corners? Better forget about them. Want it solved? No problem, just get an adapter and a 35mm that sits quite a bit further from the semsor (and is retrofocal) and see your size/weight advantage melt away, or get the fixed lens rx1 and give up oninterchangeable lenses. Actually, for what you describe as your use for such a camera, the rx1 sounds like the best solution.
I agree regarding DOF (f4 on ff is equiv to f2 on mft) and the better iq of the A7.
A7 has 2 stops ISO advantage over the E-M1. However using those zooms you get 2 extra stops in favor of the E-M1(f2.8 vs f4 and 5 stops IBIS vs 4 stops OSS – in reality probably is 4 stops IBIS vs 3 stops OSS (still one stop stabilization in favour of IBIS).
So for still shooting they are evenly matched overall.
The E-M1 has way much better ergonomics (especially external control that the A7 lacks) and it’s freeze proof (try to shoot with normal camera in cold weather, go back inside and shoot again and repeat this algorithm and see what happens :D)
For indoor sport shooting the A7 is better (if it has a fast AF which is not 100% granted – we have to see the reviews).
The E-M1 is nicer to hold than the a7(R). And it looks like a little bit better-built too. But customizability of the a7R is very good. Concerning freeze-proof I’m not sure if this isn’t true of most modern cameras. I never had a camera giving me problems at, say, -5 – -10 C. Normally, the only part that causes problems is the battery.
I’m afraid both the a7 and the a7R are not the kings of the hill in the AF department.
When I will drop my D60/D90 duo the next spring I want to go mirrorless. I think this is the future and that it has more advantages than disadvantages compared to DSLR.
For me the E-M1 is in pole position but I’m considering the A7 (not the A7r) and the next Fuji (OM-D like Fuji – it’s rumored to be weather seald).
The big advantage of the MFT format are the good lenses and that you have many types (Fuji is good too, but lacks is some fields – 1:2 macro instead of 1:1 for example and no weather sealing for their lenses so far).
Sony is known to stop developing good lenses for some of its systems (NEX for example) and I really don’t trust them regarding the much rumored lens roadmap (which is too good to be true – 15 premium/pro lenses in 3 years considering their group financial balance).
The good news is that in 2014 there will be a great choice for everybody who wants to buy a new camera or to change system.
I wish that we all be great photographers!
I see your point with respect to the lenses. I would go so far as to say, where are the good NEX lenses? I wasn’t even happy with the 24/1.8, and this is one large and expensive lens, considering it’s for APS-C Mirrorless. When the Sony a7’s were presented I wasn’t enthusiastic at all. This only changed when I saw the great near- medium-format quality of the 35 and the 55. Maybe Sony after all have learnt something from past lens line-up debacles.
If I get in addition to the 35 and the 55 a nice Zeiss 24, and the 70-200, from its MTFs, looks very promising, too, I’m good to go – that’s all I need for my photography. I admit I don’t expect too much from the 24-70/4, so maybe I stay with primes below 70mm. If it turns out to be a pleasant surprise, I’ll probably only keep the 35mm for a compact option.
If I’ll jump in the A7 boat I will choose the following lenses in the order of the future purchases:
For 2014:
24-70 f4 OSS
100 (or 105 – it’s only rumored so we don’t know yet the focal length) f2.8 macro OSS
For 2015:
70-200 f4 OSS
55 f1.8
For 2016:
16-35 f4(maybe it will have OSS but I doubt it)
If I will buy the E-M1 my lens roadmap will be:
For 2014:
12-40 f2.8
60mm 2.8 macro
For 2015
40-150 f2.8
6-12 f4 or 8-17 f4 (the rumored PRO wide-zoom)
For 2016:
A good portrait lens (maybe the Pana 42.5 f1.2 or a the Voigtlander 42.5 f0.95).
the a7 is full frame simple win !
A7 is only FF. Looser. FF is much too small, MF and LF are much better. Only large sensors can take good pictures. I usually go to FF forums to tell them ALL about MF but for some reason they don’t like me there and think I’m an idiot.
http://irahmanphotography.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/full-frame-35mm-format-vs-m43-exposure-settings-and-lens-light-gathering-ability/
Don’t give me this freeze-proof marketing bullshit. As you don’t have a “freeze-proof” model you are just another willing sycophant of Oly marketing. There are plenty of cameras including the my EM-5 and E-PL1 which have no problem in/out of my car in Minnesota in February. My fingers & condensation were bigger problems than cameras “freezing”. There’s a sucker born every minute.
This thing will not only cost the earth, it will be heavier than it 🙂
PERFECT lens for the GM1 ^^
Btw.: REALLY old Video yes …
I thought I did travel back in time over night… That´s a fucking old video!
Nothing new to report?
Mmm… This or a used MZuiko150mm f2.8?
How about a used ZD 150 f/2.0 Marco?
