DPReview TV: OM System 40-150mm F4 Pro Review

I noticed that too in Edge (chrome based). You now have to right click and copy url, open a new tab and then paste the link to go there.
Really annoying.

+1. And the bodies typically have amazing IBIS.

OTOH pixel density is one of the highest of any ILC format outside of the highest res FF bodies & the few Canon APS-C bodies >30MP... I wouldn't short change M4/3 manufacturers by saying they've got a far easier task.

Actually, it is harder.

We'll find out if they are sharp when 30MP+ bodies start appearing... if ever...
I still think the 45/1.2 at f/2.8 is the ultimate m43 sharpness BTW...

""Not only is it easier to make smaller lenses, It's easier to make them sharp""

Actually, according to Roger Cicala, its much harder to make "good" m43 lenses.

No. It is not inherently easier to make smaller lenses, nor is it easier to make them sharp. In fact, if you look at m43 wide angles, uncorrected, on a site like Optical Limits, you'll see the enormous amount of barrel distortion correction which leads to softer corners. (Not unique to m43 of course, but usually more pronounced than with larger formats).

What is true, is that lenses that are small due to being simple designs, like a 50 Elmar or a 45 pancake can be very sharp and require less labor to assemble.

The one thing we can speculate might be easier to do with m43 is make lenses that are a little less expensive although again, assembling 11 elements is the same task regardless of how large they are.

Could the moderators please remove my thread ASAP?
I intended to make a casual observation to perhaps encourage some informed discussion but unfortunately drew the ire of the little pedants that just couldn't help but jump right it to nit pick for their own self gratification.

You did get an informed discussion unlike your OP.

""but unfortunately drew the ire of the little pedants that just couldn't help but jump right it to nit pick for their own self gratification""

Wow, you post completely wrong information but everyone else is picking on you for pointing it out. Unbelievable

Are they sharp, though? Almost anything these days can resolve 20MP well.

Pixel density is very low compared to the Pentax Q system or even the Nikon 1.

I can manage 2 sec handheld shots with a 300mm lens (600mm FoV) on the em1.2 and em1.3: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64582378
150mm really isn't a challenge for the olympus flagship IBIS

@bluevellet

"If m43 IBIS outperforms all other camera systems, than dual IS (IBIS+OIS) just crushes the competition."

The question is if that is really true. Or at what focal lengths. I remember when they listed the CIPA ratings for the GH6, on some lenses they tested the rating was the same between IBIS only and Dual IS. Now the question would be why that is, what lenses it applies to, what focal lengths and so on. So potentially on newer bodys, Lens IS could do nothing except adding weight and cost. The whole topic warrants further research before making a definite conclusion.

Doesnt go as wide or as long.

No because you have to change lenses all the time :) would prefer a 12-100 with a compact wide angle Prime if you really need it.

No, it doesn't, but damn, what a great lens.

That's not small and not lightweight

What is light for one... I had the f/2.8 with the E-M1 and it was marginally over 3 pounds. I just spent the day with my 810D and 70-200 f/2.8 yesterday. 6 pounds. That's from where I judge what's light for me.

It's lighter than a (unopened) Coke can.

The unopened coke can gets lighter when opened, but it is hard to attach to the front of my camera. :-)
F.

I don't think I own a single lens under 400g. I'm sure it's different in the m4/3 world, but as a full frame shooter that size and weight is making me super jealous

I get the comparison with the Coke can for size and weight but what about the difference in IQ ?

"Generally speaking M43 represents a niche player"—and if it would, so what?

"Trends" aside which hardly are an objective basis to measure a system's actual qualities, MFT with its set of cameras and wide range of lenses is an advanced, versatile all-round camera system with a few advantages and a few disadvantages, and actually that's about all there is to say.

Totally agree....long may M43 prosper and rise above the crowd. M43 is a unique system but it may be challenged as a viable concern in the medium term. We have seen LEICA go through similar trials and tribulations so anything is possible given that there is a loyal market for such niche cameras. The new OM-1 may be the last OLYMPUS but it goes to show that the company is on the right path.

Appreciate your comment Tom. Odd how such an observation aroused defensive responses. Some regular contributors are “obsessed” with having the last word. It amounts to an addiction.

If that was the case, then MOST people would get it, wouldn't they? Nah, it looks very nice for those who want it but "most people"?

