Image courtesy: Robin Wong
Robin Wong (Click here) added some more tests with 1) MC-14 tele converter 1.4x 2) Continuous AF tracking and 3) Comparison with 75mm F1.8.
There is also a German 40-150 f/2,8 Teil III test at Pen And Tell.
Chris: “I had the opportunity to test the M.Zuiko 40-150mm in combination with the x1.4 Tele Converter at a Olympus Specialist Event in Sydney yesterday. Here a short article on my experience with it and some test shots with 100% crops. Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus. In Europe at Wex UK, Technikdirekt and Amazon.
124 Responses
The above photo is why I wouldn’t leave my camera outside unattended, because the cockies have shown what they can do to my deck/pergola timbers & trees.
Yep, Madonna the cockatoo will have that OM-D + lens in pieces in under 5 minutes if you leave her to it.
They’re good that way. 😉
such bird should work at the real word abuse testing dept. for the camera manufacturers.
Yeah, I like that, then the cameras really would be tough.
Just for the sake of it, here’s one of the guilty ones at home.
[url=http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/28412][img]http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/data/502/O4286662-cr-s.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/28409][img]http://fourthirds-user.com/galleries/data/502/O4286612-s.jpg[/img][/url]
Is “100% crop” an oxymoron? Wouldn’t uncropped make more sense? I think 100% crop would leave no picture.
It is a generally accepted terminology for photography
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19322/what-is-100-crop
a crop shown at 1:1
if you didn’t crop it you would have an image 2 metres across and my screen ain’t that big (and christ help the postman with my monthly photo magazine)!
I don’t know why Robin compare this lens with the m.ZuikoDigital 75mm F1.8 ?
A Pro / advance photographers should know the answer , only for those I called it fanatic expect something special to happen .
From the moment , Chris ( CameraTVStore ) finalize his verdict on this Oly 40-150mm F2.8 can’t really edge the X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 in image quality , we even confident how far can this lens go . It’s a pointless test to me after all .
Lots of people were asking to compare sharpness, i guess it’s to see what to expect from 40-150. I saw Camera store TV review and don’t remember anything said about 35-100 being superior in IQ.
I agree that the comparison is not really a logical one rather then maybe a personal one as the 75mm FL can be a very nice one depending in what you shoot. The Camera store comparison was, while nice, not really convincing as a true comparison, except the obvious flare shot into the sun, where the 40-150 was clearly better. For a 3,5x zoom vs a 3x zoom at the same speed you can start argue about the size advantage for the 35-100. But I dont see any weird or pointless in either review. Except that Robin’s samples with the tele converter were very convincing withhout the need for diagrams.
You are good .
Good analysis skill .
Btw , what is your next assignment ?
lol no assignment, except thinking what too cook for my kids when they come back from school…hmm..french fries or steamed rice with something.
He is free to make his opinions just as you are to yours. Thankfully, the proof is in the pictures. Isn’t it great to see Olympus’s PRO zooms match the quality of its best primes? It is clear to see that, if the smaller size or wider aperture isn’t needed, most users should opt for this zoom for the best balance of versatility and optical quality.
What answer is it a pro or advanced photographer would know after looking at Robin’s test images?
Simple – he was simply saying the 40-150 is so good so let’s see how good by comparing with one of the sharpest out there. The 75mm was a benchmark that many are familiar with. I don’t for a second believe Robin was saying ‘ditch your 75mm and carry this instead’.
You find it pointless because you are too advanced.
more full size images can be found here.
http://www.optyczne.pl/7563-news-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_40-150_mm_f_2.8_PRO_i_MC-14_-_zdj%C4%99cia_przyk%C5%82adowe.html
That lens is looking superb. With the 12-40, 40-150, 17 1.8, 25 1.4 and 45mm 1.4, teleconverter, makes a very well rounded kit.
This Lens is amazing, especially crops shots of Chris.
