TheCameraStoreTV just posted that video comparison to tell you what lens is best.
P.S.: New Olympus 40-150mm image smaples have been posted at Cameras.Reviewed.
Olympus preorders:
Silver E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK.
40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK, Technikdirekt and Amazon.
LH-76 lens hood at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
MC-14 1.4x teleconverter at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD62 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
PRF-ZD72 Z protection filter at Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus.
General links to all new Olympus stuff at Adorama.
ALL new stuff announced at Photokina at Amazon.
Panasonic preorders:
LX100 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto. Europe at WexUK.
GM5 in red at Adorama.
35-100mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
190 Responses
I am pleasantly surprised by the small size of the Panasonic. I had recently bought the Pany 45 – 150mm to have a stabilized zoom lens for occasional video shooting but I do realize that the (much more expensive) 35 – 100mm would be the lens I would choose if I needed a zoom lens more often.
The Olympus 40 – 150mm is impressive but given the size I will keep using FF + Tamron 70 – 200mm VC 2.8.
but some primes man….there’s no need for another zoom lens….you’ve got the range covered (100-300 might be an option but an update to it is coming)
Great advice, there are some amazing experts here. And the pics… LOL
man u get high on water???
Great video, some lovely shots but let’s not forget that extra 50mm makes them two different lenses and it would be interesting to have seen what the 14 TC would have done to both lenses, I can imagine a lot of Panny users might well be thinking of trying it with the 35-100mm. So come on guys, how about doing that as a follow up video.
As for myself I still use my 50-200mm 43 lens.
You can compensate the 50mm with cropping afterwards but you cannot compensate the missing 5mm at the lower end. The little difference in zoom does NOT excuse double the size and weight .. BUT the picture quality might 😉 lets hope for.
Yeah, I can give you that Rune, but we all have considerably wider glass than the Panna’s 35mm, with equally if not better IQ.
the little difference at the short tele positions can be neglected, unlike the difference at the long tele positions. and cropping for compensating; i think you would be happy with a wide angle prime, and crop when ever a longer reach is needed 😉
Rune, good point if it was APSC or FF. But i find cropping on my M43 not acceptable the quality is horrible. So i also think that its better to have the extra 100mm at the long end instead of the 10mm at the short end.
If only you had a camera…
The lenses are suppose to be used combined with others.
7-14mm + 12-35mm + 35-100mm
7-14mm + 12-40mm + 40-150mm (+TC1.4) (+300mm(+TC1.4))
You get the whole package and that’s it.
With Olympus you basically get with three lens, if needed you get the fourth 300mm f/4 with them. You don’t need anything else after that.
Unfortunately, the Oly 1.4x teleconverter is designed to work ONLY with the 40-150mm and upcoming 300mm lenses.
A good quality, general purpose teleconverter is much needed for the M4/3 system, but we’ll have to wait for someone to produce one. I vote for 2x.
Indeed, I think the 1.4x teleconverter will not be usable with the other m43 lenses as an optical element seems to stick outside of it and would probably touch the last optical element of the m43 lenses. On the other hand, it might be usable with 43 lenses as there would be the 43-m43 adapter in between. That would be a fun combination to try actually.
I think the size and weight of the Panasonic lens is a great asset. The Olympus reach may be important for many. Can’t help comparing the Olympus lens with the Sony FE G 70-200/4 OSS – about the same weight at 880g. The Sony gets “highly recommended” at Photozone as does the Panasonic. The Olympus lens will probably get the same rating!
Which is best? Reach vs size and weight. Both are great and us photographers are the winners!
760g to be precise, at least for me, tripod collar will stay off the lens most of the time. Close-up difference also quite different.
Many does overstate the size and weight way too much. The most important factors for photographers are:
1) Angle of view
2) Light density
The first one is for cropping the view the photographer see to get the wanted view and remove else around the subject.
Second is to freeze the motion or get the subject sharp enough.
Everything else is basically secondary and nitpicking.
Weight or size isn’t bad at all on m4/3 standards and usual sizes and weight.
If someone can’t handle m4/3 combo weight and size, they should look to pocket cameras or even smart phones.
I have a Olympus150/2.0 and it’s 1610g, so this new lens not much more than half that weight.
what a great video
what a great system 🙂
I thought it was a nice presentation, not too clownish, but for serious consideration i prefer writing and photos very much to a video.
These both are professionals in photography and videography……they sell camera gear at THE CAMERA STORE so you can trust these guy’s reviews , they know what thy’re doing…..and trust me they are million times better than that biased Kai from digitalrev
His accent ain’t no fake.
Both lenses look fine, and seem to give great results.
* The mZuiko is bulkier, but the video was perhaps unfair in that the mZuiko was equipped with the lens hood, which is very big. Still, the Panasonic lens is smaller and lighter, which is important for some use.
* The mZuiko wins in a larger reach (150 mm vs. 100 mm), availability of a TC, and the possibility to go much closer.
* The Panasonic wins with 5 mm in the wide angle. However, for those who already have the mZuiko 12-40, this is hardly important.
* The Panasonic has built in O.I.S. — which probably is important for those who have Panasonic cameras.
The sky is blue and sometimes it rains…
its like an echo of the video 🙂
was kinda entertaining video 🙂
I think these two guys are becoming the best at what they do. I now watch everything they put out.
