And here we have the next 40-150mm image posted directly by Olympus Australia on Instagram. The lens will be announced on Monday September 15!
Thanks Ben for sharing the image!
And here we have the next 40-150mm image posted directly by Olympus Australia on Instagram. The lens will be announced on Monday September 15!
Thanks Ben for sharing the image!
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
133 Responses
Please help me to remember… Wasn’t m4/3 supposed to reduce size and weight of cameras and lenses? Just saying…
Doesn’t look that big if you remove tho hood.
It was, but human technology can’t beat physics yet.
This is substantially smaller than an equivalent 80-300mm F2.8 for FF. In fact, the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 weighs 6 lbs, is 11in long and has a shorter overall focal length.
Please don’t give the equivalency trolls anything to eat. Luckily they have yet to emerge.
Sorry for trying to save you some cash, and show you something new in the process… We all have to gain if we debunk corporate marketing myths, you will agree on that.
I’m not planning on buying a lens of this calibre but I might change my mind in the future. Since you’re interested in helping us to save money, perhaps you can give me some advice on what it could be replaced with.
Because one of the reasons I got a Micro 4/3 camera is its size advantage (which is clearly negated by this particular lens), I’d rather not have to carry two camera bodies when one could suffice. Therefore, I will need not only a replacement for my E-PL2, but also replacements for the following native lenses (keeping in mind that I purchased many of these for their low-light abilities rather than their narrow depth of field, the apertures should be numerically the same, e.g. a 12mm f/2.0 lens should be replaced by a 24mm lens that can have at least an f/2.0 aperture):
7.5mm f/3.5 Rokinon fisheye (the 8mm Rokinon is insufficient as it only fills the frame on APS-C or smaller sensors)
11mm Wanderlust Pinwide (this has precision laser-cut metal film, so a body cap and a drill will not suffice)
12mm f/2.0 Rokinon
14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Olympus
15mm f/8.0 Olympus body cap lens
20mm f/1.7 Panasonic (small size is important for this and the previous lens)
30mm f/2.8 Sigma
40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 Olympus
100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic
Total cost should be less than $1500, the supposed price of a new 40-150mm f/2.8 — otherwise I will not be saving any money. (Due to your efforts there is no demand for Micro 4/3 and my current system has zero resale value.)
Thanks for your help, otherwise I will have no choice but to be forced to continue using my Micro 4/3 system (which seemed ideal for my purposes until you showed me the error of my ways).
P.S. I have a handful of adapted Miranda lenses that I would like to continue using, so the flange distance should be less than 41.5mm and I’ll need the appropriate adapter.
P.P.S. I have an Olympus FL-300R flash. Will I need to replace that as well?
P.P.P.S. If these components are considerably heavier I’ll probably need a new tripod, too.
Yes but if I put my Sigma 120-300mm on my EM 1 I am getting a 240-600mm lens. This lens on my EM 1 is still giving me 80-300mm so you can not compare it that way. I would like to see the lens without the hood, and with the tripod mount removed, if it is removable.
The perfect lens for me would be 100-300mm F4 as I really like the Pana 100-300 focal range, but it is a bit to slow. Great size and weight though. Going to 2.8 with that lens it would be a monster.
We’re talking equivalent focal lengths, stop wasting your breath.
Equivalent focal lengths or angle of view?
If you put the 120-300 you would lose auto focus and setting the aperture through the camera.
Hopefully, the foot can be removed, the 50-200 can’t and there have been times where that’s been annoying.
The foot can be removed on the 50-200. Hasn’t been on mine for years.
14201_oly50-200_wstep.jpg
I assumed it didn’t based on other lenses I’ve used. I didn’t realize that it had pins, you just needed to rotate it to line up with the pins and grooves. Thanks for the info.
If you compare it with full frame don’t forget it will be an 80-300 f5.6 and not an 2.8 like the 120-300 from Sigma!
Yes we get it… in DoF its f5.6, but in terms of actual exposure time, it is an f2.8 lens.
I’m not sure about that, the 4/3sensor is smaller. It gather less light than a fullframe sensor.
f2.8=f2.8 in terms of light gathering and correct exposure shutter speed for a given iso amount of light per mm2 of sensor or however you want to calculate it.
In this case what the smaller sensor does is a Photoshop-like crop.
It gathers exactly the same amount of light per unit of area as a larger sensor, there is no difference. The only things that matters are exposure time, aperture number and ISO setting, sensor size does not belong in the equation at all. Think about it. It works like getting sun tan, it does not matter how much skin you expose to the sun, the skin will tan at the same speed.
