New 40-150 f2.8 announced from Olympus

Peter_in_PA · September 15, 2014

Looks big, looks bad (meaning good).

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="364">Focal Length</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> 35mm Equivalent Focal Length</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Lens Construction</td>

<td>16 Elements in 10 Groups</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>(1 Aspherical ED lens, 2 Aspherical lenses, 1 SED lens, 3 ED lenses, 1 HD lense)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Dust & Splash Proof</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Focusing System</td>

<td width="634">High-speed Imager AF (MSC) - Linear Motor Drive System</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Angle of View</td>

<td width="634">30 - 8.2 Degree</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Closest Focusing Distance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Maximum Image Magnification</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> 35mm Equivalent Max. Image Magnification</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Minimum Field Size</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Number of Blades</td>

<td width="634">9 (Circular Aperture Diaphragm)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Maximum Aperture</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Minimum Aperture</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Filter Size</td>

<td width="634">Diameter 72mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Dimensions</td>

<td width="634">Diameter 79.4x160mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Weight</td>

<td width="634">760g/26.8oz (without tripod collar), 880g/31.0oz (with tripod collar)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Box Contents</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="634">Instruction Manual</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Related Accessories (Option)</td>

<td width="634">Protection Filter (PRF-ZD72PRO)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="634">1.4x TELECONVERTER（M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 1.4x</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="634">TELECONVERTER MC-14）</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

david_carroll4 · September 15, 2014

an effective 80-300/2.8-ish

(counts kidneys...."two - check")

Yep - I could swing that

Ken Katz · September 15, 2014

While I have been waiting for this announcement, at almost 27oz (without tripod collar), it is unlikely I will acquire this lens for my kit. It weighs about the same as my beloved Canon 70-200 f4 IS L, which when combined with an FF body, and few additional lenses, resulted in a kit that I really do not want to walk around with. At this point, to replace my 6 oz Oly 40-150 f5.6 I may look at the Panny 35-100 f2.8, the Oly 75 f1.8, or wait for a manufacturer to develop a high quality 40-150 f4 at 1/2 the weight of this this lens. For a professional photographer or someone who has a healthier back than me, this lens may be a great addition.

GerrySiegel · September 16, 2014

Is it true that the teleconverter can only be used with this lens. If so, I wonder why that need be. I would like to see Panasonic offer a teleconverter for their very fine 35-100mm lens which still fits a small sling bag compartment. This big bad fellow is kind of huge for the micro four thirds system from the photos shown. Might as well consider an ED 50-200mm which also has a tripod collar and has greater reach.

Happy I don't enthuse over BIF or birds in flight. ( Babes in frills - thass another story:-)) Pet peeve is the apparent fact that Oly likes to sell you a lens hood for sixty bucks as though you really don't want to use one for taking advantage of the high end optics....makes no marketing sense or photo sense to me. Is it like the airline charge for a pillow?

norm_havens · September 16, 2014

Gerry>>Is it true that the teleconverter can only be used with this lens. If so, I wonder why...

It's also supposed to be usable on the phantom 300mm f4. Why? I suppose in order to save space (or possibly optical necessity), the front element of the tc protrudes into the back element of the main lens, something doable only with lenses that have that open space.

elliot1 · September 17, 2014

I found some interesting photos of the lens mounted to a m43 body to put the lens' size into perspective:

http://www.fourthirds-user.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13840

It is still a lot smaller/ligher than similar focal length/size/aperture/glass quality options for other systems. For examle, Nikon's 70-200mm is 3 1/2 and obviously a lot larger. Of course, the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 weighs in at well under 1lb.

The expected high IQ may outweigh the weight issue for some. The TC option, if IQ holds up, will also be quite beneficial.

And it does include the hood!

elliot1 · September 17, 2014

the sentence above should had read" Nikon's 70-200mm is 3 1/2 lbs"

eric_arnold · September 21, 2014

what's the advantage of m4/3 if the lenses are as big and heavy as DSLRs?

elliot1 · September 23, 2014

Eric, the Olympus lens is nowhere near as big or as heavy as the Nikon equivalent. And of course the difference in total size/weight increases when you add a camera body into the equation.

This new lens is expected to have not just great IQ, but exceptional image quality. Time will tell.

eric_arnold · September 23, 2014

olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 220g

panasonic 35-100/2.8 350g

nikon 70-300/4-5.6 VR 745g

olympus 40-150/2.8 760g

sigma 50-150/2.8 770g

Sony RX10 (28-200/2.8 equiv.) 813g

nikon 70-200/4 850g

samsung 50-150/2.8 915g

fuji 40-150/2.8 OIS 995g

sigma 50-150 OS 1335g

nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII 1540g

(BOLD denotes lenses designed for APS-C cameras; Italics denotes lenses designed for full-frame cameras)

as you can see from the chart i put together, weight is essentially directly proportional to sensor size and aperture. the oly 40-150/2.8 is basically the same weight as the sigma 50-150 non-OS, and not that much heavier than the nikon 70-200/4. the new oly telezoom has an advantage in that it goes to 300mm equivalent @2.8, and that 100mm differential is not insignificant. however--and this is a particular dilemma with m4/3 because of the smaller sensor-- the sensor advantage with long lenses (due to 2x crop) results in some marked disadvantages, namely worse at high-ISO and the size/length of a long tele negates the size advantage of a smaller body. that's one reason i've thusfar stuck to compact lenses with my fuji XE1. also, just for kicks, i plugged in the sony RX10, which has a 1" sensor with a fixed 28-200/2.8 zoom.

