Last week I got the pricing info of the new Olympus 40-15mm f/2.8 PRO lens info for Australia ($1,499 AUSD). Now a US source told me the lens is expected to ship in Q1 2015. price will be in between $1,200 and $1,400 in US.
I hope to get some more info about the other lenses too. Like the 7-14mm, 9mm f/1.8 (if true) and the superfast lens prime.
Official Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 PRO description (via http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/em1_brochure)
Incorporating the same powerful optical and digital technologies developed for the top-of-the-line Zuiko Digital lenses, M.Zuiko PRO series lenses are designed to bring the highest level of professional imaging performance to our line of compact Micro Four Thirds system cameras. The second model in this series is a telephoto zoom lens with 35mm camera-equivalent zoom range from 80mm to 300mm. Built tough to stand up to the harsh demands of professional use, this high-grade lens boasts optical performance with f2.8 brightness throughout the zoom range and a durable dust-/splash-proof structure. Together with the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO standard zoom lens, this new lens enables the PRO series to cover the widest possible range of photographic requirements.
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
156 Responses
Hope this would mean a massive price drop for Pana 35–100. Love the competition.
Maybe, but the size discrepancy between the 35-100 and 40-150 is quite significant. Much more so than the size discrepancy between the panny 12-35 and Oly 12-40.
I’m excited to get one. This this is what I’m waiting for. 150-300mm f/2.8 M.Zuiko PRO is next? I hope so.
I’d be happy to see a 200mm 2.8 prime to start. Now that Oly and Pana both have pro bodies with proper hefty grips, they can justify filling out the lean telephoto end of the lens range.
I’d be happy with a constant f/4 instead. Why is Olympus making a 300mm prime when all the others in the PRO lineup are constant aperture zooms? They should have stayed consistent.
For E-M1 users the fourthirds 50-200SWD may be a better option. It is somewhat longer, keeping the aperture range almost the same. I have had one since 2008 and it is very good. AF on the E-M1 is fast and reliable. The 40-150 Pro will be better for video though.
I bought a used 50-200SWD for my EM1 a few weeks ago. IQ wise I can find no faults. But even with Firmware v1.4 there are areas in AF performance which I find the EM1 lacking. I’m hoping the rumoured firmware will make the AF even better.
The PDAF apparatus of the E-M1 likes vertical lines (in landscape position). When your subject is devoid of contrast in the horizontal direction, slightly tilt the camera when focusing. This should solve it.
I have to wait for next year anyhow (I can’t stretch my marital relationship too far this year ;)), so it will be interesting to how the prices will pan out then. I would still like to get the 50-200 SWD lens as it will serve my use in range better than the pro 40-150, plus I also have an EC14 to use with it as well.
This one will hold its price better than the 12-40 – the latter was sold as a kit lens with the E-M1 at a reduced overall price, and there were many lens sold off separately. Doubt if the 40-150 will appear in kit form
Yes it will. It’ll be the $4K kit (E-M1+12-40+40-150) :o)
And maybe someone will sell their 50-200 (SWD) lens cheaper to pay for it, then I will be happy too. 😀
I have spotted a man with Em1 and 50-200 yesterday in Venice. I wanted to ask him to let me try it, I’m curious about AF, but there were too many people around.
I’m curious to see how this lens will perform though.
I want to try one (50-200) somehow as well. It will help with my decision to splash out & buy one or not.
indeed an interesting alternative
Cheaper than the Nocticron .
Wonder if this lens so called Pro lens can match the great 75mm F1.8 in resolution , sharpness & bokeh .
If yes , I intend to have one .
Bright move to compare a premium quality prime to a telezoom. Though I might think that the 40–150 would keep the pace in a more than decent way.
But I still insist F2.8 not fast enough for m43 , should be F2.0 .
Why can’t Oly make it like what they did in FT history ?
Right, 35–100/F2 equals – say – Nikon 70–200/F4 which is widely used for professional purposes.
No, it is identical to 35-100mm f/2 on small format. Or equals to 70-200mm f/2 on small format by angle of view but has same depth of field as 35-100mm f/2 on small format.
Whatever it is .
For me , m4/3 need to be F2.0 in such focal length , APCmos F2.8 & FF F3.5 .
That is rule of the game in order for respective formats to have optimum image quality , bokeh as well unless there is a real breakthrough in m4/3 format .
Then you can go buy the old Zuiko FT f2.0 lenses and completely lose any size advantage.
The biggest advantage of the MFT lens designing approach over old FT ones is that software corrections are enabled and even preferred. So mirorless lenses can be made much smaller with essentially the same quality. That is, I’m deeply convinced that a Pana 35–100/F2 still would be much smaller and lighter than its original Zuiko counterpart.
I hope that is true and we see something like that one day.
I think that an F2 35-100 would either be very big diameter with total new design lens setup . or like Olympus did(at least i believe in that theory), that the ZD 35-100 used a standard 70-200 f/2.8 version, as its almost the same dimension as a 24×36 zoom in that FL. The inclusion of the much talked FL reducer was never proven or even seen in the xray shot of that lens. As a photographer(I used the lens myself on a E-1)I find the bokeh remarkable esp. at 100mm(the promised FL for the then announced 100mm f/2 prime for the fourthirds system); the focal lenght plus f/2 gave me a nice subtle isolation with a full body shot. Some diehard believers even claim a 2x fl reducer was used but Olympus decided to lock the the mechanism (electronically)at f/2 instead of the f/1.4. I tried the suggested trick to press the lens dismount button to see the gain in speed, but did not work for me. Much is debated about this on Dpreview and experts were into it, pro and contra. It was nice to follow but in te end i think not many discussed the output of that lens as trained eyes can see the difference or similarity with 24×36 output at 200mm@2.8
the FT SHG line used the philosophy “neglect size advantage, deliver higher then 24×36 quality” while HG went the “give more compact size, maintain the 24×36 quality” road.
