This video was in my TH-cam feed at the time of the OM1 launch on 2022. David's reviews had a concise style and honesty that have not been matched by any other reviewer. I miss them, and wonder what he would have made of the OM1.
Not just the OM-1, but also the new lenses. The range of f/4 pro zooms are a welcome addition to the MFT lineup. I would have been very interested in David's take on them.
I'm disabled, with very limited mobility, so I use this lens for landscape photography as it can reach places that I cannot. On an E-M1 Mk2, compared to the Canon 5DS R system I changed from because it became far too heavy for me, it is as light as a feather, and the image quality (not even including the 50MP HDR function) is absolutely superb! Another plus is that if the tripod mount is removed (IBIS making a tripod virtually redundant) this lens, plus camera body, 12-40mm f2.8 and 60mm f2.8 macro lenses, and spare batteries, all fit into a Hadley Pro bag. I have only one problem with this lens, and that is that I did not find out about it a whole lot sooner, but that was entirely my fault. ;-)
It's great to hear that John. The 40-150 Pro is unique with its constant f/2.8 and would be impractical in price and size for FF. It's brilliant that MFT can keep you taking pictures in spite of limited mobility. Although I don't have the same limited mibility you do, MFT keeps me taking pictures too. If I still had to lug, an FF outfit around, I'd have given up by now. Great to hear from you, all the best!
I own 6 Olympus Pro lenses and have so say this lens is without a doubt my very favorite to use. So easy to manage size and weight wise. But most importantly built like a Rolls Royce and sharp across it's entire range wide open. instant to focus and so dang sharp. An easy equal to a formerly owned Canon RF70-200 f2.8L IS USM lens used on an R5, higher praise then that I can't give.
Dear David, I'm italian and I would like to thank you for all your reviews about m43 equipment. I started following you because i found the review of the Panasonic 35-100 (the cheap one) and then i discovered all other interesting videos. Your reviews are clear and very well done. My compliments also for the blog which is very interesting to read.
I don't buy anything that costs real money in Micro 4/3rds without first seeing what David Thorpe has to say about it. I am about to invest in this lens, and I learned everything I needed to know about it to make a purchase decision in under 10 minutes. I have decided that this lens is a "go" for my new system. I plan to pair it with the excellent Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and a new OM-D EM-1 Mark II body which I see for sale at some good prices these days. If I add anything else in terms of lenses, it might be the 17mm prime if I really want to travel light, but not sure if I'll really need it. Thank you David, well done!
For some the 12-100 is the lens to have, because you don't need to change lenses over the entire 8x zoomrange. I think it's either the 2-lens F2.8 system with the 12-40 + 40-150 or the 12-100 F4. One stop more light and 50mm more range... but more expensive and you have two lenses... or get a single lens, lose 50mm and one stop of light. The answer isn't the same for everyone. (I'll take the stop of light, thank you very much).
+Chris Baude Hi Chris - I can't seem to reply to you directly so I hope you see this. I'm using' back button focusing' in the sense of the technique of using C-AF and pressing a button to stop and lock the focus. So, since the L-AF button stops and locks the focus, using C-AF + the L-AF _is_ 'back button focusing'. If using a lens without the L-AF button then it is more literally 'back button focusing'. I could have been clearer about that and I hope this makes sense. If not, try me again!
Wonderful review. I loved your photos. I've owned this lens for what seems like a long time now. I bought one as soon as I could find one in stock, along with the 1.4x converter. I have to say that while I liked the 35-100 f/2.8 for it's extreme compactness, I really love those extra 50mm. I do find I use this lens less due to its weight, but it's absolutely never a disappointment and every time I take it out I get shots I'm happy I took. Olympus has really outdone itself.
+veniero2010 I started scripting my narration because I got fed up with meandering explanations and _ums_ and _ers_ on some others myself. Nie to know it is appreciated, thanks.
This lens resides on my Olympus OM-D E-M1 and aside from the jigsaw puzzle to re-assemble the lens hood and it’s tiny ball bearings a few times, have nothing but the highest praises. When I install the 1.4X dedicated teleconverter, being able to reach out to 420mm (equiv) is pure joy. All in all, no regrets on the silent mode at 11fps mirrorless conversion from my Canon dSLR and L-series glass.
hi, this lens with the tele converter has replaced my 75mm 1.8, my 45mm 1.8 and my panny 35-100 2.8, plus i only paid £800 for it so for me it was extremely good value especially as it's the best lens i have ever owned. i just want olly to sort out cont af and then i'll be happy, am using it on the em5 mk2. if they nail the af with the em1 mk 2 then i'll have my dream combo. i also have the panny 12-35 2.8 and olly 25mm 1.8. i do not miss my ff nikons one bit. i wish people would stop going on about dof (especially when most don't own ff cameras!!) shallow dof is easy on mft. cheers grvo tv
Harry Bunn I'm with you on all of that. Harry. I'm not sure about the C-AF, though. It seems a built in difficulty because of the nature of mirrorless cameras. It'll be interesting to see what Olympus and Panasonic come with next because C-AF is the only weaker aspect of the format now. But, who knows, maybe they will nail it with the next model. If they _really_ do, that camera, whoever makes it, will be a big seller.
David Thorpe I have this lens with the E-M1 and the v 3.0 firmware works very well. You should try hiring/borrowing an E-M1 and try the C-AF with this lens. It works a treat!
kb5ql Yes I have done that and yes, it works a treat! I compare the two cameras' C-AF in my review of the Olympus E-M5 mk2 here - th-cam.com/video/bIVQDgr8SQI/w-d-xo.html
Harry Bunn I'm sick of the argument too. I get photos my ff friends don't. Mainly because they can never be bothered taking their camera with them. I don't understand why shallow DoF is the measure of a camera to start with...or how f/stops definition has been changed from being an exposure tool to meaning DoF. Enough about that...I am buying this lens. I hope I am not disappointed.
***** If you're OK with the size and price, there is absolutely nothing to disappoint you. With the DoF thing, I think it has become over-blown. But I'm someone who worked professionally with cameras all my life and when I first heard the word bokeh a few years ago hadn't a clue what it meant. So I asked another grizzled old pro...and he hadn't either. DoF is what it is with any lens or camera, governed by the laws of optics so you work with it. But it shouldn't be a fetish.
+OnlyOnceOccluded I can't reply to you directly for some reason. What makes the Olympus lens unique is the zoom _range_ for an f/2/8 lens. The Nikon lens has a range of 2,8x, the Olympus 3.75x. That's what makes it unique and it doesn't exist in any other sysytem.
David, Once again, you have published an exceptional review - and even included your mea culpa in it. For anyone evaluating a prospective purchase, your reviews have become as essential as Gordon Laing's work. I have been using this lens since it first arrived, to shoot sports, portraits, flowers and bees (not birds). It outperforms my old Nikkor and Leica equivalent lenses in sharpness, and focus speed. I now wonder how I managed to work without it, in the past. And the extender does not slow operation down, it just adds range and flexibility to the kits. At the same time, I have not sold my Panasonic 35-100, because there are timew when I value its short length and lighter weight. It becomes a chocolate-or-vanilla choice, and I have kept both lenses because I like them both in the correct situation.
Another brilliant review, David. I just shelled out for a used Oly 75mm 1.8, so it will be some time before I can consider this. Still, it's an intriguing choice... particularly for folks who want the unique look that a lens like this can deliver. Again - thanks for taking the time to put this review together.
Nice timing, David! I was going to ask if you were planning to review this soon. Thanks so much for the great content. I always enjoy your more casual, real-world review style :)
Jason Disbrow An new E-M1 as you describe would be all things to all people! It does seem that things are now being done that we were told were impossible which seems to lead to the possibility of a camera they does everything that anyone might want. Then what would we do for an upgrade?
Nice review as per usual - I could watch your videos endlessly on repeat. I hope Panasonic and Olympus are paying attention... Your reviews easily sell their products.
Well, for what it's worth, much of the last few weeks has been spent reading about lenses, then immediately googling the lens + " Thorpe" to see if you reviewed it. You've been an invaluable resource.
Great Lens, it's built like a tank too (by lens standards at least) - mine fell from hip hight onto solid pavement with a protective filter on and aside from a broken filter (which is now stuck to the front as the metal had slightly warped) it didn't suffer any damage. Still takes takes beautiful pictures!
At first i was doubting about the need for this lens, but after quite a bit of usage it's now permanently in my bag and a must-have all around lens. I does replace a few primes by itself and it's one of these zooms where no compromise was made on image quality. It's now a part of my travel kit too for these reasons.
Yes, a lens yiu find yourself using more and more. I use it a lot for the product shots in my videos. I can change framing so easily and at the same time have good control over depth of field. Not its intended use but an example of its all round photographic value.
Event coverage is also spectacular with this zoom, the 40-150mm range is so flexible there's need just for a wide angle 2nd body and there you go. The teleconverter even adds a bit of flexibility for minor inconvenience. I still keep the f/1.2 primes for low light needs (by the way that 17mm f/1.2 is spectacular) otherwise everything is done with that one.
GREAT REVIEW! Just ordered the 35-100mm then discovered that it suffers from micro jitters and isn't as sharp between 80mm and 100mm. So had to ask the seller to cancel my order. Thankfully I found this Olly 40-150mm F2.8 available second hand so picked that up now. Can't wait to use it on my G9.
Glad you liked the review, thanks. The micro jitters on the 35-100 were cured by a firmware upgrade. I can't say I've ever noticed the 35-100 being anything other than sharp through the range but we all have different expectation on these things. You won't be disappointed with the 40-150 Pro, though. It is less sharp at the long end as all zooms are but you'd need lens charts to see it.
David's take on the G9 II would have been awesome. It's funny that I'm being recommended this video eight years after it was released. I hope his family is doing well.
Great Video Dave. I bought this lens and the 1.4 converter a few months ago, It go's every where I go . One little bag with all of my gear ready to go at any time . It's a great lens for bee's and butterflies as the minimum focusing distance is so good and very good depth of field. No more carrying big 600 lens . The whole 4/3 system is great for serious travelling . Mick
Misha crowe MFT is a traveller's dream, really. No matter what you're purpose for taking pictures, MFT quality is all you need and usually some to spare. This lens, the converter and the 12-40 f/2.8 give amazing scope that needed a boot load of gear to cover in DSLR days.
David, darn you!! I had been able to keep this lens out of my mind up to now and still know "I don't really need it." But "need" and "want" are not necessarily compatible terms, are they now?! I'm by no means a pro, but photography is now my "full-time" retirement passion, so I "want" a lot more than I "need!" Since watching your video - which, by the way, like all before, is well done, comprehensive, and very informative! - my "Buy Now" finger is twitching! &*%!#! Of course, the lack of available funds right now will save me since I have a deal with my wife that I only purchase camera related gear with funds I earn teaching and tutoring photography. However, .....well, you know the end of the story! And, here I was perfectly happy with my nice LITTLE Panasonic 35-100mm, f/4-5.6 on my Olympus OM-D E-M1! Thank you, David....I think!
Bill, I rented this lens more than once, first to satisfy my curiosity and the new few times to satisfy my desire in to use it in specific environments. Truly a great lens, everything you think it is. Make sure you try the lens extender, a very cool pairing. Eventually it will all be in my kit too.
Bill did you buy one? I've just bought the em5II with pro 12 40 lens the 60mm macro and the 75 300 zuiko, I was itching to buy this baby but I didn't want the wife making me sleep in the street, maybe at Xmas I'll get it, I also want the pro wide angled.... Tell her you need it to teach hehe
No, MrTobamory, I had a chance to give one a spin for an hour or so at recent #outofchicago conference and, though it is a great lens and I'd love to own one, I realized that that focal length range is not one I am comfortable using that much. I love my 12-40mm pro lens and use it all the time. I have the 60mm macro and the 75-300mm zoom, so feel I'm good with what I have for now. The price tag put it out of my current economic zone too. I had the start of a fund for it and ended up using part of it to get the new Olympus Air A01 instead. A fun and unusual 'camera,' for sure, but glad I had the $299 to buy it!
*****, I like it, however, I think I'm suffering from "too many choices syndrome" since I have that lens, the 60mm, the 25mm, 12-40mm, 75-300mm, and the Panasonic 20, f/1.7 to choose from. I tend to leave the 12-40 on my E-M1 90% of the time and the 20mm on my E-PL6. Occasionally, however, I do force myself to mount the others for a week and use it exclusively. First world problem, I know, and I'm certainly *not* complaining! The Panasonic 35-100mm, f/4-5.6 is a great size (I store it attached to the 25mm and wrap them in a Domke wrap: www.infotor.com/blog/stacking-lenses-gluing-two-back-caps-to-store-two-lenses/), so nice and compact and, though not very fast, like my old Canon 70-200mm, f/4 lens, it suits me fine, even indoors because of the E-M1's performance at ISO 3200+! Go for it!
Love your reviews, David. I've watched almost all of them. I feel the way you originally felt about this lens; with it, I would be going in the wrong direction. I bought the Panasonic 14- 140mm F3.5 - 5.6, after watching your review of course. Light, small, versatile, relatively inexpensive - that is what MFT is all about for me. YMMV.
datapro007 Good to hear you like the reviews and thanks for saying so.One of the best things about MFT is the depth of the lens system. Something there for any needs except maybe in the long lens area. But it's coming, I expect.
THnk you for the video! I have Sony A7ii that I like, my friend has an OM-D 10 and I'm thinking to buy an Olympus camera too. Just love the small factor camera and lenses.
This is an awesome lens, I use this lens 99% of the time when shooting outdoor photos (some indoor photos too!). I agree with shooting it wide open unless I need more DOF.
Vincent Wu Yes and in particular this is one of those lenses that makes you want to use it, it just feels right. In a different way, I felt that with the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 too but I do like the one stop solution to long lenses that is this lens.
Hi David. Just bought one of these lenses, after watching you review several times, and this was an 18th month process. looking forward to seeing what I can shoot with it. Thanks for the review.
Sylvain, I was created by the devil for the sole purpose of emptying people's wallets :-) But look at it this way, once you've bough this, you'll never want to get rid of it - so long term it is cheap!
+GB Gonzague No reply button on your comment for some reason so I hope you see this. Yes, fully compatible and it'll have blinding fast focusing. All that's missing is stabilzation.
One more point to 40-150, it can focus much closer than most comparable lenses. So it gives this lens even more flexibility over panasonic. 1.4x TC doesn't change min. focusing distance too, which is nice.
I just picked up the 40-150 f 2.8. I paired it with my new GH5. So far with only an hour of useage, I'm blown away at this point. super fast, sharp, detailed, and one of the sexiest pieces of kit!
David Thorpe I bought this lens for portrait and sports. Which focus point would you suggest especially in the 300-400 mm range? 225 is not accurate that far. Also, AFF for sports seems the best setting over AFS but has a slight bit of hunting or re- focus so you miss a few frames on burst. Anyy suggestions for a sports setting?
