📛 Become a channel member: ruclips.net/user/thomaseislphotographyjoin ☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel: ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography ❓📩 Direct support: thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket
Superb. This is the sort of detail I want from lens reviews. Of course, most RUclips reviewers can't offer lab tests, etc. so I am extremely appreciative you have taken the time to do so here. I have a second in-the-field hands-on experience with this particular lens lined up for this weekend and am very much looking forward to it!
@@ThomasEisl.Photography my first play with the lens I did some basic side-by-side comparisons with the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 at 400mm. Though the new lens does not offer a great deal more light at that aperture (f/6.1 opposed to f/6.3) I was pleased to notice it resolved much better. This Sunday I shall be out in nature with one of the ambassadors giving the lens a more thorough testing. However, sadly, I am not sure I can justify the cost just yet!
@@ThomasEisl.Photography Using in the field I can say for certainty it performed better than I expected. The lens is wonderful up to 400mm, but starts to lose brilliance beyond that (but that is to be expected). At f/8 the lens seems to perform best throughout the range (although my test was hardly scientific), which is fine, but I would have enjoyed it more if it peaked a little wider - at f/8 we are quite diffraction-limited with MFT. I was very surprised with how well-balanced the lens is, and how little it is affected by the zoom's extension. The ambassador I was shooting with at the weekend felt that he might actually prefer holding the 150-600mm to the 150-400mm PRO. I am probably happy with 400mm for now, but if I have the chance to use the lens again for longer I would take it.
FINALLY, someone who makes a proper test of this lens as it is. Not as an expensive Sigma rebrand, but for what it is, a redesigned super telephoto zoom with remarkable is. You just made a 50 times better test than PetaPixel did. They did a crappy revue, and you did a proper test. THANK YOU ❤
Thank you very much for the very positive feedback, super cool that you liked the video so much, really! It is an excellent lens, and a very interesting optipn for many photographers, I'm sure. Glad to read that I was able to communicate that. Best, Thomas 📸
@@shang-hsienyang1284i never understood how petapixel got so popular….. their reviews are basically useless 🤷 i feel like i watch a 20min petapixel video and i only walk away with a vague idea of how the product actually stacks up
Thank you, Thomas. I appreciate all the work you put in to make this video. You are one of the few people on RUclips that I will actually take time to watch their presentation.
Well done Mr. Eisl. It will be difficult to find a better and more detail review! And the best thing is to prove that a super long telezoom and a whole system that markets itself as an outdoor system, can be use for portait and studio. Brillant job! Thats what i call " revealing wonder" ;-) Thank you for your great support of this system.
To be honest, I discounted this OM System lens after seeing the PetaPixel review. But, your realistic & real life review brought it back into my well worth considering... In fact, I wondered why I actually clicked on this video - but then - so glad I did. Thank you for doing this review!
Just wondering, don't you get the feeling that this lens is extremely good by just using it?? I was thrilled with it andbarfely have it 48 hrs, then came Thomas to confirm my feelings. It's just a great lens!!!
As always, excellent video/review. I’ve recently switched to OM Systems from Canon, so I’m still fumbling my way through correct settings. That said, I achieved excellent results with the OM1-II and 150-600 shooting the recent eclipse in the US, and good results shooting birds at my local park. The OM1-II plus 150-600 presents a fantastic balance between image quality and portability, plus the tripod-based high res shot (for the eclipse) delivered stunning resolution and DR. This setup has rekindled my love of photography. I still fantasize about owning the 150-400 Pro, but that indulgence will have to wait until I’ve finished putting two kids through college. 🙂
Thank you very much for the positive feedback and for sharing your experiences with the lens. Indeed, it is a completely viable alternative to the 4,5 PRO. Best, Thomas 📸
I would love to see a review like this on the m.zuiko 150-400mm Pro! Especially the MTF50 tests you did! Thanks again for another detail oriented video :)
A plug for spinal health is to avoid caring largish objects around one shoulder, so the Olympus system in general is a photographer's spine best friend.
Thank you , again, for a thorough and detailed, in-depth review of a lens that could either be pushing the boundary to achieve greater performance in terms of 'reach'...or controversial by adapting a full-frame lens, without reducing size and weight, for a M4/3 Camera. One reason I switched to M4/3 was because of the compact size and lower weight, but the potential performance of this lens, for wildlife, at a price more favourable than the 140-400 F4.5, is an intriguing proposition 🤔!
As always and different from many others, your videos are always well scripted and well structured. Needless to say, that this is one of my favourite channels for MfT equipment. Especially for this special lens, I like that you are not following the other testers of this lens just complaining about the price - "this is a Sigma, selling usually for half that price". It is on my list when the next wild life travel will come...
Another excellent review, Thomas. I am happy you are now “focusing” on lenses. I would love to have you review other ones. Especially the very versatile 40-150mm f/2.8 pro lens and include its performance with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC. I always have it with me (along with the 150-400 f/4.5) when doing wildlife photography and videography.