But it affects it indirectly, as noise/pixel is a function of the received photons. Having a FF sensor with 16MP like an OMD you have more light per pixel for the same ISO, F-stop, AOV (at shallower DOF, of course). Usually it always depends on your needs: if DOF is restricted (group of people to shoot) to say F5.6 on FF at ISO 3200 with 150mm, I can do the same with m43 35-100 at F2.8, ISO 800 and 75mm. For the same sensor generation there should be almost no differences. But as soon as you can go to lower F-stops like 2.8, too, you can reduce ISO with FF and gather more light leading to less noise (however having shallower DOF). It is more versatile in my opinion. But as I still have an OMD, in many situations I can live with larger DOF and use it. For everything else I use the D810.
This is true, but I was trying to stay away from the sensor size vs. noise discussion as it has nothing to do with lenses. My comment stemmed from exposure time, which is the same for every f/2.8 lens out there, no matter if you mount it on medium format or an iPhone.
Exposure time is moot if you don’t consider ISO… You are the “engineer” right?
Dead right HF. You can always do more with a larger sensor, and you are never punished, not even with size.
Very long or very short fls are a bit different, but those are rather extreme cases, and you would have to go Nikon 1 anyway (I am thinking of birding or safaris with the new 70-300).
Plus, the magnification factor will forgive your lens shortcomings – a lot, because the size of the sensor is 4x, and prints don’t need to be bigger. Many old (multicoated) lenses will sing on that Nikon of yours.
Thanks for explaining Trinavi!
It doesn’t gather the light outside the sensor…we get that…. But that’s why it has two times narrower angle of view and gets as dense light per square millimeter.
yes these different point of views were always good for some cosy discussing here. To be honest i was mostly in the DOF party(but never joined the useless yes.np debate) regarding the point which I found more important, Though the light sensitiviy approach was more logical .
You obviously don’t know the difference between exposure and DOF. Do you even own a camera??
Why so rude? I Own an EM-1 and it’s not my first Olympus DSLR!
No we are comparing sensor to sensor according to all you assclowns. f2.8 on m43 to f2.8 on FF. Light gathering and shutter speed, not DOF. Hence the advantage of f2.8 light gathering on m43 sensor with the reach of 80-300 FF and dof of f5.6. Quit trying to distort things to favor your argument, assclown.
yes but not only, Olympus & Panasonic dont exclude situations where its unavoidable to go larger then many would expect. better to have a system which can go both ways than a system which is just either big or small
I don’t understand every “mirrorless is about reasonable size” complaint that comes up whenever a large aperture lens is announced/released. It’s called a complete system. There’s plenty of small primes and zooms already. There are many different types of photography that require many different types of lenses. Same thing with camera bodies. Different preferences and needs call for various types and sizes of cameras.
yeah true ofcourse
Will be smaller, cheaper and as good or better quality than the full-frame equivalent. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is about the same size as a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens. You can’t overcome the physics involved with a lens in this range but I’m sure many people will complain that it’s not “pocketable”.
I’m with @Rchard — previous long lenses (I’m thinking of the 4/3 system 50-200mm lens here in particular) from Olympus have hoods that make them tremendously larger. So, keep the hood on if you’re shooting locally, leave it at home if you need to skinny down for travel.
Lens hoods are to reduce extraneous flare. They’re not for “looks”.
So use it when you NEED it, locally or when traveling.
Just saying….
And the 35-80 has less range and is about 3 times the weight.
Sure, and there are plenty of tiny lenses, but if you want a wide aperture 40-150, or 300, or whatever, the lens has to be bigger. If you want a small lens, Olympus has a 40-150 and Panasonic has a 45-150 and I am confident they would be happy to have you buy one of those.
Show me an equivalent full frame 70-300MM F2.8 lens that’s smaller and lighter than the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8. Show me the smallest full frame/APS-C DSLR that’s smaller and lighter than the smallest m4/3 bodies…the Panasonic GM1 or the Olympus PM2. How about this….Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 weights 305 gms. Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 weighs 905 gms). Canon 24-70mm f2.8 weighs 805 gms.
Show me a 70-300mm f/2.8 lens, PERIOD!
You mean a 70-300 F 5.6? They don’t exist… The various 70-300 F3.5-5.6 are roughly the same size, and they tend to be cheaper. And they come with all the FF advantages, which are not unimportant.
Keeping the holder on made the lens look smaller.