Let’s be fair.
35–100/F2 on MFT is equivalent to 70–200/F4 FF in nearly all aspects: FOV, DOF, low light behaviour. Which is nothing about shame: 70–200/F4 is a highly demanded, professional tool.
An F/2 lens has an extra two stops of light compared to an F/4 lens, regardless of sensor size.
But gathering light for a sensor with just ¼ part of surface you lose exactly 2 stops, that is, you should use 4 times smaller ISO value to gain the same signal/noise ratio.
That is a moving target due to sensor technology advances. Let’s say you are shooting with a 5D1 and an EM1. The EM1 sensor is better or equal in every way to the 5D1 so the SNR doesn’t apply here. What does apply as a constant: F4 on FF and F4 on m43’s will give you the same properly exposed image at the same shutter speed and same ISO.
You should compare EM1 to A7R or D810, not to a Canon sensor which is known to be lagged behind. I admit that best MFT sensors still have an edge over best FF sensors (I mean normalised on surface ratio, that is, they are sensible better than the expected 2 stops handicap) but the difference is not so dramatic.
So, only compare them to the current class leading sensors? So, no photographers use any Canon bodies? No photographers use any FF cameras for 1-2 generations ago either?
You’re intentionally using examples to support your weak argument and excluding the other 80% of DSLRs in use that disproves it.
Right, but then we are also comparing cameras that cost well over twice the EM1 ;). Of course the A7R and 810 will have better IQ, just like my tricked out $2,000 desktop computer runs circles around my $1,000 Dell latitude work laptop. I still get most of my productivity done on the $1,000 machine though.
Forget about ‘gathering light’ BS & sizes etc. An F/2 lens is a bright lens in any format/sensor size & the resulting shutter speed will be the same for the same ISO (allowing for some small variation between companies etc. with their ISO scaling accuracy).
But you shouldn’t treat MFT ISO 100 and FF ISO 100 as equivalent from the point of view of the resulting image.
If I want a cleaner image in a smaller format I would go to a lower ISO, but too many get sooooo hung on that, that it becomes such a nonsense argument, unless you want to print poster size prints. Pixel Peepers don’t count.
Yes, that’s the point! You should go to a lower iso hence you’ve just lost the advantage of your lens’ brightness. THIS means the so-called equivalence.
And you’ve missed my point too. Pixel Peepers don’t count!
It all depends on what you want the image for & if you want to lug heavy gear everywhere or not. Life is one big compromise full of choices!
Nope. The surface area has nothing to do with light collection. Take a objective designed for 35mm camera and mount with adapter to m4/3 and you don’t get 2 stops less light.
You get exactlysames amount of light but cropped view.
Read what it is encarved to that objective and that is its optical characteristics. M4/3 camera only gives you same angle of view as 2x longer focal length does.
No less light, no optical magnification changes, no less sharpness, no deeper depth of field etc etc. Only angle of view gets changed narrower.
The noise is not causes by optics. You can umount objective from camera and you get always same noise no matter the optics front of it.
The noise comes from electronics and digital technology being different in different cameras, not from sensor size.
The sensor size only applies to possibilities what kind electronics can be implemented to sensor and that what kind gain amplifiers (1st noise generator) and A/D conversion processor (2nd noise generator) can be added and then finally what kind a CPU to manipulate digital data and store it as RAW/JPEG (3rd noise generator).
There are three main noise generators AFTER the electronic sensor. We can use same sensor and different parts of those three others and have TOTALLY different noise quality. The difference can be like 4-6 stops at best or serious patterns changes etc.
Negative. You do receive 2 stops less light as the greater part of light will hit outside the MFT sensor (but inside the hypothetical FF sensor around the MFT one).
Damn it… Olympus!!!!
I sold ZD 35-100 for this lens!!!!
the zd 35-100 is a beast, both in dimensions and performance(and the myths around it)
This is great. I just hope they actually deliver in Q1 so I can acquire one and use it at Jazz Fest next year. Been using an old Canon 200mm 2.8 FD manual focus lens the past couple years at jazzfest, I’m ready to trade 50mm for the saved weight and AF.
Given the range, and Oly’s excellent track record with fast digital zooms, the price is very fair even at 1400US, in my opinion. My EM-5 eagerly awaits it’s new best friend.
50mm feels nothing, but when the equivalence is 100mm, it can feel big. As going from 8.2 degree to 6 degree can be something important.
I find price good as long it isn’t translated to euros instead converted.
There’s been some steep price drops on the 12-40mm f2.8 since launch. Wonder if it’s worth just waiting out a year for this and save a couple hundred bucks. I love my 12-40mm, but a few hundred here can buy another speedlite!
And few hundred bucks is like one phtography client case.
For some people that couple hundred bucks can be whole month money for food.
Everyone can priorize their account incomes.
Admin,
any new rumors about a mFT TC?