Thanks for an excellent in depth review with your specialized experience and perspective. Much appreciated as it confirms my guesses as to some customized improvements to the existing design and clears up some mistaken assumptions from other sources. I'm not a fan of zooms that extend the barrel, however, this one has some features that mitigate some of the issues to an extent, which is welcome. As far as super telephotos go, and I have a Sony 200-600 and high MP bodies, I mostly like to go with my OM-1 and 40-150 with teleconverters, and 300/4, because the mobility is such an advantage. If I had the 150-600, and I may still pick up a copy eventually (I miss the creative computational features not present in other camera systems), it would get most used when I'm driving and going to locations in a vehicle and not so much when I'm walking around. This is for a couple of reason: lighter weight and bulk means ability to move and get to places close to subjects more easily; and also because the best way to improve resolving capabilities with a camera is to get closer. Using a hide or patience, I can get shots of wildlife from 10-50 meters away that are far superior to anything currently available for $10,000 more at 100 meters and beyond. But there are situations, wetlands, safety protocols with endangered species, etc.,. where it is great to have more reach due to fixed shooting distances, assuming the atmospheric conditions aren't hindering the resolving - typical problem in water ways, wetlands, etc.,. To me, in the final analysis, I think the syncIS is key for videographers in the wildlife genre, and that would be my primary interest in such a lens as this, mated to the OM-1 series which offers great value overall.
Thanks Jeffrey, also for sharing your thoughts regarding the lens. That was very interesting to read and I completely agree with what you've stated. I think this comment will be very valuable to others as well. And yes, once you get an OM-1, other cameras usually start collecting dust. At least mine do. Best, Thomas
Thank you very much, my friend! It is definitely a good investment, excellent value for money and a veritable alternative to the very expensive 150-400. Almost the same IQ, better reach and less money. What not to like about this one, right.
I love my 150-600. I don’t have the 300, but I do have the 100-400. I’ll probably keep it. It’s good for air travel when photography isn’t the main reason for going. If the trip is for photographers I’m taking the bigger lens.
Just wondering why you traded in your 100-400 since it's so much smaller and more easily transportable. Isn't it good to have both? I never considered the 300 because of its non zoom non-versatility even as it is a great lens otherwise.
Great to see you outside your comfortzone with a super tele lens😉. As a nature photographer I stepped out my comfortzone by shooting at a professional soccer match recently.
Oh, pretty neat! You won't believe it, but I think I'm getting into nature photography. It really is a very special genre and very rewarding. Hope the soccer match worked out for you!
Thank you Thomas very much for this review! I just bought this lens and as an amateur, it is comforting to have you reinforce the validity of my decision to buy it, as to tell you the truth I find it a very expensive lens and is the most expensive lens I own! The amazing thing about this is that I first trained it on the moon, in its first quarter phase and found the resolution of the surface incredible, so I am now inclined to get the MC20 teleconverter specially since you mentioned it in your review!!! 😃
Thank you, that is great to read. It is an excellent lens and definitely a good investment. You should definitely give the MC-20 a try if you are looking for unprecedented reach. Best, Thomas 📸
A very well put together review, The peta pixel review I thought was a very negative review from the start and not at all helpful. Thanks again for your time and effort .
Thank you for your great test. This is so much better than most other reviews. I made a triple test/review of the Panasonic mFT--Telelenses myself and I know how much work this can be! By the way: Your videos really have a nice overall touch, background, editing, choice of outfit. Really great! Only the noise, when zooming into an image ... ;-) Greetings from the lower rhine/Germany Sven
Thank you very much! You won't believe it, I was actually thinking about retiring the rubber band zoom sound haha 🤣 now you just gave me the perfect reason to do so! Thanks again for the nice comment, means a lot to me. Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you for the idea of using a battery grip. I put mine on and it definitely assists the handling. Also, I’ve found another good way to carry it. I attached a Peak Design plate and anchor link on the lens foot, attached another anchor plate to one of the built in rings on the lens, and attached my peak design strap to them. That way the camera and lens lays horizontally across my body instead of pointing down like it would connected just to both of the built in rings. There is no danger of hurting either the camera or lens mounts.
This was great. Interesting to see it being used in the studio as well. I definitely would love to have the extra 400mm range equivalent, as well as the Sync IS. But it’s just too expensive for me and what I’d be using it for. Although I think the price is reasonable overall when you consider there’s nothing else like it available.
Thank you very much! It is expensive, but as you've said, justified for what it is. I was pleasantly surprised and I can definitely recommend the lens, especially if one does not have a 4,5 PRO. Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you for a really excellent and compelling review. If you have the time could you consider answering just one question😊 What would you consider to be the downsides of using this lens with the Panasonic GH6.
Thank you very much for your generous support and the positive feedback! That is really awesome. Best, Thomas 📸 PS: If you have any questions regarding the lens, let me know!
Hi Thomas, thanks for the video. If this lens was around 300-500 g lighter I could trade in my 100-400 and 300 f4 pro. I much prefer the versatility of a zoom and the sync in stabilisation is really appealing. Just the weight 🫤
Thanks for the comment, Tony! Yes, I can imagine that. Be that as it may, it is not as heavy as it sounds on paper and optically, it is stunning. However, it is also competing with my 300mm F4 for bag space, which is of course lighter and even sharper.
