It seems that m43 has finally reached it’s strengths. Size/quality/feature-ratio is unmatched with these relatively small f4 zooms. I would buy this 40-150/4 in a heartbeat, but I already have the mighty 12-100/4 which also has IS, MF clutch and fn-button - and I don’t need the extra 100-150mm reach. It would be nice of course, but 12-100/4 does basically everything I need. Combined with new 20/1.4 PRO and OM-1, there’s not much I cannot do. Anyway, 40-150/4 is exactly what OMS needs - unique and brilliant lens in terms of size, IQ, FL and build quality.
I just bought the 12-100 and I cannot wait to try it. It's on a G9 body so missing out on Dual IS but I think it's gonna be a really nice upgrade from my 14-140 in terms of overall quality.
I totally agree Alex, having the 12-100, I have no need for this, but it is a perfect partner to the 12-45f4 and as you say add the 10mm, most bases covered. This is a great lens though, the 40-150 f2.8 is an amazing lens, but on a 5 series body or 10 series, it is totally unbalanced. For me, the whole ethos of m43 is compactness......
Absolutely! I'm in the similar situation. I've owned 12-100/4 since 2017y. Also have Lumix G vario 100-300/4-5.6 II, and 2 months ago got new Pana/Leica DG Vario-Summilux 25-50 F1.7 for the portraiture. My last acquisition was m.Zuiko 8-25mm F4.0 so my F4.0 set is complete.
I’m debating on pulling the trigger on the 12-100 f/4, I have the 12-40 f/2.8 that I use for portrait work and I love my 40-150 f/4 non pro version but I want better quality. I was stuck between the 12-100 vs the 40-150 f2.8 for street photography. F4 hasn’t been an issue so far. I guess it depends on the price point.
Oh yes, even for me, in the video, I had only two lenses that pretty much did everything for me, and for bulk of the time, I used the 40-150, any wide shots, I used my drone instead when possible.
I have the 40-150 F2.8 and this is an extremely useful focal length zoom. I shoot wildlife with it and the 300mm F4. Here in the dark HOH Rainforest the 40-150mm covers so much.
I purchased a 40 - 150mm f4 lens, along with my OM1's. I will be using mine specifically for capturing butterflies and dragonflies in Pro Capture mode as they take off and land. The advantages of weight saving, when handholding for this particular type of capture, outweigh any disadvantages the lens may have.
Hey Jimmy, I appreciate the review of this lens, which I plan to add to my kit this summer-for all the reasons you stated. When I returned to photography after a bit of a layoff two years ago, I got started with the E-M5 Mk III which had the 12-45mm f4 Pro as its ‘kit’ lens, and what a great combo that is. I know being “just” f4, the 12-45 gets razzed by some, but the image quality speaks for itself. Had it not come as an option, I might have spent the $$ on the 12-40 f2.8 Pro which I already knew is a great lens on its own. Anyway, since then, I’ve added the 20mm f1.4 for capturing low light situations, and either it or the 12-45mm is in hand, depending on the situation (and since they cover the majority of situations I typically photograph-technically, I could get away with never buying another lens and do just fine with these two). But the added reach of the 40-150mm f4 just seems to tick all the right boxes as well. Glad you put it through its paces and took your time with it.
Love your videos! I just got into the Olympus MFT system (E-M1 III and Pen F) for portability. It augments my Nikon gear (D500 & D850). I'm loving the Olympus gear. I buy it used from KEH and MPB. Everything is smaller and less expensive. The computational photography features are amazing. This lens fits into what I want ... keep it small and portable!
Your reviews are fabulous Jimmy. You get to the real nitty-gritty of how useful this lens is, as well as pointing out who would be most likely to need it. For myself, I think I’ll be saving for the 2.8 version as it will be better for wildlife here in not-so-bright Scotland. Thanks Jimmy!
It is a great looking lens! That drone footage was fantastic. The images you have collected were great too. To many reviews lack great images like these.
Thanks Ben! It's a fun lens to shoot, especially if you travel a lot. As demonstrated, if you hike/walk a lot with lots of stuff, this is a really awesome lens that doesn't weight too much yet giving so much reach and quality in return!
Hi Jimmy, at last!, someone openly stating that landscape photographers prefer to stop down and don't always require heavy constant aperture faster lenses and dreamy bokeh. It looks like a nice bit of kit, not for me but I applaud what they're doing in reducing the size and weight of lenses. Sometimes I think that landscape photography is a bit of a forgotten genre. All the best, Leigh
@@Red35Photography Hi Jimmy, I fully agree mate. You make some very good points regarding weight and aperture. You know my preferences for lightweight gear. It's horses for courses of course. If it meant carrying around a heavier lens with a fast aperture which wouldn't get used very much vs a lighter, slower lens then I'd always go for the later. :) I'm more than happy to shed a tad of debatable extra image quality for an affordable, portable lens every time.
Thanks for the very professional review of this lens. You make a very compelling case detailing all the excellent attributes of the lens, and I may indeed purchase it. Those who are considering this lens vs. the 2.8 version (one or the other but not both) should keep in mind that the 2.8 lens has a removable tripod mount and is compatible with the MC-20 2X teleconverter. When I'm using my 40-150 f/2.8 outdoors, I slip the MC-20 in my pocket, and I have effective coverage of the range from 40 to 300mm. This gives me pro lens quality results for everything from portraits, to macros, to extreme distance wildlife images, with some landscapes as well. Another consideration - in these times, exceptional sharpness and detail resolution are sometimes irrelevant in a lens, because the intended audience will be viewing the final images downsized and compressed, and on marginal image quality computer monitors which are unable to display subtle differences. If your audience is viewing your images on a smartphone or a 15" laptop, you need only one lens in the 14-150mm range, that is the small, light, sharp Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 kit lens.
Jimmy, thanks for a wonderful review of the 40-150 f4 PRO. Great images! I have owned the 12-100 F4 IS PRO since it was first released, and it remains my favorite MFT zoom lens. I'll stick with it because it is more versatile, working better in low light situations because of the built-in IS.
I totally agree with the review! If I have to choose one single lens for a travel, then I’ll probably choose the 40-150 f4 against the other fantastic 12-45 f4. Thins is because of my style of photography.
Yes mate, I found your review‘refreshing and useful’. Thanks so much, I’ll have a chat with the mrs over a glass of sav. tonight and convince her how much I need the 40-150 f4 Pro in my bag. I really like your bag by the way, cheers.
Ordered mine today! Couldn't resist the cashback offer. Pairing it with my EM5 iii and 12-45 F4 Pro for the ultimate lightweight travel day trip combo. As others have said, I keep the triumvirate 27mm, 25mm, 45mm f1.8 around for those low light moments.
I think there's an opportunity now to compare OMD/OLY at the 40-150mm range (40-150 F2.8, 12-100 F4 IS, 40-150 F4, 12-200 F3.5-6.3, 14-150 F4-5.6). There's an argument to be made that one lens is the best choice for one purpose (landscape, low light, indoor, portrait, travel, astro, macro, bokeh, wildlife, action, video) but which one can do it all? And what are the workarounds?