Cost of this thing $1,200-$1,400. I have three FT bodies plus four mFT bodies but I will NEVER buy this thing. Because I also have a Pentax (K-30), much better performance than the “flagman” E-M1 (see DXoMark) and bought at a fraction of the E-M1 cost.
And the cost of the very very similar Tamron AF 70-200mm 2,8 for Pentax is ~$700.
All right, the Tamron may be a little heavier and larger but the 40-150 will hardly perform any better. And, of course, add in the size of the sensor ….
Why, FGS, should this thing for a small sensor cost $1,200-$1,400 instead of $700?
some days Sony boys come here to spread FF …now we have APSC Pentax here 🙂
Peace!!!
Even as an almost daily m43 user I must say that Jankoff has a point. If gear is very large in the first place one might opt for a (perfectly fitting) larger body – APS-C or FF. I own the stabilized Tamron 70 – 200mm 2.8 and would not trade it for the Oly. This is not to say there is anything wrong with Oly.
but Oly lens is “1st” brand lens like cannon/nikon …so if you compare to 70-200 Canikon ..the 1400 is bargain
basicaly i will be surprised if the price is 1200eur(live in eu) anyway this lens is out of my budget and i dont need such reach anyway
Of course, I have a point – and my own experience. As I wrote some days ago, I have the FT version of the Sigma 150mm 2.8, a very good lens, bought it second-hand perfect, for less than €250. On FT it focuses well, on mFT practically NOT AT ALL (misses terribly). IQ-wise on FT it performs satisfactorily, on mFT much better, but only MF. On FT I lose the powerful Sony sensor and subsequently the IQ. On mFT I lose the AF. Furthermore, manual focus on mFT is comfortable only with the VF-4, a thing that again costs a lot of money. With lower resolution smaller viewfinders it is a torture. All right, I can use it with the VF-4. But the loss of AF is simply infuriating – because it is there and at the same time unusable.
Olympus could have made a DSLR with the new sensor and stabilization. They didn’t. They could have – easily.
They could have made a normal reasonably priced mFT PDAF-enabled body. They didn’t. They could have – easily.
That’s why I partially migrated to Pentax! Although I have 20 FT and mFT lenses and 7 (seven) FT/mFT bodies! I am not going to wait for years on end for someone at Olympus to start thinking in moral terms. Olympus are hardly going to get any more money from me, unless they start behaving reasonably.
You say you have 20 FT and mFT lenses, 3 FT and 4 mTF bodies, and you’re arguing about the relatively high price of a high quality lens?
Do you always bargain 1 or 2 bucks for your box of caviar or what? 😉
So you think you have a point? I don’t think so. It is a complex legitimate strategy to abandon a product line, if it can’t be successfull anymore and if it is outdated technology anyway. Sooner or later, most DSLR manufacturers will follow.
In my opinion Olympus did exactly what you ask for: it released a very reasonably priced camera body with PDAF on sensor and arguably the best EVF on the market: the E-M1. It fits perfectly to the FT lenses with adapter and also to the upcoming 2.8/40-150mm.
If you can only afford a cheap body together with your high end FT lenses (or whatever you have), it is not Olympus’ problem. If you managed to pay for so many bodies as you claim, an E-M1 should be easy for you to afford.
You are welcome to move to Pentax, if you really want to carry heavier and larger equipment.
(Reply to bozo as well.) All right, I will buy a E-M1. But I will buy it for $969 as per today at amazon com (no US warranty but one year full international warranty by Olympus). I will not buy it for €1500 as they are trying to force it onto me today at idealo de (check the website). $969 is a fair price of this camera, equivalent to €750. And it’s not a problem of MY money, or anybody’s – one is free to spend his/her money as he/she likes. It’s a problem of moral understanding and behavioral norms – these impel me, and most (though not all) people, not to buy a bar of soap for €2 if it realistically costs €1. If they urge me to buy a bar of soap for €2 when it really costs €1, no, I don’t buy it. Because it would send an immoral message.
That Sigma 150mm (macro) f/2.8 lens won’t AF on the E-M5 but works very nicely on the E-M1 (with PD-AF). I’m glad I kept it!
I have a Sony A850 (FF), A Sony A77 (APS-C) and an Olympus EM5 (m43) and my life is complete~
You can go to look DXoMark stats showing how your wanted camera is better than E-M1. I go to look framed photos taken with E-M1 and see how they are better than photos from any other camera.
That Tamron lens is “decent” at best. It’s much bigger, has noisy and slow auto-focus and probably won’t provide the crispness and quality as this new Olympus lens. DxoMark does NOT compare overall image quality. Better to compare real IQ is dpreviews studio shot comparison. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp There you can see that your Pentax K-30(which actually is a nice camera) does not do any better then an E-M5 for example. Plus: If you compare features from E-M1 to Pentax K-30, Pentax falls WAY short. But you’re comparing apples to oranges.
@ Mark: I am puzzled. You are comparing a real world lens with one that will appear in Q1 2015. The Tamron is not perfect at 70mm (there is some distortion) but LR happily takes care of that. The achievable results are impressive.
Would I want to attach a submarine to my GX7? Absolutely not. To a an E-M1? Maybe – but I would only do that if I did not already have a ‘decent’ zoom lens.
Using what criteria and technical means could you manage to determine the difference between K-30 and E-M5/E-M1? Using what lenses? Different lenses? How could you manage to assess the crispness of the never yet touched or even seen new Olympus lens?
You’re right about the lens. I assume it’s as good as the 12-40, and that may not be correct.
