David, I thought this might be coming. About 4 months ago, I was waffling between buying the 40-150 f/2.8 or the 40-150mm f/4 and I finally settled on the latter. I knew I was giving up a stop of light gathering and the ability to use teleconverters (as well as the function button) but I felt the trade off in weight and dimensions was well worth it. So far, it's proven to be a great lens. Optically as sharp as the f2.8 Pro in my experience. Paired up with my 12-45mm f4 Pro, the combo covers most of my shooting needs.
Yes, Andrew, couldn't agree more with everything you said. I was slightly reticent about the obvious compromises, but having now had the opportunity to work with both lenses side-by-side, it's difficult to see a use case very often for the faster lens and that will definitely be moved on because I'm not one for hanging onto things which get hardly used on a just in case basis. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery I know from following your channel for awhile now that you place a high value on having as light a kit as possible whilst still retaining superb image quality. I wonder if you've had a look at the Panasonic Leica 9mm f1.7. I'm considering it for those times when 12mm is not quite wide enough.
Always interesting to get an insight into the thought process behind your choice of equipment and compositions David, thank you for your excellent content.
The 12-45 F4 is equally good....and very small and light - together they may a fantastic set up for travel with the Om-1 or (even better for travel with the em5 mark 3 🙂
I was about to comment pretty much the exact same thing: I have an E-M5 mkIII that I chuck in a small (5L) sling bag with the 12-45 f4, the 40-150 f4, and - for when the sun goes down - one of my f1.8 primes (either the 17 or 25, depending on where I'm going). It's an amazing lightweight setup ready for any shooting situation!
Sounds like an excellent purchase Dave. I look forward to seeing more of your adventures in the hills and around beautiful Anglesey. Very best regards - Robin
Cheers Robin, yes I'm hoping there will be more interesting photography in the hills at longer range than there has been in the past because in all honesty I've often left the longer lens at home, and even though I had a cheap lightweight version I didn't use it because I knew the quality wasn't good enough 😊👍
I completely agree. Just spent my last walk with this lens which I have added to my 12-45 f4 pro and 20 f1.4 pro. These are my new holy trinity! As for the complaints, I agree with you! Haters gonna hate I guess.
Thanks for this practical review. I too have relied primarily on the 12-100 f4 for most of my photography, but sometimes miss having the longer reach. I’ve toyed with getting the 40-150 f2.8, but it’s as bulky and heavy as my 100-400 f5-6.3. I need a compact, lighter combination for travel, and you’ve convinced me to getting the 40-150 f4. This will be a perfect companion lens to my primes and the 8-25 f4. 👍
Many thanks for watching. It's been a while since I made this brief review and I have used the lens a good deal in the meantime, remaining very happy with it in terms of its performance and the reasons for my decision to acquire it. Really hope it works as well for you too 😊👍
I recently bought the same lens, to pair with my 12-45 F4 Pro lens, and used with the em5 Mk3, One thing I do like, is that once it's extended, it's all internal zooming. Nice to hear your thoughts on it, and enjoy your channel here. 👍
It’s a great lens. This, alongside my 12-40 2.8 covers the range I like. A perfect combo in a PD Sling 6L. Having 12-150 (24-300) in two lenses at this quality is amazing for me. Sure, the focus clutch and Fn button would’ve been nice, to keep continuity with my settings but it wasn’t a decider, when purchasing the lens.
Spot-on reasoning. After a bunch of testing, I found I preferred the Panasonic G9 to Olympus and am waiting for my Panasonic Leica 50-200 to show up. The move from 35mm format to MFT has been awesome. I enjoy your channel and photos. You have inspired some changes in the way I shoot that have greatly improved my photography.
Thank you so much for your generous feedback, Richard. It is very much appreciated to hear that the huge amount of work that goes into maintaining my channel is at least in some way a small help to my viewers. 😊👍
Hi Mark, yes, I'm toying with the idea of getting the 12-45 as a "walkabout" lens for when I'm not specifically out with a set of primes for pro work. 😊👍
I'm sold!!!! I have the 12-42mm F4 Pro, the 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II, so, with the 40-150mm F4 Pro I am covered from 12-300mm which is good enough for me. The 75-300mm is mainly for birds or wildlife. The 12-42mm can be used for street photography and the 40-150mm can be my general purpose on my E-M2 III. I'll probably keep the 12-42mm on my E-M10 IV. I can now sell my E-M1 and PEN E-P5 or put them on the shelf. Thanks for sharing your review. Can't wait to use my new lens later this week.
Great Choice! I keep the f2.8 because I need to use it also for sports. Normally for trekking in the mountains I tend to bring the 8-25mm f4, the 40-150mm f2.8 + TCS and the Olympus 30mm f3.5 Macro. Perfect range for almost everything.
@@DGriffGallery Indeed, the 8-25mm is not that compact. But in my case it gives me the necessary quality and even saves me from bringing the fantastic 12-40mm. The fantastic thing about the mft system is that it allows us multiple combinations according to the task, but also according to the adventure involved and the desired weight and size. In my case, and for what I like to do, the favorite “kits” in order of weight and size are: 1 - OM-5 + Bodycap 9mm + 12-50mm (or 12-45mm) + 75-300mm (for birds). 2 - OM-1 + 12-100mm + 25mm f1.8 (For travel with kids). 3 - OM-1 + 8-25mm + 30mm Macro + 40-150mm f2.8 + TCS (For mountain hikes when I want a little bit of everything - Macro, Landscape or Wildlife). 4 - OM-1 + f2.8 TRIO + 20mm f1.4 + 300mm f4 + TCS (Complete Alternative). Lately, when I bring the 12-40mm f2.8 I've been leaving the 7-14mm at home and bringing the Leica 9mm f1.7 instead.
At one time I had all three of the F/2.8 Pro lenses. They were all great lenses but I no longer have any of them for much the same reason that you are selling your 40-150, weight and bulk. Plus I really don’t like having to change lenses in the field. I also rarely shoot below f/5.6 so I really don’t miss the faster lenses. I currently have the 12-100 f/4 on an EM-1 MKIII body which I feel is a really good compromise, however at my age (78) I’m even finding that combination to be heavy to lug around. I’m seriously considering selling those as well and using my EM-5 MKIII with the 14-150mm lens as my primary system. Both camera and lens are weather sealed, maybe not to the same extent as the pro lenses but neither am I. I find that combination to be much smaller and lighter. Over the last year or two I find myself carrying that combination much more than the pro gear. I personally don’t see any big difference in the image quality, if any at all. That could be because my eyes are also not what they used to be. I really do think one of the advantages of the micro four thirds system is that you have so many great choices to fit almost any individuals needs. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the 40-150 f/4 lens I look forward to seeing more of your photos taken with it in the future.
Yes, Peter, I also eventually found that the 12-100 made my gear feel bulkier and heavier than it needed to. And when that issue was added to the compromise of often running out of focal length when shooting long range in the mountains, I'm pretty pleased with what I've got now. Although, I have to admit it's taking me a couple of years to try various combinations and work out what I find is best for my particular type of photography 😊👍
It's been my favorite lens ever since the release last year. Together with the 12-45 f4 they weight about the same as the 12-100 f4 but you get a larger range.
I actually prefer and have it paired with the 8-25, absolutely outrageous range in two small lenses and I don’t find it hard to deal with the missing 15mm.
I do hope you don't end up disappointed, but I'm reasonably sure you won't. I guess an even stronger endorsement for OMDS would be that even though I recently acquired a Leica, I'll certainly be keeping my OMDS gear too 😊👍
Very interesting Dave, clearly a very good lens and I guess the F4 is a tad cheaper too, so rather more affordable to many.. Not for me as I'm in a different ecosystem, but very useful to plenty.
I understand why others have issues with the lens, and I understand that not everyone needs those features. I too tend to gavitate to lighter, smaller gear. Glad this is working out for you.
Ahh the never-ending pursuit of the perfect lens. Been there, got the T-shirt, washed it and ironed it and put it back in drawer!. Looks like a great choice David - enjoy. I shoot Fujifilm XT-1 and started with the XF 18-135 lens which was quite heavy and bulky, so sold it and bought the XC 16-50 and XC 50-230 instead. The two together weigh about the same as the XF 18-135, and they cover (in 35mm terms) everything from 24mm to 350mm. Very happy with them, and I find them just as sharp as the XF lens.