For sports I personally use either Medium Burst/C-AF or single shot/ S-AF depending on how I feel and both with the mechanical shutter. I switch off stabilization, too. The Fn button on the lens is ideal stopping and starting focusing when the subject takes a fixed position as a goalkeeper does. I'm usually at 100-150mm for sports football or rugby. For portraits I use Eye/Face Detection and usually about 50mm with an aperture of f2.8 or f/4. So much depends on the nature of the subject, of course.
The photos you took with this lens for this review are fantastic. Probably the best (at least my favorite) of all the reviews I've seen -- also really liked the ones you got with the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (bought that one). I'm eventually going to add a good zoom beyond 35mm and would love to have this lens, but that will have to wait until I have the right camera body. I don't think I could be the best out of it with my G7 (no in body stabilization).
Thanks very much, Billy. I prefer to have stabilization with a lens like the 40-140 f/2/8 because it is so versatile and can be used indoors or out. Generally, though, with the f/2.8 aperture (and I tend to use it wide open) you can get a high enough shutter speed not to need stabilization, over 1/250th say. Nonetheless, better to have it.
Yes, I will probably go with the Panny 35-100mm f2.8 for my zoom beyond 35mm (watched your review on that one multiple times) specifically for it's size/weight and stabilization when paired with my G7. But,...this Olympus definitely edges it out overall. Aaah,...maybe some day with the right camera.
Dear Mr. Thorpe, Thank you for a very well presented review. I'm particularly interested in your application of the [L-Fn], button in conjunction with C-AF AND back button focusing (I'm confused about this last item). I think I understand, but some written clarification would help cement the concept. Thank you....
Hey David I really liked your review. Concerning the pro lenses by Oly, 7-14, 12-40, 40-150 witch all the reviews I seen absolutely gush over, with your em5 m2, would u say that would be a perfect fit for u, maybe all that u would need because of the quality & the mobility? Would u miss the speed & low light ability of say a 1.8 lens, & are these pro lenses as sharp as the Oly primes? Thanks for another great video.
sski66 Glad you liked the review. In terms of efficiency and performance, the 7-150mm f/2.8 zoom scenario fills the bill. On the other hand, the 17 and 45mm f/1.8s and (I wish I had one) 75mm too have much to offer. Apart from the extra speed, they have the shallower DoF which is good to have in MFT. Also, stopped down to the zoom speed of f/2.8, they do have better edge to edge sharpness. And, of course, they are much smaller. If I had to make a choice I'd probably choose the primes over the zooms because they are more fun to use and the restrictions they place on me make me think harder. If I were still a day to day pro, it'd have to be the zooms for all round versatility. I'm lucky that I don't have to make that choice!
Hello David, thank you for the great reviews! I'm in the market for Panasonic 50-200mm f2.8-f4. I want to get it but I'm worry that I may not like it due to the variable F-stops. What are your thoughts? Will I be disappointed? Thank you David!
Thanks! It's a fine balance, this one. First of all, neither of these lenses will disappoint you. You have a choice based on physical size and weight which favours the Panasonic. But for the extra size the Olympus gives you f/2.8 all the way through the range - though it has a more restricted range. Impossible choice! I see two ways of deciding - the first being tossing a coin! More seriously, what kind of photography do you do? If you want a lens for out and about work, the Panasonic might be better because its 200mm end does give you a long telephoto for birds, say and those wonderful perspective foreshortening effects. The gradual change from f/2.8 to f4 isn't too bothersome but the reality is that the lens is effectively only f/2.8 at 50mm. I tend to treat it as an f/4 lens, knowing that won't change. The Olympus really excels for sports, where the f/2.8 aperture may be crucial for indoor games. So, overall, I'd bring it down to this: general purpose or mainly sport/ action - Both will be good for both but will excel in the ways I describe.
I've very much fallen in love with the M43 system over the last few months, and do often use it in place of my Nikon kit on pro jobs. I NEVER believed it could possibly give as good results as it does until I dipped my toe in the water and started using it. I don't personally own this lens..... yet(!), but can feel the urge coming on.....
You like it for the same reasons as me, probably, which is that it is a system with many lens and body choices, plenty of accessories and good quality all in a manageable size format. This lens is a great showpiece for the system since for full frame its size and price would make it impractical. The 12-40 f/2.8 is just as remarkable in its way in that its IQ is better than most primes. Great lenses! It's nice to hear another professional agreeing with me.
At one time clients exhibited a lot of equipment snobbery, but that seems to have subsided of late. Maybe people are beginning to realise they're paying for - in my case - forty years experience, rather than the latest nikcan monster!
You wouldn't employ a builder and tell him what tools to use or an engineer and tell him what CAD to use. I think you have a point, I certainly hope you are right. With your experience you have confidence in yourself and I'm sure that transmits to clients. If I found myself wanting to tell a professional I was engaging in any field how to do their job I think I'd get someone else in.
They are rock solid zoom lenses, classic optics, great handling and with 2 lenses you cover 99% of anything you might want to do. It is hard not to be enthusiastic about them! Glad the reviews were useful, thanks Alan.
Fascinating photographers dialect, I'm guessing from extensive practical experience. Great reviews with interesting insights. Question 1.4 x tele converter vs x2 on-board Olympus OM-D E-M10 ii converter.
Yes, I trained 3 years as a press photographer and branched out into all sorts of media photography, studio, occasional wars, you name it. The converters on digital cameras work by cropping the image and then upsampling it to the original size. It's digital sleight of hand which gives the impression of a converter but isn't. The 'proper' converter acts essentially like a magnifying glass, it enlarges the image as it passes through the rear of the lens. It does affect sharpness but with a very sharp lens it won't be that noticeable. The big advantage is that it uses the full sensor so the noise levels of the image are the same with or without the converter. That's in principle. You lose a stop in lens speed with a 1.4x converter, so if you had to increase the ISO you'd get some of the noise back! Essentially, the digital converter is just a cropped image. The physical converter actually gives some practical advantage.
Now I'm feeling sufficiently enlightened. I thought it was too good to be true. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I best look at the proper converter for that extra reach (I'm an airshow freak). Do I need the Panasonic 100-400 ?? Nooooo, I just want one. I do have a G80 with a 100-300. I was thinking using it with the Olympus x2 trick, it would beef it up ;-) Ha ho
Excellent review, I just picked up this lens for theater photography. As it is replacing an Olympus 4/3 35-100/f2 lens in my bag my perspective on "big and heavy" is quite different!
+Michael Brunk I don't think there could be a better lens for theatre photography. Just looked up the specs of the f/2 you mention. Wow! I see what you mean by your perspective being different. Big and heavy or not, that's a heck of a lens - will you keep it?
Dear @David Thorpe Great review. Thank you very much. I always enjoy watching your videos. I have Olympus OM-D E-10 Mark 2 body and going to buy 12-40 f2.8 and 40-140 f.28 lenses. Do you think it will look weird with a camera that is even smaller than EM-5 Mark 2 body? It is a shame that I didn't buy EM-5 Mark 2 - with bigger sized glass it would look better, but I love my EM-10 Mark 2 anyway!!! Or I should buy bigger body first? What do you think?
Thanks! I'd buy the lenses and use them with the E-M10 Mk2. The camera may look a bit small but is should handle perfectly well so I don't think that would matter. You can always change the body later on if you want but I doubt you will.
Hi David, Thank you very much for the review. I wonder if I can ask a question. I currently have a Panasonic G6 with a Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS. I use this for shots of Ice Dance - lighting not always great and lots of fast moving (panning) action. I shoot with OIS on 'panning' mode (so vertical only). I tend to find a lot of my shots are at the 150mm ish - I only need 200mm if the skaters are way off the other end of the rink. Do you think this lens (without stabilisation) on the Panasonic body would give significantly better results than what I have now ? I am really tempted, but it's a lot of money, and I don't know if the extra speed will make up for the lack of OIS ?
Re your comment at 0:42, about most DSLR systems not having a 300mm-equivalent reach - I think you've forgotten APS-C. Stick a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a Nikon DX body (e.g. a D7x00) and you get a 300mm FF-equivalent FoV on the telephoto end; do the same on a crop sensor Canon body (e.g. a 7D) and you get a 320mm equivalent.
Hi David, great video, looks like a top lens just a pity I can't afford it. I just wanted to ask you see the tripod your camera is sitting on at 8 minutes into the video, what type is it? Also is it a tripod that is optimised more for tripod collars? Thanks. Kenny.
+K Feeney Hi Kenny. The tripod is a little Manfrotto 709B. Basically just a tabletop tripod with a handy little ball head. I have had it years and I don't think they make it any nore but they do have a modern version, the same but more 'designer'. Still cheap, though. Very handy and so tiny you can take it anywhere.
Hi David, I've read and watched so many different reviews, but you seem to take a measured, careful, reasoned approach to your reviews, so I'm hoping for your input. I'm considering purchasing the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 along with either the E-M1 or E-M2ii. I'll mostly be shooting indoor and outdoor basketball. The newer E-M1ii is simply out of my price range considering the cost of those two lenses. Which of those two bodies would you recommend? I have a Sony A7, but it has issues like frequent overheating, and the new f2.8 telephoto is $3000.
Did you mean the E-M5II? Or E-M10II? Either way, my preference for these two lenses would be the E-M1. It works really well with them. The other one to consider would be the Panasonic G80/85 which I use a lot with these zooms and performs very similarly to the E-M1, though with a bit better S-AF.
David Thorpe Hi, I meant I'm trying to decide between the original E-M1 and the E-M1 mark ii. I just noticed the typo in my original post. Sorry about that.
If you can afford it, the Mark 2. The focusing is noticeably better than the Mark 1 and while it's a lot of money Olympus don't keep changing their models so it would be good for a long time. Especially with the firmware updates that Olympus supply from time to time. If you buy the E-M1 Mark 1 you'll eventually go up to the mark 2 (probably) which in the long term will be more expensive. You've got some tasty hi-speed sequence options for sport with the Mak 2 as well.
Hi David, first of all, thank you very much for taking the time to do all these useful videos. They were essential for me when moving to Panasonic. Here in Argentina I don´t have anywere to check and test the gear with my own hands. My question is the following; I´m in love with the Olympus Pro lens series, I want all of them, but I´m a GH4 owner. How important is to have image stabilization with de 40-150mm? I understand it´s better to count with it, but it is essential when using handheld? I usually work with tripod and I never had such a long lens. Thank you very much and sorry for my poor english.
Francisco Gilges Hi Francisco - your English if good! Firstly, from 40mm through to around 100mm, if you have a steady hand and with a comfortable camera body like the GH4, you probably won't need stabilization. As you say, better to have it than not but manageable without especially since the fast aperture means you can use high shutter speeds. Secondly, any lens at 150mm should really be used on a tripod for best results (which you say you do) and if you mount the lens on a tripod stabilization should be turned off anyway. Summing up, if your hand is steady then you'll only _need_ stabilization for the long end of this lens. If you use it on a tripod you don't need stabilization at all. One thing is certain, you will only see the true capabilities of this lens with it mounted on a good tripod and stabilzation turned off.
Thanks for the great review David, you have made up my mind about this lens. I was going to get the 7-14mm first but as it hasn't made it to Australia yet I and I intend to get both I might as well go ahead with this one now. Just as a side note for those contemplating which system to go for I think Olympus' excellent live bulb, live view and live composite and Image Share are just about worth the price of admission on their own.
jaxdabomb1 This and the other two pro zooms make a superb outfit ll on on their own. Apart from Live Bulb, Panic have all the attributes you mention but they have 4k and stills from it. There are good reasons to choose either system or better still, have one of each! We'[re lucky to have the choice.
The question is whether or not it replaces the 45mm and 75mm f1.8's. I got the 12-40mm f2.8 a while ago but I'm finding myself shooting more and more with the 17mm, 45mm, 50mm f2 (adapted) and 75mm, mostly the 17mm and 75mm. I've seen a couple of olympus 35-100mm f2 zooms for sale in the $1200 region recently on ebay and I keep thinking that it would actually not be that expensive if I could sell the 45 and 70 to partly fund it, the question is what are you giving up in that exchange. Then the further question is whether the 40-150mm is the better option vs the 35-100mm, could the 40-150mm also make the primes redundant and how much will the size and weight benefit me vs the slightly better IQ and speed of the older 4/3 f2. What a dilemma.
phrenzy1 I personally would forget the older stuff because focusing for the old 4/3 lenses is slow compared to the native MFT lenses and you really do need good autofocus performance with a longer lens.. More difficult is the prime/ zoom question but I think that if you listen to yourself, you've probably answered it already. You have the 12-40 but find yourself shooting more and more with the primes. This f/2.8 40-150 is a lovely lens but like all zooms it is an all round work horse. It doesn't have the ease of use or wide aperture of the primes and in my opinion doesn't replace them . If I were you I'd buy the 12mm f/2 wide-angle, to complete my prime line-up and a 14-140 Panasonic for all the times when I'm feeling a dilemma. Given the cost of the pro zoom, you could probably afford a good 25mm as well within the same budget. Not advice - just food for though, maybe?
Hello :) Love your reviews, quite informative, but also with a touch of "warmth" in the description, really enjoying them :) :) I have a question. How does it fair "against" the 50-200mm f2.8-3.3 Swd? I'm asking cause I am about to buying one, and though "old" etc, it looks quire good (for 800 euros, Mmf3 and T/c 1.4 included). I aim to use it for concert photography, on an Em1 body, and the similar package for the 40-150 is way too costly (no way to gather money anytime soon) Thank you, keep up the Great work David!
I don't know the Canon but I'd assume it is as good as other Canon lenses. The Olympus is a very good lens too but since they fit different systems, any comparisons aren't really useful. If you have a Canon body, you'll buy the Canon lens and Olympus for the Olympus. Both are as sharp as anyone would require, I'm sure.
I have that lens with a GH4 :) now I understand I need a longer Zoom lens to take pictures of the moon and a wide angle lens to take pictures indoors. this lens taught me a lot :)
All Olympus's Pro lenses are superb..., and for a medium tele, 40-150mm f2.8 is the best there is for m4/3. But if m4/3 wants to stay competitive with aps-c and FF, Olympus and Panasonic should imitate Sigma and come up with f2.0/f1.8 twoo time zooms (like 10-20mm f2.0; 25-50mm f2.0; 75-150mm f2.0), to stay in the game of ''low light zoom'' race. M4/3 f1.2 primes are the right direction also. Panasonic and Olympus, please shake up the market and start a refreshed m4/3 chapter...
What would be even better would be that Sigma should come up with such zooms, not just FF or APS-C items cobbled together with an MFT mount but reflecting the 2x angle of view factor.
Love your reviews David. You are my favourite TH-cam subscription. I have the 17mm f2.8, the 12-50 and the 40-150 R which is permanently on my camera. For serious birding I use the ZD 50-200 and despite the weight advantage cannot justify the purchase of the 40-150.
@@catrionathomson8981 Thank you, Catriona! Given that the ZD 50-200 is such a good lens, I agree with you that the advantages of the 40-150 don't justify the outlay.