Anyway, my point is that you’re comparing a “very good for the money” lens with a premium lens. And then you say it’s overpriced. High quality lenses from Nikon or Canon are also more expensive then 3rd party alternatives, but they are, more often then not, also a notch better(that may or may not be be worth the money for YOU).
The handling failure you’re talking about…mFT consist of a lot of camera’s. From very small to pretty big. The bigger camera’s as the E-m1 or GH3/4 handle fine with large lenses(FT also), and then you also got battery grips if it’s insufficient.
“Premium” is an empty label, even worse. The E-M1, being “premium”, costs three times more than the Pentax K-30, a better camera failing to be “premium”. Worse than empty, it is laughable. Because, being “premium”, the E-M1 costs even more than the FF Sony 7. Check prices today at idealo de – you may be surprised. E-M1 costs €1500, Sony 7 €1200.
I certainly am dismayed. At both Oly fanboy vanity buying this camera (if it really does) and at Oly management short-sightedness.
P.S. Just checked – in the US the Sony 7 is below the $1200 mark while the E-M1 is BELOW the $1000 mark. I would say, €750 (=$1000) is a much more realistic price for the E-M1. Obviously, unlike the European one, the American market is governed by common sense.
So why o why do a lot of people buy a E-M1 then? And why o why do a lot of direct comparisons between the two have the E-M1 as a winner?
Maybe because it’s a much better suited to their needs. As it is to mine.
A7(x) has a great sensor, but aside from that it has absolutely nothing on a E-M1 or GH4. It’s slow, has a lot of “quirks”(that Sony doesn’t seem to care about), lenses overall are lacking and big.
I prefer a great all-round handling camera that I can use in the real world without a tripod. And yes there are times then I would like to shoot at ISO 6400+without getting lots of noise, but those are very rare.
And lets not fotget that even my primes are stabilized so I don’t need those high ISO’s as often.
Good read for you maybe: http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2013/11/11/tempted-by-the-sony-a7r.html
You’re the one that is short-sided and think that you need full frame to take pictures.
So it seems you make a Pentax campaign here. The K-30 might be cheaper, but it can’t really match the quality of a E-M1. Plus the E-M1 has the advantage of having an EVF, whereas the K-30 only sports an optical view finder. I wonder also what the K-30 raw buffer size is.
Luminous Landscape provides a history lesson about the quality of Olympus’s 43ds zoom lenses and points to the benefit of having the E-M1 to take advantage of them.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/one_upon_a_time.shtml
Amout the high grade lenses he wrote “It’s hard to overstate how good these lenses are. Of these fourteen lenses all but three are zooms. The lenses are also relatively expensive. But more to the point only the very best lenses from a handful of camera makers can even come close to the image quality that these lenses offer. Just do a Google search on any of them. You’ll find plenty of reviews on most, and you’ll find as well that almost universally they are very highly regarded. Simply among the best zoom lenses out there.”
He also wrote: “Cameras come and go in the digital era. They have a half-life of about 12-18 months. But lenses, and especially great lenses can be forever.”
Now Olympus is developing lenses with comparable quality for m43 making a small but extremely capable combination. I can’t afford them right now, but am glad they are being built and look forward to when I get to use them.
Regards
Now Olympus is d Zuiko l
FT Zuiko high grade WERE good lenses – up to the point when the new powerful sensors came. They were good lenses on weak sensors. If they were as great as you – along with some reviewers etc. – think, why did Olympus abandon them? In order to make new lenses??? Why the effort?
A7 is far from Premium. Too much problems and flaws as the A7r does have too.
And the american doesn’t have common sense.
i find super/fast teles on 35mm consumer class 35mm bodies also not really convenient.(worked 5years with a 400mm Canon L series plus EOS 50 in a lifting ramp or rooftops). and a mft version super tele is possibly much smaller so i dont see your point.
We can assess it by looking at the 12-40mm f2.8s performance and noting it matches Olympus’ assertion of Pro grade. We could also look at the f2 FT zooms Olympus has made and see that they have a formidable track record of making outstanding zooms and infer that if they are calling this thing Pro, they have the demonstrated technical ability to deliver on that.
Why do people always ask these questions about every pro level MFT lens? If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
bro can you borrow me one body and lens? 🙂
Are you seriously comparing this to a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8? Are you really that retarded?
Why so expensive? No stabilization and sigma’s 50-150 with stabilization is a lot less.
Why does Nikon 70-200/2.8 cost almost twice as much as Sigma 70-200/2.8?
’cause it’s mo’ better!
Because it’s Nikon brand. It’s the same difference between china Nike shoes and the same no name china shoes 🙂
Nikon lens does not have less abilities than the Sigma. It actually has a very good OS and outperforms the Sigma lens by a good margin.
’cause we need more Sigma mft (native) primes and zooms 🙂
That would be what keeps the MFT format alive in the long run.
sigma is for many mounts, so guess they make more potential profit. Olympus is only for one mount and is prob better? but your point about price makes sense to some people. My bet is that the Olympus might perform better. The OIS is valuabe for the top of the line GH series
Not so sure the Olympus will perform better. The sigma 50-150 is an exceptional lens. If it is anywhere near as good as the sigma lens it will be a winner. Though an expensive winner.
i am just guessing, btw did you use this Sigma on a MFT body?
Not this one no. Though did try the Sigma 150-500mm which is a mediocre lens and was surprised how well it held up on the small sensor. Also did the Nikkor 300mm f4 and that was excellent. Though the 300mmf4 and Tamron teleconverter did show some degradation it was still very usable.