I've used the Raynox DCR-150 a lot on the 42.5/1.7 & 35-100 f4-5.6 since I don't even need the clip on adapter to screw it unto those, and they have a decent MFD to start with, as does this Oly so I dunno why anyone would dismiss it's close up capabilities...

TBH not needing to carry a macro to get pretty nice close ups of flowers, food, and such is one of the things I like most about my M4/3 teles & primes... I never owned a macro until I bought one for my FF body to leverage the extra res. /shrug

"Need more depth control? Get a fast prime. Need close-up? Get a macro"—Or just get a Panasonic 50-200mm f/2.8-4, which has not only slightly more dof control and substantially better macro capabilites, it also can be used with teleconverters, making it an excellent 280mm f/5.6 or a still decent 400mm f/8 (with even better macro to boot). Moreover, it's not a huge lens, either, and its most obvious disadvantage compared to the OMDS 40-150mm f/4, beside price, is that it extends when zooming.

Oh, and yeah, I would love to buy a 150mm MFT macro lens—if there was one.

I had the not so fantastic but plastic 40-150 kit lens. I sold it. I never felt like the images were good enough - even considering the price. I've read the Panasonic 45-150 is noticeably better at the 150mm mark, I'll give that one a try when I see one for a good price.

@NowHearThis the Panasonic 45-175 is even better than that at the long end, with the bonus of being internal zoom. Some people don't like the motorized zoom but I think it's quite good, using the zoom ring at least. It can also suffer from shutter shock, which lead to some less-than-positive reviews, but using 0 second anti-shock takes care of that.

@Stephen, That's interesting that you say so, I've read the opposite on a couple of websites. I will look into it a bit more (more reviews, search out more images on Flickr, 500px, etc). I do know there's a big price difference used. And the PZ feature would take a bit of getting used to.

Got to have something to keep the punters coming back.
But how many people are regularly shooting 50 fps, really?
And if they have that need, I suspect this lens isn't on their shopping list in the first place.
Over-engineering of camera gear is beginning to look like an arms race between the brands.

@OrigamiCactus - The IBIS in the latest OM/Olympus bodies is so good, I honestly didn't notice this lens didn't have stabilization built-in on my EM5. We're definitely getting into marginal gains with these comparisons in reviews.

Telling you what you can't do is a basic sales strategy. What you need, my friend, is our top o' the line! Here, have a cigar.

@Dakotan

I would.

Tedolph

@tedolf Look at the brim of Chris' hat in the very first image.

Top of the light pole for starters. What is this, 2005?
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/8705030316/om-system-40-150mm-f4-pro-sample-gallery/0088795360

@Dakotan: That obviously is uncorrected lateral CA. Most mirrorless lenses show something similar or worse when not or not properly digitally corrected, be it in-camera or in post. I don't know if the out-of-camera JPEG maybe looks similar, but I suspect this was done with Capture One which to my impression has always been one of the worst available raw converters for Olympus cameras. Either use a better raw converter (like DxO PhotoLab, when it will support the OM-1 which has been announced for June)—or just click the lateral CA correction tool of whatever converter you're using and the colour fringing will disappear, which also is practically lossless.

@Huburtus You're absolutely correct, I had assumed that Capture One would automatically correct LACA like most other RAW converters but I guess that's not the case. Opening the RAW files with ACR shows a much better result.

Come on Jer, you knew some troll was going to call it an F8 lens. And the OP obviously knows that there is nothing, even remotely close to your criteria. Man, I can hear the Op’s Om nom nom nom from here.

It is pretty awesome to get the faster shutter speed of shooting at f/4, but the same deeper DOF of shooting f/8 on a full-frame camera. It's quite nice to be able to keep both of a person's eyes in focus, even if their head is slightly turned, while still maintaining a fast enough shutter speed to prevent motion blur from their movement.

I wonder what m43 lens beats my phone by weight, weather sealing, not to mention closest focusing distance?

@Jer: Why set arbitrary criteria? First party only is a weakness, not a strength. And not everyone needs massive weather sealing. And obviously no one is going to buy an F8 80-300mm on FF unless it was bargain basement cheap. Telephotos are generally for action, and giving up a stop of light or two is for super-cheap lenses like Canon's 800mm F11.

Most people would rather buy something like the Tamron 70-300mm for 55% of the price and 1-2 extra stops of light. Not over-engineered, but way more sanely priced.

Stephen what you're missing is that your pictures are way grainier due to poor high-ISO performance at that shutter; there is no free lunch.