Jordan does not use the lenshood of the Panny at all it seems inspite of sunny weather. Whereas the Oly is almot consistently used with it. Does not seem right to me.
i think in the shot into the sun it was a fair comparison
Yes technically, but people get false immersion that Panasonic is way smaller and Olympus way bigger. And because Chris even used extra grip for personal reasons, the difference looks huge (while it isn’t).
Yeah I agree, at 8:12 he says that he forgot it…
It really changed the impression, the Oly looks MUCH larger because of the hood. But well, I guess they did not want to re-shoot the video just because of that.
ofcourse the panasonic is smaller, because of several reasons..is no need to discuss about that imo. they just choosed to compare a 35-100 against a 40-150 with the same max aperture. simple as that. we are smart enough to consider all the differences.
Good comparison by Chris & com .
Both are great zoom lens at it’s own class .
If not sony no buy, simple as that.
Eno you are a sad person……
Great video once again from the camerastore. The Oly looks like a fun lens. Still a bit big for M43 but maybe fun to use for those lacking APSC/FF gear.
as long as its big it satisfies your urges 🙂
Nice try Eno.
Eno you are a sad person.
As is tradition, let’s now digress from the topic of the post and talk about the lenses Oly and Pana should make because they are totally missing: what about a nice 12-50mm 4.0? (Oly already has a patent for 2.8-4.0 which might be become to big) And whatever happened to the mythical Panasonic 12-50 2.5-3.3? I find it very suspicious that admin completely stopped talking about it.
Why suspicious? Admin filters rumor as they come: no rumors no news.
The existing kit lens 12-50mm macro, albeit not a constant f4, does not need a “faster” replica..
Patents are patents, often they stay on paper, so I wouldn’t hold my breath while waiting for something to be developped and produced.
Well, the 12-50 would be nicer if it was both sharper and slightly shorter. Apparently it’s a real lottery as far as sample variation – some people get decent lenses, but most people don’t, hence its reputation.
I do think that M4/3 needs a weather sealed pancake, though!
Easy to guess .
All the lenses mentioned likely been cancel / postpone unconditionally .
By the ways , that kind of lenses still consider slow , can’t really deliver .
I doubt who going to buy it .
Better concentrate on ultra fast lens .
That is the right direction for m4/3 to shine .
Yes, I miss all the moaning about the number of standard zooms that m43 has and why can’t they produce a lens in the x focal length with F1.2 aperture (that will be bought by about 3 people).
Seriously though I do think there is a lack of very high quality. small and slower lenses in m43. You shouldn’t have to compromise the IQ much, if at all, in order to go small and light. After all, that is why the system exists.
We need a whole line of metal bodied .95 primes from Olympus.
Panasonic was first, just like with the excellent 12-35, but Oly comes back later with lenses maybe bulkier in size, but with more reach, more features and just more flexible lenses to play with, particularly on Olympus bodies.
In the end, the lenses have pros and cons, and it’s really great to even have that choice with high-end optics.
M43 4 life
I like the Oly lens…but Chris is such a poser….:-)
Hey Admin…if you sell any more ad space on this bog the blog space will be smaller than the ad space…are u thinking about that as a possibility????
AdBlock + AdBlock Plus = Solved
On the plus side, it looks like there’s space in the market for you to run a blog for free.
Well Billy Boy…there is making a living…and then there is GREEDY to the point where your product becomes” less-than”..and your customers become secondary….that is what I see here.
At the end of the day, they have to sell product. So there was a lot of downplaying. The Panasonic won the bokeh test easily, has better contrast, and is much smaller. That Olympus lens is HUGE. I would easily steer clear of that lens.. It’s a monster.
Panasonic won it? Panasonic creates some unpleasant double image effect in oof area, while olympus blurs it rather smoothly. Can’t compare iq here because panasonic body clearly applies a lot more sharpening in body. OOC jpg’s with different settings are certainly not good for comparison. While bigger, it’s also more versatile, especially close-up ability, difference here is huge. Add 1.4x TC and it gets even better, min. focus distance doesn’t change with TC
I suspect you steer clear of anything that says Olympus on the front, whether it meets your needs or not. A Pavlovian response, except you usually foam at the mouth rather than drool.
Now, i support you most of the times as i hate Olympus fan-boys too, but this time, i think the Olympus is a better choice, generally.
More versatile, close up is way better, more (a lot more) reach, more pleasant bokeh for me…And the price difference is not much. Granted, its a huge lens, defeats the purpose of m4/3 compactness but overall for non-Panasonic users its a better choice.
Having said that, i would buy the Panny, as i am a Panasonic user and OIS is important for telephoto lenses…
Guys can you tell me what’s all this hype from a lens that is just wider (and has slightly better optical quality) but is bulkier and uglier and costlier than pana offering which has been tried and tested since 2 yrs ?????
Higher optical quality (not just slightly, but is as well future proof for higher megapixels) and has bigger zoom, fits to Olympus bodies (zoom direction, snap-ring) and has tripod collar and reversible hood.
The 50mm might sound small, but with the effect it is huge.
Still not worth the hype….we need different lenses for MFT at different apertures and focal lengths….not the same focal length, same aperture lenses….this can be done later also….choice is a good thing, I’m not disagreeing but MFT needs to win the hearts of everyone’s varied needs….can’t keep wasting resources on lenses that already have a competitor…those telephoto primes have still not come for an instance
I am still wowed by the close focusing of the Olympus. I can use that lens on everything from sports and people to product work.
Once the hood and collar have been removed I would imagine the size difference, while still clear will not be as night and day as it appears here.