Thanks for the review Jimmy. This is an awesome lens, but I'm sorry to see that they dropped the MF clutch & FN button. All in the name of cost savings I guess. I have the bigger f/2.8 version (as well as the cheap f/4-5.6 R version), which I used mainlywith the two MC teleconverters. I picked up the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 a while ago as the lightweight option and I absolutely love it! Just as small and light as the Olympus, very sharp. One stop faster, though not as long. Finally I can have a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom at under 400g!
Thanks Carl! You have a pretty good point here, this lens is about the size of the Panasonic 35-100 2.8, and about the same weight too, but feels more solid and extra reach. Compromises and preferences :)
I'm contemplating trading in my 40-150 F2.8 for this new one. I've found that that I rarely need the bright aperture in combination with the long focal lenght. Bright apertures typically come into play when I'm using my small primes (17mm & 25mm F1.8, and for shortish telephoto I have recently 'discovered' the magic of the 75mm F1.8...which is something different all together) Also I'm simply hesitant to take 40-150 F2.8 out due to it's size. Don't really like the prospect of dragging that along for a day or so when I'm out and about. I've tried the Pana 35-100 F.28 as well in the past. Neat piece of glass, and while a bit more compact then the 40-150 F2.8...didn't quite meet my needs in terms of focal length....choices choices choises...
That depends if you need the reach, I know it's tough choice but teleconverters is great for what they are, yet, they reduces the light and affects AF speed. This f4 lens is designed for a specific use and I am enjoying it, however, it really depends on a photographer's need.
I have both the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 and the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. I use the Oly almost exclusively with my two MC teleconverters (*that's* where the bright f/2.8 comes in handy--with the MC20, I have an effective 300mm f/5.6, which is not too shabby). The Panasonic is wonderful--compact, bright, and sharp. Can produce decent bokeh for portraits. Only drawback is that it's not very close focussing (compared to Olympus).
@@Red35Photography what kind of af speed is needed in static photo? A bit Confusing every time when some state NEED when there is other benefits. Good point of view but where is shutterspeeds?
@@veikop your question is open, a static object obviously you don't need a fast shutter, but anything that moves, will depend how fast they are moving, the lighting condition, the amount of background blur you want (for panning), so I can't answer that and no one will have a fixed answer either.
Your talk about how the F4 pro line up makes sense becuse not everybody needs or wants a larger more expensive f2.8 lenses has really gelled with me. I doesnt only apply to olympus either. The professional photographers put far to much pressure on us amatuers. You have got to get this lens fast lens, its great they say, so when we compare the only lenses we can afford we get disillusioned. Not anymore. A great big thanks to you Red35, you have completely transformed the way that I look at my wonderful hobby.
Great review. I also own both the new f4 version and the f2.8 version and will keep both since there are times you just need f2.8. still for the past month I have had the f4.0 in my kit and the f2.8 stayed home. I love the compact size and the sharpness of the f4.0 lens. last week I was on a trip where I was shooting wildlife, waterfalls and wildflowers andy kit was the 8-25/4.0, 12-45/4.0, 40-150/4.0, 150-400/4.5 and the 20/1.4 with the OM-1. I was supper pleased.
Been waiting for this for 2 years! I just knew it would be a great fit in the lineup. Hope to have one soon 👍 Will make a great partner for my 12-45 which is perfect for me.
I have the 40-150 f/4-5.6, as well as the 40-150 f/2.8, and the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. The cheap lens actually does do a good job, though it's noticeably softer at the long end, and the micro contrast is not nearly as good. And if you don't mind the slower f/5.6 at the long end, you can save a lot of money going with the "R" lens.
Thanks mate for another great review. I’m proud to say that I’ve just bought this lens and I am selling my 2.8 one on Trade Me. I still loved the old lens but I’m getting old and this one is half the weight and size. Take care.
Agree with your assessment John except for me you can add on "and cranky" to "getting old". The F2.8 is an absolute cracker but it is a handful. I would also comment that the new lens does not loose much in sharpness to the F2.8 that I have noticed.
I purchased this f4 version about 3 weeks ago and found it to be an excellent lens. I was debating between the 2.8 vs 4 but the size and handling won me over. Just wondering if anyone is shooting the 40-150 2.8 wide open? I would think you would need to stop it down a little especially if shooting Track and Field or even multiple birds in flight. I have found with difficult lighting scenarios the primes give you the best option especially concerts with trash lighting, indoor soccer, track. So far I am enjoying this lens and my OMD M1 III combo. Now trying to decide 12-45 or 12-40.
I really wish they'd supported the teleconverters. 300mm @ f8 would be perfectly adequate for me as a landscaper and save the weight of an extra lens(compared to the TC2). But the f4 series is a godsend when you are facing a 20 mile hike to capture some remote valley or river in the Highlands! Every ounce counts.
For a long time I've looked at options to upgrade from my Lumix 45-150 F4-5.6, and have considered and prevaricated between the Oly 40-150 F2.8, Lumix 35-100 F2.8 and Panaleica 50-200 F2.8-4. All have been found wanting, mainly because they are, respectively, too big (40-150 2.8), too short (35-100) and too expensive (50-200). What I really wanted was a pro-grade version of what I already had, a 40-150 with a max aperture of F4 to keep it small and light. At last my wishes have been granted, I want my M43 kit to be small and light, that way I'll actually use it. And the tele focal lengths are really important to me, I surprise myself all the time with how often I shoot with longer lenses, mainly to isolate subjects and simplify compositions, as well as the obvious need for shooting things that are quite a long way away. When I saw this on the roadmap I was very happy, nice to see it delivered quite quickly too. Haven't bought mine yet, I've been waiting for a selection of reviews to appear, but if the general consensus is as Jimmy has found then I reckon it's inevitable I'll be flexing the plastic soon enough....
Thanks David, glad you liked my review and you hit the nail, I love this small and light lens for all my travel and hikes, 2.8 is great but just a tad too big and heavy.
@@Red35Photography I totally understand, for professional use carrying the bigger gear isn't too much of an issue, but for more - dare I say it - "casual', personal use it just seems inappropriate. Especially when I'm on a family day out or something, where photography is not the sole purpose of the day. That's why I got rid of all my Nikon gear a few years ago and switched to M43. I was constantly leaving lenses at home, so what was the point of owning them?
As much as I use my plastic fantastic I think I might prefer the 12-100 to this. I think I'll use 12-40 more than 100-150. Love to buy them both but just recently got the 100-400.
Well, you got pretty much everything covered. For me, size is pretty important depends on what I do, as you can see in my video, I packed everything, including my drone, in a very small cube, smaller than a camera bag, in my backpack. If this is something important, then it is a solution. As said, everyone is different.
12-200 is a great lens, yet, I love this lens because of its light weight and reach, as I already have others, like the 12-40, this makes even more sense to me. Though I have the 12-100 f4 too hahah
Excellent review! Thanks a lot. I have a couple of questions to ask: dpreview tested this lens as well and they found out wide open at 150mm is a bit soft. Have you noticed the same thing? Second question is about the 50 frames/sec: why do you think the 12-100f4 supports 50f/sec while the others f4 do not? Do you think the AF motors of this 40-150 are worse than the ones in the 12-100?