I own an E-M10 mk ii, so the smallest Olympus MFT camera. Would this lens be horribly unwieldy with it? I plan on getting the E-M5 mk iii whenever it comes out. I know glass is king and where one should primarily invest. Should I go for the Olympus 40-150 for future proofing even if it's too big or just get the reasonably sized Panasonic 35-100?
The ever present dilemma! The big lens doesn't feel right on such a small body but it is perfectly usable with familiarity. And of course there's a tripod collar on the 40--150 so the combo mounted on a tripod feels fine with the lens supporting it. In the end, it comes down to whether you can tolerate the bulk for the extra 50mm zoom. range. If you find it too big, you just won't use it. Given the beautiful small form of the Olympus body, I'd go for the Panasonic lens. You'd likely find yourself wishing you had the 40-150 with you but not having it due to the size. There's no reason to not have the 35-100 with you given the compact size.
What are the shutter speeds of the ISO6400 pics, or just how good is that stabilisation? The CA is pretty distracting in the water shots at 6:15, is this type easily dealt with in LR?
Hi Dave its time for a new lens you helped me choose my last lens (panasonic 12-35mm f2.8), Love the lens. I have the lumix gx8 camera. Could you please tell me which one you would go for, Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 or the Olympus f40-150mm 2.8. I would only be using the lens for photography.
That's hard because they are such different lenses. The Olympus has that wonderful wide zoom range, the Panasonic is much smaller and lighter. Both are good and sharp as you'd expect. Personally, I'd go for the zoom range since that gives you a full kit of lenses in just two lenses. The GX8's in body stabilization works well with the Olympus but not as well as Olympus's. However, I don't use short shutter speeds with long lenses. The GX8 has dual stabilization with the 35-100 and that is as good as Olympus's. I'm having to think hard. What I'd say is that the Olympus is really only worth the extra bulk and weight if you are going to use the 150mm end regularly as I do. If not, the smaller, lighter and better stabilized Panasonic should suit you well. So, since you like the 12-35 so much, unless you really think you would use the 150mm end a lot, I'd go for the Panasonic. Sorry for the rambling. I sold my 35-100 and wish I hadn't.
Thank you for replying David. It is a hard choice, the extra range would come in handy. I only want to carry 2 lens in my bag. I also have the panasonic 14-140mm 3.5f to 5.6f and 45-175mm . The 12-35 blew me away tho how much sharper my photos was. I think what I might do is pop into my local Jessops and try both on the gx8. That way I'll know how heavy the oylmpus lens is. Just like to say thanks again David you're always a great help.
Glad to help - yes, well worth handling both lenses. The Panasonic would the better lens in every way for the GX8 except....it doesn't go to 150mm. I've always had a 150mm lens or equivalent because it's about the longest length which has practical everyday use. When you get to a 200mm or 400 in FF, the uses are getting more specialist. I
Hey David, I've been searching the dpreview forum for a post you made awhile back about your new video on youtube. I failed to find it, but I thought I'd just ask you directly. I was wondering what's your kit like now. Maybe do a "what's in my camera bag" video? Thanks for reading.
+Eugene Li Hi Eugene - yes, I'll do a camera bag video shortly. Possibly an update to why I use Micro Four Thirds. The camer bag is quite simple now, one E-M1, one GX8, Panasonic 7-14, Olympus 12-40 and 40-150 f/2/8 plus 1.4 converter.
How do you think the IBIS on the GX8 will pair with the 40-150? I like a few things the 40-150 does over the 35-100 (Also a very nice lens, but the MFD on the 40-150 seems well suited for my typical usage for this sort of lens) I would assume it should do splendid
+Kenji S It works very well - not as good as Panasonic's in lens stabilization or Olympus's in body system but well enough to make the 40-150 very practical to use. The 35-100's stabilization, will pair with the GX8's body system to give superb stabilization, of course, but the Olympus lens is so all encompassing - especially with the 1.4x converter - and so good optically that it is well worth it in my opinion.
Yes, for sure. I find it works just fine with the GX8 so the GX85 will be better. It's comparable with the Olympus's stabilization anyway. I find the GX85's stabilization not to be quite as good as Olympus's but some people find it the same or better. Whatever, yes, no worries and with the f/2.8 aperture you'll mostly be using high shutter speeds anywa.
Love your reviews David, do we still had to use uv-haze filter for this oly pro series lens ? Or just a simply clear protector filter will do ? Tq so much David
A clear protector will do fine as I understand that sensors are not sensitive to UV. But sometimes UV filters are cheaper (I'm talking about filters from reputable makers, of course) and they can't do any harm. I've always used filters on my lenses. Some prefer not to but I like to know that any sand, say, that blows onto my lens would scratch a replaceable filter rather than an expensive front element.
+David Thorpe ok, narrower, if i had to get one filter only, which one should i choose between this clear filter (B+W XS-PRO Clear MRC Nano 62mm) and Circular Polarizing Filter (B+W XS-PRO KSM CPL MRC Nano 62mm), which one would you choose ? Some filters reviewer said its better to go with best cpl filter instead of getting uv/clear filter, I would like to know what do you think of this and which one you prefer ?
A polarizing filter is quite a specialized piece of glass so not suitable for protection purposes. I'd prefer a protective filter over a UV, though as I say it doesn't matter very much. Protective filters are often made as thin as possible so that you don't get vignetting with wide angle lenses. I use Hoya and Kenko but any reputable maker like B+H will be ok. Just not a cheapie!
David, I'm new at M4/3 World, and got a Oly EM-1. I saw your images at ISO 6400 and it's superb! but i have the same body and a 60mm f2.8 and don't get the same results at iso 2000. Actually i avoid using above ISO 1600 because of grain and lost of details. My another body is a Canon 5D MarkII who gets a superb results even in ISO 4000, and ok results at ISO 6400. So, there's some trick to get images more detailed and less grainy for Oly EM-1? Thanks!
I shoot RAW in low light and use a minimum of noise reduction in Lightroom. For the videos, I'm down sampling to 1920x1080 pixels and that makes a lot of difference. I shot some stuff at 6400 yesterday and in LightRoom use light sharpening, my standard being Amount 25, Radius 1, Detail 25, Masking 10. Then for NR, Luminance 0, Color 25, Detail 10, Smoothness 50. The fact is that the Canon is a full frame camera - I know you know that, but some readers might have thought it was an APS-C sensor Canon - with a sensor 4x the area of the Olympus and no amount of post processing is going to compensate for that. If you are going to be viewing on a tablet, then, I'd suggest using light touch NR as I do and then downsampling to 2048px for viewing at native size. 6400 is pushing things for Micro Four Thirds and I generally use 3200 as my upper limit. I find the size/ IQ balance of Micro Four Thirds hits a sweet spot for my needs but if I majored in low light work as I used to when I made my living partly out of photographing live concerts for record companies, newspapers and magazines, I'd be using full frame cameras. So, I'd say persevere and get the best results you can for your needs and to your eye but the E-M1 will never match the Canon for noise. For the moment at least, it seems image sensors have reached a plateau.
Thank you very much for the review. And I have one question which seems nobody gives clear answer. What do you think about sample variations of the lenses? Is it something what we have to take into account, especially when buying not cheap lens like this one?
Since I buy 90% of what I review so owe no allegiance to any maker, I am in a position to give a clear answer. But I can't. I have never had a lens that performed less well than I expected and all I can report on is my own experience. I did have a Panasonic 100-400mm which had a zoom ring stiff enough to impede easy use of the lens and I warned of it in my video. I can't think of any Panasonic or Olympus Micro Four Thirds lens so cheap that anything less than critical sharpness viewed on a computer monitor or 12x10in print would be acceptable. On the other hand, it has to be accepted a fast ultra-wide zoom lens will never reach the edge and corner standards of a 25 or 45mm prime (though some are getting close). It's a minefield really but I would say that if you bought a lens like the 40-150mm Olympus and were disappointed with its performance the lens is likely to be a bad one. The commonest fault is de-centring and sometimes a bit of uneven performance between one corner and another is unavoidable. But not to the point of showing under everyday conditions. One caveat: It is no good testing a lens hand held or not accurately aligned to the test surface. I see occasional complaints where the test shot is taken under conditions that no lens would show up well. Some folk do expect a lens to cover up sloppy technique! I wish i could be more specific or helpful, Martin, but that's the best I can do. These lenses are mass produced consumer items and there will always be some variation but it shouldn't be enough to ruin performance. I was speaking to a Hasselblad employee once and remarking on the superb performance of every one of their Zeiss lenses I ever bought. He remarked that you'd always get a good one because they discard the less than perfect ones. So the renowned expense of the lenses was in large part to pay for the ditching of the three imperfect ones!
David Thorpe Thanks for interesting and quick answer. I think you said it well. I haven't bought this lens yet. But if I do, it will be because of your review. You deserve some help from Olympus and Panasonic!
Nice review. No equivalent lens exists in other systems? There are other sensor sizes out there, not only FF. A 70-200 2.8 is also a 100-300 2.8 on APS-C. Those are almost equivalent of this lens.
David, I'm a professional photographer who is in the process of switching to the Olympus MFT system of PRO lenses. Videos and books, like your "The Olympus E-M5II Menu System Simplified" are invaluable. Thank you. However, I am having a problem with the E-M5 MkII's depth-of-field preview button when using the 40-150mm PRO zoom featured in this review. According to Olympus, and in your book, "If you press the Preview button on the front of the camera beside the lens, it stops the lens down to show you how much of your image is in focus at your set aperture. ... Note that viewfinder brightness is maintained in this view. Photographers graduating from DSLRs will find this a minor miracle since with an optical finder the image becomes unusably dim beyond about f8." Well, David, that's not happening with either of my E-M5 MkIIs. When I press the preview button (or the zoom's L-Fn button, which I've also assigned as depth-of-field preview) at f8 or worse at f22, my electronic viewfinder picture becomes so dark as to be unusable. I'm assuming that I have a conflict somewhere in the menu setting. Any suggestions as to what's going on would be very much appreciated, please, David. Many thanks for you enchanting reviews, Rick
Thanks for the kind words, Rick. I don't have an E-M5 II to hand but I think the answer probably lays in the Live View Boost section of the Custom menu.
Hi David, Many thanks for getting back. Much appreciated. After some more investigation, and speaking with Olympus technical support, it appears that the "Preview" feature isn't exactly as described. Yes, Preview does (sort of) give a live view of the stopped down lens' depth of field, but only in good light conditions. I would have expected that Olympus would have used the "Live Boost" illumination built into the electronic viewfinder to make this work in low light as well as normal lighting conditions. Not so. It doesn't work in low light nor after f/8 through f/22. ...a shame, as this would have been easier achieved through the software. Anyhow, thanks again, David. Your "The Olympus E-M5II Menu System Simplified" book is worth its weight in gold. (And much more useful than Darrell Young & James Johnson's book, which says what to do, but gives no clue on why you'd want to do it 🙄). Your book may be slim, but is invaluable 👍. All the very best, Rick
@davidThorpe Love the channel. kim kardashian lol. question- would you reccomend this over the panasonic 35-100 f2.8? I have the pan 12-35 f2.8 and am looking to add a long zoom to my collection. Thanks
If you are looking for a fast tele zoom both these lenses will do the job very well indeed. The choice comes down to the trade off between zoom range and size. If the size of the Olympus doesn't other you, go for the Olympus. If portability is more important, the Panasonic it is. If you really need the greater reach of the Olympus the choice is made. I have both lenses and would observe that I use the 35-100 more for no other reason that because it is so compact I have it with me more often. Prosaic....but true. Glad you like the channel, thanks Kevin.
Hi David- thanks for the review..would his make a great portrait lens at 150mm f2.8 on a Panasonic gx8 and comparable/better for portraits to Olympus 75mm f1.8 in terms of narrowness of depth of field/creamier bokeh of backgrounds? Thank you
+justinspirational the magnification at 150mm is rather too high for portraiture - it puts you rather a long way away and out of touch with your subject. The 75mm would be better and have shallower depth of field, though really even that is on the long side. Neither lens would be easily used indoors for example, except in a very spacious room. The ideal lens would be one of the Panasonic 42.5mms, the f/1.2 or f/1.7 or the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. Interestingly, the focal length of a lens does not directly affect depth of field. It's just that with a longer lens, the background is drawn bigger and _looks_ more out of focus. If you prefer a longer option, the 75mm would be good but the Panasonic f/1.2 best. If not, either of the other two would be excellent with the Panasonic having stabilization - and the Olympus being cheaper.
+David Thorpe thanks David..I have the Olympus 75mm 1.8 and panasonic 42.5mm 1.7 already. .been shooting my 'cinematic' headshots I've spoken to you about before with the Olympus 75mm with great results but the longer focal length for the compressed background and as creamier bokeh as possible is actually preferred based on the tutorial I've been following which optimally is shot on a full frame cam at 200mm and f2.8-3.2 (FF focal length/aperture).. the Olympus 75 mm is like 150mm at f3.6 full frame equivalent..the lens reviewed in this video would be a max of 300mm at f2.8 FF equivalent ... the panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 may have the shallow depth of field (85mm f2.4 FF equivalent) but not have the compressed background look with more distortion of the face (from tutorials I've seen the face looks less distorted and more aesthetically pleasing at the longer focal lengths around the 200mm FF focal length)..also the longer length where you will be further away from the subject may actually be preferable, particularly for people not used to being shot up close and personal/a little nervous about a camera lens in their face with a bigger comfort zone for personal space to make them feel more comfortable about being shot
+justinspirational It's your job to make people not nervous :-) It's personalty more than anything else that makes for good portraiture! The zoom at 150mm would be the angle of view of a 300mm lens on full frame, with an aperture of f/5.6 for DoF purposes. I think that you have the best combination for what you want with the 75mm. Remember that with a longer lens you may have to sit the person closer to the background to get the distance, which means a less blurred background since it is closer. With your 42.5 or 75mm, if you photograph them with a very distant background, the background will be very blurred. I recently had someone ask me how I get the shallow DoF effects I get. The answer is, an 45mm at f/2 and lots of separation from the background. But, overall, I think you are making things very difficult for yourself. A full frame Sony with a 90mm f/2 or 180mm f/2.8 would do what you want very easily. The Rokinon would be useful provided you don't mind the manual focus.
Hello again. I'm thinking hard about shifting to M4/3 but I am constrained to have (for now) either the OM-D E-M5 and the Pro 12-40 f/2.8 lens OR just the OM-D E-M1 and a cheaper prime lens (like the Sigma's). I'm concerned about the sharpness of the E-M5 as it may not be as sharp as the EM-1 with that lack of AA filter. What do you think?