Great review, thanks. Two questions for you: 1) Did you find the position of the manual focus ring difficult to use, and 2) How would you compare the optical performance of this lens to the 100 - 400, which i currently own? Thank you,
Thank you! 1) It is pretty far back, but that is ideal when using the lens on a tripod. When using the lens handheld, you can focus with the thumb, for example. A bit unusual at first, but once you get used to it, it is pretty convenient. 2) Optically, the 100-400 is one of the best lenses ever made in photographic history, regardless of sensor format. So the 150-600 is very good, but not as good. Hope this helps!
Well worked out review. And lovely shots, the photo at 1:47 made me pause the video for a while just to look at. This is a perfect image of an ordinary bird made special. I wont consider the lens right away due to the size but I am happy to see it performs good. Any chance you will do a review or test on the M.zuiko 100-400 and the 150-400?
Thank you very much for your explizit comments . I had viewed quite a few videos before but all of them, except one from the narrowband channel, were more or less useless and biassed in one way or another. Finally you convinced me and I am going to buy this lens in the next few months.
Thank you very much. I'm very happy to read that this video was helpful. I am convinced that the lens will live up to your expectations. It definitely exceeded mine. By the way: There is another video upcoming discussing the full M.Zuiko telephoto lineup from a prospective buyers perspective, which might be of interest to you as well. Best, Thomas 📸
Excellent video! Currently i have the 300mm F4 PRO, and i know how sharp and amazing this lens is. I adore it. But i am thinking of switching over to this lens as i mainly photograph smaller birds and tend to be out in the field a lot photographing nature. What will i be sacrificing moving over to the 150-600mm lens?
Thank you very much! Coincidentally, I have produced a video which should answer exactly your question: ruclips.net/video/ltrKG2NT29E/видео.html Enjoy and don't hesitate to get back to me if you need more info! Best, Thomas 📸
@@ThomasEisl.Photography Hi Thomas, i found the section you are refferring to. Thanks for the videos and the help, it is much appreciated. I know i am pretty much at the top of OM-Systems lens and to be honest, whichever i choose, i wont disappointed. I have used the 300mm for over a year and it is one of the best lens' i have used, and i am comparing that even to 200-400 F4 L series canon lens, which i have also owned. Just some food for thought there.... 150-400 might be the better route for me.
@@ThomasEisl.Photography excerpt taken from an DPreview post: "...referring to Super High Grade Olympus Zuiko 4/3 300mm F2.8 the largest and most expensive lens of the ZD range of lens. This SuperTelephoto was hand built to order in Olympus' factory in Japan. It has a formidable reputation and was christened as 'Big Tuna' by Olympus fans. Its smaller sibling, the ZD150mm x f=2 is known as 'Baby Tuna'." ...and so we can continue with that same classification of nicknames with the new lenses from OM system. lol
Thank you for this detailed review! It's a very interesting perspective for me. Only the maximum aperture of f6.3 doesn't convince me but in your tests it seemed cloudy and with high ISO the results seem very good. Or maybe it's better to aim for 4.5 of the 150-400? Thank you
Hi Stefano, it is definitely a viable alternative. If you have the funds and you can get the 4,5 - then do. It is a better lens. But the 150-600 is definitely good enough for professional work. I was very impressed. It did not feel like a compromise. There is a dedicated video upcoming comparing different super-telephoto lenses to offer additional advice and examining other aspects. I think it would be of interest to you! Stay tuned :-) Best, Thomas
Great review, thanks. How does this fit in with the M4/3 philosophy of small and compact? Why would you spend this kind of money for use with a crop sensor camera? Then there's the dubious future of the M4/3 system...
Thanks! In short: 1) It is way smaller than any equivalent lens on other systems, so it fits very well. 2) you would spend the money to get the outstanding reach and image quality to capture the images you need. Let's not forget: small does not equate to inexpensive - miniaturization with equal quality is more expensive. (Btw the term crop sensor is misleading, it implies the existence of a kind of standardized sensor format, which does not exist). 3) "Dubious futures" are only predicted by those who run clickbaity channels/media outlets. I recommend not paying attention to those to avoid being mislead. Thanks for asking, I hope I was able to help! Best, Thomas 📸 Oh, on a side note - I don't use OM System gear primarily because it is small (that is just the bonus) but because of the capabilities & imaging performance.
Thank you very much for this excellent review! It is truly useful to me. Very satisfying to see a review firmly grounded in practical photography. Could you comment on image quality in comparison to the 300 F4 with TC14, which is what I mostly use. I am seriously tempted to go for the 150-600, though. Thanks again for all your videos, which are really top notch.
Thank you very much, that is great to read! I'm already working on a video comparing various ultra-zoom M.Zuiko options. Stay tuned 📸 Spoiler, the 300 is optically better, but the 150-600 is definitely capable of professional results and is of course more flexible. Best, Thomas 📸
Many of us are looking at this lens as the cheaper alternative to the 'OM SYSTEM M. Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO' Lens. The core question is image quality performance compared to price between them. Can we justify the 150-400mm cost over the 150-600? Is the 150-600mm 'good enough'? As these two lenses are performing in the same space.
