Image of the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens (Source:Olympus Nordic).
Digicameinfo got the lens price info for Japan: It will cost 160,000 Yen (rough conversion: $1,500 USD).
UPDATE: There will be also a special 1.4 teleconverter + lens kit for $180,000 Yen.
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake Gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
160 Responses
Bad, bad Olympus.
This price will make the 50-200 an even more appealing option (at least to E-M1 users).
Speaking of which, any updates on the new E-M1 firmware?
bokeh on the 50-200 has always had some issues, not too mention contrast detect lenses are faster than pdaf lenses and the new lens is a tad faster aperture wise at 150mn
bokeh is very subjective if you ask me, I think Sneye is right that the 50-200 is very interesting.
I’ve had great bokeh results with 50-200 on my E3.
Yes and no.
Yes, the EM-1 is faster with CDAF lenses than PDAF lenses but the Sony A77 MKII is faster than the EM-1 using PDAF lenses. This proves that dual PD/CDAF cameras can indeed be right up Canon 1D and Nikon D4 alley as demonstrated by Sony and Olympus needs to do more.
Hopefully Olympus can fine tune the EM-1 with the upcoming firmware update and wring out more speed. Otherwise we’ll just have to wait for whatever EM-1 replacement.
The 50-200SWD is as fast as those Canon L lenses right now but Olympus does not have a camera body to drive it at that kind of speed.
The a77II has a mirror and traditional PDAF apparatus. The E-M1 has one of the best sensor-embedded PDAF systems on the market circa 2014, but it is far from perfect. It’s a young technology which will see much improvement in coming years.
I think I would like to wait until the 40-150mm f2.8 has been released and it’s performance assessed. The 35-100 f2 costs $2,500 which tends to put the price in better perspective and makes it seem not unreasonable.
I’m not saying $1500 is unreasonable. It is, but potential buyers will be hard pressed to choose it over the 50-200. I’m not sure this price will serve Oly’s best interests.
If i had to spend 1500 USD for a zoomlens, I would go for a used ZD 35-100 f/2.
Indeed, if you prefer speed to reach.
i prefer the rendering
if yuo tried itm yuo might understand
The 35-100 f2 is a star no doubt but it is huge even without being mounted on an adapter and comparing SH prices to new is hardly fair. You also have impaired AF performance on any mFT body plus to get to 300mm equiv AOV you would need to add an TC to the cost/size.
The 35-100 f2 currently sits at $2500 new { a full $1000 more than the 40-150 if rumor is right ] weighs 1.7kg without mFT adapter or TC
still i would choose the ZD 35-200 becasue i hvae worked with it..yuor opinions might hold truth in it…but i believe in personal experience with a lens..this is a SHG btw
i would choose the 35-100 for other reasons then practical ones.
“I’m not saying $1500 is unreasonable . It is”
Does anyone ever listen to you for any reason?
Hmmm… Thanks.
I don’t understand why the the misquote & comment. ???
As a 50-200mm user, I don’t think it is “one or the other, but not both”. The 50-200mm has extra reach -especially with a teleconverter. However the 40-150mm will be smaller, f/2.8 constant and a tad wider.
50-200mm? What about the existing 40-150mm? This budget zoom has the exact same range but with a smaller variable aperture. Two huge advantages it has, though, are its compact size and much, much lower price. I bought mine new for only $100 on sale. For the price, the quality is more than acceptable. Moreover, it’s relative value is unlikely to be bested by the PRO version. Image quality tests are sure to come in time, but if the faster speed isn’t required, then it will have to be about 15 times better to match the quality to price ratio of the older lens.
It doesn’t have a bright aperture, weather sealing nor the high image quality that (should) come from a Pro lens. The 50-200 SWD Lens does.
The 50-200 is a very good performer , however on mFT even on my E-M1 the AF performance is hardly stellar. Add in the need to use an adapter combined with the already fairly large size of the lens , I for one am very interested in the 40-150mm
Yes, I am too, but not the kit version that Squeezy is referring to. The 50-200 still has me interested for indoor events though with its longer focal length that can be used with the EC14 too (although a 1.4TC with the 40-150 could be good & even better if it was built in like a Canon lens).
I had a 50-200mm (non-SWD although) and was disappoint of the speed and af accuracy with my EM1, so I sold it out. Now I have a “cheap” 40-150. The AF is really better, but the zoom range is less interesting and most important : this lens is too damn slow (aperture speaking) for sports and music show (wich is the main reason why I need a telephoto zoom lens)!
I’ve read several other m43 forums with people experiencing the same thing.