that said, i can see where this lens might be droolworthy for m4/3 users who are heavily invested in the system, such as daylight wildlife shooters. but at $1500, you're not really getting a break on price, and i still maintain that the perfect storm for digital interchangeable lens cameras in terms of price/performance/size is the APS-C format. feel free to disagree, but part of the ethos of small-sensor cameras is that the lenses and bodies are supposed to be smaller. of course, that ethos only really works with shorter focal lengths. while the 40-150 is nominally a 2.8 lens, the actual DoF isn't nearly as shallow, and the speed advantage is mitigated on a full-frame body, which can shoot at higher ISOs than m4/3 can pull off. note that while the <a href="http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/new/m-zuiko-ed-40-150mm-f2-8-pro.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwtIShBRD08fKD1OWSik4SJAAuKLov8PvKIK-SgxmhkZxOqkfLLIpZSaHwaFzc0_kwQnV3ohoCNoPw_wcB">Olympus page</a> for this lens advertises "everyday portability," the lens is shown with a tripod collar and the camera is shown with a grip. so, again, we are seeing compact system cameras creep toward DSLR-like bulk at the same time we're seeing prices creep with obvious upsell intent. if you have your heart set on one, don't let me stop you--i'm sure it'll be good--but for me, this isn't a reason to sell my 70-200 VRII for FX, nor let go of my 50-150 for DX. if you're trying to have a small/light m4/3 kit, you're probably better off IMO with the slower Oly 40-150 or the 35-100.

elliot1 · September 23, 2014

"namely worse at high-ISO" Actually, this is not totally accurate. Pixel for pixel, the OMD EM1 delivers pretty much the same IQ as some full frame Nikon bodies, like the D800 for example. Downsampling give full frame cameras a huge advantage, obviously, but for typical sized prints, up to 8 x 10, perhaps a bit larger, you would likely not see much of a difference in prints, if any. Post processing comes into play, obviously. Software like DXO really levels the playing field too when it comes to high ISO IQ. Their PRIME NR feature offers exceptional results. "but at $1500, you're not really getting a break on price" This is sort of true but after a reasonably short period of time, Olympus always offers deals on their newly released gear anyway. I would expect to be able to save a couple of hundred dollars off the list price within 6 month or so. By comparison, Nikon's 70-200 VRII f2.8 sells for $2400 and the f4 version sells for $1400. And although the lens and TC are not being offered as a 'package' at this time, I suspect they will be offered in a discounted bundle in the near future.

It will be interesting to see the DXO numbers on this lens, especially with regard to sharpness.

elliot1 · September 23, 2014

Correction/clarification to above: I believe it would be difficult to see much in the way of differences in image quality in typically sized prints up to 5 x 7, and perhaps 8 x 10 or even a bit larger, after processing RAW images with advanced image processing software. I use DXO software and their PRIME noise reduction is truly amazing. That combined with the other benefits DXO image processing software provide really allows for great image quality out of smaller sensor bodies as compared to full frame and DX sized sensors.

And sometimes the small differences just don't really matter.

FWIW, DXO software easily improves high ISO image easily by 1 to 1 1/2 stops, and I would guess typically 2 stops. They claim under some circumstances you can gain up to 4 stops if IQ from high ISO images. Combine good image processing software and fast glass and it is a win-win situation for good IQ under adverse lighting.

eric_arnold · September 23, 2014

Elliot, the argument that a m4/3 sensor produces equal quality hi-ISO files as a full frame camera cannot possibly be true. it's just physics. i've heard the argument before, but it's just not accurate, especially since you are comparing results post-NR processing. couldnt we use DXO on an Fx sensor and get the same 1- 1 1/2 stops you claim, resulting in the same noise gap? regardless, it may not matter to you, and that's fine. but those are just the realities of using a smaller sensor format. now, at base ISO, and up to a certain print size, the current-gen m4/3 sensors deliver excellent image quality. not arguing that.

again, not knocking the lens, which does appear to be of 'pro' quality and has appeal for 'serious' m4/3 shooters. but $1500 is $1500. that's twice what i paid for my sigma 50-150, which can be had used for even less. if i'm a DX shooter, i can get the Nikon 70-200 I for $1500, or the Sigma 50-150 OS for $1000. the Fuji 50-140 is just as pricey, and heavier, but you're also going to be able to print bigger, and use it at higher ISOs than on m4/3.

