UPDATE: I have been requested to remove the image from Martin Wagner who posted the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens and 1.4x teleconverter pictures apparently without Olympus approval. Curious though that Olympus Australia itself posted an image of the lens yet. Sounds like there is a communication problem within Olympus 🙂
—
Thanks Andreas for sharing!
136 Responses
That lens is huge!
What’s the lens on the left that looks like a couple of blank cylinders?
macro 60 + hood
The 40-150mm f/2.8 seems to have the hood slid on, so it looks quite fat. Otherwise the size is just what I would expect it to be. It’s still smaller than the 50-200mm SWD. The lens on the left is probably the 60mm f/2.8 Macro with the hood slid on.
Too bad Olympus still uses the same design for the tripod collar, you need to detach the lens to attach the collar. I wish they would copy a page from Sigma’s book and make a clamp-on collar.
I am struggling to find a need for this lens. If I need 150mm F2.8 I probably won’t need 40mm F2.8 at the same time.
I have the 50-200mm SWD and it’s a very practical focal range indeed for landscape and wildlife. If I had to choose one lens to take with me for all-round nature photography, the SWD would be it.
I would love to have it for theatre and indoor sports (Netball/ Basketball etc), and would probably use it for rugby as well. But finding it hard to justify the expense/weight/reach equation. Have just finished 2 1/2 months backpacking, and carried the Olly 75-300mm. Didn’t use it all the time, but when I did, it was at the long end.
Still, if I was freer with my money, I’d probably get it, and use it a lot.
Pardon my stupidity but I have a few (I guess) obvious questions.
First, who’s purses is that? 🙂
Why does the newnew 40-150mm need to be that HUGE? I am kind of in lens shock here.
I think the hood makes it look much fatter than it really is. Just look at the lens cap and you’ll notice that the lens barrel is actually much narrower.. Other than that, it’s about double the length of the 12-40mm, so in my book that’s a rather compact lens assuming the optical quality is there.
Interesting hood, it has a rubbered ring on it.
It seems it allows manual focus even when the hood is slid on. Interesting design.
Simple answer: Physics
Now just find us a preorder link and I’ll be happy.
Pretty huge, probably larger than the various 70-300 3.5-5.6 by CaNikon. Probably also way dearer. Hmmm…
It’s fugly like mad
Are you talking about the lens or the carpet? The lens doesn’t look that bad. And oh, yeah, it’s a constant-aperture f/2.8, so not surprising that it’s larger than other manufacturers’ f/3.5-5.6 lenses. Olympus has smaller, less-expensive zooms too, but some of us don’t like using slow, variable-aperture lenses…
The hood is slid on, that’s why it looks fat. Look at the pre-production version photos, and you will get a much better idea how it really looks. Besides, nobody in their right minds buys a lens like this based on looks.
Hm, slid on hood? Not in reverse like on the 12-40 I guess. If you have a closer look at the “slide on and twist”-arrow on the hood it´s in the right orientation towards the camera. Is it possible to slide the hood down the tube!?
Yes, slide-on hood similar to the 60mm f/2.8 Macro.
Or like my 30 yr old Vivitar Series 1 telephotos…..
It’s the usual problem with equivalences: people transform the focal length but not the aperture. In fact, I have only seen that in m43 circles, I think there is a disproportionate amount of marketing folks here.
A 70-300 3.5-5.6 is equivalent to – faster than this thing on the Oly… I know you Tom understand this, but many here don’t.
Folks, you are welcome to throw away your money (or your mom’s), as usual.
Or maybe we just take photo’s and don’t consume ourselves with masturbatory conversation about equivelence
So you are saying you do something and don’t know how it works, and have no interest understanding it? Did you receive an American education?
newsflash! there are people on the internet other than from America
Never mind…
I am from Australia by the way, ‘Equiv’ has a habit of being wrong.
I know exactly how it works and it is not something that concerns me, any system is a set of compromises that will find a balance that will either resonate with you or not. People take great photo’s with everything from full format behemoths all the way to down to smart phones. Those people generally aren’t the type who lurk around the internet crapping on about equivalence and other forms of phallic measures.
