Gordon Laing from Cameralabs posted the full Olympus 40-150mm PRO lens review:
It’s hard to fault the Olympus 45-150mm f2.8 on quality grounds. It produces sharp detail with good contrast throughout the focal range. This is a lens that you can quite happily shoot wide open without having to worry about edge definition, aberrations or distortion. Focus is something you need to be a little more aware of though.
40-150mm PRO shipping info at:
In USA/Canada at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, GetOlympus and GetOlympus Canada.
In Europe at Wex UK, Technikdirekt and Amazon.
In Asia at Digitalrev and Amazon Japan.
60 Responses
I’m not sure if it was already mentioned here, but I don’t think so. Lindsay Dobson did recently a field review as well and shared some wildlife experiences – some in combination with the new 1,4x tc
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/olympus-m-40-to-150-f2-8-lens-field-review/
Great review, and very nice pictures. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thank you, excellent review and samples.
If I wanted to use a lens this big, I’d stick to a APS-C or FF sized camera. I’d get better IQ and better dof.
Still smaller and much lighter than any f/2.8 lens -if not f/4 lenses as well- in the above two camera sensors and 100mm extra reach..
Yep this lens is a win for me. Reviews keep mentioning how sharp it is even wide-open! 😀
No you wouldn’t. APS-C lenses are mostly crap so you’d be stuck with FF lenses that are ginormous. Not to mention that comparable APS-C lenses would still be bigger than this m43 masterpiece.
And what is this “better dof” you speak of? Better as in less like most bad (if not to say, horrible) amateurs think? Then yes, you might get more of that cheap blurry stuff and portraits with only one eye in focus, if you are that bad that you think that is something worthwhile. But better? Olympus lenses make some of the best quality bokeh I’ve ever seen, but then, some scrub like you wouldn’t know about that anyway.
And why would I want to use some APS-C clunker if I wanted high image quality? Or even a FF camera? If the ultimate image quality was the goal then I’d definitely would use something different than those “tiny” sensors. Try a Phase One and you know what I mean.
I find it funny how APS-C and FF worshippers tend to define themselves through their tools. I have plenty of cameras (use mostly MF and m43 though) and couldn’t care less about the type of camera I use, as long as it does exactly what I want and delivers what I need.
Well, you probably are too poor to buy another camera so you have to troll other brands forums because your time (and life) is worth nothing anyway…
Hahaha, you amuse me…
🙂
-Fuji X lenses are mostly crap?
Hahahaha!
-Ultimate image quality? Who said anything about being ultimate? LMAO! -I thought mirrorless was about a compromise between size and image quality? Lol!
-You use MF and MFT? LMAOOO! and you’re quick to judge my income?
I amuse you? Hahahaha! You’re comment is a comedy! Please… continue…
Troll
Comparable on APS-C would be 70-200/4, and most of the competition has very decent lenses in that category which aren’t much bigger or heavier, either.
This post is so wrong, in so many ways, that you should resign from your paid shill post.
What lens in aps-c has same reach, weather-sealing, close-up ability and x1.4 tc compatibility? And still as light, as 760gr? Or you’re one of those, that go sony ff mirrorless with a 55mm prime just because pana canceled high quality 100-300mm? Doesn’t make sense, does it?
Only fuji is decent, only if they had little bit better AF and finally there would be complete support of x-trans raw files (better would be convenient bayer sensor)
The 40-150 is very tempting. You could use, however, an 70-200/F4 lens on APSC to get the same reach and similar DOF if you like. Those are of similar size and optically excellent (I know Nikon’s and the new Sony one. Nikon’s is weather-sealed, but doesn’t provide the close minimum focus distance). I’m not a fan of the TC, since you get an equivalent DOF of F8, which often produces harsh bokeh and gives you difficulties in separating your subject, unless you are close or the background is far away (for shots at larger distances DOF is plenty even when using a FF/F5.6 lens at 400mm, at 30m distance you have almost 2m). I wouldn’t use this lens for portraits, as I find the subject separation not good enough for ME (cameralabs has a similar point of view, by the way), but here we have the excellent 75mm to cover that. For me this lens would be interesting due to the close focussing distance. With extension tubes this makes a great macro lens.