3plestrafe I wouldn't be concerned about the AA filter, the difference is quite subtle and certainly not enough to make a buying decision on. I'd go for the E-M5 and 12-40. My reasoning is that once bought, the lens will be one you'll keep and there is not likely to be an upgrade or improvement in the far foreseeable future. It's hard to see what it would be so good is the lens. But camera bodies do change and with an update to the E-M1 likely in the next year or two (I'm guessing!) I'd be happy to use the E-M5 and 12-40 and either buy an E-M1 new version when you can or, if it is not want you want, go for the E-M5II. IQ wise, there's little difference between any of the MFT cameras these days. In reality, unless a newer body has facilities you'd really like to have, the E-M5 is just as good as any MFT camera.
3plestrafe In addition to Dave's response, With the release of the EM-5 mk II, there are some great deals on the EM-5. Then save your pennies for the EM-1 Mk II, haha. Photography is a money pit. But a very fun money pit.
I've had a couple of hobbies in the past where the value just dissipates after purchase. I'll be saving me pennies until Christmas time. Hopefully then. [:
I would like to see a comparison of this lens with the Olympus 40-150 F4-5.6, if possible! I think this will be a interesting comparison for people with a tight budget!
wahkao1990 I've done a review of the lens but not a comparison. In general day to day photography for the web or prints up to 12x10 you won't see much difference between the two lenses. The f/2.8 outperforms the f/4-5.5 in every way as it should do for the price but that performance advantage only manifests itself when you are pushing the limits a bit. As I say in the video, there are a number of things to consider when deciding on a lens like this. When this lens was introduced, it didn't make older one any less good, though.
What is the strap that appear in the front on the video?? I think this lens is really good for m 4/3 but in dof is equivalent to a 80-300 f 5.6 in a full frame so is quite expensive
sm ml If DoF were the most important thing for me, I'd go back to my Hasselblad equipment. Try a 'blad with a 250mm lens and you'll know what shallow DoF is!
sm ml It's the very pretty 'official' Olympus leather strap. It came with an the Olympus messenger bag as a freebie with the E-M5II. You can buy them from Olympus for a really silly price.
This really does look like a nice lens, but I'm looking for something with just a little more reach, could I use this with a telephoto adapter of some sort and keep the effective low light sensitivity? And lens based stabilization would be appreciated, so I should probably look for something in the Panasonic line, right? Primarily for video and on a G7.
You can use the Olympus 1.4x converter with it but you lose a stop of speed giving you f/4. You should look at the Panasonic 100-300mm or the rather exotic 100-400mm but they are both slower, as all long lenses will be. No way around that other than something like a Nikkor 300mm with a Metabones adapter giving you a very nice 210mm f/3.2. All manual, though.
I ended up ordering the 100-300mm lens. I'm thinking in the future I might want to invest in the Aputure DEC Lens Regain and some of the canon ef line of lenses. I don't really have the money for that at this point, but it seems going that route would enable much lower light shots and a wide range of useful tools. I like the idea of using the lens regain with its remote focus control with a shoulder harness for shooting videos. Then there's all of those other toys you can add onto it, like the wireless HDMI for live streaming purposes. But the cost keeps adding up. You really could have a lot of fun if you had limitless funds, but who is in that situation?
Nice review, very informative!! well done. Would you by any chance going to review olympus 7-14mm f/2.8? I would be interested in taking in door low light shot. But its a expensive lens and donno how it perform. Specially not sure how is the barrel distortion. Many thx.
No, no problem at all, Steve. I interchange my Olympus and Panasonic lenses without a second thought. Micro Four Thirds is a standard so any Micro Four Thirds equipment will work with any other.
Hello David, new subscriber (and new GH5 owner). Thanks for all the great content! Can I please be one of those annoying people and ask for a recommendation, I'm tossing up between this and the new panny 30-100 2.8mk2, really the only reason there is any consideration is because I'm primarily a video shooter on the m43 world and the 35-100 is said to work with the "Dual 2" stabilisation that only the GH5 offers with certain compatible lenses. However I have seen some incredibly steady hand held footage at 150mm on the 40-150 using only the new IBIS of the GH5. The extra focal length is obviously attractive, as well as seeming being optically superior also. Have you had a chance to get your hands on the 30-100 2.8mk2 yet and use it with a GH5?
oh and to spice things up, i already have a fair few 58mm filters (that will fit the 30-100, as you probably well know), and of course being a video shooter i will need a bunch of different ND filters for the lens which adds another big price consideration, as purchasing filters for the 40-150 will not be cheap!
Thanks Joseph! I haven't used the 35-100 on the GH5 but I do have the 14-140 which does the dual stabilization. I can't actually tell any difference between the dial stabilization and the GH5 alone. That's not to say there isn't any, just that the GH5 body stabilization is as good as I need.When you half press the shutter, the scene appears to be locked in place, much like the Olympus bodies have done for some time now. So, apart from the price, therefore, the real differences are just size and zoom range. For me, the 40-150 really covers the range of 2 lenses. I have always had, in my newspaper and magazine days, a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 plus a 300mm f/2.8. The Olympus lens replaces both of these (in Micro Four Thirds terms, of course) and the 1.4x converter is the icing on the cake. In a nutshell, if you are comfortable with the extra size and weight, the Olympus is the one to go for.
Thanks for your time and the great advice. I'll just have to take the hit on the filter cost, and the bonus there is that the 100-400mm is also 72mm filter size. Yes the GH5 IBIS is so great, i tortured myself and went and put the panasonic 100-400 on my GH5 at my local camera store, and even at 800mm equivalent handheld presented no challenge at all. I cant wait to own that lens!! But first the 40-150 and the 60mm macro (just because!).
You said that the lens performs well on Panasonic cameras, but mentioned that IS a necessity. How much would you recommend this lens for a non stabilised G7 for general sports and action photography? Thank you very much.
+Alan Wong For sports and action where you'll be using a high shutter speed, stabilization is not necessary. In fact the makers recommend turning it off for best continuous focusing, to save computing power. Not that I've noticed any practical difference personally. If you can keep the shutter speed over 1/300th which with the the f/2.8 is practical enough, camera movement is unlikely. It's in other situations, a bird in dark tree or an indoor portrait where you might need to drop the shutter speed that a long lens becomes harder to handle without stabilization. On the other hand, indoors, you're not going to be suing the lens at the long end so the problem recedes. I'd much prefer to have stabilization for my own peace of mind but this lens is a one off and I'd buy it anyway. The alternative 35-100 f/2/8 Panasonic just doesn't have the reach for sports.
I have this lens David. It's marvellous! Not so great on my GH4's for video as there is no stabilisation and the slightest touch I get wobbles. But on the OMD EM1 for stills and video it's superb with image stabilisation. Now for a OMD EM1 Mark 2 with 4K video :) Here's hoping!
Enzo Maisano Hi Enzo, yes everything you say. I think it is unlikely that a new E-M1 would have 4K as it appears to generate heat which cannot be dissipated with the light sensor necessary for Olympus's state of the art IBIS. On the other hand, you know as much or more than I do and I thought that the E-M5II's 77mbps couldn't be done.
Me again :) OK I am getting 40-150 for Christmas so I can use it with either GX8 and GH5. On either camera what focus mode do you use with BIF ... spot or 225 area (GH5), or custom (narrow horizontal) mode?
Pinpoint is too precise and unless the bird is large in the viewfinder 225 area may have trouble finding the spot you want. The Custom Multi default with the cluster in the middle of the screen is probably the best best. You can probably customize that in the light of experience later. But overall, the more closely you tell the camera where it should focus, the faster and more tenacious it will be.
Hi , need help in choosing lens, between 8mm1.8 and 7-14mm2.8. 70%for astrophotography and 30 for landscapes. Does defishing 8mm in lightroom has any issiues? Am I loosing anything by defishing.
Hi Prashanth - I'm afraid de-fishing will lose a lot of edge definition which will be particularly noticeable with tiny points of light like stars. In practise fisheyes aren't that good on edge definition for a start, even before de-fishing. The 7-14mm will be specifically corrected for edge sharpness so would be much your best bet. Superb lens, actually, as are all Olympus's Pro range.
This would make the perfect lens for shooting pro/college basketball. I wish I could know how this would operate on a Lumix. The GH5 has chip IS, but the lens isn't designed for the system. It looks like the size of a Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR.
I use this lens more with Panasonic than I do with Olympus. It focuses faster on Panasonic than Olympus, apart from the E-M1-Mkll. I wouldn't hesitate.
Using it with the GH5 - how does it do using the GH5 IS? In both video and stills? Is there a loss in stops settings? (not sure I asked that correctly) I'm assuming when using this with the M1mkii it has more stops of IS?
It works as well on the Gh5 as it does on the Olympus both in video and stills. There's no loss of any kind, it behaves and operates exactly on one make as the other. Since the lens doesn't have inbuilt stabilization it relies on the camera body system. This is very similar for both cameras. The only difference would be that without the DfD of Panasonic lenses it can be a tad slower to lock on to initial focus in C-AF. Nothing game changing, though. I have both Olympus and Panasonic bodies and I use whichever one I fancy with the Pro lens. A truly excellent lens.
Wow I got a GH3 with both f2.8 zooms & the leica 25mm starting to get the upgrade itch for the body I thought I'd do more video hence the panasonic but I've done 95% photography instead...although I'd like to do more video. I know Sony has the FF 5-axis with 4k video...something panasonic claimed couldn't be done because you couldn't cool down the sensor adequately enough. I think Olympus could kill if they came out with the OMD EM-1 mkII featuring their 5-axis stabilization with the new 20MP sensor & 4k video (100mbit/s h264 w/ cinema or log profiles). Would definately have to see my 35-100 though couldn't afford to keep both. Probably ditch my 100-300 as well for the teleconverter.
David - nice videos - I have a gx7 and a 12-40 f2.8 and would love to test this lens out someday. One observation - you compared this to a 300 f4 lens in full frame format. A proper comparison would be to the 80-300 f5.6 (need to multiply the aperture also by crop) and those are pretty cheap about 1/4th the price of this lens - of course the build quality is a different matter.
+Chendil Kumar Yes, I base my comparison on the fact that whether full frame or MFT, if at ISO 200 a meter shows 125th @ f/2.8 as a correct exposure then that is what you would set the lens to. I only use a comparison to illustrate the the angle of view. In reality all cameras are full frame in that the lenses they use cover their full frame. When working professionally, I saw the Hasselblad 6x6 or Mamiya 7x5cm as full frame and 35mm as miniature but my friend in the studio upstairs saw his 4x5 Linhof as full frame and my Hasselblads as miniatures. For some reason nowadays, 36x24 is seen as some kind of magic format or arbiter but it isn't, just one more format among dozens. And certainly not the highest IQ available! I think what I'll do in future is just quote angle of views! On this lens, it's very good value for money and very well designed and carried through. It needs to be used at f/2.8 to justify its size and cost, though.
+David Thorpe thanks for reply - I took my 45 f1.8 and 12-40 for dance recitals of my daughter and the shots left something to be desired. I would have loved the perspective that comes from 150 or 200mm angle of view. Given these events have terrible lighting I need something fast as well. I will probably rent this lens for the next event and see how it holds up.
+Chendil Kumar Renting one would be perfect. The only other possibility would be a Metabones with maybe an older Nikkor or Canon lens. But, if the 40-150 does the job, as native Micro Four Thirds lens it'll be a whole lot easier to use. Focusing will be very slick indeed with the GX, too.
There is a lively debate fuelled by a Tony Northrup video on the crop conversion of aperture, I have changed my stance on it numerous times, I think it is right not to apply crop to aperture so that you get the right feel for the lighting needs rather than say bokeh effects. I like the idea of describing all lens to sensor as full frame coverage 🤓
+Zlatan Bogdanovic I can't image the confusion that would be caused to people new to photography if a Micro Four Thirds f/2.8 lens was marked f/5.6. But why base it on 36x35mm sensors? Why not 5x4 inch? Or 1 inch?
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
Gosh, I miss David and his reviews.
So do I he was a true gentleman
This video was in my TH-cam feed at the time of the OM1 launch on 2022. David's reviews had a concise style and honesty that have not been matched by any other reviewer. I miss them, and wonder what he would have made of the OM1.
Not just the OM-1, but also the new lenses. The range of f/4 pro zooms are a welcome addition to the MFT lineup. I would have been very interested in David's take on them.
Sometimes I repititiously listen to this video as if doing so would cause this lens to spontaneously manifest it self in my bag.
found it online for just over 900$ love the reality of lenses coming down in price over time.. for the vaste majority
That's a bargain price, especially when it essentially replaces 2 lenses in the bag. It is still more than that in £ in the UK.
online to every where sir
You honestly do THE BEST reviews. Thanks for the time you put into these.
I'm very pleased you think so - thanks for telling me.
Loving this lens, the retractable lens hood also allows one to make an adjustment to there cpl filter which is another bonus.
sosmannz Never though of that - yes useful.
I'm disabled, with very limited mobility, so I use this lens for landscape photography as it can reach places that I cannot. On an E-M1 Mk2, compared to the Canon 5DS R system I changed from because it became far too heavy for me, it is as light as a feather, and the image quality (not even including the 50MP HDR function) is absolutely superb! Another plus is that if the tripod mount is removed (IBIS making a tripod virtually redundant) this lens, plus camera body, 12-40mm f2.8 and 60mm f2.8 macro lenses, and spare batteries, all fit into a Hadley Pro bag. I have only one problem with this lens, and that is that I did not find out about it a whole lot sooner, but that was entirely my fault. ;-)
It's great to hear that John. The 40-150 Pro is unique with its constant f/2.8 and would be impractical in price and size for FF. It's brilliant that MFT can keep you taking pictures in spite of limited mobility. Although I don't have the same limited mibility you do, MFT keeps me taking pictures too. If I still had to lug, an FF outfit around, I'd have given up by now. Great to hear from you, all the best!
I own 6 Olympus Pro lenses and have so say this lens is without a doubt my very favorite to use. So easy to manage size and weight wise. But most importantly built like a Rolls Royce and sharp across it's entire range wide open. instant to focus and so dang sharp. An easy equal to a formerly owned Canon RF70-200 f2.8L IS USM lens used on an R5, higher praise then that I can't give.
Dear David, I'm italian and I would like to thank you for all your reviews about m43 equipment. I started following you because i found the review of the Panasonic 35-100 (the cheap one) and then i discovered all other interesting videos. Your reviews are clear and very well done. My compliments also for the blog which is very interesting to read.
I don't buy anything that costs real money in Micro 4/3rds without first seeing what David Thorpe has to say about it. I am about to invest in this lens, and I learned everything I needed to know about it to make a purchase decision in under 10 minutes. I have decided that this lens is a "go" for my new system. I plan to pair it with the excellent Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and a new OM-D EM-1 Mark II body which I see for sale at some good prices these days. If I add anything else in terms of lenses, it might be the 17mm prime if I really want to travel light, but not sure if I'll really need it. Thank you David, well done!
For some the 12-100 is the lens to have, because you don't need to change lenses over the entire 8x zoomrange. I think it's either the 2-lens F2.8 system with the 12-40 + 40-150 or the 12-100 F4. One stop more light and 50mm more range... but more expensive and you have two lenses... or get a single lens, lose 50mm and one stop of light. The answer isn't the same for everyone. (I'll take the stop of light, thank you very much).