I keep coming back to the versatility of the lens and I am excited to be able to shoot product at a 300mm equivalent for some crazy compression
Two solid lenses.
Don’t forget; the Olympus weights 880 grams and the Panasonic 360 grams. How many shots are worth carrying the extra 520 grams around all day, every day ? That’s more than an extra Nocticron 42,5 mm weighing 425 grams and is considered a hefty lens.
EM-1 + 40-150 = 1323 grams
GH4 + 35-100 = 625 grams
I think i’ll feel a lot better walking through Paris all day with my Gh4 in my hand !
That’s more than twice the weight !
GH4 + 35-100 = 920 grams
and e-m1 + 40-150 = 1257gr 🙂
Hey Android,
The Pansonic is a stunning lens, small, sharp and nearly purchased by me, but it covere so many of the focal lengths I already have primes in.
The Olympus while larger had a greater range, and can focus so close I can use it in many many applications…
Just to finish, How much would the Panasonic 35-100 plus the panasonic 150mm f2.8 weigh? I think that would be a better comparison, nevermind missing 101-149mm range 🙂
It´s more or less an easy choice:
For stills and if you want more range (plus: closer focusing & better OOF rendering) – Get the Olympus. If you´re more into video (so using a Panasonic GH4 for example or any other body without internal stabilizer) the 35-100 is the better choice – Because of it´s internal stabilizer (AND it´s smaller, lighter & cheaper – AND all in all optically not worse).
At least you have now the choice …
And it´s good that there are new lenses coming for the M4/3 standard.
Even if they don´t fit everyones needs ^^
I hope the Panasonic gets a price cut now that the Olympus is out. If it went for $1000 I think it would find a lot more homes, even with the Olympus competition.
The Olympus is not competition for the Panasonic.
1. The Olympus is not an option for the GH4 because of the lack of IS.
2. The Olympus body and lens totally annihilates the size and weight advantages of a m43 kit !
Look at it ! With the battery grip its a DSLR !
3. Lack of macro is a downside for the Panasonic ? Get a tiny macro-lens. Both lenses will still be lighter than the Olympus lens alone.
I really like the Olympus but I’m shooting on a panasonic, sooooo I think the OIS in lens is the deal breaker for me.
Two very good lenses indeed. The Panasonic will be stellar on a GH4 for movies while the Olympus will do a better job on a E-M1 as a photography lens. The Olympus is lighter vs. a full-frame 70-300 f4-f5.6 lens: http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.444,380.10,ha,t . In my example regarding light gathering the Olympus lens has the advantage vs. the Canon one while the Canon one has an advantage regarding dof control (the Olympus is a 80-300 f5.6 equiv in this regard).
The Pro line would have been perfect if the maximum aperture was f2 (like the case of the older Olympus Four Thirds pro zooms). Even at that maximum aperture, the total weight would have been a real advantage vs a full-frame f4 pro zooms setup (not to mention a f2.8 full-frame setup). Chosing 2.8 as a maximum apeture, Olympus bet on medium size and light weight and this is a good lens but not a stellar one…
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
Repeat after me: The Olympus has DoF of 40-150mm f/2.8….
If you want same DoF for 35mm then you need to use 40-150mm f/2,8 and you would get identical DoF. People should not try to change aperture as the focal length is the factor there for aperture. The angle of view is only factor being changed with sensor size, nothing else. Not depth of field, not light gathering or anything else.
Read this because you don’t seem to understand equivalence…There is an example in the “Apertures and F-numbers” section (the one with the 1D X and E-M5):
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Technically he is correct, but in reality it doesn’t matter, since the end result would be a totally different image. Yes, the DoF is the same as long as distance from subject remains the same, but then you would end up cropping away 75% of the image area.
Neither does the claims its aperture is “equivalent” to f/5.6 and similar crap.
Real world situations is that 35mm shooters are almost always rolling down to f/5.6-8 to get a acceptable focus. That’s why 4/3 sensor size was chosen as it does give faster shutter speeds with most common minimal aperture 35mm shooter use.
The world greatest photos has been taken with aperture smaller than f/5.6 on 35mm and today the depth of field is wanted to be very deep to get subject AND background in focus.
People don’t like to pay or watch photos what could have been taken anywhere because background is just blurred color mess.
Some people hunt to thinnest depth of field, they use medium format instead crappy 35mm.
And then there are idiots who can’t control their cameras owning a 35mm cameras and whine how m4/3 cameras gives same quality, in smaller package and even give possibilities to get same depth of field effects.
All it requires is to be skilled photographer and m4/3 is way better tool to work than any 35mm.
An even more skilled photographer and Pentax Q is way better than MFT 😛
I agree with you, more DoF at smaller F-number can be a good thing and surely not everybody wants ultra thin DoF. But still, DoF equivalence, where crop factor is applied to the F-number, is valid when one compares two different formats in the same shooting scenario and tries to get identical results. I’m not saying this to bash m4/3, heck, it’s the only format I use. I know the limitations and possibilities of the system and accept them happily.
That’s your opinion. I own both and use both, but don’t feel like you. An exclamation like “The world greatest photos has been taken with aperture smaller than f/5.6 on 35mm” is a little over the top.
DOF depends on focal length. See http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html#eq13. Only for certain situations it can be dropped out of the formula.