Ever since I got the 25mm f/1.2, I'm getting tired of shallow DOF, lol. Don't get me wrong - I love the lens, but I find myself more and more preferring the "slightly defocused" background, instead of bokeh overload. Even though I already own the 40-150 f/2.8 (my favourite lens), I'm eyeballing this little gem for its portability.
"Ever since I got the 25mm f/1.2, I'm getting tired of shallow DOF, lol. Don't get me wrong - I love the lens, but I find myself more and more preferring the "slightly defocused" background, instead of bokeh overload." Blurry background/Foreground is good up to the point. In some scenes it is nice, but not in most. Why the "Bokeh" is important? When you don't have anything for the background, nothing interesting that doesn't add to subject, then highlights and such in blurred background can be help to add something there. It is then not about amount of blur, but asthetics of the background that gets blurred. But that gets boring very very quickly. In wildlife photography having single colored background and animal partially in focus is boring. It can hit in some shots, but in most you want to get the animal in the environment where it is living. Same is with the memories, you want't see where it was taken, what is at the background and foreground. Not just about shots that could have been taken everywhere. And that was the 4/3 format purpose, to offer less DOF for the required task, while minimizing the camera size, and keep quality above the required image use. This means, f/1.8 is usually too little DOF, so you need f/2.8-5.6 to get enough, but you get image quality that is more than enough for 36" prints, while typical prints are only about 18-24" in size. So the camera size and so on mass was possible be minimized.
Apart from weather sealing how much better is this and the 2.8 compared to the plastic 40-150 lens? I have that lens and am looking at purchasing one of the pro versions. Thanks
I got this lens a couple of weeks ago. Much preferable to humping around the f2.8 version every day, I can assure you. Soooo glad they didn’t ruin it by giving IS or SIS. Sold the 12100 to pay for it and still have the 1245 for the close work. My 2 lens kit is the f4 40150 & 1245 and the 2 lenses are only 75 grammes heavier than the 12100 and have an extra 50mm of reach. Wish they took the same filter size…
I’m not sure this offers anything over the Panasonic Leica 50-200 f2.8-4? The Panasonic is faster or equal and the extra 50mm takes you to ultra telephoto territory and the minimum needed for wildlife. It also has lens based IS, which will do sync IS on Panasonic bodies. While the Panasonic is slightly bigger, it is not a big lens like the Oly 40-150 f2.8. If you are prepared to carry the f4 Oly then it is barely any size or weight penalty to carry the Panasonic.
Interesting lens and great review. However I am still waiting for a compact OM Pro lens to compete with the PanaLeica 50-200; maybe something like 60-250 that sits between the 40-150 and the 100-400. Maybe F4-5.6 to keep the size reasonable. The 75-300 is nice and fairly cheap, but too slow and not Pro grade.
For a hobby photographer would you recommend this lens over a 14-150 f4.0-5.6? I'm tempted but not sure I can justify the cost (tho I can get a really good deal brand new...) I don't generally shoot in the rain! Are the images that much better? I just upgraded to an OM-1 as a treat.
Bonjour, Vous avez bien identifié le problème majeur de cette version F4 du 40-150 qui n'accepte pas les TC ce qui réduit considérablement sa plage d'utilisation. Bien sûr j'avais hésité d'acheter le 40-150 2.8 à cause de son poids : j'avais acheté le pana 100-300 à cause de cela avec mon premier boitier EM1( la qualité optique est bonne mais la faible ouverture est son problème et surtout sur la version 1 la construction n'a rien à voir avec le 40-150 2.8 Oly). Depuis j'ai acquis le EM1x et j'ai conc craqué pour le 40-150 2.8 avec le TC x2. Si la qualité est au rendez vous on perd quand même, en valeur absolue (car si on compare en FF avec un zoom équivalent en 5.6 !) le bénéfice des utilisateurs de micro 4/3 c'est à dire sur le poids. Je regarde de plus en plus comme solution intermédiaire le Panasonic-Leica 50-200 2.8/4...qui a comme défaut de commencer à 50 ce qui diminue sa versatilité (déjà un peu serré) et qui ne dispose pas d'un collier de pied ce qui est incompréhensible (pour la facilitation des photos sur trépied). Je crois par contre qu'on peut trouver un TC X1.4 ou X2 ce qui m'apparaît indispensable comme pour le Oly 40-150 2.8. J'aime beaucoup vos présentations à la fois sur le fond et sur la forme. Bien cordialement.
Weight and portability is a big reason. Also, you don't need the fastest lens. I shot snow sports and I want to include the scenery along with my models. Therefore, I mostly shoot at f5.6.
In Japan it was included in the OM -1 kit .. the rest rest of the world only had to do it with the other lens the new 12-40 mm Pro …. Bad for OM Systems
I might have missed something but may I ask what contrast is like please. I do landscape photos and I like deep blues and reds and greens I haven't seen anyone address the topic of contrast for this lens. Can anyone help answer this please.
I just don't get the f4 pro range. I can't imagine there being too many photographers who would be happy having f4 as limit. If I need to stop down... I will stop down. But I would always want the option to go to f 2.8., especially in the MFT world.
@@alfredouybomping7642 I can get the cost, but just how much heavier is the 2.8 compared to the 4? Is it really still that cumbersome compared to a FF lens?
@@normandy2501 Naturally, all things being equal we'd all take a faster lens, but there is always a tradeoff in lens design. Is giving up on f-stop that big a deal? Depends on your preferences and how often you shoot in low enough light that you end up shooting at "high" ISO where noise has been a problem for you. The greater dynamic range and lower "high" ISO noise levels of the OM-1 should give at least as good of low-light results with the f4.0 as the f2.8 with earlier OM-D bodies. (Yes, I'd like to see those tests myself, but so far the reviews of the OM-1 strongly suggest this is true.) The first advantage of the F4.0 is size: it is 3.91" x 2.71" (99.4mm x 68.9mm) vs the f2.8 which is 6.3" x 3.13" (160mm x 79.4mm) or over two inches shorter, and a half and inch narrower. That's a big difference in your camera bag or in your hand. Look at Red's video again and see just how much bigger the f2.8 is. The second advantage is less weight. The f4.0 is 382g/0.84lb vs. 760g/1.67ln (without the tripod collar) and 880g/1.94lb with the collar. Or, a half pound to 1.1lbs lighter. That is a lot of weight difference especially when it's sticking out the front of your camera body. Third, the f4.0 is IP53 water resistance rated like the OM-1, so is the only other lens available besides the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II that can survive in the same harsh environments as the OM-1. And finally, there's cost: the f4.0 is $600.00 less expensive. And, the f4.0 has great optics. This is what PC Magazine said after measuring the resolution of the f4.0: "Resolution is outstanding at 40mm (2,900 lines), and at the top of our excellent scale for a 20MP sensor at 100mm and 150mm (2,700 lines). Results are sharp with the lens wide open at f/4, and you can use it comfortably down to f/11 with no loss in quality. Diffraction limits detail at f/16 and f/22, the same as with any lens on a Micro Four Thirds system camera." OM System/Olympus gives us choices which I think are great. I'm planning a 3,000 mile motorcycle trip in a couple of months, and I know the f4 will fit my limited space and limited budget much better then the f2.8, so I'm giving it a lot of thought.