Glad I could help, Tom, thank you.
Nicely put, Gerben. There are always choices and to make them on the rational basis you do is the way to do it. No right or wrong!
+Chris Baude Hi Chris - I can't seem to reply to you directly so I hope you see this. I'm using' back button focusing' in the sense of the technique of using C-AF and pressing a button to stop and lock the focus. So, since the L-AF button stops and locks the focus, using C-AF + the L-AF _is_ 'back button focusing'. If using a lens without the L-AF button then it is more literally 'back button focusing'. I could have been clearer about that and I hope this makes sense. If not, try me again!
Yes.
Excellent review! We will miss you David...RIP
Wonderful review. I loved your photos. I've owned this lens for what seems like a long time now. I bought one as soon as I could find one in stock, along with the 1.4x converter. I have to say that while I liked the 35-100 f/2.8 for it's extreme compactness, I really love those extra 50mm. I do find I use this lens less due to its weight, but it's absolutely never a disappointment and every time I take it out I get shots I'm happy I took. Olympus has really outdone itself.
+Andrew Somerville My feeling exactly in every respect too, Andrew. I';d like to have kept the 35-100 but money does get in the way sometimes :-(
Thank you for the great reviews. It is refreshing and rare to find such eloquent narration on TH-cam or anywhere on the internet for that matter.
+veniero2010 I started scripting my narration because I got fed up with meandering explanations and _ums_ and _ers_ on some others myself. Nie to know it is appreciated, thanks.
This lens resides on my Olympus OM-D E-M1 and aside from the jigsaw puzzle to re-assemble the lens hood and it’s tiny ball bearings a few times, have nothing but the highest praises. When I install the 1.4X dedicated teleconverter, being able to reach out to 420mm (equiv) is pure joy. All in all, no regrets on the silent mode at 11fps mirrorless conversion from my Canon dSLR and L-series glass.
hi, this lens with the tele converter has replaced my 75mm 1.8, my 45mm 1.8 and my panny 35-100 2.8, plus i only paid £800 for it so for me it was extremely good value especially as it's the best lens i have ever owned. i just want olly to sort out cont af and then i'll be happy, am using it on the em5 mk2. if they nail the af with the em1 mk 2 then i'll have my dream combo. i also have the panny 12-35 2.8 and olly 25mm 1.8. i do not miss my ff nikons one bit. i wish people would stop going on about dof (especially when most don't own ff cameras!!) shallow dof is easy on mft. cheers grvo tv
Harry Bunn I'm with you on all of that. Harry. I'm not sure about the C-AF, though. It seems a built in difficulty because of the nature of mirrorless cameras. It'll be interesting to see what Olympus and Panasonic come with next because C-AF is the only weaker aspect of the format now. But, who knows, maybe they will nail it with the next model. If they _really_ do, that camera, whoever makes it, will be a big seller.
David Thorpe I have this lens with the E-M1 and the v 3.0 firmware works very well. You should try hiring/borrowing an E-M1 and try the C-AF with this lens. It works a treat!
kb5ql Yes I have done that and yes, it works a treat! I compare the two cameras' C-AF in my review of the Olympus E-M5 mk2 here - th-cam.com/video/bIVQDgr8SQI/w-d-xo.html
Harry Bunn I'm sick of the argument too. I get photos my ff friends don't. Mainly because they can never be bothered taking their camera with them. I don't understand why shallow DoF is the measure of a camera to start with...or how f/stops definition has been changed from being an exposure tool to meaning DoF.
Enough about that...I am buying this lens. I hope I am not disappointed.
***** If you're OK with the size and price, there is absolutely nothing to disappoint you. With the DoF thing, I think it has become over-blown. But I'm someone who worked professionally with cameras all my life and when I first heard the word bokeh a few years ago hadn't a clue what it meant. So I asked another grizzled old pro...and he hadn't either. DoF is what it is with any lens or camera, governed by the laws of optics so you work with it. But it shouldn't be a fetish.
+OnlyOnceOccluded I can't reply to you directly for some reason. What makes the Olympus lens unique is the zoom _range_ for an f/2/8 lens. The Nikon lens has a range of 2,8x, the Olympus 3.75x. That's what makes it unique and it doesn't exist in any other sysytem.
RIP David
Excellent work. U are the clearest and most concise lens reviewer I follow on TH-cam. Cheers from Brazil!
Thanks JP - and greeting from (at the moment) sunny London!
David, Once again, you have published an exceptional review - and even included your mea culpa in it. For anyone evaluating a prospective purchase, your reviews have become as essential as Gordon Laing's work.
I have been using this lens since it first arrived, to shoot sports, portraits, flowers and bees (not birds). It outperforms my old Nikkor and Leica equivalent lenses in sharpness, and focus speed. I now wonder how I managed to work without it, in the past. And the extender does not slow operation down, it just adds range and flexibility to the kits. At the same time, I have not sold my Panasonic 35-100, because there are timew when I value its short length and lighter weight. It becomes a chocolate-or-vanilla choice, and I have kept both lenses because I like them both in the correct situation.
Joel Turrell Thanks for the kind words, Joel. I am at extremes here, the 40-150 f/2.8 on the one hand and the tiny Panasonic 35-100 on the other.
Another brilliant review, David. I just shelled out for a used Oly 75mm 1.8, so it will be some time before I can consider this. Still, it's an intriguing choice... particularly for folks who want the unique look that a lens like this can deliver. Again - thanks for taking the time to put this review together.
Dustinrhoades Thanks! The nice thing about the 75mm as with the 45mm is that they are still worth keeping even if you have this lens.
Nice timing, David! I was going to ask if you were planning to review this soon. Thanks so much for the great content. I always enjoy your more casual, real-world review style :)
Sean Cull Thanks, Sean.
Jason Disbrow An new E-M1 as you describe would be all things to all people! It does seem that things are now being done that we were told were impossible which seems to lead to the possibility of a camera they does everything that anyone might want. Then what would we do for an upgrade?
Nice review as per usual - I could watch your videos endlessly on repeat. I hope Panasonic and Olympus are paying attention... Your reviews easily sell their products.
studioviper Thanks! I don't think either company pay any attention - I've never had a reply to any of my emails to them!
David Thorpe Really? That's unbelievable. You do a great job with your excellent reviews.
Fred Px Thanks, Fred. But it is true except for one occasion where the Oympus press office replied to me. And then never responded again!
Well, for what it's worth, much of the last few weeks has been spent reading about lenses, then immediately googling the lens + " Thorpe" to see if you reviewed it. You've been an invaluable resource.
Glad to hear that!
Great Lens, it's built like a tank too (by lens standards at least) - mine fell from hip hight onto solid pavement with a protective filter on and aside from a broken filter (which is now stuck to the front as the metal had slightly warped) it didn't suffer any damage. Still takes takes beautiful pictures!
I haven't dropped mine....yet! Nice to know they'll take it.
At first i was doubting about the need for this lens, but after quite a bit of usage it's now permanently in my bag and a must-have all around lens. I does replace a few primes by itself and it's one of these zooms where no compromise was made on image quality. It's now a part of my travel kit too for these reasons.
Yes, a lens yiu find yourself using more and more. I use it a lot for the product shots in my videos. I can change framing so easily and at the same time have good control over depth of field. Not its intended use but an example of its all round photographic value.
Event coverage is also spectacular with this zoom, the 40-150mm range is so flexible there's need just for a wide angle 2nd body and there you go. The teleconverter even adds a bit of flexibility for minor inconvenience. I still keep the f/1.2 primes for low light needs (by the way that 17mm f/1.2 is spectacular) otherwise everything is done with that one.
GREAT REVIEW! Just ordered the 35-100mm then discovered that it suffers from micro jitters and isn't as sharp between 80mm and 100mm. So had to ask the seller to cancel my order. Thankfully I found this Olly 40-150mm F2.8 available second hand so picked that up now. Can't wait to use it on my G9.
Glad you liked the review, thanks. The micro jitters on the 35-100 were cured by a firmware upgrade. I can't say I've ever noticed the 35-100 being anything other than sharp through the range but we all have different expectation on these things. You won't be disappointed with the 40-150 Pro, though. It is less sharp at the long end as all zooms are but you'd need lens charts to see it.
David's take on the G9 II would have been awesome. It's funny that I'm being recommended this video eight years after it was released. I hope his family is doing well.
Great Video Dave.
I bought this lens and the 1.4 converter a few months ago, It go's every where I go . One little bag with all of my gear ready to go at any time .
It's a great lens for bee's and butterflies as the minimum focusing distance is so good and very good depth of field.
No more carrying big 600 lens .
The whole 4/3 system is great for serious travelling .
Mick
Misha crowe MFT is a traveller's dream, really. No matter what you're purpose for taking pictures, MFT quality is all you need and usually some to spare. This lens, the converter and the 12-40 f/2.8 give amazing scope that needed a boot load of gear to cover in DSLR days.
David, darn you!! I had been able to keep this lens out of my mind up to now and still know "I don't really need it." But "need" and "want" are not necessarily compatible terms, are they now?! I'm by no means a pro, but photography is now my "full-time" retirement passion, so I "want" a lot more than I "need!"
Since watching your video - which, by the way, like all before, is well done, comprehensive, and very informative! - my "Buy Now" finger is twitching! &*%!#! Of course, the lack of available funds right now will save me since I have a deal with my wife that I only purchase camera related gear with funds I earn teaching and tutoring photography. However, .....well, you know the end of the story! And, here I was perfectly happy with my nice LITTLE Panasonic 35-100mm, f/4-5.6 on my Olympus OM-D E-M1!
Thank you, David....I think!
Bill, you really didn't need to do this. I am salivating and trying to keep my hands off of the buy button. A great review!
Bill, I rented this lens more than once, first to satisfy my curiosity and the new few times to satisfy my desire in to use it in specific environments. Truly a great lens, everything you think it is. Make sure you try the lens extender, a very cool pairing. Eventually it will all be in my kit too.
Bill did you buy one? I've just bought the em5II with pro 12 40 lens the 60mm macro and the 75 300 zuiko, I was itching to buy this baby but I didn't want the wife making me sleep in the street, maybe at Xmas I'll get it, I also want the pro wide angled.... Tell her you need it to teach hehe
No, MrTobamory, I had a chance to give one a spin for an hour or so at recent #outofchicago conference and, though it is a great lens and I'd love to own one, I realized that that focal length range is not one I am comfortable using that much. I love my 12-40mm pro lens and use it all the time. I have the 60mm macro and the 75-300mm zoom, so feel I'm good with what I have for now. The price tag put it out of my current economic zone too.
I had the start of a fund for it and ended up using part of it to get the new Olympus Air A01 instead. A fun and unusual 'camera,' for sure, but glad I had the $299 to buy it!
*****, I like it, however, I think I'm suffering from "too many choices syndrome" since I have that lens, the 60mm, the 25mm, 12-40mm, 75-300mm, and the Panasonic 20, f/1.7 to choose from. I tend to leave the 12-40 on my E-M1 90% of the time and the 20mm on my E-PL6. Occasionally, however, I do force myself to mount the others for a week and use it exclusively.
First world problem, I know, and I'm certainly *not* complaining! The Panasonic 35-100mm, f/4-5.6 is a great size (I store it attached to the 25mm and wrap them in a Domke wrap: www.infotor.com/blog/stacking-lenses-gluing-two-back-caps-to-store-two-lenses/), so nice and compact and, though not very fast, like my old Canon 70-200mm, f/4 lens, it suits me fine, even indoors because of the E-M1's performance at ISO 3200+!
Go for it!
Love your reviews, David. I've watched almost all of them.
I feel the way you originally felt about this lens; with it, I would be going in the wrong direction. I bought the Panasonic 14- 140mm F3.5 - 5.6, after watching your review of course. Light, small, versatile, relatively inexpensive - that is what MFT is all about for me. YMMV.
datapro007 Good to hear you like the reviews and thanks for saying so.One of the best things about MFT is the depth of the lens system. Something there for any needs except maybe in the long lens area. But it's coming, I expect.
THnk you for the video!
I have Sony A7ii that I like, my friend has an OM-D 10 and I'm thinking to buy an Olympus camera too. Just love the small factor camera and lenses.
Great cameras the Sonys but the compact Micro Four Thirds models are just so...handy.
One of THE best reviews I've seen. Thanks.
Thanks very much, Andy. Glad you liked it.
This is an awesome lens, I use this lens 99% of the time when shooting outdoor photos (some indoor photos too!). I agree with shooting it wide open unless I need more DOF.
Vincent Wu Yes and in particular this is one of those lenses that makes you want to use it, it just feels right. In a different way, I felt that with the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 too but I do like the one stop solution to long lenses that is this lens.
always a joy to watch your reviews
Thanks very much, Jason!
Hi David. Just bought one of these lenses, after watching you review several times, and this was an 18th month process. looking forward to seeing what I can shoot with it. Thanks for the review.
Glad the review was helpful - one of the best zooms in Micro Four Thirds land in my opinion.
Now I need one. Congrats on having me spend on another lenses !
Sylvain, I was created by the devil for the sole purpose of emptying people's wallets :-) But look at it this way, once you've bough this, you'll never want to get rid of it - so long term it is cheap!
+GB Gonzague No reply button on your comment for some reason so I hope you see this. Yes, fully compatible and it'll have blinding fast focusing. All that's missing is stabilzation.
One more point to 40-150, it can focus much closer than most comparable lenses. So it gives this lens even more flexibility over panasonic. 1.4x TC doesn't change min. focusing distance too, which is nice.
xellzor It's uncanny how close the thing focuses.
Great review David! Olympus' current MFT lens lineup is amazing.
Nezer Amo Nazer, please note that I have an introduction fee of $25,000 for people who meet on my channel. PayPal will be fine :-)
Thanks David Thorpe for your awesome micro 4/3 dating channel! The camera reviews are a bonus : )
Lyndon Smith :-)
I just picked up the 40-150 f 2.8. I paired it with my new GH5. So far with only an hour of useage, I'm blown away at this point. super fast, sharp, detailed, and one of the sexiest pieces of kit!
I second that - superb AF and the focus joystick just adds to the experience. Don't they balance out well?
David Thorpe I bought this lens for portrait and sports. Which focus point would you suggest especially in the 300-400 mm range? 225 is not accurate that far. Also, AFF for sports seems the best setting over AFS but has a slight bit of hunting or re- focus so you miss a few frames on burst. Anyy suggestions for a sports setting?
For sports I personally use either Medium Burst/C-AF or single shot/ S-AF depending on how I feel and both with the mechanical shutter. I switch off stabilization, too. The Fn button on the lens is ideal stopping and starting focusing when the subject takes a fixed position as a goalkeeper does. I'm usually at 100-150mm for sports football or rugby. For portraits I use Eye/Face Detection and usually about 50mm with an aperture of f2.8 or f/4. So much depends on the nature of the subject, of course.