Juurikas youare so WRONG111
Eno, again?? Ur pissing me off…
Haha your trying to spread m43 hate in every comment you have posted and man you must be pissed off because no one really cares what you say with your troll comments in here. All your doing is helping m43 sales because it’s obvious that your desperate to try stopping ppl buying m43 because it must be pretty good if it’s a threat to you :p
Now I recommend you go do something constructive and take some photo’s and read all the great things about FF because you make it sound that great and if it is you should go spend some time where the great FF people hang out because m43 is such a bad system your wasting ur time here lol
Technically you are correct about the DoF, but in reality it doesn’t matter, since the end result would be a totally different image. Yes, the DoF is the same as long as distance from subject remains the same, but then you would end up cropping away 75% of the image area! So indeed, to get identical images, the DoF equals that of a f/5.6.
What you are saying here is just technical nit picking that holds true under conditions that have no bearing on real-life use.
“Yes, the DoF is the same as long as distance from subject remains the
same, but then you would end up cropping away 75% of the image area! So
indeed, to get identical images,”
Maybe that is all irrelevant as one would be taking a different picture with a different approach. What one does with one format does not equate to doing the same with a different format.
That is true. It’s relevant only when one compares different formats in the same shooting scenario with the aim of getting an identical image. In all other situations you can just forget it. As long as you know the limitations and are willing to accept them, you can simply forget about the equivalence BS and concentrate on what really matters, the image content.
Circle of Confusion? DOF is dependent on COC, f-stop, focal length, subject distance, for example. You leave out information to judge what you mean (same framing? Same distance?
Why would you want less depth of field on a telephoto lens?
Why would you not want less depth of field? Not every photo has to look like its taken with an iPhone!
Sorry guys… I escaped from school when i was a child…
You meant mental asylum, i’m sure xD
I don’t know why that folks have got it stuck in their heads that the GH4 is a video camera when it is a top end stills camera first and foremost that just happens to shoot video rather well.
You’ve seen the stills images from the E-M1 and the GH4 together, there’s very little to chose between them. If they weren’t labelled I doubt we could tell them apart.
What’s the deal here ?
1. The Olympus is not an option for the GH4 because of the lack of IS.
2. The Olympus body and lens totally annihilates the size and weight advantages of a m43 kit !
Look at it ! With the battery grip its a DSLR !
3. Lack of macro is a downside for the Panasonic ? Get a tiny macro-lens. Both lenses will still be lighter than the Olympus lens alone.
Nice video but doing a comparison is a waste of time.
1. It is still an option, lack of IS just narrows your possibilities at slower shutter speeds, but that’s the only limitation. It’s not like you couldn’t get perfect photos before IS was invented.
Let’s go back to film because not all pictures taken with film were all bad…
Sigh…
What a bad analogy you came up with. Better analogy would be a car with or without ESP. Great feature to have when things go wrong, but certainly not an absolute necessity to drive safely.
1. Lack of IS is not a deal breaker for everyone and really depends for what it will be used.
2. It certainly big compared to panasonic, but it is still only 760gr. Battery grip is not necessary. Size is also quite a bit smaller and lighter if you also think about what you get, it’s telephoto zoom, weather-sealed with top of the line optics.
3. For now we have only 60mm macro, 40-150mm with 1.4TC can be used for close-ups from distance, insects for example. Not to mention totally different perspective.
There is already good summary in video that explains everything. Both lenses have it’s use.
Considering the amount of money you like to get a complete product right ?
Shedding this kind of money and not getting IS is a mistake for this focal length.
Don’t forget; it’s a f5.6 lens compared to FF. ISO 400 is effectively ISO 1600 compared to FF, noise wise. So you are limited using it late in the afternoon AND the lacking of IS makes is even more limited.
All that said, for *most* people, they will likely get the very best results by simply using a tripod, no matter what lens they have or how good the image stabilization. I know it’s one more thing to carry, but it’s a surefire way to get better images.
Nobody, except geeks, uses tripods anymore.
Yeah… geeks and professionals.
And how many professionals use m4/3? Lets not kid ourselves here, m4/3 is “fine” for enthusiasts and amateurs, but if you are a professional using a tripod for your work you are going to have a camera system to match that.
So like I said, only geeks use tripods.
Huh? All photographers use tripods in certain shooting situations, regardless of the format. That’s what you do if you’re a pro (or even an advanced amateur).
As to your remark about how many pros use m4/3, you won’t like this, but here you go…
http://buchangrant.4ormat.com/
http://www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com/
http://fotomax.pro/nude
http://www.johnsterlingruth.com/
http://limagery.smugmug.com/
http://traciejeanphoto.com/
http://www.jaydickman.net/
http://kimguanzon.com/
http://leighmiller.zenfolio.com/
And myself.
I could keep going, but you get the point (hopefully).
Huh? All photographers use tripods in certain shooting situations, regardless of the format. That’s what you do if you’re a pro (or even an advanced amateur).
As to your remark about how many pros use m4/3, you won’t like this, but here you go…
http://buchangrant.4ormat.com/
http://www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com/
http://fotomax.pro/nude
http://www.johnsterlingruth.com/
http://limagery.smugmug.com/
http://traciejeanphoto.com/
http://www.jaydickman.net/
http://kimguanzon.com/
http://leighmiller.zenfolio.com/
And myself.
I could keep going, but you get the point (hopefully).
Huh? All photographers use tripods in certain shooting situations, regardless of the format. That’s what you do if you’re a pro (or even an advanced amateur).