Is the “pro” really in all caps? Does it stand for something or are Olympus afraid we might miss it unless they put it in big letters?
Reasonably sized IMO. Don’t get the big commotion over the size..
Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn’t work you can always hit them with it.
heavy is good to impress too, i had hard time with models after first meet, convincing that i could make equally good pics with my e-m5 which they considered to be “cute”….
While it’s true that some models respond well to big cameras, the average person in more candid situations usually does not. This system has the flexibility to go either way, which is nice. The resulting images always have the last laugh anyway.
just relax and dont be that serious lol
who cares about models?? if u are a pro, you get paid by magazines and editors, not by models..and if u make test photos for agencies, well they only cares about the quality of your pics
who cares about magazines, editors & agencies? I like models and you dont like them, we have different taste.
i like models too, but i dont care if they appreciate a camera or not, well you clearly not a pro
just to be clear it was both meant as my fav joke and serious fact about size etc. And indeed i am not a pro, amen to that
Really? He’s probably the only regular here, who can actually take good pictures…
I want FT5 specs for the LX100. Same sensor as the GH4 or 1″, aperture, 4 k, headphone/mic jack, etc. I’ve been waiting for months. Help us out admin!
The wait does seem like it has dragged on, but that is likely due to us expecting the announcement a week a go. Imagine if nothing gets announced this week. 🙂
Looks very 80’s. In other words industrial, unwieldy and… very cool.
The sliding lens hood looks very cool. Looking forward to seeing some test samples from the lens shot wide open.
Any word on their patented compact Mirror lens?
I’ve never cared about looking “pro” (prefer to NOT look pro) but for anyone shooting M43 who does want to seem “serious,” this combo should allay those concerns 😉
This lens can contain up to a pint of pure, pro-grade testosterone.
.
Dors the convertissor 1.4 work on Panasonic bodies also and all natives Lens mft also?
So far, the information is that it only works with the two new Olympus lenses, the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4.
Thank you!
Maybe also with the existing 40-150mm: I just looked at its mount and it should be able to attach to the converter. But it will be 1.4x times slower…
Sorry, this image don’t give us the right perspective, in reality this lens looks/is way longer !
Look here !
How much bigger is it than the Olympus 75-300?
Length of 40-150mm F2.8 PRO is 17 cm.
Pathetic. Mine is longer (but softer).
Yes, handheld stabilised with another 5 axis in finding the sweet spot 🙂
LOLZ…! 🙂
3rd party stabilized…
To bad I was wrong about it being a pic of 300mm
Wonder how much will this wonder hood cost extra…!?
Nothing. Pro Line Gets PRO hoods and caps.
That means $200
Maybe it electronic and that grooved ring works…
“Lens Hood for the new zoom costs 6000 Yen (converted: 57 Dollars or 44 Euro)”
Not including the hood in the package with a long zoom is ridiculous, and charging $57 for a plastic hood that should be included with a “pro” (over $1000) lens is is insulting.
Is this for real? They included the hood with the 12-40. If they’re seriously trying to gouge people another $57 for the hood that is downright shameful.
You’re just being insulting for suggesting it won’t be included.
IT IS INCLUDED!
The price is just for a replacement.
I just can’t see any size or weight benefits to sensors smaller than FF…
http://camerasize.com/compact/#392.417,525.35,312.242,312.15,ha,t
This might be a better illustration of the size differences:
http://j.mp/Yqs7fw
Stop looking at photos on sites and go hold one of each. There’s a huge difference.
If you see his link, he’s clearly being sarcastic.
I am amused! If this terribly expensive thing is 17cm long – as someone here wrote, my Sigma 150mm 2.8 that I got for less than €250, is 3cm shorter!!! And is a killer lens, a prime, not a distorting zoom! What about the 40mm? He-he, for the 40mm I am more than better off with the E-PM2 (with its higher ISO capacity than the E-M1) plus the Oly 45mm 1.8!!!
So what – were you saying – was the terrific advantage of the EM-1? Big body but not big enough, and not too comfortable to hold? And with a huge price? LOL!
Happily, commercial logic is gradually setting in. Now there are good UK and US prices and I will probably get the only PDAF-enabled body that Olympus grudgingly produced (with a weaker sensor) for a normal price.
But why did they have to make fools of us not producing a normal DSLR with the powerful Sony sensor?
Jankoff, until there are some hands-on samples, I don’t think there’s any evidence that your Sigma 150mm 2.8 actually performs better than this, despite decrying it as a distorting zoom.