F4 is fine. Especially for 80-300 fov. It's used for subject's that need more depth of field. It's not a lens you'd use in poor light. And saying that I've used 5.6 lenses in poor light so F4 is ok. The size and sharpness are the selling point.
About two years ago i made a decison to get Lumix GX Vario 35-100 f2.8, because it was about as large as M. Zuiko 12-40 f2,8. I decided to favor it over 12-100 f4.0 and 40-150 f2,8 So I carry set of 2+1 lenses with an external flash. So I am afraid this slot is already taken in my photo bag... I might miss PRO Capture features, but since i take photos inside where is typically poor lightning, I would probably favor it over 40-150 f4. But in general, the idea of having -1EV and +50mm at same form factor is definitely interesting.
Jimmy, how does this 40-150mm F4 PRO compare to the 12-200mm Variable Aperture non-Pro lens for sharpness and quality as a travel lens? I have the OM-5, and wonder whether the 12-200 all-in-one zoom would be a better option as the only lens for travel so no changes required, rather than the 12-45 and 40-150 F4s. I do have the 12-200, and 8-25, as well as the 12-45 F4 PRO. Just wondering for travel purposes whether the 40-150 with the 12-45 would be a better combination than the 12-200 on its own?
Thanks Sam. Yes it does work with OM-1 pro-capture, but not in 50FPS CAF setting. There are only a small list of lens that will work at that speed for CAF.
@@sambutcher4344 Anything below that, so 20FPS is ok in CAF. You can still use pro capture with focus lock of course if you want to use faster FPS, like other non-compatible lenses (remember OM released a list of lenses that's compatible with 50FPS CAF in pro capture/ultra fast shooting modes).
@@Red35Photography thanks Jimmy! I have just taken delivery of my OM-1 and am looking forward to buying this lens too… largely because of your videos! 😬
I would like to have f2.8 or 12-100 rather than f4, if I bring long lens with me, I must driving a car, I dont care about the size or weight. If not driving ,I bring 12-100. I dont have any situation to work with f4. Price is not the case, all M43 lens are cheap comparing to full frame lens
@@Red35Photography f2.8 has dropped much price since release, now street price around hkd$7500, f4 price around hkd7900, hope the price will be drop soon
if you don't use tele range very often, you can get a stellar ft lens Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital for under 40 USD on ebay, plus 20 for a AF adapter, on a PDAF body like EM1 or OM1, the AF is even usable. You get 80% IQ of the 40/-150 f4 PRO for 90% less!
Do you mean if you have a Panasonic body? Any 'official' M43 partners will have a way to update. In Olympus, there's a support page on how to update firmwares on Panasonic and other M43 lenses, so long they are in the alliance. I hope I answered your question.
It works fine. Even on OM/Olympus bodies, it relies on IBIS only since there's no lens IS. It's good enough for most but the longest end, you will need slightly more stable footing or platform. I think it will work better on GH6 than GH5 since the IBIS is better on the later model.
Big difference in physical size, significant difference in weight, and of course it's a lot cheaper. Like you, I have the f/2.8 40-150 PRO, but if f/4 is good enough, then this lens has some interesting potential advantages for M43 enthusiasts
Great that Olympus/OM-Systems are offering PRO quality in a lens series that stays true to the small-and-lightweight M43 concept.
Absolutely mate!
I did not buy my gh5 because something is small, i bought it because it is good. A f4 is not a 2.8 so i dont care about it being smaller.
@@castielvargastv7931 we do
It seems that m43 has finally reached it’s strengths. Size/quality/feature-ratio is unmatched with these relatively small f4 zooms. I would buy this 40-150/4 in a heartbeat, but I already have the mighty 12-100/4 which also has IS, MF clutch and fn-button - and I don’t need the extra 100-150mm reach. It would be nice of course, but 12-100/4 does basically everything I need. Combined with new 20/1.4 PRO and OM-1, there’s not much I cannot do.
Anyway, 40-150/4 is exactly what OMS needs - unique and brilliant lens in terms of size, IQ, FL and build quality.
I just bought the 12-100 and I cannot wait to try it. It's on a G9 body so missing out on Dual IS but I think it's gonna be a really nice upgrade from my 14-140 in terms of overall quality.
I totally agree Alex, having the 12-100, I have no need for this, but it is a perfect partner to the 12-45f4 and as you say add the 10mm, most bases covered. This is a great lens though, the 40-150 f2.8 is an amazing lens, but on a 5 series body or 10 series, it is totally unbalanced. For me, the whole ethos of m43 is compactness......
Absolutely! I'm in the similar situation. I've owned 12-100/4 since 2017y. Also have Lumix G vario 100-300/4-5.6 II, and 2 months ago got new Pana/Leica DG Vario-Summilux 25-50 F1.7 for the portraiture. My last acquisition was m.Zuiko 8-25mm F4.0 so my F4.0 set is complete.
I’m debating on pulling the trigger on the 12-100 f/4, I have the 12-40 f/2.8 that I use for portrait work and I love my 40-150 f/4 non pro version but I want better quality. I was stuck between the 12-100 vs the 40-150 f2.8 for street photography. F4 hasn’t been an issue so far. I guess it depends on the price point.
The 8-25 and that new 40-150 sounds like a great travel combo, with a couple of f/1.8 primes thrown in for low light moments.
Oh yes, even for me, in the video, I had only two lenses that pretty much did everything for me, and for bulk of the time, I used the 40-150, any wide shots, I used my drone instead when possible.
I have the 40-150 F2.8 and this is an extremely useful focal length zoom. I shoot wildlife with it and the 300mm F4. Here in the dark HOH Rainforest the 40-150mm covers so much.
I purchased a 40 - 150mm f4 lens, along with my OM1's. I will be using mine specifically for capturing butterflies and dragonflies in Pro Capture mode as they take off and land. The advantages of weight saving, when handholding for this particular type of capture, outweigh any disadvantages the lens may have.
Love the 40-150 f/4.
Sounds perfect to me... most of my MFT outdoor photos from the last few years were shot at f/4 to f/8... for indoor photos I have a few f/1.8 primes.
Hey Jimmy, I appreciate the review of this lens, which I plan to add to my kit this summer-for all the reasons you stated. When I returned to photography after a bit of a layoff two years ago, I got started with the E-M5 Mk III which had the 12-45mm f4 Pro as its ‘kit’ lens, and what a great combo that is. I know being “just” f4, the 12-45 gets razzed by some, but the image quality speaks for itself. Had it not come as an option, I might have spent the $$ on the 12-40 f2.8 Pro which I already knew is a great lens on its own. Anyway, since then, I’ve added the 20mm f1.4 for capturing low light situations, and either it or the 12-45mm is in hand, depending on the situation (and since they cover the majority of situations I typically photograph-technically, I could get away with never buying another lens and do just fine with these two). But the added reach of the 40-150mm f4 just seems to tick all the right boxes as well. Glad you put it through its paces and took your time with it.