I hope it will be this cheap, but I doubt it.
$1200 – $1400
I know the price, I just don’t think it will be that cheap.
Olympus overpriced their prime lenses, but they are giving relative bargains for their PRO zooms. With so much more range, this is a steal compared with the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. Sure, the Panny has OIS, but the Oly surely uses more material, likely with similar optical quality as well.
With “so much range”, to follow your expression, distortion and softness and other nasty things start creeping in.
Instead of a 40-150 I would rather have primes on two or three small E-PM2s (that have higher ISO capacity compared to any other mFT body).
For example, 45mm Oly and FT Sigma 150mm 2.8.
Or three E-PM2s, with, e.g. Pana 20 (1.7) or 25mm (1.4), Sigma 60mm 2.8 and Sigma 150mm 2.8. Perfect for tourism and similar activities, covering 20mm-150mm at 2.8 AT LEAST.
Volume and weight a little bigger but IQ profit – immense!
Given the quality of the O 2.8/12-40mm, which is better than the primes in its range, there is no reason to assume that prime lenses would have better IQ than the O 2.8/40-150mm. The times, where primes are always better than zooms are over.
“O 2.8/12-40mm … better than the primes in its range”
You must be joking. If you have never made your own comparisons, at least have a look at the DXoMark data, e.g. http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-12-40mm-F28-PRO-versus-Panasonic-Leica-Summilux-DG-25mm-F14___1233_0_450_0
Please, don’t talk about things you don’t know.
I own and use the 2.8/12-40mm since November 2013. It is my currently most used lens. I use and own the following primes: O 2.0/12mm, P 2.5/14mm, O 1.8/17mm, P 1.4/25mm, O 1.8/25mm, O 1.8/45mm, O 2.8/60mm Macro, O 1.8/75mm.
From those primes I have used, the O 1.8/75mm and the O 2.8/60mm are sharper/better than the zoom. The O 1.8/45mm and the O 1.8/25mm have about the same IQ. For the rest, the O 2.8/12-40mm is clearly better.
So, don’t tell me about DxOMark and my own comparisons. I have made them enough. And you better get rid of your prejudice about high quality zooms like the O 2.8/12-40mm and the upcoming O 2.8/40-150mm.
This is your eyes, you have the right to believe them as much as you like.
But DXoMark says: Oly 12-40mm 2.8 has sharpness 9.
And 7 mFT primes have sharpness between 10 and 12.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Short-telephoto-and-standard-focal-lengths
Of course, do I trust my eyes more than what DxO says. You have no idea about the sample quality DxO tested, and how exactly the test conditions were.
Have you personally compared the O 2.8/12-40mm to the primes I mentioned (and compared)? Have you?
True, we do not know the exact DXoMark conditions but I think DXoMark can generally be trusted – and there is a consensus among the society of photographs that they can be trusted. With respect to the particular issue here, I think their assessment of distortion in Oly 12-40 and PanaLeica 25 is completely incorrect. DXoMark state that Oly 12-40 has better distortion characteristics than the PanaLeica prime. This is simply impossible if 12mm is taken into account. They do not explain how they measure distortion and how they compare primes to zooms in terms of distortion, at least not here: http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/Distortion-LCA-and-vignetting Maybe they measure distortion in a zoom at its medium focal distance or at its best.
In the same vein, I haven’t compared O 2.8/12-40mm to the primes but I own the FT 12-60 and have compared it to the primes. No comparison in terms of sharpness, no comparison in terms of distortion. Distortion in FT 12-60 is drastic at 12mm. And couldn’t be otherwise. Must I believe Oly have made a better lens with the 12-40 in terms of distortion at 12mm? No, would be beyond any reason.
I have, and the benefit for them against 12-40mm is negligible. That is reason I like it because it replace bunch of top primes by speed/weight/sharpness/size and especially weather proof.
If you are willing to sacrifice 2-5% sharpness to zoom. But everyone in their ways.
You can be sure, you don’t sacrifice anything. The 2.8/12-40mm IS sharper than most primes.
This is your own statement, I would call it wishful thinking, no offence meant. You have the right not to believe DXoMark, I believe them – and my observations coincide with theirs.
Which observations? Do you use the zoom and the primes? Should I trust DxOMark more than my eyes?
A day ago you claimed 12-40 was better and sharper than all the primes with the exception of only two. You even rated the 12-40 higher than the P 1.4/25 – that you said you owned. Some hours ago you changed your opinion or, rather, statement. Now the PanaLeica 25mm, which is the second best mFT lens IMO, and in the DXoMark rating, remains out of your consideration. You have the right of changing opinion and you are doing it in the right direction. Next correct step will be admitting 12-40 and E-M1 are good products but heavily overpriced.
I haven’t changed my statements one iota, read more carefully. You make bold and wrong statements apparently without having used the lenses. That is the biggest problem with your posts. And no, the products you mention, are reasonably priced. You can’t afford them, that is your problem. Go somewhere else and continue to wheep.
Game over.
Lovely. A true clash of titans…
Those times were over in the 1990’s when Olympus released the OM Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8. That was better than all but maybe two of the OM primes of equivalent or near focal length.