Yes, there has been a good deal of trial and error on my part over the last couple of years. But for the first time in a long time I'm no longer scratching my head trying to work out what would work best for me. Prior to getting this lands I had been concerned that it wouldn't match the quality of the faster model, but that worry has now been firmly dispelled and the ease of carrying it is a huge improvement 😊👍
Hi DG, Thanks for the mini review.... can I say that after watching the vids you do I totally brought into the four thirds system purely for the fact of loosing weight... so many photographers have lost interest in taking photos because of the added weight that decent glass adds to the bag and therefore loathe trekking up a mountainside... so the four thirds is the way to go... this looks as if it could be the next companion for the 12/40 f2.8 pro 2 that I brought, which for me is the "use all day" lens, I wonder... if the shots you took are SOOC or have they have the DG "Tickle" applied to them.... as with the 12/40 I have used...so far I adore the SOOC image... Thanks...Yoki... oh and thanks for helping to make my mind up to give four thirds a go... should of done it years ago mind... Yoki..
Hello Yoki, many thanks for your generous feedback about my channel. I'm so glad it has been in some way helpful to you. As for your question about my images, I only ever shoot in RAW so you can take it as read that they will always be "tickled"! 😁👍
I've been thinking about this as a complement to my 12-45 f4 lens. Currently I use a Lumix 45-175 which is sharp, light and compact but made of plastic and not weather sealed. If only this lens took the OM teleconverters I'd already have bought it (to also replace my longer zoom) but I'm still swithering at the moment, I'll look forward to seeing some of your work with it. I totally agree on the perceived "downsides" none of which are significant to me; I use the front "DoF" button to switch to manual focus and certainly don't need any more buttons to customize. BTW I hadn't noticed you had switched to primes! I must have missed a video somewhere...
Completely agree with all you have said. I have had a number of different systems over the years and always went for the 70-200 f4, lighter and the image quality has always been exceptional. I have recently switched to Olympus and will in due course go for this lens i mean why not
I am primarily a Fuji X shooter, but I also use m4/3s for specific cases. I got the OM system 40-150 f4 Pro for a trip later this year to Ireland, specially for shots along the western and NW coast on a Panasonic GH5 II body. The small size, light weight, portability , WR and excellent reviews of this lens for the telephoto end attracted me towards getting it. However, for the wide angle and normal shots, I plan to use the X-T3 with Fuji prime lenses.
What a sensible and thoughtful review! I love how you debunked those frivolous complaints about the lens. I just received the OM-5 and 12-45mm f4 lens kit yesterday (these also have been flippantly criticized). There was a 10% discount plus savings of about ¥30,000 for the kit along with a rebate in vouchers of ¥20,000 for the spring campaign here in Japan. This is a bargain and some. I love the form factor of this camera and the new f4 lenses. My next purchase will be the 40-150mm f4 lens after I sell some of my f2.8 lenses and one of my em1m2s. I’m keeping the other for video because I can rig it out for video. I’m a travel photographer so this system is fantastic. I have all the fast primes so I can also bring along a couple of them for night shooting or when I need to get a shallow depth of view. This combination is what makes the micro four-thirds systems so compelling over the larger sensor systems.
Thanks so much, really hope it was helpful in cementing your decision to acquire this accompaniment to your 12-45 f/4. I have that one too, and it's great that they're so nicely balanced on both the smaller body - in my case the E-M5 mk3 - and the larger OM-1. Along with being so optically impressive, of course. I'm not missing my f/2.8 versions at all 😊👍
@@johnkilmerstone I have prime lens options at the wider end so they're much lighter. The 8-25 is a really chunky heavy lens. I did used to own it but because of its weight often left it at home as ultra wide angles really only work with very close foreground and I knew that it was unlikely that I would miss the 8 to 12 mm range when my other lenses start at 12 that's as wide as I would ever need to go usually. A lot of photographers made the mistake of trying to cram in as much as possible to a wide Vista, and especially with my sort of photography in the mountains it's simply diminished the peaks in the distance with nothing to show for it in the foreground. So, after about a year it had sat on the shelf and only seen the light of day once or twice it was an easy decision to move it on. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Thanks for the reply. I understand your logic for getting rid of it. I'm thinking of getting it and replacing my 7-14mm f2.8 (which I love) because it's smaller and can take filters. I'd use it mainly for video and when I need to squeeze in a building or room into an image.
Excellent advice. I think a lot of 2.8 version lenses will be replaced by this compact Jewel. I am like you and try to travel light, without compromising imagine quality, that's the reason I switched to mft (Olympus) from DSLR (Nikon)
I tend to agree that the 3 mentioned drawbacks are of only minor inconvenience. Yet, my major concern with this lens is seemingly lack of compatibility with mc14/20. It does limit the potential reach of this lens. Personally, i dun think 150mm and 100mm is that big of a different in reach...i am happy to keep my 12-100 and use 100-400 pl if i need some reach.
Yes, of course, ordinarily, switching up to the 100-400 makes total sense, except in my case I have no intention of lugging it up to 3000 foot summit 🙂👍
Had a similar problem with the 12-100 but decided to go with the 40-150 f2.8 combined with a x2 tele converter. Although it was heavier the weather sealing and sheer image quality with added lens stabilisation more than made up for the weight gain
You're quite right about the image and build quality, but I'm very very old and lugging it up onto mountain tops was starting to be unpleasant. And as that's a place I use a long lens the most I was reluctantly forced to make a decision. To be fair, the f/4 version equals the image quality and isn't far off in build either 😁👍
I think i want one but I'd have to keep my 40-150 f/2.8 as well - I do use f/2.8 and the MF clutch and the TCs. Funny how the f/2.8 is regarded as a big lens when it's only about the same size & weight as my Canon 70-200 f/4 that I took everywhere for years.
You make a good point about the comparison with the Canon f4, Ian. But since a good deal of my location work involves long and steep hikes, my move from larger format to micro 4/3 was always specifically about reducing the bulk and weight of the associated lenses, more so than the camera body which isn't really that much smaller or lighter. But after a couple of years of often looking at the lens and then not taking it with me as I headed out into the hills made me think that I really wasn't making the most of it and when the new lens came out it was an obvious consideration. The size and weight savings on the new lands are very considerable, which went added to my ultralight camping set up will mean that it's always with me. In the past, it always irritated me that I was saving every last gram by having the lightest gear I could find and then adding a great big heavy lump just in case I needed to get my lens reach out beyond 40mm. Which is something I do a great deal in the hills. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Yes, I completely understand your reasoning for this, David. I've always been a light/small camera fan, and the 40-150 f/4 is definitely very much in the spirit of the MFT system. I also like to use telephoto lenses for landscapes, so I may well end up owning both versions....
I own the 40-150 F4 Pro and the lack of the focus clutch and function button is also a complaint of mine. Without them, the lens is missing a quick manual focus override because the lens does not always lock autofocus correctly. And for me, the function button has the focus peeking feature assigned to help MF. I understand not everybody likes those features, like if you are a landscape photographer you have all the time in the world to get it right. Some of us though shoot subject that (can) move so we need to nail it more quickly. Those features can be turned off (on Olympus cameras anyway). I'd say it's better to have those features with the option to turn them off than not have them at all.
But if you set your focus mode to S-AF/MF then you can autofocus and instantly override manually all the time - I use that regularly for exactly the same use-case you describe. And I don't only shoot landscapes 😊👍
The 40-150 F4 looks like an excellent option as a supplement to shorter primes, but to me who use the 12-100mm F4 it's just not enough extra reach. I also use the 40-150 F2.8, not too often, but the F2.8-version cover a different use case for me - lowish light/indoor and/or more fast-moving subjects and it can be used with a TC for even more reach. Not sure what I would have bought today though if starting from scratch. Maybe the Panasonic 50-200 F2.8-F4 which provide an interesting compromise between speed and reach.
