Sadly this is how all camera reviews were back on 2010 when I started watching Chris & Jordan: good pacing, good comic relief, PG language or censoring and typically worth watching. Nowadays this is rare 😒
Was writing a comment while watching the video and Chris hit the nail on the head at the end. There is a zero percent chance I would pay a $1,000 premium on the lens when you compare it to the cost on other mounts. If the rumors are true and an R7 with a stacked sensor is launching sooner rather than later then the combo of it with a 200-800 would be a hell of a lot more attractive.
In optics costs are closely related to manufacturing precission.With a high pixel density 4/3s sensor, you need more precission, so that the lens performs near its theoretical design values. That automatically increases costs. Compare it to a 300-1200 mm full frame lens. ;)
@@Daniel-o1l2e They also changed the glass (more ED elements and similar...) But people are not interested in facts. The marketing desaster is done, no way to correct it now.
Here we goooooooo! Having watched - completely agree. A nice lens, sure, but it seems to fall short on most of the positive benefits of m43 - size, cost and aperture. It has reach in abundance - but the value of that reach is inherently diminished if you're having to stop down to get good sharpness, and raising the ISO to compensate. AI denoising can get you so far, but it can't really restore lost detail. A sunny day lens for sure. Great video Chris and Jordan. Here's hoping for a true m43 designed bright mid tele, as is on the roadmap. Panasonic could even surprise us with a PanaLeica 100-300 f/4 😂
i mean... there really is no comparison out there... the 1200mm lenses for fullframe cost about 10x as much and are twice as heavy or more... with similar apertures... it's not a 150-600mm but a 300-1200mm which is more than just high end on Canon and Nikon and doesn't even exist on E Mount, L Mount or X Mount... for the price of a mid range zoom lens, sure it's weird that it's almost 2x as expensive as the same lens on L and E Mount... but 1200mm reach... that is something you can buy a decent car for usually
@@LoFiAxolotl No, it's a 150-600. The physics of the optics don't change because of the sensor behind it. It's larger and heavier than it needs to be and the difference in quality you're getting between a 61mp Sony camera cropping in vs a 20mp MFT camera is pretty small, because of the optical limits of the lens. Not to mention for the, frankly ridiculous, price premium that Olympus is charging you could get something like a Sony 200-600mm and a 1.4x teleconverter or Nikon 180-600 and 1.4x teleconverter.
@@TechnoBabble both would not have the same reach or aperture with a 1,4x teleconverter, pixel pitch is a huge problem when cropping, the price isn't really different, MFT Pixel crop on a FF body would be x0.25 so even on a 61MP Sony toy it would be less than 20MP with again Pixel Pitch problems... and it would still be more expensive and heavier and in Sonys case worse optical performance... so go ahead play with your Sony toy
@@LoFiAxolotl actually, my APS-C Canon R7 + 800 F11.... or even better, the new 200-800 gives 1280mm equivalent, and works very well also. Not saying the OM + 150-600 is not "as good". They are provably both great :) Very comparable.
@@LoFiAxolotl I'd suggest not being a brand fanboy and actually learning about this stuff rather than believing all of the nonsense marketing from companies that just want to sell you cameras and lenses. You clearly do not understand how smaller sensors effect the image if you think an MFT sensor on the same lens has a different aperture or how the sensor itself is effecting the image quality, a 600mm f/5.6 on MFT and a 1200mm f/11 on FF produce about the same level of overall noise. Let's start with cropping, a 61mp full frame sensor with a 600mm lens cropped into a 1200mm equivalent field of view will be ~15.25mp with the same amount of overall noise as a modern MFT sensor. 15mp vs 20mp in the most extreme scenario but massively more detail in all other use cases. Not only that, but a Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600 with a 1.4x teleconverter is still sharper than the Sigma 150-600 DG DN. So using a TC to allow for cropping in without having the slight resolution disadvantage would end up with the full frame system producing more detail.
I rented this lens to use with my Panasonic G9 M2 and it definitely took the joy out of my MFT experience. I found that my shoulder got sore from trying to keep it steady at 600mm and would want at least a monopod if I was going out for a couple of hours. I didn't love the pictures enough to spend $2,700 for it. I had an overlapping rental for the Panasonic Leica 200mm and loved it. Even with a teleconveter on a dark day I really liked my images so I bought the 200mm copy I rented. Sure, the reach isn't there but I'm fortunate enough to have other camera combos that scratch that itch, including the Panasonic 100-400mm M2.
Thomas Stirr wrote basically a rave review of this lens with an E-M1X. He can take wonderful photos with any lens, though. I'm not crazy about OM Systems' strategy with this lens, though.
Breaks my heart. Olympus was so good in terms of their research and development for photography and lens tech, that this move seems to cheapen the entire OM brand. Thanks for confirming what I thought that I was seeing when OM announced this lens.
I got the 100-300mm and I find its more then adequate for my long reach needs. Its small and easy to carry with me as an extra lens at times and when in use, its easy to use. I have a FF lens and rarely use it because its large and clunky. All that extra size to get an extra 2x reach does not make sense for when/where I use it. Even with my 100-300, I often find myself not needing the full zoom and could always back up a bit wider. The standard 70-200mm is quite adequate for most things. Except for wild life shooting. And then I can see how this new lens could be a treat for those doing that.
Great review. I love to use full-frame lenses on smaller sensor bodies for wildlife and especially small birds. Like my RF 100-500 on my APS-C R7 body for example. I don't mind the extra weight required for full-frame glass. I'm just glad I can use that full-frame lens on my APS-C body because they don't make an APS-C version. So none of that bothers me on this Sigma full-frame to OM system micro 4/3 port. It's the price difference that kills it for me. I could understand a $200 bump but more than that is unreasonable. For that price, it would be much better to buy the sigma E version and use it on a Sony a6700.
@@funnybeingme exactly, and it'd be worth showing how much of an issue the lack of Dual IS is. I shoot Panasonic, would theoretically like some OM teles, but the lack of Dual IS does put me off somewhat.
I disagree with the claim at 3:40 that an M43-optimized equivalent could be either smaller or offer more speed for the same size. The effect of coverage (m43 vs FF, etc) on lens size becomes insignificant at long focal lengths. Taking this lens as an example, 600 mm f/6.3 requires an input pupil diameter of 95 mm, so that alone accounts for the _entire_ diameter of this lena. Reducing the FoV won't allow you to make it any smaller. I doubt that reducing the FoV would allow you to make it any shorter, either, since the optical complexity is mostly driven by the zoom ratio and the need to counter axial chromatic aberration.
@@TITAOSTEIN What I didn't say (because Chris didn't bring it up) is that optimizing for m43 might have allowed them to improve quality a little. Presumably Sigma optimized the formula for quality across the entire FF image circle, which would entail some compromises in the center to ensure adequate corner quality. If you reoptimize the lens for m43 you _might_ eke out some more quality within that smaller image circle.
The biggest savings are in girth. M43 lenses tend to have smaller diameter than their FF counterparts - the 150-400 f/4.5 is a good example. Length is not the only thing that counts, girth matters too, when you're stuffing your junk (into a bag).
Would it be correct to say that the front diameter would have to stay the same (for the same f-stop rating) but the girth could be narrower along the length of the lens?
Even if a super-telephoto lens is made specifically for Micro Four Thirds, it will hardly become smaller or lighter. The more telephoto, the larger the image circle. The 300/2.8 from the Four Thirds era was heavier than any full-size version.
indeed there's the limitation of focal length and aperture size that influences the opening. Hard to work around that. What they could have done is something like what can be seen in the oly 100-400 (a similar sigma re-design) and panaleica 100-400 - where the latter one is noticeably smaller and lighter, via design choices, while offering even wider aperture. If olympus came up w a ground-up design, hypothetically they could have shrunk it a bit with smarter/more expensive choices, compared to a 1.5k sigma.
Yes, just more ignorant internet propaganda. I overlaid this lens with the 150-400mm - which was designed for MFT, and they are almost identical. The new lens is slightly wider due to the need to house the extending zoom in it's retracted position and only the last couple inches of the lens could have been made narrower due to the smaller image circle of MFT. So, it would have been maybe 100 grams or so lighter and no shorter if designed for MFT.
So, I love how you guys compare lots of cameras and lenses. My question though, for all around hiking/landscape, outdoors/nature what system would you prefer to use and why? Micro 4/3’s or FF? And would image quality out of either differ?
I use m4/3 Olympus. Used to have FF Nikon. Switched to m4/3 - Much lighter - Smaller lenses - Much better ergo on camera body - Image quality difference not substantial - Prefer deeper DOF - Option for fun and unique lenses: noktons, 1.2s, much cheaper super-tele, nice macros I do miss Tilt-Shift on FF.
Yes - there is a reason Olympus got rid of it. But honestly, all this is more of a marketing problem. The budget contrains you have you cannot change as a company, but their marketing here was a desaster. They should have admitted the obvious and focus on the improvements. E.g. this lens is NOT a pure rebadge. Lots more special glas (still disappointing, but just not what now everyone on the internet says and believes). Same with the OM 1 mk ii: They HAD TO get rid of the Olympus name b/c of legal reasons, so they made a "new" camera after half the normal cycle time (!), an incredible short amount of time, compared to old Olympus cycle times. This is also something that nobody seems to understand. So, basically a marketing fail. Tell the people what you did, and why, and focus on all the good (there is still a lot). Instead, they decided to play dumb.
@@unn4medfeel1ng Yes! As I said, it's mostly a marketing desaster. They could - and should - have handled all of it (incl. the lens) quite differently.
Get out while you can, grab a Fuji or something that still gives you small bodies along with lenses that are actually optimised to perform the best with the sensor sizes they're built for. Also, a company that is still inovating and developing new tech each generation (unlike OM).
@@willherondale6367 You mean like the new in-camera graduated filters in the OM-1 Mark II? Or all the other features in the Om-1 and other OM cameras that Fuji doesn't even come close to?
@donk8292 Ohh you're 100% right... a minor iteration of an Olympus technology, some newly-rubberised buttons, and an updated af that barely brings it up to modern standards is definitely a huge upgrade worth dropping another 2.2k on. I'd really love to know what these 'loads of other new features' are that OM developed and that weren't just Olympus technologies carried over.
@@willherondale6367there are multiple videos that have compared the OM-1 to the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1…. So with all respect, what in the world are you even taking about?
No, it could not have been smaller if specifically designed for micro four thirds. 600mm at f6.3 literally means that the diameter must be at least 95mm, regardless of sensor format. The only size savings that designing for micro four thirds would have yielded is in the elements at the back of the lens that control the projection of the image onto the sensor, but those elements are a small percentage of the overall design already, so there's not much to be gained there. The "compactness" comes from comparing it to what the size of a 1200mm f6.3 would have to be.