How long have you had this lens in hand to test? Please send the link to your review to this forum.
stick a panasonic logo on it and you will be happy as a cute lil chicken again.
LOL, so true, soo true!
The Pana fanboy is so jealous I can read it from his lines, lol
“Better DOF”
I think you have it backwards. m4/3 has better DOF at the same aperture as a FF lens. Remember generally people want things in focus, not just for this micro-thin sliver of a plane.
Agree. I shot sports with a Canon 300mm F2.8 and was always wishing for more DOF. Can’t wait to shoot sports with the 40-150mm, mine arrives on Saturday!
LOL nice story.
Not sure why the “LOL”, it’s a fact. I shot polo professionally for 4 years and getting enough of the horse and rider in focus in head-on shots was a constant challenge. With motorsports you want as much depth of field as possible for head-on shots and sideways panning eliminates the background into blur; so again, the more DOF the better.
Sold the Canon and now with the E-M1 I can get back to sports photography using the 40-150mm. Hit rate may be lower than the 1D, but it’s acceptable, and the E-M1 is loads more fun to shoot with.
Sure.
LOL you shoot chess under broad daylight. You do know how stupid your post sounds right?
LOL. Nobody mentioned chess! You do know how stupid your post sounds right?
Here come the m43 tards telling everyone why shallow DOF is oh so bad, in order to justify their garbage sensor.
there is no comparison on native APS-C or even FF with this lens, Having the equivalent of 80-300mm {40-150] with constant aperture of F2.8,. can you imagine how big the lens on FF camera?,. if you have APS-c body , just use the 70-200 F2.8, it will be 105-300mm, but again everybody how big the 70-200mm F2.8
the lens itself [40-150] almost as is big as my Nikon 24-70 F2.8, when i zoom at 70 mm, and Nikon is 900gram while the Olympus 830gram,.
Clearly you don’t understand the advantage of smaller sensor against bigger sensor,.,which is MFT lenses is a lot smaller compare to APS-C or FF lenses with the same FOV
None of the available 70-200mm f/4 lenses for larger sensors, and that’s what gives approximately the same options (i.e. FOV, DOF control and light gathering ability) on APS-C sensors, is bigger or heavier than the 40-150mm f/2.8. Then again, the complete package of MFT camera plus lens is still smaller and lighter than a full-size APS-C DSLR plus 70-200/4, and the latter has no big image quality advantage, either.
Can you show samples how a objective designed to APS-C gives 1EV and objective designed for 35mm gives 2EV extra light when mounted to m4/3?
Man, the internet is full of this. Use it and learn.
They don’t, and I never claimed they would. The sensor size alone determines how much light a camera gets out of a given F-stop number.
yes an f5.6 lens this is and almost as big and heavy as faster lenses for larger sensor cameras. plus with ridiculous high price makes no sense to me, either.
Nobody here is going to buy this absurdity, they are only interested in doing some underhand marketing for the noobs. Noobs be careful, this is such a nasty ripoff it’s funny.
“Ultimately the Olympus 45-200mm f2.8 Pro is a lens that more than lives up to its promise and comes highly recommended.” So what lens are they reviewing??
Yeah, the reviewer mentioned 3 different focal lengths on the last page…
40-150mm, 45-150mm and 45-200mm.
I guess proofreading is a lost art over at CameraLabs…
lol just lets hope they are better in the arts of reviewing then.
Olympus needs to improve the C-AF tracking, or Panasonic needs to cover others’ lens w its DFD technology. One of the 2 needs to happen. Otherwise this lens on the M43 system will be overshadowed by the new Samsung nx1 with soon to be released 50-150mm F2.8. The latter has similar size as Olympus 40-150 2.8, and works on the 28MP sensor, with 15fps burst shooting, superior C-AF tracking, -4ev EVF, etc, etc.