For outdoor sport good as long it is under direct sunlight. Otherwise too slow.
Even for hand hold wildlife it is too slow in direct sunlight.
Why this new Pro will fly from shelf’s.
Are you serious? I mean, sure, the cheap 40-150mm kit lens offers nice value for money (pretty rare in m4/3 world). But compared to the new PRO lens, it’s just a piece of crap plastic toy. I don’t even see the point of comparing them, they are clearly designed for different kind of users.
I mean, the difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 may be a difference between getting the shot or not. And I assume professional users want to get the shot. Because it pays their bills.
They are comparable because they have the exact same range. Besides, I am only speaking from a relative value point of view. If faster glass is a requirement, this obviously eliminates the use of the older lens. However, if don’t need the speed, it will be hard to justify the cost and weight of the PRO version.
Exactly. That’s why it’s very unlikely that someone would be faced with that choice. Those 2 lenses are on extreme opposites of the spectrum. It’s really a no brainer, actually.
I’d say the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 is closer to being a competitor to this new PRO lens. Because someone might actually have a dillema which one to get.
The 50-200 is not a constant aperture lens. The 40-150 f/2.8 will be more expensive.
“The 50-200 is not a constant aperture lens.”
But the 50mm difference at the long end makes it more useful as a fast tele zoom (for stills).
Your post was regarding price. The 40-150 is a constant aperture lens at f/2.8. Of course it will be more expensive. If the 40-150 f-stop was ranged the same as the 50-200 at f/2.8 – f/3.5 it would likely be cheaper than it.
Is there anything about a constant aperture which makes a lens more expensive to produce?
Yes.
Most definitely.
Yes, otherwise all lenses would be made with constant aperture!
Exactly.
Sounds great, when will they start shipping?
Ok…the full price of the 12-40 f2.8 in Japan is 115560 yen and in the USA is 1100$ so indeed the retail price of the new 50-150 f2.8 will be around 1500$.
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
pretty sure the max retail of the 12-40 is $999 at most big stores and has been since forever.
I read two prices 160,000yen and 180,000yen for pro kit
I Hope the Kit contain 40-150 + a dedicated teleconverter (1.4x?) 😉
Good lenses are usually expensive.
Good zoom lenses are particularly expensive.
This is always the case.
Yep
Bad overpriced lenses are also expensive. This is always the case.
Then stop buying the bad ones and try a great one. Such as this one.
which one did you have in mind?
Name an expensive Olympus telephoto zoom that wasn’t also just plain excellent.
It is like a dream lens for me. I would like to use it on my GH4 for long distance low light photos and videos in the festivals, but I can’t as there is no stabilization in the lens and GH4 and I cannot carry a tripod. I hope panasonic makes a similar lens or puts IBIS to GH5.
want want want …. need !
Around $1500 or the same in Euro. Thank you very much! I am more than fine with my FT Sigma 150mm 2.8, a prime, sharp, no distortion. Got it second-hand perfect for less than €250! And the 40mm I manage with the Olympus 45mm 1.8, again a prime, costing also €250, new.
You have no idea, how good (or bad) this lens will be. Especially how much it is affected by distortion. Given the excellent quality (better than most primes in its range) of the 2.8/12-40mm, one can expect the 2.8/40-150mm to be excellent as well.
A nice benefit is the availability of a tele converter.
Given the much smaller size and price of DSLR counterparts the Olympus telezoom is a bargain!
Given the average quality across this system, it will need heavy software correction. Even that funny noctisomething needs plenty of it.
Telephotos rarely require heavy software corrections. I think it will be a decent lens.
And so what? I prefer software corrected lenses with excellent end image quality over optically corrected lenses, which lack sharpness at the edges and show heavy vignetting and distortion.
The main advantage of m4/3 to provide everything in a smaller package but with excellent quality. I prefer the smaller size and am ready to pay some small tradeoffs. Most of the larger lenses of DSLR or other systems with larger sensors aren’t better anyway as the limits of the lenses are often shown well by the high resolution sensors.
FF sensors are far less demanding on lenses than mFT sensors , a mFT sensor has the same pixel density as a 61mp FF. Very often a relatively inexpensive lens mounted on the latest FF cameras will easily outperform even the best mFT . All images are the end result of camera+ lens a lens test in isolation is pretty much irrelevant.