There is a dedicated video upcoming - I can only second what was posted one comment above, it is an excellent lens. The 150-600 is the best value for money option, and not a compromise. The 4,5 PRO is the king of the hill in terms of raw performance, but the 150-600 is definitely a compelling alternative which will give you professional results.
I wish it would be sharper at f6.3. For wild-life applications I typically have shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000. To avoid as much noise as possible I then want to shoot as wide open as I can regarding aperture. I think this is where the main selling point of the 150-400 f4.5 is. I currently use the 100-400 f6.3.
Hey there, I don't know anyone who has tested that, but it should work fine, albeit with less capable stabilization as the protocols don't match. Best Thomas 📸
Thank you Thomas! Now I want this lens, even though I may not actually need it for what I do 😉. Very detailed review, unlike many other reviewers (and commenters) who complain that this lens is so much more expensive than the standard FF Sigma lens. You explain very well what design changes have been made by OM system to make it better. Being a FF design obviously helps corner sharpness on a crop sensor ... but unfortunately also results in extra weight. About the MFT chart, you say that the MFT value is about half at 600mm vs 150mm,but looking at the numbers, it looks like the resolution drops to 2/3 of the value of 150mm (0.2 vs 0.13+), which is significantly better than 1/2. Is my reasoning correct?
Thank you very much! Regarding the FF design, I'm pretty sure the lens elements have been rearranged inside, which ensures a closer focusing distance and better optical performance. The lens actually uses the full front element. When you move a finger over the front element, you almost immediately get vignetting at some focusing distances. So it seems they utilized the full size to achieve actually something the 35mm lens cannot do. That should also explain the good resolving power. You are correct regarding the MTF value, it is less than halved. I've just added a correction, I was a bit too pessimistic about this one. Best, Thomas
Vielen Dank für diesen aussagekräftigen Test. Ich sehe meinen Kauf dadurch mehr als bestätigt! Bin allerdings gespannt, wie ich auf Dauer mit dem Gewicht klarkomme 😉 So einfach um den Hals hängen ist ja leider nicht mehr 🤷
Danke für das Feedback, freut mich sehr! Und Gratulation zum Kauf, ein sehr schönes und überaus leistungsfähiges Objektiv. PS: Am liebsten trage ich persönlich das 150-600 über der Schulter.
Thanks for your thoughts on this lens How does the rotation feel on this lens? On my 100-400 the rotation feels a little gritty. Definately looking at this one but no stores have it in stock, order in only so I cant check the feel myself. With the weight of this I would be using a mono pod so I will need a good rotation feel.
Bravo Thomas! As usual, you get used us to see an high professional exam of a gear. What I would ear in addition ? A comparison among the wide variety of telephoto lenses: 150/600 - 150/400 TC1.25 - 100/400 - 300 - 75/300. Each of them has a proper profile and, for ex., the last one it isn't less useful as others, with only 500 gr. lightweight. I would like to know your opinion about. Sergio from Milano
An interesting description of some obviously excellent chunks of glass skillfully stuck together. At the moment my zoom range ends at 600mm FF equiv. (Different camera, different system.) 600mm MFT is naturally 1200mm FF equiv. That is an impressive reach and extremely useful. If I go that far, by software in the camera or by cropping in post, I am down to 5MP! 🙂 150mm MFT (i.e. 300mm equiv.) is really a rather long focal length for a studio photo session with a model. Definitely an acoustic communications problem. And I must say, that the dangerous wild duck Thomas stalked looked rather urbane and completely tame! Imagine spending 2.600 euros just to shoot a tame duck and keep a pretty girl at a safe distance!
I wish you had covered the reason why the lens, that folks claim is based on a full frame lens, could not have been made smaller because of the reach like the width of the opening...
I think this lens is really good if a bit overpriced for me. It solves the problems of adapting the sigma 150-600 (C-AF and stabilization), and the smaller aperture means lens because you trade off for reach. The f5-6.3 may seem dark for the 100-400, but at 600mm f6.3 is very good. It also overlaps less with the panasonic 100-300 or the olympus 70-300, making it make more sense for someone that wants to carry a long lens and a shorter brighter one.
I’ve heard on more than 1 RUclips channel that this lens could have been made smaller, which would imply that the front element could be less than 95mm and the thus lens could also be shorter in length with the same maximum f6.3 aperture at the long end. I’m assuming they’re wrong since we calculate the front element size by dividing 600 by the maximum aperture of 6.3. Am I correct? My wife tells me that many times I’m not. 😀
It is actually a complicated topic - but you've hit the nail almost perfectly, and here is why: 1) If the lens covers a bigger area, and you are using only a small portion, you could basically remove the "excess glass" and still get a center area with the same amount of light 2) The lens might project a bigger circle, but most likely not across the whole focal range - which indicates an optical re-design. How do I come to this conclusion: This is observable when moving an object in front of the lens element - it starts to vignette almost immediately. Side note: It is not the front element but the entrance/exit pupil which determine the light gathering. More info in my video on equivalence: ruclips.net/video/FVHTLFD_7o8/видео.html
The S on the lens is for Smooth and T is tight zooming. Am I good with carrying the lens with like an R strap from the foot? I don't really like it with the lens hanging down an banging against my knee. BTW, I have put my MC14 on it and rarely take it off. Thanks!
