Solid performer

Here comes my subjective impressions after spending weekend with Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 Pro on OMD E-M1, firmware v1.3, lens firmware 1.0.

• very sharp across range, gets little mild at wide end and long tele end;
• beautiful bokeh;
• prone to flares, with clearly pronounced magenta tint even with lens hood extended;
• could be used as, but generally does not substitute portrait lens e.g. M.Zuiko 75mm/1.8;
• focus not as fast as M.Zuiko 12-40/2.8, but OK (elements move longer distances). Center weighted metering contributed to slower focus speeds;
• solid choice for street/documentary work, wildlife, maybe sports and everywhere where longer reach is needed;
• solid build, truly professional feel;
• lens hood retracted contributes to "fat"/"big"/"voluminous" image of this lens. Hood can be taken off, lens becomes more "slim". However you need it on sunny days to avoid flares;
• it's pretty inconvenient to zoom with lens hood retracted, especially with tripod collar getting in your way. Extend hood or take it off.
• tripod collar is not convenient if you carry camera around and can/should be taken off because you'll really notice weight difference without it;
• you will surely need grip for E-M1 with this lens, otherwise it becomes too difficult to hold camera with long lens in the long run.

Final mark for this lens - if I gave 12-40/2.8 5 stars, then 40-150/2.8 would get 4. Solid performer, but not so spectacular as 12-40.

Thanks for this report.

One question ¦ why would you use centre weighted metering?

By not giving this lens 5 stars you will suffer the wrath of oly fanboys and risk being tarred and feathered as well. Thanks for your honest assessment. While I already find my 35-100 bigger and heavier then I'd like, it does look like a great lens for those who don't mind the extra bulk.

LearningForeverIHope wrote:

Thanks for this report.

One question ¦ why would you use centre weighted metering?

I use center weighted a lot. It helps balance the exposure while giving my subject the edge. This in conjunction with manual mode so I tend to ETTR, but I find it easier to get the exposure I want in the end using this method.

It's good to read a review of this lens that isn't a gushing rave.

I usually find more balanced, and even negative, reviews to be more useful than the gushy ones.

After all, no lens is perfect.

If I buy a pro-quality telephoto zoom then I'm probably going to choose the Panny 35-100 for its more manageable size and weight.

Thanks again.

S

After all these perhaps too high expectations, it is good to read this, though I am suprised at your report on IQ (sharpness, flare).

Peter.

eques wrote:

After all these perhaps too high expectations, it is good to read this, though I am suprised at your report on IQ (sharpness, flare).

If I read him right sharpness is rather good. As for flare, I'd say that the 12-40 pro, which should be of the same quality, does flare more than other lenses I own, 60mm macro, 20mm f1.7 even the Samyang 7.5mm surprisingly.

Peter.

Oleg Vinokurov wrote:

Focusing speed is worse than 12-40 most likely because of old firmware, with 2.0 looks like it's faster, well lets say at least on par with 12-40. Wonder what else can firmware improve.

Also saw reports that 40-150 is noticeable sharper at 40mm than 12-40. Getting little bit softer at 150, as expected anyway.

But your report on flare is a bit surprising, from what i saw from this lens until now i thought it's at least on par with panasonic 35-100.

The report on flare is not surprising. It was already reported and compare with the 35-100 in this review.

http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2014/10/13/should-m43s-lenses-always-be-small-olympus-40-150mm-f2-8-pro-vs-panasonic-35-100mm-f2-8/

"The last image quality test I did was in a backlight situation to see micro contrasts and flare rendering. Regarding the ability to retain details, both lenses work fine. The Lumix seem to handle flares better."

LearningForeverIHope wrote:

eques wrote:

After all these perhaps too high expectations, it is good to read this, though I am suprised at your report on IQ (sharpness, flare).

If I read him right sharpness is rather good.

Well, I expected "stellar", not "rather good". Somewhere I read, it is even sharper than the F2/150 43 lens. (I hope I remember correctly)

As for flare, I'd say that the 12-40 pro, which should be of the same quality, does flare more than other lenses I own, 60mm macro, 20mm f1.7 even the Samyang 7.5mm surprisingly.

Peter.

But this is all right for me: I won't be tempted to get this large and heavy lens.

Peter.

One question ¦ why would you use centre weighted metering?

for portrait for example.

Torsten Hoff wrote:

I wonder if you would have gotten better AF performance if your camera firmware was up-to-date -- you're two versions behind. V1.4 included AF improvements, and V2.0 would surely have been the one that Olympus did most of their compatibility testing with.

you may be right, however mechanically 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 are two different beasts, so I do not them to act identically and have same speed. I consider my test unit to perform 'adequately'.

Mike Ronesia wrote:

By not giving this lens 5 stars you will suffer the wrath of oly fanboys and risk being tarred and feathered as well. Thanks for your honest assessment. While I already find my 35-100 bigger and heavier then I'd like, it does look like a great lens for those who don't mind the extra bulk.

well, I believe those who "want it" will have it anyway, others are mature boys and professionals that will make judgement based on lens capabilities and suitability for their task. It's very good lens indeed.

I spent few more days contemplating about my experience with this lens and reviewing my pictures. I am happy with picture quality that lens gave me, just a little bit frustrated with purple fringing. However biggest stop for me is not optics but size of that lens, because it makes my m43 system bigger and whole photo set heavier than I am willing to tolerate on my long trips, despite the fact that I want above average optical capabilities that pro level lens with F2.8 promises. It's like going back to Canikon DSLR's again.

It's special lens for special circumstances not the relatively compact super quality lens like 12-40/2.8 is.

I think robin Wong's summary more accurate than this,,and slr gear's review which is now up...there's always someone trying to throw a spanner in the works,,very dubious summary...

The lens is stellar,,if sharpness is your thing,,great close up performance,,build,,focusing,,better at 40mm than the 12-40,, as good as 75mm f1.8 at equivalent focal length,,you want the superlatives (like me 😃) look at slrlens review...one downside is some chromatic aberration,which,as sharpness is so good,I can live with...I had a feeling this bloke was underselling it...now we have proof!!

LightCatcherLT,

How much purple fringing are you seeing and under what circumstances?

Like you I hate it and have returned a couple Nikon lens that I would have "loved" to keep...most notably the 180f2.8 D (nice size and decent reach) and the 85f1.8D.  Haven't had a chance to test the new Nikon 85f1.8...having the AFS 85f1.4 G makes the only incentive is some weight savings.

Thanks for your comments.

Dan