I can tell you the 40-150mm with C-AF on E-M1 is a capable focus tracker. Nothing short of amazing. So far I tested at soccer with field lights on and rugby also field lights on after 18:00h here in the netherlands.
How would you know the 50-150mm F2.8 will be better on the NX1, it isn’t even released yet. Typical troll remark again.
Amazon UK delivery status gone from “available 5-Dec-2014” to “we’ll email you when it’s available”. Ebay sellers must be rubbing their hands – seem to have plenty of supplies
Mine arrives at my UK address today! Ordered from Digitalrev on Friday last week. Perfect for my trip to Sri Lanka next week. No 1.4 converter yet but that is not a great problem.
I actually skimmed most of the review, I get bored by essays instead of reviews…but regarding AF accuracy, have they installed FW 2.2 on the E-M1? I think that might be one way to fix it.
If they actually tested it with FW 2.2…I’m a bit disappointed!
I testedwith the last firmware and AF was impressively good.
Is it only me, or do the crops show signifcant loss of sharpness at the edge of the frame, especially at 150mm? Not that I wouldn’t still think it’s a decent lens, but somehow I find the test shots do not completely match the extremely positive words. (Of course it would also further support my decison not to replace my 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD with the 40-150/2.8).
I’m seeing it too, but it’s really hard to quantify if it is significant or not. The 50-200mm SWD also loses some sharpness towards the edges at long focal lengths, but the edges are still really good. Besides, with such lenses, the depth of field is so shallow that image edges are often out of focus anyway.
I’d wager that sharpness is not a concern no matter which lens you go with. I also have the SWD and intend to keep it unless the new lens proves to be head and shoulders above it in focus speed and accuracy.
It’s a lens that I have tried for hours but left me quite cold. Great quality building, sharp, a minimum focusing distance that makes it a great close up lens, not that heavy.
BUT, with the already great 45mm, Nocticron and 75mm, I find it useless to me for what concerns portraits.
I think it’s the best lens around for wild life shooters.
Wildlife AND sports shooters. The tracking is quite capable with E-M1.
True, I don’t take sport pictures, that’s why I omitted it. 🙂 After all I was not writing a review about it.
Dead wildlife and chess under bright light: ok.
Fast wildlife and real sports: LOL.
First time out with the lens this morning and took it to some show jumping. A challenge for the camera to track horses rising up from behind gates; but it locked on every time and the files are spectacular.
Example: https://flic.kr/p/pXC8ZF
Not spectacular, but OK. There was probably a lot of light, and you probably missed a lot of shots.
You can also do that with manual focus: focus on the hurdle and click at the right moment. I suspect your af may have locked on the hurdle.
Hard to see on a small web file, but the hurdle is out of focus. The horse’s head is in front of the hurdle and is perfectly in focus. I should have used F5.6 rather than F4 to get the rider more in focus, but still learning how much DOF you get with this lens.
I didn’t lose a lot of shots; as I said it locked on every time.
“…but remember in terms of depth-of-field the Olympus is equivalent to 80-300mm f5.6 on full-frame. So a fairer comparison in terms of what you can actually do with it may be something like Canon’s EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6…”
Errr – at the long end the Zuiko is 4 times brighter (!) than the Canon, and it’s like you cannot “do” anything with that?! I mean, when did 2 full stops of brightness become useless on a tele lens?
C’mon Gordon…
“…in the forward position the scale is obscured, you can still manually focus, as long as the camera is in MF mode, but turning the ring focuses by wire using the AF motors.”
Works well not just in MF, but S-AF+MF as well
“The 40-150mm f2.8 Pro has a closest focus distance of 70cm (27.55 in) from the image plane, or looked at another way, 11cm from the front of the lens.”
Typo I guess.
The closest focus is 52,1 cm from the front element (700 mm – 160 mm – ~19 mm),
(closest focus minus lens length minus flange back distance respectively).
Otherwise a good ad informative review from Camera Labs as usual ?.