You don't seriously believe it has the ISO performance of a FF F4 with the depth of field of a FF F8 and the reach of a FF 300mm, right? You can't pick and choose on equivalence.

@J A C S how well does your phone do at 300mm equivalent?

@BrentSchumer okay, so compare FF f/8 1/60th ISO 800 300mm and m43rds f/4 1/60th ISO 200 150mm. Those are equivalent photos. Do you think the m43rds photo will be "grainier?" You can use the DPreview studio scene comparison tool to check.

Stephen the point is that FF shooters don't have to put up with F8 equivalent, using cheaper glass. So it would be ISO 800 vs ISO 400, at a minimum.

@Stephen Strangways: As well as your camera does fitting in my pocket.

I don't have a problem with f/8 on a full frame camera with an 80-300mm lens. The DOF is so shallow at 300mm I need at least f5.6 to keep a minimum zone of focus on the subject. F/8 really isn't a problem.

Maybe you can show me some full frame 300mm f/2.8 shots so I can see what they look like.

Tedolph

@BrentSchumer but shooting f/5.6 on FF would not be equivalent DOF. Like you said, you can't pick and choose on equivalence.

It's not a matter of "putting up with" deep DOF unless you fetishize shallow DOF over all else. I often have to shoot at smaller f-stops for deeper DOF because otherwise clients complain that part of the subject is out of focus. If I shot FF digital, I'd be at f/11 or f/16 all the time. Instead, I'm using m43rds at f/5.6 or f/8.

"Telephotos are generally for action"

Oh boy. Where to begin ..?

Good point.

@Stephen Strangways: "It is pretty awesome to get the faster shutter speed of shooting at f/4, but the same deeper DOF of shooting f/8 on a full-frame camera"—such magic does not exist. You don't get a faster shutter speed, because the FF camera can up the ISO and use the same shutter speed even at f/8, and any faster FF lens can be stopped down to f/8, without the FF kit getting into any disadvantage over the MFT kit. The only actual advantage for MFT is that FF has no similarly compact, similarly good 300mm zoom lens. Also, having the additional option of getting more light at the cost of depth of field is never a disadvantage, it is an objective advantage, whether you personally need or want it or not. And no one does "fetishize shallow DOF over all else" just because they know how to apply it to some use cases and appreciate it if their gear enables them to, and that statement is just the anti-FF propaganda with which FT and MFT advocates continue to give themselves a bad name.

@Hubertus Bigend sure, the FF camera can up the ISO two stops more than the m43rds camera, but at the upper end of the ISO range, the FF cameras I've looked at have more noise and more smudged detail than a m43rds camera set two stops lower.

Really?
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr5&attr13_1=nikon_z7ii&attr13_2=oly_em5iii&attr13_3=omsystem_om1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.12070040369088814&y=0.48247313738050074

@BrentSchumer; still no FF alternative to this lens it seems. So how can it be expensive if it's one of a kind, unmatched by any other system?

Jer81: There is no exact FF alternative to this lens, because people are using faster and/or less expensive glass instead. No one would want to settle for an inferior F8 zoom in this focal length or price range.

Like on E mount I can go for a 70-300mm F4.5-F6.3 for $500 or 100-400mm F5-6.3 for the Oly's $900. An 80-300mm F8 for $900 would sit unsold on shelves. Canon's 100-400mm F5.6-F8 is sold for $650, despite having more reach and being faster. And that Canon resolves 45MP pretty well.

Some things are unique due to being a bad idea.

Stephen look up crop factor and equivalence. There's no free lunch.

@BrentSchumer it's a 40-150mm f/4. Field of view is equivalent to an 80-300mm lens. Depth of field is equivalent to an f/8 lens at that equivalent field of view. But the amount of light it lets in, in terms of how it will affect your exposure, in terms of what shutter speed you'll need at a certain ISO, it's an f/4 lens the same as any f/4 full-frame lens, or any f/4 APS-C lens. Just saying it's equivalent to f/8 isn't correct, because it isn't the whole story: that only applies to DOF, not exposure.

@J A C S exposure is never irrelevant in photography.

Stephen: Time for learning: crop factor affects ISO noise, too. ISO 500 on M43 is ISO 2000 on FF. So yes, it will absolutely look like an F8 image in every way.

https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso#iso-and-equivalence

@BrentSchumer beware of sweeping generalizations. To say that all full-frame cameras have the same noise performance at high ISO would be quite wrong, and it hardly matters at low ISO.