Really? Do you know anyone who takes “great pictures”?
Yes, Ming Thein – search for him, you might learn something.
Well, OK, they are “great” uhmm.
Seems it is you having problems understanding equivalence. This lens is a 40-150mm f/2.8, that has an image circle that covers only m4/3, so the field of view is narrower. Narrower field of view does not affect aperture in any way. You are making the typical mistake and claim that crop factor should apply to aperture, but crop factor is not the same thing as a focal multiplier (teleconverter). You can verify this easily, just test any f/2.8 lens with an adapter on m4/3, and you will see that the exposure remains exactly the same even though the FoV is narrower.
No… Marketing job huh?
No, engineering job. Are you really claiming that crop factor works the same as a teleconverter? Boy are you in for a surprise if you ever decide to do as I suggested and test it for yourself.
America-educated engineer, it seems… Or marketing after all? Come on, come out…
No, German and Finnish education. The funny thing is that this is not up to my level of education. Just go ahead and test any FF lens on m4/3 and compare to native m4/3 lenses at similar aperture numbers and see it for yourself. You will find out two things. 1) exposure remains the same as FF and 2) field of view is different than FF. That’s it. DoF is different from FF only when you try to achieve same composition, i.e. move further from your subject. If you don’t bother to do this, then you are simply destined to repeat someone else’s bad math.
No… Poor Germans.
I’m not German, and you are not worth my time. Apparently you lack both knowledge and conversation skills, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Go get’em, I will ignore you from now on.
Whow whoa keep your hair on Mr Flawed Maths.
Trinavi actually has more than a rudimentary understanding unlike “Equiv”. Equiv clearly learnt about equivalence last week and thinks he knows all about it this week. A case of knowing enough to get yourself into trouble.
This “discussion” exists since ever, but it seems that only 35mm Canon and Nikon users don’t understand it and try to convert everything to their format. Do you guys convert your apertures to the medium format equivalent? No.
This is a f/2.8 lens, it gathers exactly as much light as the f/2.8 lens on your 5D. However, it has a depth of field like a f/5.6 lens on “full frame” (bullshit marketing term btw.). This can be a bad thing if you look for super shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh, but it also can be a good thing if you need a certain depth of field. That allows you to use faster exposure times since the 5D user might need to stop down his aperture.
Everybody who took pictures of birds from a hide and <3m distance knows that f/2.8 on a 350mm lens on a full frame camera most often is not enough to get the whole bird sharp. So you step down and increase the ISO, whereas with the Olympus camera you don't. All anvantages of FF gone and a lot of extra weight carried…
No… Are you in marketing? 🙂
It has same depth of field what 40-150mm f/2.8 has on any Canikon. Only angle of view is narrower.
Light gathering of f/2.8
Focal length of 40-150mm
Subject optical magnification what 40-150mm can produce.
“It has same depth of field what 40-150mm f/2.8 has on any Canikon”
Not even that… How many names have you got?
Actually, you are not that far, but you are only looking at the better side of the coin; and even there, the smaller sensor has no advantages. Look at the other side of the coin and small sensors will get ugly quickly.
So what’s the best sensor size? I used to do large and medium format, and 35 mm always seems awfully small.
This is easy: the best size is the largest you can afford, if the system meets your requirements. At the moment, the sweet spot lies at 24×36, with some caveats.
Size is no caveat because equivalent lenses have similar sizes, but it might become relevant with very long or very short lenses.
M43 could do better but they need to capitalize on compactness (ie make fixed-lens cameras) and cut those horrid prices.
Sounds reasonable. Just don’t tell the FF fanbois it’s just a “sweet spot at the moment”, i.e., a compromise. 🙂
But I’m not so sure about camera size being independent of sensor size. Compared to m43, 35 mm systems are all pretty large, even Sony’s a7+lens. And these LF and MF setups were gigigantic! I don’t want to go back there even if digital sensors of that size were available.