I really like your well thought out and complete coverage reviews.
Good to hear that, thanks.
Excellent review. Doe it come with the lens hood? I just bought 'used' but advertised 'as new' and yet there is no lens hood.
The photos you took with this lens for this review are fantastic. Probably the best (at least my favorite) of all the reviews I've seen -- also really liked the ones you got with the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (bought that one). I'm eventually going to add a good zoom beyond 35mm and would love to have this lens, but that will have to wait until I have the right camera body. I don't think I could be the best out of it with my G7 (no in body stabilization).
Thanks very much, Billy. I prefer to have stabilization with a lens like the 40-140 f/2/8 because it is so versatile and can be used indoors or out. Generally, though, with the f/2.8 aperture (and I tend to use it wide open) you can get a high enough shutter speed not to need stabilization, over 1/250th say. Nonetheless, better to have it.
Yes, I will probably go with the Panny 35-100mm f2.8 for my zoom beyond 35mm (watched your review on that one multiple times) specifically for it's size/weight and stabilization when paired with my G7. But,...this Olympus definitely edges it out overall. Aaah,...maybe some day with the right camera.
Dear Mr. Thorpe, Thank you for a very well presented review. I'm particularly interested in your application of the [L-Fn], button in conjunction with C-AF AND back button focusing (I'm confused about this last item). I think I understand, but some written clarification would help cement the concept. Thank you....
Hey David I really liked your review. Concerning the pro lenses by Oly, 7-14, 12-40, 40-150 witch all the reviews I seen absolutely gush over, with your em5 m2, would u say that would be a perfect fit for u, maybe all that u would need because of the quality & the mobility? Would u miss the speed & low light ability of say a 1.8 lens, & are these pro lenses as sharp as the Oly primes? Thanks for another great video.
sski66 Glad you liked the review. In terms of efficiency and performance, the 7-150mm f/2.8 zoom scenario fills the bill. On the other hand, the 17 and 45mm f/1.8s and (I wish I had one) 75mm too have much to offer. Apart from the extra speed, they have the shallower DoF which is good to have in MFT. Also, stopped down to the zoom speed of f/2.8, they do have better edge to edge sharpness. And, of course, they are much smaller.
If I had to make a choice I'd probably choose the primes over the zooms because they are more fun to use and the restrictions they place on me make me think harder. If I were still a day to day pro, it'd have to be the zooms for all round versatility. I'm lucky that I don't have to make that choice!
Hello David, thank you for the great reviews! I'm in the market for Panasonic 50-200mm f2.8-f4. I want to get it but I'm worry that I may not like it due to the variable F-stops. What are your thoughts? Will I be disappointed? Thank you David!
Thanks! It's a fine balance, this one. First of all, neither of these lenses will disappoint you. You have a choice based on physical size and weight which favours the Panasonic. But for the extra size the Olympus gives you f/2.8 all the way through the range - though it has a more restricted range. Impossible choice!
I see two ways of deciding - the first being tossing a coin! More seriously, what kind of photography do you do? If you want a lens for out and about work, the Panasonic might be better because its 200mm end does give you a long telephoto for birds, say and those wonderful perspective foreshortening effects. The gradual change from f/2.8 to f4 isn't too bothersome but the reality is that the lens is effectively only f/2.8 at 50mm. I tend to treat it as an f/4 lens, knowing that won't change.
The Olympus really excels for sports, where the f/2.8 aperture may be crucial for indoor games. So, overall, I'd bring it down to this: general purpose or mainly sport/ action - Both will be good for both but will excel in the ways I describe.
I've very much fallen in love with the M43 system over the last few months, and do often use it in place of my Nikon kit on pro jobs. I NEVER believed it could possibly give as good results as it does until I dipped my toe in the water and started using it. I don't personally own this lens..... yet(!), but can feel the urge coming on.....
You like it for the same reasons as me, probably, which is that it is a system with many lens and body choices, plenty of accessories and good quality all in a manageable size format. This lens is a great showpiece for the system since for full frame its size and price would make it impractical. The 12-40 f/2.8 is just as remarkable in its way in that its IQ is better than most primes. Great lenses! It's nice to hear another professional agreeing with me.
At one time clients exhibited a lot of equipment snobbery, but that seems to have subsided of late. Maybe people are beginning to realise they're paying for - in my case - forty years experience, rather than the latest nikcan monster!
You wouldn't employ a builder and tell him what tools to use or an engineer and tell him what CAD to use. I think you have a point, I certainly hope you are right. With your experience you have confidence in yourself and I'm sure that transmits to clients. If I found myself wanting to tell a professional I was engaging in any field how to do their job I think I'd get someone else in.
12-40 + 40-150 ordered. I have taken note of other reviews but yours got my creative juices flowing to purchase pitch. Great reviews, thanks.
They are rock solid zoom lenses, classic optics, great handling and with 2 lenses you cover 99% of anything you might want to do. It is hard not to be enthusiastic about them! Glad the reviews were useful, thanks Alan.
Fascinating photographers dialect, I'm guessing from extensive practical experience. Great reviews with interesting insights. Question 1.4 x tele converter vs x2 on-board Olympus OM-D E-M10 ii converter.
Yes, I trained 3 years as a press photographer and branched out into all sorts of media photography, studio, occasional wars, you name it. The converters on digital cameras work by cropping the image and then upsampling it to the original size. It's digital sleight of hand which gives the impression of a converter but isn't.
The 'proper' converter acts essentially like a magnifying glass, it enlarges the image as it passes through the rear of the lens. It does affect sharpness but with a very sharp lens it won't be that noticeable. The big advantage is that it uses the full sensor so the noise levels of the image are the same with or without the converter. That's in principle. You lose a stop in lens speed with a 1.4x converter, so if you had to increase the ISO you'd get some of the noise back!
Essentially, the digital converter is just a cropped image. The physical converter actually gives some practical advantage.
Now I'm feeling sufficiently enlightened. I thought it was too good to be true. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I best look at the proper converter for that extra reach (I'm an airshow freak). Do I need the Panasonic 100-400 ?? Nooooo, I just want one. I do have a G80 with a 100-300. I was thinking using it with the Olympus x2 trick, it would beef it up ;-) Ha ho
Unfortunately, the Olympus 1.4x only works with Olympus 40-150 and 300mm Pro lenses.
I’ve got it on approval and am wondering how the plastic 14-150 F4-5.6 compares in image quality….. obvs it’s a lot smaller and lighter …? Thanks
Excellent review, I just picked up this lens for theater photography. As it is replacing an Olympus 4/3 35-100/f2 lens in my bag my perspective on "big and heavy" is quite different!
+Michael Brunk I don't think there could be a better lens for theatre photography. Just looked up the specs of the f/2 you mention. Wow! I see what you mean by your perspective being different. Big and heavy or not, that's a heck of a lens - will you keep it?
Dear @David Thorpe Great review. Thank you very much. I always enjoy watching your videos. I have Olympus OM-D E-10 Mark 2 body and going to buy 12-40 f2.8 and 40-140 f.28 lenses. Do you think it will look weird with a camera that is even smaller than EM-5 Mark 2 body? It is a shame that I didn't buy EM-5 Mark 2 - with bigger sized glass it would look better, but I love my EM-10 Mark 2 anyway!!! Or I should buy bigger body first? What do you think?
Thanks! I'd buy the lenses and use them with the E-M10 Mk2. The camera may look a bit small but is should handle perfectly well so I don't think that would matter. You can always change the body later on if you want but I doubt you will.
Hi David, Thank you very much for the review. I wonder if I can ask a question. I currently have a Panasonic G6 with a Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS. I use this for shots of Ice Dance - lighting not always great and lots of fast moving (panning) action. I shoot with OIS on 'panning' mode (so vertical only). I tend to find a lot of my shots are at the 150mm ish - I only need 200mm if the skaters are way off the other end of the rink.
Do you think this lens (without stabilisation) on the Panasonic body would give significantly better results than what I have now ? I am really tempted, but it's a lot of money, and I don't know if the extra speed will make up for the lack of OIS ?
Re your comment at 0:42, about most DSLR systems not having a 300mm-equivalent reach - I think you've forgotten APS-C. Stick a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a Nikon DX body (e.g. a D7x00) and you get a 300mm FF-equivalent FoV on the telephoto end; do the same on a crop sensor Canon body (e.g. a 7D) and you get a 320mm equivalent.
Hi David, great video, looks like a top lens just a pity I can't afford it. I just wanted to ask you see the tripod your camera is sitting on at 8 minutes into the video, what type is it? Also is it a tripod that is optimised more for tripod collars? Thanks. Kenny.
+K Feeney Hi Kenny. The tripod is a little Manfrotto 709B. Basically just a tabletop tripod with a handy little ball head. I have had it years and I don't think they make it any nore but they do have a modern version, the same but more 'designer'. Still cheap, though. Very handy and so tiny you can take it anywhere.
Hi David, I've read and watched so many different reviews, but you seem to take a measured, careful, reasoned approach to your reviews, so I'm hoping for your input. I'm considering purchasing the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 along with either the E-M1 or E-M2ii. I'll mostly be shooting indoor and outdoor basketball. The newer E-M1ii is simply out of my price range considering the cost of those two lenses. Which of those two bodies would you recommend? I have a Sony A7, but it has issues like frequent overheating, and the new f2.8 telephoto is $3000.
Did you mean the E-M5II? Or E-M10II? Either way, my preference for these two lenses would be the E-M1. It works really well with them. The other one to consider would be the Panasonic G80/85 which I use a lot with these zooms and performs very similarly to the E-M1, though with a bit better S-AF.
David Thorpe Hi, I meant I'm trying to decide between the original E-M1 and the E-M1 mark ii. I just noticed the typo in my original post. Sorry about that.
If you can afford it, the Mark 2. The focusing is noticeably better than the Mark 1 and while it's a lot of money Olympus don't keep changing their models so it would be good for a long time. Especially with the firmware updates that Olympus supply from time to time.
If you buy the E-M1 Mark 1 you'll eventually go up to the mark 2 (probably) which in the long term will be more expensive. You've got some tasty hi-speed sequence options for sport with the Mak 2 as well.
Hi David, first of all, thank you very much for taking the time to do all these useful videos. They were essential for me when moving to Panasonic. Here in Argentina I don´t have anywere to check and test the gear with my own hands. My question is the following; I´m in love with the Olympus Pro lens series, I want all of them, but I´m a GH4 owner. How important is to have image stabilization with de 40-150mm? I understand it´s better to count with it, but it is essential when using handheld? I usually work with tripod and I never had such a long lens. Thank you very much and sorry for my poor english.
Francisco Gilges Hi Francisco - your English if good! Firstly, from 40mm through to around 100mm, if you have a steady hand and with a comfortable camera body like the GH4, you probably won't need stabilization. As you say, better to have it than not but manageable without especially since the fast aperture means you can use high shutter speeds. Secondly, any lens at 150mm should really be used on a tripod for best results (which you say you do) and if you mount the lens on a tripod stabilization should be turned off anyway.
Summing up, if your hand is steady then you'll only _need_ stabilization for the long end of this lens. If you use it on a tripod you don't need stabilization at all. One thing is certain, you will only see the true capabilities of this lens with it mounted on a good tripod and stabilzation turned off.
Thanks for the great review David, you have made up my mind about this lens. I was going to get the 7-14mm first but as it hasn't made it to Australia yet I and I intend to get both I might as well go ahead with this one now.
Just as a side note for those contemplating which system to go for I think Olympus' excellent live bulb, live view and live composite and Image Share are just about worth the price of admission on their own.
jaxdabomb1 This and the other two pro zooms make a superb outfit ll on on their own. Apart from Live Bulb, Panic have all the attributes you mention but they have 4k and stills from it. There are good reasons to choose either system or better still, have one of each! We'[re lucky to have the choice.
The question is whether or not it replaces the 45mm and 75mm f1.8's. I got the 12-40mm f2.8 a while ago but I'm finding myself shooting more and more with the 17mm, 45mm, 50mm f2 (adapted) and 75mm, mostly the 17mm and 75mm. I've seen a couple of olympus 35-100mm f2 zooms for sale in the $1200 region recently on ebay and I keep thinking that it would actually not be that expensive if I could sell the 45 and 70 to partly fund it, the question is what are you giving up in that exchange. Then the further question is whether the 40-150mm is the better option vs the 35-100mm, could the 40-150mm also make the primes redundant and how much will the size and weight benefit me vs the slightly better IQ and speed of the older 4/3 f2. What a dilemma.
phrenzy1 I personally would forget the older stuff because focusing for the old 4/3 lenses is slow compared to the native MFT lenses and you really do need good autofocus performance with a longer lens.. More difficult is the prime/ zoom question but I think that if you listen to yourself, you've probably answered it already. You have the 12-40 but find yourself shooting more and more with the primes. This f/2.8 40-150 is a lovely lens but like all zooms it is an all round work horse. It doesn't have the ease of use or wide aperture of the primes and in my opinion doesn't replace them . If I were you I'd buy the 12mm f/2 wide-angle, to complete my prime line-up and a 14-140 Panasonic for all the times when I'm feeling a dilemma. Given the cost of the pro zoom, you could probably afford a good 25mm as well within the same budget. Not advice - just food for though, maybe?
Hello :) Love your reviews, quite informative, but also with a touch of "warmth" in the description, really enjoying them :) :) I have a question. How does it fair "against" the 50-200mm f2.8-3.3 Swd? I'm asking cause I am about to buying one, and though "old" etc, it looks quire good (for 800 euros, Mmf3 and T/c 1.4 included). I aim to use it for concert photography, on an Em1 body, and the similar package for the 40-150 is way too costly (no way to gather money anytime soon) Thank you, keep up the Great work David!
Is this better the new Canon EF Full Frame 70-300mm USM II in RP ?
I don't know the Canon but I'd assume it is as good as other Canon lenses. The Olympus is a very good lens too but since they fit different systems, any comparisons aren't really useful. If you have a Canon body, you'll buy the Canon lens and Olympus for the Olympus. Both are as sharp as anyone would require, I'm sure.
Wonderful review. Clear and concise. Thoughts well presented. I really enjoy watching it.
Isaac Chew Thanks Isaac!
I have that lens with a GH4 :) now I understand I need a longer Zoom lens to take pictures of the moon and a wide angle lens to take pictures indoors. this lens taught me a lot :)
+Nelzon Mamani It's all a learning process, Nelzon and what's more, we never know it all. Nice combination to start with, though!
All Olympus's Pro lenses are superb..., and for a medium tele, 40-150mm f2.8 is the best there is for m4/3.
But if m4/3 wants to stay competitive with aps-c and FF, Olympus and Panasonic should imitate Sigma and come up with f2.0/f1.8 twoo time zooms (like 10-20mm f2.0; 25-50mm f2.0; 75-150mm f2.0), to stay in the game of ''low light zoom'' race.
M4/3 f1.2 primes are the right direction also.