Tolles Review. Ich persönlich schätze das Olympus 300mm f4 Pro mit beiden Telekonvertern und das 150-600er wäre mir persönlich schwer. Am Rande: Für die OM-1 gab es jetzt die Firmware 1.6 und ich muss sagen, die AF-Leistung hat sich damit in vielen Bereichen merklich verbessert.
Hello Thomas, I still think that the optics is not changed to the related lens from the other company. You mentioned the short focus distance at 150mm as difference, but that is also available with the „original“. Yes, the IS is modified to allow the Sync IS. That is without doubt one of the great features. But the general lens design can not be modified in single points without the integration to the whole system. Modern lenses are too complicated to allow that. So for me all changes are related to body, electronic, maybe the water proof classification. But not the optic on its own. BTW: In Germany the option of manual use of the zoom at the the front lens barrel was explicitly mentioned by German Nils Häusler in the presentation of the lens…
Thanks for sharing your perspective! Regarding the zooming: Well, I've heard that as well, but personally I strongly advice against "grab-zooming" for obvious reasons, even if the manufacturer says it is okay.
The question remains why they chose to keep the range from 150 to 600 and the aperture from 5 to 6.3 (like Sigma and Tamron did). Would it not be more obvious to choose a different range for the smaller sensor? Indeed people will question if this lens is in fact the Sigma in a Zuiko body... Olympus has proven many times they can look after themselves and this lens is a joke, I suppose. I am sure the optics are of pristine quality, but my Sigma 150-600 also has an extreme resolution (I used it on my OM-D to photograph the moon and sun and even with a 1.4x converter, there's no need to choose a smaller aperture to get more resolution!). But in the end I should not complain, because with the IS and phenomenal focus tracking, this is a treat for sports and especially wildlife. Oh, and thanks for another to the point review, Thomas!
Very good review. I really hope OM System commit to the new lens roadmap and give us what looks to be a 40 to 200. Hopefully by leveraging this sigma design and dropping the other lens from the roadmap they are focusing the RbD on a single dedicated M43 lens.
This is a nice thorough review , in the field and in the lab. if the variables are kept the same it also allows for future comparisons to make things even more interesting. As far as the lens goes, i remain unimpressed. Paying the premium over fullframe even, carrying the extra weight and getting 50% resolving power toward the long end (other reviews mentioned the drop in IQ but without a measurement to confirm) which is the whole point of this lens is b-r-u-t-a-l.
Thanks for the comment and for sharing your perspective! It is definitely not a lens for everybody, even though it is very good. Allow me a few remarks - small does not mean inexpensive. Quite the contrary, smaller often means more expensive as the tolerances are tighter. This and the mentioned improvements are why the MFT lens is more expensive than the 35mm lens. The drop in IQ is actually very acceptable, if you look at practical applications. Maybe you can join the live stream in a few days, I'll talk about the resolving power of this lens in detail. Best, Thomas
Thank you for posting this excellent review. The 150 600 is the best choice obviously to magnify small and/or distant subjects. I have tried the lens myself for 3 weeks but could not find sufficient reason to keep it. I find it balances poorly on the small Om1m2, even with the grip. It is too obviously a FF design. OM did their best to adapt it but, I feel in the end, it is too limited by its origin and m43 sensor limitations. F8 on this lens for best optical performance restricts its use severely. The 150 600 should be mentioned is clearly and visibly better than the 100 400, however at overlapping focal lengths massively behind the 40-150+1,4TC. The latter shows what is possible on m43 for a zoom. For some reason that beats me you have to shell out 7k for the big white lens to have a really top range zoom on m43. In my opinion, there is a gaping quality gap in OMs zoom line this side of the 150-400 f4.5 that the reviewed lens does not address.
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. I'm afraid that my review was not very good, as it gave you the wrong impression about the lens - two remarks: just because peak performance is achieved at f/8 this does not mean that the performance wide open is bad. Quite the contrary. Second, I do not think there is a gap in the lineup at all, quite the contrary. Take a look at my overview presentation which you might find helpful: ruclips.net/video/ltrKG2NT29E/видео.html Thanks again for contributing and all the best, Thomas 📸
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. I'm afraid that my review was not very good, as it gave you the wrong impression about the lens - two remarks: just because peak performance is achieved at f/8 this does not mean that the performance wide open is bad. Quite the contrary. Second, I do not think there is a gap in the lineup at all, quite the contrary. Take a look at my overview presentation which you might find helpful: ruclips.net/video/ltrKG2NT29E/видео.html Thanks again for contributing and all the best, Thomas 📸
Great review, but really disappointing 600mm results, with roughly 1/2 the resolving power compared to 150mm. $2700 for what is essentially a very good 150-300mm not a very good 150-600mm telephoto lens; I'm not sure how such a favorable assessment can be given with such a resolution degradation. The very first question invariably asked when evaluating a super telephoto like this is how well the sharpness is maintained from near to far. I was hoping this would be the one to use for airshows where the Olympus 100-400 often wasn't quite long enough, and resolution drops off at 400mm in a similar fashion to this lens. Too bad OM didn't adapt the Sigma 60-600 DG DN, which appears to be a bit better at 600mm, but a pound heavier.