I rather suspect there’s a trade-off in size vs. noise, and so “best” needs to include this consideration.
@Equiv. That is correct. This lens is usually big.
Equivalent in DoF yes..
A F5.6 lens does NOT result in the same shutter speed as a F2.8 lens. And yes, a full frame sensor has lower noise, so you could UP the ISO to higher values without to much noise to compensate(could be useful in low light). On ISO 100 you can maintain much faster shutter speeds on a F2.8 lens than on a F5.6 lens. So F2.8 stays F2.8, only DoF is different.
Nearly, but not quite there. You are forgetting the magnification advantage and the superior versatility of a 3.5 – 5.6 lens vs a 5.6 (equiv) lens.
Magnification advantage? What do you mean? And why do you think a F3.5 lens has added versatility compared to a F2.8 lens.
The magnification advantage comes from the sensor being larger: given constant size output (print), the cam will tolerate lens imperfections a lot better.
A 3.5 lens is more flexible than a 5.6 lens (not 2.8), this is obvious.
Jeez, so because you have a bigger sensor you can get away with crappy lenses?
Even if that were true…we just happy to have very excellent lenses overall on the (m)43 system, or on the Fuji system for that matter.
But the rest of your argument is bollocks….the fact is that a F2.8 lens is a F2.8 lens, regardless of sensor size. A F2.8 on 43 sensor has the same exposure on the sensor as a F2.8 lens on FF(or APC-C).
Exposure resulting in shutter speed and ISO settings.
You are right that the DoF of a F5.6 full frame lens is the same as a F2.8 lens on the 43 system, but the difference is that if you compare it like that, you’ll have 4x faster shutter speed on m43. The only advantage a F3.5-F5.6 lens on full frame may have is a little shallower DoF wide open on F3.5.
Of course there are advantages to a bigger sensor(lower noise with the SAME aperture lenses), more DoF control. The downside is as we all know that fast FF lenses are huge.
Yep, you can get away with less sophisticated lenses, that is no secret. And in no way are M43 lenses “very excellent” LOL: even the uber pricey noctiflox heavily relies on software correction. M43 is a con from the ground up.
3.5 to 5.6 is 1 1/3 stops, not too bad. It can make or break a pic…
That why that lens gets excellent reviews.
🙂 🙂 🙂 Everybody needs money my friend.
“M43 is a con from the ground up.”
blah, blah, fricketty blah. Nobody here agrees with you, but you keep talking. Maybe everyone here is stupid for buying into MFT, or maybe you’re just too narrow-minded to appreciate it, but there is one certainty – you spend a lot of time writing words of little value on a subject you keep saying you have no interest in. That makes you a first-class boor. Save your time, go away.
Don’t take it like that, take it as a chance to learn. If you are a marketing shill, tough it out. Spreading negativity won’t help you promote a crippled product.
I shot 35mm film for years – all I’ve learned from guys like Equiv is that some people have nothing better to do than talk smack on the internet.
Whoop-de-doo.
You are too set in your ways to learn, and too uneducated.
Some think that older people command respect because of their age. I say, many are just old fools.
I’m still not clear on what, in my old age of 37, I have to learn from Equiv. Total light gathering? Quantum efficiency vs. sensor size? Uh, no; he’s just prating on about trivial subjects.
The fact is, MFT today is more capable than every APSC camera up until 2011, and every 35mm camera until 2007 – i.e. the ones that were good enough for National Geographic photographers.
Unless you’re obsessed with thin DOF, if you’re going to call MFT worthless you may as well call every photo taken on <= 35mm devices until 2007 worthless too. Any takers? No?
M4/3 and Fuji are both universally regarded as having excellent lenses. Do you honestly think that every single person who praises them is a shill or is being paid off (by companies that are financially struggling, at that)?