Part 3)
A daylight landscape, travel, vacation shooter has less need of shallow DOF and cleaner high ISO performance than someone who shoots weddings at night. So if a person is just looking to use this lens during the day as a smaller lighter medium short telephoto that can produce high quality images.... Well guess what, in the right hands then it's going to do a great job irrespective of equivalence or anyone's opinion of it - especially mine. Most people are only shooting with one camera and one lens at a time. Equivalence won't make anyone a better photographer. Mastering lighting and composition will.

@strange way,

You don't get it Steve, in most situations that two stop advantage doesn't matter. When it does, that is when you take out that tiny F/1.7 prime you always keep in your pocket.

Tedolph

Stephen,

I think what I said was less confusing.
1) https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
2) plug in 150mm F4 (since this lens only opens up to F4) and 75 feet for the subject distance then look a the DOF near, far, and total limits of those parameters on a M43 camera and a FF camera.
3) No one is going to use a 150mm lens on M43 (300mm equivalent FOV) like a 150mm lens on FF. People might use the Olympus 40-150/4 for much the same things they would have used a 70-300mm on their FF DSLR or their 55-200 on APS-C camera. The 40-150/4 gives the buyer of either having a lighter option, a better IQ option or both - with the caveat that there are other pros and cons only the buyer can decide which matters to them.

@Hubertus Bigend the sunny 16 rule doesn't say you have shoot at f/16, that's just a starting point for calculating an exposure.
f/16 @ 1/250th
f/11 @ 1/500th
f/8 @ 1/1000th
F/5.6 @ 1/2000th...

@Hubertus, 1) I'm right. 2) It's not a good idea to argue with me. So you think I'm wrong. Then before we discuss it, I want you to do the following:

First, Using DPR's own studio test, use this link...
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=omsystem_om1&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt4&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs5&attr13_3=sony_dscrx10iii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=800&attr16_1=800&attr16_2=800&attr16_3=800&attr126_0=1&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.21164979995293015&y=-0.5978760323660716
...and explain to all of us how, with 4 different sized sensors, all letting in different 'amounts of light', but using the identical settings, that the exposure and brightness level is the same in all 4 images (noise level is different, but that's not the subject at the moment). How did the settings: ISO800, F5.6, 1/320 on 4 different cameras produce the same exposure?

cont...
And as to the "Sunny 16 Rule". I'm a little disappointed in you that you could not extrapolate that ISO100, F16, 1/125sec produces the same exposure as... say... ISO100, F4, 1/2000sec (or some other combination).
Never once in my post did I say I WOULD shoot at F16. That's ONLY a starting point, and one of dozens and dozens of combinations of the exposure triangle that will produce the same exposure for a cloudless, sunny day (i.e. the other one I just listed above - which I would use on M43 and other cameras).

And yes, I know that rule applies to all cameras, but cause I've repeated that test hundreds of times with multiple pairs of different camera (with different sensor formats, and to my photography students I was teaching and demonstrating it to.

On a related note, I've shot several images at F13 to get sun stars on my PL12-60, that had enough detail for 11x14" prints.

Because DPR has provided some of the EXIF in the tool tip icon, you can see the exposure settings: ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed - which as I have said are the same, hence the resulting images exposures are the same and each image appears equal in brightness. Which is what I have been saying for several posts.

Steve,

"And, as NowHearThis mentioned, take a look at the dynamic range of m43rds camera compared to a FF camera at two ISO stops higher. You can't wiggle out of physics."

Ahahahahahaha. This tells me that you have no idea on the physics involved and can't read a chart.

This is the chart in question: https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20System%20OM-1,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3

Higher bars = more dynamic range. For example, at ISO 200, OM-1 has 9.54 stops of DR and A7RIII has 10.54 stops of DR, or a full extra stop to play with. Feel free to plug in the cameras of your choice and compare. If you suddenly care about dynamic range you'd throw your M43 camera out of a window.

NHT went on some weird tangent around the simple concept that higher ISOs lower available dynamic range, but you can obviously shoot different sensors at the same ISO for the same exposure...and the FF will look much better. You've misread the graph (and tangent) out of desperation.

@BrentSchumer you're trying to prove equivalence, right? So OM-1, f/4, 1/250th, ISO 200, 9.54 stops DR. A7R3, f/8, 1/250th, ISO 800, 9.32 stops DR.

For the last time Brent, it's an f/4 zoom, not an f/8 zoom.