Love the drone shots of the wreck.
Love your videos!
I just got into the Olympus MFT system (E-M1 III and Pen F) for portability. It augments my Nikon gear (D500 & D850). I'm loving the Olympus gear. I buy it used from KEH and MPB. Everything is smaller and less expensive. The computational photography features are amazing. This lens fits into what I want ... keep it small and portable!
Great review, Jimmy. Thank you for your high quality content.
Great review, The only CZcams review that specifically mentions that once out ot the transport mode, the lens is an internal zoom lens.
Your reviews are fabulous Jimmy. You get to the real nitty-gritty of how useful this lens is, as well as pointing out who would be most likely to need it. For myself, I think I’ll be saving for the 2.8 version as it will be better for wildlife here in not-so-bright Scotland. Thanks Jimmy!
Glad you enjoyed my review Stephen! Scotland is beautiful!
My sentiments exactly - just move the location across the Irish Sea.
It is a great looking lens! That drone footage was fantastic. The images you have collected were great too. To many reviews lack great images like these.
Thanks Ben! It's a fun lens to shoot, especially if you travel a lot. As demonstrated, if you hike/walk a lot with lots of stuff, this is a really awesome lens that doesn't weight too much yet giving so much reach and quality in return!
Your recent videos have amazing content and production. They just keep getting better and better!
Glad you like them Tung!
Hi Jimmy, at last!, someone openly stating that landscape photographers prefer to stop down and don't always require heavy constant aperture faster lenses and dreamy bokeh. It looks like a nice bit of kit, not for me but I applaud what they're doing in reducing the size and weight of lenses. Sometimes I think that landscape photography is a bit of a forgotten genre. All the best, Leigh
Thanks Leigh! I am only stating the fact and I always want to educate photographers that bokeh isn't everything, and when to use it, or not.
@@Red35Photography Hi Jimmy, I fully agree mate. You make some very good points regarding weight and aperture. You know my preferences for lightweight gear. It's horses for courses of course. If it meant carrying around a heavier lens with a fast aperture which wouldn't get used very much vs a lighter, slower lens then I'd always go for the later. :) I'm more than happy to shed a tad of debatable extra image quality for an affordable, portable lens every time.
Thanks for the very professional review of this lens. You make a very compelling case detailing all the excellent attributes of the lens, and I may indeed purchase it. Those who are considering this lens vs. the 2.8 version (one or the other but not both) should keep in mind that the 2.8 lens has a removable tripod mount and is compatible with the MC-20 2X teleconverter. When I'm using my 40-150 f/2.8 outdoors, I slip the MC-20 in my pocket, and I have effective coverage of the range from 40 to 300mm. This gives me pro lens quality results for everything from portraits, to macros, to extreme distance wildlife images, with some landscapes as well. Another consideration - in these times, exceptional sharpness and detail resolution are sometimes irrelevant in a lens, because the intended audience will be viewing the final images downsized and compressed, and on marginal image quality computer monitors which are unable to display subtle differences. If your audience is viewing your images on a smartphone or a 15" laptop, you need only one lens in the 14-150mm range, that is the small, light, sharp Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 kit lens.
Also there is the MC-14 converter (gives 210mm at max zoom) which delivers a slightly sharper image than the MC-20.
Well Done Jimmy!! You show me the portability, versatility and quality of this lens with your great and convincing demo photos.
Jimmy, thanks for a wonderful review of the 40-150 f4 PRO. Great images! I have owned the 12-100 F4 IS PRO since it was first released, and it remains my favorite MFT zoom lens. I'll stick with it because it is more versatile, working better in low light situations because of the built-in IS.
I totally agree with the review!
If I have to choose one single lens for a travel, then I’ll probably choose the 40-150 f4 against the other fantastic 12-45 f4. Thins is because of my style of photography.
Yes mate, I found your review‘refreshing and useful’. Thanks so much, I’ll have a chat with the mrs over a glass of sav. tonight and convince her how much I need the 40-150 f4 Pro in my bag. I really like your bag by the way, cheers.
Just placed an order with WEX for one and I have the f2.8 version as well. I just want to carry light. You're good OM ambassador (salesman!).
hahha, ambassadors promote the brands they support, only because we believe hahah
This is what I think of this lens: wow.
Thanks for sharing. Jan.
Ordered mine today! Couldn't resist the cashback offer. Pairing it with my EM5 iii and 12-45 F4 Pro for the ultimate lightweight travel day trip combo.
As others have said, I keep the triumvirate 27mm, 25mm, 45mm f1.8 around for those low light moments.
I think there's an opportunity now to compare OMD/OLY at the 40-150mm range (40-150 F2.8, 12-100 F4 IS, 40-150 F4, 12-200 F3.5-6.3, 14-150 F4-5.6). There's an argument to be made that one lens is the best choice for one purpose (landscape, low light, indoor, portrait, travel, astro, macro, bokeh, wildlife, action, video) but which one can do it all? And what are the workarounds?
Thanks for the review Jimmy. This is an awesome lens, but I'm sorry to see that they dropped the MF clutch & FN button. All in the name of cost savings I guess. I have the bigger f/2.8 version (as well as the cheap f/4-5.6 R version), which I used mainlywith the two MC teleconverters. I picked up the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 a while ago as the lightweight option and I absolutely love it! Just as small and light as the Olympus, very sharp. One stop faster, though not as long. Finally I can have a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom at under 400g!
Thanks Carl! You have a pretty good point here, this lens is about the size of the Panasonic 35-100 2.8, and about the same weight too, but feels more solid and extra reach. Compromises and preferences :)
I'm contemplating trading in my 40-150 F2.8 for this new one. I've found that that I rarely need the bright aperture in combination with the long focal lenght. Bright apertures typically come into play when I'm using my small primes (17mm & 25mm F1.8, and for shortish telephoto I have recently 'discovered' the magic of the 75mm F1.8...which is something different all together) Also I'm simply hesitant to take 40-150 F2.8 out due to it's size. Don't really like the prospect of dragging that along for a day or so when I'm out and about. I've tried the Pana 35-100 F.28 as well in the past. Neat piece of glass, and while a bit more compact then the 40-150 F2.8...didn't quite meet my needs in terms of focal length....choices choices choises...
And what about not being able to use teleconverters on this new lens?
That depends if you need the reach, I know it's tough choice but teleconverters is great for what they are, yet, they reduces the light and affects AF speed. This f4 lens is designed for a specific use and I am enjoying it, however, it really depends on a photographer's need.
I have both the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 and the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. I use the Oly almost exclusively with my two MC teleconverters (*that's* where the bright f/2.8 comes in handy--with the MC20, I have an effective 300mm f/5.6, which is not too shabby). The Panasonic is wonderful--compact, bright, and sharp. Can produce decent bokeh for portraits. Only drawback is that it's not very close focussing (compared to Olympus).
@@Red35Photography what kind of af speed is needed in static photo? A bit Confusing every time when some state NEED when there is other benefits. Good point of view but where is shutterspeeds?