It may be more likely that the people who are completely dismissing the idea that smaller formats are not actual photographers, and are simply desktop jockies and pixel peepers…
Oh, and most people think that the Canon 135mm f/2 is a pretty decent lens, right? See how much of a difference you can see between it and the 75mm/1.8…
http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/olympus-75mm-f1-8-vs-canon-135-f2-l/
There is no aperture equivalence but DOF equivalence. Aperture determines more things than DOF, e.g.: shutter speed. There is no FL equivalence either, only FOV equivalence. FL determines more things than just FOV, e.g.: a 50mm lens and a 100mm lens on the same camera can have the same framing on certain objects, but things in the frames don’t look the same.
You must be a Canon, Nikon, Sony marketing guy then, or how does it come that you get fooled by the “FullFrame marketing” that was called “small frame” before? With your way of thinking you would have to multiply every 35mm lens by the cropfaktor x7 because you would have to do the math all the way up to the largest used size which is 8×10 and shouldn’t stop at the tiny 35mm format. Sounds like you’ve watched too much Northrup videos.
H.U.G.E.
Compared to what exactly?
Pana 35–100, which may be shorter on tele end but presumably has the same (if not better) IQ* and exactly the same usage target.
__________
*actually it’s the best MFT zoom to date.
This is 50% longer, what do you expect?
Well, the Panasonic is 3x zoom, this is 3.75x zoom, and the focal length is 150mm vs. 100mm. Of course it will be bigger.
But not THAT bigger.
As seen on this picture the length sould ben at leas 70-80% bigger instead of the expected 50%.
Unless someone is a lens designer, I wouldn’t bet on that percentage estimate. Considering an assumption of lens design, as one approaches a perfect optical creation it could be 1,000% bigger if it takes double or even more the amount of elements.
Someone at Olympus decided that the compromise of quality vs. size was their end product. Zuiko glass has never disappointed me in the 4/3rds world so I am guessing this will just be as fantastic for its size.
I think this is a quite wrong approach.
The only things a lens designer should care about are the lens sharpness and good bokeh. ANY OTHER issues like distorsion, chromatic aberration, vignetting etc. can be cured by software almost perfectly.
However old-school lens designers still consider that a really good lens should be optically perfect, regardless ot its size or costs. But take a look on Pana 35–100, it’s the best MFT zoom to date and how small it is.
No… Who told you that?
???
Software correction is not that powerful. Distortion and vignetting correction can be particularly merciless. The flat target they use at Photozone may look good, but real photographs will lose crispness. There is a lot more to a good lens that cannot be measured by two kids with a chart!
Although I understand your perspective, there is no wrong approach in any engineering feat. It’s all about what the creator wants to create. Lens sharpness and bokeh may be your standards, but not everyone else wants that. I’m not sure how often you shoot, but speaking from my personal experience I don’t want to correct everything in the software if I can avoid it.
I shoot and have to deliver so much that I want to spend as little time in software in any manner as I can. Also on that note, not all users can afford or want to use software all the time. Even as JPEGs, if I want to attach a $3-4k Summilux to my Olympus branded camera, and not worry about too many issues then I should be able to. I can’t expect Olympus to in-camera JPEG correct for me. With the money spent I don’t expect much time in any software unless I really have to waste my time. If that were the case, I’d just buy a cheap lens and spend all day in software.
You’ve just misunderstood me.
I speak about in-camera correction, which is a STANDARD for MFT and is as well hidden as even many professional testers (photozone.de) haven’t realised that their result were already corrected. So relying on BOTH good optics and software corrction is not just a surrogate, but an additional possibility to increase quality in an economical and compact way.
Fair enough from an economical standpoint.
You tell that to videographers 😉
The software correction is IN-CAMERA one so it’s transparent even to videographers.
Compared to stills, in video, distortion, aberration and vignette are all at extremely higher risk of being apparent.
I understand that you can get away with it in many situations, but there ought to be a reason why the videographers I talk to like to use quality glass for their work: surprisingly, lens sharpness isn’t that high on their value list.
that’s pretty big for m4/3,
perhaps sticking with 70-200mm equiv would have been better for size.