Maybe you look at it and say "f/8 equivalent DOF and that's bad" but lots of other people look and it and say "f/4 exposure and that's good" or even "f/4 exposure with f/8 equivalent DOF and that's good." I know you don't get it, but lots of people do. Your subjective, misguided view based on misunderstanding is not an objective or universally shared view.

@Stephen

Forget it Steve, Brent's mind is closed. He doesn't even realize that so called Full Frame is an accidental format created by Barnack to make a pocketable 35mm camera. The original 35mm format is what we now call half frame and gives a reasonable DOF profile down to f/1.4. So called FF often gives unmanageable DOF at less than F/2.

Tedolph

@NowHearThis: "for this example FF: 300mm, F4 ISO100, 1/2000 and for M43: 150mm, F4, ISO100, 1/2000. With these lenses and settings the correctly exposed photos will have the same brightness. This is the EQUIVALENCE most care about"—but it isn't even equivalence, it's equality. Equality of the most trivial sort. There is no such thing as "exposure equivalence" because exposure simply doesn't change across formats. Also, brightness never is just the result of just exposure—it always has been the result of exposure plus sensitivity.

All else that counts for an image changes across formats, therefore we need equivalence. And the relevant fact that defines equivalence between MFT and FF in the case at hand is that a FF camera with 300mm f/8 can do anything a MFT camera can do with 150mm f/4. Nothing else matters.

And everyone except the last few MFT-advocate reality benders who insist on continuing to give the MFT community a bad name knows that.

Case closed, and EOD for me here.

@Hubertus

And what you can't accept is that most of us who had 300mm F5.6 full frame lenses stopped them down to f/8 anyway whenever we could.

Get it now?

Tedolph

@tedolf: "most of us who had 300mm F5.6 full frame lenses stopped them down to f/8 anyway whenever we could"—which, even if it was true, is completely irrelevant with regard to equivalence and the fact that at f/8 it can still do everything a 150mm f/4 MFT lens can do.

Also, speak for yourself, not for "most of us". I bought my first 300mm lens which was f/5.6 in the early 1980s and rarely used it at anything but f/5.6; I kept wishing it was f/4 or faster.

@Hubertus

Please show us one of your 300mm shots from your F5.6 lens shot wide open.

Tedolph

@Hubertus Wow where to begin....
» {"@NowHearThis: "for this example FF: 300mm, F4 ISO100, 1/2000 and for M43: 150mm, F4, ISO100, 1/2000. With these lenses and settings the correctly exposed photos will have the same brightness. This is the EQUIVALENCE most care about"} —but it isn't even equivalence, it's equality.

WRONG, the equivalence part we've all been talking about and what started this is 150mm on MFT is EQUIVALENT to 300mm on FF.  Then some moron incorrectly called it a F8 lens and it devolved from there.

"There is no such thing as "exposure equivalence" because exposure simply doesn't change across formats."

First, your argued against things like the Sunny-16 rule. Then you had to backtrack and admit you were wrong. Now you claim there’s no exposure equivalence- like it was your own idea.

Cont.
“Also, brightness never is just the result of just exposure—it always has been the result of exposure plus sensitivity.”

That’s exactly what I said a dozen times, the EXPOSURE TRIANGLE has Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO. Every example I’ve mentioned talked about ALL 3.

“All else that counts for an image changes across formats, therefore we need equivalence.”

Equivalence is great to understand a few concepts. But cannot, and will not help even 1 person take a better photo. Understanding lighting, composition, exposure, camera setting, and practice practice practice will make someone a better photographer.

@jer81

I haven't finished my popped corn yet!

Lots of manufacturers do this:

The Pentax 28-70mm f/4 would close down it's aperture as you zoomed to the wide end, so it maybe could have been an f/2.8-4 or f/3.5-4, and they may have just chosen to make it constant aperture for marketing reasons, or it may have been because the image quality sucked if it was shot wider than f/4.

There are some Canon zooms that have a complete second set of aperture blades behind the first which close down at the wide end, and open up at the long end. Same story there.

Olympus just does this electronically with some lenses. Sure, if you focus and then partially dismount the lens, you can get some of them to shoot at a slightly wider aperture, but you may not have the best image quality, and you lose the ability to adjust focus, you lose IBIS effectiveness (you'd have to manually set it to whatever focal length the zoom is set at,) and you lose EXIF data. Is it really worth it?

I can't imagine anyone really shooting like this. I think it's just an experiment to prove a point that the lens is actually a little faster than where they rate it.