The PRO lens size comparison
Luminous Landscape (Click here) posted their Olympus 40-150mm lens review. They also posted a video on Vimeo (Click here). They writes:
The image quality, the build and overall experience of using these lenses won’t disappoint you.
It’s funny how things change and how much they stay the same. Many years ago (during the seventies) back in the film days I moved to Olympus from my big Nikon systems. Their original OM series cameras specifically OM-3 and 4 were ground breaking as far as size and performance. Now it seems we are seeing this evolution happen all over again. My full frame Nikon DSLR system hasn’t seen action for a number of months now. Olympus has won me over with its feature rich E-M1 camera and Pro series lenses.
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.
69 Responses
Do all pro lenses have horrible pin-cushioning at 150mm?
Only if you are cross eyed.
no its in your eyes
Let’s ignore this boring lens topic .
Is over praise afterall !
We continue to discuss the Organic Sensor tech .
Too much power consume & higher processor is needed according to source , I think this is good thing cause this make the sensor unique , mainly are the requirements contribute to unprecented image quality ( DR 88 dB ) .
What do you think ?
I dont know Yun..I hope it gives the benefits it claims, hope for you becaause you want it
Because the sensor need much much power like never before to run it’s light gathering function make me to believe it definitely capable of delivering something very big .
Processor wise , need higher capabilities to proceed something never seen before even convince me this likely the ultimate imaging in m4/3 future .
I don’t mind the camera is slightly bigger than GX7 although I really enjoy the size of GX1 better but it really deliver that 88dB imaging , I don’t mind at all .
I think this lens is over post .
Such post can just throw under “a bit of everything”
Waste of slot intend .
Have you been drinking?
“Their original OM series cameras specifically OM-3 and 4 were ground breaking as far as size and performance”
I would say that the OM-1 and OM-2 were ground breaking as far as size and performance. The OM-3 and OM-4 were ground breaking in terms of metering flexibility.
The price of this lens makes it a mount trap. After buying it one is unlikely to switch systems and thus caution is advised.
As to me, I spent so much on m4/3 (and 4/3) lenses already that it doesn’t matter. I will not buy this lens because I don’t use this sort of focal lengths much and my interest in photo gear is waning anyway. Three years ago I would have grabbed a copy without thinking twice.
Yes but same can be said of any high quality lens for other systems. I think m43 has a good while yet. Sensor tech improvements are constantly narrowing the quality gap between apsc and m43. I’d be more worried buying into apsc right now
Quality cap between APSC and m43 is already overstepped, the m43 challengeces already Nikon D810 and D4 in quality terms at big prints. Even Sony A7R has difficulties to give better quality for big prints (40×24″)
And using a bodies like E-M1 its possible to use smallest aperture ranges like f16-22 without such quality loss because circle of confusion. Add more megapixels to sensor and the circle of confusion problem can be overthrown totally.
There ain’t reason to by a APSC these days, not even any latest models like Canon 7D MKII that can’t deliver higher quality photos than E-M1 or GH4! The Focus ain’t problem with latest m43 cameras even for tracking high speed subjects. Only a very highly skilled long term professional (lots of experience) in sports can spot the difference in AF-C but even they prefer AF-S as they follow the sportsperson and know how to read the game. To them there isn’t such problems.
That’s reason why magazines send long term professionals to challenging cases instead photographers who trust camera manufacturers or have been on profession only under 10 years.
I’m getting good skate park photos with the E-M1 and GH4 that would be difficult to get otherwise. 10 or 12 fps make it much easier in certain cases, and the extra bit of Depth of Field helps. AF is both great and horrible, depending on the day.
I agree. M4/3 is not different from other mounts in this regard. Expensive optics have always prohibited mobility to a great extent and manufacturers are well aware of this. In fact, a system cannot be considered “safe” until it includes lenses that are dearer than its top bodies. For that reason I advise anyone considering one of the A7 cameras to wait.
You are right, and this is why I’ve ummed and arred for so long. At first I thought I could ignore the 40-150mm, and aim for the 300mm. I have a 50-500mm 4/3 Bigma. But it’s a bit big as a carry around. So I was looking at may picking up a used 50-200mm. However, the 40-150m is so sharp, and it’s close focus so good, I have never wanted a lens so much. It would be a great lens for butterflies and dragonflies, and take the place of the longer macro lenses I use for them.
But I’ve had to think very deeply about that. The other mounts, and I have got a Canon system as well, offer the possibility of higher resolution – even if you have to hire the camera. Luckily if the 40mp sensor shift thing comes off, that could be a way out of the trap for me. Nevertheless, I can still see it being a problem with those with other needs. Possibly Olympus needs a tier of camera above even the E-M1 to stop it being a trap.