I guess the thing is that every photographer has to examine what they are going to need for the type of photography that they enjoy. With mine being predominantly landscapes, especially in locations where long and difficult hikes are required having tried the heavier option, it was clear to me that the necessary compromises for a lighter long telephoto lens were well worth the price for the ease of transportation! 😊👍
"lowish light/indoor and/or more fast-moving subjects " all the reasons one would need to use the 2.8. For good light landscape/architecture I'd rather have this lighter weight lens. I'd have a really hard time deciding. lol
It's a lovely light and small lens for the range and quality. Amazing the savings to be made by losing just one stop of light and that's not an issue for landscapes anyway 😊👍
Yep big fan of f/4 lenses, whether that be for my main DSLR system or for the EM1X I own. I own the 12-45mm f/4 pro and the 40-150mm f/4 Pro and the duo is far and away the best balance of IQ, size/weight, quality of construction, features (weather sealing, fast focusing, close focusing) of the entire lineup as far as I'm concerned. I would love for OM to make a 14-150mm f/4 PRO as well. It's too bad the 12-200mm doesn't have the build quality of these f/4 pro lenses, or the constant aperture. A 12-200mm f/5.6 PRO would totally be doable and would have been a better choice from a lineup standpoint than the current iteration.
Yes, it's a pity the 12-200 is also optically poor. Otherwise you could overlook the build quality. And I'm with you on the 14-150 f/4 Pro idea, I'd right at the front of the queue for that! 😊👍
I just trialed the 12-200mm, didn't find it optically poor at all, if you are talking about edge to edge sharpness (just assuming there are many areas of image quality), but the build quality and slow max aperture at 200mm leaves a lot to be desired. The f/4 pro line strikes the right balance of quality build size/weight/price ratio for me. Glad we agree on the 14-150mm f/4! But of course OM will never build it :)
@@camillebrenes I'm not so sure that OM will never build it, the kit version is a very popular lens and I know many photographers that use it regularly. I'm willing to bet they would all be very interested in a pro upgrade option. As for the 12-200 I've seen quite a few videos which mentioned its optics rather negatively. And always preferring to make my own mind up, I acquired one and sold it on less than a month. I suppose I've just been spoiled by using primes and high-quality zoom lenses. Although, it's fair to say that an equivalent focal range of 24-400 in full frame terms is certainly straining at the edges of basic physics. Any lens with an extremely long focal range is always going to suffer limitations, and with almost no other lenses on the market with this sort of equivalent range then it stands to reason this one would suffer more than most. Of course, it isn't by any means unusable it's just that, in my case, I could easily see the difference between this and better lenses and felt that it just wasn't right for me. In fairness, the cost to build a lens with enough high-quality elements to handle this sort of focal range to the same level of quality as other lenses would be absolutely astronomical and certainly price it out of the enthusiast "one and done" market, which is where it is squarely aimed. 😊👍
I could tell my story but I won't because it's similar to yours. As long as it does what you want it to all is well, glad you got it sorted! Take care..
Glad you like using a tele in the landscape it is good fun, and the cons that people come up with are just not worth listening to. And it seems to be working well for you David.
Yes, very content with my choices and for the first time in a long time not looking at options for lenses. Although I doubt that'll be the case for long! 😊👍
Yes, frivolous complaints about the lens. I mostly shoot between f/4 to f/8 with my MFT lenses... and also use S-AF+M. It is amazing close focus lens also.
Hiya Dave, yep I'm still lugging that 12-100mm f/4 Pro around along with the 8-25mm f/4 Pro and I noticed that your test images don't exceed 100mm focal length. Based on your experience is the image quality of the 12-100mm lens less than the 40-150mm f/4 Pro when zoomed to 100mm? Just curious.
Hi Pete, I think you'd have to zoom in to 300% or more to see any difference, so the short answer is, no not really. The only issue I had with a 12-100 was running out of focal range at the long end, especially in the hills. As for the image quality I'd say there's nothing in it really. The dog picture in the video is 150mm, but she was moving and I didn't have time to rack the ISO up a bit, so the shutter speed is too slow and it's not representative of the lens' quality. I have tried it at that length and been very happy, but I didn't share any of those images because the subject material was rubbish! 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Thanks for taking the time to reply Dave, I can use my pension to pay my heating bills instead of new lenses 😀 I still have my Pany 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6, it's a bit soft compared to the MZ lenses but weight and size wise still a great bit of kit in the bag.
How would it be for photos in a sports hall covered with artificial light? I say this with the f4. It would be enough to raise the ISO a little. The camera I have is the OM1 mark 2. Thank you
Can I suggest a topic for a future video …… can you show us what you can do with your 12mm f/2? I just got a second hand one. No reason to suspect that it is faulty, but I do not really see how it can be used for landscape work as it is not very sharp and mine does not resolve detail very well at distance (I don’t think focus stacking would help. It is possible that I may be expecting to much when pixel peeping). Diolch 😀
Hi, thanks for the idea. Happy to do that for you - in advance though, I can confirm that the quality on mine is razor-sharp. But it's also fair to say that most ultra-wide angle lenses aren't especially useful for any distance work in the first place, even if they are sharp across the image, the nature of the physics of light mean that they are receding distant objects and so capturing less detail by design in the far background. They are really only useful for dominant foreground images. I would almost never use a 12mm for any distant subject that needs detail in the shot. The widest I would use would be 17mm and even then almost never. Anything with a background or distant parts of an image I want to render well would be starting at 25mm and more likely around 40mm. Of course, it well be that there there is an issue with the focus motor on yours I'm afraid. Does it render sharp images when focussed manually? 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery You have educated me already ! - that is why I love this channel, and those of professional photographers generally. Mine is probably OK as images taken in a room interior look fine. Focusing at a distance of maybe 50m (magnified MF or AF, f/5.6) there is certainly a lack of detail in tree leaves at that distance in the image (to be honest, probably no different to what my eyes can resolve). I haven’t done any critical comparisons with my APS-C WA lenses and am new to MFT. There can’t be many EM5ii sensor pixels available for those distant objects in a wide angle shot so no wonder zooming in on screen does not show lots of detail (might only be a megapixel or less available to these areas in the image) . So it would be great if you could share your expertise for the use of wide angle lenses in your wonderful landscape work. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🤗
Olympus came up with great Pro line lenses in the start of OM-D. 12-40 40-150 7-14 That was the holy trinity. All were f/2.8. You really didn't need more as you were 7-150 mm with it, and 210 mm if using TC-14. Then they came with other great additions. like 12-100 and 8-25mm. And then lastly 12-45 and 40-150. All in f/4 category. IMHO Olympus went little off the rails with f/1.2 pro primes. They had f/1.8 premium category already. 12mm f/2 17mm f/1.8 25mm f/1.8 45mm f/1.8 75mm f/1.8 Does someone need more? Yes, I would have liked to see two lenses: 6mm f/4 100mm f/1.8 But what really killed Olympus, was their thrive to larger and larger bodies. E-M1 was excellent. E-M10 Mk2 was amazing. E-M5 Mk2 was just bigger. But then they took E-M1 Mk2 and all went bad. E-M1X arrived, and then E-M1 Mk3 and everything was lost. The lenses were great, but bodies became too big. E-M10 Mk2 but with features from E-M1 Mk3 and then keep E-M1 as in exact form but with all features like from OM-1 Mk2. That thing would be exactly what m4/3 was about. Get a 12-100 f/4 or this 40-150 f/4 with a E-M10 and it would be crazy good. It is nice that there is the f/4 Pro lens series, lightweight and all, but I don't take it to replace f/2.8 series. A good bag and the holy trinity comes with you. It is easy and nice. I see the attraction in f/4 models, and it is great that it exist. And same reason I would have liked to see Olympus refresh their prime line up for cheap f/2.8 models. 10/12/17/25/45/75 and all with f/2.8, build like the plastic 45mm f/1.8 lens. And most importantly, push the price as low as possible heavily, like 250-300 per lens. Those would be f/2.8 after all. But now you would have a average consumer affording to buy few primes.
Seems to be an excellent lens for landscape photography - especially on hiking tours when every gramme of equipment counts. I am still a Nikon full frame photographer, but I rarely take my Z 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 S lens with me on hiking tours in the Alps, because it weights 1450 gramms!! So I am restricted to my Z 24-120 F4 S lens, which delivers excellent image quality, but sometimes is too short. What I would miss by going to mFT is the opportunity to produce nice sunstars - I don't know a mFT lens which creates well looking sunstars.