so, my point was just that you are paying premium lens prices for a small sensor camera, which isn't how m4/3 started out. shouldnt be a surprise, since all camera companies are trying to upsell you right now, which is what the market is dictating. in the long run, i'm not sure how long Olympus' camera division or m4/3 is going to be around. according to Thom Hogan, Olympus have just 3% of the market right now. so, yeah, we probably will see discounts on those lenses. and if you dont mind a little extra weight and bulk, the 4/3 50-200/2.8-3.5, which is probably just as good optically and gets you to 400mm at 3.5, is only $500 used right now at B&H... you can already see Panasonic hedging its bets by promoting video in the GH3/GH4, and releasing the GX100, which doesnt require any additional lens purchases and places m4/3 in the high-end compact market, in-between the Sony RX100 and Fuji X100t. to me, that's more appealing, and offers significant cost reductions than buying a good m4/3 body and a 2.8 standard zoom. in other words, Panasonic isnt just taking on competitors, but also cannibalizing some of its own products. which i personally applaud them for, since i'm probably not going to invest in three different systems, but i might add a small, fast, full-featured compact to my arsenal. but in the long run, unless Nikon does something different with DX, i'll probably pare down eventually to Nikon FX, Fuji X-mount, and whatever the hot compact du jour happens to be. as always, YMMV.

elliot1 · September 24, 2014

Eric I did not say equal, rather that it would be difficult to see any differences in smaller sized prints, which it would be. Most pixels are not used when making small prints - look at how little resolution is needed to post images on this site or on the web and they still look great.

Keep in mind that for a high quality 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 print, you only need the equivalent of 2 MP (1600 x 1200 pixels), so even a file from an EM1 gets the benefit of downsampling. Between downsampling and DXO software, which can give from a 2 to 4 stop benefit, typically sized smaller prints from high ISO shots can look pretty much as good as those from DX and FX sensors. As a long time DXO user, I can assure you that their improvement claims are accurate.

eric_arnold · September 25, 2014

if it works for you, great. i shoot in low-light situations a lot for concert photography and print up to 20 x 30. so high-ISO ability is a must for me. different strokes for different folks.

GerrySiegel · September 28, 2014

Different strokes, yet how come the micro four thirds looks so great on my 40" HD TV....I print nothing much lately and go to concerts merely to listen to music and snore at opera. No cameras allowed at the Blaisdell Hall alas.... But that is how we must come to our sensors, one and all. Aloha and happy trails and a salute to diversity. Pluralism makes for fun chatter.

john_hinkey · October 6, 2014

Regarding m43 vs. FX - I regularly shoot my D800 besides my GX7 and I find that at base ISO or up to around 800 the GX7 is not too far behind the D800 on a per-pixel basis and that downsampling helps the D800 a lot.

However, at higher ISOs the GX7 starts to fall apart pretty quickly on a per pixel basis compared to the D800. In addition, even at base ISO, the D800 is far better in practice at handling highlights that need to be pulled back and shadows that need to be pulled up. Not just talking noise, but color casts, etc. Perhaps it's the RAW converters, but the post processing is just easier on the D800 for tricky lighting situations. One of the saving attributes of the GX7 is that its AWB seems to work really really well which saves the day for post processing.

Back to the Oly 40-150/2.8 - though I don't have an Oly body to put it on (all Panasonic m43 bodies) I will try to get this lens and depend on the GX7's very very good IBIS. Really wish Panasonic would come out with a similar lens.

david_mcmullen · October 29, 2014

I'm late to this discussion, and mostly new to the photo.net forum. Olympus delayed the first shipping date for the 40-150, but the early reports and image samples are quite promising. Robin Wong posted some nice looking images in his review here:

<a href="http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens.html">http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens.html</a>

I know Robin is an Olympus employee, but the sample images and 100% crops look pretty good indeed... Aparently the sharpness is pretty close to the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which is pretty universally praised as a superbly sharp lens.

Regarding Eric's statement that the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 may be just as good optically with more reach at only $500,... Some sources are claiming that the new 40-150 compares well to some of the older legendary Olympus 4/3 telephoto *prime* lenses. B&H is now showing the 50-200 lens for $1200... if it really was available for $500 a month ago, that was probably a bargain.

I'm an Olympus E-M1 shooter but I also use a Nikon DSLR with long lenses for wild bird photography. I'm not sure I would use the new 40-150mm enough to make it worth it. I will be very interested in the future Olympus 300mm f/2.8 pro lens, and how it compares to my Nikon 300mm f/4, especially the continuous autofocus for birds in flight.

Dave

noncho_iliev · November 26, 2014

I had a weekend with E-M1 + 40-150 2.8 and 1.4x converter.

I have very good impressions with this combination - amazing lens, very nice focus and sharpness. I tried portrait, street, macro and even sport(soccer in low light) performance.

Here is the blog with my impressions and large 3200x2400 px pictures - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/2183

I love telephoto lenses and I have experience with many of the Canon Big Whites, but this little 40-150 is very impressive and versatile.

Sign In

New 40-150 f2.8 announced from Olympus

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in