Here is the £375 Nikon 85mmF1.8g compared to the £1200 Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 . Using the 24mp D610 and the 16mp DF the 85mm outperforms the 42.5mm in sharpness, distortion , total light gathering , DOF control and for a £1200 lens the CA on the Panasonic is huge.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-Df-versus-Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___823_915_823_925_1297_909
I think the rampant assault on anyone who dares mention equivalence on mFT forums is in large part due to the mockery it makes of their small excellent cheap mantra .
When you actually compare mFT lenses to truly equivalent focal lengths and equivalent aperture lenses on FF [ at least when you can find FF lenses slow enough to do so ] mFT is often found wanting regrading price, and final image quality.
The problem is that they simply do not make many slow high quality lenses for FF. The 12-40mm true equivalent on FF [ same AOV, same DOF and same total light gathered] would be a 24-80mm F5.6 Nikon has a cheapo kit lens with VR @f3.5-4.5. How small couldl a truly equivalent lens be .The only way to make mFT glass look good value is to compare apples to oranges , an F2.8 lens on mFT is simply not equivalent to F2.8 on FF just as F2.8 on a
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Zoom-Nikkor-24-85mm-F35-45G-IF-ED-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-12-40mm-F28-PRO___814_0_1233_0
Again the holy grails DxOMark and equivalence. DoF has nothing to do with equivalence, it is simply a matter of image composition which is again only a matter of taste, but has nothing to do with lens quality. A f2.8 lens is a f2.8 lens on any sensor.
Well yes and no.
2.8 is really a 2.8 lens but FF sensor is really a FF sensor. You can always raise your ISO on yout FF camera … Yes there is a rule that the bigger sensor you use the slower improvement you get but so does very fast lenses are not linear in their light gathering improvements.
So please think twice before you write something “clever”.
There is no such thing as “FF sensor”. There is a small format aka 35mm sensor and then there are medium format with bunch of different sizes and then large format with same thing.
And small format is closer to m4/3 when compared to medium format. That’s why m4/3 + medium format is best combo as photographer gets best features from both sides, quality+size+weight benefit and then quality+quality benefit.
Small format is nothing more than fanboys half-baked compromise in everything.
MF sensors are all actually cropped compared to MF film sizes. I do not believe there are any large format digital cameras. The typical “MF” sensor is only larger than the 36x24mm sensor by about the same ratio that APS is larger than mFT . Though if you insist that is huge fair enough.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/03/sizeeasy.jpg
Whereas the ratio between mFT and FF is similar to the difference between the 1/1.7 P&S sensor and mFT
http://whatdigitalcamera.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11133/0000044ec/94a0/Sensor-sizes.jpg
This thread was about crop 2 vs 1 and not about medium format so please stop breaking the logic. Yes medium format can be nice and so what ? It’s too expensive and too large. Even FF sensors are very often an overkill that’s why we are talking on this forum and that’s why we use m43 cameras.
Anyway I still think that m43 camera + very expensive and very fast wide lenses (50mm and wider FF equiv. lenses) does not make any sense. But that’s just me …
Really? The new Sony MF sensor has 1.7 times the size of 135, which has 4 times the size of nano four thurds.
I guess you meant well, but the thing between the ears can’t take it.
By your “logic” then presumably the Panasonic FZ200 with its F2.8 lens that goes from an 25-600mm must be truly amazing , F2.8 is F2.8 right ? lol
Yep, & the Oly Stylus 1 does alright too!
[url=http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/28257][img]http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/data/505/S4224417-adj-tl-cr-s.jpg[/img][/url]
Let’s see your pictures? Got any? I mean, other than your cats in broad daylight. lol
That actually does look like a nice lens. I’ve been thinking of getting a second camera for walking around and railfanning, and looks like the FZ200 might fit the bill. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, mFTeeHeeHee!
“The problem is that they simply do not make many slow high quality lenses for FF.” — silly fanboys
I love how this quote can be taken out of context 🙂
The context is as you are suggesting lol , FF companies typically see slow lenses as cheap low end options and most deliver just that .Though they compete very well with mFT options regarding equivalence same AOV,same DOF same total light gathered with a mFT lens with a nominal aperture that is 2 stops faster.
I think quite a few FF users would be interested in some high quality slow lenses , look at the lovely 75mm F1.8 , a high quality FF equivalent 150mm F3.5 , would be an attractive option , it would also be smaller/lighter & cheaper than the F2 135mm options that currently exist.
Though honestly when it comes to equivalent zooms who would buy a 24-80mm F5.6 [ equiv to the 12-40mm] or god forbid a 24-100mm F7-12.6 [ equiv to the 12-50mm kit ]. The worst case scenario is obviously the 42.5mm Panasonic a £1200 lens equivalent to an 85mm F2.4
I agree that companies with 35mm large-frame cameras need to produce more high quality slow lenses in order to remain competitive with Micro Four Thirds. I know I wouldn’t even think of switching unless they had something comparable to the 15mm body cap lens.