Wow, I saw six people above reacting to my comments – and answered them. Now I see another 12. Thank you people, I cannot answer you all but I am flattered. And proud that I managed to stir your imagination about how different and better the situation would be, had Olympus behaved differently.
They simply had to make a fairly priced DSLR with the new sensor and stabilization (no, electronic VFs are not the future and are not better than optical ones), or at least a PDAF enabled fairly priced mirrorless body. They didn’t. For this reason the price of their good but superexpensive E-M1 toy is going down. Happily for me. I will soon have a better than average PDAF-enabled body, somewhat let down by the weaker Pana sensor – but I will live with that.
I am even more amused. I don’t know how intelligent it is to compare the size of a zoom to that of a prime. Zooms are about convenience, most of all. Your argument seems to think that people who buy a 40-150mm zoom _only_ use it at either 40mm or 150mm? Odd. The typical primes within that range would be: 45mm, 50mm, 75mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, 150mm. With the PRO, you are carrying just one lens instead of — let’s see — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 primes. Stick that in your bag and see what happens.
Realistically, you could probably get away with a 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm. And almost all prime-using photographers have and do just that. But 3 > 1, even still.
Well, you would need more than 50mm and 85mm for birding and sports, I’m sure. Which is what this zoom range is typically used for. People who are so surprised by the dimensions and weight of this PRO zoom lens are “street” photographers, probably.
That’s why I said 135mm as well, which is only 5mm shy of this lens.
Trust me, I know there are plenty of situations where you need huge lenses. I have a Tamron 300mm f5.6 for shooting birds on my GX1, and the reason I got it was because it was the smallest legacy lens for the job. It still weighs 600 grams and is almost as long as my forearm…
150mm-135mm=5mm? Really? Since when?
Sorry, mixed it up with the 50-140mm f2.8 Fuji. In any case, I think my point stands. 135 to 150 is not a radical difference. If you’re using primes, you’re by default accepting that you aren’t going to be covering every single focal length.
You may be amused, but you certainly are amusing… Not in a good way.
Jankoff pretty much shows he’s below an amateur in terms of photography knowledge. Compare a prime to a zoom 2.8 and then say the zoom is bigger. Then compare the IQ of a zoom to a prime and say the zoom is worse. Thanks for stating the obvious. Next he compares the “huge” price of the flagship E-M1 ($1299). Compared to the price of the near-top-of-the-line Nikon D810 ($3300) and Canon 5DM3 ($3339).
Why would you compare EM-1 to D810? Why not to D3300?
Why would you compare a pro (or semi-pro) body to a consumer body? Completely different target users.
Who said it is PRO? The manufacturer? Hehehe.
That would apply to every manufacturer…
Well Olympus has a history of cheating…
Why not compare a Nikon D4s to a Canon T3? When you see someone in a Porsche 911, do you tell him you can get a Toyota Corolla at a fraction of the price and that it’s much more reliable and useful? How stupid can you be?
Thank you everybody above for your comments. Your overzealousness in trying to refute my criticism is in itself a sure sign of its correctness. You were robbed of some of your money – fact is the E-M1 now sells for twice less its initial price. And the trend will continue. Oly enslaved you with their terribly overpriced toy (indeed, not a bad one – but commercially flawed), and now you feel obliged to continue buying their stuff. It is your choice in the form of superexpensive zooms. Mine is the correct one. I use higher quality primes with the small and inexpensive E-PM2, the relevant E-PM2-prime combinations being IQ-wise MUCH better than your zooms. I am sorry for you.
What I am also sorry about is Oly’s attitude to its customers. And I am not sorry about not having an E-M1 – that I really need for my HQ FT glass – because I will buy one as soon as it hits the 2.5 times less price point after launch.
“Thank you everybody above for your comments. Your overzealousness in
trying to refute my criticism is in itself a sure sign of its
correctness.”
So if I get your logic right, should I criticize the law of gravity on earth and get a serious amount of rebuttals for it, that would prove that I am into something. Right?
Oh, I did not bother to read you any further.
Ehhh….reputable dealers are still selling the E-M1 for the same price it was released at. B&H currently has a $100 off sale. $1299 instead of the original $1399.