Front element has to be that size, but rest of the barrel could be slightly smaller. Not much but some amount. Look at Panasonic Leica 100-400 vs Olympus 100-400, same aperture and focal length, but PL is smaller.
@@pawelbrzozowski3899 F-stop is the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the diameter of a lens, so 600mm/6.3=95mm (plus a smidge). Other examples: If you want an f1.0 lens that's 95mm in diameter, the longest lens you can make is 95mm. If you want a 300 mm f2 lens, the diameter must be 150mm. When you stop down a lens, you're simply using the iris to constrict the effective diameter of the lens. So this ratio sets the maximum amount of light that can get through a lens, and the size of the sensor on the other end of the lens is irrelevant.
@@heikkivalkonen1075 Yeah, agreed. But the difference is marginal and becomes less as focal lengths increase because the front of the lens dominates the design more and more.
Chris, here's some really exciting news! I'm shooting the prototype to the stripped down to basics G9ii (PDAF, 24fps) packaged with a 24-600mm ( f2.4-4) zoom lens. The kit weighs just 2 pounds and, get ready for this, is available (camera & lens) for the ridiculous price of $1,600 US. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the GII, but the 7 year old Sony RX10iv does the job without breaking the bank or your back! 😊
Have om made anything spectacular since they took over ? Besides cameras and lenses Olympus already was working on . Serious question haven’t followed them at all
I purchased the 100-400 f/5.0-6.3 and it is a really is a nice lens. Unfortunately, it's a bit heavier and bulkier than I feel it should be for m43rds given its focal length range and f-stop range. Now, here's where the problem lies for me, my old OM-D E-M1 Mk I is getting pretty old in the teeth. I've been thinking about upgrading to the OM-1 Mk II, in fact that camera is really compelling, but my reason's for sticking with M43rds have always revolved around just how much I like the whole system. I currently have a number of pro lenses, but like the body, they are beginning to get really old and well used. How much longer are all these parts going to last when I've literally worn the paint of some of it? So, while I've absolutely got my money's worth out of everything I own, and then some, do I want to stick with a system when the manufacturer is opting to use repurposed full-frame lenses for some of their important offerings? The answer seems to be more and more, "no." While I don't own the 150-600mm lens featured in this revue, if I was going to purchase it and pay the size/weight penalty, I may as well match it to the sensor size that it was designed for. I am left wondering if this is the first time that a good lens drives a customer to a different brand? Lens choice and value are extremely important to me when selecting an INTERCHANGEABLE LENS camera system. I wonder why? Olympus seemed to understand that, but I'm not sure OM Systems does. This new lens is a wonderful option to have but I feel that it really needed to be developed from the ground up with micro four-thirds in mind--it needed to be the sort of elegant solution that the 12-40mm f/2,8, 40-150mm f/2.8, and 300mm f/4.0 already are and I don't think it is. So now that I'm on the verge of needing to replace much of my system anyway, the question probably becomes, Sony or Nikon?
My impression was that telephoto lens size is more related to the focal length rather than the image circle size - so maybe a bespoke lens for m43 wouldn’t be that much smaller? Whereas you’d see a big difference with a m43 wide angle
Must be the most controversial release of the year. I would love some engineer to confirm or deny that it could be significantly smaller or faster. I had a lengthy discussion about this on the DPR forums and the general consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be all that much different. And also how does this compares to a high-MPx FF camera with a 50% crop...?
It certainly can't be made faster without making it larger. The _entire_ 95 mm filter thread is accounted for by the 600/6.3 = 95 mm input pupil diameter. It's simply impossible to make a faster 600 mm lens for any format without bumping to a larger diameter. In general the impact of field-of-view (and therefore sensor format) on lens design becomes much less significant as you go longer. The more reasonable question to ask is whether the lens could have been made sharper within the m43 FoV if it had been optimized for only that portion of the image. In other words, could OM (or Sigma) make it sharper in the center by sacrificing quality in the parts of the coverage circle that are outside of m43.
It can't be much smaller, if you design it for a 4/3s sensor. The small 4/3s pixel also need the lens to perform closer to the theoretical limit than large full frame pixel. That higher manufacturing precission increases manufacturing cost a lot.
If you compare it to the 150-400, which was designed for MFT, you will see that the lens could only be narrowre in the last 2 or 3 inches due to the smaller image circle needed. The focal length and the 95mm lens opening determine the basic size and weight.
Have you tried to put it in front of a full frame camera to see it's image circle out of curiosity? My take is that it covers full frame or maybe a little less depending on the design of the rear mount attachment. Judging by the bokeh shape it seems about right
You mean almost half the price? 1400+1500 vs 2400+2600 € , at least in my country... that is 2900 vs 5000, 2100 € difference you can get Sony 16-55 f2.8G and 11mm f1.8G with money to spare... and it's not like Sony AF is bad... 11fps might be slightly disappointing for SOME people though.
Nice overview Chris. I own the Nikon F-Mount Sigma 150-600mm C lens and got it for £849 brand new several years ago with the 1.4x tc. I would not pay that premium price now for what is effectively the same lens re-badged.
Have you try it on the G9 II, should I look for this or am I better with the 100-400 from Lumix with all the compatibility advantage in MFT, I'm new in this system and kind of lost 😅 Hope you never reed this comment ;)
You can find incredible deals on the 200mm f2.8 with the 1.4 tele converter. It is very comparable to the olympus 300mm f4 and can often be found for half the price of the Olympus in good condition. The 100-400 is certainly great as well, though I'd personally always go for the prime.
Thanks for the advice, already own the 200mm, it literally replaced my EF 500mm f4 L I had before I switch to m43! I'm now looking for more reach and this one look nice, I'm just scared of the mix&match!
@@birdnerdqc4028 I would love to see a direct comparison between the 100-400 at 400mm compared to the 200mm with the 1.4 TC cropped to 400mm. I have a feeling with the 24mp of the G9II this could be a close call. The 200mm f2.8 is an unreal sharp lens. It also plays very well with the Camera Raw/Lightroom "Enhance" feature, and you can get more reach that way.
@@IsawUupThere I was able to try both before I bought the 200mm and when I looked to my shot, I was satisfied on a 4k monitor to looked at them at 100% with the 200mm when I felt like the 100-400mm I needed to go down 50% to get the same sharpness, don't know if it was a bad copy or not, both were second hand. Plus you get more than double the light even with the TC. It was an easy choice. Maybe I will rent the second version of the 100-400 to see if there is some upgrade other than the smoothness of the zoom.
I used to use the Sigma 150-600mm with a Meabones adapter. While it was soft at 600mm, the main problem was trying to use the setup in the wind. Anything more than a stiff breeze became frustrating as the lens hood acted like a sail and made keeping the subject in the frame really hard.
The cost difference is crazy, for $1200 you can get a high-res fullframe camera instead of the OM-1 and just crop in if you need the reach. Yes, you'd get a 15mp image instead of 20, but I'd argue it doesn't make much difference in a real world.
You probably don't get a 15Mp image. At least, in terms of picture size you may, but actual resolution (i.e. line pairs per millimeter, or line width per picture height) will be compromised. In that regard you'll often get more out of the MFT camera and you can upscale the image in Lightroom or Topaz, etc. if you need to print larger with the same results. One common myth is that a cropped sensor camera is directly equal to the same crop of a larger sensor, but this ignores the resolving ability of the lens and diffraction limits. If you're shooting wide apertures you'll get more resolution out of a larger frame sensor, but once you start to stop down the advantage of larger sensors for resolution diminishes.
my first mirrorless camera was the 45mp, Canon R5. It was a fantastic camera, but even with an 800mm F11, I rarely had enough reach. Therefor I was, as you suggested, cropping a LOT, most of the time. A friend suggested I try to APS-C Canon R7, for the additional reach. So I rented it. Freaking killed it. Purchased it the day I returned the rental. Then my FF R5 just sat on my dresser. Finally I sold my R5 and bought a second R7 as my backup. That was more than a year ago, and I've never looked back. BTW, after 200K shots with my 1280mm combo, this doesn't feel "crazy long" to me, but rather, normal :)
@@robertmills4591 Just... no. You're talking about optical differences as if this isn't literally just an adapted full frame lens. You can literally put the same optics on a full frame 61mp camera and crop into the same framing for a 15.25mp image. Everything but the resolution will be nearly identical.
I always appreciate your reviews. You and Jordan give honest feedback and are so unlike the shills who are motivated to hype a given product or brand. In this case I too am disappointed with the weight and cost of the lens. That said, my current setup of a 300 mm prime with the 1.4x teleconverter has reached its limits. Great results but just too little flexibility to zoom out when needed, resulting in missed shots. And sometimes the subject is too far away to get a quality image. Being that I’m not willing to change ecosystems, I can whine about all of this but whining doesn’t get me better shots. It seems my choice is this lens or the 150-400 mm pro lens for almost 3 times the price. I know the pro lens is about a half pound lighter and about a stop faster. But I’d only go from 420 to 500 mm on the far end. Not like the 600 mm with this lens. I know this wasn’t a comparison review but you have reviewed the pro lens and (I think) the 300 mm prime and teleconverter. Based on your experience, do you see enough optical differences between these set-ups to make that a factor in my decision? Or would I be happy enough with the 150-600? With that price difference I could buy another body and a “real” macro lens and still have money left over for a cup of coffee….
@@robertmills4591 Yes you´re right, you don´t get 15 Mpix - But yoy´ll get 17,5 Mpix @ 1280 mm (FFeqv) with a R5 + 200-800 in crop mode!!! And the difference in costs is way less than 1200$ more. The difference in customisation and performance of AF is huge.The OM-combo is very over priced.
I don't know. It seems like a good lens but charging $2700 when it's almost half that on other systems along with full frame weight instead of micro 4/3. What's the point?
I agree ! My reason to go to m4/3 would be to reduce size and weight. Quite a lot of the bodies are quite large and yes when I picked up this lens I thought why would I swop to something the size of my sigma 150-600 from DSLR days! The sales person was pushing the extra reach, but I could just crop in with full frame and get the same….. Currently very happy with my Sony 300mm 😊
Tbey should have taken advantage of the FF optics inside and included a built in .71x speed booster. Having the option to click over to a ~ 200-850 f/3.5-4.5 surely would have been a killer feature
It is a bit unfortunate that they didn’t make a specific MFT lens. But with this; they presumably save a lot of money in development (although it doesn’t seem as if they’ve fully passed that onto customers which isn’t cool). And you still have insane reach for a pretty small size compared to full frame. So I get why they do it this way. And I have the 100-400 myself, which I love.
The Olympus 100-400mm is also a Sigma lens made in the same Sigma factory in Aizu ;) For that field of view with those apertures though, the size saving is so minuscule, you'd barely notice. The front element diameter would need to be over 95mm which is only a few mm smaller than this lens. A non-retractable zoom would be smaller, but it then might end up being heavier. Small focal lengths are easy to keep tiny for MFT, but once you're getting to these longer focal lengths it's negligible.