On the other hand, many of the fast poor quality large-frame lenses are perfectly acceptable once they’re stopped down. (Keeping in mind that the ISO of the camera has to be increased to maintain equivalence with Micro Four Thirds. And even then the image quality will be inferior, as the average large-format sensor is less efficient than the average Four Thirds sensor despite the fact they capture four times as much light. This factor is probably more important than lenses if the large-format manufacturers want to remain relevant in the long run.)
You forget that m4/3 objectives rear lenses are much closer to sensor than small format objectives rear lenses, giving a easier way to get sharper image.
If you don’t understand it, take a prism in your hand and see how light is distributed to wall when you hold it from 20cm distance and then from 60cm distance. Calculate the spectrum width.
Only couple best small format objectives can compete what m4/3 has or what 4/3 got from Olympus, rest are worse. And when comparing at full open aperture, small format loses.
You can quote as much you want flawed lab tests of Dx0mark but forget that in real world testing outside labs the results can be and often are totally different.
lol the only way that mFT lenses even the very best of them can look vaguely competitive is when you compare them to FF lenses at the same nominal aperture, where the mFT lens has double the DOF and half the total light gathering,
In real life use the FF lenses on the FF camera will deliver better results in almost all situations [ comparing best mFT to best FF]. You will have better DR, better shadow noise, better high ISO, higher resolution , better DOF control. The main reason for mFT lenses doing well relatively is down to the smaller sensor with its 4×3 ratio which reduces the impact of the extreme corners.
“…better DR, better shadow noise, better high ISO, higher resolution, better DOF control…”
Wow, all of that and you STILL can’t take a picture that anyone wants to look at for more than a half-second.
Very true, but please leave dxo mark where it belongs: in the loo, with m43 and other internet hype.
“The 12-40mm true equivalent on FF [ same AOV, same DOF and same total light gathered] would be a 24-80mm F5.6”
Here we go with this rubbish theory again . I wish you thoroughly uninformed people would get properly educated on optical design, the physics of light … and the difference between the light gathering capabilities of sensors and the intrinsic light gathering “speed” of lenses. An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens REGARDLESS of sensor size.
And for god’s sake stop measurebating and quoting the statistics of others – most of which you don’t understand – to compensate for your inability to craft a compelling image … REGARDLESS of sensor size.
Dorks.
You check edge sharpness at 4:1 magnification, no doubt.
Software correction can screw up an image thoroughly, but you wisely decided to ignore this (lack of basic education I guess).
This is the signature of a “real pro” and a very acute brain, you are an exemplary m43 user. Hat off to you.
In the past twenty years, Olympus has established an impressive reputation for knowing how to make a high quality telephoto.
35-100mm f/2
50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
90-250mm f/2.8
150mm f/2
300mm f/2.8
And even the cheapest of those five was (and is) spectacular. I highly doubt we have anything to worry about.
Do you think you can mislead anybody into thinking a zoom can do the job better than a prime? Oly 12mm, Oly 17mm, Pana 20mm and Pana 25mm are rated higher than 12-40 (see DXoMark).
You seem very proud of yourself and your FT Sigma 150mm 2.8 that you got second-hand perfect for less than blah, blah, blah.
We are aware of this, as you have posted this exact same comment in every post about this Olympus lens. Thank you for educating us again and again, and again, on our silly interest in buying a new zoom lens.
Now we all know we can just go out and get a used FT Sigma 150mm 2.8 that is a prime (really, you don’t say?), that is sharp and has no distortion for much less than this Olympus zoom lens will cost. I release you from your burden, PLEASE do not feel you need to post this again, ever.
It is below 1200€ (1167€) and many times those has kept balance. So more likely it is 1200€ as 12-40 was 999€ too when released.
At that price level it is nothing as most can do everything with 12-40mm and 40-150mm. The ultimate is then to have a 7-14mm too and it will be complete to everyone else than wildlife photographer but they get that 300mm then later.
Well, when compared to something like the Pany/Leica 42.5 it seems that you are getting a whole lot more lens for less money. Let’s see what the reviews look like.
The Noctricron is a f/1.2 prime. It is a different animal all together.