Yes that's a fair point, Markus. Although I'm happy to live without sexy stars for the all of the other advantages. And every now and then when I do want one, at f/22 most of my lenses do the job - about once a year! 😁👍
@@DGriffGallery Okay - my argument about the sunstars is a litte bit niggling, but I shoot against the sun quite often. And I agree: The main advantage of mFT is in the telephoto-range - most tele-zooms for full-frame are heavy and cumbersome. My ideal combo for landscape in the mFT- system would be the 8-25 F4 Pro paired with the 40-150 F4 Pro. Only 800 grammes in total. If you develop your RAW- files with DxO Optics Pro 2 or 3, you get excellent image quality also with mFT cameras like the OM-1, even at higher ISO's. That means that one more argument for full frame becomes void.
thanks for your video. completely agree with almost everything you said. may i ask how you think about it half a year later? still happy with your decision to switch to the f4 version? thanks a lot. appreciate it.
@@ilmatanela1816 actually i cant give an oppinion. I already sold it 2 weeks after getting it. I switched to the faster 2.8. it fits my photographic needs better.
Hi Markku, because the Olympus primes are so small and light, I carry pretty much a full set 12mm, 17mm & 25mm. I also usually have the Pana Leica 9mm f1.7 on my E-M5 mk3 for video work, so I can swap that onto my OM- if I need to go even wider. I also have the 45mm for portrait work 😊👍
My only beef with this lens is it not taking a teleconverter. Also it does have a rather cheap feel to it compared with the other Pro lenses but there is absolutely no disputing the image quality it produces.
Yes that's a good point if you find yourself wanting to use a converter on a regular basis. In the end I found that I hardly ever used my MC-20 on the 40-150 f/2.8. So in my own case that wasn't really a problem. 😊👍
I thought you were using the cheap 40-150. Anyhow, i had it and i was glad to get rid of it, i will not use cheap lenses again. I'm building a travel kit with my EP7 and this might be my next lens, till now i have the panasonic-leica 12-60 and oly 12mm. This camera could use some small lenses but i also want the convenience of zoom and 62mm diameter is the max i will go, luckily this is 62. I used once 3 lenses in a snow storm and it was a disaster, especially that kit lens.
Hi Cristian, yes, I was using the cheap one. Although it's fair to say it's more accurate that I owned the cheap one and didn't actually use it much! Having been spoiled for image quality with much better lenses there were times when I couldn't bring myself to use it. I think you're quite right about the convenience of zoom for a travel kit and it may well be that I either look at the same Leica as you, or opt for the Olympus preparing for the 40-150 f/4 with the wider 12-45 f/4. I haven't made my mind up yet, because I do love my primes. But there are certainly times when the convenience of a zoom lens on a smaller body (I have the E-M5 mk3) especially when I'm in a city on business or a family trip. 😊👍
It's claimed to be IPX53 and although I have no scientific way of confirming that, I can say it's been out in a good deal of rain with me in the time since I made this video a while ago and is doing fine 😊👍
Easy. Just send me one to review and I’ll be happy to. And, by the way, I only keep what I’m using so actually everything fits in a 9L sling. Review to follow! 😂👍🏻
Hi David, I always use the SAF/MF setting with back-button focusing, whether or not I'm using a lens with a manual focus clutch ring override. I never use the half-press shutter option to focus. So I never made much use of the clutch ring on the lens anyway. That means that despite there not being one on this lens it makes no difference to me. So I'm using a a one-click AF, and then dialling in manually as required. With the shutter press completely independent of focusing. Hope this helps 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery good morning 😊 thank you so much for your always so well wrote reply’s. Just out of interest what version of Lightroom do you use? My Lightroom doesn’t recognise my Olympus raw files? Do you use classic or the normal Lightroom please. Regards David
Oh I didn't know they've released a teleconverter for it. I thought the MC14 only worked with the f2/8 Pro? asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/mlens/mc14/index.html 😊👍
Olympus produced 12-100mm F4.0: it's a superb lens, not only because of the optics, but because it has IS. Being able to hand hold it down to very slow speeds makes it hugely flexible. And it has the manual clutch and function button for those who need it. Then OM Systems produced the 40-150mm F4.0: NOT stabilised, no manual clutch or function button either. Absence of clutch & button don't bother me, but why does a 12-100mm F4.0 lens need IS, while a 50-150mm F4.0 doesn't? What's the logic, other than stripping out value while still maintaining relatively high price? An F4.0 with IS would still have saved most of the weight, while being far more usable. IMO, a very poor decision by OM Systems.
I'm no advocate of OM system, but I think you'll find the price differential is substantial, as is the weight. The 40-150 f/4 is aimed at a different demographic, one which usually pairs it with the 12-45 f/4. This combination gives longer overall reach, whilst overcoming the obvious limitations that any lens will suffer when providing a very wide focal range in a single unit. All lens manufacturers are limited by the laws of physics / optics.
@@DGriffGallery Of course there would be a substantial price difference with a stabilised lens. I wasn't suggesting that they should have included it at the current price. And there would be a weight penalty too. But people buy the 12-100 F4, because it's worth it. The 12-45 isn't stabilised, because - of course - it doesn't need to be. But any justification for stabilising the 12-100 applies with even greater force to the 40-150. And I would be intrigued to know what physical laws would be violated by inclusion of IS, in what is, after all, only a 4x zoom. I suggest that this design is driven by economics, and also a lack of technical capital, which I believe was lost in the spin off from Olympus. As far as I'm concerned, OM Systems settled for producing a lens that is merely good, rather than one which would have been excellent. Disappointing, and a sign of the future direction of the company.
I have the plastic fantastic and I do really feel the lack of stabilization. I can hand hold my 100-400 much easier. I like the look of the F4 but I'm put off by the lack of stabilization.
You forgot to mention two other points. The lens needs to be unlocked before allowing you to take photos. One wasted second can be crucial in certain scenarios. But the most important to me is not having image stabilization. Would you not rather have dual system stabilization? I believe you would.
Two points: First I did mention the requirement to unlock. And dismissed it as a non-issue. It takes exactly the same time as switching the camera on. It makes the lens more compact when bagged and when out with the possibility of needing a quick shot it can simply be left extended. Second none of my lenses have stabilisation. The IBIS offers 6.5 stops and is good to an easy 3 seconds exposure as seen on many images I have shared. So you believe incorrectly.
On your first point, it's still a minor irritation for some, including Robin Wong. It does not bother you and that's fine. On your second point, the camera already has very good stabilization technology, but having two is better than one. That does not bother you either and that's fine too. The bigger picture however, is that you need to respect other people's constructive opinions. @@DGriffGallery
David, I thought this might be coming. About 4 months ago, I was waffling between buying the 40-150 f/2.8 or the 40-150mm f/4 and I finally settled on the latter. I knew I was giving up a stop of light gathering and the ability to use teleconverters (as well as the function button) but I felt the trade off in weight and dimensions was well worth it. So far, it's proven to be a great lens. Optically as sharp as the f2.8 Pro in my experience. Paired up with my 12-45mm f4 Pro, the combo covers most of my shooting needs.
Yes, Andrew, couldn't agree more with everything you said. I was slightly reticent about the obvious compromises, but having now had the opportunity to work with both lenses side-by-side, it's difficult to see a use case very often for the faster lens and that will definitely be moved on because I'm not one for hanging onto things which get hardly used on a just in case basis. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery I know from following your channel for awhile now that you place a high value on having as light a kit as possible whilst still retaining superb image quality. I wonder if you've had a look at the Panasonic Leica 9mm f1.7. I'm considering it for those times when 12mm is not quite wide enough.
Never mind...I've just realized that you already own the PanaLeica 9mm. Better not ask me to be your archivist!
The shots you've shown are superb quality, can't wait to see more!
More to come! 😁👍🏻
Always interesting to get an insight into the thought process behind your choice of equipment
and compositions David, thank you for your excellent content.
Glad you enjoyed it, cheers Tony 😊👍
The 12-45 F4 is equally good....and very small and light - together they may a fantastic set up for travel with the Om-1 or (even better for travel with the em5 mark 3 🙂
I'd definitely look at the 12-45 if I wasn't in love with my primes 😊👍
I was about to comment pretty much the exact same thing:
I have an E-M5 mkIII that I chuck in a small (5L) sling bag with the 12-45 f4, the 40-150 f4, and - for when the sun goes down - one of my f1.8 primes (either the 17 or 25, depending on where I'm going). It's an amazing lightweight setup ready for any shooting situation!