@@robertmills4591 I brought the 100-400 up because it’s also Sigma made obviously. Have you actually used it? Have you felt how easy it is to carry around for hours and use handheld? Have you seen the results with the depth of field offered? Because I have. And I like it a lot. I would say it’s the ultimate hobbyist wildlife lens. Even more so than this 150-600 because the size, weight, and price are all more suitable. While also still having very good 800mm equivalent reach.
@@christill not only have I used it, I own one and use it almost every weekend. I wasn't making a criticism, just an observation that is often over looked.
I'm happy to see some FF lens designs coming to M43. Obviously lots of people go with M43 for compactness, but there's also a benefit to be had in bringing over large telephotos or bright primes and there's no reason why they can't both exist on the same platform. It would be nice to see some updates to some of the older compact designs as well though.
Can you elaborate on that? Full frame lenses on a mft camera? It's rather obvious that it's much better to have 600mm micro 4/3 lens rather than 600mm full frame. Or am I missing something?
I have no problems with a full frame lens on mft if it is doing the job! So the Sigma in OMSystem housing is a good idea. The only thing for me is the price. Over 1000$ more only for the SyncIS is a lot of money and a deal breaker for me!
I can get the Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T CINE Speed Booster XL 0.64x, put on my Pen E-PL7, and use my Canon mount sigma 150-600mm with an aperture multiplier of 0.64 so a faster lens is clearly possible. I think it's something nice to have, though. Incredible reach for reasonable money. What is your better choice for the latest OM System's camera that doesn't cost thousands more?
Believe it or not, the flange distance for E mount is less than Micro Four Thirds. So, you can adapt Micro Four Thirds lenses to E mount but not the other way around.
Will be interesting to see a direct comparison with the 150-400 f4.5 Pro with the TC engaged and see how much of a difference shooting at the same distance 😅
One thing that seems to be either minimized or ignored completely in all the discussions of FF/A-PSC equivalent camera/lens combos is the fact that this lens does offer 'Synch IS' up to 7 stops -- I'm not aware of any other 1200mm FOV set up that would be close to that. There is a video clip on the OM System website that shows this lens on the OM-1 Mkll and the MC-20 TC (2400mm equivalent FOV), hand held -- with and without IS on and it is a very impressive difference.
@@AoyagiAichou Well that's a bit of a problem then, since the lens in question here is a 300mm FOV at the widest setting. But even if that is where OM is getting 7 stops of 5 axis IS, I doubt it is matched by any non-m4/3's system.
@@gregm6894 OM always overblows marketing claims so I wouldn't take those ibis ratings for granted, the OM-1 was touted as 2-stop better sensor performance (when in fact it just had better jpeg noise reduction), and then these claims about this lens as if it was a pinnacle of telephotos instead of an older sigma rebadge: "a spectacular showcase of lens engineering that combines optical innovations into one small package. Featuring an array of Super ED, ED, HD, and HR elements, it can deliver a tremendous amount of detail, ensuring the highest quality in super telephoto shooting." "the ultimate partner for wildlife and bird photography enthusiasts on the go." "After shooting two months with the new flagship, there is no going back.” They market it as if it were the 150-400
I think it would probably be a pretty nice combo for the stuff I do. Mostly small birds. But I think I'd lean towards the R7 + 200-800, which gives a 320-1280mm equivalent. Nowadays, when it comes to sharpness, basically ALL of the new long lenses for modern mirrorless cameras are plenty sharp, especially when the images are sized down to 3 to 5 mp for typical digital viewing. I currently shoot with the "slow" 800 F11, on my R7, and I'm super happy with the image quality, (my work can be seen at the link in my channel). Waiting on the 200-800 to be "in stock" and refurbished for a few hundred dollars off, but killing it with my 800 F11 while I wait :) Huge, heavy, very fast, and super expensive lenses are becoming less and less important as time goes on. Which I'm sure is a tough pill to swallow, for folks who have spent $12K or more on a Big White or other "Pro" lens in the past.
Love your reviews! BUT you forgot to mention that that "white beauty" is almost three times the cost of this rebranded sigma. ;) You could have also mentioned the more likely comparisons to it's closer rival, the m.zuiko 100-400 w/wo TCs.
sticking to my 300 F4 Pro, with the 2x TC I also get 1200mm, next to that that, just bought the Leica 100-400 II - that is realy lightweight and compact works great both on my G9 II and OM1 - used to carry around a Nikon Z7II with the 150-600 - never go back to that situation
the 300 f4 and the 100-400 (Both Pana Leica and Olympus) are great.... but the 300 f4 alone costs the same and the 100-400 way more than the 150-600... i don't think it's meant for professionals... it's not priced for professionals... but 2700$ for a 1200mm lens... on fullframe you pay about 10x as much... and if you're a photographer shooting for a small hobby club or you just want to go birding on a budget... for under $4000 you can get the camera and lens for it... that makes MFT in that niche incredibly attractive right now
@@LoFiAxolotlbut I saw Canon Eos r7 with rf 200 - 800mm which makes reach around 1200mm and cost 4000 in total. I have hard times to choose between this and OM1 ..
@@esterix101 go to a store hold each camera and see which you like better.... both cameras are more than capable PERSONALLY i would go with the Olympus because the M43 Mount is open and has options while on the RF Mount you're stuck with Canon only lenses and they're still quite limited if you want to shoot with anything other than the 200-800mm
to me the om system 150-400 pro is where m43 shines. telephoto wildlife is what m43 should focus on. that and extram light weight, fixed lens cameras for hiking/street.
Also note that MFT and OM in particular is the king of outdoor macro (bugs, flowers, etc). No one else even comes close in this space. The OM 90mm Macro was a HUGE factor in making it the system of choice, along with its great focus stacking capabilities.
Nice day out. However it’s not the same lens as the old Sigma, but hey, who would want to get in the way of a good story. I’m looking forward to trading stuff in I don’t use to offset the cost.
How could it gather more light at the same size, if designed for MFT? You need a 95mm front element in order to get f6.3 at 600mm, no matter how you spin it; changing the mount doesn't change physics. Maybe it could have been made a little smaller towards the mount, if it didn't need to cover a FF size sensor, but those are already the smallest & lightest elements in the lens anyway.
@@eidrag there is no EF version of this lens. This is based on the new Sigma design for mirrorless, that's different from the older EF/F lens. Also never use a lens adapted cross-system, if oyu ever want to shoot anything that moves. If all you do is birds on perches, it may work ok...
My biggest gripe is opportunity cost. There are decent to great wildlife options that already exist on m43 at a variety of price points. This effort took resources away from something that might have better served the m43 community like firmware updates to existing OM cameras. I was looking at switching from Fuji to m43 and went with G9ii (still keeping Nikon Zf for my full frame/low light fun). It just seems like Panasonic has a more focused strategy that makes sense. I might get am OM down the line as a 2nd body if I see them support their loyal customers who took a chance with them, but this is a strange use of their limited resources when they should have anticipated the beating they are taking over the OM-1 m2.
Panasonic bodies might complete with OM on paper, but in real life, the OM has so many nuanced and subtle features that make it so much better for stills. I would never go back to Panasonic.
For all that extra money, couldn't they fit a speed booster in it to use all that extra light from the full image circle? Why are the markings still 100-600, when the mount is for a smaller sensor, and thus the light path/circle in use all equates to double the focal length to the markings? Unanswered questions, maybe for your podcast?
Great review. Seems like a great lens for the money. I'd pay extra for an internal zoom on that lens. Wish they'd update the 100-400 to be internal zoom as well. Thanks.
For around the same price, the 300mm F4 has absolutely stunning resolution. Even with the 1.4x and 2x TC, the images are way way better the cropping based on my extensive testing. Not as versatile but extremely good.
I like the quite balanced review, but also great points made in the comments, about much more investment that needed to go into this lens... and from other sources I also know that this lens is still the brightest relatively light lens... I do miss a new 100-400mm that would be cheaper and lighter though. It could be darker, like Canon did with theirs RF100-400mm lens, but an ability to put it on a $600 EM1.2 would be great. Currently using a $300 75-300mm lens and an upgrade to M.Zuiko 100-400 mm (also a reengeneered Sigma btw) would be at least $1000 at used prices. Canon has a cheaper proposition with the lens, but R7 is very much undercooked and still oberpriced (small buffer, bad pre-capture compared to ProCap in an 8-year-old EM). I wonder if M.Zuiko (or Panasonic) will ever care about cheaper and lighter stuff with all the hype going into serious wildlife territory...
You say "reach" a lot, but that's only in comparison to a 20MP FF sensor, what you always get is the restricted Field of View of a 2x longer lens for finding/following things. I shoot 20MP m43 and 50MP FF and sometimes with the same lenses. You only get a little more detail at the same actual focal length with m43 (back with 16MP m43 it was a wash). BTW on weight - the OMDS 150-400 you mentioned as "light" is 1,875g which is just slightly heavier than a full-frame Canon EF 100-400 II (1590g) and a 1.4x III (225g), or very slightly heavier if you add a Metabones EF-m43 Smart Adapter (144g), although the Canon combo is a fraction of the price. So not light as such. The native lens will AF quite a bit better tho.
How good AF performance and compatibility you get? Do you have the Pro-Capture, Stacking etc features as well? Is the Fn button functional? You don't get Sync-IS. And your quality for MC14 and MC20 can be compromised. Of course your lens doesn't look as good either. But... That is about taste. But easier to sell to some other system users version you adapt, but not for m4/3 users.
Living and working the arctic and antarctica during the midnightsun this lens looks very promising for Polar Bears and other far off wildlife. But i have a Lumix G9 mII, what would be the downside of using this lens on a Lumix body? I read somewhere that when using a olympus lens on lumix body, only the lens stabilization will work. Is this true?
Yes, that is true - you'd be relying on lens IS only with OM lenses on a Pana body. I'm not sure would happen, but I would like to see a competitive m43 telezoom from Panasonic. A 100-300 f/4, perhaps?
You have failed to speak to OMD where you would have been told the internal elements have been re-jigged to focus all the light onto the smaller sensor... Hence the increase in price
This lens speaks volumes as to the future of OM Systems. They chose to have Sigma adapt the full frame 150-600 design to m4/3 mount and integrated their IS protocol to offer an oversized lens and overweight lens not specifically designed for m4/3 but merely adapted. No innovation from OM System from purchase of Olympus has been seen or implemented yet. The FF & app-C cameras are seeing tons of innovation and reduction of weight negating allot of the benefits m4/3 initially offered. I truly hope Panasonic makes a longer than 400mm lens designed for m4/3 sports and wildlife shooters as this lens penalizes the purchaser with a high price point as well as size and heft. Without innovation m4/3 will eventually die. Great review by Chris as usual- he and Jordan are my favorite RUclipsrs!