Sorry…I was not clear, I was not trying to compare focal lenghts or use, although at the low end of the zoom range a case could be made for that. I was trying to impart that physically what you are buying, a large, sophisticated, high-quality (supposition on my part I admit), compared to a smaller, mechanically simpler non-sealed prime. Let me come right out and just say that I feel that the Panny /Leica is way overpriced for this system for what it is. Physically you are getting WAY more “value” for your money with the Oly zoom, even at $1500.
I’ll definitely pick the Nocticron over this lens for my portrait works .
The only useful in this Oly zoom is at it’s long 150mm F2.8 otherwise at 40mm F2.8 can’t have good defocusing effect .
Whether the sharpness , resolution & rendering up to the 75mm lens ,
the most I bet is equal or below it .
I used my Noctricron last Sunday for a city walk about shoot. Shooting at f/1.2 is pretty cool. I might get the 40-150 at some point but for now the Nocticron, the Oly75 and the Pany 25mm f/1.4 are serving me very well. I still have my E3 and FT lenses, including the 50-200 if I want to use them.
Terrific kit, that is 🙂
I’d add the O12 or the PL15 before anything on the long end, but thats personal..
I’m thinking about that PL15. 😉
Got it yesterday after having returned the 1.8/17.
I am not knocking the Olympus. The PL15 was my first choice and a week ago, they only had a not-for-sale demo at the store, without any knowledge of when they would get any Panasonic lenses. …they got some before the 10 days return limit and I was in a dilema: The m.zuiko is no slouch at all. The PL15 doesn’t feel as plasticky, as a slightly wider FoV that I was looking for and a more convenient A ring + AF/MF switch feature set. And it comes with a hood. I decided I was thinking too much about it. Shoot it, it is all worth the extra $200. As I said, I am not knocking the m.zuiko, at all.
My feeling is only that of a first 1 day impression : If you don’t already own the 1.8/17 or the O 12, get it!
I do not own the 17, nor the 12. The PL15 looks good to me. It looks like I have something to put on my Christmas list!
I got all your mentioned lenses .
Yes , they are simply awesome .
The latest into my collection is the latest Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 , another cool lens .
1600 EUR LOL. Is it a better “bargain” than the Noctifutur 4250? Tough question, only a “real pro” can answer it LOL.
The two are not comparable. They are for different applications.
Whenever you are unsure, look for the “pro” writing, it will tell you.
Of course, a Canon 70-300 F5.6 costs a fraction, focuses better, produces better images and takes up less space; but it hasn’t got “pro” on it.
Real pros generally use a lens before comparing it to others. Real pros also generally don’t spend much time trolling on gear websites…
Canon / Nikon dslr system are heavier than 4/3 tho (generally speaking). Sure, this lens might not be very light either, but when you take into account that the rest of the lenses in your bag are, it wont be much of an issue to carry around. Since this lens will most likely be much better than a tamron 70-300 4-5.6 VC (especially wide open, since wide open tammy is SOFT) , it will be good. No matter how cheap the tamron is. Heck, if this could compete with a older nikon AF-D 80-400mm F/4,5-5,6 (which I suppose is more realistic comparison point than the tamron, weight wise atleast), then this will be a heck of a lens.
Praise Olympus, as it has come up with some great glass!
How do you do it focuses faster? How do you know it produces better images? Do you have one? I’d rather have this on my E-M5 than the 70-300mm on my 1Dx!
Produces better images? Gee, and all this time I thought the photographer produced the images.
Where can I get this magical lens that automatically takes great pictures for me?
I just pulled the trigger on a Canon system and could not be happier. Sold all my m43 toys, it is just a different league…
¥160,000 is more like €1,165 just doing straight conversion.
$175 or so for the converter ain’t bad.
$ 350 more likely
and I was hoping for a 2x teleconverter for my 75/1.8
To me, at 1000 to 1200 it’s a bargain, at 1400$ it’s a fair price. Wish it had Optic Stabilization for my GH3 movie set-up… Maybe the new update on the EM-1 will solve my problem and I could work with two EM1 instead of pana and oly…
I wish Tamron or Sigma could offer a stabilized option with that kind of very usefull range for about the same price..
Olympus telezooms could be only partly successful in technical and commercial terms. They used to be in FT. But now in mFT they are not, because of
wrong pricing, because mFT is not good for telezooms and because of the Olympus failure to produce a reasonably priced
DSLR or a DSLR-like body with a good sensor and stabilization.
Suppose
one gets this new expensive lens for a fortune. He/she will then need
to spend another fortune on the E-M1 – with the ISO-weak Pana sensor – in
order to be able to use the lens on it.