As to your remark about how many pros use m4/3, I can show you plenty, but Disqus won’t let me post multiple outbound links in here apparently…
Besides, you know, every professional photographer ever? And sure, it might make you a geek, but even a cheap $100 tripod is worth more in terms of good photos than any other gear you can buy…
Why ‘better’ images overall ? Maybe ONLY better images past the 100mm !
Okay, better images in any situation that would be benefited by image stabilization. How’s that?
But on the other hand you don’t have to stop down as much on m43 to get enough DoF, so quite often you would end up with about same noise anyway. If someone shoots moving subjects only, there would little benefit from IS.
Anyway, i’m quite puzzled at all those complains about size. It’s for people who want more versatile lens and don’t mind a bit of extra weight. There is already panasonic 35-100 if size is important. If anything, people should be glad for getting even more choice for the system. Attracts even more people = more chances the system will grow even further.
I don’t complain about the lens. I might even have bought it if i had an Olympus body or if it had OIS. Now it’s just not an option. I don’t mind buying a wide angle lens from Olympus without IS though. I am waiting for the 7-14 f2.8 (f5.6). Which will probably be too expensive given the price of the f4 (f8).
For the amount of money, you ought to know what you can do with that gear and what you want to do with it. Thats all there is to it.
No need to further mention that I don’t consider myself someone who specializes in shooting still objects in low light without tripod while suffering Parkinson, nor while I shoot m43, do I don’t suffer ADHD caused by overthinking what I could get with FF.
Have you actually used these cameras?
Noise level (or lack of it) on the GH4 is probably a bit better than the Df
Low light shooting on M43 is a lot better than with a mirror. DSLR cannot AF in dim light whereas we can AF on a black cat in the coal hole at midnight. Have you tried it because I have.
A DSLR cannot do the “romantic candle-lit dinner” shot without a studio set up, for the GM1 it’s a bread and butter job.
f/2.8 is f/2.8 and ISO400 is ISO400, its simple physics and you can’t break the laws of physics.
If Panny put IS into the body they’d get hot pixels shooting long bursts and video. Oly have to turn the IBIS off and use digital stabilisation for that, it’s pretty nifty but not the real thing.
Wow, “Noise level (or lack of it) on the GH4 is probably a bit better than the Df”? Are you dreaming? Read the dpreview article on equivalence. My D810 seems to be really bad then, but it can do everything you write here without problems. And to note: I have an EM1 with good lenses to compare with.
How on earth do they do the low light test? They say 120mm at f/4. So slap the X35-100 on the GH4 and set it to 60mm (same FoV) and f/4, and it will lock the AF in about 0.07 second on a moving object such as as duck taking off, and freeze the motion. High ISO? – ISO 10,000 produces results good enough to print or publish.
Low light? – phase detection won’t AF in the dark, the DFD will focus at night by starlight, I took some shots to prove that (AF lamp off too).
DXO aren’t the only ones to do tests, Digital Photographer gave the GH4 maximum marks across the board, which is unheard of, beating the X-T1 which beat the Df. Put it this way, the GH4 is not an E-M1.
The Gh4 is certainly a nice camera, but you obviously live in a dream land. ISO 10000 on my fullframe is hardly good enough. To say ISO10000 is good for print or publishing is a little too much, for web size, maybe.
You don’t have a GH4, do you?
Yes, it’s ISO 10,000 (count the noughts) is good enough to publish in a glossy magazine: indeed such pictures have been published, used for e.g. shots of interior of Romanian cottage lit by candle (silent mode: no flash, no AF lamp). The author commented that his DSLR wouldn’t even think about doing that.
It’s horses for courses, the big DSLR still has better dynamic range but low light is owned by the M43.
Want to do a pro “Romantic candle-lit dinner” shot? Try using a GM1 (seriously)
You probably won’t be able to grasp this but let’s give it a try.
IMAGINE you decorate your roof completely with solar panels (FF)
And now imagine you only decorate a quarter of the roof with solar panels. (m43)
With which option you’ll enjoy the lowest energy bill ?
You probably won’t be able to grasp this but let’s give it a try.
IMAGINE you decorate your roof completely with solar panels (FF)
And now imagine you only decorate a quarter of the roof with solar panels. (m43)
With which option you’ll enjoy the lowest energy bill ?
Yep, each solar panel gets the same amount of light as the next one. These are the pixels in the sensor and what matters most is the pixel density. As it happens four-thirds sensor and the FF have roughly the same pixel density.
If Panasonic puts IS in their next gen cams, it won’t be an issue at all in the long run.
Furthermore, the problem will be not that much of an issue for photography.
For video yes, but which professional does shoot video without a tripod anyway?
The Olympus weights 880 grams and the Panasonic 360 grams. How many shots are worth carrying the extra 520 grams around all day, every day ? That’s more than an extra Nocticron 42,5 mm weighing 425 grams and is considered a hefty lens.
EM-1 + 40-150 = 1323 grams
GH4 + 35-100 = 625 grams
I think i’ll feel a lot better walking through Paris all day with my Gh4 in my hand !
That’s more than twice the weight ! And that is starting to count when you like to have more than one lens in your travel bag. Been there, done that. I used to carry the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II all over the place. Not going down that route again. Ever.
Your math is wrong.
GH4 560g + 35-100 360gr = 920gr
E-M1 497gr + 40-150 760gr (without tripod collar) = 1257gr
Not really that big difference
You are right, should have checked the manufacturers site.
