Our reader “U-photo” made this useful size comparison between the 12-40mm PRO lens and the next PRO 40-150mm f/2.8 zoom. Big, but still less huge than f/2.8 tele zooms like the [shoplink 44875 ebay]Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (FF) lens[/shoplink].
P.S.: A new E-M1 review has been posted at Danielkcheung.com.
72 Responses
i used the 12-40 2.8 for 2 months, pretty much exclusively, and then one day went back to one of the primes. when my my girlfriend saw the latest photos (from the prime), she exclaimed ‘that’s better’ and went on to say that she thought my photos were missing something lately but these ones popped again. in other words, she’d noticed how much better the primes are than even the ‘good’ 12-40 2.8. she of course had no idea when i was using a zoom or a prime, etc. i thought to myself, that’s pretty objective evidence that although the zoom is good for a zoom, it doesn’t compete with the primes when it comes to IQ pop. (despite what all the professional reviews and fanboys will tell you)
m43 has a smallish sensor. we need the f.7s, f1.4s, f1.2s, f0.95s to really stand out.
olympus are really missing some sub f1.8 primes.
broken record, but a 17mm f1.2 MZ would have me selling primes, zooms, cameras.
YES !
Olympus where are 17mm, 20mm, 25mm 1.4 or 1.2 lenses ???
For short focal lengths m43 has to go very low otherwise you loose that POP when comparing to FF or APSC cameras.
Panasonic and Voigtländer make faster lenses in those lengths already.
What M4/3 needs are more variety in focal lengths, not more repetition of existing lengths. The beauty of the system is variety and the range of offerings from different manufacturers.
Why is it all just about shallow DOF?!
Using short FLs is normally not about subject isolation anyway, so your statement is kinda self-contradicting. There are lots of situations where deeper DOF is an advantage, like macro and landscapes etc. Shallow DOF does not equal IQ. And there are several bright (U)WAs for m4/3 too.
Photographers do that DOF thing, but don’t bother, gadget nerds don’t need to.
I don’t know what makes your girlfriend think photos taken with primes are better, but my guess is the shallower DOF. Many people (especially those who aren’t into photography) like the feel of the shallow DOF. I would say it is not the IQ that differs, for regular people who doesn’t do pixel peeping, i’m confident to say that they won’t see the different between primes and high end zooms. But! They will notice the 3D pop effect (note, not IQ pop) due to the shallower DOF. So it all depends on which type of photos you usuallu take. People usually forget that M43’s selling point isn’t about shallow DOF.
Yes, experts know better than shallow DOF. All experts, drop your crap and buy compact cameras, Jesper the genius has spoken!
Sorry to tell, ‘just a guy’…. but Jesper is right…. 🙁
Go on then, drop your M43 toys and step on board Canon G16. It is better, believe me.
continuous AF on the G16 is pretty bad…if you don’t need that feature the G16 is pretty nice…but it can’t compare to the E-M1….also if I shoot an image with the 1240 at f/4…and then I shoot the same image with the 17 1.8 at f/4…people always prefer the prime lens image…I do as well …and got rid of my 12-40 2.8…I do not miss it
I see, you keep m43 because of the primes and the af, otherwise you’d drop it and get a compact. What a novel perspective, ever thought of eating your boots so they don’t smell in the house?
Yeah, and we don’t try to take pictures that a lot of people like, we only take pictures that ‘experts’ like.
I think it will have a size similar to the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 – with much less weight.
did you even saw 70-200 2.8?! It has huge front element,77mm! this picture show that 40-150 has the same front element size as do 12-40, so it is 62mm, even less than 67 for relatively thin 70-200 f/4
Its to big…..oure little fangirls hands can not handle this. If we want big lenses and good picture and video quality we would go APSC or FF.
“video quality would go APSC or FF”…
Really?? Very clear you don’t know what you are talking about…
And going from m43 to apcs will improve image quality?? Definitely, you don’t know what you are talking about…. sad ignorant freshman!
Welcome back Viezevure, so good to see someone here to show the move to Disqus would not work for long. Admin, Now can we please go back, the experiment with Disqus has been one massive successful failure.
Yes, Disqus is a “Less-Than” experience.
Admin, of course it will be smaller than a Sigma 120-300: it is not remotely comparable.
Why aren’t they comparable?
Same brightness, same reach (although the Zuiko goes much wider).
Different DOF when used on different sensor formats doesn’t apply, as you can use the Sigma on m4/3 too. So they are in fact (very) comparable!
Not same sensor? This is abc people, consumers must be protected from marketing scams.
If you use the Sigma on M43, I am sorry for your brain.