Those images seem too clean for such high ISOs! Anything over 800 looks like crap on my OMD I Just don’t get it 🙁
do you use NR OOC or in raw?I am no high iso user and admit i never go higher then 800, sometimes1600, but it depends on the light quality and how sensitive you are for noise(I never use any NR as i prefer it that way)
I can feel that too~ I smell something fishy~
Yep thats the M43 system for you.
Another pathetic comment from the sony fanboy that doesn’t miss a single post at 43rumors.
Get a life troll!
It’s always funny to pee off the geekos.
And all you sock puppets 🙂
Did I pee you off loserboy?
Lol, “Pee you off”.
How old are you harrydicktom?
I am like Ulli…I try to cap it at ISO 800…1600 max…
Just did a quick test with my EM1 and at 3200 at the size Robin has posted the images that looks about right..They would have to be at 100% for us to see the noise that is there..and there is PLENTY! LOL!
With a little finesse it can be diminished somewhat though.
The camera and system has it limitations…but I still love it and sharpen my skills to work within its parameters as its so much fun to shoot with.
Oh…yeah…I think this lens looks incredible. WOW!
I would like to see it compared to my Panasonic 45-175mm f/4.0-5.6! hee..hee….
Yeah, that is what small sensors do. Even if we had super fast, super high quality, super huge and super expensive lenses, which we don’t have, we’d still be stuck with some problems. So we have large and expensive lenses, which defy the purpose of having a small camera, and software cheats.
This lens is not large at all for what it is. It’s much, much smaller with the TC than the 4/3 50-200. And yes, I’ve handled both.
I’m not stuck with large and expensive lenses. I’m stuck with small, slow and reasonable quality lenses and would like some small, slow and very high quality lenses (even if they’re expensive).
In an era where we can get clean ISO 1600 pictures and relatively good ISO 3200 (equivalent to ISO 400 film) I’m very happy with slow.
And before people start mentioning DOF, when I used 35mm film most of focus was on how to extend the DOF as so often it wasn’t deep enough. It’s why most lenses has hyperfocal distance markings on them.
You would be happy with a compact cam then!
It’s funny when you say ‘we’.
That bird is smarter than many humans: it wants to destroy that toy. The photo is not very good, as usual.
would love to see the lens on GH4 and test some videos, see if it can beat my Pana 100-300mm at the long end in sharpness.
That would be a great comparison review. So far, the hype machine is in favor of the Olympus, but we won’t really know for sure until we see some side by sides.
The 100-300 that Andy42 mentioned is 4-5.6 and is about the same class as Oly 75-300/4.8-6.7, so I have no doubt, that the Oly 40-150/2.8 is quite a bit sharper.
“Quite a bit” is seriously underestimating. The 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro blows Panasonic out of the water, like it does Canon and Nikon equivalent angle of view offerings.
You need to see the results and comparisions with your own eyes! It is just mind blowing!
You need to stop taking that crap, it is really harmful.
Bearing in mind the Oly lens does not have IS. You would have to be using a tripod for most shots.
I would hope it does – that 100-300 is pretty soft at the long end.
Amazing! The quality of this lens is indistinguishable to that of the 75mm f1.8! Trading a bit of aperture and size is more than worth the added convenience of this zoom. Especially true when you consider the weather sealing makes it perfectly paired with the E-M1!
the image quality is good indeed and there are almost no differences but consider that Robin wrote in one comment that the comparison was made by setting both lenses at f4 to be comparable and have a decent DOF for what he wanted to show.
Since both lenses were stopped down, less problems appear but also it does not show the maximum bokeh achievable in both cases nor the real differences achievable in term of noise at equivalent shutter speed and aperture.
But it’s of course a very helpful review.
Any review is helpful for Olympus, especially when they’re cutting checks to the reviewer.
A paid shill review. That’s all it is, nothing more.
Yawn. Another of your usual useless comments. The images speak for themselves, and they speak only one thing: great quality. And that it regardless if Mr. Wong is an Olympus’ employee or not.