@@veikop your question is open, a static object obviously you don't need a fast shutter, but anything that moves, will depend how fast they are moving, the lighting condition, the amount of background blur you want (for panning), so I can't answer that and no one will have a fixed answer either.
Your talk about how the F4 pro line up makes sense becuse not everybody needs or wants a larger more expensive f2.8 lenses has really gelled with me. I doesnt only apply to olympus either. The professional photographers put far to much pressure on us amatuers. You have got to get this lens fast lens, its great they say, so when we compare the only lenses we can afford we get disillusioned. Not anymore. A great big thanks to you Red35, you have completely transformed the way that I look at my wonderful hobby.
Enjoyed the review, ordered the lens to use with my EM 5 mk iii, first use this (long) weekend!
I think that 12-100 is the best choice for travelling, if you use only 1 lens.
Great review as always , looking forward to your OM-1 review
In due course :) when my hand heals.
@@Red35Photography of course , get well soon pal
Thank you. Exactly the comparison I needed.
Great review. I think I would go for the f2.8 because I shoot wildlife often in low light.
Try the ole 4/3 40-150 3.5 Olympus w an adapter for your Olympus camera
Good review, thanks Jimmy....
That will fit nicely in my bag!
Great review. I also own both the new f4 version and the f2.8 version and will keep both since there are times you just need f2.8. still for the past month I have had the f4.0 in my kit and the f2.8 stayed home. I love the compact size and the sharpness of the f4.0 lens. last week I was on a trip where I was shooting wildlife, waterfalls and wildflowers andy kit was the 8-25/4.0, 12-45/4.0, 40-150/4.0, 150-400/4.5 and the 20/1.4 with the OM-1. I was supper pleased.
Awesome David, glad you enjoy the lens too.
Great review Jimmy! Hope your hand is getting better!
Still swollen, but I don't feel the pain now, able to finish off this video hahaha
Been waiting for this for 2 years! I just knew it would be a great fit in the lineup. Hope to have one soon 👍
Will make a great partner for my 12-45 which is perfect for me.
奧巴最好鏡頭不要亂說兄有12-100mmF4點解因為焦段最常用對焦距離超近以至140mm對焦距離六有呎半即是呎半開始可拍出前清后蒙而隨著焦距zoo到200mm景深特淺這不是普通天涯鏡是奧巴鏡中之皇因殊殊片超多解像度和變形超過定焦鏡頭真是奇葩重量和體積和細罐可樂相約是真正一鏡走天涯不可多得奇鏡！😮❤
thanks Jimmy..i'm not in the hole -$800 but love the new lens!
You‘ve forgotten the existing 40-150 f 4.0-5.6, which you can get für 100 bucks used. A comparison would be interesting.
I have the 40-150 f/4-5.6, as well as the 40-150 f/2.8, and the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. The cheap lens actually does do a good job, though it's noticeably softer at the long end, and the micro contrast is not nearly as good. And if you don't mind the slower f/5.6 at the long end, you can save a lot of money going with the "R" lens.
You're giving GAS again, Jimmy. Great review. Thanks.
Thanks Rob!! I always have GAS problem hahahaha too bad photography is our hobby, and photography can be expensive to maintain.
Thanks mate for another great review. I’m proud to say that I’ve just bought this lens and I am selling my 2.8 one on Trade Me. I still loved the old lens but I’m getting old and this one is half the weight and size. Take care.
Agree with your assessment John except for me you can add on "and cranky" to "getting old". The F2.8 is an absolute cracker but it is a handful. I would also comment that the new lens does not loose much in sharpness to the F2.8 that I have noticed.
I purchased this f4 version about 3 weeks ago and found it to be an excellent lens.
I was debating between the 2.8 vs 4 but the size and handling won me over.
Just wondering if anyone is shooting the 40-150 2.8 wide open?
I would think you would need to stop it down a little especially if shooting Track and Field or even multiple birds in flight. I have found with difficult lighting scenarios the primes give you the best option especially concerts with trash lighting, indoor soccer, track.
So far I am enjoying this lens and my OMD M1 III combo.
Now trying to decide 12-45 or 12-40.
I own the 12 to 100 f4 pro ,l like the lens stability and fn button better,,l also own the 12 to 40 f2.8 pro good combo..thanks for the great info.👍📸
I really wish they'd supported the teleconverters. 300mm @ f8 would be perfectly adequate for me as a landscaper and save the weight of an extra lens(compared to the TC2). But the f4 series is a godsend when you are facing a 20 mile hike to capture some remote valley or river in the Highlands! Every ounce counts.
For a long time I've looked at options to upgrade from my Lumix 45-150 F4-5.6, and have considered and prevaricated between the Oly 40-150 F2.8, Lumix 35-100 F2.8 and Panaleica 50-200 F2.8-4. All have been found wanting, mainly because they are, respectively, too big (40-150 2.8), too short (35-100) and too expensive (50-200). What I really wanted was a pro-grade version of what I already had, a 40-150 with a max aperture of F4 to keep it small and light. At last my wishes have been granted, I want my M43 kit to be small and light, that way I'll actually use it. And the tele focal lengths are really important to me, I surprise myself all the time with how often I shoot with longer lenses, mainly to isolate subjects and simplify compositions, as well as the obvious need for shooting things that are quite a long way away. When I saw this on the roadmap I was very happy, nice to see it delivered quite quickly too. Haven't bought mine yet, I've been waiting for a selection of reviews to appear, but if the general consensus is as Jimmy has found then I reckon it's inevitable I'll be flexing the plastic soon enough....
Thanks David, glad you liked my review and you hit the nail, I love this small and light lens for all my travel and hikes, 2.8 is great but just a tad too big and heavy.
@@Red35Photography I totally understand, for professional use carrying the bigger gear isn't too much of an issue, but for more - dare I say it - "casual', personal use it just seems inappropriate. Especially when I'm on a family day out or something, where photography is not the sole purpose of the day. That's why I got rid of all my Nikon gear a few years ago and switched to M43. I was constantly leaving lenses at home, so what was the point of owning them?
Thanks!
12-100mm is still king. Long live the king.
Gosh carrying less weight - bliss! Interested to know that you are keeping the Mark 1 - Im just going to have to get stronger!
As much as I use my plastic fantastic I think I might prefer the 12-100 to this.
I think I'll use 12-40 more than 100-150.
Love to buy them both but just recently got the 100-400.
Well, you got pretty much everything covered. For me, size is pretty important depends on what I do, as you can see in my video, I packed everything, including my drone, in a very small cube, smaller than a camera bag, in my backpack. If this is something important, then it is a solution. As said, everyone is different.
@@Red35Photography I think what I really want is a 12-150 pro 😀
Fits in any small photo bag. Every day sharp power horse.
Good job 👏
Thanks Emil!
This is the first f4 zoom that costs as much as f2.8 zoom, I can't really see a reason to prefer this lent to 40-150 f2.8
All well and good, but the 12-200mm normal lens does an excellent job for a lot cheaper!
12-200 is a great lens, yet, I love this lens because of its light weight and reach, as I already have others, like the 12-40, this makes even more sense to me. Though I have the 12-100 f4 too hahah
This. I start smelling a bit marketing here…
I found the lens too heavy to use without a tripod. So I bought the 35-100 Panasonic. (As well).