Really Erik, this thing has been discussed ad nauseam. You can’t fight physics, why don’t you try for yourself? You will be surprised.
And the Panasonic FZ200 (xx-600 mm eqv, f/2.8) is much cheaper, smaller and lighter than this lens. Heck, even phones today have f/2.8 or faster lenses today, and look how tiny they are. They are smaller than even the f/8 body cap lenses for m43. If an f/2 phone lens should be comparable to an f/2 m43 lens (12 mm f/2, 14 mm f/2.5, 17 mm f/1.7, 20 mm f/1.7), why are you shooting with m43 at all?
When I sold my Canon gear I was sad to see the 70-200mm F4 L go most of all. Loved using it. This lens will be similar in size and function. But when I sold all my Canon gear I also sold all my bags capable of holding lenses of this size. Don’t really want to go back.
Precisely. Is it really bigger than the Olympus 75-300?
Yes, it’s smaller than a 120-300mm f/2.8, but not really smaller, let alone lighter than a 70-300mm f/5.6, which, on a 35mm sensor, offers very much the same as the 150mm f/2.8 zoom on FT, assuming the lenses perform similarly with regard to image quality.
Please enlighten me how this should be equivalent to a half as fast lens? Is it a common problem for you to have too much DOF on you 300mm photos?
Actually F2.8 is 4x brighter! 🙂
Yes, of course. My bad. I wonder if these equivalency dudes also argue that 43 sensors are better than FF sensors? I mean surely they cant double-count the advantage?
Are you drunk? 43 sensors are better than what?
Better than the 135 that is left at home ’cause its a heavy big lump
It should be plain obvious that, for a given AOV, the size of ‘hole’ at the front of lens determines how much light a lens lets in. And the size of that ‘hole’ is the size of the physical aperture or rather the physical aperture as seen through the front element.
But then, as long as people think noise is generated by the sensor and roughly proportional to sensor surface and therefore the light per area determines the signal per noise (SNR) ratio, I’ll probably be as successful as Columbus was trying to explain his idea to the flat-earthers.
Sigh…
A 70-300/5.6 doesn’t offer F2.8, does it?
Sometimes it’s about EXPOSURE, not just DOF.
And spare me the “raise ISO” rant…
Raise your ISO. It’s not a rant, it’s physics. Why are you so stubborn? You can’t argue physics. Do you work for Pana by any chance?
It is a rant.
Raise iso and you will have about same result, theoretically at least. Doubt there is a f5.6 zoom on same level as this pana about IQ. But then, you will end up with rather bulky and heavy setup, which will cost more anyway and give same result. So… why bother?
No, it won’t be bulkier or heavier, just cheaper and better. Check it out yourself, you have the world wide web at your feet.
Cheaper and better? Yeah, right. Size and weight of ff body alone is huge difference, price of body also really high. Unless you compare most basic with almost no feature FF body to top of the line weather sealed e-m1. Even then ff body will be more pricey.
Sony ff mirrorless? Go ahead, use manual focus. But then post also your keeper rate.
p.s.
There is great web page for size comparison, you have the world wide web at your feet.
Sony is crap, but FF means something else. Obviously, you have low standards, so go on with M43. It is good enough for most people.
It is a rant. ISO is a function of the camera and this about the lens. The fact is that a f2.8 lens will produce the same level of brightness regardless of format.
No idea if it’s a rant but it’s silly. First, how fast and accurately a lens focuses depends on the maximum aperture. No comparison in AF between a f/2.8 lens and a f/5.6 one on that score. Second, the larger aperture gives you a faster shutter. Faster shutter means less blurring from shake. But yes, if you’re willing to live with a lens which delivers out of focus and blurry images, you can make up for a fast shutter with a higher ISO.
All your people’s arguments (like f/2.8 gives faster AF than f/5.6) are based on the incorrect assumption that the signal to noise ratio (that the sensors used for AF deliver), is a function of signal per area as the noise is a function per area. The idea that noise when measuring light is due to noise created by the sensor, that with a perfect sensor there would be no noise, is the fundamental misconception that so many people make. Until that misconception is corrected, any discussion on this topic is futile.
No idea what you’re talking about. Sensor size does not effect the Signal/Noise ratio. Everyone knows that. Everyone hopefully also knows that a PDAF system on a dSLR uses a separate sensor, and its ability to focus is highly dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens. How many Canon bodes can AF with a maximum aperture of f/8? One, two? Other than the 1DX and the 5D I don’t think any can. How many Oly or Panny bodies? All.
You must learn… In the meantime, everybody buy this crap, have fun.
I think you’re sorely mistaken. Is it really smaller.