Panasonic and Olympus, please shake up the market and start a refreshed m4/3 chapter...
What would be even better would be that Sigma should come up with such zooms, not just FF or APS-C items cobbled together with an MFT mount but reflecting the 2x angle of view factor.
Hi! Nice review! But how about it's lacking IS? Can this be compensated by M1's IBIS alone?
Yes, very effectively. No worries on that score. Panasonic G9 too.
Thanks David, great review. I'll put it on my Christmas list.
That'll be a present to relish, Karl.
I have the 40-150 pro. One of my favorite lens especially for birds👍👍
Loved your explanation and photos!
Thanks, Jerry. Yes, a really unique lens.
Love your reviews David. You are my favourite TH-cam subscription. I have the 17mm f2.8, the 12-50 and the 40-150 R which is permanently on my camera. For serious birding I use the ZD 50-200 and despite the weight advantage cannot justify the purchase of the 40-150.
@@catrionathomson8981 Thank you, Catriona! Given that the ZD 50-200 is such a good lens, I agree with you that the advantages of the 40-150 don't justify the outlay.
I own an E-M10 mk ii, so the smallest Olympus MFT camera. Would this lens be horribly unwieldy with it? I plan on getting the E-M5 mk iii whenever it comes out. I know glass is king and where one should primarily invest. Should I go for the Olympus 40-150 for future proofing even if it's too big or just get the reasonably sized Panasonic 35-100?
The ever present dilemma! The big lens doesn't feel right on such a small body but it is perfectly usable with familiarity. And of course there's a tripod collar on the 40--150 so the combo mounted on a tripod feels fine with the lens supporting it. In the end, it comes down to whether you can tolerate the bulk for the extra 50mm zoom. range. If you find it too big, you just won't use it. Given the beautiful small form of the Olympus body, I'd go for the Panasonic lens. You'd likely find yourself wishing you had the 40-150 with you but not having it due to the size. There's no reason to not have the 35-100 with you given the compact size.
Top stuff as always David. I have the 12-40 pro and it's awesome. Holding out for the Olympus 300mm f/4.
cardiacade Thanks! I can't wait to see the 300 f/4. It'll be the first top spec auto-focus seriously long lens for MFT. I wonder how much t will be?
David Thorpe
I reckon well over a grand!
What are the shutter speeds of the ISO6400 pics, or just how good is that stabilisation? The CA is pretty distracting in the water shots at 6:15, is this type easily dealt with in LR?
Hi Dave its time for a new lens you helped me choose my last lens (panasonic 12-35mm f2.8), Love the lens. I have the lumix gx8 camera. Could you please tell me which one you would go for, Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 or the Olympus f40-150mm 2.8. I would only be using the lens for photography.
That's hard because they are such different lenses. The Olympus has that wonderful wide zoom range, the Panasonic is much smaller and lighter. Both are good and sharp as you'd expect. Personally, I'd go for the zoom range since that gives you a full kit of lenses in just two lenses. The GX8's in body stabilization works well with the Olympus but not as well as Olympus's. However, I don't use short shutter speeds with long lenses. The GX8 has dual stabilization with the 35-100 and that is as good as Olympus's. I'm having to think hard. What I'd say is that the Olympus is really only worth the extra bulk and weight if you are going to use the 150mm end regularly as I do. If not, the smaller, lighter and better stabilized Panasonic should suit you well. So, since you like the 12-35 so much, unless you really think you would use the 150mm end a lot, I'd go for the Panasonic. Sorry for the rambling. I sold my 35-100 and wish I hadn't.
Thank you for replying David. It is a hard choice, the extra range would come in handy. I only want to carry 2 lens in my bag. I also have the panasonic 14-140mm 3.5f to 5.6f and 45-175mm . The 12-35 blew me away tho how much sharper my photos was. I think what I might do is pop into my local Jessops and try both on the gx8. That way I'll know how heavy the oylmpus lens is. Just like to say thanks again David you're always a great help.
Glad to help - yes, well worth handling both lenses. The Panasonic would the better lens in every way for the GX8 except....it doesn't go to 150mm. I've always had a 150mm lens or equivalent because it's about the longest length which has practical everyday use. When you get to a 200mm or 400 in FF, the uses are getting more specialist. I
Hey David, I've been searching the dpreview forum for a post you made awhile back about your new video on youtube. I failed to find it, but I thought I'd just ask you directly. I was wondering what's your kit like now. Maybe do a "what's in my camera bag" video? Thanks for reading.
+Eugene Li Hi Eugene - yes, I'll do a camera bag video shortly. Possibly an update to why I use Micro Four Thirds. The camer bag is quite simple now, one E-M1, one GX8, Panasonic 7-14, Olympus 12-40 and 40-150 f/2/8 plus 1.4 converter.
How do you think the IBIS on the GX8 will pair with the 40-150? I like a few things the 40-150 does over the 35-100 (Also a very nice lens, but the MFD on the 40-150 seems well suited for my typical usage for this sort of lens) I would assume it should do splendid
+Kenji S It works very well - not as good as Panasonic's in lens stabilization or Olympus's in body system but well enough to make the 40-150 very practical to use. The 35-100's stabilization, will pair with the GX8's body system to give superb stabilization, of course, but the Olympus lens is so all encompassing - especially with the 1.4x converter - and so good optically that it is well worth it in my opinion.
+David Thorpe My next camera body should be GX85. So I can get this lens without being forced to get an Olympus body?
Yes, for sure. I find it works just fine with the GX8 so the GX85 will be better. It's comparable with the Olympus's stabilization anyway. I find the GX85's stabilization not to be quite as good as Olympus's but some people find it the same or better. Whatever, yes, no worries and with the f/2.8 aperture you'll mostly be using high shutter speeds anywa.
Love your reviews David, do we still had to use uv-haze filter for this oly pro series lens ? Or just a simply clear protector filter will do ? Tq so much David
A clear protector will do fine as I understand that sensors are not sensitive to UV. But sometimes UV filters are cheaper (I'm talking about filters from reputable makers, of course) and they can't do any harm. I've always used filters on my lenses. Some prefer not to but I like to know that any sand, say, that blows onto my lens would scratch a replaceable filter rather than an expensive front element.
+David Thorpe ok, narrower, if i had to get one filter only, which one should i choose between this clear filter (B+W XS-PRO Clear MRC Nano 62mm) and Circular Polarizing Filter (B+W XS-PRO KSM CPL MRC Nano 62mm), which one would you choose ? Some filters reviewer said its better to go with best cpl filter instead of getting uv/clear filter, I would like to know what do you think of this and which one you prefer ?
A polarizing filter is quite a specialized piece of glass so not suitable for protection purposes. I'd prefer a protective filter over a UV, though as I say it doesn't matter very much. Protective filters are often made as thin as possible so that you don't get vignetting with wide angle lenses. I use Hoya and Kenko but any reputable maker like B+H will be ok. Just not a cheapie!
Got it ! Thank you very muchhh David, you are the best !
Very intelligent, thoughtful, and convincing review. Thanks
Glad it was helpful, ale.
David, I'm new at M4/3 World, and got a Oly EM-1.
I saw your images at ISO 6400 and it's superb!
but i have the same body and a 60mm f2.8 and don't get the same results at iso 2000.
Actually i avoid using above ISO 1600 because of grain and lost of details.
My another body is a Canon 5D MarkII who gets a superb results even in ISO 4000, and ok results at ISO 6400.
So, there's some trick to get images more detailed and less grainy for Oly EM-1?
Thanks!
I shoot RAW in low light and use a minimum of noise reduction in Lightroom. For the videos, I'm down sampling to 1920x1080 pixels and that makes a lot of difference. I shot some stuff at 6400 yesterday and in LightRoom use light sharpening, my standard being Amount 25, Radius 1, Detail 25, Masking 10. Then for NR, Luminance 0, Color 25, Detail 10, Smoothness 50.
The fact is that the Canon is a full frame camera - I know you know that, but some readers might have thought it was an APS-C sensor Canon - with a sensor 4x the area of the Olympus and no amount of post processing is going to compensate for that. If you are going to be viewing on a tablet, then, I'd suggest using light touch NR as I do and then downsampling to 2048px for viewing at native size.
6400 is pushing things for Micro Four Thirds and I generally use 3200 as my upper limit. I find the size/ IQ balance of Micro Four Thirds hits a sweet spot for my needs but if I majored in low light work as I used to when I made my living partly out of photographing live concerts for record companies, newspapers and magazines, I'd be using full frame cameras.
So, I'd say persevere and get the best results you can for your needs and to your eye but the E-M1 will never match the Canon for noise. For the moment at least, it seems image sensors have reached a plateau.
Thank you very much for the review. And I have one question which seems nobody gives clear answer. What do you think about sample variations of the lenses? Is it something what we have to take into account, especially when buying not cheap lens like this one?
Since I buy 90% of what I review so owe no allegiance to any maker, I am in a position to give a clear answer. But I can't. I have never had a lens that performed less well than I expected and all I can report on is my own experience. I did have a Panasonic 100-400mm which had a zoom ring stiff enough to impede easy use of the lens and I warned of it in my video.
I can't think of any Panasonic or Olympus Micro Four Thirds lens so cheap that anything less than critical sharpness viewed on a computer monitor or 12x10in print would be acceptable. On the other hand, it has to be accepted a fast ultra-wide zoom lens will never reach the edge and corner standards of a 25 or 45mm prime (though some are getting close). It's a minefield really but I would say that if you bought a lens like the 40-150mm Olympus and were disappointed with its performance the lens is likely to be a bad one. The commonest fault is de-centring and sometimes a bit of uneven performance between one corner and another is unavoidable. But not to the point of showing under everyday conditions.
One caveat: It is no good testing a lens hand held or not accurately aligned to the test surface. I see occasional complaints where the test shot is taken under conditions that no lens would show up well. Some folk do expect a lens to cover up sloppy technique! I wish i could be more specific or helpful, Martin, but that's the best I can do. These lenses are mass produced consumer items and there will always be some variation but it shouldn't be enough to ruin performance. I was speaking to a Hasselblad employee once and remarking on the superb performance of every one of their Zeiss lenses I ever bought. He remarked that you'd always get a good one because they discard the less than perfect ones. So the renowned expense of the lenses was in large part to pay for the ditching of the three imperfect ones!
David Thorpe Thanks for interesting and quick answer. I think you said it well. I haven't bought this lens yet. But if I do, it will be because of your review. You deserve some help from Olympus and Panasonic!
Nice review. No equivalent lens exists in other systems? There are other sensor sizes out there, not only FF.
A 70-200 2.8 is also a 100-300 2.8 on APS-C. Those are almost equivalent of this lens.
Thanks! Sure there are other formats but I only deal with Micro Four Thirds.
Thank you very much for the great review.
***** I appreciate that, thanks Mehrdad!
شما
David,
I'm a professional photographer who is in the process of switching to the Olympus MFT system of PRO lenses. Videos and books, like your "The Olympus E-M5II Menu System Simplified" are invaluable. Thank you.
However, I am having a problem with the E-M5 MkII's depth-of-field preview button when using the 40-150mm PRO zoom featured in this review. According to Olympus, and in your book, "If you press the Preview button on the front of the camera beside the lens, it stops the lens down to show you how much of your image is in focus at your set aperture. ... Note that viewfinder brightness is maintained in this view. Photographers graduating from DSLRs will find this a minor miracle since with an optical finder the image becomes unusably dim beyond about f8." Well, David, that's not happening with either of my E-M5 MkIIs. When I press the preview button (or the zoom's L-Fn button, which I've also assigned as depth-of-field preview) at f8 or worse at f22, my electronic viewfinder picture becomes so dark as to be unusable.
I'm assuming that I have a conflict somewhere in the menu setting. Any suggestions as to what's going on would be very much appreciated, please, David.
Many thanks for you enchanting reviews,
Rick
Thanks for the kind words, Rick. I don't have an E-M5 II to hand but I think the answer probably lays in the Live View Boost section of the Custom menu.
Hi David,
Many thanks for getting back. Much appreciated.
After some more investigation, and speaking with Olympus technical support, it appears that the "Preview" feature isn't exactly as described.
Yes, Preview does (sort of) give a live view of the stopped down lens' depth of field, but only in good light conditions.
I would have expected that Olympus would have used the "Live Boost" illumination built into the electronic viewfinder to make this work in low light as well as normal lighting conditions. Not so. It doesn't work in low light nor after f/8 through f/22. ...a shame, as this would have been easier achieved through the software.
Anyhow, thanks again, David. Your "The Olympus E-M5II Menu System Simplified" book is worth its weight in gold. (And much more useful than Darrell Young & James Johnson's book, which says what to do, but gives no clue on why you'd want to do it 🙄). Your book may be slim, but is invaluable 👍.
All the very best,
Rick
Another great review! Thank you for you wonderful work on these reviews. It has helped me a ton!
+SSEBRD I'm very pleased to hear that - thanks for telling me!
@davidThorpe Love the channel. kim kardashian lol. question- would you reccomend this over the panasonic 35-100 f2.8? I have the pan 12-35 f2.8 and am looking to add a long zoom to my collection. Thanks
If you are looking for a fast tele zoom both these lenses will do the job very well indeed. The choice comes down to the trade off between zoom range and size. If the size of the Olympus doesn't other you, go for the Olympus. If portability is more important, the Panasonic it is. If you really need the greater reach of the Olympus the choice is made. I have both lenses and would observe that I use the 35-100 more for no other reason that because it is so compact I have it with me more often. Prosaic....but true. Glad you like the channel, thanks Kevin.
Hi David- thanks for the review..would his make a great portrait lens at 150mm f2.8 on a Panasonic gx8 and comparable/better for portraits to Olympus 75mm f1.8 in terms of narrowness of depth of field/creamier bokeh of backgrounds? Thank you
+justinspirational the magnification at 150mm is rather too high for portraiture - it puts you rather a long way away and out of touch with your subject. The 75mm would be better and have shallower depth of field, though really even that is on the long side. Neither lens would be easily used indoors for example, except in a very spacious room.
The ideal lens would be one of the Panasonic 42.5mms, the f/1.2 or f/1.7 or the Olympus 45mm f/1.8.
Interestingly, the focal length of a lens does not directly affect depth of field. It's just that with a longer lens, the background is drawn bigger and _looks_ more out of focus. If you prefer a longer option, the 75mm would be good but the Panasonic f/1.2 best. If not, either of the other two would be excellent with the Panasonic having stabilization - and the Olympus being cheaper.
