Side by side comparison of the new M.Zuiko 40-150mm and the older Zuiko 35-100mm en Zuiko 150mm on Dutch website Pixelmania.nl
Does the new 40-150mm PRO really outperform the best Zuiko FT tele lenses as said by Olympus? The Dutch site Pixelmania compared the new PRO lens versus the Zuiko 35-100mm en Zuiko 150mm FT lenses. Just watch the images on their site and click on them to compare. And indeed they conform the new lens beats their Image Quality and what impresses the reviewer is that they achieved that goal on a lens that’s less heavier and smaller than the other lenses! Consider also that the 40-150mm PRO lens is priced lower than the other and that’s why it earned the “Pixelmania Award”
40-150mm PRO shop link:
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.
50 Responses
I have to say I like the images on left side more ..just saying …
the 35-100 background at 100mm/2.8 looks more blurry , maybe its an error and they shot at f/2
left side looks to me have more light too …on all appertures
Yeah…I am thinkin the same thing.
Not to mention the fact that some of the shots are back focused or forward focused to a huge degree, none of the two shots have the same point of focus for both lenses so it becomes REALLY hard to compare them… then the angle changes, some were taken at a different time so the lighting is different (look at the shadows cast by the leaves on other leaves).
This “review” is useless.
It looks like they shot from tripod with 5-axis stabi on which caused shuttershock to be visible, I cannot explain the motion-blurryness in the pictures on the right (which you could see on the apples twigs easily, only checked the f/2.8 ones) any other way.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/gyPl5ep.jpg[/img]
While its a great achievement, both optically and size wise, we must keep in mind that the FT’s are F/2.0
Not this again .
Too much publications & reviews about this lens .
If really it beat those SHG lenses , I don’t really care simply because it is F2.8 lens .
do you really have to say you dislike talk about this lens every time.
This is a very interesting lens for many people. Get over it.
+1 Yun is getting very grumpy lately
He just does not include the Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 in his “Fantasy Daydreams”. It’s a travesty. 🙂
“.. . But if we need bokeh .. We can just pull out Nocticron & 75mm … ”
Means you have get the Nocticron in $800 ?
longer FL gives you the bokeh you want, without the need for a fast aperure, even the Sigma DN 60mm f2.8 already convinces , you just need to like the tele effect coming with it .
That’s why I always said the most useful part of this lens is at it’s 150mm F2.8 . But it still not good enough for a portrait purpose .
Of course , long tele lens contribute to nice bokeh & compression effect but at the mean time you have to let accept different of FOV depend on the tele FL .
Can I have the bokeh of 75mm in the FOV of 45mm ?
Yes , a 45mm F1.0 will do .
“Can I have the bokeh of 75mm in the FOV of 45mm ?”
Ask Santa Claus
there is still time
The poor comments of this topic reflected it .
Nope, you are twisting the comments. Rational people can see they are criticizing the review, not the lens.
I see a lot of discussion about comparison between FT lens and 40-150mm pro, informative enough for me. Kudos to Admin for picking an interesting topic again.
Look, listen, should I test and write reviews on m43 gear, right now that is *the* piece of equipment I’d like to get my hand on. No one should blame the rest of the planet review for thinking the same and this site won’t pass over any m43 reviews. End of the story.
Too much about this lens .
Such topic should send to “a bit of everything ” .
Why? You got an android 43rumors application installed and making your phone ring on each every news feed and you would like to have fewer siestas bothered by news on this lens..? Is that why?
On mean, there are 3-4 daily feed on this site. Shall we really make a big deal about that?
Yun, they’re trying to hype this lens into photogs buying it. It’s called “Marketing”. Throw a reviewer son cash to write a stunning review.
Works most of the time. Saves money on advertising.
Well…I think the new lens is an incredible achievement, especially with the 1.4x dangling in its little case nearby when needed. There is a lot of high quality reach there in a small package. The lens definitely expands the “little system that could” for those who want or need it.
That being said…the lens is a different animal than either of the 4/3 lenses it competes with here.
…but if we need bokeh…we can just pull out the Nocti or the Oly 75mm and you have quite a bit more that this incredible zoom with lots of sharpness to boot.
One lens can never serve them all!!! LOL.