Thanx for the video
Is there dramatical difference between 40-150 f/4 and my darker 40-150 4-5.6?
Yes, the f4 PRO lens is miles better than 40-150 4-5.6 when it comes to image quality. I love mine for all my travel.
Excellent review! Thanks a lot. I have a couple of questions to ask: dpreview tested this lens as well and they found out wide open at 150mm is a bit soft. Have you noticed the same thing? Second question is about the 50 frames/sec: why do you think the 12-100f4 supports 50f/sec while the others f4 do not? Do you think the AF motors of this 40-150 are worse than the ones in the 12-100?
Nice review although watching in portrait on my smartphone needs some pixel peeping.
Ever since I got the 25mm f/1.2, I'm getting tired of shallow DOF, lol. Don't get me wrong - I love the lens, but I find myself more and more preferring the "slightly defocused" background, instead of bokeh overload.
Even though I already own the 40-150 f/2.8 (my favourite lens), I'm eyeballing this little gem for its portability.
"Ever since I got the 25mm f/1.2, I'm getting tired of shallow DOF, lol. Don't get me wrong - I love the lens, but I find myself more and more preferring the "slightly defocused" background, instead of bokeh overload."
Blurry background/Foreground is good up to the point. In some scenes it is nice, but not in most.
Why the "Bokeh" is important? When you don't have anything for the background, nothing interesting that doesn't add to subject, then highlights and such in blurred background can be help to add something there. It is then not about amount of blur, but asthetics of the background that gets blurred.
But that gets boring very very quickly. In wildlife photography having single colored background and animal partially in focus is boring. It can hit in some shots, but in most you want to get the animal in the environment where it is living.
Same is with the memories, you want't see where it was taken, what is at the background and foreground. Not just about shots that could have been taken everywhere.
And that was the 4/3 format purpose, to offer less DOF for the required task, while minimizing the camera size, and keep quality above the required image use.
This means, f/1.8 is usually too little DOF, so you need f/2.8-5.6 to get enough, but you get image quality that is more than enough for 36" prints, while typical prints are only about 18-24" in size.
So the camera size and so on mass was possible be minimized.
Apart from weather sealing how much better is this and the 2.8 compared to the plastic 40-150 lens? I have that lens and am looking at purchasing one of the pro versions. Thanks
Very tempting, although my intended use is chasing after wildlife in gloomy forests, in a soggy climate. Better to fill my piggy bank for the 2.8?
Yes 2.8 may be better for your case
Feel that you are over selling: F4, no teleconverter, no Lfn button, and no manual clutch are the opposite of selling points. :)
I got this lens a couple of weeks ago. Much preferable to humping around the f2.8 version every day, I can assure you.
Soooo glad they didn’t ruin it by giving IS or SIS. Sold the 12100 to pay for it and still have the 1245 for the close work. My 2 lens kit is the f4 40150 & 1245 and the 2 lenses are only 75 grammes heavier than the 12100 and have an extra 50mm of reach. Wish they took the same filter size…
I’m not sure this offers anything over the Panasonic Leica 50-200 f2.8-4? The Panasonic is faster or equal and the extra 50mm takes you to ultra telephoto territory and the minimum needed for wildlife. It also has lens based IS, which will do sync IS on Panasonic bodies. While the Panasonic is slightly bigger, it is not a big lens like the Oly 40-150 f2.8. If you are prepared to carry the f4 Oly then it is barely any size or weight penalty to carry the Panasonic.
Interesting lens and great review.
However I am still waiting for a compact OM Pro lens to compete with the PanaLeica 50-200; maybe something like 60-250 that sits between the 40-150 and the 100-400. Maybe F4-5.6 to keep the size reasonable. The 75-300 is nice and fairly cheap, but too slow and not Pro grade.
Thanks mate, glad you enjoyed the review.
Great lens, but is the aperture enough for concert? (the 40-150 2.8 is heavy and bulky)
Nice lens but at f4 it’s too slow. I think the 40-150 f 2.8 can be too slow at times. No thanks.
Is the f4 sharper than the 2.8? If it is maybe we need a 40-150 f2.8 ii
For a hobby photographer would you recommend this lens over a 14-150 f4.0-5.6? I'm tempted but not sure I can justify the cost (tho I can get a really good deal brand new...)
I don't generally shoot in the rain! Are the images that much better?
I just upgraded to an OM-1 as a treat.
Bonjour,
Vous avez bien identifié le problème majeur de cette version F4 du 40-150 qui n'accepte pas les TC ce qui réduit considérablement sa plage d'utilisation. Bien sûr j'avais hésité d'acheter le 40-150 2.8 à cause de son poids : j'avais acheté le pana 100-300 à cause de cela avec mon premier boitier EM1( la qualité optique est bonne mais la faible ouverture est son problème et surtout sur la version 1 la construction n'a rien à voir avec le 40-150 2.8 Oly). Depuis j'ai acquis le EM1x et j'ai conc craqué pour le 40-150 2.8 avec le TC x2. Si la qualité est au rendez vous on perd quand même, en valeur absolue (car si on compare en FF avec un zoom équivalent en 5.6 !) le bénéfice des utilisateurs de micro 4/3 c'est à dire sur le poids. Je regarde de plus en plus comme solution intermédiaire le Panasonic-Leica 50-200 2.8/4...qui a comme défaut de commencer à 50 ce qui diminue sa versatilité (déjà un peu serré) et qui ne dispose pas d'un collier de pied ce qui est incompréhensible (pour la facilitation des photos sur trépied). Je crois par contre qu'on peut trouver un TC X1.4 ou X2 ce qui m'apparaît indispensable comme pour le Oly 40-150 2.8.
J'aime beaucoup vos présentations à la fois sur le fond et sur la forme. Bien cordialement.
Interesting review. What is the focus breathing performance?
Thanks John. breathing is non issue at 40mm, a tiny bit at 150mm, overall, I think it's really good.
@@Red35Photography Cheers for the feedback.
How does this compare to the Canon 55-250mm? I have one and it seems much sharper and better overall.
Excellent review but would you choose this lens over the f 2.8?
Weight and portability is a big reason. Also, you don't need the fastest lens. I shot snow sports and I want to include the scenery along with my models. Therefore, I mostly shoot at f5.6.
In Japan it was included in the OM -1 kit .. the rest rest of the world only had to do it with the other lens the new 12-40 mm Pro …. Bad for OM Systems
Would this be a good lens to shoot close up of wildlife or would the 300mm be a better lens?
I might have missed something but may I ask what contrast is like please. I do landscape photos and I like deep blues and reds and greens I haven't seen anyone address the topic of contrast for this lens. Can anyone help answer this please.
I just don't get the f4 pro range. I can't imagine there being too many photographers who would be happy having f4 as limit. If I need to stop down... I will stop down. But I would always want the option to go to f 2.8., especially in the MFT world.
F4 range for cost, weight and size
@@alfredouybomping7642 I can get the cost, but just how much heavier is the 2.8 compared to the 4? Is it really still that cumbersome compared to a FF lens?