Dude, we’re not talking of some sort of cheap-o zoom lens here that’s why it’s called a “pro” zoom lens. They have already thought of the cons that will always come with a zoom lens esp. when compared to primes. But Olympus, with it’s venerable 12-40 f2.8 lens, proved that zoom lens can “nearly” match the image quality of primes but with added versatility of that extra reach. Of course, they have the technology to somewhat counteract the downsides of a zoom lens. Just look at the price! :))
You think this lens is heavy, but you are OK with the 920gram Sigma 150mm f/2.8? You realize this lens will not weigh anywhere near as much as 920 grams, right?
I will gladly bear the burden of some 400g more in return for better IQ, etc.
Higher ISO capacity???? To any other m4/3 camera???? Seriously?
Seriously, yes, and not my assessment. Check DXoMark.
While the extra range is nice, this is going to be a much bigger and heavier lens than the Panasonic 35-100. I think this will be great lens, but personally, I’d rather have the panasonic as I feel it would get more use simply because it would actually fit in my camera bag and not weigh it down that much.
Looks like a beauty…I look forward to the reviews.
People talking equivalences with these lenses really miss the point. When you arguing that this lens is equivalent to a full frame 80-300mm f/2.8 or f/5.6 you are really not getting it.
These various equivalences only work in ranges where MFT and FF systems overlap in abilities. But when you choose a FF system, you do it for the abilities that have no overlap with other systems to begin with:
– No MFT sensor has the SNR, dynamic range and color separation of a FF camera set to ISO 50/100/200/400.
– No MFT lens delivers the bokeh of a FF lens set to f/0.95 or f/1.2.
– Current MFT sensors cannot match the resolution of 24 and 36 mp FF sensors.
thank you for lecturing us dummies
So you’re saying that your Full Frame system is actually a piece of shit compared to medium format systems? Why would you ever want to buy that?
Acually the best MFT sensor to date (GH4) beats easily even the Canon flagship (1Dx) speaking about dynamic range: 12.8 stops vs. just 11.8 (sic!)
And just compare bright lenses (F0.95 or even F1.2) on MFT and FF respectively. No F1.2 lenses can be really used wide open on FF (not speaking about F0.95 ones), as opposite to MFT where e.g. Nocticron shines even on birghtest aperture.
I dont necessary mean that MFT cameras would be equally good as FF ones but such comparisons always should be taken with a grain of salt.
Beats Canon according to what? DxOMark claims the same about my E-P5’s dynamic range, and yet the dynamic range of that camera is a joke compared to any FF camera I’ve ever used, including Canon models.
I don’t understand what you are trying to prove about the bright lenses. In the best case scenario an f/0.95 lens on MFT produces the bokeh of a f/1.8 lens on full frame. There are plenty of sharp f/1.8 full frame lenses, but MFT does not give you the option for more bokeh if you want it.
Again, if you stay within certain constraints, one can find equivalences, but FF lets you go outside of those constraints. That’s the appeal. Not the equivalent scenarios.
From close distance the 50/1.2 from Canon is hard to accurately focus. But I know wedding photographers wanting to get a nice separation when shooting from about 4m to 6 m distance (the last wedding I attended was in a location where the curtains where pretty awful; my wife was happy to have a fast 50mm with her, an 1.2 would have been great. Not every wedding takes place at an idyllic location, unfortunately). kesztio: Regarding GH4 vs. 1dx: better DR is when looking at base ISO. From ISO 400 things change (and as people talk of equivalence: ISO needs to be multiplied by crop^2 for proper comparison for same total light gathering, besides changing f-stop and focal length). However, GH4 is a very capable camera, being sufficient for most photographic situations and having the advantage of using the latest sensor tech.
You can’t multiple ISO or aperture because sensor size. It doesn’t work that way. Just trust me.
I guess you mean that ironically (if not read the DPreview article on equivalence).
This is true: 24×36 beats a smaller sensor regarding to the backgroud defocussing capabilities if using same fov lenses. But many mft users here dont give dam about that advantage, which says alot about their attitude. On the other side you have the mft users who try desperately to get every bit of better isolation while trying to stay with this system(i am one of them) those get the advice to switch to the bigger sensor. On the other hand i think thtat cdaf accuracy helps the optics in showing what they can, more then the pdaf via a mirror.btw Canon’s 85 L is very useable at f/1.2. its bokeh impact makes you forget if the sharpness is optimal (its very good but not exceptional as most readers need to hear these days)
“backgroud defocussing capabilities if using same fov lenses”
Using equivalent.
If we use two times linger focal length we get two times narrower acceptable depth of field area because magnification is two times bigger. If we use shorter focal length we have two times deeper acceptable depth of field.
So if we place 25mm vs 50mm and both are f/2.8 we have two magnification differences.
We get to have same depth of field if we use same focal length. And then m4/3 camera has less cropping possibilities in post or tighter crop than larger sensor with same focal length, but both have identical depth of field from same distance.
It can be said that larger sensor size gives more cropping and doesn’t require to get it correct in camera as m4/3 does.
And today things are different as it was 10 years ago, meaning we can defocus background or foreground very easily and 35mm doesn’t offer any benefit when it comes to narrow depth of field as we can manipulate it in post as long we have something to start with and that requires a f/1.8 or even just f/2.8 for m4/3 to give clear difference.
Mostly, changing DOF in post looks unnatural. If its possible in PS, do it for 100s of images, it takes a lot of time. And if software becomes so good, that it is possible easily, then we need to discuss the art of photography itself, as everyone is able to easily manipulate images without thinking beforehand about composition, lighting … As then every smartphone user will be able to do it, too, flooding the market with millions of images, what will be left to explore?
i post yuo can only influence the blur, but not not other stats which contribute to total impression of the oof areas, this is a typical beginners attitude. Indeed extreme manipulating of original photos is a questionable point.
are you serious?