The lens could not have been shorter and could have been maybe 100 grams lighter if designed for MFT. The 95mm diameter of the lens opening and the focal length are the determining factors. The smaller image circle of MFT only effects the final lens groups, so that is the only place where size and weight savings could have occurred. Overlay this lens with the 150-400 designed for MFT) and you will see.
I don't know that this is much bigger, heavier, or darker than it had to be. If you look at the recent Fuji 150-600, that's a little lighter than this, but not any smaller, and it's actually a tad darker. Something like the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 is close the same size and weight as the Fuji 50-140 f/2.8, being only slightly lighter and smaller. The Nikkor Z 100-400 sits right between the darker Oly 100-400 and brighter Oly 150-400 in terms of size. With these pro-level telephoto zooms, the size, weight, and aperture differences are pretty marginal for lenses with the same actual focal lengths. M43 still often makes a tonne of sense, since the bodies are smaller, the sensor read-out is really quick, and the pixel pitch of the sensor means much higher resolution in the area covered by the m43 sensor. As such, rebadging a Sigma, getting very good corner performance, and saving significantly in R&D doesn't seem that problematic. The $1100 markup feels *ridiculously* high, tho. A 70% increase in price is absurd. If this lens was, say, $1900, folks wouldn't be complaining about the markup.
I don't get why they never released an old full frame lens design with a perfectly matched speedbooster hidden inside to get better low light performance in a telephoto.. I think that's the only way I could justify full frame lens size on m43. That price is also outrageous for that lens... and I thought L mount was expensive haha.
What were OM thinking? 😂. Crazy that such a big heavy lens for M43s was released, then finding it’s a Sigma with a very inflated price adds insult to injury. 🧐
Interesting all the folks saying this is basically the old 150-600 with a new mount. Okay, so I guess I have actually had this lens then :) Optically, it was fantastic. It just didn't like to play well (lots of focus pulsing) on my Canon mirrorless bodies. But on the 1 out of 10 or 20 shots when the focus actually hit, it was fantastic :)
@@robertmills4591 okay. But regardless of the mount, many folks seem to believe it is the same lens as the old Sigma 150-600, which again, if it's true, would mean it's a really nice lens, optically speaking anyway.
@@Chris_Wolfgram Yup. And the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN Sports is even better! The only grip I have with it is the price tag, but you can't geet this reach with these apertures and this stabilisation with any other combination - so an argument could be made that the price is justified.
I don't think that it would be significantly smaller if designed for mFT. The image circle is naturally pretty large for long lenses, so not much to be gained in terms of size making it smaller.
That isn't how equivalence works. f/5-f/6.3 is the same irrespective of the sensor it's projected on. The only different is depth of field, and you're not going to see any difference at these focal lengths.
@@robertmills4591 Correct, the lens is physically a 150-600 f/5-6.3. If you want to talk about equivalence to full frame then it's equivalent to a 300-1200 f/10-13. You don't get to cherry pick one part, that's how the physics works.
@@RzaNaziri No it isn't. The sensor has no impact on the lens' ability to gather light. The same amount of light is gathered, and the same amount is distributed over the same area of sensor. This is unaffected. All things being the same, if you have two cameras with different sensor sizes, the smaller sensor doesn't create a dimmer image.
I used the Sigma Canon mount for many years - optically a very sharp lens wide open, even at 600mm. I shot birds handheld all the time, and I'm a short woman. I would not pay the extra for a m43 mount however. If it was the regular price of the sigma, maybe a few more dollars,, ok.
If this is the direction OM System is gonna take their system (no pun intended), this is truly unfortunate. For the price difference between this lens and the E mount version, you could literally buy at least an APS-C or a used full frame camera to go with it and get more light and a more balanced kit.
M43 is supposed to be a compact system yet my ff s5 has the same body dimensions as the g9ii. I don't get it. Leica is having the most profitable year last year and then there are these releases where the number of customers who will actually go out and purchase this will be less than the people who go out and buy a leica m11 p or even m11d if they release one. All I want is the Pen F ii with brass plates/dials and black paint and a set of lenses that go with it.
olympus om1 om5.. panasonic g.. m43 sensor but full frame body. really dont understand why, just make a m43 body looks vintage like those half frame film cameras
It can be both. Small with a Pen F type body, and bigger with long telephotos where there’s a huge advantage in the lenses being smaller, and the body size is not so important.
They have a small sensor in a larger body in order to pack more features in. For instance, the larger M43 cameras have often had such fantastic image stabilization because they use that larger body real estate to house very powerful IBIS system onto a smaller sensor. That philosophy extends out to everything. But yes, a brand new Pen F with new matching lenses would be great.
The pro bodies are built to fit the hand so they aren't much smaller than a small FF body. But the total system including lenses is still much smaller and lighter (although not with this lens of course!) But if you want a small body there are plenty of those for MFT too - try a Lumix GM series or the Olympus PL series - they will fit in a pocket with a pancake prime attached.
I don’t mind the body sizes since good for my hands. The lens sizes is where I see the benefit. Not including this monstrosity. Walking with my lumix 100-300 is far easier than my Sony 200-600
Listening to several comments on different you tube channels to my opinion you forgot to mention one important factor that this lens is superior to the sigma and that is the sychronized stabilization from camera and lens. I also learned that other brands have the same price difference on non stabilized lenses to stabilized lenses. Judgement seems to me a bit biassed.
What a slap in the face to MFT users... For the frankly insane price premium that they're charging for this you're probably better off selling your MFT gear and buying a used 61mp Sony body and the e-mount version of the Sigma 150-600, it would give similar results when cropped in. Hell, let's say someone was considering between camera systems and didn't have something yet... I probably wouldn't suggest MFT at all at this point, the only benefit I can see for wildlife is faster shooting. For essentially every other type of photography you're losing so much over full frame systems. This kinda just seems like JIP is trying to squeeze as much money out of diehard Olympus fans before the company goes under.
The only two M43 cameras I would buy today are Panasonic G9ii and Blackmagic 4K, but I'd still adapt most of the lenses from Canon instead of buying native glass which are straight up overpriced and stagnant at this point.
I agree with you. It doesn't make any sense to release an APS-C lens for MFT, let alone 35mm such as this one. Olympus had always been very confident about their ZD and MZD lens design and size advantage and I really admired them for that. (Not all of their lenses are original designs though, ZD 70-300 being one of them) It's a whole different story now with OM System, but they seem to be getting a little too comfortable rebadging things. That said, I still use and love MFT for the size and cost/performance advantage as a system. Good examples are Lumix 12-35, 35-100, many Leica Zooms and Primes, MZD 12-40, 40-150, MZD Primes and PRO Primes. I find MFT adequate for my purposes. I just have to know its limit to the core.
I agree. I have and EM 1.2 and I wanted a telephoto lens for birds. The m.zuiko 300 f4 is fantastic but costs CAD 4000. So I picked up a used Sony 200-600 and an A7iv (like new condition) for CAD 4400 all in instead. I still keep my EM 1.2 for macro. Even if the m.zuiko 150-400 was in my budget, I would still prefer the z8+600 f6.3 (cheaper and lighter).
Love the pacing of your reviews. Not a single second is wasted. Well done.
Do you like those cuts from daylight to black?
Sadly this is how all camera reviews were back on 2010 when I started watching Chris & Jordan: good pacing, good comic relief, PG language or censoring and typically worth watching. Nowadays this is rare 😒
Was writing a comment while watching the video and Chris hit the nail on the head at the end. There is a zero percent chance I would pay a $1,000 premium on the lens when you compare it to the cost on other mounts.
If the rumors are true and an R7 with a stacked sensor is launching sooner rather than later then the combo of it with a 200-800 would be a hell of a lot more attractive.
In optics costs are closely related to manufacturing precission.With a high pixel density 4/3s sensor, you need more precission, so that the lens performs near its theoretical design values. That automatically increases costs.
Compare it to a 300-1200 mm full frame lens. ;)
@@Daniel-o1l2e They also changed the glass (more ED elements and similar...) But people are not interested in facts. The marketing desaster is done, no way to correct it now.
That intro broke my brain.
Here we goooooooo!
Having watched - completely agree. A nice lens, sure, but it seems to fall short on most of the positive benefits of m43 - size, cost and aperture. It has reach in abundance - but the value of that reach is inherently diminished if you're having to stop down to get good sharpness, and raising the ISO to compensate. AI denoising can get you so far, but it can't really restore lost detail.
A sunny day lens for sure. Great video Chris and Jordan. Here's hoping for a true m43 designed bright mid tele, as is on the roadmap.
Panasonic could even surprise us with a PanaLeica 100-300 f/4 😂
i mean... there really is no comparison out there... the 1200mm lenses for fullframe cost about 10x as much and are twice as heavy or more... with similar apertures... it's not a 150-600mm but a 300-1200mm which is more than just high end on Canon and Nikon and doesn't even exist on E Mount, L Mount or X Mount... for the price of a mid range zoom lens, sure it's weird that it's almost 2x as expensive as the same lens on L and E Mount... but 1200mm reach... that is something you can buy a decent car for usually
@@LoFiAxolotl No, it's a 150-600. The physics of the optics don't change because of the sensor behind it.
It's larger and heavier than it needs to be and the difference in quality you're getting between a 61mp Sony camera cropping in vs a 20mp MFT camera is pretty small, because of the optical limits of the lens.
Not to mention for the, frankly ridiculous, price premium that Olympus is charging you could get something like a Sony 200-600mm and a 1.4x teleconverter or Nikon 180-600 and 1.4x teleconverter.
@@TechnoBabble both would not have the same reach or aperture with a 1,4x teleconverter, pixel pitch is a huge problem when cropping, the price isn't really different, MFT Pixel crop on a FF body would be x0.25 so even on a 61MP Sony toy it would be less than 20MP with again Pixel Pitch problems... and it would still be more expensive and heavier and in Sonys case worse optical performance... so go ahead play with your Sony toy
@@LoFiAxolotl actually, my APS-C Canon R7 + 800 F11.... or even better, the new 200-800 gives 1280mm equivalent, and works very well also. Not saying the OM + 150-600 is not "as good". They are provably both great :) Very comparable.
@@LoFiAxolotl I'd suggest not being a brand fanboy and actually learning about this stuff rather than believing all of the nonsense marketing from companies that just want to sell you cameras and lenses.
You clearly do not understand how smaller sensors effect the image if you think an MFT sensor on the same lens has a different aperture or how the sensor itself is effecting the image quality, a 600mm f/5.6 on MFT and a 1200mm f/11 on FF produce about the same level of overall noise.