Who knows, perhaps you are a paid shill as well, and post here on the payroll of someone else.
The images are nothing special. Glad they talk to you, we obviously have different standards.
You are very, very tiring.
shoot the messenger, not the message…
Question… do you think he is doing something in his photo examples to just make Olympus look better, or is he actually a competent photographer that knows how to use the gear and gives his readers an idea of what this stuff is capable of?
Some people cried foul on his comparison of the Oly 25 and Panny 25. Well I own the Panny 25 (Shoot on an EM-10) and my brother owns the Oly 25 (he shoots it on a panny G6). Everything Robin laid out in that review was true. The OOF areas are slightly better on the Panny, but it takes peeping to really notice it. The Panny misses focus and is slower than the Oly. The Oly has a MUCH better minimum focus.
…maximum bokeh achievable…?!
“The quality of this lens is indistinguishable to that of the 75mm f1.8! Trading a bit of aperture and size is more than worth….” You sound like your trying to convince your self. The quality is certainly comparable at f4, but at 1.8 there is no comparison. As for portrait, DOF is essential. On m43 gets pretty pointless at 2.8 (5.6!) if at 2.0 across the board..maybe i will sacrifice some size for it but as it is, two completely different lenses for different purposes.
Yes, DOF is essential for portraits, but more in the sense that most portraits do not have enough DOF. So the O 2.8/40-150mm fits very well!
You think “most portraits do not have enough DOF” I really don’t care wher you got that from or your preference on how to shoot your portrait, but a portrait lens need to provide the option of both shallow and deep dof.
5.6? is a no go. Not asking for a 85mm f1.2 or f2 tele on a full frame here. I don’t expect that from a micro 4/3 but at f2 across the board it is pretty much doable and done before by olympus. 5.6? that is too much for portrait, wild life with a converter? sure that is what this zoom is meant for.
In Robin’s earlier review of the lens he shot some very pleasing portraits with this lens at 150 f2.8 and they have perfect depth of field as far as my tastes are concerned. So yes, the 75/1.8 is the better option if you don’t have the room, but the 40-150/2.8 does a very nice job at 150mm.
http://robinwong.blogspot.it/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens.html
I see them and yes that is at 150mm! 300mm on a ff to compensate for the heavy dof. You would need a lot of room! If shot at 75mm much more of the back ground would be in focus. And even at 150 the back ground is clearly distracting (I can make out every object). I am not saying every portrait should blow out the background just saying a proper portrait lens should give the option to do so. Look at the full body shots, the background is much too distracting. Head shot or body shot of animals looks perfectly fine due to the fact that is what this lens was designed for.
Why do I even bother? Olympus is not paying me to sell their 75mm for them! Good question! Finishing coffee going to work.
Yes…go work on your photography skills!!!
Its 300mm F5.6…..
Another clueless statement to gloss over abysmal ignorance.
Use your own ID !
Register your ID so he can’t steal it!
If you aren’t interested in new additions system, then why are you trolling here? I shoot with micro-four thirds, aps-c and medium format cameras. If bokeh and sensor size was everything, then we’d all be shooting large format. However, I can appreciate the benefits that f2.8 glass can bring to the M43 system, especially at these focal lengths. The wider range of lenses the system can support, the healthier Panasonic and Olympus will be because of it. It’s a win-win situation for everyone, even us photographers.
What does any of that have to do with what I said. My point was the zoom was basically not designed with portrait in mind unlike the 75mm 1.8. And why would you tell me what you shoot with? why would i care? I am pass the age of pising contests.
“The wider range of lenses the system can support, the healthier
Panasonic and Olympus will be because of it. It’s a win-win situation…” no kidding, but again what does that have to do with anything i wrote.
zooms are not good for portraits….words of wisdom from an empty tin can. No experience whatsoever.
Please teach us. Given your nick, you must be a superb artist-cum-engineer LOL
Side hint: if you are after shallow DOF, 24×36 delivers more than digital medium format. But you know that already, surely.