Thanks for the positive feedback. To add to your perspective: I would not call the results disappointing at all - we should not assess a loss in resolving power relatively, but we have to evaluate how much resolving power there is in absolute terms. As the 150-600 starts way above average, it might loose some of it, but there is still more than enough left. It is a very good lens, not just for the low price tag. Also, other optical phenomena which also degrade Image quality are practically not present at all. That is why I come to a very positive conclusion. Thanks again for the elaborate comment, an excellent contribution indeed! Best, Thomas 📸
The founder of LensRentals has repeatedly gone on record saying that after looking at their hundreds of lenses over their useful lifetime there’s been no obvious correlation between zoom style and propensity for dust collection. Looking at the internal design this makes sense, whether elements move on the inside or out there will be a pressure differential and air is going to follow the path of least resistance, and even for internal zooms this sometimes means air getting pushed in and out from outside rather than in. Modern high end lenses have intentional filtered air vents that are filtered to allow air pressure to equalize while capturing dust, regardless of whether they’re internal or external zoom. Of course your mileage may vary for lower cost optics. It seems to me that this is a myth that really needs to die at this point.
Olympus sollte dich wirklich einstellen! Deine Erfahrungsberichte zu den Produkten haben einfach mehr Hand und Fuß. P.S.: Die OM1 II hat, was den Autofokus angeht, bei der "Menschenfotografie" deutlich zugelegt, bei allen anderen Modi spürbar, aber jetzt nichts Welt bewegendes. Das ist aber nur meine Einschätzung....andere ziehen, für mich unverständlich, andere Schlüsse.
Vielen herzlichen Dank! Es gibt doch hoffentlich niemanden der meint die Mark II ist AF-technisch schlechter als die Mark I oder andere aktuelle Kameras?
Numbers you provide in resolution testing are not very usefull. We would need LW/PH that would let us infer anything about the resolution. Values of c/p below 0.2 or even 0.13 are ABYSMAL! Heavily limiting sensor's resolving power which at 20Mpix is troublesome.
Well, I don't agree, but thanks for the contribution nonetheless. For example, as long as you have no information on the demosaicing method used, you cannot assess whether the value is abysmal or not, due to the nature of MTF calculations. Spoiler alert - it is not abysmal at all. Most testing sites don't share that, but I do - just refer to the web link for further information on this and other crucial aspects of the test. Also, you can easily calculate LW/PH from c/p, as you know for sure. If you need help with that, get in touch via mail, I can provide you some useful information regarding that. Best, Thomas
@@ThomasEisl.Photography I base my opinion on imatest reference of what each value mean. They use 0.18 c/p value to describe poor lens. If I got something wrong, correct me pointing out where I got it wrong. It would be nice if you express the results in units that are widely used, easily understandable and comparable between platforms and between lenses. But honestly 7.5 pixels to cover one cycle between black and white sounds very bad. Why covering that in e-mail. Let all the viewers see the results.
@@ThomasEisl.Photography BTW. I have just done the calculations. 0.135c/p on an OM-1 20Mpix sensor with pixel pitch of 3.32um (0.00332mm) translates to 40.6lpmm which is considered by optycze .pl as below the level of decency for a lens tested on 12Mpix E-PL1 sensor. For reference Olympus 300mm Pro scored 75lpmm, 12-100mm Pro exceeded 80lpmm just like 75mm 1.8. Poor Leica 100-400mm @400mm was below 40lpmm but on 12Mpix sensor. Leica 200mm 2.8 scored 91.2lpmm on 16Mpix. So how can you call 40.6lpmm on 20Mpix if not abysmal? Especially when we factor in the outrageous price of this baby. I wonder if your measurements are precise as 150-600mm is considered slightly sharper than Olympus 100-400mm which in turn is noticeably sharper than Leica 100-400mm. All in all I guess I cannot trust any test until it is backed up by test on optyczne.pl
I think there are several topics on the table which get mixed together. Let me try to sort this out: First and foremost, if you want to take my measurements as an indicator that the lens is bad, then you are completely on the wrong track. It is actually very, very good. Second, you cannot compare my results to different sources unless you know all the testing parameters. That is why I said you should go to my website and learn about the method & setup. Drawing conclusions without doing that is futile, because MTF 50 can be drastically impacted by the demosaicing method, as I've said. Third, we are talking about system MTF, so the conversions to different systems (like the PL1 plus another lens) are very problematic. You basically add another factor (or more if you consider OLPF, shutter vibration and so on as separate factors) to the already incomparable measurements. Last but not least, sorry for the inconvenience caused by C/P. However, I won't change the metric as it is the most useful in digital photography in my opinion, once you get used to it. Give it a try, you will see that it makes the most sense and can be converted easily. You should definitely not use LP/mm, because then you have to deal with enlargement and physical sensor size to come to any meaningful conclusions. It is an old relic from film days, not entirely misleading, but I'd say there are better alternatives - like c/p, right :-) My offer regarding the email was to send you links to various research papers regarding the topic and help you converting the units, but by googling a few of the things I've mentioned, you can find them yourself, I'd say. I hope this was helpful, it is a complex topic with no easy answers and many testing sites obscure how the results were obtained (in-cam JPEG, RAW, which mosaicing method, and so on). Bottom line - always stick to one source and hope they know what they are doing. Also, be careful about certain "decency" levels. Those are arbitrary and you are better off determining what you personally need, not just picking a value someone else decided on. Thanks for engaging and all the best, Thomas
📛 Become a channel member:
ruclips.net/user/thomaseislphotographyjoin
☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel:
ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography
❓📩 Direct support:
thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket
Superb. This is the sort of detail I want from lens reviews. Of course, most RUclips reviewers can't offer lab tests, etc. so I am extremely appreciative you have taken the time to do so here. I have a second in-the-field hands-on experience with this particular lens lined up for this weekend and am very much looking forward to it!