I would love to see an OMD with the 40-150mm attached sitting next to a FF camera with a 70-300 f/5.6 (or a Sigma 120-300mm), attached. That would quiet the room down some. Also, I would love to see the Image Quality comparison of the Olympus set-up with the f/2.8 with 5-axis IS at its lowest handheld ISO vs the “big gun” image.
My MFT camera is not replacing my FF’s image quality…but it is getting interesting!
What will the weight be of the Olympus 40-150mm 2.8, as you say it will not really be smaller than the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 (weighing 3.4 kg)
Here you’ll find an other one http://imgur.com/my5xuAB
Great comparison. It looks pretty chunky.
The holy quartet.
The size of that thing is just too much.
Extra 50mm reach is nice, but at the size, it is specialist, niche lens. Panny’s 35-100, if not for the asking price, is more versatile. But I still can’t swallow the 1100€ price tag… 🙁
Nice to have the option, isn’t it?
If you look at the Judchhe link the size wil be about 167mm
So, system length, lens+camera (lens front to display back, ignoring the viewfinder eyecup) should be about 200+ mm? (A E-PL5 is about 38 mm thick).
That’s about the same size Canon 70-200 f4 (177mm) a little less than canon 70-200 f2.8 (199mm), so it is big, let’s wait about weigh, I suppose it will be about 700gr
Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 is short (144mm) but also not so fast by long distance.
Anyway there isn’t any other option like 80-300 reach with 2.8 constant aperture.
An important point here is also the possible existence of x1.4 extender, that’s will be a very useful combination in a small and light packet.
Good points. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 weighs over three pounds and costs over $1500 and we’re talking about being effectively shorter. This lens will be great for all kinds of indoor venues and, with the addition of the TC, will work as a 100-400 wildlife zoom. But at f/4 constant aperture it will be on steroids.
And the Panasonic FZ200 (xx-600 mm eqv, f/2.8) is much cheaper, smaller and lighter than this lens. Heck, even phones today have f/2.8 or faster lenses today, and look how tiny they are. They are smaller than even the f/8 body cap lenses for m43. If an f/2 phone lens should be comparable to an f/2 m43 lens (12 mm f/2, 14 mm f/2.5, 17 mm f/1.7, 20 mm f/1.7), why are you shooting with m43 at all?
You don’t seem to understand that the absolute size of the f-number aperture depends on the focal length of the lens. Digicam sensors are indeed as efficient as even FF sensors. The problem is the very short focal length of the lenses and their very small apertures have significant problems with diffraction.
Is this smaller than the 50-200mm f2.8-f3.5 4/3 lens?
No, 50-200 is slightly short (157mm)
This is going to be a staple m43rds user lens. Simple as that.
Why you ask? Because it affords a m43rds user who is getting serious an opportunity to shoot with lower ISOs, faster shutterspeeds and better AF as it gets dimmer.
But you can get a FF caera with an F5.6 lens… sure you can, however you will not have the snappy AF as it gets dimmer, there will be image quality advantage to the bigger sensor and you have now burdened yourself with a large camera…
And here it is, when I NEED this lens, for whatever application I decide to use it for, I have the opportunity to slap it on my EM% with grips and get a solid shooting experience with excellent IQ… But when I get home and the weekend rolls around… time to go to the park with my 3 year old son, well I take off the grips, slap on the 25mm f1.4 and we head off to the park… Or I am going out with my wife to a friends event, I throw on the 17mm and away I go.
When I am travelling I can keep a few small primes, the 12-40 and 40-150 (3.5-5.6) in one small shoulder bag with a tablet and I can shoot all day long.
When Mmy wife want to use one of my lenses she simply grabs it out of my camera bag, puts it on her E-PL5 and starts shooting our one month old son….
The purpose of a system is flexibility, not absolute IQ, and I suspect m43rds is the most flexible system of them all.
Totally agree
All your people’s arguments (like f/2.8 gives faster AF than f/5.6) are based on the incorrect assumption that the signal to noise ratio (that the sensors used for AF deliver), is a function of signal per area as the noise is a function per area. The idea that noise when measuring light is due to noise created by the sensor, that with a perfect sensor there would be no noise, is the fundamental misconception that so many people make. Until that misconception is corrected, any discussion on this topic is futile.
To be honest, I am not sure what your point is. AF relies on the “brightness” of the light hitting it, and FF AF sensors are not 4x bigger than 43rds. An f5.6 aperture would have a weaker signal for the AF sensors to use, hence worse AF performance. As how this compares to CDAF, as it gets constant information as long as the shutter is open, unlike a”reading” of PDAF it has a great deal of potential.