Yes its ugly as hell …give us some hope and take off tho hood
Looks great and pretty small for that focal range and aperture. The 60mm macro on the left helps a lot to expect the real size…it seems to be larger than it is. I would guess it’s about 16cm.
Where is the zoom ring on this one?
I can only see the slim ring for manual focus, which supposedly should be at the front?
I guess the zoom ring will have the same design/serrating as the 12-40, no?
Previous pictures of it looks like this:
http://photorumors.com/2013/09/10/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-40-150mm-f2-8-pro-lens-coming-in-2014-new-zuiko-lens-roadmap-no-more-four-thirds-products/
On this picture the lens hood is already attached. He describes the lens hood as very clever and a design other manufacturers should copy so I would guess that it uses the same slide mechanism the 60mm macro does. The second ring might be under the lens hood.
The slide on lens hood is hiding the zoom ring.
It has the hood slid on. The zoom ring is under the hood, but you can see that it’s there if you look closely. The hood seems to allow manual focus, which is really a clever design. Too bad I can’t say the same about the tripod collar.
wow, that article came out 1 year ago tomorrow… We’ve already waited a year since announcement
Yeah that’s going to look so, so wrong on my E-P5.
That is the 300
+1. It doesn’t look like a zoom at all.
because the lens hood is attached and hiding the zoom ring.
wondering too, does the hood sit reverse so we cant see the zoomring…that german tester is talking about the zoom all the time…I guess he is not verrückt lol
That is quite the monstrosity! Like I said many times before, if the aperture isn’t needed, then the optical performance needs to be far, far greater than the existing 40-150mm that can be had on sale for a mere $100 and is both much smaller and lighter as well.
at 150 mm you need a fast shutter speed (1/300 if no IBIS) and you often need to increase the iso, f2.8 versus f5.6 alows 4 times faster shutter speed which means iso 200 instead of 800 but the price to pay is high…
40-150/f2.8 is equivalent or very similar to Canikon 70-300/f4-5.6 and Tamron 70-300VC in terms of both focal length and DOF. Thus, it is as big and heavy as Canikon’s and Tamron 70-300mm. Not surprise at all.
However if you need something smaller, the. pana 35-100 is good enough.
No.
The 40-150 f/2.8 is comparable to any Canikon 40-150mm f/2.8 by focal length and depth of field.
But because format factor you get from 40-150mm focal length a angle of view between ~50° and 8.3°.
And if you look closely, the thick part is a lens hood. You get twice a smaller objective than what the any Canikon equivalent is for same angle of view.
No… Learn the basics.
Please teach us! At least Fri13 goes beyond the “just say no” answer :/
It seems that you know it all already… Another “German engineer” like “trinavi”? LOL
Instead of acting superior, proove you’re by sharing your knowledge. Telling someone he’s wrong without any explanation won’t help him to learn… But you’re probably not willing to help anyway…
Bozo, what needs saying has been said ad nauseam. The web is full of that stuff. If someone persists, then it’s obvious they want to sell cr_p.
Take a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and mount it with adapter to m4/3 camera.
What do you get?
A) a 100mm f/1.8?
B) a 100mm f/3.2?
C) a 50mm f/1.8?
If you answered A or B…. You were totally wrong.
You have a 50mm f/1.8, meaning C is correct.
But because you have a two times smaller sensor, you only use fourth of the imagine circle than what 35mm sensor or half what APS-C sensor.
You still have exactly 50mm f/1.8 objextive but instead having a 46° angle of view like on 35mm, you have a 20° angle of view on m4/3.
Exactly same light density per square millimeter (same exposure if you don’t know) and same depth of field but narrower angle of view (2x crop. What you didn’t know).
Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 is identical to any Canon/Nikon 40-150mm f/2.8 expect it is still smaller and lighter as the objective is designed to draw only center part of the whole imagine circle.
But because sensor causes narrower angle of view, 40-300mm is comparable to 80-300mm objective by angle of view.
The Olympus objective is 40-150mm f/2.8 and nothing else.