Sounds like an excellent purchase Dave. I look forward to seeing more of your adventures in the hills and around beautiful Anglesey. Very best regards - Robin
Cheers Robin, yes I'm hoping there will be more interesting photography in the hills at longer range than there has been in the past because in all honesty I've often left the longer lens at home, and even though I had a cheap lightweight version I didn't use it because I knew the quality wasn't good enough 😊👍
Thanks David, congrats on the new lens and I am sure it will serve you well for many years.
😊👍
I completely agree. Just spent my last walk with this lens which I have added to my 12-45 f4 pro and 20 f1.4 pro. These are my new holy trinity! As for the complaints, I agree with you! Haters gonna hate I guess.
😊👍
Thanks for this practical review. I too have relied primarily on the 12-100 f4 for most of my photography, but sometimes miss having the longer reach. I’ve toyed with getting the 40-150 f2.8, but it’s as bulky and heavy as my 100-400 f5-6.3. I need a compact, lighter combination for travel, and you’ve convinced me to getting the 40-150 f4. This will be a perfect companion lens to my primes and the 8-25 f4. 👍
Many thanks for watching. It's been a while since I made this brief review and I have used the lens a good deal in the meantime, remaining very happy with it in terms of its performance and the reasons for my decision to acquire it. Really hope it works as well for you too 😊👍
I recently bought the same lens, to pair with my 12-45 F4 Pro lens, and used with the em5 Mk3, One thing I do like, is that once it's extended, it's all internal zooming. Nice to hear your thoughts on it, and enjoy your channel here. 👍
😊👍
Your review is so practical. Love it!
Glad it was helpful! 😊👍
It’s a great lens. This, alongside my 12-40 2.8 covers the range I like. A perfect combo in a PD Sling 6L. Having 12-150 (24-300) in two lenses at this quality is amazing for me. Sure, the focus clutch and Fn button would’ve been nice, to keep continuity with my settings but it wasn’t a decider, when purchasing the lens.
😊👍
had the 40-150 f4 for while now very sharp great on long walks combined with the 12-45 f4 fitted to the em 5 mk 3
I think I may well end up with the 12-45 as well on the E-M5 for everyday carry, keeping the primes for when I'm out specifically on location. 😊👍
Spot-on reasoning. After a bunch of testing, I found I preferred the Panasonic G9 to Olympus and am waiting for my Panasonic Leica 50-200 to show up. The move from 35mm format to MFT has been awesome. I enjoy your channel and photos. You have inspired some changes in the way I shoot that have greatly improved my photography.
Thank you so much for your generous feedback, Richard. It is very much appreciated to hear that the huge amount of work that goes into maintaining my channel is at least in some way a small help to my viewers. 😊👍
It is my new favorite lens. Perfect companion to the 12-45 f4 Pro
Hi Mark, yes, I'm toying with the idea of getting the 12-45 as a "walkabout" lens for when I'm not specifically out with a set of primes for pro work. 😊👍
I'm sold!!!! I have the 12-42mm F4 Pro, the 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II, so, with the 40-150mm F4 Pro I am covered from 12-300mm which is good enough for me. The 75-300mm is mainly for birds or wildlife. The 12-42mm can be used for street photography and the 40-150mm can be my general purpose on my E-M2 III. I'll probably keep the 12-42mm on my E-M10 IV. I can now sell my E-M1 and PEN E-P5 or put them on the shelf. Thanks for sharing your review. Can't wait to use my new lens later this week.
Still in love with mine, so hopefully you won't be disappointed 😊👍
Great Choice! I keep the f2.8 because I need to use it also for sports. Normally for trekking in the mountains I tend to bring the 8-25mm f4, the 40-150mm f2.8 + TCS and the Olympus 30mm f3.5 Macro. Perfect range for almost everything.
Yeah I used to use the 8-25 too, but still makes bag a bit heavy for an old git like me! 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Indeed, the 8-25mm is not that compact. But in my case it gives me the necessary quality and even saves me from bringing the fantastic 12-40mm. The fantastic thing about the mft system is that it allows us multiple combinations according to the task, but also according to the adventure involved and the desired weight and size. In my case, and for what I like to do, the favorite “kits” in order of weight and size are: 1 - OM-5 + Bodycap 9mm + 12-50mm (or 12-45mm) + 75-300mm (for birds). 2 - OM-1 + 12-100mm + 25mm f1.8 (For travel with kids). 3 - OM-1 + 8-25mm + 30mm Macro + 40-150mm f2.8 + TCS (For mountain hikes when I want a little bit of everything - Macro, Landscape or Wildlife). 4 - OM-1 + f2.8 TRIO + 20mm f1.4 + 300mm f4 + TCS (Complete Alternative). Lately, when I bring the 12-40mm f2.8 I've been leaving the 7-14mm at home and bringing the Leica 9mm f1.7 instead.
At one time I had all three of the F/2.8 Pro lenses. They were all great lenses but I no longer have any of them for much the same reason that you are selling your 40-150, weight and bulk. Plus I really don’t like having to change lenses in the field. I also rarely shoot below f/5.6 so I really don’t miss the faster lenses. I currently have the 12-100 f/4 on an EM-1 MKIII body which I feel is a really good compromise, however at my age (78) I’m even finding that combination to be heavy to lug around. I’m seriously considering selling those as well and using my EM-5 MKIII with the 14-150mm lens as my primary system. Both camera and lens are weather sealed, maybe not to the same extent as the pro lenses but neither am I. I find that combination to be much smaller and lighter. Over the last year or two I find myself carrying that combination much more than the pro gear. I personally don’t see any big difference in the image quality, if any at all. That could be because my eyes are also not what they used to be. I really do think one of the advantages of the micro four thirds system is that you have so many great choices to fit almost any individuals needs. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the 40-150 f/4 lens I look forward to seeing more of your photos taken with it in the future.
Yes, Peter, I also eventually found that the 12-100 made my gear feel bulkier and heavier than it needed to. And when that issue was added to the compromise of often running out of focal length when shooting long range in the mountains, I'm pretty pleased with what I've got now. Although, I have to admit it's taking me a couple of years to try various combinations and work out what I find is best for my particular type of photography 😊👍
It's been my favorite lens ever since the release last year. Together with the 12-45 f4 they weight about the same as the 12-100 f4 but you get a larger range.
That's a very good point, to be honest if I wasn't using a set of prime lenses I would definitely be in the market for the 12-45 f4 😊👍
I actually prefer and have it paired with the 8-25, absolutely outrageous range in two small lenses and I don’t find it hard to deal with the missing 15mm.
I just took delivery of a 40-150mm f/4 Pro yesterday. Thanks for helping me justify the purchase! 😅
😊👍
Cheers pal..... been in a quandary about moving BACK to Olympus from Fuji - you've made my mind up!!
I do hope you don't end up disappointed, but I'm reasonably sure you won't. I guess an even stronger endorsement for OMDS would be that even though I recently acquired a Leica, I'll certainly be keeping my OMDS gear too 😊👍
Very interesting Dave, clearly a very good lens and I guess the F4 is a tad cheaper too, so rather more affordable to many.. Not for me as I'm in a different ecosystem, but very useful to plenty.
Yeah, forgot to mention that! 😁👍
I understand why others have issues with the lens, and I understand that not everyone needs those features. I too tend to gavitate to lighter, smaller gear. Glad this is working out for you.
😊👍
Ahh the never-ending pursuit of the perfect lens. Been there, got the T-shirt, washed it and ironed it and put it back in drawer!. Looks like a great choice David - enjoy. I shoot Fujifilm XT-1 and started with the XF 18-135 lens which was quite heavy and bulky, so sold it and bought the XC 16-50 and XC 50-230 instead. The two together weigh about the same as the XF 18-135, and they cover (in 35mm terms) everything from 24mm to 350mm. Very happy with them, and I find them just as sharp as the XF lens.
Yes, there has been a good deal of trial and error on my part over the last couple of years. But for the first time in a long time I'm no longer scratching my head trying to work out what would work best for me. Prior to getting this lands I had been concerned that it wouldn't match the quality of the faster model, but that worry has now been firmly dispelled and the ease of carrying it is a huge improvement 😊👍
Hi DG, Thanks for the mini review.... can I say that after watching the vids you do I totally brought into the four thirds system purely for the fact of loosing weight... so many photographers have lost interest in taking photos because of the added weight that decent glass adds to the bag and therefore loathe trekking up a mountainside... so the four thirds is the way to go... this looks as if it could be the next companion for the 12/40 f2.8 pro 2 that I brought, which for me is the "use all day" lens, I wonder... if the shots you took are SOOC or have they have the DG "Tickle" applied to them.... as with the 12/40 I have used...so far I adore the SOOC image... Thanks...Yoki... oh and thanks for helping to make my mind up to give four thirds a go... should of done it years ago mind... Yoki..