Yes Ully, my mistake! That’s a lens I keep thinking about..
let me know when you decide to get it, so i can borrow 🙂
The is also a patent for the m.zuiko 40-200mm!!
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-11-25
First time I see this
Yup. Would be a nice companion for the 12-40/2.8-4.0 patented months ago (and probably a bit cheaper).
Maybe for the release of the E-M6? 🙂
Sorry 40-200mm F4 !
I think we say 300mm F4 😉
those who can afford it and carry the weight its great addition to m43 lens option
its definetly aimed to pro users who could carry the weight and need 150 reach + teleconverter
must admit lens is still smaller/less weight than canon L lenses
if I had money I would definetly goes to lumix 35-100 cause the most thing I like on m43 is portability
I would like to see that pana do a 35-100 kit with GX7 with good price discount…that I would consider as buy when updading to newer model
It looks somewhat huge compared to the 35-100 f2.8, but tiny compared to the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and has wider range.
This lens makes most sense if they make 1.4x and 2x converters for it. 40-150 f2.8, 56-210 f4 and 80-300 f5.6. Great ranges with one lens! I hope IQ deserves the PRO tag!
Is the 35-100 remain small or does it telescope out? The Olympus definitely looks to be internal focus and zoom.
Took some hunting but answered my question the Panasonic lens appears to be internal focus and zoom as well. Someone that owns it confirm that?
No telescoping on the 35-100 f2.8. It’s an internal zoom.
where is 150/2.8 pana?
Damn those lenses and EM1 are huge. Can anybody with a normal brain tell me the advantage of small sensor but expensive overall M43??
That’s a very good point! But, you can ditch the grip, pop on some quality primes and your system is small again. That can’t really be done with a D800 or whatever-D Canon has in that range, can it?
I don’t know wha you are comparing Em1 to, but Em1 is not huge. Try to use it first.
– great corner sharpness
– fast AF
– IBIS
I’m sorry but em-1 is not that big… same size as em-5 with an extra grip only..
If you talked me about gh3 and his size, i will be agree with you…
But please, go playing with an em-1 in a shop, you will really not saying that.
Although I wouldn’t buy one, it’s always good to see (presumably) excellent quality lenses released for M4/3. A 1.4x teleconverter is VERY welcome and LONG overdue!
BUT… how about a goode olde 300mm f4?
The few zooms I have tend to get used at the extremes, rarely in the middle.
I would like to see some primes, too. Say 150mm f/2.8 or f/4…..or a 250mm f/4. That would be interesting.
I would also like to see the Oly 40-150mm side-by-side with say a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, just to get a perspective on the size.
+100!!
BUT… until the day … or year … native M4/3 lenses like that arrive, there are adaptors and used manual lenses. I don’t have to sell any offspring or body parts to buy, either. 😉
I’ve got a Nikon 200mm f4 IF AI-S macro that makes an excellent telephoto. Also a Nikon 300mm EDIF f4.5 AI-S, great image quality, tripod required, unfortunately.
When camerasize.com will have the 40-150mm f2.8 in it’s database you can compare them. However the Olympus is smaller and it’s comparable with the Canon 70-200 f4 IS in size (way small diameter on the Olympus because of the smaller sensor).
yes, why not a 300mm f4 with the 1.4x teleconverter – both weather-sealed.
150 at f2.8 is very interesting.
I always love these arguments! Lol. This lens is NOT huge. Is it the biggest m43 lens? Yes. However, for what you are getting, and I say this lightly because nobody has it in their hands yet, but compared to equivalent lenses, this thing is small. I’m going by looks of course, and comparing to the build of the 12-40, but it seems this lens will be more rugged than the Panasonic lens. Time will tell….
I have learned with m43 not to trust the photographs of the equipment. You need to hold everything in your hand before you buy it. Every time I was off in my assumption of how big the camera or lens was. m43 on all levels is much more portable than the larger sensor competitors. It’s worth it to me…
Probably it will be an expensive lens. Maybe better I buy a camera and lenses from Fuji and sell my Olympus equipment, instead to buy the 12-40 and the 40-150 2.8…
Google translation: “not the inner zoom, full-length seems to change during zooming”
Could this lens really extend while zooming?! I hope that’s not what the patent drawings indicate.
What a horrible product for a “small” system camera. The only thing larger than that lens, is the sense of butt-hurt coming from the weird people who take some personal offense (for the life of me I don’t know why) at the condemnation of ANYTHING m4/3 related. Weirdos.
LOL. Yeah, people do get upset too much from both sides.
lol, no wonder if you insult everyone like this…
Well…I’m insulting an inanimate object, and the actions and responses of those who feel compelled to defend such things, as if they were defending family.
You mean, you are being annoying on purpose. yet find it strange that people don’t like you?
Go play somewhere else.
It is obvious that by the end of 2014 Olympus wants to have 4 Pro lenses in the works.