“…but remember in terms of depth-of-field the Olympus is equivalent to 80-300mm f5.6 on full-frame. So a fairer comparison in terms of what you can actually do with it may be something like Canon’s EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6…”
Errr – at the long end the Zuiko is 4 times brighter (!) than the Canon, and it’s like you cannot “do” anything with that?! I mean, when did 2 full stops of brightness become useless on a tele lens?
C’mon Gordon…
“…in the forward position the scale is obscured, you can still manually focus, as long as the camera is in MF mode, but turning the ring focuses by wire using the AF motors.”
Works well not just in MF, but S-AF+MF as well
“The 40-150mm f2.8 Pro has a closest focus distance of 70cm (27.55 in) from the image plane, or looked at another way, 11cm from the front of the lens.”
Typo I guess.
The closest focus is 52,1 cm from the front element (700 mm – 160 mm – ~19 mm),
(closest focus minus lens length minus flange back distance respectively).
Otherwise a good ad informative review from Camera Labs as usual ?.
This is one of the dumbest offers in the m43 palette ever. Really a bait for poor sukkers.
“…but remember in terms of depth-of-field the Olympus is equivalent to 80-300mm f5.6 on full-frame. So a fairer comparison in terms of what you can actually do with it may be something like Canon’s EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6…”
Errr – at the long end the Zuiko is 4 times brighter (!) than the Canon, and it’s like you cannot “do” anything with that?! I mean, when did 2 full stops of brightness become useless on a tele lens?
C’mon Gordon…
“…in the forward position the scale is obscured, you can still manually focus, as long as the camera is in MF mode, but turning the ring focuses by wire using the AF motors.”
Works well not just in MF, but S-AF+MF as well
“The 40-150mm f2.8 Pro has a closest focus distance of 70cm (27.55 in) from the image plane, or looked at another way, 11cm from the front of the lens.”
Typo I guess.
The closest focus is 52,1 cm from the front element (700 mm – 160 mm – ~19 mm),
(closest focus minus lens length minus flange back distance respectively).
Otherwise a good ad informative review from Camera Labs as usual ?.ĺ
Can agree with most what is said. As a Gh4 owner I cannot believe he thinks it is somehow more usefull on that cam than a 35-100 f2.8 has going for it on a EM1. The size and weight difference is really really notable. And not having IS on a lens with such FL is too. What is he thinking?
Once (well, will it ever happen) Panasonic come with a 100-250 mm f2.8 to f4 or so the is no need for a Oly at all. But Panny does not seem to get it…
A bit sharper IQ and 200-300mm range at constant f2.8 puts the 40-150mm pro in different legend from panny. Don’t pretend like they are the same. Basically it can do everything panny 35-100mm can do, while panny 35-100mm is the crippled version of 40-150mm pro. People have different need; you can stick with a lighter lens you like and others can give up some size/weight advantage to get an undoubtedly superior lens. It’s a compromise.
I have not seen many reviews saying the 35-100 is less in IQ at all. I thin 380 gram vs 780 gram is quite a difference. And no IBIS is what makes this lens crippled on a Panasonic cam. With that size, it is only a reasonable fit on a GH4. Now: have you ever shot video without any stabilsation? It is really bad at that sort of focal lengths.
I am a fan of the lens and the TC1.4x It will round out my kit nicely in a high-quality kind of way. I had the Panny 45-175mm and the aperture was not wide enough and the focus was very tempo entail on my EM1. Recently sold it on eBay.
I just ordered the kit today (which they are not selling in the US) that includes the lens and the TC1.4x from Osaka. I saved $70 over prices here in the US AND I will actually have a combo that will not be available here for months.
You definitely have a case regarding the 35-100mm….especially for panasonic owners.
I only shoot stills, use OLY bodies and want the extra reach…even more reach with the super-custom TC1.4x!
It’s not a no-brainer because of the cost and the size…but it will work just fine for my needs.
Every one has different needs and budgets to go with them
Whoops my comment was for Jorgensen (below).