Hello Yoki, many thanks for your generous feedback about my channel. I'm so glad it has been in some way helpful to you. As for your question about my images, I only ever shoot in RAW so you can take it as read that they will always be "tickled"! 😁👍
I've been thinking about this as a complement to my 12-45 f4 lens. Currently I use a Lumix 45-175 which is sharp, light and compact but made of plastic and not weather sealed. If only this lens took the OM teleconverters I'd already have bought it (to also replace my longer zoom) but I'm still swithering at the moment, I'll look forward to seeing some of your work with it. I totally agree on the perceived "downsides" none of which are significant to me; I use the front "DoF" button to switch to manual focus and certainly don't need any more buttons to customize.
BTW I hadn't noticed you had switched to primes! I must have missed a video somewhere...
Plenty of examples of images with this will be sure to follow, but I haven't reviewed any primes so you haven't missed anything 😊👍
Completely agree with all you have said. I have had a number of different systems over the years and always went for the 70-200 f4, lighter and the image quality has always been exceptional. I have recently switched to Olympus and will in due course go for this lens i mean why not
Thanks for watching, Barry. Since I made this video I continue to get great results with this lens so hopefully you won't be disappointed 😊👍
I have done same as you , replaced it with 40-150 f4 pro , and I love it so lightweight 😄
😊👍
Nice review. I've bought this lens for travel, and am very pleased so far...
😊👍
I am primarily a Fuji X shooter, but I also use m4/3s for specific cases. I got the OM system 40-150 f4 Pro for a trip later this year to Ireland, specially for shots along the western and NW coast on a Panasonic GH5 II body. The small size, light weight, portability , WR and excellent reviews of this lens for the telephoto end attracted me towards getting it. However, for the wide angle and normal shots, I plan to use the X-T3 with Fuji prime lenses.
I use Lumix Leica primes on my M4/3 system for wider shots, they're tiny and very very sharp 😊👍
Nice little review mate and it makes perfect sense to switch 👍
You’re not going to believe how portable my full pro kit is these days! 🙂👍
What a sensible and thoughtful review! I love how you debunked those frivolous complaints about the lens. I just received the OM-5 and 12-45mm f4 lens kit yesterday (these also have been flippantly criticized). There was a 10% discount plus savings of about ¥30,000 for the kit along with a rebate in vouchers of ¥20,000 for the spring campaign here in Japan. This is a bargain and some. I love the form factor of this camera and the new f4 lenses. My next purchase will be the 40-150mm f4 lens after I sell some of my f2.8 lenses and one of my em1m2s. I’m keeping the other for video because I can rig it out for video. I’m a travel photographer so this system is fantastic. I have all the fast primes so I can also bring along a couple of them for night shooting or when I need to get a shallow depth of view. This combination is what makes the micro four-thirds systems so compelling over the larger sensor systems.
Thanks so much, really hope it was helpful in cementing your decision to acquire this accompaniment to your 12-45 f/4. I have that one too, and it's great that they're so nicely balanced on both the smaller body - in my case the E-M5 mk3 - and the larger OM-1. Along with being so optically impressive, of course. I'm not missing my f/2.8 versions at all 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery I'm curious. Why did you get rid of your 8-25mm f4? I thought it'd have been a great lens for landscape photography.
@@johnkilmerstone I have prime lens options at the wider end so they're much lighter. The 8-25 is a really chunky heavy lens. I did used to own it but because of its weight often left it at home as ultra wide angles really only work with very close foreground and I knew that it was unlikely that I would miss the 8 to 12 mm range when my other lenses start at 12 that's as wide as I would ever need to go usually. A lot of photographers made the mistake of trying to cram in as much as possible to a wide Vista, and especially with my sort of photography in the mountains it's simply diminished the peaks in the distance with nothing to show for it in the foreground. So, after about a year it had sat on the shelf and only seen the light of day once or twice it was an easy decision to move it on. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Thanks for the reply. I understand your logic for getting rid of it. I'm thinking of getting it and replacing my 7-14mm f2.8 (which I love) because it's smaller and can take filters. I'd use it mainly for video and when I need to squeeze in a building or room into an image.
Love your straight talking mini reviews saying how it is with no fluff 😂
Cheers Tony 😊👍
Excellent advice. I think a lot of 2.8 version lenses will be replaced by this compact Jewel. I am like you and try to travel light, without compromising imagine quality, that's the reason I switched to mft (Olympus) from DSLR (Nikon)
Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment. So glad you found this interesting 😊👍
I tend to agree that the 3 mentioned drawbacks are of only minor inconvenience. Yet, my major concern with this lens is seemingly lack of compatibility with mc14/20. It does limit the potential reach of this lens. Personally, i dun think 150mm and 100mm is that big of a different in reach...i am happy to keep my 12-100 and use 100-400 pl if i need some reach.
Yes, of course, ordinarily, switching up to the 100-400 makes total sense, except in my case I have no intention of lugging it up to 3000 foot summit 🙂👍
Had a similar problem with the 12-100 but decided to go with the 40-150 f2.8 combined with a x2 tele converter. Although it was heavier the weather sealing and sheer image quality with added lens stabilisation more than made up for the weight gain
You're quite right about the image and build quality, but I'm very very old and lugging it up onto mountain tops was starting to be unpleasant. And as that's a place I use a long lens the most I was reluctantly forced to make a decision. To be fair, the f/4 version equals the image quality and isn't far off in build either 😁👍
I think i want one but I'd have to keep my 40-150 f/2.8 as well - I do use f/2.8 and the MF clutch and the TCs. Funny how the f/2.8 is regarded as a big lens when it's only about the same size & weight as my Canon 70-200 f/4 that I took everywhere for years.
You make a good point about the comparison with the Canon f4, Ian. But since a good deal of my location work involves long and steep hikes, my move from larger format to micro 4/3 was always specifically about reducing the bulk and weight of the associated lenses, more so than the camera body which isn't really that much smaller or lighter. But after a couple of years of often looking at the lens and then not taking it with me as I headed out into the hills made me think that I really wasn't making the most of it and when the new lens came out it was an obvious consideration. The size and weight savings on the new lands are very considerable, which went added to my ultralight camping set up will mean that it's always with me. In the past, it always irritated me that I was saving every last gram by having the lightest gear I could find and then adding a great big heavy lump just in case I needed to get my lens reach out beyond 40mm. Which is something I do a great deal in the hills. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Yes, I completely understand your reasoning for this, David. I've always been a light/small camera fan, and the 40-150 f/4 is definitely very much in the spirit of the MFT system. I also like to use telephoto lenses for landscapes, so I may well end up owning both versions....
I own the 40-150 F4 Pro and the lack of the focus clutch and function button is also a complaint of mine. Without them, the lens is missing a quick manual focus override because the lens does not always lock autofocus correctly. And for me, the function button has the focus peeking feature assigned to help MF.
I understand not everybody likes those features, like if you are a landscape photographer you have all the time in the world to get it right. Some of us though shoot subject that (can) move so we need to nail it more quickly. Those features can be turned off (on Olympus cameras anyway). I'd say it's better to have those features with the option to turn them off than not have them at all.
But if you set your focus mode to S-AF/MF then you can autofocus and instantly override manually all the time - I use that regularly for exactly the same use-case you describe. And I don't only shoot landscapes 😊👍
The 40-150 F4 looks like an excellent option as a supplement to shorter primes, but to me who use the 12-100mm F4 it's just not enough extra reach. I also use the 40-150 F2.8, not too often, but the F2.8-version cover a different use case for me - lowish light/indoor and/or more fast-moving subjects and it can be used with a TC for even more reach. Not sure what I would have bought today though if starting from scratch. Maybe the Panasonic 50-200 F2.8-F4 which provide an interesting compromise between speed and reach.
I guess the thing is that every photographer has to examine what they are going to need for the type of photography that they enjoy. With mine being predominantly landscapes, especially in locations where long and difficult hikes are required having tried the heavier option, it was clear to me that the necessary compromises for a lighter long telephoto lens were well worth the price for the ease of transportation! 😊👍
"lowish light/indoor and/or more fast-moving subjects " all the reasons one would need to use the 2.8. For good light landscape/architecture I'd rather have this lighter weight lens. I'd have a really hard time deciding. lol
Yeah, those 3 complaints are rubbish. Love that lens, also mainly shoot at f/5.6 or f/8. Nice bokeh in close-up shots at f/4.