The 50-200mm SWD has exactly the same maximum magnification as this new lens and is every bit as sharp. At least I can’t see a meaningful difference in sharpness, having tested both side by side. The new lens gets better maximum magnification only with TC, but then again, the SWD also has a 1.4x TC available, becoming 280mm f/4.9 at the long end. Not too bad! The new lens is noticeably lighter and has better AF, nicer build and nicer lens hood. Those are the things going for it.
I haven’t tested the 2. To tell the truth I always regretted getting the Bigma and not the 50-200mm SWD, it was a toss up, and they were both around the same price. I admit from what I’ve seen the 50-200mm is a very fine lens. With a sharp lens you will not easily see the difference. I agree with your penultimate sentence, and that is why I’d probably go for the 40-150mm. I think the bokeh is probably better as well. But if I get the 40-150, I’ve definitely got to get the 300mm eventually as well. I’ve just got find a buyer for one of my kidneys first.
I’ve thought several times about buying FujiFilm equipment because of a couple of their lenses, but it isn’t likely to happen, either.
“Their original OM series cameras specifically OM-3 and 4 were ground breaking as far as size and performance.”
Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 are same sizes and ground breaking when compared to Canon or Nikon SLR.
The metering Olympus introduced later was way ahead of its time, though, and TTL flash, too.
The OM-system was remarkable for its size and optical quality–from the start.
This lens gets a lot of tests and samples, but very little talks among “full-frame idiots” as they have so hard time to accept that something smaller can have sharper and better (faster) light performance than their bigger beasts.
The problem why I have not picked up this yet is just the price, 1600€ for combo costs almost as much as the E-M1 + 12-40 did (1800€) as brand new when it was released.
I would love to buy this one but I believe 7-14mm Pro would be the one I want. If Olympus just would have made 150-300 (why not 150-400 while it) f:3.5 and the scale from 7-300(400) would be there with just three lenses! Resolving more than most Zeiss, Canon or Nikon lenses (only few rare variants beats these Pro lenses in sharpness).
But enough is enough, this lens has got enough reviews I assume?
I am not convinced that this 40-150mm lens is sharper than similar full frame lenses. Show me examples please.
For example the Olympus 75/1.8 prime is considered one of the sharpest Micro Four Thirds lenses available and it resolves 12 megapixels. Compare that to the aging Canon 135L which resolves 20 megapixels it is a huge difference.
DXO lens resolution figures are sensor-dependent. They are useful only for comparing optics on the same format.
That might be the case, but in my personal experience it is the same: my full frame photos are always significantly sharper than my micro four thirds photos.
yeah..not sure…but some of my ff primes are soooo sharp…added with the extra real estate of the sensor and is more..but lots of times no one would know the difference in many view situations both online and print.
..and MFT just keeps getting better and better!!!!
Mike….MFT does not trump FF.
I have a Canon FF and all Canon L and Sigma Art glass.
This lens is not sharper than my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Anyone that says that is daft.
I bought this new Oly 40-150mm and 1.4x Kit (got it last week) and it is a GREAT lens. I am going to run it thru the paces this weekend. Here is what I see. MFT keeps getting better and better. The sensors will get better. My MFT is so small…and takes great images that are VERY good. That is now. In the near future it will only get better. Will it ever be BETTER IQ than top notch FF kits. No. Will it ever have bokeh as good as top notch FF kits. No. ..but I have to tell ya …it has gotten good enough for most of my needs. I sold an art print this week that was shot on an older MFT sensor with the Panny 7-14mm. My customer didn’t ask what camera I used…they just loved the shot.
Mike…you sound threatened? 🙂
Well I am in the same boat as you. I use both micro four thirds and full frame, side by side. Each has its own purpose. But I find these blanket statements comparing micro four thirds to full frame idiotic, that’s why I want to respond and see proof. Because I tried with my own equipment and am unable to see such a thing that micro four thirds would be sharper.
Its not sharper…but I gotta tell you …the performance of the new TC1.4x is truly astounding. I haven’t compared side by side with the Canon TC1.4XIII … (now I am talking relative to holding the sharpness and contrast of each lens…when attached)..I think that the Oly TC would win that contest. The thing is Tiny..its a little sliver of a thing.
Again…over all you are going to get better IQ from the Canon set up because of the sensor…but damn…this set up is amazing AND it has a LOT more reach. If I have a 70-300 on the canon at f/1.8 with IS and a TC1.4x…we are talking HUGE!!!!! :-0
Its all fun though.
One thing MFT can’t touch is the bokeh from say my Canon 85mm f/1.2II or the new Sigma 50mm Art f/1.4. …but hey…that small kit is really attractive at my age!!!!!! LOL!
How does a Voigtlander 25 f0.95 bokeh compare with your sigma 50 1.4?
I remember the ZD35-100 tested to be at least as good as the best 70-200 zooms..So i can believe this 40-150 to be in the same league. Its no shame to admit the high end mft lenses can match the bigger format ones, its not like claiming a smaller sensor is better then a big sensor. We are talking about optics here.