No I am not after extreme shallow DOF you seem to be fixated on that imaginary point. I am perfectly fine with 75mm 1.8 on a micro 4/3. 85 1.2 on a FF is as much as I would ever need. At 5.6? no thanks.
” 24×36 delivers more than digital medium forma” Nope never knew that, but logically it would have to be hun? i would not call that a hint.
Small Format has crop factor about 2x depending to what Medium Format you compare.
Small Format is always behind Medium Format when it comes quality and shallow depth of field.
My experience with portraits (75mm, 45mm; m43) is that I need to stop down to aperture 2.8 to get both the pupils and nose tip in focus. But maybe my “models” have big noses. To me, the portrait looks weird if the nose is out of focus.
Lol… f2.8 is too shallow for a portrait on a full frame body. Again proof that f2.8 is actually f5.6 on m43.
No, it only proves that DoF on 43-rds on the same aperture and focal length and focus distance is different on 43-rds. That’s because of the sensor size. The lens aperture is the same regardless of the sensor size.
It also proves that you can take a picture on F2.8 on m43 where there will be to much out of focus on full frame or you’ll have to stop down to F5.6.
And the result of that is that the shutter speed of the full frame camera is much slower on the same iso settings. Of course you can bump the ISO to 4 times the ISO on FF to get the same shutter speed, and then you’ll have the same picture except the FF picture will be slightly more noisy(as it performs not exactly 4x as good).
This all proves that this equivalence mumbo jumbo is all nonsense, because it’s just about choosing the right gear for the right job, and accept it’s limitations.
You are forgetting the magnification factor. Back in the 80s, the say was “the cheapest lens on a larger format will beat the best lens on a smaller format”. It still holds true, unless you have lenses with lots of flare or other macroscopic flaws.
Don’t think so. Nowadays it’s never a good idea to put bad glass on a camera.
Read again.
That magnification factor only holds when using enlarger to do same size prints in darkroom.
Using a softest lens on 8×10 and best objective on Small Format (35mm if people don’t know) and then making a 20×18 print shows greatly better sharpness from Large Format print.
But on digital era that doesn’t hold anymore water. We don’t use enlargers and we can do things that were impossible in film era. Like with m4/3 16Mpix camera we can do very high quality 4×3 meter size print where you don’t see a individual dot from 1m distance. But you are not even watching that size photo from that distance but from few meters at least.
If we use 8×10 and do good drum scan from it, there is no digital camera having same resolution offering.
The mag fac applies to digital as well as film. For example, compare m43 to ff: it is hopeless, even if you use the nocticron (if it does not break) or some “pro” (whatever that means) lenses vs basic ff lenses with contemporary coating.
Try, but don’t come ranting on because some paid shill wrote on their blog that they found otherwise. You need to try yourself. After all, it is your money.
Hopeless for what? Your fine art billboards?
Please. Noobs should shut up and learn. I don’t expect thanks, but at least some respectful silence.
Temper temper, harrydicktom.
Speaking of shutting up, it’s time for you to put up or… you know the rest.
You have the perfect forum here to drive a stake into the heart of your M43 nemesis by showing us all your FF art.
Enough stalling, show us the way.
LOL You are the coward who obscured his flickr, right? I always enjoy seeing rats attempting to roar. Poofy rats, correct?
Actually plenty of people can view my Flickr, just not my stalker. See what happens when you’re nasty?
Anyway you’ve digressed again, so I’ll restate:
You hate M43. All your ranting and raving and name calling has made that clear.
If you’re the expert that you claim to be, this could not be a better forum to prove that FF is the only way. You can lead by example and strike a mortal blow to M43.
Your time to shine. Everyone is waiting.
So you really are a poof then, as someone already said. An angry poof attempting to roar. Squick!
As you already know, “someone” didn’t say it, you said it. Many times. It seems to be your favorite topic. No judgement.
Anyway, name calling doesn’t let you off the hook. When are you going to kill M43 once and for all by showing us your FF artistry?