Had a look at the Olympus/OMD stand at my local WEX event yesterday, the new 40-150 f4 is certainly a lot smaller/lighter than the f2.8.
It's a lovely light and small lens for the range and quality. Amazing the savings to be made by losing just one stop of light and that's not an issue for landscapes anyway 😊👍
Yep big fan of f/4 lenses, whether that be for my main DSLR system or for the EM1X I own. I own the 12-45mm f/4 pro and the 40-150mm f/4 Pro and the duo is far and away the best balance of IQ, size/weight, quality of construction, features (weather sealing, fast focusing, close focusing) of the entire lineup as far as I'm concerned. I would love for OM to make a 14-150mm f/4 PRO as well. It's too bad the 12-200mm doesn't have the build quality of these f/4 pro lenses, or the constant aperture. A 12-200mm f/5.6 PRO would totally be doable and would have been a better choice from a lineup standpoint than the current iteration.
Oh yeah, great review too. :) Excellent logic/points, no brand worship or talking head nonsense.
Yes, it's a pity the 12-200 is also optically poor. Otherwise you could overlook the build quality. And I'm with you on the 14-150 f/4 Pro idea, I'd right at the front of the queue for that! 😊👍
I just trialed the 12-200mm, didn't find it optically poor at all, if you are talking about edge to edge sharpness (just assuming there are many areas of image quality), but the build quality and slow max aperture at 200mm leaves a lot to be desired. The f/4 pro line strikes the right balance of quality build size/weight/price ratio for me. Glad we agree on the 14-150mm f/4! But of course OM will never build it :)
@@camillebrenes I'm not so sure that OM will never build it, the kit version is a very popular lens and I know many photographers that use it regularly. I'm willing to bet they would all be very interested in a pro upgrade option. As for the 12-200 I've seen quite a few videos which mentioned its optics rather negatively. And always preferring to make my own mind up, I acquired one and sold it on less than a month. I suppose I've just been spoiled by using primes and high-quality zoom lenses. Although, it's fair to say that an equivalent focal range of 24-400 in full frame terms is certainly straining at the edges of basic physics. Any lens with an extremely long focal range is always going to suffer limitations, and with almost no other lenses on the market with this sort of equivalent range then it stands to reason this one would suffer more than most. Of course, it isn't by any means unusable it's just that, in my case, I could easily see the difference between this and better lenses and felt that it just wasn't right for me. In fairness, the cost to build a lens with enough high-quality elements to handle this sort of focal range to the same level of quality as other lenses would be absolutely astronomical and certainly price it out of the enthusiast "one and done" market, which is where it is squarely aimed. 😊👍
I could tell my story but I won't because it's similar to yours. As long as it does what you want it to all is well, glad you got it sorted! Take care..
😊👍
Glad you like using a tele in the landscape it is good fun, and the cons that people come up with are just not worth listening to. And it seems to be working well for you David.
Yes, very content with my choices and for the first time in a long time not looking at options for lenses. Although I doubt that'll be the case for long! 😊👍
Yes, frivolous complaints about the lens. I mostly shoot between f/4 to f/8 with my MFT lenses... and also use S-AF+M. It is amazing close focus lens also.
Hiya Dave, yep I'm still lugging that 12-100mm f/4 Pro around along with the 8-25mm f/4 Pro and I noticed that your test images don't exceed 100mm focal length. Based on your experience is the image quality of the 12-100mm lens less than the 40-150mm f/4 Pro when zoomed to 100mm? Just curious.
Hi Pete, I think you'd have to zoom in to 300% or more to see any difference, so the short answer is, no not really. The only issue I had with a 12-100 was running out of focal range at the long end, especially in the hills. As for the image quality I'd say there's nothing in it really. The dog picture in the video is 150mm, but she was moving and I didn't have time to rack the ISO up a bit, so the shutter speed is too slow and it's not representative of the lens' quality. I have tried it at that length and been very happy, but I didn't share any of those images because the subject material was rubbish! 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Thanks for taking the time to reply Dave, I can use my pension to pay my heating bills instead of new lenses 😀 I still have my Pany 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6, it's a bit soft compared to the MZ lenses but weight and size wise still a great bit of kit in the bag.
How would it be for photos in a sports hall covered with artificial light? I say this with the f4. It would be enough to raise the ISO a little. The camera I have is the OM1 mark 2. Thank you
Can I suggest a topic for a future video …… can you show us what you can do with your 12mm f/2? I just got a second hand one. No reason to suspect that it is faulty, but I do not really see how it can be used for landscape work as it is not very sharp and mine does not resolve detail very well at distance (I don’t think focus stacking would help. It is possible that I may be expecting to much when pixel peeping). Diolch 😀
Hi, thanks for the idea. Happy to do that for you - in advance though, I can confirm that the quality on mine is razor-sharp. But it's also fair to say that most ultra-wide angle lenses aren't especially useful for any distance work in the first place, even if they are sharp across the image, the nature of the physics of light mean that they are receding distant objects and so capturing less detail by design in the far background. They are really only useful for dominant foreground images. I would almost never use a 12mm for any distant subject that needs detail in the shot. The widest I would use would be 17mm and even then almost never. Anything with a background or distant parts of an image I want to render well would be starting at 25mm and more likely around 40mm. Of course, it well be that there there is an issue with the focus motor on yours I'm afraid. Does it render sharp images when focussed manually? 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery You have educated me already ! - that is why I love this channel, and those of professional photographers generally. Mine is probably OK as images taken in a room interior look fine. Focusing at a distance of maybe 50m (magnified MF or AF, f/5.6) there is certainly a lack of detail in tree leaves at that distance in the image (to be honest, probably no different to what my eyes can resolve). I haven’t done any critical comparisons with my APS-C WA lenses and am new to MFT. There can’t be many EM5ii sensor pixels available for those distant objects in a wide angle shot so no wonder zooming in on screen does not show lots of detail (might only be a megapixel or less available to these areas in the image) . So it would be great if you could share your expertise for the use of wide angle lenses in your wonderful landscape work. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🤗
Olympus came up with great Pro line lenses in the start of OM-D.
12-40
40-150
7-14
That was the holy trinity.
All were f/2.8.
You really didn't need more as you were 7-150 mm with it, and 210 mm if using TC-14.
Then they came with other great additions.
like 12-100 and 8-25mm.
And then lastly 12-45 and 40-150.
All in f/4 category.
IMHO Olympus went little off the rails with f/1.2 pro primes.
They had f/1.8 premium category already.
12mm f/2
17mm f/1.8
25mm f/1.8
45mm f/1.8
75mm f/1.8
Does someone need more?
Yes, I would have liked to see two lenses:
6mm f/4
100mm f/1.8
But what really killed Olympus, was their thrive to larger and larger bodies.
E-M1 was excellent.
E-M10 Mk2 was amazing.
E-M5 Mk2 was just bigger.
But then they took E-M1 Mk2 and all went bad.
E-M1X arrived, and then E-M1 Mk3 and everything was lost.
The lenses were great, but bodies became too big.
E-M10 Mk2 but with features from E-M1 Mk3 and then keep E-M1 as in exact form but with all features like from OM-1 Mk2. That thing would be exactly what m4/3 was about.
Get a 12-100 f/4 or this 40-150 f/4 with a E-M10 and it would be crazy good.
It is nice that there is the f/4 Pro lens series, lightweight and all, but I don't take it to replace f/2.8 series.
A good bag and the holy trinity comes with you. It is easy and nice.
I see the attraction in f/4 models, and it is great that it exist.
And same reason I would have liked to see Olympus refresh their prime line up for cheap f/2.8 models.
10/12/17/25/45/75 and all with f/2.8, build like the plastic 45mm f/1.8 lens.
And most importantly, push the price as low as possible heavily, like 250-300 per lens. Those would be f/2.8 after all. But now you would have a average consumer affording to buy few primes.