Let's start with cropping, a 61mp full frame sensor with a 600mm lens cropped into a 1200mm equivalent field of view will be ~15.25mp with the same amount of overall noise as a modern MFT sensor. 15mp vs 20mp in the most extreme scenario but massively more detail in all other use cases.
Not only that, but a Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600 with a 1.4x teleconverter is still sharper than the Sigma 150-600 DG DN. So using a TC to allow for cropping in without having the slight resolution disadvantage would end up with the full frame system producing more detail.
I rented this lens to use with my Panasonic G9 M2 and it definitely took the joy out of my MFT experience. I found that my shoulder got sore from trying to keep it steady at 600mm and would want at least a monopod if I was going out for a couple of hours. I didn't love the pictures enough to spend $2,700 for it. I had an overlapping rental for the Panasonic Leica 200mm and loved it. Even with a teleconveter on a dark day I really liked my images so I bought the 200mm copy I rented. Sure, the reach isn't there but I'm fortunate enough to have other camera combos that scratch that itch, including the Panasonic 100-400mm M2.
Thomas Stirr wrote basically a rave review of this lens with an E-M1X. He can take wonderful photos with any lens, though. I'm not crazy about OM Systems' strategy with this lens, though.
Can't I spend half the money and just use an adapter for the EF version? It's still Sigma either way. Same weight and optics.
I thought it was April Fool's Day joke, made by Mr Zuiko himself
Purchased mine. Provantage sells it for 2300. Purchased the teleconverter from Amazon Japan. Mft serves my needs well.
Breaks my heart. Olympus was so good in terms of their research and development for photography and lens tech, that this move seems to cheapen the entire OM brand. Thanks for confirming what I thought that I was seeing when OM announced this lens.
In the automotive world we call this phenomenon *Badge Engineering*
it's wild that even a camera company is going down the rebadging route.
I got the 100-300mm and I find its more then adequate for my long reach needs. Its small and easy to carry with me as an extra lens at times and when in use, its easy to use. I have a FF lens and rarely use it because its large and clunky. All that extra size to get an extra 2x reach does not make sense for when/where I use it. Even with my 100-300, I often find myself not needing the full zoom and could always back up a bit wider. The standard 70-200mm is quite adequate for most things. Except for wild life shooting. And then I can see how this new lens could be a treat for those doing that.
Great review. Thanks!
Even though I'll probably never buy something like this, the video was still very entertaining. Thanks!
Great review. I love to use full-frame lenses on smaller sensor bodies for wildlife and especially small birds. Like my RF 100-500 on my APS-C R7 body for example. I don't mind the extra weight required for full-frame glass. I'm just glad I can use that full-frame lens on my APS-C body because they don't make an APS-C version. So none of that bothers me on this Sigma full-frame to OM system micro 4/3 port. It's the price difference that kills it for me. I could understand a $200 bump but more than that is unreasonable. For that price, it would be much better to buy the sigma E version and use it on a Sony a6700.
You have the OM Systems IS system rather than the Sigma, resulting in a 2 to 3 times better IS performance. That's worth a lot in my book.
It would be a good purchase at 1.700 usd? Or should buy the 300m f4 despite it is a prime?
Given that you had it with you, was there no testing it with the G9ii? One of m43’s strengths is still being able to use different brands.
That is good feedback, I do wish there was some more cross testing of m43 kit.
Because IS doesn't play nice when you interchange Panasonic lenses/bodies with Olympus lenses/bodies.
@@funnybeingme exactly, and it'd be worth showing how much of an issue the lack of Dual IS is.
I shoot Panasonic, would theoretically like some OM teles, but the lack of Dual IS does put me off somewhat.
I disagree with the claim at 3:40 that an M43-optimized equivalent could be either smaller or offer more speed for the same size.
The effect of coverage (m43 vs FF, etc) on lens size becomes insignificant at long focal lengths. Taking this lens as an example, 600 mm f/6.3 requires an input pupil diameter of 95 mm, so that alone accounts for the _entire_ diameter of this lena. Reducing the FoV won't allow you to make it any smaller. I doubt that reducing the FoV would allow you to make it any shorter, either, since the optical complexity is mostly driven by the zoom ratio and the need to counter axial chromatic aberration.
Exactly! They miss the point here! Math! It could probably be a little bit smaller but not much.
@@TITAOSTEIN What I didn't say (because Chris didn't bring it up) is that optimizing for m43 might have allowed them to improve quality a little.
Presumably Sigma optimized the formula for quality across the entire FF image circle, which would entail some compromises in the center to ensure adequate corner quality. If you reoptimize the lens for m43 you _might_ eke out some more quality within that smaller image circle.
The biggest savings are in girth. M43 lenses tend to have smaller diameter than their FF counterparts - the 150-400 f/4.5 is a good example.
Length is not the only thing that counts, girth matters too, when you're stuffing your junk (into a bag).
Would it be correct to say that the front diameter would have to stay the same (for the same f-stop rating) but the girth could be narrower along the length of the lens?
@@gregsullivan7408 yep. Just compare how easy to handle the 150-400/4.5 is, even though it has a brighter (and constant) aperture.
Even if a super-telephoto lens is made specifically for Micro Four Thirds, it will hardly become smaller or lighter.
The more telephoto, the larger the image circle.
The 300/2.8 from the Four Thirds era was heavier than any full-size version.
indeed there's the limitation of focal length and aperture size that influences the opening. Hard to work around that. What they could have done is something like what can be seen in the oly 100-400 (a similar sigma re-design) and panaleica 100-400 - where the latter one is noticeably smaller and lighter, via design choices, while offering even wider aperture. If olympus came up w a ground-up design, hypothetically they could have shrunk it a bit with smarter/more expensive choices, compared to a 1.5k sigma.
TOKINA AF80-400/4.5-5.6 is 990g
You can make something bright and light.
The 300 is afixed focal lense with an f/4 aperture, thus can not be sincerely compared with.
Yes, just more ignorant internet propaganda. I overlaid this lens with the 150-400mm - which was designed for MFT, and they are almost identical. The new lens is slightly wider due to the need to house the extending zoom in it's retracted position and only the last couple inches of the lens could have been made narrower due to the smaller image circle of MFT. So, it would have been maybe 100 grams or so lighter and no shorter if designed for MFT.
@@WMedl
He means not the 300 4.0. He wrote 300 2.8 . That was an fantastic Lens 👌
So,
I love how you guys compare lots of cameras and lenses.
My question though, for all around hiking/landscape, outdoors/nature what system would you prefer to use and why?
Micro 4/3’s or FF? And would image quality out of either differ?
I use m4/3 Olympus. Used to have FF Nikon. Switched to m4/3
- Much lighter
- Smaller lenses
- Much better ergo on camera body
- Image quality difference not substantial
- Prefer deeper DOF
- Option for fun and unique lenses: noktons, 1.2s, much cheaper super-tele, nice macros
I do miss Tilt-Shift on FF.
new OM-1 mk2 minimal progress. The new 150-600 lens is a disguised FF Sigma. OM is apparently saving massively on development resources.
and OM-1 is only one camera with new sensor, all other Oly camera use like 8 year old sensors....
Yes - there is a reason Olympus got rid of it. But honestly, all this is more of a marketing problem. The budget contrains you have you cannot change as a company, but their marketing here was a desaster. They should have admitted the obvious and focus on the improvements. E.g. this lens is NOT a pure rebadge. Lots more special glas (still disappointing, but just not what now everyone on the internet says and believes). Same with the OM 1 mk ii: They HAD TO get rid of the Olympus name b/c of legal reasons, so they made a "new" camera after half the normal cycle time (!), an incredible short amount of time, compared to old Olympus cycle times. This is also something that nobody seems to understand. So, basically a marketing fail. Tell the people what you did, and why, and focus on all the good (there is still a lot). Instead, they decided to play dumb.
They left the 90 degree clicks out of the tripod mount...
@@thomaslilly5834 they could've just put another name and not call it mk ii
@@unn4medfeel1ng Yes! As I said, it's mostly a marketing desaster. They could - and should - have handled all of it (incl. the lens) quite differently.
The slogan bit got a chuckle out of me.
My favorite review ever
Great review but sad that this is just a marked up sigma 150-600. Times are tough in MFT land these days :(
I mean, the Olympus 100-400mm f/5-6.3 is a Sigma lens made in the Sigma Aizu factory too. It's not a new phenomenon.
(Other brands also do this).
Get out while you can, grab a Fuji or something that still gives you small bodies along with lenses that are actually optimised to perform the best with the sensor sizes they're built for. Also, a company that is still inovating and developing new tech each generation (unlike OM).
@@willherondale6367 You mean like the new in-camera graduated filters in the OM-1 Mark II? Or all the other features in the Om-1 and other OM cameras that Fuji doesn't even come close to?
@donk8292 Ohh you're 100% right... a minor iteration of an Olympus technology, some newly-rubberised buttons, and an updated af that barely brings it up to modern standards is definitely a huge upgrade worth dropping another 2.2k on. I'd really love to know what these 'loads of other new features' are that OM developed and that weren't just Olympus technologies carried over.
@@willherondale6367there are multiple videos that have compared the OM-1 to the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1….
So with all respect, what in the world are you even taking about?
Can I remove the standing/tripod foot at alle like I can with the 40-150mm f2.8?
So a similar rante of ff lens with a high res ff camera and just crop in will be better?
Hey you guys have moved!…again!… great review… subbed!
My first thought was “ that lens is too big to be m4/3?”… I was right… kind of.
No, it could not have been smaller if specifically designed for micro four thirds. 600mm at f6.3 literally means that the diameter must be at least 95mm, regardless of sensor format. The only size savings that designing for micro four thirds would have yielded is in the elements at the back of the lens that control the projection of the image onto the sensor, but those elements are a small percentage of the overall design already, so there's not much to be gained there.
The "compactness" comes from comparing it to what the size of a 1200mm f6.3 would have to be.
Front element has to be that size, but rest of the barrel could be slightly smaller. Not much but some amount. Look at Panasonic Leica 100-400 vs Olympus 100-400, same aperture and focal length, but PL is smaller.
Why it has to be exactly 95mm? What is the math behind it?
@@pawelbrzozowski3899
600mm ÷ 6.3 = 95mm
@@pawelbrzozowski3899 F-stop is the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the diameter of a lens, so 600mm/6.3=95mm (plus a smidge). Other examples: If you want an f1.0 lens that's 95mm in diameter, the longest lens you can make is 95mm. If you want a 300 mm f2 lens, the diameter must be 150mm. When you stop down a lens, you're simply using the iris to constrict the effective diameter of the lens.
So this ratio sets the maximum amount of light that can get through a lens, and the size of the sensor on the other end of the lens is irrelevant.
@@heikkivalkonen1075 Yeah, agreed. But the difference is marginal and becomes less as focal lengths increase because the front of the lens dominates the design more and more.
wonder what the sigma and a speedbooster would look like. better performance for same lens less price?