Three thousand in $ or €
for the combo?!? Four years ago you had the 70-300 plus the E-520 for
eight hundred $ or € – and got perfect handling and an optical viewfinder! They could
simply put the Sony sensor into the E-520. No, they preferred “commercial success” – to put it mildly, charging you three hundred for a good viewfinder
only.
Well, I think this guy would look rediculous on anything other than an EM1. Which for me is a problem because the EM1 slightly goes over my weight limit for such a small system.
Then stay with smaller bodies and have fun with primes and kit zooms.
Other people with different needs and priorities will have their fun with this baby. All of this within the same system.
I’m not apposed to it. I applaud Oly for giving this to their customers as I do believe there is a market for it. I just use an A mount tokina 300mm F4 with an adaptor on my EP5. It works but I would just prefer to keep the longer stuff on a DSLR/SLT type camera. I’m sure the build quality and IQ of this lens will be top notch so- good for anyone who purchases this.
I use an old Tamron 300mm f5.6 on my GX1, since at 600mm eq. I find DOF and weight more important than wide aperture (i.e. I’d rather push up ISO). Really though, manual focus is really not optimal on any kind of super telephoto. I often use a tripod and at least f/8, and it’s still challenging for anything that isn’t fairly static.
Screw the image because it’s all about looks, right?
Kinda…..
You should see the Nikon 200mm f/2 AI-S on my E-M5!
I wonder whether this new teleconverter will work with Panasonic bodies/lenses.
If it didn’t, there would be hell to pay, I think.
This matches up pretty well with the estimated $1300-1400 US price, then. You can never do straight currency conversions with regional markets.
When will the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 be in stores?
I have heard that people that pre-order them might see them by Christmas. To walk into a store and buy one in stock might be early next year. The word the person that should know used is “start to tinkle in by Christmas”.
So the water sealing’s not that good, then?
Seems a fair price, and a useful range.
Fair price? I cannot agree, but maybe just agree to disagree, though if it only covers 1/4 th of ff sensor then shouldn’t it at least two times cheaper than a Ff fx lensof similar kind?
No.
Sorry, but a lens that huge just defeats the purpose of M43. I would rather use a full frame camera, instead of that camera combo. And get better images as well.
The Lumix 35-100/12-35 mm combo is a better value to me, even though it doesn’t have the reach, it’s smaller, has O.I.S. and weather sealed.
Probably priced less too.
Cmon, I think you need to reconsider your ideas on what a huge lens really is. This lens looks about 2x the size of the 12-40…
Your full frame argument makes no sense, so say I bought the 70-300 L from Canon, by all accounts a good lens and 2 stops slower than this one. It is $1600 from B&H, plus a 6D $1900 from B&H and I have spent $3500…
SO as an EPL5 & EM5 owner with the 12-40, 9-18, 17mm 1.8, 25mm 1.4, 45mm1.8, 50mm f2 macro, 35mm f3.5 macro, 40-150 mzuiko, 85mm samyang (43rds mount) OM 50mm macro and Kippon T&S adapter, 3 x fl50rs and 1 x fl36r flashes what you are telling me is instead of buying a 40-150 f2.8 zoom for the variety of uses I can find for it for $1500… I should go and buy a 6D and 70-300L for $3500 and get EXACTLY THE SAME PERFORMANCE 🙂
Good advice, but I will stick to the system I use.
Abraham
The 70-300 mm L from Canon might be two stops slower, but it also has a focal length that is twice as long.
See what I did here?
yup, you obviously didnt read to the end of my comment 🙂 and the all caps. Either that or your comprehension was switched off.
And probably sharper than this overpriced Oly.
Well but the canons are ff, so of course much better than this oly, but at the cost of portability.
Seems like you’ve invested heavily in M43. Good for you, kudos.
However, for someone that isnt, I would suggest they look elsewhere. As in, stick to FF Faster focusing, faster Lenses if you need a long zoom.
And I had a 6D. Saying you’d get the same performance is HILARIOUS. Seriously, when I first read that quote, I collapsed in laughter.
A ELPL5 and EM5 against a 6D? ‘Scuse me, I collapsed again.
Please… explain this “Performance” you speak of.
-image quality isn’t even Close to the 6D.
-focusing is better on the 6D.
-Noise shows up in low ISO’s in DAYLIGHT on the Olympus’s!
What performance? Portability? Not with that lens! Ibis? Most Canon zooms have built in stabilization. Price? Hahaha! -No.
I’ll just leave you with this link… http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1
Hahaha! Most of you “measurebaters” can’t make a quality image to save your life. If you knew anything about photography you’d quickly realize that we’ve already passed the point of sufficient quality even in m4/3.