Well, my EM-5 has better DR at base ISO than my old 5D mk II had.
One way to verify it is by shooting a scene underexposing it by -5 EV and then overexposing by the same amount in post-processing phase.
Shadow noise even with current Canon sensors look like crap and there’s horrible amount of striped noise which looks very ugly.
“Bokeh” doesn’t mean “out of focus”. It means the LOOK of the Out of Focus areas.
You can have a out of focus areas what are ugly as colors doesn’t mix well together, highlights are sharp or gets twisted some manner. Or have beautiful color mixing, highlights are soft and blends to surroundings and so on.
And that he said, rarely 35mm (that is the ” Small Format” BTW and not a “full frame”, we do not live on film era any more where we have ” full-frame” and “half-frame” cameras using same 135 film other giving twice the amounts of frames from same film length) cameras objectives has a sharp lenses at wide open, while MFT) objectives are different case giving you ultimately the sharp result at widest aperture.
“Bokeh” is Japanese for “blur”.
No MFT third user can match a FF windbag for pretentiousness, condescension and techno-pomposity.
Or male insecurity.
Mike is right: this lens sucks! Anyone who buys it should send it to me so I can dispose of it properly!
I don’t even charge for this valuable service. I’m looking to extend it to other m4/3 products.
Yes, yes, yes, we’ve all heard all of these arguments before. And a FF itself is constrained in the same ways as MFT when compared to 6×4.5, 6×6, 6×9 or even large format. The whole point of MFT is high quality / small package. You accept the drawbacks going in. But there are benefits, too. For example, if you are shooting wildlife, then the crop factor is a benefit, not a drawback. And if you are shooting macro, then the double DOF for the equivalent aperture is a benefit, too. For me, the allure is the high-quality / small package benefit. I can (and do) carry my camera and a minimum of 3 lenses everywhere I go which would be hard to do with a FF system (which isn’t just the weight, but also the volume and space taken up in my pack). So much of good photography is right place / right time / right light and many times it just happens in the theatre of life, rather than going searching for it. Is the quality as high as a FF? No, but the sensors are so good now, it doesn’t have to be. I’ve shot weddings on MFT. Clients have never had a problems with the images I’ve provided. For 90% of shots the less DOF does not matter, and for the other 10%, if you’re relying on DOF to make or break the shot, it was probably a lousy shot to begin with.
As soon as I saw a post about this lens I knew there would mostly be comments complaining about the price. People, great lenses are always expensive. From any of the major brands. Geez Louise.
Half the complainers don’t even own m43. The other half will buy this lens anyway.
I’m eager to try this lens and see the reviews.
But at this size, price, and launch schedule, it certainly invites comparison to Fuji’s forthcoming releases.
Tiny M4/3 primes seem unbeatable in size while still delivering great quality. But the fast zooms give back a lot of the size and price advantage. I’m curious to see what the Fuji 2.8 twins cost.
Agreed. I’m on the same boat. The Fuji twins have an advantage of about 3/4 stop in shallow depth of field (due to difference in sensorsize), but at the cost of size and weight. The Oly 40-150 has longer reach than the fuji 55-140 and therefore gains in shallow depth of field at the longer side ( focal length). Apart from the costs it’s for me the difference in size/weight that is an important factor, but in the end it is all about image quality ( i.e.difference in colorizing jpeg engine of both brands).
The Fuji is comparable to the Panasonic 35-100, not the Olympus 40-150mm.
That would be amazing if this comes in at $1,200 MSRP.
With two systems and a choice between Pentax and mFT, suppose I need a wide zoom. Should I buy the Oly 12-40 2.8 or the Sigma 18-35 1.8? Just checked the price of these two at idealo de. Oly 12-40 2.8 – €1000; Sigma 18-35 1.8 – €700. For what reason, apart from volume and weight, should I want a 30% more expensive lens that is slower and for a smaller and weaker sensor? I am making the comparison with the Oly 12-40 2.8 presuming that the price of the 40-150 will be similar to the 12-40.
You said the reason: because it is smaller and lighter. And why should the sensor be weaker? If you want a bulky system go head and stick with Pentax DSLR, while we m4/3 users enjoy a system with smaller cameras and lenses of at least equal quality. aif you want to have a smaller camera system, you need to shrink the sensor. An equivalent to the O 2.8/40-150mm from Pentax APSC would be a lot larger and heavier.
mFT is perfect for small primes but Oly could have done much better commercially if they had also produced a DSLR with the new sensor and stabilization for larger zooms etc. or a sensibly priced DSLR-like PDAF-enabled body. They didn’t. And I am happy now with the two systems, having much larger opportunities to choose whichever type of lens would be better both IQ- and money-wise.
I could have stayed with Oly only, had they acted sensibly. And here I am explaining why I wouldn’t go with Oly for a large zoom, and why there are better opportunities elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that.
Olympus did the only sensible option: to stop a commercially unsuccessful system, which is essentially a dead end.
I think so to…the FT had a hard time against its competitors,,,,we can only wonder how the system developed with an e-m5 sensor in it, Dpreview’s usual laborstyle approach would give the much needed positive recommendation, which most people need before they buy into a system and stay. FT was great. The decidsion to go for smaller dimensions as priority was only working with newer sensors and (again) Dpreview backup. Personally I never care for newer sensors but that is just me.