This vs the 300mm f4 with mc20 on the 300mm. Who performs best on the 1200mm part?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that aperture of f/5.0 will double as well to f/10 and not only the focal length.
Do you get to keep it for the Solar Eclipse?
Chris, here's some really exciting news! I'm shooting the prototype to the stripped down to basics G9ii (PDAF, 24fps) packaged with a 24-600mm ( f2.4-4) zoom lens. The kit weighs just 2 pounds and, get ready for this, is available (camera & lens) for the ridiculous price of $1,600 US. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the GII, but the 7 year old Sony RX10iv does the job without breaking the bank or your back! 😊
Have om made anything spectacular since they took over ? Besides cameras and lenses Olympus already was working on . Serious question haven’t followed them at all
I purchased the 100-400 f/5.0-6.3 and it is a really is a nice lens. Unfortunately, it's a bit heavier and bulkier than I feel it should be for m43rds given its focal length range and f-stop range. Now, here's where the problem lies for me, my old OM-D E-M1 Mk I is getting pretty old in the teeth. I've been thinking about upgrading to the OM-1 Mk II, in fact that camera is really compelling, but my reason's for sticking with M43rds have always revolved around just how much I like the whole system. I currently have a number of pro lenses, but like the body, they are beginning to get really old and well used. How much longer are all these parts going to last when I've literally worn the paint of some of it? So, while I've absolutely got my money's worth out of everything I own, and then some, do I want to stick with a system when the manufacturer is opting to use repurposed full-frame lenses for some of their important offerings? The answer seems to be more and more, "no." While I don't own the 150-600mm lens featured in this revue, if I was going to purchase it and pay the size/weight penalty, I may as well match it to the sensor size that it was designed for. I am left wondering if this is the first time that a good lens drives a customer to a different brand? Lens choice and value are extremely important to me when selecting an INTERCHANGEABLE LENS camera system. I wonder why? Olympus seemed to understand that, but I'm not sure OM Systems does. This new lens is a wonderful option to have but I feel that it really needed to be developed from the ground up with micro four-thirds in mind--it needed to be the sort of elegant solution that the 12-40mm f/2,8, 40-150mm f/2.8, and 300mm f/4.0 already are and I don't think it is. So now that I'm on the verge of needing to replace much of my system anyway, the question probably becomes, Sony or Nikon?
My impression was that telephoto lens size is more related to the focal length rather than the image circle size - so maybe a bespoke lens for m43 wouldn’t be that much smaller? Whereas you’d see a big difference with a m43 wide angle
I'll stay with my 100-400 lens.
I'm amused. Fun video.
Must be the most controversial release of the year. I would love some engineer to confirm or deny that it could be significantly smaller or faster. I had a lengthy discussion about this on the DPR forums and the general consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be all that much different. And also how does this compares to a high-MPx FF camera with a 50% crop...?
It certainly can't be made faster without making it larger. The _entire_ 95 mm filter thread is accounted for by the 600/6.3 = 95 mm input pupil diameter. It's simply impossible to make a faster 600 mm lens for any format without bumping to a larger diameter.
In general the impact of field-of-view (and therefore sensor format) on lens design becomes much less significant as you go longer.
The more reasonable question to ask is whether the lens could have been made sharper within the m43 FoV if it had been optimized for only that portion of the image. In other words, could OM (or Sigma) make it sharper in the center by sacrificing quality in the parts of the coverage circle that are outside of m43.
It can't be much smaller, if you design it for a 4/3s sensor.
The small 4/3s pixel also need the lens to perform closer to the theoretical limit than large full frame pixel. That higher manufacturing precission increases manufacturing cost a lot.
If you compare it to the 150-400, which was designed for MFT, you will see that the lens could only be narrowre in the last 2 or 3 inches due to the smaller image circle needed. The focal length and the 95mm lens opening determine the basic size and weight.
Have you tried to put it in front of a full frame camera to see it's image circle out of curiosity? My take is that it covers full frame or maybe a little less depending on the design of the rear mount attachment. Judging by the bokeh shape it seems about right
Won't be all that big with that MFT mount on the back. 😜
Kidding aside there isn't much doubt that this is actually the Sigma lens
@@hendrickziegler8487 Considering the flange distance and diameter are similar to E mount it's literally the same lens
@@Vulturetanki but the mount would literally obscure the image circle.
@@robertmills4591 It kinda depends on a lot of things, but you can always remove the mask on the rear that blocks the light
You can get Sony A6700 AND this lens for E mount for basically same price as m43 version lol
Yes, but the Sony A6700 is not even close to the specs and performance of the Om-1 or other OM cameras.
@@donk8292in some areas it's better, in some worse (compared to top OM-1) and it's certainly better than some lower OM models...
You mean almost half the price? 1400+1500 vs 2400+2600 € , at least in my country... that is 2900 vs 5000, 2100 € difference you can get Sony 16-55 f2.8G and 11mm f1.8G with money to spare... and it's not like Sony AF is bad... 11fps might be slightly disappointing for SOME people though.
Nice overview Chris. I own the Nikon F-Mount Sigma 150-600mm C lens and got it for £849 brand new several years ago with the 1.4x tc. I would not pay that premium price now for what is effectively the same lens re-badged.
Have you try it on the G9 II, should I look for this or am I better with the 100-400 from Lumix with all the compatibility advantage in MFT, I'm new in this system and kind of lost 😅 Hope you never reed this comment ;)
You can find incredible deals on the 200mm f2.8 with the 1.4 tele converter. It is very comparable to the olympus 300mm f4 and can often be found for half the price of the Olympus in good condition.
The 100-400 is certainly great as well, though I'd personally always go for the prime.
Thanks for the advice, already own the 200mm, it literally replaced my EF 500mm f4 L I had before I switch to m43! I'm now looking for more reach and this one look nice, I'm just scared of the mix&match!
@@birdnerdqc4028 I would love to see a direct comparison between the 100-400 at 400mm compared to the 200mm with the 1.4 TC cropped to 400mm. I have a feeling with the 24mp of the G9II this could be a close call. The 200mm f2.8 is an unreal sharp lens. It also plays very well with the Camera Raw/Lightroom "Enhance" feature, and you can get more reach that way.
@@IsawUupThere I was able to try both before I bought the 200mm and when I looked to my shot, I was satisfied on a 4k monitor to looked at them at 100% with the 200mm when I felt like the 100-400mm I needed to go down 50% to get the same sharpness, don't know if it was a bad copy or not, both were second hand. Plus you get more than double the light even with the TC. It was an easy choice. Maybe I will rent the second version of the 100-400 to see if there is some upgrade other than the smoothness of the zoom.
Hi Guys, any news on the Sony A7S IV?
Don't they use different lens elements like they do with the 100-400?
I used to use the Sigma 150-600mm with a Meabones adapter. While it was soft at 600mm, the main problem was trying to use the setup in the wind. Anything more than a stiff breeze became frustrating as the lens hood acted like a sail and made keeping the subject in the frame really hard.
The cost difference is crazy, for $1200 you can get a high-res fullframe camera instead of the OM-1 and just crop in if you need the reach. Yes, you'd get a 15mp image instead of 20, but I'd argue it doesn't make much difference in a real world.
You probably don't get a 15Mp image. At least, in terms of picture size you may, but actual resolution (i.e. line pairs per millimeter, or line width per picture height) will be compromised. In that regard you'll often get more out of the MFT camera and you can upscale the image in Lightroom or Topaz, etc. if you need to print larger with the same results. One common myth is that a cropped sensor camera is directly equal to the same crop of a larger sensor, but this ignores the resolving ability of the lens and diffraction limits. If you're shooting wide apertures you'll get more resolution out of a larger frame sensor, but once you start to stop down the advantage of larger sensors for resolution diminishes.
my first mirrorless camera was the 45mp, Canon R5. It was a fantastic camera, but even with an 800mm F11, I rarely had enough reach. Therefor I was, as you suggested, cropping a LOT, most of the time. A friend suggested I try to APS-C Canon R7, for the additional reach. So I rented it. Freaking killed it. Purchased it the day I returned the rental. Then my FF R5 just sat on my dresser. Finally I sold my R5 and bought a second R7 as my backup. That was more than a year ago, and I've never looked back. BTW, after 200K shots with my 1280mm combo, this doesn't feel "crazy long" to me, but rather, normal :)
@@robertmills4591 Just... no. You're talking about optical differences as if this isn't literally just an adapted full frame lens.
You can literally put the same optics on a full frame 61mp camera and crop into the same framing for a 15.25mp image. Everything but the resolution will be nearly identical.
I always appreciate your reviews. You and Jordan give honest feedback and are so unlike the shills who are motivated to hype a given product or brand.
In this case I too am disappointed with the weight and cost of the lens. That said, my current setup of a 300 mm prime with the 1.4x teleconverter has reached its limits. Great results but just too little flexibility to zoom out when needed, resulting in missed shots. And sometimes the subject is too far away to get a quality image. Being that I’m not willing to change ecosystems, I can whine about all of this but whining doesn’t get me better shots.
It seems my choice is this lens or the 150-400 mm pro lens for almost 3 times the price. I know the pro lens is about a half pound lighter and about a stop faster. But I’d only go from 420 to 500 mm on the far end. Not like the 600 mm with this lens.
I know this wasn’t a comparison review but you have reviewed the pro lens and (I think) the 300 mm prime and teleconverter. Based on your experience, do you see enough optical differences between these set-ups to make that a factor in my decision? Or would I be happy enough with the 150-600? With that price difference I could buy another body and a “real” macro lens and still have money left over for a cup of coffee….
@@robertmills4591 Yes you´re right, you don´t get 15 Mpix - But yoy´ll get 17,5 Mpix @ 1280 mm (FFeqv) with a R5 + 200-800 in crop mode!!! And the difference in costs is way less than 1200$ more. The difference in customisation and performance of AF is huge.The OM-combo is very over priced.
I don't know. It seems like a good lens but charging $2700 when it's almost half that on other systems along with full frame weight instead of micro 4/3. What's the point?
Its better then nothing and will be prefect and within the budget of some users...but yes, they could have done better.
Now did you try it on the G9ii or just the OM1 ii? And Jordan still loving the G9ii ? Nicely done guys !
I agree ! My reason to go to m4/3 would be to reduce size and weight. Quite a lot of the bodies are quite large and yes when I picked up this lens I thought why would I swop to something the size of my sigma 150-600 from DSLR days! The sales person was pushing the extra reach, but I could just crop in with full frame and get the same….. Currently very happy with my Sony 300mm 😊
Tbey should have taken advantage of the FF optics inside and included a built in .71x speed booster. Having the option to click over to a ~ 200-850 f/3.5-4.5 surely would have been a killer feature
110-420mm 3.5-4 with built in teleconverter lol
It is a bit unfortunate that they didn’t make a specific MFT lens. But with this; they presumably save a lot of money in development (although it doesn’t seem as if they’ve fully passed that onto customers which isn’t cool). And you still have insane reach for a pretty small size compared to full frame. So I get why they do it this way. And I have the 100-400 myself, which I love.