But the collar would always be on so the difference is:
1377 gr Olympus – 920 gr Panasonic = 457 grams.
I call 457 grams a lot ! For that weight i can bring a mic, a flash, batteries, charger… AND i can still bring my Nocticron with no penalty ! (if i had it…)
Why it would be always on? At least for me, i don’t think i will ever use it. It all comes down if you will use extra reach (and 1.4TC) or close-up ability. If not, then obviously it would be a waste of money and weight.
> But the collar would always be on
Why do people like you who have no clue about photography post here? maybe try your luck there: http://www.disney.com
If i would buy it, the collar would always be attached because i use a tripod all the time. Time lapse, long shutter speeds.. Do you know what a TL is ? Hmmm… Guess not.
“(if i had it…)”
“If” a lovely expansive word.
I don’t use a tripod so I have never kept the collar on for any of my lenses.
Given the difference in range, the difference in size is very small.
Also, remember that the 40-150mm f/2.8 is very close to 1:2 macro, which means most people will be able to do without a specialized macro lens.
If you are happy with the 35-100, well then that’s perfectly fine. 🙂
What’s the point? Others might like the extra 50mm and the amazing close focus distance of the 40-150mm.
It’s good that we have a choice.
Well, strange… Nobody noticed that
Zuiko is BLACK
Pana is … Purple?
its called purple fringing….
Well done, Sherlock !
This lens is way TOO big for an MFT camera, you can find smaller equivalent quality lenses even for FF SLR!
This lens for example http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732106-USA/Canon_4426B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6L_IS.html is 2cm shorter than Oly 40 – 150, and offer same FOV (on FF), shallower DOF at the wide end and similar price.
So Oly PLEASE try something better next time!
For a size comparison have a look at camera size: http://j.mp/1u2YoGC
P.S. Pany 35 – 100 rules! 😉
Canon is still more heavy and you would end up with even bigger and chunky body, to get same weather sealing and operation speed as e-m1. There is also such thing as focus accuracy and if i remember right, lenses slower than f2.8 can’t use precise focusing sensors. Also it’s not internal zooming, one more weakness for weather sealing. This is the only one thing i dislike about 12-40 oly zoom, it extends during zooming.
Every mid range zoom extends during zooming. 12-40/17-55/24-70 etc
I’m aware of that, only what comes to mind from normal zooms that do not extend are oly 12-50 and nikkor 17-55 f2.8. Just saying that’s the only thing i dislike, everything else is exceptional. Especially enjoying snap focus ring.
Yes heavier but non much.
The Oly lens is for guys who suffer of “penis envy” versus FF cameras! 😉
You have it the other way around. Those who buy FF (especially those canon/nikon tupperware boxes with ancient mirror slappers) in this day and age need to compensate for lacking somewhere else… 🙂
Except your trolling fails as that isn’t equivalent by light density, sharpness or size or weight to that matter.
You tries to compare C-class lens to AAA-class lens.
Which one is the C-class?
your mom
Yours is a T-class
Yeah, that’s a bad comparison.
Please ALBERT….show me a smaller FF 80-300mm f/2.8 AF zoom!?!?!?!?
(and don’t sell me the F/5.6 BS…although a FF f/5.6 would still be WAAAAAAY bigger…this lens light gathers at f/2.8)
That is the funniest thing I EVER heard…dem babies is monsterous!!!!!!
This lens is very small for what it delivers…and apparently is does deliver the goods.
…sooo…please …..enlighten us with that FF lens…I am dying to see it! 🙂
This lens is for guys who suffer of “penis envy” versus FF cameras!
And don’t tell me the BS of f2.8 light gathering, FF sensor is 4 times m43 so it gathers 4 times light (in absolute terms). And has less noise (demonstrable).
And m43 2.8 = FF 5.6 DOF period!
The Canon 70 300 L is equivalent (heavier but shorter) in dimension to Oly, so not much weight advantage over FF SLR here…
If you want big stuff go SLR, MFT is not made for this.
“And don’t tell me the BS of f2.8 light gathering, FF sensor is 4 times m43 so it gathers 4 times light (in absolute terms).”
Uhhh…sorry, no.
So let’s go empirical, Is there someone who can post some pictures of those camera/lens combination side by side to close this dispute?
UPDATE:
Pictures TAKEN with both camera/lenses combination.
I have a better idea. Someone should post a variety of good images shot with FF, APS-C, and m4/3 formats and see how many people can accurately predict what was shot with what.
Any other test is meaningless from a practical standpoint. Empirical tests are for measurebaters and academics … not artists.
You know about ‘bators it seems…
Why no? 4 times the area means (for same f-stop) four times the amount of light (light intensity per area times the sensor area). This is way a picture taken with an equivalent lens (80-300 at 5.6 and four times the ISO) should give the same picture in terms of AOV, DOF and noise.
Why ‘no’ ?
You probably won’t be able to grasp this but let’s give it a try.
IMAGINE you decorate your roof completely with solar panels (FF)
And now imagine you only decorate a quarter of the roof with solar panels. (m43)
With which option you’ll enjoy the lowest energy bill ?
What does an energy bill have to do with a latent image? Yep, you’re right, I don’t grasp that at all, sorry.
So why does this lens bother you? If you don’t want it, don’t buy it. There is a 40-150/4.0-5.6 if you want light weight. This new lens is for people who wants a faster alternative to 4.0-5.6 lens. So beacuse you don’t want it noone else should be allowed to buy one? I think it’s about time for you to just STFU, and you can take that equivalent crap and shove it up somewhere where the light gathering doesn’t matter. This lens is a 2.8 on the cameras it is meant for. I don’t give a rats ar** what it is on a FF.