Why do you continue to pass up this opportunity and this audience?
Read your comment out loud, record it and hear yourself talk…
Amazing ! No joint required !
Typed very fast on my phone. Luckily you have some very interesting things to say on the topic.
Or the other way round, if you have a newer generation FF sensor ;-). Why not accept that there are different tastes to make a portrait? Some prefer 85/1.8 on FF, others stop down to 4, whatever. Problem is, I sometimes find the bokeh a bit harsh from the sample shots I have seen, if the background is not far enough away or busy. Additionally, you need a lot of space to make a 300mm equivalent portrait. I prefer 85-135 FF equivalent focal lengths with large apertures due to that, or the 75/1.8 when using the OLY (or 56/1.2 on the Fuji), better to communicate with people.
“No, it only proves that DoF on 43-rds on the same aperture and focal length and focus distance is different on 43-rds. That’s because of the sensor size. The lens aperture is the same regardless of the sensor size.”
When m4/3 and camera with a larger sensor has:
1) same focal length
2) same focus distance
3) same aperture (value like f/2.8)
Then depth of field is identical with all cameras.
The m4/3 camera gets a deeper depth of field because for same _Angle of View_ the m4/3 camera needs a _two times shorter focal length_.
Just like 35mm sensor is just a _Small Format_ as The Standard isis the 6×7 Medium Format and to that small format has 2.1x crop factor.
If three cameras (m4/3, small format and medium format) needs to have equivalent angle of view for 28,5° and have same _shutter speedspeed_ with a _same ISO_, then values are:
M4/3 = 42.5mm f/1.8
Small Format = 85mm f/1.8
Medium Format = 180mm f/1.8
But as you can see, all three have different focal length, giving from same distance to subject a same exposure values but different depth of field.
M4/3 has crop factor 4.2
Small format has crop factor 2.1
For two “crop formats” to have a same depth of field as the standard with a f/2.8, the small format needs to have a f/1.2 and m4/3 have a f/0.6.
But at that point m4/3 gets 4.2x densier light and can use 4.2x faster shutter speed or lower ISO than standard format.
The benefits are greatly better with m4/3 than small format when compared to medium format.
Best combo to own and use is m4/3+medium format and leave the small format to store to collect dust as it doesn’t offer better features than those two even together.
“Fri13”, there is no need to write all that stuff, we knew you are a noob photog trying to sell crap.
equivalence is mumbo jumbo because anyone who knows what they are doing can get the job done with either. It’s normally a waste of time to argue about it. 😀
And what is your point? First we hear that 2.8 is unusable for portraits for the m43 sensor. When this turns out to be false (except for extremely “artistic” portraits), up pops a new argument that 2.8 is too shallow DOF for full frame. So what exactly is the point?
* Yes, full frame sensors have shallower DOF than m43 sensos (with normal use)
* A 2.8 lens is perfectly usable for portraits.
Not for a full body shot. 2.8 at 135-150mm is very useful.
So for you portrait lens starts at 5.6(ff equivalent), okay.
You try to sound like a pro photographer…. where is your website so we can judge for ourselves how good you are…NOT
Impressive results !
Thanks again, Panasonic ! For canceling the 150mm f2.8 after promising this lens for nearly three years !
So, an expensive zoom is comparable to a cheaper prime, both stopped down. Amazing!
Our paid shill has forgotten to zoom into the corners at 400%, compare it to a Hasselblad and say that the Olympus is 12.3% better.
Uhh… that statement is meaningless since, if you actually knew how insane the performance is of the Oly 75mm f1.8 you’d realize that it is no small feat for Oly to make a zoom lens that can compare to it. Still, would have been nice to see f2.8 comparisons since, most of Oly’s glass is as sharp as it gets by f4.
75mm is pretty rediculous. I’ve tried matching it up to my 135mm 1.8. I haven’t done direct comparisions yet, but I have to say that- to my eyes at least- I can’t tell much of a difference. It’s actually upsetting thinking about how much the 135mm Zeiss cost me. I just wish it was a bit faster for full body shots but I’m ok with it.