+David Thorpe thanks David..I have the Olympus 75mm 1.8 and panasonic 42.5mm 1.7 already. .been shooting my 'cinematic' headshots I've spoken to you about before with the Olympus 75mm with great results but the longer focal length for the compressed background and as creamier bokeh as possible is actually preferred based on the tutorial I've been following which optimally is shot on a full frame cam at 200mm and f2.8-3.2 (FF focal length/aperture).. the Olympus 75 mm is like 150mm at f3.6 full frame equivalent..the lens reviewed in this video would be a max of 300mm at f2.8 FF equivalent ... the panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 may have the shallow depth of field (85mm f2.4 FF equivalent) but not have the compressed background look with more distortion of the face (from tutorials I've seen the face looks less distorted and more aesthetically pleasing at the longer focal lengths around the 200mm FF focal length)..also the longer length where you will be further away from the subject may actually be preferable, particularly for people not used to being shot up close and personal/a little nervous about a camera lens in their face with a bigger comfort zone for personal space to make them feel more comfortable about being shot
+justinspirational ps. another option is the manual focus Rokinon 85mm f1.4 for m43 that is only $270
+justinspirational It's your job to make people not nervous :-) It's personalty more than anything else that makes for good portraiture! The zoom at 150mm would be the angle of view of a 300mm lens on full frame, with an aperture of f/5.6 for DoF purposes. I think that you have the best combination for what you want with the 75mm.
Remember that with a longer lens you may have to sit the person closer to the background to get the distance, which means a less blurred background since it is closer. With your 42.5 or 75mm, if you photograph them with a very distant background, the background will be very blurred. I recently had someone ask me how I get the shallow DoF effects I get. The answer is, an 45mm at f/2 and lots of separation from the background. But, overall, I think you are making things very difficult for yourself. A full frame Sony with a 90mm f/2 or 180mm f/2.8 would do what you want very easily. The Rokinon would be useful provided you don't mind the manual focus.
+David Thorpe thanks for your feedback David-as always greatly appreciated!
Hello again.
I'm thinking hard about shifting to M4/3 but I am constrained to have (for now) either the OM-D E-M5 and the Pro 12-40 f/2.8 lens OR just the OM-D E-M1 and a cheaper prime lens (like the Sigma's). I'm concerned about the sharpness of the E-M5 as it may not be as sharp as the EM-1 with that lack of AA filter. What do you think?
3plestrafe I wouldn't be concerned about the AA filter, the difference is quite subtle and certainly not enough to make a buying decision on. I'd go for the E-M5 and 12-40. My reasoning is that once bought, the lens will be one you'll keep and there is not likely to be an upgrade or improvement in the far foreseeable future. It's hard to see what it would be so good is the lens. But camera bodies do change and with an update to the E-M1 likely in the next year or two (I'm guessing!) I'd be happy to use the E-M5 and 12-40 and either buy an E-M1 new version when you can or, if it is not want you want, go for the E-M5II. IQ wise, there's little difference between any of the MFT cameras these days. In reality, unless a newer body has facilities you'd really like to have, the E-M5 is just as good as any MFT camera.
Such an incredibly awesome and insightful answer. Thank you so much for your input! Highly appreciate it.
3plestrafe You're welcome, I'm glad it was helpful.
3plestrafe In addition to Dave's response, With the release of the EM-5 mk II, there are some great deals on the EM-5. Then save your pennies for the EM-1 Mk II, haha.
Photography is a money pit. But a very fun money pit.
I've had a couple of hobbies in the past where the value just dissipates after purchase. I'll be saving me pennies until Christmas time. Hopefully then. [:
I would like to see a comparison of this lens with the Olympus 40-150 F4-5.6, if possible! I think this will be a interesting comparison for people with a tight budget!
wahkao1990 I've done a review of the lens but not a comparison. In general day to day photography for the web or prints up to 12x10 you won't see much difference between the two lenses. The f/2.8 outperforms the f/4-5.5 in every way as it should do for the price but that performance advantage only manifests itself when you are pushing the limits a bit. As I say in the video, there are a number of things to consider when deciding on a lens like this. When this lens was introduced, it didn't make older one any less good, though.
What is the strap that appear in the front on the video??
I think this lens is really good for m 4/3 but in dof is equivalent to a 80-300 f 5.6 in a full frame so is quite expensive
sm ml If DoF were the most important thing for me, I'd go back to my Hasselblad equipment. Try a 'blad with a 250mm lens and you'll know what shallow DoF is!
The hasselblad with that lens is amazing, can you tell me the name of the strap that appears in the video??
sm ml It's the very pretty 'official' Olympus leather strap. It came with an the Olympus messenger bag as a freebie with the E-M5II. You can buy them from Olympus for a really silly price.
This really does look like a nice lens, but I'm looking for something with just a little more reach, could I use this with a telephoto adapter of some sort and keep the effective low light sensitivity?
And lens based stabilization would be appreciated, so I should probably look for something in the Panasonic line, right? Primarily for video and on a G7.
You can use the Olympus 1.4x converter with it but you lose a stop of speed giving you f/4. You should look at the Panasonic 100-300mm or the rather exotic 100-400mm but they are both slower, as all long lenses will be. No way around that other than something like a Nikkor 300mm with a Metabones adapter giving you a very nice 210mm f/3.2. All manual, though.
I ended up ordering the 100-300mm lens. I'm thinking in the future I might want to invest in the Aputure DEC Lens Regain and some of the canon ef line of lenses. I don't really have the money for that at this point, but it seems going that route would enable much lower light shots and a wide range of useful tools. I like the idea of using the lens regain with its remote focus control with a shoulder harness for shooting videos. Then there's all of those other toys you can add onto it, like the wireless HDMI for live streaming purposes. But the cost keeps adding up. You really could have a lot of fun if you had limitless funds, but who is in that situation?
Mostly bankers but even they are getting a bit short these days :-)
Nice review, very informative!! well done.
Would you by any chance going to review olympus 7-14mm f/2.8?
I would be interested in taking in door low light shot. But its a expensive lens and donno how it perform. Specially not sure how is the barrel distortion. Many thx.
kent vun Hi Kent - yes, i'm hoping to try one but i get no help from Olympus so it's hard to know.
Is there a converter to mount on my 5DM2? Thanks. Great video
You can convert Canon EF lenses to use them on MFT camera bodies but not MFT lenses to Canon camera bodies.
What would be the problems using this lens on a Panny GX8 David? Don't want to buy a new camera.
No, no problem at all, Steve. I interchange my Olympus and Panasonic lenses without a second thought. Micro Four Thirds is a standard so any Micro Four Thirds equipment will work with any other.
Hello David, new subscriber (and new GH5 owner). Thanks for all the great content!
Can I please be one of those annoying people and ask for a recommendation, I'm tossing up between this and the new panny 30-100 2.8mk2, really the only reason there is any consideration is because I'm primarily a video shooter on the m43 world and the 35-100 is said to work with the "Dual 2" stabilisation that only the GH5 offers with certain compatible lenses.
However I have seen some incredibly steady hand held footage at 150mm on the 40-150 using only the new IBIS of the GH5. The extra focal length is obviously attractive, as well as seeming being optically superior also. Have you had a chance to get your hands on the 30-100 2.8mk2 yet and use it with a GH5?
oh and to spice things up, i already have a fair few 58mm filters (that will fit the 30-100, as you probably well know), and of course being a video shooter i will need a bunch of different ND filters for the lens which adds another big price consideration, as purchasing filters for the 40-150 will not be cheap!
Thanks Joseph! I haven't used the 35-100 on the GH5 but I do have the 14-140 which does the dual stabilization. I can't actually tell any difference between the dial stabilization and the GH5 alone. That's not to say there isn't any, just that the GH5 body stabilization is as good as I need.When you half press the shutter, the scene appears to be locked in place, much like the Olympus bodies have done for some time now.
So, apart from the price, therefore, the real differences are just size and zoom range. For me, the 40-150 really covers the range of 2 lenses. I have always had, in my newspaper and magazine days, a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 plus a 300mm f/2.8. The Olympus lens replaces both of these (in Micro Four Thirds terms, of course) and the 1.4x converter is the icing on the cake. In a nutshell, if you are comfortable with the extra size and weight, the Olympus is the one to go for.
Thanks for your time and the great advice. I'll just have to take the hit on the filter cost, and the bonus there is that the 100-400mm is also 72mm filter size.
Yes the GH5 IBIS is so great, i tortured myself and went and put the panasonic 100-400 on my GH5 at my local camera store, and even at 800mm equivalent handheld presented no challenge at all. I cant wait to own that lens!! But first the 40-150 and the 60mm macro (just because!).
You said that the lens performs well on Panasonic cameras, but mentioned that IS a necessity. How much would you recommend this lens for a non stabilised G7 for general sports and action photography? Thank you very much.
+Alan Wong For sports and action where you'll be using a high shutter speed, stabilization is not necessary. In fact the makers recommend turning it off for best continuous focusing, to save computing power. Not that I've noticed any practical difference personally. If you can keep the shutter speed over 1/300th which with the the f/2.8 is practical enough, camera movement is unlikely.
It's in other situations, a bird in dark tree or an indoor portrait where you might need to drop the shutter speed that a long lens becomes harder to handle without stabilization. On the other hand, indoors, you're not going to be suing the lens at the long end so the problem recedes. I'd much prefer to have stabilization for my own peace of mind but this lens is a one off and I'd buy it anyway. The alternative 35-100 f/2/8 Panasonic just doesn't have the reach for sports.
Thank you very much! I love your videos and they have helped me alot! I will probably buy the 40-150.
+Alan Wong It's a lot of money but I think well worth it. If you are married, don't tell your wife it was my idea :-)
David Thorpe :) Thanks!
Nice..is this good for night photography and video?
Yes, definitely, good for anything, really.
I have this lens David. It's marvellous! Not so great on my GH4's for video as there is no stabilisation and the slightest touch I get wobbles. But on the OMD EM1 for stills and video it's superb with image stabilisation. Now for a OMD EM1 Mark 2 with 4K video :) Here's hoping!
Enzo Maisano Hi Enzo, yes everything you say. I think it is unlikely that a new E-M1 would have 4K as it appears to generate heat which cannot be dissipated with the light sensor necessary for Olympus's state of the art IBIS. On the other hand, you know as much or more than I do and I thought that the E-M5II's 77mbps couldn't be done.
How would you compare it to the PLeica 50-200?
Me again :) OK I am getting 40-150 for Christmas so I can use it with either GX8 and GH5. On either camera what focus mode do you use with BIF ... spot or 225 area (GH5), or custom (narrow horizontal) mode?
Pinpoint is too precise and unless the bird is large in the viewfinder 225 area may have trouble finding the spot you want. The Custom Multi default with the cluster in the middle of the screen is probably the best best. You can probably customize that in the light of experience later. But overall, the more closely you tell the camera where it should focus, the faster and more tenacious it will be.
Thank you
Hi , need help in choosing lens, between 8mm1.8 and 7-14mm2.8. 70%for astrophotography and 30 for landscapes. Does defishing 8mm in lightroom has any issiues? Am I loosing anything by defishing.
Hi Prashanth - I'm afraid de-fishing will lose a lot of edge definition which will be particularly noticeable with tiny points of light like stars. In practise fisheyes aren't that good on edge definition for a start, even before de-fishing. The 7-14mm will be specifically corrected for edge sharpness so would be much your best bet. Superb lens, actually, as are all Olympus's Pro range.
@@DavidThorpeMFT thank you, it helps alot
David, Good review. I liked your impression regarding sports photography.
OvuOO STUDIO Thanks!
This would make the perfect lens for shooting pro/college basketball. I wish I could know how this would operate on a Lumix. The GH5 has chip IS, but the lens isn't designed for the system. It looks like the size of a Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR.
I use this lens more with Panasonic than I do with Olympus. It focuses faster on Panasonic than Olympus, apart from the E-M1-Mkll. I wouldn't hesitate.
Using it with the GH5 - how does it do using the GH5 IS? In both video and stills? Is there a loss in stops settings? (not sure I asked that correctly) I'm assuming when using this with the M1mkii it has more stops of IS?
It works as well on the Gh5 as it does on the Olympus both in video and stills. There's no loss of any kind, it behaves and operates exactly on one make as the other. Since the lens doesn't have inbuilt stabilization it relies on the camera body system. This is very similar for both cameras. The only difference would be that without the DfD of Panasonic lenses it can be a tad slower to lock on to initial focus in C-AF. Nothing game changing, though. I have both Olympus and Panasonic bodies and I use whichever one I fancy with the Pro lens. A truly excellent lens.
Wow I got a GH3 with both f2.8 zooms & the leica 25mm starting to get the upgrade itch for the body I thought I'd do more video hence the panasonic but I've done 95% photography instead...although I'd like to do more video. I know Sony has the FF 5-axis with 4k video...something panasonic claimed couldn't be done because you couldn't cool down the sensor adequately enough. I think Olympus could kill if they came out with the OMD EM-1 mkII featuring their 5-axis stabilization with the new 20MP sensor & 4k video (100mbit/s h264 w/ cinema or log profiles). Would definately have to see my 35-100 though couldn't afford to keep both. Probably ditch my 100-300 as well for the teleconverter.
David - nice videos - I have a gx7 and a 12-40 f2.8 and would love to test this lens out someday. One observation - you compared this to a 300 f4 lens in full frame format. A proper comparison would be to the 80-300 f5.6 (need to multiply the aperture also by crop) and those are pretty cheap about 1/4th the price of this lens - of course the build quality is a different matter.
+Chendil Kumar Yes, I base my comparison on the fact that whether full frame or MFT, if at ISO 200 a meter shows 125th @ f/2.8 as a correct exposure then that is what you would set the lens to. I only use a comparison to illustrate the the angle of view. In reality all cameras are full frame in that the lenses they use cover their full frame.
When working professionally, I saw the Hasselblad 6x6 or Mamiya 7x5cm as full frame and 35mm as miniature but my friend in the studio upstairs saw his 4x5 Linhof as full frame and my Hasselblads as miniatures. For some reason nowadays, 36x24 is seen as some kind of magic format or arbiter but it isn't, just one more format among dozens. And certainly not the highest IQ available!
I think what I'll do in future is just quote angle of views! On this lens, it's very good value for money and very well designed and carried through. It needs to be used at f/2.8 to justify its size and cost, though.
+David Thorpe thanks for reply - I took my 45 f1.8 and 12-40 for dance recitals of my daughter and the shots left something to be desired. I would have loved the perspective that comes from 150 or 200mm angle of view. Given these events have terrible lighting I need something fast as well. I will probably rent this lens for the next event and see how it holds up.
+Chendil Kumar Renting one would be perfect. The only other possibility would be a Metabones with maybe an older Nikkor or Canon lens. But, if the 40-150 does the job, as native Micro Four Thirds lens it'll be a whole lot easier to use. Focusing will be very slick indeed with the GX, too.
There is a lively debate fuelled by a Tony Northrup video on the crop conversion of aperture, I have changed my stance on it numerous times, I think it is right not to apply crop to aperture so that you get the right feel for the lighting needs rather than say bokeh effects. I like the idea of describing all lens to sensor as full frame coverage 🤓
+Zlatan Bogdanovic I can't image the confusion that would be caused to people new to photography if a Micro Four Thirds f/2.8 lens was marked f/5.6. But why base it on 36x35mm sensors? Why not 5x4 inch? Or 1 inch?