Hit the mark you suffer of “penis envy”.
Frustrated with your photography huh? Trust me, it’s not the gear, even if it’s crap, which it is.
The advantage of f2.8 light gathering is compensated by the larger FF sensor (= better ISO performance)
You made a statement about lens size…let’s not change the subject…and the Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is not an f/2.8 lens so that comparison does not fly… and the camera body that you attach it to is twice the size of an EM1.
I have a complete Canon kit…the captures are better, no doubt…but MFT has become “very good” in a small package. If you do not see that Albert…you are in denial.
I see that. I was a Canon guy and I own an Olympus body and 12 – 40 f2.8 PRO, but I have to say that I miss my old Panasonic GF-5 (only for the size).
I will not buy a lens big like the Oly 40 -150 f.2.8 PRO because it does not respect the MFT philosophy about size, I think.
That said the comparison is not unfair, they are both PRO/L lenses, weather sealed, equivalent zoom range, equivalent size, equivalent DOF and the advantage of f2.8 light gathering is compensated by the larger FF sensor (= better ISO performance).
You have to admit that they look similar here: http://j.mp/1u2YoGC
You try to sound cunning and provocative, but you come across as an illiterate fool. This is abc you are ignoring man.
m43 is too small already.
I want bigger m43 cameras and lenses.
E-M1 with the 12-40 was a good start.
Not everbody has the hands of a little girl and some people want/need bigger gear while staying with the same format.
Then get a grip or existing ones like E-M1 or even bigger and clumsy like Panasonic GH2/3/4.
If you want a bigger body, go FF.
If you want big stuff go SLR, MFT is not made for this.
Albert, good size comparison. Thanks for the find.
Thanks.
Apples and Oranges – the Canon is an f/4-5.6 variable ratio aperture lens. The Olympus is a fixed f/2.8 lens that practically offers 100mm more reach.
Where did you see 100mm more reach?
Canon is f4-5.6 that in m43 (DOF) terms is f2.0-2.8 so it has swallower DOF at wide(r) end. 😉
The advantage of f2.8 light gathering is compensated by the larger FF sensor (= better ISO performance)
What is “swallower” DOF, exactly? 😉
I don’t understand… You have shown me the same… Pretty much the same everything… Well except the Canon by using an USO two stupid higher had worse Dr and color fidelity…
So I can buy a ff body and have f5.6 focusing issues… Poorer color fidelity and Dr (even if only just it is still there) and fewer features on my camera (as a6d does not even compete with the em1 in many many ways).
But if you want all the ff goodness and preserve the actual advantage of the ff image sensor:
http://j.mp/1pXaZ7M
That is what the Actual ff advantage looks like… And it isn’t even a zoom.
Go back to school and study some math. That lens does not exist for MFT, it would be a 150mm f/1.4 (the closest is the Olympus 150mm four thirds but is only f/2.0).
If someone will create one in the future it wil be a huge lens.
That said, the difference in size/weight of this combination http://j.mp/1u2YoGC is NEGLIGIBLE so the choice between the twos is simply personal. No size/weight advantage for MFT in this case.
And I think that you cannot distinguish pictures taken with one or the other system.
Hey Albert, I think you need to reread my post autocorrect issues aside. I was showing what the full ff advantage looks like.
What happens here to often is people talk about a ff advantage and show an equivalent lens. The only advantage with an equivalent lens is the IQ of the smaller sensor with current technology.
Again, sure a 150mm f1.4 will probably be the same size as a 300mm f2.8… Probably no advantage at all except the smaller sensor is not using the higher I so.
Check it out for yourself, dxo for the measurements, and DPR for the visual comparison. The Canon fares at least half a stop worse than the em1 when using 2 stops higher ISo
Anyway guys, wether you like or not, the two olympus pro zoom lenses are the B&H best sellers lenses in the mirrorless category, including Sony and Fuji. The 40-150 f2.8 is first and the 12-40 f2.8 is second, and was first for several months.
The 40-150 looks amazing, but I need to grab some more primes first.
I find the lack of constructive comments on this site disturbing.
…and tiring.
Where is the content in this remark ?
This is a funny video. I always enjoy TCSTV and their reviews. Same goes for DigitalRev and their reviews. The 40-150 is going to be a great lens. It’s funny that people argue that one lens is better than another when both the Panny 35-100 and Oly 40-150 are pretty awesome lenses in the own categories. If you’re looking for small size, OIS, smoother bokeh, and heavier contrast, the 35-100 is awesome. If you’re looking for reach, excellent sharpness across the FLs, a funny yet cool lens hood, a tripod foot, and an extra function button, the Oly 40-150 is awesome. Ever since I switched off of 135 format to shoot 110 and 645, I’ve been looking for a replacement for my short to medium telephoto zoom lens. I’m really excited to get the 40-150 and if I ever find an excuse to get the 35-100, it would make for a lightweight mid-telephoto zoom which would also be valuable. What I’m really hoping for is a 100/0.95 at some point so I can do those super thin DOF and super low light stuff falling on kid photos. Sure, there’s lots of other uses for that lens but I just love those “stuff” falling on kid photos with the razor thin DOF.
Don’t know how people can favor the Panasonic out of focus rendering (aka bookeh) without being brand fan as it is hars, very easily does doubles and even renders highlights around the edges as cat eyes.