It should be said, you have 40-150mm f/2.8 with angle of view of ~50-8.3°
“Exactly same light density per square millimeter (same exposure…”
That and everything else you wrote is correct.
But there’s an important fact missing: the overall noise in the image (at any given print or screen size) depends on the total light collected on the sensor, not on the light density (per square mm). Since the light density is the same, a larger sensor will produce a less noisy image. In the case of m43 compared to FF, about half the noise.
However, most of the time there’s enough light that noise is low for either system and it doesn’t matter.
And then IBIS goes and gives you 2-3 stops better performance in low light than FF for hand-held shots, except in the special case where you need to freeze motion at low light levels, in which case FF wins, but for static images, IBIS betters FF for hand-held.
Yes, IBIS is good stuff, especially the olympus one. And there are a bunch more factors to consider when choosing a system, like lens range, ergonomics, etc.
I just wanted to point out the important gap in the above comment.
No… And 1.8 * 2 is 3.6, not 3.2 . And you forget the noise gap, the magnification factor, the depth of field…
f values are a measure of paerture area, not diameter so it is multiplied by 1.4, not 2
No, not here, I am trying to explain equivalences here, different matter.
@Fri13. Sorry….your point is wrong. I’m using Both Nikon FF and M4/3.
Sorry your argument is wrong, I’m using a tablet and workstation.
Indeed, and the native mount lens eliminates the need for a bulky adapter (or bulky and expensive adapter if you want to control the aperture on EF or G lenses).
From a functional point of view, Mrpong is expressing a perfectly valid opinion. It’s ultimately just another way of expressing primarily the same thing that you are.
His point just happens to also include the ISO performance of the complete camera/lens system. f/2.8 is f/2.8 is f/2.8, but a FF sensor can get the same noise/dynamic range image quality performance from f/5.6 at twice the ISO, so it equalizes the variables.
All that said, it still doesn’t demonstrate why a slower “equivalent” 70-200 or 70-300 is a good choice. If you’re getting similar image quality but carrying a lens that is necessarily going to be longer and heavier – even if the entrance pupil is similar (you can’t cheat focal length), then what have you gained? Especially since the camera body itself is vastly heavier and costlier…
Poor mrpong.
You see only the DOF??
This lens is TELEPHOTO. Light gathering from afar object is more important than that crap DOF thingamy. Did you ever use telephoto lens? At 150mm, DOF is thin. Very thin.
So, with this bright telephoto, you get more light, more DOF than those poor APS or FX.
Sorry but it seems that you don’t get my point at all.
I don’t see anything that looks like a focus limiter. Hope I’m wrong.
There is no focus limiter, this has been confirmed by Martin Wagner in FB post
Just about what I would expect t for a lens of that zoom range and a constant f2.8. I have the Panasonic 35-100/f2.8 and love it but I will be pre-ordering this lens along with the 1.4xTC. I just got back home from a 3 week road-trip with a lot of hiking. I had to carry both the 35-100 and the 75-300. I was forced to use the 75-300 because 100 mm just was not long enough. Then the 75-300 was not fast enough and I was forced to up the iso. I can see on this trip that all I would need is the 12-40, 40-150, 60 Macro and the 1.4xTC. Still for normal everyday use I will continue using the excellent 35-100.
Dave, I get what you’re saying. But for me I’d rather up the ISO than sacrice the reach, for wildlife, so I think I’ll stick with the 75-300mm. Have just got back from a similar trip. Out of interest, how do you carry your gear? We were backpacking, I used an Ortlieb Aqua CAm bag clipped to my front.
I really hate who the image quality drops after iso gets above 800. Wildlife photography at dust, dawn or bad weather requires a fast lens. For mid-day sunny weather the 75-300 works really well. Still most of the time conditions would require a fast lens. I was even photographing elk with the 35-100 at f2.8 had had to up the iso to 1600 to get a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the standing animal movement (1/250).