A reply to mahler and Ulli Bürer.
That’s normal for FT and mFT to have a hard time against larger sensors. IMO there are two areas where FT and mFT have an advantage: the first one is with the long reach – for which you need a large body with a good handling, the second one with small wide primes mounted on small bodies (these bodies are almost unusable with tele zooms). In the long-reach department, Oly ruled – there was nothing like, e.g., the 70-300 zoom in terms of reach and volume/weight among all APS-C systems. BUT! To continue their rule in this department Oly had to continue producing DSLRs or DSLR-like bodies at sensible prices with the new sensor and stabilization. They abandoned it – and this was a very serious, even terrible, mistake. I myself would be more than happy to carry around two E-PM2s with PanaLeica 25mm and Sigma 60mm and one E-550 or E-650 (small like the E-620) with the Oly 70-300 or the Sigma 150mm 2.8. Instead, Oly tried to force me into buying an exorbitantly expensive gadget (E-M1) and this sealed their fate. I partly migrated to Pentax – along with many other FT users who bought Nikon, Sony etc. – at a small fraction of the cost of the E-M1. Now I have a larger and more powerful sensor and the opportunity, e.g., for a great inexpensive bokeh-capable prime, 50 1.8, non-existent with mFT. And I may even think of a tele zoom or prime to replace the 70-300, in spite of its greatness. Will carry the larger physical burden but will be happy to use it on a more powerful sensor. My other option would be to buy a E-M1 for $970 from the US – but even this is an unnecessarily high price to pay.
it sounds a bit like contradiction that you find one body too expensive, choosing another system instead while yuo have too many bodies already in yuor bag
I already explained somewhere that I am angry at not being able to use two good lenses on a powerful sensor: Oly 70-300 and Sigma 150 2.8. Well, I can, but only on the very expensive E-M1 – which, shamefully, has 20% less ISO capacity than the four times less expensive E-PM2, i.e., it is not such a powerful sensor. The E-PM2 itself is a great machine but not for large lenses. That’s why I decided to try the Pentax. Powerful sensor plus body stabilization plus good handling. No experience with it yet though.
You can use your expensive lenses on a reasonably priced body, called E-M1. If you can’t afford that body, don’t blame Olympus. Find a better paid job or save some money. The latter should not be that difficult as you were able to buy your previous Olympus gear.
Congratulations, you have won the “imbecile of the week” award. I hope you will find a proper job, you cannot go on posting bs for 10 cent a line. Feel free to quote the award in your numerous interviews, in your quest for a new brilliant career. I hope it will give you the luck you deserve.
wait yuo are the lone ranger who promotes the EPM2 all the time?
apart from size and weight? You would also choose the 12-40 for more range (wider and more telephoto), weather sealing and some pseudo macro abilities.
No. For more range I would mount the Pana 20mm 1.7 or PanaLeica 25mm 1.4 on a first body (small, eg E-PM2) and Oly 45mm 1.8 on a second body. Less cost, hardly more weight. A little more volume, indeed, but HUGE advantages in IQ. For even more range, in addition to the two cameras already described, I would carry a third small body with the inexpensive but absolutely glorious Sigma 60mm 2.8.
What do I do with the 12mm? Easier than child’s play! I stitch a panorama (horizontal or vertical, doesn’t matter) from two or more shots in 20 or 25mm, obtain an immensely more interesting and vibrant picture, and not only equal but even greatly exceed the 12mm!
As for weather sealing, this does not interest me personally.
Please, stop posting false statements here. You claim the advantage of primes is HUGE over the O 2.8/12-40mm ? Do you speak of own experience?
I own the primes you mention AND the O 2.8/12-40mm. The O 2.8/12-40mm is at least on par of them (certainly very close), and is significantly better than most of the primes in its range: O 2.0/12mm, P 2.5/14mm, O 1.7/17mm.
Thus, the advantage of the primes cannot be HUGE !!
I write here, because of my own experience, but you apparently have not used the 2.8/12-40mm. You just notoriously quote DxOMark.
I recommend everybody trusting his own eyes instead of believing persons, which don’t have personal experience.
(If you have that experience, you haven’t said that clearly enough.)
You changed your statement – initially all the primes were below the 12-40, and now it’s only three LOL I completely agree about these three, in line with DXoMark. You are trying to cconvince yourself what a great purchase you have made with the 12-40.
For no reason. M43 has the worst price / quality ratio on the market.
They should make one in beige and call it the, “John Holmes edition”. That thing is too big. I’d do the Pani just for the size.
The previous Oly 4/3 zooms were also considered big and they’re legendary. They also cost $2,000 so if this one comes in at $1200.00 with similar optical quality they will sell. Because I’ve never sprung big $ on one, every single wide range zoom I’ve ever used has always ultimately disappointed me on some level. So I return to primes. But this one… ?
This lens is probably like the Zuiko pro/high grade 50-200 rather than the top pro/super high grade 90-250.
Just like the 12-40 is more like the old 12-60 in IQ than the 14-35 selling for 2 brands.
One should not expect too much out of the 40-150. I for myself am just grateful we have an alternative to the kit zooms.
In case someone has a genuine interest in buying this stuff: that lens is huge and expensive. Any cheap 70-300 5.6 + full frame cam will run rings around it, and the combo will be smaller and cheaper. M43 is also likely to fail soon, better keep off.