Read this and learn something (or not) >> http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/08/24/can-you-tell-the-difference/
Classic. You are wrong you just don’t know why 🙂
But I just shot the 6d with 24-70 m1 alongside the em5 with 12-40 on Monday. I will process the images and share them later as I am getting on a plane in 30 mins.
Don’t be so quick to assume you have the monopoly on format experience. I chose this format via ff systems and still shoot it when I need to, but this chasm of difference only materializes when you can either use longer shutter speeds or physically larger apertures. It does not exist when you are shooting for the same DoF and the same shutter speed.
I’m tired of hearing that is defeats the alleged purpose.
It will sell or it won’t, that’s all there is to it.
I agree that this lens somewhat “defeats the purpose of M43” ; to wit having equipment that is much smaller and lighter than larger-sensor cameras, yet w/o significant less image quality. Not to say the quality of this lens won’t justify the price, only that there may be workable alternatives. For roughly the same money as this lens you could buy a threesome of Oly 45 1.8, Oly 75 1.8 and Panasonic 100-300mm f4-5.6 (which is a surprisingly good lens and half the weight and 1+ inch shorter than the Oly 50-200mm four-thirds lens). You could even save about $500, too, by swapping the excellent Sigma 60mm 2.8 for the 0ly 75 in the above trio, which I have done. Either option gives you a lens package that is much faster (or equally fast) as the new Oly 40-150 at the bottom half of that range and only slightly slower (by about one stop) in the 60/75-150 range. Plus, you have a tele in the Panny lens that gives you 200 mm more reach than the upcoming Oly, a big plus. Something to think about. The Panny is also much more feasible handheld because it’s lighter and more compact. It is very sharp in the bottom two-thirds of its range. I have no doubts the new Oly will be a great lens optically, but its size, weight and high costs are definitely negatives for me.
Why is everyone so daft about this?
This lens is about 1/3 the size of the equivalent lenses from Canikon, and offers another 100mm to boot. Plus it’s $1500 – the same lens from Canon costs $2400!
How ’bout some perspective here?
100mm to boot – so they have a 50mm-50mm 2.8 lens?
you’re not actually trying to take into account focal equivalency as a factor of optics price or size are you?
really?
It’s called range. 70-200 vs 80-300. Who else makes an equiv 80-300 f/2.8? Last time I checked, no one.
Figure it out.
it’s a 50-150mm lens with a effective field of view of 80 to 300. its not a 80-300mm lens no matter how much you want to think it is.
The front element is only around 54mm .. if you want to spew equivalency around, then it’s really only a constant f/5.6 80-300mm
Prepare to be schooled, son…
– First of all, it’s a 40-150
– Second of all, nobody said it was an 80-300 lens … it is equivalent to one. If it were an 80-300mm lens it would be equal to a 160-600mm lens. Who cares? How far down this empty, meaningless rabbit hole do you want to go?
– Third, do you even know what “equivalency” means? Lemmie let you in on a little secret: it means absolutely nothing. Especially to real photographers. To wit: http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/08/24/can-you-tell-the-difference/
– Fourth, it is not a constant f/5.6. It is f/2.8. Period. Learn the difference between the light gathering potential of a sensor and the light gathering capabilities of a lens. They are NOT the same, so stop lumping them together and misinforming those who don’t know better.
If you have a Nikon 24-70 lens at f/2.8 and an Olympus 12-40 lens at f/2.8, they both will pass the exact same same number of photons though their glass per unit area.
Yes, the full frame camera will be using four times the total amount of light to make the image because it’s got four times the total area. And yes, for the smaller sensor to have the same total amount of light, they need two stops faster aperture or two stops lower ISO with a longer shutter speed. But that’s a SENSOR issue, not a lens issue.
However, it actually doesn’t work quite so linearly in the real world, as smaller sensors are more light efficient than larger ones, and it is also dependent on sensor technology being identical.
Anything else…?
AllCaps, By all means. Buy what you want to buy. No one is forcing you to buy m43. FYI: Getting better images is not a function of the camera. Great pictures come from great photographers. Regardless of the gear he or she uses.
Does anyone know if the new 40-150 pro has an internally focusing barrel?
I love my 50-200 but at full zoom with the hood on, I’ve had dogs biting at it mistaking it for a large stick to fetch.
Lol!
I remember reading a few days that it was internal AF
I hope they offer the 300mm with the Teleconverter as a kit.
What 300mm?
The 300mm f/4 lens that will come late 2015.