Thank you very much.
Please share your experiences with the lens, I'd love to know what you think about it!
Best, Thomas 📸
@@ThomasEisl.Photography my first play with the lens I did some basic side-by-side comparisons with the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 at 400mm. Though the new lens does not offer a great deal more light at that aperture (f/6.1 opposed to f/6.3) I was pleased to notice it resolved much better. This Sunday I shall be out in nature with one of the ambassadors giving the lens a more thorough testing. However, sadly, I am not sure I can justify the cost just yet!
@@ThomasEisl.Photography Using in the field I can say for certainty it performed better than I expected. The lens is wonderful up to 400mm, but starts to lose brilliance beyond that (but that is to be expected). At f/8 the lens seems to perform best throughout the range (although my test was hardly scientific), which is fine, but I would have enjoyed it more if it peaked a little wider - at f/8 we are quite diffraction-limited with MFT. I was very surprised with how well-balanced the lens is, and how little it is affected by the zoom's extension. The ambassador I was shooting with at the weekend felt that he might actually prefer holding the 150-600mm to the 150-400mm PRO. I am probably happy with 400mm for now, but if I have the chance to use the lens again for longer I would take it.
Thanks for sharing!
FINALLY, someone who makes a proper test of this lens as it is. Not as an expensive Sigma rebrand, but for what it is, a redesigned super telephoto zoom with remarkable is.
You just made a 50 times better test than PetaPixel did. They did a crappy revue, and you did a proper test.
THANK YOU ❤
Thank you very much for the very positive feedback, super cool that you liked the video so much, really!
It is an excellent lens, and a very interesting optipn for many photographers, I'm sure. Glad to read that I was able to communicate that.
Best, Thomas 📸
PetaPixel reviews are rushed and often inaccurate nowadays.
@@ThomasEisl.Photography Well, that is good way on thinking. Now, when you made your video, you can see the joke of review they did.
@@shang-hsienyang1284i never understood how petapixel got so popular….. their reviews are basically useless 🤷 i feel like i watch a 20min petapixel video and i only walk away with a vague idea of how the product actually stacks up
I like the guys on Petapixel, but I agree with you. I couldn’t believe OM made this lens. I love mine.
Thank you, Thomas. I appreciate all the work you put in to make this video. You are one of the few people on RUclips that I will actually take time to watch their presentation.
I appreciate that! Thank you very much.
Well done Mr. Eisl. It will be difficult to find a better and more detail review! And the best thing is to prove that a super long telezoom and a whole system that markets itself as an outdoor system, can be use for portait and studio. Brillant job! Thats what i call " revealing wonder" ;-)
Thank you for your great support of this system.
Thank you so much! That is a very encouraging comment which I deeply appreciate. Thank for putting it that way! Best, Thomas Eisl 📸
To be honest, I discounted this OM System lens after seeing the PetaPixel review. But, your realistic & real life review brought it back into my well worth considering... In fact, I wondered why I actually clicked on this video - but then - so glad I did. Thank you for doing this review!
Thank you very much!
It is indeed a very good lens which I can definitely recommend. Best, Thomas 📸
Just wondering, don't you get the feeling that this lens is extremely good by just using it?? I was thrilled with it andbarfely have it 48 hrs, then came Thomas to confirm my feelings. It's just a great lens!!!
Fantastic in-depth review. You always deliver. Thanks.