As for noise performance, unless you were to raise the ISO or slow the shutter speed, equivalent apertures would mean absolutely no IQ advantage to the larger sensor, they may even result in worse image quality for the larger sensor.
“Big, but still less huge than f/2.8 tele zooms like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (FF) lens.”
Yeep! And definitely much less huge than Canon Hyperzoom L 1200–2400mm f/2.8. 😀
Really love the stupid comparisons…
Why the harsh negativity? While nothing is totally comparable it is clear that this 80 – 300 set up for MFT is way smaller than the 120-300 set up for FF. More reach at less weight and size as well as probably very similar (or better) performance for the M43, I call that a win.
Of course it’s way smaller since it can deliver just half as shallow DOF.
I wouldn’t deny it’s a fantastic lens but sorry, cannot accept as valid argument to compare to an FF similar in brightness.
How about this. Try comparing a 40-150 on a FF camera and crop the difference to get the same AoV… How does that look on a FF camera?
Alternatively shoot an A99 with a 5.6 lens at 300mm and two stops higher ISO… not too hot, or what about the immensely popular and capable 5Dm11, it certainly would have the noise performance of current m43rds cameras…
Why you may not agree with the comparison between the 40-150 and a 300mm lens on FF, it is no better than your sweeping arguments that require caveats of all shapes and sizes (equivalent sensor technology, hypothetical lenses etc.)
Truth is the majority of FF bodies are not the D800 or the 6D, but the 5D, D700, 5Dm11, D3, D3s etc. ANd at two stops higher ISO than the Em5, EPL2, EPM2 etc they will not look too hot, will have more noise, worse DR and worse colour fidelity.
Most photographers care about AoV as it has the most to do with composition, a photographers biggest challenge. DoF is a secondary consideration and had only become the fad of the moment due to the proliferation of point and shoots int he last 20 years and now cellphones. It is optical eye candy (which can be used well) and not crucial to the art of photography, unlike composition, perspective and and AoV.
The point is, can you show me any metric of how much better or worse sensors from different sizes are? Where metric implies some numerical value and an element of reproducibility.
I am not sure what you art asking for. But if you like numbers there are lots of them. pick any FF camera and use DxO, just set the FF camera to 2 stops higher and you will see worse DR, Noise and Colour Fidelity.
Now, you could use a lower ISO and a slower Shutterspeed… however if you subject IS NOT moving then the IBIS on a fast prime (there are very few stabilized primes on any FF system) can buy you back a lot of performance.
But back to your metric, there is no dispute that aperture value to aperture value and ISO to ISO FF cameras have an IQ advantage (and shallower DoF), but using equivalent aperture values that advantage disappears, and may even shift to the smaller sensor, this is demonstrable fact (at least using DPR and DXO) as long as someone has an open mind to the fact a cheaper system can be more capable.
This is of course sensor to sensor and lens to lens dependent.
I think I will keeping posting how superior 1/2.3″ sensor-sized cameras are compared to m43 cameras by comparing the 600 mm(eqv) f/2.8 Panasonic FZ-200, 100 mm in length, with this Olympus 80-300 mm(eqv) f/2.8 lens, about 200 mm in length (incl. camera for both), until this nonsense of comparing lenses based on the f-stop instead of the actual aperture diameter (entrance pupil) stops.
It should be plain obvious that, for a given AOV, the size of ‘hole’ at the front of lens determines how much light a lens lets in. And the size of that ‘hole’ is the size of the physical aperture or rather the physical aperture as seen through the front element.
But then, as long as people think noise is generated by the sensor and roughly proportional to sensor surface and therefore the light per area determines the signal per noise (SNR) ratio, I’ll probably be as successful as Columbus was trying to explain his idea to the flat-earthers.
Maybe you should give up?
I suspect you are fighting the wrong battle, Noise and DoF are not pivotal for photographers here it seems.
No lets do this comparison then. Lets set a FF camera, say the D800, put a 150mm f2.8 lens on the front, say the Sigma macro, shoot side by side and CROP the FF sensor to the same AoV as m43rds and compare.
I would say that is fair, lens to lens a perfect comparison. Otherside you are comparing a 300mm lens to a 150mm lens, and that is apples to oranges.
OR we could agree that this lens shoots like a 300mm lens on a FF camera set to f5.6 and two stops higher ISO. Meaning an EPM2 plus this lens would perform as well as the 5dm111 plus 70-300mm L lens… Quote an expensive combo isnt it. I mean at close to $5000 you are getting the same performance (give or take) as a $500 camera body, and lets assume a $1600 lens (same price as the canon L).