@@normandy2501 Naturally, all things being equal we'd all take a faster lens, but there is always a tradeoff in lens design.
Is giving up on f-stop that big a deal? Depends on your preferences and how often you shoot in low enough light that you end up shooting at "high" ISO where noise has been a problem for you. The greater dynamic range and lower "high" ISO noise levels of the OM-1 should give at least as good of low-light results with the f4.0 as the f2.8 with earlier OM-D bodies. (Yes, I'd like to see those tests myself, but so far the reviews of the OM-1 strongly suggest this is true.)
The first advantage of the F4.0 is size: it is 3.91" x 2.71" (99.4mm x 68.9mm) vs the f2.8 which is 6.3" x 3.13" (160mm x 79.4mm) or over two inches shorter, and a half and inch narrower. That's a big difference in your camera bag or in your hand. Look at Red's video again and see just how much bigger the f2.8 is.
The second advantage is less weight. The f4.0 is 382g/0.84lb vs. 760g/1.67ln (without the tripod collar) and 880g/1.94lb with the collar. Or, a half pound to 1.1lbs lighter. That is a lot of weight difference especially when it's sticking out the front of your camera body.
Third, the f4.0 is IP53 water resistance rated like the OM-1, so is the only other lens available besides the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II that can survive in the same harsh environments as the OM-1.
And finally, there's cost: the f4.0 is $600.00 less expensive.
And, the f4.0 has great optics. This is what PC Magazine said after measuring the resolution of the f4.0: "Resolution is outstanding at 40mm (2,900 lines), and at the top of our excellent scale for a 20MP sensor at 100mm and 150mm (2,700 lines). Results are sharp with the lens wide open at f/4, and you can use it comfortably down to f/11 with no loss in quality. Diffraction limits detail at f/16 and f/22, the same as with any lens on a Micro Four Thirds system camera."
OM System/Olympus gives us choices which I think are great. I'm planning a 3,000 mile motorcycle trip in a couple of months, and I know the f4 will fit my limited space and limited budget much better then the f2.8, so I'm giving it a lot of thought.
I stand corrected: there are a handful of ppl who will purchase this lense. This lense is not going bring in the revenue OM needs. Odd choice
F4 is fine.
Especially for 80-300 fov.
It's used for subject's that need more depth of field.
It's not a lens you'd use in poor light.
And saying that I've used 5.6 lenses in poor light so F4 is ok.
The size and sharpness are the selling point.
I really dont see a reason to buy a f4 lense as long as the incredible 40-150 2.8 pro lense exists. The 2.8 is very special
Is the lens suitable for wildlife photography on an African safari?
About two years ago i made a decison to get Lumix GX Vario 35-100 f2.8, because it was about as large as M. Zuiko 12-40 f2,8. I decided to favor it over 12-100 f4.0 and 40-150 f2,8 So I carry set of 2+1 lenses with an external flash. So I am afraid this slot is already taken in my photo bag...
I might miss PRO Capture features, but since i take photos inside where is typically poor lightning, I would probably favor it over 40-150 f4. But in general, the idea of having -1EV and +50mm at same form factor is definitely interesting.
Jimmy, how does this 40-150mm F4 PRO compare to the 12-200mm Variable Aperture non-Pro lens for sharpness and quality as a travel lens? I have the OM-5, and wonder whether the 12-200 all-in-one zoom would be a better option as the only lens for travel so no changes required, rather than the 12-45 and 40-150 F4s. I do have the 12-200, and 8-25, as well as the 12-45 F4 PRO. Just wondering for travel purposes whether the 40-150 with the 12-45 would be a better combination than the 12-200 on its own?
For better Image quality i would choose the combo 12-45 and 40-150
So where does this leave the 3.5-5.6 40-150 lightweight lens …. can it compete image wise?
How much better is it in use than the 14-150mm ?
I was expecting a fast tele prime, 150mm F2
Another great video! Being a ‘pro’ lens, does it work with the pro capture mode on the om-1?
Thanks Sam. Yes it does work with OM-1 pro-capture, but not in 50FPS CAF setting. There are only a small list of lens that will work at that speed for CAF.
@@Red35Photography thanks!! What FPS does it shoot with that lens then?
@@sambutcher4344 Anything below that, so 20FPS is ok in CAF. You can still use pro capture with focus lock of course if you want to use faster FPS, like other non-compatible lenses (remember OM released a list of lenses that's compatible with 50FPS CAF in pro capture/ultra fast shooting modes).
@@Red35Photography thanks Jimmy! I have just taken delivery of my OM-1 and am looking forward to buying this lens too… largely because of your videos! 😬
The lens works well with the Panasonic cameras?
I would like to have f2.8 or 12-100 rather than f4, if I bring long lens with me, I must driving a car, I dont care about the size or weight. If not driving ,I bring 12-100. I dont have any situation to work with f4. Price is not the case, all M43 lens are cheap comparing to full frame lens
sounds great to me, but the price in HK is way too high, expensive than the 2.8 one
Really??? Well, it's new and street price for the 2.8 may have come down a lot already. In UK, 2.8 is still at least GBP200 more than this f4 version.
@@Red35Photography f2.8 has dropped much price since release, now street price around hkd$7500, f4 price around hkd7900, hope the price will be drop soon
if you don't use tele range very often, you can get a stellar ft lens Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital for under 40 USD on ebay, plus 20 for a AF adapter, on a PDAF body like EM1 or OM1, the AF is even usable. You get 80% IQ of the 40/-150 f4 PRO for 90% less!
Anyone know where I can search for more photos that using this lens please~~?
but how you update olympus lens if you dont have olympus camera?
Do you mean if you have a Panasonic body? Any 'official' M43 partners will have a way to update. In Olympus, there's a support page on how to update firmwares on Panasonic and other M43 lenses, so long they are in the alliance. I hope I answered your question.
@@Red35Photography not sure
Curious how this lens pair with gh5/6 for the video ? Does the ibis only in camera enough for video works ?
It works fine. Even on OM/Olympus bodies, it relies on IBIS only since there's no lens IS. It's good enough for most but the longest end, you will need slightly more stable footing or platform. I think it will work better on GH6 than GH5 since the IBIS is better on the later model.
Can I zoom in/out from camera or just from the lens?
From the lens, you need to turn the zoom ring.
@@Red35Photography Thanks. A long time ago I used Canon S3 is. And I thought that I can zoom in/out from the body. It is very surprised me.
I have the 40 150 lens but how is this different to the 40 150 pro lens 😇
Big difference in physical size, significant difference in weight, and of course it's a lot cheaper. Like you, I have the f/2.8 40-150 PRO, but if f/4 is good enough, then this lens has some interesting potential advantages for M43 enthusiasts
Nice shots 🙂 How would you say the IQ in 40-100 range compare with the 12-100 f4 pro lens?
It's small, but it's not small enough to make me switch back
Not convinced, my 2.8 Pro is better, love the 2.8 aperture, especially for portraits at 150mm
And can use the MC14 or MC20 teleconverters ...
Now then, if OMS would just drop a 100-300 f:4 pro, with the possibility of running a TC, I would be on at as flies on fresh dung...