I think more like 11.8 %. Stay tuned, our geniuses here are going to find out.
in other news- anyone have a good recommendation for a wide angle. I have the 9-18mm and I’m dissapointed in it now. It’s good for the price, but it’s hardly professional. The lack of sharpness in the corners and especially the contrast is driving me absolutely nuts. I seriously need an excellent wide angle.
Either wait for the m. zuiko 7-14mm f2.8 pro which is coming next year or go for the zuiko 7-14mm f4 (if you cant wait). Both excellent, both pretty pricey.
The Distagon 21 is excellent, and also sharp in the corners, for those who care.
My issue isn’t size but build quality. All of the M43 lenses I have have scratches on the outside. I know, I should handle them more carefully- maybe. But I don’t drool on my gear- I actually use it heavily. Even my 75mm 1.8 has a few small scratches on the side. I have no idea how it happened- I swear this doesn’t happen with my full frame lenses (even the plastic ones).
Now, do I really care? Nah, not really. The price is so stupid low that for what I paid I chalk it up to trade offs. But even the aluminum on the 75mm is prone to indents with minor bumps or hits- even a belt buckle which happens if you actually use your gear from time to time. That is my only gripe. By the way it doesn’t refer to Oly’s “pro” lenses. I don’t have any, but I’ve had the opportunity to shoot with them. The build quality is pretty rediculous. I’d like to see that trickle down a bit please.
I wonder why posts about big Pro lenses tend to bring out the troll army in droves. What is it about these Pro tools make them feel even more insecure than usual?
If you were smart enough to answer that, you would not be a m43 user.
He doesn’t have to. You just did.
It’s not an army, it’s a handful of people at most . We need more trolls around here, because they make these comment threads worth reading.
Proctology tools?
1500 fat ones huh. Hmm, tempting, but not tempting enough. That is, until I rent it. This might make more sense than the 75mm 1.8 for general use. It’s a big boy though.
I’m curious to see if the Pany 35-100 will become more affordable.
I find it an interesting lens. But I’m sure I would prefer my 75mm on the red carpet at night. In other words, it doesn’t help me for my photography works.. Let’s see.
Me neither. I think this is a great lens but I’m going to pass. My 75 and Noctricron are sufficient for my needs at this time.
Red carpet at night? Do you do porrn? Yum. Like it.
Lol! No, last carpet at Venice Film Festival is usually after 22:30.
Please use your own ID .
Have respect in yourself .
If you have nothing to do , get lose of this forum .
I think I need to install my logo asap .
Why? Don’t you like purn?
I seem to get more flare or reflection in night shooting using the 75 than my other oly primes. Noticed this at all?
I noticed it when mounting an UV filter on it (useless atnight btw): even with hood it can “suffer” from flares. UV filter removed and flares gone. With a variable ND filter I have no issue at all.
If anything it shows how nice a 100-250 mm F4 Panasonic lens would be for us GH4 users. Or even f3.5 to f4.5 if that is needed to keep it in check size and weightwise.
I am currently almost only using my 12-35 and 35-100. I do not need the primes and think fo selling them. I do need a good replacement for my 100-300 Panny. A really nice lens but slow to C_AF and simply an enthusiast, not a semipro (let alone pro) lens. We need a semipro lens in line with the 35-100 I think. Once I have that one, may be with an add on TC (1.4 or so) for the 35-100 and 100-250 I am done. I have the three lenses I need, may be with a good macro (which I already have) and my Samyang fisheye.
It’s time for longer range zooms a bit faster than usual f3.5-5.6. Maybe 12-50 f3.5-4.5 and 50-300 f3.5-4.5
Lol no! 🙂 last red carpet at Venice Film Festival is usually after 22:30.
The price and size of this combo will make many people wonder, if they should not go for a bridge with large sensor instead.