Seems to be an excellent lens for landscape photography - especially on hiking tours when every gramme of equipment counts. I am still a Nikon full frame photographer, but I rarely take my Z 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 S lens with me on hiking tours in the Alps, because it weights 1450 gramms!! So I am restricted to my Z 24-120 F4 S lens, which delivers excellent image quality, but sometimes is too short. What I would miss by going to mFT is the opportunity to produce nice sunstars - I don't know a mFT lens which creates well looking sunstars.
Yes that's a fair point, Markus. Although I'm happy to live without sexy stars for the all of the other advantages. And every now and then when I do want one, at f/22 most of my lenses do the job - about once a year! 😁👍
@@DGriffGallery Okay - my argument about the sunstars is a litte bit niggling, but I shoot against the sun quite often. And I agree: The main advantage of mFT is in the telephoto-range - most tele-zooms for full-frame are heavy and cumbersome. My ideal combo for landscape in the mFT- system would be the 8-25 F4 Pro paired with the 40-150 F4 Pro. Only 800 grammes in total. If you develop your RAW- files with DxO Optics Pro 2 or 3, you get excellent image quality also with mFT cameras like the OM-1, even at higher ISO's. That means that one more argument for full frame becomes void.
thanks for your video. completely agree with almost everything you said. may i ask how you think about it half a year later? still happy with your decision to switch to the f4 version? thanks a lot. appreciate it.
Still love it - I now even have some portfolio shots captured with it. 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery thank you for your answer. Happy to hear that ;-) i just received my f4 lens today.
@@pjz6737do you mind if I ask your opinion on it? I'd like to pair it with my 8-25 and one or two primes. How is the IQ?
@@ilmatanela1816 actually i cant give an oppinion. I already sold it 2 weeks after getting it. I switched to the faster 2.8. it fits my photographic needs better.
Hello and thank you to good videos. What prime you use with this lens to landscape photos?
Hi Markku, because the Olympus primes are so small and light, I carry pretty much a full set 12mm, 17mm & 25mm. I also usually have the Pana Leica 9mm f1.7 on my E-M5 mk3 for video work, so I can swap that onto my OM- if I need to go even wider. I also have the 45mm for portrait work 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Thank you very much😃
Never mind, people just like to complain, even about the weather. What's wrong with the weather, we photographers go out in all sorts of weather.
😊👍
My only beef with this lens is it not taking a teleconverter. Also it does have a rather cheap feel to it compared with the other Pro lenses but there is absolutely no disputing the image quality it produces.
Yes that's a good point if you find yourself wanting to use a converter on a regular basis. In the end I found that I hardly ever used my MC-20 on the 40-150 f/2.8. So in my own case that wasn't really a problem. 😊👍
I thought you were using the cheap 40-150. Anyhow, i had it and i was glad to get rid of it, i will not use cheap lenses again. I'm building a travel kit with my EP7 and this might be my next lens, till now i have the panasonic-leica 12-60 and oly 12mm. This camera could use some small lenses but i also want the convenience of zoom and 62mm diameter is the max i will go, luckily this is 62. I used once 3 lenses in a snow storm and it was a disaster, especially that kit lens.
Hi Cristian, yes, I was using the cheap one. Although it's fair to say it's more accurate that I owned the cheap one and didn't actually use it much! Having been spoiled for image quality with much better lenses there were times when I couldn't bring myself to use it. I think you're quite right about the convenience of zoom for a travel kit and it may well be that I either look at the same Leica as you, or opt for the Olympus preparing for the 40-150 f/4 with the wider 12-45 f/4. I haven't made my mind up yet, because I do love my primes. But there are certainly times when the convenience of a zoom lens on a smaller body (I have the E-M5 mk3) especially when I'm in a city on business or a family trip. 😊👍
I assume it's not waterproof? Is it safe in the field?
It's claimed to be IPX53 and although I have no scientific way of confirming that, I can say it's been out in a good deal of rain with me in the time since I made this video a while ago and is doing fine 😊👍
Right DG when are you reviewing the Laowa 6mm, more gear than MPB 😂
Easy. Just send me one to review and I’ll be happy to. And, by the way, I only keep what I’m using so actually everything fits in a 9L sling. Review to follow! 😂👍🏻
Hiya buddy, what focus settings do you have set up for this lens on your om1 please.
Hi David, I always use the SAF/MF setting with back-button focusing, whether or not I'm using a lens with a manual focus clutch ring override. I never use the half-press shutter option to focus. So I never made much use of the clutch ring on the lens anyway. That means that despite there not being one on this lens it makes no difference to me. So I'm using a a one-click AF, and then dialling in manually as required. With the shutter press completely independent of focusing. Hope this helps 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery good morning 😊 thank you so much for your always so well wrote reply’s. Just out of interest what version of Lightroom do you use? My Lightroom doesn’t recognise my Olympus raw files? Do you use classic or the normal Lightroom please.
Regards
David
@@davidbeck1696 Hi, I'm using LR Classic on Mac V12.2 w. Camera Raw v15.2 (Build 20230203). No issues with this version and ORF files 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Thank you very much. Looking forward to your next post 😀
Just ordered this lens today with the 1.4 teleconverter.
Oh I didn't know they've released a teleconverter for it. I thought the MC14 only worked with the f2/8 Pro? asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/mlens/mc14/index.html 😊👍
@@DGriffGallery Oops, my mistake. I ordered the 2.8 lens.... Forgot you have the f4. I took a stupid pill this morning apparently 🤦😂
Olympus produced 12-100mm F4.0: it's a superb lens, not only because of the optics, but because it has IS. Being able to hand hold it down to very slow speeds makes it hugely flexible. And it has the manual clutch and function button for those who need it.
Then OM Systems produced the 40-150mm F4.0: NOT stabilised, no manual clutch or function button either. Absence of clutch & button don't bother me, but why does a 12-100mm F4.0 lens need IS, while a 50-150mm F4.0 doesn't? What's the logic, other than stripping out value while still maintaining relatively high price? An F4.0 with IS would still have saved most of the weight, while being far more usable.
IMO, a very poor decision by OM Systems.
I'm no advocate of OM system, but I think you'll find the price differential is substantial, as is the weight. The 40-150 f/4 is aimed at a different demographic, one which usually pairs it with the 12-45 f/4. This combination gives longer overall reach, whilst overcoming the obvious limitations that any lens will suffer when providing a very wide focal range in a single unit. All lens manufacturers are limited by the laws of physics / optics.
@@DGriffGallery
Of course there would be a substantial price difference with a stabilised lens. I wasn't suggesting that they should have included it at the current price. And there would be a weight penalty too. But people buy the 12-100 F4, because it's worth it.
The 12-45 isn't stabilised, because - of course - it doesn't need to be. But any justification for stabilising the 12-100 applies with even greater force to the 40-150. And I would be intrigued to know what physical laws would be violated by inclusion of IS, in what is, after all, only a 4x zoom.
I suggest that this design is driven by economics, and also a lack of technical capital, which I believe was lost in the spin off from Olympus. As far as I'm concerned, OM Systems settled for producing a lens that is merely good, rather than one which would have been excellent.
Disappointing, and a sign of the future direction of the company.
I have the plastic fantastic and I do really feel the lack of stabilization.
I can hand hold my 100-400 much easier.
I like the look of the F4 but I'm put off by the lack of stabilization.
My favourite lens: so sharp!
😊👍
You forgot to mention two other points. The lens needs to be unlocked before allowing you to take photos. One wasted second can be crucial in certain scenarios. But the most important to me is not having image stabilization. Would you not rather have dual system stabilization? I believe you would.
Two points: First I did mention the requirement to unlock. And dismissed it as a non-issue. It takes exactly the same time as switching the camera on. It makes the lens more compact when bagged and when out with the possibility of needing a quick shot it can simply be left extended. Second none of my lenses have stabilisation. The IBIS offers 6.5 stops and is good to an easy 3 seconds exposure as seen on many images I have shared. So you believe incorrectly.
On your first point, it's still a minor irritation for some, including Robin Wong. It does not bother you and that's fine. On your second point, the camera already has very good stabilization technology, but having two is better than one. That does not bother you either and that's fine too. The bigger picture however, is that you need to respect other people's constructive opinions.
@@DGriffGallery
I didn’t detect any disrespect here. It was simply a point of view that he expressed. Citing Robin Wong only detracts from your argument IMHO.
@@motebike You can't seem to respect others peoples opinions and want to force yours on others. How obnoxious do you want to be?
@@Richard.Cabeza May your 'God' be with you.