New Olympus instead is very smooth, blends highlights and colors very smoothly and keeps the highlights in their own form at edges too. The transition is clearly smoother with it.
And if someone needs super thin depth of field, you don’t need do it optically but in post process. All what is required is to get DoF enough thin to tell he editor where the border goes, so editor can apply custom blur as wanted.
Sorry, what? Panny doubling the image on bokeh?
Their top end lenses don’t do that, honest.
Get one before you say silly stuff like that.
If you want super-thin DoF you don’t mess about in post, you just get closer to the subject. What is an editor? You have somebody else do it for you? It’s not that easy.
There is slight double image in some cases on pana at f2.8, oly is a bit more smoother transition in samples from this video. I don’t really get how you can favor panasonic for bokeh from samples in this video.
And you need to look at other reviews and examples because both the X12-35 and the X35-100 produce rounded bokeh as good as the DG Summilux 25/F1.4 without doubling the image as some lenses do.
I do have the X12-35 mounted on my GH4, it doesn’t double the image.
The worse advice I ever got from a photographer was to “fix” what is wrong with photos in post. It’s better to get the composition right in camera than to “fix” in post. While I have used the Bokeh plugin for Photoshop and also the lens DOF simulation effects, it really takes too much time to get the same effect which would have been instant on the lens. The 35-100 is a pretty decent lens for the size. While the bokeh does exhibit some flaws here and there, it’s still a pretty decent performer for the size. The cats eye bokeh is almost a given with the zoom design and the optics involved. The Olympus for me is the better lens but it comes at the price of bulk which compared to 135 format is still smaller.
Who cares? I loved the video. Apples and oranges. I’ve got the cheapo mZuiko 40-150mm and I am dumbfounded how often I use the long end. Neither of these lenses is actually big. I guess that means I would favor the PRO mZuiko. Need a rich uncle for either one.
Complete (size) comparison:
– Canon EOS 6D + Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
– Olympus OMD E-M1 + Olympus M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
– Panasonic Lumix DMC GH4 + Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 Asph.
http://j.mp/1CXiovY
Inaccurate comparison – the Canon is an f/4-5.6 variable ratio aperture lens. The Olympus is a fixed f/2.8 lens that practically offers 100mm more reach.
Where did you see 100mm more reach?
Canon is 70 300 that in m43 terms is 35 150 so it has 10/5mm more reach.
The advantage of f2.8 light gathering is compensated by the larger FF sensor (= better ISO performance)
“The advantage of f2.8 light gathering is compensated by the larger FF sensor (= better ISO performance)” yeah, and nearly two stops less light = nearly 2 stops slower shutter speed.
The close focus ability of the zuiko sets it apart for me hands down.
Plus when I want small I can throw on a 17 mm f1.8. Systems should be about versatility in my mind…
Well ok, I use the 20mm f/1.7 when I want small, but sometimes I need a tele zoom and I definitely prefer the Panasonic 35 – 100 f/2.8 (on my Olympus body) because it respect the MFT philosophy about small gear.
The new 40 – 150 is about the same size of comparable lenses for FF format, so not much size/weight advantage.
why you would compare canon 6d with e-m1? Attach e-m5 or e-m10 then
I have 2 comparisons. 1 shows a full 2 stop advantage to a ff camera with a 300mm f2.8 lens giving the ff sensor the touted dof advantage and noise advantage:
http://j.mp/1pXaZ7M
And this one shows the same advantage in a variable zoom lens: http://j.mp/1pXbWgj
However this comparison making the rounds had little to no dof advantage and actually has worse noise, Dr, and color fidelity as per dxo (but eliminates the size and price advantage of the em1). http://j.mp/1CXiovY
There is no free lunch. The ff system is not better when it is the same, it is only better when you buy the good glass.
I’m not telling that one system is better than the other otherwise I forgot Pentax 645z 😉
I only think that the new lens from Olympus made the MFT system loose the size advantage.
That said, the difference in size/weight of this combination http://j.mp/1u2YoGC is NEGLIGIBLE so the choice between the twos is simply personal. No size/weight advantage for MFT in this case.
And I think that you cannot distinguish pictures taken with one or the other system.
P.S. The first two comparisons are unfair, because those lenses are not comparable in terms on equivalence.
Hey Albert, funnily enough the Canon 6d when set at two stops higher Iso has very visible noise and a very real dynamic range penalty.
Iso isn’t a cure for slow lenses, even the superb d4 loses out very slightly when bumped up two stops, but Nikon doesn’t have the top of the line 70-300 like Canon.
Even the 70-200 f4 on the d7100 when used one stop higher iso has a very real noise penalty. Check out the DPR comparison tool.
Of course this only really becomes visible at higher isos such as 1600 vs 3200(apsc) or 6400(ff). But isn’t that when the fast lenses pull their weight?
What’s the deal with all of the size comparisons? People can use Google and I think most photographers on here know how to use camerasize.com. Here, watch, I can do it too =D http://j.mp/1EBwkxz
Have a look at the post “Should M4/3s lenses always be small?” on MirrorLessons
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2014/10/13/should-m43s-lenses-always-be-small-olympus-40-150mm-f2-8-pro-vs-panasonic-35-100mm-f2-8/
I already have the 75mm 1.8 for the E-M1. All i want is a small and lightweight 150mm f2.8 prime lens. ( f2 already exists but is too heavy).