Best comment ever!! In all my years pursuing 43rumours et al. I find this (your) comment refreshing. I find that M43 is a great system and as such is fit for purpose. Full frame also has its own merits and as such provide different outcomes for those who utilise either, or both systems. I Personally think they compliment each other, in my humble opinion that is but at the end of day, its the output that counts and customer is king. I wholeheartedly agree it’s the person behind the camera that makes the image. Once again… Great comment!!!
I sold my EF 135mm L when realizing that I use the Zuiko 75mm more. Better or not? I see no difference with prints of 11x9inch and did never print bigger. Fact is, that the Zuiko 75mm on an E-M1 is the better combo than the Canon (for my purposes). No science here, just Johnny Average Mainstream. But I can say for sure, that my E-M1 with a CV 0.95 25mm Nokton is better than a Canon 6D with a Zeiss 1.4 50mm Planar T* (also for my purposes 🙂 ): Ever seen a lens with 17cm close-up abilities and f0.95, dangerously sharp from 2.8 and sharper @0.95 than the Zeiss @1.4? M43 has its advantages and it is better than many FF owners would think. I still own a FF camera for the romance of the mechanics… M43 is not about the sensor and sharpness only, it is the versatility and how precise this system works. Try it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but 20MP for a full frame sensor that is 4x the size of 4/3 sensor? Shouldn’t it be at least 48MP if you want to compare it?
Resolve resolution for that is then only 5Mpix while Olympus resolves over twice that.
12Mpix from 16Mpix is 75% resolving power of sensor.
20Mpix from 36Mpix is only a 55% from same pixel pitch and so on only 2/3 that of the Olympus.
Megapixels from DXO doesn’t mean anything as value as they are not directly comparable. You need to convert the values for sensor magnification for given print size.
Take a shot with best 70-200 and it lose to 40-150mm Pro.
Sorry. Larger sensor requires longer distance and wider distribution.
i’ve got quite an extensive Nikon FX system which i use for my larger jobs.. but honestly i took out an OMD with the 40-150 and am quite impressed.. i even put it up against my A7S which in alot of other ways is better but honestly lenses from sony are still no where near on par with even the older pro lenses from nikon and canon where as olympus actually produces something pretty good for a lower price and a hell of a lot less weight!
The 40-150 f2.8 and 1.4x converter has just about convinced me to throw my lot in with m4/3. Currently I own both a Canon DSLR system and an older Olympus 4/3 system. I have specific requirements and a few things were holding me back from shifting to m4/3. There was the shutter shock issue. Not maybe the biggest thing to everyone, but with some of the critical field macro work it is everything. I’ve been using Electronic First Curtain shutter ever since I got a Canon 40D since just after it came out. It really is a godsend for critical field macro work, as there is no shutter shock at all. In fact I moved from a Pentax MX 35mm film SLR to Olympus OMs over 30 years ago for the same reason. So the 0sec anti-shock implementation is massive for me.
At first I thought the 40-150mm was a bit too short in focal length. But then I realised I had been used a little light cheap Canon 55-250mm on APS-C for a few years as a carry around, and that’s a 400m eqv. It’s a bit short, but manageable. So with the 1.4x converter the 40-150mm gets a bit longer. The 300mm should settle the score with the longer stuff. I’m getting older and I need to lighten the load. For a long time I’ve been using my Sigma 150mm f2.8 and 1.4x converter as an ad hoc telephoto. Usually when I’m out shooting macro a chance crops up. I shot this Roe Deer set up, when one an early morning insect macro shoot, amazingly this Roe Deer doe turned up, and decided to spend the next 2 hours browsing alongside me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9578475@N02/sets/72157635103073508/
If the 40mp E-M5 II is as told, it will be ideal. I only need the really high resolution stuff for perfectly still things. Rarely is it possible to get enough sharpness for the type of photos I take, to take advantage of higher resolution, with my style, if there is any movement.
All I’ve got to work out is how to finance the shift. I think in the UK, m4/3 is priced a shade too high. The prices carry an annoying premium they shouldn’t. If Olympus address that I think they would sell more. From a nature photographers point of view, they are nearly there. When the 300mm comes out, it could be really popular if they get the price right.
I’ll buy the ultra wide as soon as it’s available.
You mean the Oly 7-14 F2.8 ?
It’s wise to wait for reviews , Lenstip for example .
It’not LEICA DG Lens afterall .
Well, Olympus hasn’t made a single bad HG/SHG/PRO lens yet, so they’ve got about as good a track record as any…
So how you going to explain the M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 lens ?
My copy of 17mm f1.8 is good, though there’s no PRO written on it.
I already talked to an Olympus guy who handled both the 7-14mm and the 300mm (prototype). He told me the performances are those of the already existing PRO labelled zoom lenses.