Hopefully they will be 7-12 f4 to keep it small and 150-350 f4 to keep it the sameish size as 40-150mm f2.8
Will that be expensive, sure. But also highly versatile. Especially if you know what you will actually use on a shoot and leave the rest at home.
Combine that dream lineup with rumored TC 1.4X and hopefully 2X to and you could have the smallest 7-700mm or 14mm f4 – 1400mm f8 equivalent and stabilized kit for that once in a lifetime safari and a occasional moon shot or cat shot. and that is in only 4 lenses. 😛
Put it all in 2 small messenger bags for 2 person trip with 2 bodies and you are good to go and not much weighted.
🙂
There will be no 150-350 f4. Besides the 12-40 and the 40-150 f2.8 there will be a wide-zoom (probably a 8-17 f2.8-4 or a 7-12 f4) and a super-tele prime like 250 f4 or 300 f4
Maths has failed you not unusual for mFT fans
your mythical 350mm F4 would become a 700mm AOV……………. F8 FF EQUIVALENT!!!
If you add a 2x tc to an F4 it would now become a 1400mm AOV…..F16 ff EQUIVALENT!!!
it is that difficult mathematical 2x that confuses mFT users so much go figure
Here is the simplest formula in photography well for everyone bar mFT fanboys
EQUIVALENT = Same DOF, Same AOV, same total light
REPEAT:
f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4 is f4
You are a true hero. What would we do without you? I am so impressed. Please come visit this forum more often. And also FF forums. They have the same problem comparing to medium and large format.
lol
Good one! You’re a stand-up comedian just like full frame!
Great… whats your shutter speed say when you shoot in low light on your Full Frame at 5.6 versus a m4/3s lens at 2.8? Pretty sure THAT is the difference people are talking about here. Being able to get the shot in focus.
Looks pretty good.
big size lame small performance whats the point even the fuji 55-200 smaller
I recently saw the detailed specs and MTF measurements, like you. I agree. Performance is very bad. But you should not compare to APS-C. Remember, the sensor is too small! Cannot take good pictures with small sensor.
40-150mm f2.8 looks good i might buy one
would buy a 400mm f4 prime right now
Yes it is big (compare it to the current m.zuiko 40-150), but it’s f2.8, and aperture ratio is aperture ratio regardless of focal length. How big would the equivalent FF 80-300 F2.8 be? When I say equivalent, I mean in light gathering ability, not DOF.
Before the trolls tell you, which they will: “light gathering ability” of m43 f/2.8 is the same as FF/5.6. I realize that’s not the point about m43, but that is the math.
http://irahmanphotography.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/full-frame-35mm-format-vs-m43-exposure-settings-and-lens-light-gathering-ability/
I think we mean sth different. When I say “light gathering” I really mean “collection efficiency”, and whats being kept constant across the comparison is the field of view and the distance from the object.
Then the collection efficiency is just dependent on the lens’s entrance pupil, which is f/f-number. To the square.
You can slice up the practical consequences for the detector behind the lens in terms of ISO, which is I think where you are coming from.
Light collection of a lens only matters for light delivered to the sensor, and that doesn’t just depend on absolute aperture, rather, it depends on RELATIVE aperture multiplied by the active area of the sensor.
f2.8 is the same on 1/2.3, 1/1.7, 1, mft, aps-c, ff, medium format or large format in terms of light gathering!
The DOF is the big difference! And of course ISO and dynamic range. Bigger sensor = better ISO and dynamic range performance.
I would also like to see a 300mm F4 or F2.8. I’d be entirely happy with a 7-14mm F4. Too much ghosting on an F2.8. I’d rather see an 8, 9, or 10mm fixed focal length (Kowa, Samyang seem to be moving forward). And, of course, a shift lens. Another item on my wish list is Sigma’s 180mm in m4/3.
As a professional photojournalist, I am jumping in m43 after using Nikon DX and FX for decade.
For most of my work I always had to use 3 lens, a standard 24-120mm F/4.0 (portrait, general use and press conference) , a 70-200 F/2.8 (sports and portrait) and a 300mm F/4 (sports). Sometime I still use 2 prime, 24mm F\1.4 and a 135mm F2.0 for shows or very dark venues.
The use of somewhat smaller maximum aparture (F/4.0 vs F/2.8) is ok now for photojournalism with the new ISO capabilities of digital camera, you can go up to Iso 4000 without any lost on photo quality (regarding the poor to very poor print in newspaper). DOF is also not an issue at all for pro photojournalist for most of our work.
The main benefit I can see with the M43 is the portability and the quality of the lens. I would get an EM1, the 12-40mm, 40-150mm and 1 or 2 prime, that’s it. the 40-150 of Oly will be lighter to carry then a 70-200 FF lens and even lighter compare to the 300 F\4.0 … So the portability quality of the m43 system remains.. Think about it.
If I really need the DOF, I would get that shiny new F\1.4 prime or rent a D800 for the very rare time I need one.