The Olympus 100-400mm is also a Sigma lens made in the same Sigma factory in Aizu ;)
For that field of view with those apertures though, the size saving is so minuscule, you'd barely notice. The front element diameter would need to be over 95mm which is only a few mm smaller than this lens. A non-retractable zoom would be smaller, but it then might end up being heavier. Small focal lengths are easy to keep tiny for MFT, but once you're getting to these longer focal lengths it's negligible.
@@robertmills4591 I brought the 100-400 up because it’s also Sigma made obviously. Have you actually used it? Have you felt how easy it is to carry around for hours and use handheld? Have you seen the results with the depth of field offered? Because I have. And I like it a lot. I would say it’s the ultimate hobbyist wildlife lens. Even more so than this 150-600 because the size, weight, and price are all more suitable. While also still having very good 800mm equivalent reach.
@@the_wiki9408 Interesting. Thanks.
@@christill not only have I used it, I own one and use it almost every weekend. I wasn't making a criticism, just an observation that is often over looked.
@@robertmills4591 Ok I see. I’m not sure what you mean in terms of the size saving being minuscule though.
I'm happy to see some FF lens designs coming to M43. Obviously lots of people go with M43 for compactness, but there's also a benefit to be had in bringing over large telephotos or bright primes and there's no reason why they can't both exist on the same platform. It would be nice to see some updates to some of the older compact designs as well though.
Can you elaborate on that? Full frame lenses on a mft camera? It's rather obvious that it's much better to have 600mm micro 4/3 lens rather than 600mm full frame. Or am I missing something?
I have no problems with a full frame lens on mft if it is doing the job! So the Sigma in OMSystem housing is a good idea. The only thing for me is the price. Over 1000$ more only for the SyncIS is a lot of money and a deal breaker for me!
I can get the Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T CINE Speed Booster XL 0.64x, put on my Pen E-PL7, and use my Canon mount sigma 150-600mm with an aperture multiplier of 0.64 so a faster lens is clearly possible. I think it's something nice to have, though. Incredible reach for reasonable money. What is your better choice for the latest OM System's camera that doesn't cost thousands more?
I just wish there was a Sony-E mount adapter to M43 with autofocus. It would be sweet to be able to use that Sony 200-600 lens as a telezoom for M43.
Believe it or not, the flange distance for E mount is less than Micro Four Thirds. So, you can adapt Micro Four Thirds lenses to E mount but not the other way around.
Will be interesting to see a direct comparison with the 150-400 f4.5 Pro with the TC engaged and see how much of a difference shooting at the same distance 😅
One thing that seems to be either minimized or ignored completely in all the discussions of FF/A-PSC equivalent camera/lens combos is the fact that this lens does offer 'Synch IS' up to 7 stops -- I'm not aware of any other 1200mm FOV set up that would be close to that. There is a video clip on the OM System website that shows this lens on the OM-1 Mkll and the MC-20 TC (2400mm equivalent FOV), hand held -- with and without IS on and it is a very impressive difference.
I do believe CIPA rates telephoto sync IS at 200mm only or something like that.
Usable IS at that focal range would be so useful for many
@@AoyagiAichou Well that's a bit of a problem then, since the lens in question here is a 300mm FOV at the widest setting. But even if that is where OM is getting 7 stops of 5 axis IS, I doubt it is matched by any non-m4/3's system.
@@gregm6894 OM always overblows marketing claims so I wouldn't take those ibis ratings for granted, the OM-1 was touted as 2-stop better sensor performance (when in fact it just had better jpeg noise reduction), and then these claims about this lens as if it was a pinnacle of telephotos instead of an older sigma rebadge: "a spectacular showcase of lens engineering that combines optical innovations into one small package. Featuring an array of Super ED, ED, HD, and HR elements, it can deliver a tremendous amount of detail, ensuring the highest quality in super telephoto shooting." "the ultimate partner for wildlife and bird photography enthusiasts on the go." "After shooting two months with the new flagship, there is no going back.”
They market it as if it were the 150-400
I think it would probably be a pretty nice combo for the stuff I do. Mostly small birds. But I think I'd lean towards the R7 + 200-800, which gives a 320-1280mm equivalent. Nowadays, when it comes to sharpness, basically ALL of the new long lenses for modern mirrorless cameras are plenty sharp, especially when the images are sized down to 3 to 5 mp for typical digital viewing. I currently shoot with the "slow" 800 F11, on my R7, and I'm super happy with the image quality, (my work can be seen at the link in my channel). Waiting on the 200-800 to be "in stock" and refurbished for a few hundred dollars off, but killing it with my 800 F11 while I wait :) Huge, heavy, very fast, and super expensive lenses are becoming less and less important as time goes on. Which I'm sure is a tough pill to swallow, for folks who have spent $12K or more on a Big White or other "Pro" lens in the past.
Hilarious comment, thanks for the laugh!
Love your reviews! BUT you forgot to mention that that "white beauty" is almost three times the cost of this rebranded sigma. ;) You could have also mentioned the more likely comparisons to it's closer rival, the m.zuiko 100-400 w/wo TCs.
sticking to my 300 F4 Pro, with the 2x TC I also get 1200mm, next to that that, just bought the Leica 100-400 II - that is realy lightweight and compact works great both on my G9 II and OM1 - used to carry around a Nikon Z7II with the 150-600 - never go back to that situation
the 300 f4 and the 100-400 (Both Pana Leica and Olympus) are great.... but the 300 f4 alone costs the same and the 100-400 way more than the 150-600... i don't think it's meant for professionals... it's not priced for professionals... but 2700$ for a 1200mm lens... on fullframe you pay about 10x as much... and if you're a photographer shooting for a small hobby club or you just want to go birding on a budget... for under $4000 you can get the camera and lens for it... that makes MFT in that niche incredibly attractive right now
@@LoFiAxolotlbut I saw Canon Eos r7 with rf 200 - 800mm which makes reach around 1200mm and cost 4000 in total. I have hard times to choose between this and OM1 ..
@@esterix101 go to a store hold each camera and see which you like better.... both cameras are more than capable PERSONALLY i would go with the Olympus because the M43 Mount is open and has options while on the RF Mount you're stuck with Canon only lenses and they're still quite limited if you want to shoot with anything other than the 200-800mm
to me the om system 150-400 pro is where m43 shines. telephoto wildlife is what m43 should focus on. that and extram light weight, fixed lens cameras for hiking/street.
Also note that MFT and OM in particular is the king of outdoor macro (bugs, flowers, etc). No one else even comes close in this space. The OM 90mm Macro was a HUGE factor in making it the system of choice, along with its great focus stacking capabilities.
I would love for a company to make an EF to M43 autofocus adapter. The metabones does not fit the OM-1
Price is the issue for this lens. A markup of $1200 doesn't just come close to being offensive; it is downright provocative & it makes me angry.
Oof that butterfly shot is money! The butterfly garden is either too many people or too little butterflies for me 😅
Nice day out. However it’s not the same lens as the old Sigma, but hey, who would want to get in the way of a good story. I’m looking forward to trading stuff in I don’t use to offset the cost.
9:11 View Tom Eisl’s review of this lens. Now that’s a good story with some content thrown in.
How could it gather more light at the same size, if designed for MFT? You need a 95mm front element in order to get f6.3 at 600mm, no matter how you spin it; changing the mount doesn't change physics. Maybe it could have been made a little smaller towards the mount, if it didn't need to cover a FF size sensor, but those are already the smallest & lightest elements in the lens anyway.
buy ef version of this lens and use metabones speed booster? idk considering this idea
@@eidrag there is no EF version of this lens. This is based on the new Sigma design for mirrorless, that's different from the older EF/F lens.
Also never use a lens adapted cross-system, if oyu ever want to shoot anything that moves. If all you do is birds on perches, it may work ok...
@@houserhythm Thanks! I was confused because there's older sport version and contemporary for EF mount, maybe mixed them somewhere.
My biggest gripe is opportunity cost. There are decent to great wildlife options that already exist on m43 at a variety of price points. This effort took resources away from something that might have better served the m43 community like firmware updates to existing OM cameras. I was looking at switching from Fuji to m43 and went with G9ii (still keeping Nikon Zf for my full frame/low light fun). It just seems like Panasonic has a more focused strategy that makes sense. I might get am OM down the line as a 2nd body if I see them support their loyal customers who took a chance with them, but this is a strange use of their limited resources when they should have anticipated the beating they are taking over the OM-1 m2.
Panasonic bodies might complete with OM on paper, but in real life, the OM has so many nuanced and subtle features that make it so much better for stills. I would never go back to Panasonic.
You've forgot to mention the weigh in Plena. 2 Plena. One Noct. :D
So its Sigma 150-600 sport
but costs more than twice as much and only works on M4/3
For all that extra money, couldn't they fit a speed booster in it to use all that extra light from the full image circle? Why are the markings still 100-600, when the mount is for a smaller sensor, and thus the light path/circle in use all equates to double the focal length to the markings? Unanswered questions, maybe for your podcast?
Should have done a build in metabones adaptor to get a faster lens. that would have helped to make it worth the price.
Great review. Seems like a great lens for the money. I'd pay extra for an internal zoom on that lens. Wish they'd update the 100-400 to be internal zoom as well. Thanks.
Can it shoot at 120 fps?
If the camera it’s attached to can…?
They missed the opportunity to create it like unit with optional speedbooster.
For around the same price, the 300mm F4 has absolutely stunning resolution. Even with the 1.4x and 2x TC, the images are way way better the cropping based on my extensive testing. Not as versatile but extremely good.
I like the quite balanced review, but also great points made in the comments, about much more investment that needed to go into this lens... and from other sources I also know that this lens is still the brightest relatively light lens... I do miss a new 100-400mm that would be cheaper and lighter though. It could be darker, like Canon did with theirs RF100-400mm lens, but an ability to put it on a $600 EM1.2 would be great. Currently using a $300 75-300mm lens and an upgrade to M.Zuiko 100-400 mm (also a reengeneered Sigma btw) would be at least $1000 at used prices. Canon has a cheaper proposition with the lens, but R7 is very much undercooked and still oberpriced (small buffer, bad pre-capture compared to ProCap in an 8-year-old EM). I wonder if M.Zuiko (or Panasonic) will ever care about cheaper and lighter stuff with all the hype going into serious wildlife territory...
You say "reach" a lot, but that's only in comparison to a 20MP FF sensor, what you always get is the restricted Field of View of a 2x longer lens for finding/following things.