I was car camping and on day long hikes I will use a LowePro Flipside 400. It can easily carry the following gear: E-M1, E-M5 (Back-up), 12-40/2.8, 35-100/2,8, 9-18, 75-300, 60/2.0 Macro, 12/2.0, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8. I do like to carry a bunch of gear. Still I am re-thinking what I will actually carry. I never had the primes except for the 60/2.8 Macro out of the backpack. I used the 9-18 at only one location because the 12-40 just was not wide enough. The 75-300 was used several times because the 35-100 just was not long enough.
For quick walks I will use the LowePro Nova Sport 17L AW shoulder bag with whatever lenses I think I will be using.
Thanks for the feedback Dave. That sure is a lot of gear! We (two kids and I) were traveling via public transport, and doing some fairly serious trekking (GR10 in the Pyrenees). So I had to really limit myself on the camera gear. Took the E-M1, 12-50, 75-300, 45/1.8, 20/1.7. Managed with two batteries, but I’m a careful shooter because I grew up with film. I almost never use the rear LCD, and I think this helps with battery life.
I thought about upgrading to the 12-40/2.8 before the trip, but I did some printing beforehand with the output from the 12-50, it really is more than adequate. And the macro capabilities were really useful for the weird bugs I found! I have a gap however from 50-75mm, and a few times I found this an issue with landscapes.
The primes weren’t used a lot, but when I needed low light/ portrait capability, I was really glad I brought them. I’m still blown away by being able to produce a good handheld portrait by candlelight!
Do you find lots of use for the 60mm macro on trips like these? The 12-40 already does 1:3 macro. Wouldn’t a brighter prime be more useful?
1:3 is not lose to being macro. It is very good at your average size flower. I have been finding myself using the 12-40 for my typical flower shot. Still I like to get in the 1:1 range and even use extensions tubes to get even closer than 1:1.
Yes, fast lenses are really nice. I have a lot of them and use then for low light or when I want to limit the DOF. Still for the stuff I was photographing (landscapes, wildlife and flowers) I used the 12-40 the most. then the 35-100 a bunch and the 60 Macro a lot. One time I used the 9-18 because the 12 on the 12-40 just wasn’t wide enough. Then there are a several times I was forced to use the 75-300 because the 100 on th 35-100 just wasn’t not long enough. At these times I had to raise the iso and did easily noticed the lower image quality of the photos using the 75-300 when compared with the 35-100. It seems like I will rarely use an f-stop faster than even a f4.0 for landscape photography, usually it is ore like f7.1 or f8.0.
that is quite a size!
I think it’s the lens hood that makes it look so fat
Seriously, take the hood off. Makes it look like a Canon 200mm f/2L.
That looks like 300mm f4 not 40-150mm…
300mm with a slide out hood…
Why would taht be a zoom with “smart” slide out hood obstructing the zoom ring.
Look closer.
Geez. Thank god the Panasonic 35-100/f2.8 exists. It looks like it’s half the size of that…
I can’t really speak for myself, I am going the prime route, having an eye on the O75 as my next lens.
Any how, indeed, for many, it is safe to say that the extra reach won’t be enough. At that size, the Olympus needs to be more than marginally better..
I would. Fast primes give you so much more flexibility on MFT that it’s worth carrying one or two around.
I’m happy with the 35-100mm. But I think I’d rather have slightly faster 75mm and 150mm primes.
For those who are interested, you can still find the picture at:
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/threads/76446-New-1-4x-teleconverter-and-a-picture-of-the-40-150mm-f-2-8
Moderator, please show a little bit troll control on this site.
So you were asked to remove a picture that isn’t yours to begin with, a request you summarily ignored, while under “zContent Copyright” requirinng others to ask you for permission of using your photos. Nice going, admin.
My wife is totally in love with that Oberwerth bag in the picture. Costs as much as a small “Pen” tho…
Please, we all know these are controlled leaks. The Olympus Australia Instagram photo has ‘magically’ been removed at the same time. There’s no copyright issues here, Olympus is just using social media intelligently.