I don’t understand how you can interpret that as “twice less.” Maybe your market is radically different…
True, I am from Europe and I am referring to the European market, taking Germany as an example. The launch price of the E-M1 – only ten months ago, was €1500, now in Germany it is almost the same, €1300. Compared to today’s $1000 in the US (only one year international warranty – but that’s fine), this is exactly twice more. I do not comment on market differences etc., fact is only ten months ago one had an EU offer for €1500, now one has an offer for twice less. And I will wait further … I see no reason why I should pay twice more for something that grossly failed to live up to my expectations. At least they could have used the Sony sensor. Instead they offered something that is 20% less capable in ISO terms than the E-PM2 costing FOUR times less. That’s infamous! If they had reached a DXoMark ISO score of 1100, I would have considered buying it at €1500. Not when it turned out to be 40% lower than that!
A note on the US-EU price differences. With many lenses and DSLR bodies the difference between the US and the EU market is negligible. Why should it be so different precisely with Oly products?
Your statement that the primes are MUCH better than the O 2.8/12-40mm shows, how ignorant you are.
The price of the E-M1 hasn’t been fallen, except for short limited sales campaigns by few dealers in a few countries.
Again, sell your FT toys and get happy, before the get dusty.
Your overzealousness in trying to refute olympus’ capabilities is in itself a proof of their products’ quality.
So as predictable, it is time again for stupid Jankoff posts. He still can’t get over it, that Olympus has put an end to its FT DSLR system. Knowledgable people won’t invest in classic DSLR systems anymore, because these represent an evolutionary dead end. Cameras with electronic view finder will dominate the future, it is inevitable. So you better stop whining. Sell your FT lenses as long you still get good money for it and invest that money in the O 2.8/40-150mm.
Also, you should get rid of your prejudice about zooms. Like the O 2.8/12-40mm they can be better than primes! And you can expect to get at least the same quality from the 2.8/40-150mm.
Finally, you should recognize than your toy camera, the E-PM2 (to which the Olympus zoom certainly won’t fit) has exactly the Same Image quality of the E-M1 (which is actually a quality testimonial for that tiny camera. Of course, you will now start quoting DxOMark. But it is silly that someone trusts a technical measurement more than the experience of hundreds of users and thousands of real world image examples, where nobody would honestly be able to discern an image from the E-PM2 and the E-M1 by clearly detecting the E-PM2 images as better.
So feel free to bore the people here again, with your campaign. It’s a waste of time.
Mirrorles will probably own the game down the line, but not M43…
The DSLR may be a dead end, but the systems are not. We will most certainly see mirrorless cameras with Canon EF/EF-S and Nikon F-mounts in the future. The same people who like the DSLR form factor and size today will continue to like it in the furure, regardless of whether the cameras have a mirror or not.
The Sigma lens you are talking about has an MSRP of $1100. The fact that you got it used for a fraction of that price speaks loudly about how “well regarded” it is as a prime lens.
Hey bonehead! Yours is not a zoom.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
OMG!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Suck on that you miserable Olympus fanboys!!! LOL!!!
Ran out of medication so early?
Nice use of caps- fancy.
Almost poetic, you could say.
Venetian blinds
Gazing upon the starry skies
And finds
A flabbergasted bucket of lies
Excreting its venom
From the vulva of Lucifer’s bride
I love that poem. You’re a great poet !
Thanks.
Of course it’s good, it’s PRO.
Give us some more.
Industrial striptease
Devoid of all blasphemy
Lusting for the luminescence
Of crustaceans in heat
An armada of voluptuous fleas
Prepare for your defeat
You big old lump of grease!
Advise: Change Hobby!
Photography is my hobby, poetry is my profession. Excuse me if I leave you all alone now, but I have to write a 1000 page sonnet, if my kids are to get any food this month.
Advise: Sell your Photography Equipment.
well he shows more creativity then you did sofar in 2 comments
“….Prepare for your defeat
You big old lump of grease! …”
Hey Poet man, You’re deleted ! Just a fact.
Sorry dude, he meant defeated in accordance to his poem. He was on the wrong forum I suppose,
A troller going insane, can’t stand the heat and having a nearly mental breakdown.
The more unfounded aggression against Olympus the more threat it is for the established order of full frame perverts or insignificant aps-c-ers.
The lens is expected to be awesome in quality.
I just hope the new E-M1 firmware would improve significantly the C-AF ,as the new 40-150, +tele converter 1.4 X might useful to do more on wildlife photography
Looks awesome. On the red carpet it should be great.. 🙂
Yes, it does & I like that view of it. It seems the photo is now pulled from Oly Aust. FB page.
You mean in a whhorehouse?
you can’t spell but at least you know you are a bellend.
Looks the bomb. My order is in. Just hope the lens hood I’d not an extra.
it’s bundled.