I shoot 20MP m43 and 50MP FF and sometimes with the same lenses. You only get a little more detail at the same actual focal length with m43 (back with 16MP m43 it was a wash).
BTW on weight - the OMDS 150-400 you mentioned as "light" is 1,875g which is just slightly heavier than a full-frame Canon EF 100-400 II (1590g) and a 1.4x III (225g), or very slightly heavier if you add a Metabones EF-m43 Smart Adapter (144g), although the Canon combo is a fraction of the price. So not light as such. The native lens will AF quite a bit better tho.
So if I buy a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary DG full frame version and an adapter I can save over 50%? COOL!
How good AF performance and compatibility you get?
Do you have the Pro-Capture, Stacking etc features as well?
Is the Fn button functional?
You don't get Sync-IS.
And your quality for MC14 and MC20 can be compromised.
Of course your lens doesn't look as good either. But... That is about taste. But easier to sell to some other system users version you adapt, but not for m4/3 users.
Living and working the arctic and antarctica during the midnightsun this lens looks very promising for Polar Bears and other far off wildlife.
But i have a Lumix G9 mII, what would be the downside of using this lens on a Lumix body?
I read somewhere that when using a olympus lens on lumix body, only the lens stabilization will work. Is this true?
Yes, that is true - you'd be relying on lens IS only with OM lenses on a Pana body.
I'm not sure would happen, but I would like to see a competitive m43 telezoom from Panasonic. A 100-300 f/4, perhaps?
Couldn't they have used some form of a speedbooster to actually gain sth from the original OM Sigma FF design?!
Great review. How is this not a 3.5 to 5.6? 😂
You have failed to speak to OMD where you would have been told the internal elements have been re-jigged to focus all the light onto the smaller sensor... Hence the increase in price
This lens speaks volumes as to the future of OM Systems. They chose to have Sigma adapt the full frame 150-600 design to m4/3 mount and integrated their IS protocol to offer an oversized lens and overweight lens not specifically designed for m4/3 but merely adapted. No innovation from OM System from purchase of Olympus has been seen or implemented yet. The FF & app-C cameras are seeing tons of innovation and reduction of weight negating allot of the benefits m4/3 initially offered. I truly hope Panasonic makes a longer than 400mm lens designed for m4/3 sports and wildlife shooters as this lens penalizes the purchaser with a high price point as well as size and heft. Without innovation m4/3 will eventually die.
Great review by Chris as usual- he and Jordan are my favorite RUclipsrs!
The lens could not have been shorter and could have been maybe 100 grams lighter if designed for MFT. The 95mm diameter of the lens opening and the focal length are the determining factors. The smaller image circle of MFT only effects the final lens groups, so that is the only place where size and weight savings could have occurred. Overlay this lens with the 150-400 designed for MFT) and you will see.
I don't know that this is much bigger, heavier, or darker than it had to be. If you look at the recent Fuji 150-600, that's a little lighter than this, but not any smaller, and it's actually a tad darker. Something like the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 is close the same size and weight as the Fuji 50-140 f/2.8, being only slightly lighter and smaller. The Nikkor Z 100-400 sits right between the darker Oly 100-400 and brighter Oly 150-400 in terms of size. With these pro-level telephoto zooms, the size, weight, and aperture differences are pretty marginal for lenses with the same actual focal lengths. M43 still often makes a tonne of sense, since the bodies are smaller, the sensor read-out is really quick, and the pixel pitch of the sensor means much higher resolution in the area covered by the m43 sensor.
As such, rebadging a Sigma, getting very good corner performance, and saving significantly in R&D doesn't seem that problematic. The $1100 markup feels *ridiculously* high, tho. A 70% increase in price is absurd. If this lens was, say, $1900, folks wouldn't be complaining about the markup.
I don't get why they never released an old full frame lens design with a perfectly matched speedbooster hidden inside to get better low light performance in a telephoto.. I think that's the only way I could justify full frame lens size on m43. That price is also outrageous for that lens... and I thought L mount was expensive haha.
What were OM thinking? 😂. Crazy that such a big heavy lens for M43s was released, then finding it’s a Sigma with a very inflated price adds insult to injury. 🧐
OM threw those who could not afford the 150-400 a bone...that's it.
Can we just have the 100-400mm with full "Sync-IS" and a waterproof 75-300mm?
That would be really cool....
so it's the same lens as the sigma, only works on M4/3 and costs 3 times as much? what a great deal
Olympus owner rave about reach, but it is a crop! Canon's 200-800 is 1280mm eq on the R7, and the sensor is 32mp and larger than the M43.
Interesting all the folks saying this is basically the old 150-600 with a new mount. Okay, so I guess I have actually had this lens then :) Optically, it was fantastic. It just didn't like to play well (lots of focus pulsing) on my Canon mirrorless bodies. But on the 1 out of 10 or 20 shots when the focus actually hit, it was fantastic :)
The lens it is based on does not have a Canon mount. Sony E-mount and Leica L-mount only.
@@robertmills4591 okay. But regardless of the mount, many folks seem to believe it is the same lens as the old Sigma 150-600, which again, if it's true, would mean it's a really nice lens, optically speaking anyway.
@@Chris_Wolfgram Yup. And the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN Sports is even better! The only grip I have with it is the price tag, but you can't geet this reach with these apertures and this stabilisation with any other combination - so an argument could be made that the price is justified.
I don't think that it would be significantly smaller if designed for mFT. The image circle is naturally pretty large for long lenses, so not much to be gained in terms of size making it smaller.
Equivalent of f/10-12.6?!
That isn't how equivalence works.
f/5-f/6.3 is the same irrespective of the sensor it's projected on. The only different is depth of field, and you're not going to see any difference at these focal lengths.
@@robertmills4591 in light gathering it actually is how it works, that's why he mentioned low light gathering as a downside
@@robertmills4591 Correct, the lens is physically a 150-600 f/5-6.3.
If you want to talk about equivalence to full frame then it's equivalent to a 300-1200 f/10-13.
You don't get to cherry pick one part, that's how the physics works.
@@RzaNaziri No it isn't. The sensor has no impact on the lens' ability to gather light. The same amount of light is gathered, and the same amount is distributed over the same area of sensor. This is unaffected. All things being the same, if you have two cameras with different sensor sizes, the smaller sensor doesn't create a dimmer image.
@@TechnoBabble It's a 300-1200 f5-6.3. Using a smaller sensor doesn't magically affect the distribution of light over the sensor's sensels.
could they not have speed boosted it?
It's a pitty that You didn't test IS. But in general - thumb up.
This is how a sushi company destroyed a camera company
something is fishy... for sure!
I used the Sigma Canon mount for many years - optically a very sharp lens wide open, even at 600mm. I shot birds handheld all the time, and I'm a short woman. I would not pay the extra for a m43 mount however. If it was the regular price of the sigma, maybe a few more dollars,, ok.
If this is the direction OM System is gonna take their system (no pun intended), this is truly unfortunate. For the price difference between this lens and the E mount version, you could literally buy at least an APS-C or a used full frame camera to go with it and get more light and a more balanced kit.
M43 is supposed to be a compact system yet my ff s5 has the same body dimensions as the g9ii. I don't get it. Leica is having the most profitable year last year and then there are these releases where the number of customers who will actually go out and purchase this will be less than the people who go out and buy a leica m11 p or even m11d if they release one. All I want is the Pen F ii with brass plates/dials and black paint and a set of lenses that go with it.
olympus om1 om5.. panasonic g.. m43 sensor but full frame body. really dont understand why, just make a m43 body looks vintage like those half frame film cameras
It can be both. Small with a Pen F type body, and bigger with long telephotos where there’s a huge advantage in the lenses being smaller, and the body size is not so important.
They have a small sensor in a larger body in order to pack more features in. For instance, the larger M43 cameras have often had such fantastic image stabilization because they use that larger body real estate to house very powerful IBIS system onto a smaller sensor. That philosophy extends out to everything. But yes, a brand new Pen F with new matching lenses would be great.
The pro bodies are built to fit the hand so they aren't much smaller than a small FF body. But the total system including lenses is still much smaller and lighter (although not with this lens of course!) But if you want a small body there are plenty of those for MFT too - try a Lumix GM series or the Olympus PL series - they will fit in a pocket with a pancake prime attached.
I don’t mind the body sizes since good for my hands. The lens sizes is where I see the benefit. Not including this monstrosity. Walking with my lumix 100-300 is far easier than my Sony 200-600
Listening to several comments on different you tube channels to my opinion you forgot to mention one important factor that this lens is superior to the sigma and that is the sychronized stabilization from camera and lens. I also learned that other brands have the same price difference on non stabilized lenses to stabilized lenses. Judgement seems to me a bit biassed.
Sync is isn't worth 1500 extra dollars.
@@bIoodypingu It also has a different set of optics inside. The Sigma lens provided a starting point for a redevelopment.
What a slap in the face to MFT users...
For the frankly insane price premium that they're charging for this you're probably better off selling your MFT gear and buying a used 61mp Sony body and the e-mount version of the Sigma 150-600, it would give similar results when cropped in.
Hell, let's say someone was considering between camera systems and didn't have something yet... I probably wouldn't suggest MFT at all at this point, the only benefit I can see for wildlife is faster shooting. For essentially every other type of photography you're losing so much over full frame systems.
This kinda just seems like JIP is trying to squeeze as much money out of diehard Olympus fans before the company goes under.
The only two M43 cameras I would buy today are Panasonic G9ii and Blackmagic 4K, but I'd still adapt most of the lenses from Canon instead of buying native glass which are straight up overpriced and stagnant at this point.
I agree with you. It doesn't make any sense to release an APS-C lens for MFT, let alone 35mm such as this one. Olympus had always been very confident about their ZD and MZD lens design and size advantage and I really admired them for that. (Not all of their lenses are original designs though, ZD 70-300 being one of them) It's a whole different story now with OM System, but they seem to be getting a little too comfortable rebadging things.
That said, I still use and love MFT for the size and cost/performance advantage as a system. Good examples are Lumix 12-35, 35-100, many Leica Zooms and Primes, MZD 12-40, 40-150, MZD Primes and PRO Primes. I find MFT adequate for my purposes. I just have to know its limit to the core.
I agree. I have and EM 1.2 and I wanted a telephoto lens for birds. The m.zuiko 300 f4 is fantastic but costs CAD 4000. So I picked up a used Sony 200-600 and an A7iv (like new condition) for CAD 4400 all in instead. I still keep my EM 1.2 for macro.
Even if the m.zuiko 150-400 was in my budget, I would still prefer the z8+600 f6.3 (cheaper and lighter).
this si so silly. I mean if I carry this lens I ll get a full frame body. what's the point?
Did you carry that lens around without a strap?? Your hands and arms are probably so sore