Oh, OK, thanks. That will be interesting, indeed, and even more compelling if a teleconverter option.
Except it would then be f5.6 which is OK (especially considering it would be 420mm which is equivalent to 840mm for 35mm format), but ideally the minimum size aperture to use with a TC would be F2.8 resulting in f3.9 with a 1.4 X TC.
Should be a great lens. Pairing with 12-40, its a great 2 lenses solution.
However, I prefer to a 3 lenses solution
1)12-35 f2.8
2)35-100 f2.8
3)100-300 f4
For most of the case, I will only need 2 of them. First 2 are much smaller in size.
I wish Panasonic comes with a 100-300/ f4. Too bad, they cancelled that plan
can’t wait till it’s released! Been waiting for another pro lens since the E-M1 and 12-40 f/2.8 came out last year.
I hope this lens doesn’t telescope, it would be nice if zoom and focusing all internal much like the pany 35-100 f2.8.
It probably won’t help much for weight, but I don’t really care as it’s still still probably going to be lighter overall in comparison to anything comparable offered for an aps-c or full frame camera, but I hope it also has metal build much like the 12-40mm does. A sliding ring to shift into manual focusing would be great also.. it would be cool to have the distance scale on it like the 12-40, but at the range this 40-150 will be covering, i don’t think a distance scale may be all that usefull.
I don’t know why people are so stuck on the fact to have a great image and IQ, it might as well be a full frame?! rubbish.
For the vast majority, full frame is not essential. If you want highest of the following: resolution, more dynamic range and detail, depth of field and ISO, sure full frame will get you more of that, but it’s probably overkill for more people than not. The vast majority of crop sensor cameras these days can do excellent work already, and most of that means mirrorless tech which allows for smaller overall body & lens size compared to most full frame options.
I won’t deny full frame will offer more versatility, actually, and well more range of lenses for Canon & Nikon, but I don’t feel there’s anything critically lacking for M43 despite this difference and I rather enjoy shooting with something different than the norm/typical and still get great images, regardless.
Anyways,….With a good eye to make the image, you don’t need full frame to make a great image.. the power of post processing further levels the playing field, imho.
this new 40-150 pro will make a great addition to my m43 kit.
If you look at the photo, the manual focus ring is there so the clutch and distance scale as per the 12-40 are a given.
Cool, I think you’re right, that works for me!
Should not telescope. Check the demo units etc. That’s why it is so long as internal zoom used.
would great if it didn’t to keep it as compact as possible, but not a deal breaker if it does.
If ff is overkill (which it is, for most shooters), this huge and pricey lens is overkill, too. And so are most m43 products, too. The trouble is, they charge more and offer less than the competition. Indeed, their fate has long been sealed…
your comment is funny… how is having a very useful full frame equivalent of 40-300mm overkill? would you debate the fact that one could also say the 35-200 f/2.8 for canon and nikon is overkill, too?… and at well over $2k?.
for MFT, this offers the closest FF equivalent performance at a significantly lower price (still pricey no doubt, but you’re still not paying and smaller and lighter overall form factor.
Although this MFT lens’s DOF is more like a f5.6, the light gathering is still very good and works as a wide f2.8 opening.. regardless any glass for full frame (or equivalent crop sensor) above 40mm even at f5.6 will still yield nice sharp results with undoubtably nice subject isolation and background blur.. .still very useful and not overkill… very well not necessarily for long distance shooting, but a very good too for excellent portrait shots.
It’s not your fault to ignore physics. Blankly re-bleating nonsense you picked up somewhere on the net is stupid, it makes you look bad.
too funny and too bad you don’t realize you’re the one trolling and have nothing smart or positive to say.
also, unfortunate you don’t know how to read thoroughly… if you did, you’d understand I am rightfully accounting for the optics with crop factor and that’s exactly why physics dictates that MFT will have overall smaller and lighter footprint than full frame of similar desired optical range and performance.
Can’t wait to rent this badboy!
Wtf, this lens costs more than my ff Sony fe70-200/4 zoom, ridiculous.
And my Panasonic 35-100/2.8 costs only 81200yen here in Japan.
Yeah, because your lens is a Sony! They make good sensors but……. 😉
Sorry, but your Sony or Panasonic objectives are not equivalent and not comparable.
Then what would you make of the Zuiko 35-100 f2 that costs ¥256,000 ?
Do you really want to know?
No, I just like to bait trolls.
The 1.4x teleconverter would definitely deserve its own news item!
That would be the first teleconverter for any mirrorless system, wouldn’t it?