Stil, old FT 35-100 i better for my taste. Better, creamer bokeh, while newe lens gives somewhat nervous, hesitant bokeh which is unpleasant for viewing. This is same for mZD45 f/1.8. (a v. v good prime for mFT) I tested it with E-M1 and for comparision with old ZD 50mm f/2 MACRO. And the latter came as the winner both in resolution, microcontrast and bokeh quality.
we are talkin about small differences here imo. The 35-100 has its f/2 advantage..and the 2 other primes; rather small ones too, though here the FT has the advantage of sealing and maybe the better performance at close range, though the hunting is infamous. I worked with all 3 lenses, so i just saying my own experience with it.
Advantage in sealing? All are weather sealed. And 40-150mm works great at close range, that’s the reason why dual-focus system was made.
The 40-150mm is all way around better than any those FT (they are excellent each of those too!) Except when it comes one stop wider aperture for FT.
And that one extra stop can be a deal maker for many! A f2 150mm is a M-M-M-Monster compared to any other DSLR objective.
that was a reply on the ZD 50 vs the mzuiko 45, which has no sealing at all, while the close range was about the ZD 50. I cant say if the 40-150 renders more nice then the 35-100. good photos can show this . I still believe the 35-100 gets it way of rendering because of its rumored design being a 70-200 with a built in focal reducer. I have no experience with the zd 150.
Sorry but at f2.8 i see the 150 to be better than new zoom.
Noticable better.
The comparison is useless… Pixelmania has obvious camera shake on the 40-150mm f/2.8.
In the 150mm comparison @f/2.8, bring up both images to 100% and you will she the camera shake on the new lens on the right.
That might effect sharpness a little!!!!! LOL! (did they use a panasonic body or what? :-0)
http://i.imgur.com/gyPl5ep.jpg
Not a very good test if you ask me when you get motion blur into the pictures.
Nice call..yeah…and that is the new Olympus telephoto with the shake…
WOW! It negates the whole test…DUH
Exactly!
I opened both sets apple samples in widest aperture (2.8) the new Pro has and I had hard time to believe my eyes that the new Pro is soft, after second I got that it is motion blur from camera shake and couldn’t take review seriously at all. Like did the quick reviewer even check the photos before taking a another, or before making the article?
He used a GH4! (no 5-Axis stabilization) LOL! 🙂
Excuse me? Didn’t he have a E-M1 only on tripod and then switch objectives?!
Just having some fun….just bad technique!
No, its called you tried to “Spin” the article and blame anybody, except Olympus. Shame on you.
admin : schreib “lighter” und nicht “less heavier” 😉
less heavy he prob meant :-)…ahhh the foreign language…
Oh ja bitte, Admin : schreib nicht “more lighter” aber nur “lighter” 😀
It should really say, “…has less mass.” Weight is something else.
It is something else, but whatever the article says about “weight” would be just as true if the same statement was true about “mass”.
typical for dutch reviews is that they lack any reasonable knowledge in giving completeness in any review. And in this case the reviewer completely ignores the fact that those ft zooms are f/2 which could have been mentioned to explain why they are so much heavier and bigger,
Exactly. For example, there isn’t even a hint of edge/corner performance examination. (The “typical for” statement is an uncalled-for rudeness, though.)
What is this, some kind of JOKE? I’m OUTRAGED!
As others have said the FT lenses are f/2. An apples to oranges test. Why not compare them to the Canon f/1.2 lenses and say that the mFT out perform Canon’s fastest? Waste of bandwidth.
I’ll take the FT lenses if they don’t like them 🙂 !
Close, but I prefer the IQ of the 150mm f2.
And as others have pointed out, motion blur with the 40-150. Dutch amateurs.
It’s better, really?
It’s called Marketing. Out with the old, on with the new.
To be frank, this is the Lens that will doom you to this system as a primary system. I would avoid it at all cost. M43 started mirrorless and sadly won’t finish the race, OR finish in last place.
My opinion.
You don’t have an opinion, just an agenda.
The Real Stig. This reminds me of an cracked article I read last night about how trolling has evolved since the early 2000 with focus on ideologies instead of fun, with less creativity involved. The persistence of the resident trolls here with its repeating statements, seems to back that assertion.
The first pair of images (100mm f2.8) are not even focused at the same spot, haven’t bothered comparing the others…
The 35-100mm is focused near the top middle apple
The 40-150mm is focused near to the top front apple