My prediction is that, given it is a more modern lens, it is supposed to have at least a better coating than that of the Panasonic 7-14mm (I love it for my estate works but hate when I can’t control light and freacking lensflares).
In other words: it can’t be worst than the Panasonic counterpart..
For what I have seen so far, 15mm Leica has not so much more than the Panasonic 20mm, despite its Leica label.
I remember is you that I advise to replace your 17mm lens with LEICA DG 15mm .
You haven’t do so ?
Btw , the Leica DG 15mm did edge the 20mm lens in sharpness & rendering cause I did owned both lenses before .
I haven’t replaced my 17mm because a) it’s a good lens b) for the same price I bought a RicohGR (and I find it a better tool: no need to swap a lens, the camera is tiny, cool modes, stunning pixel acuity)
Ok , up to you .
Yun, being such a connoisseur of top optics, can you show me some of your photographs? they must excel.
There’s also the possibility of sample variation in all these cases.
To be honest, there’s nothing out there that’s going to compel me to replace my 20mm/1.7 pancake. I like the focal length, love the speed, size, and sharpness.
Because you still haven’t discover a lens called
LEICA DG Summilux 25mm F1.4 . I sold my 20mm lens because of it .
You should start your investigation on it .
Actually, it’s a Panasonic. They just use the Leica name for marketing to people like you.
What about the purple fringing of the Panasonic/Leica 15mm?
Yun thinks that the purple fringing is decorative and that it enhances his photos!!!! 🙂
That is no big deal .
The basic fulfillment of a decent lens should have before anything come first is sharpness@detailing especially in the centre of the frame according to the variety speed & FL of lens classification .
The Oly 17mm f1.8 in this case just can’t make it
Mine is excellent. No difference to my Canon EF 35mm f2.0 IS. It’s just curious to see all these bad reviews on the net. It is not true at least in my case.
+100
Its a great lens that AF’s blazingly fast that has better corner sharpness than the more expensive 15mm f1.7? Granted, I think both lenses don’t perform to the level of their price tag, but its still a great lens.
Easy, it’s not a HG/SHG/PRO lens.
We are no longer in 4/3 era .
Stop comparing with such irrelevant lenses although I agreed those are legendary lenses but pity they are well beaten not in optics but in the entire format by APSC Revolution.
True we are not, but we are in the PRO era. Olympus have a clear strategy of using the PRO moniker on a range of very high quality lenses. You were questioning Marco’s very sensible conclusion/intention concerning the 7-14 F2.8 PRO.
The other two PRO lenses are quite superb and I think at this point most people realise that there is absolutely no question the 7-14/2.8 PRO wont be at least their equal.
Which brings us back to your questioning Turbofrogs original statement with the quite fatuous implication that the 17mm F1.8 somehow called into question the quality of the HG/SHG/PRO lenses, when It is not in any of those product categories.
Yun the Real Stig has your answer down below…and let’s remember…not all of the Leica “branded” lPanasonic lenses that are also made in JAPAN. Are perfect either.
The HG/SHG/PRO lenses are quite stellar and I am sure the next two will be GREAT!
What are you doing here ?
I thought you are with your Canon fairy tale .
” m4/3 can’t touch the bokeh of your Canon 85mm F1.2″
Please note that it really doesn’t matter where the Leica DG lens is made , as long as it certified by LEICA AG , it is more than sufficient to be a decent lens .
No fairytale. I have an extensive FF kit. I bought into MFT To have a smaller lighter kit for travel, etc. and it seems that I am using it much more than I anticipated….but MFT cannot touch the bokeh of the Canon 85mm f/1.2 on a 5DIII. That’s just a fact Jack.
…and …the “leica” lenses made in Japan are a FAR cry from their German engineered counterparts…Let’s be honest and transparent, no?
🙂
did you shoot with the 17mm Yun?
Ulli…I heard everyone complaining about that lens..and I thought mine was sharp as hell…but I sold it and bought the Panny/Leica 15mm …which I have to admit is BETTERER…(dont tell Yun!!!!! LOL!) ….but I really do prefer the 17mm focal point of view more.
Sorry just wake up .
No but I saw lot of photos from the lens & I’m not impressed .
Since when is a Leica stamp the ONLY high quality standard for M43?
Olympus are deservedly going to sell so many of these…
I gotta say, it’s much, much smaller looking in this video than the pictures convey. The lens hood is a bit ridiculous (albeit functional) but overall you have to be impressed.
What’s the word on the 300mm. Like to have it before the spring sports opens up.
That article is not by Reichman and doesn’t have his usual qualities.
Nice review. The author was able to take a clear image at 1/8 sec and focus length of 142mm, that’s almost 5 stops down. Anyone who says Olympus 5-axis IBIS won’t work well at the 150mm end is a fool. The IBIS is amazing.