Much appreciated! That is amazing feedback, really. Best, Thomas 📸
As always, excellent video/review. I’ve recently switched to OM Systems from Canon, so I’m still fumbling my way through correct settings. That said, I achieved excellent results with the OM1-II and 150-600 shooting the recent eclipse in the US, and good results shooting birds at my local park. The OM1-II plus 150-600 presents a fantastic balance between image quality and portability, plus the tripod-based high res shot (for the eclipse) delivered stunning resolution and DR. This setup has rekindled my love of photography. I still fantasize about owning the 150-400 Pro, but that indulgence will have to wait until I’ve finished putting two kids through college. 🙂
Thank you very much for the positive feedback and for sharing your experiences with the lens. Indeed, it is a completely viable alternative to the 4,5 PRO. Best, Thomas 📸
I would love to see a review like this on the m.zuiko 150-400mm Pro! Especially the MTF50 tests you did!
Thanks again for another detail oriented video :)
Thank you very much - your suggestion is noted! Once I have the chance, I'll do that!
Best, Thomas 📸
A plug for spinal health is to avoid caring largish objects around one shoulder, so the Olympus system in general is a photographer's spine best friend.
excellent review, thank you Thomas, do you plan to review other lenses as well, please?
Thank you , again, for a thorough and detailed, in-depth review of a lens that could either be pushing the boundary to achieve greater performance in terms of 'reach'...or controversial by adapting a full-frame lens, without reducing size and weight, for a M4/3 Camera. One reason I switched to M4/3 was because of the compact size and lower weight, but the potential performance of this lens, for wildlife, at a price more favourable than the 140-400 F4.5, is an intriguing proposition 🤔!
Thank you very much!
I completely share your analysis, it is indeed a very compelling option if you do not want to get the 4.5 Pro.
As always and different from many others, your videos are always well scripted and well structured. Needless to say, that this is one of my favourite channels for MfT equipment. Especially for this special lens, I like that you are not following the other testers of this lens just complaining about the price - "this is a Sigma, selling usually for half that price". It is on my list when the next wild life travel will come...
Wow, thank you!
Another highly detailed review. Thank you for your effort and thoughts, Thomas.
My pleasure!
Another excellent review, Thomas. I am happy you are now “focusing” on lenses. I would love to have you review other ones. Especially the very versatile 40-150mm f/2.8 pro lens and include its performance with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC. I always have it with me (along with the 150-400 f/4.5) when doing wildlife photography and videography.
Thank you very much!
Noted, I'm planning on reviewing additional telephoto lenses in a similar fashion. Stay tuned!
Best, Thomas 📸
Thanks for an excellent in depth review with your specialized experience and perspective. Much appreciated as it confirms my guesses as to some customized improvements to the existing design and clears up some mistaken assumptions from other sources. I'm not a fan of zooms that extend the barrel, however, this one has some features that mitigate some of the issues to an extent, which is welcome.
As far as super telephotos go, and I have a Sony 200-600 and high MP bodies, I mostly like to go with my OM-1 and 40-150 with teleconverters, and 300/4, because the mobility is such an advantage. If I had the 150-600, and I may still pick up a copy eventually (I miss the creative computational features not present in other camera systems), it would get most used when I'm driving and going to locations in a vehicle and not so much when I'm walking around. This is for a couple of reason: lighter weight and bulk means ability to move and get to places close to subjects more easily; and also because the best way to improve resolving capabilities with a camera is to get closer. Using a hide or patience, I can get shots of wildlife from 10-50 meters away that are far superior to anything currently available for $10,000 more at 100 meters and beyond.
But there are situations, wetlands, safety protocols with endangered species, etc.,. where it is great to have more reach due to fixed shooting distances, assuming the atmospheric conditions aren't hindering the resolving - typical problem in water ways, wetlands, etc.,.
To me, in the final analysis, I think the syncIS is key for videographers in the wildlife genre, and that would be my primary interest in such a lens as this, mated to the OM-1 series which offers great value overall.
Thanks Jeffrey, also for sharing your thoughts regarding the lens. That was very interesting to read and I completely agree with what you've stated.
I think this comment will be very valuable to others as well.
And yes, once you get an OM-1, other cameras usually start collecting dust. At least mine do.
Best, Thomas
Brilliant reviews as always. Greetings from Japan.👍
Thank you very much! Best from Vienna to Japan 📸
Great video, Thomas. Fantastic content. I plan on getting this lens in the fall, so during fall/winter, I'll have something to do, lol.
Thank you very much, my friend!
It is definitely a good investment, excellent value for money and a veritable alternative to the very expensive 150-400. Almost the same IQ, better reach and less money. What not to like about this one, right.
I traded in my 100-400 and my 300 pro for this lens, no regrets got some fantastic results
Very cool, thanks for sharing that in a separate comment. The 150-600 is really good, glad that you like it as much as I do. Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you thomas 📸
I love my 150-600. I don’t have the 300, but I do have the 100-400. I’ll probably keep it. It’s good for air travel when photography isn’t the main reason for going. If the trip is for photographers I’m taking the bigger lens.
Just wondering why you traded in your 100-400 since it's so much smaller and more easily transportable. Isn't it good to have both? I never considered the 300 because of its non zoom non-versatility even as it is a great lens otherwise.
@@nixl3518 I just wanted to get a further reach. I know the cameras heavy but you soon get used to it.
Great to see you outside your comfortzone with a super tele lens😉. As a nature photographer I stepped out my comfortzone by shooting at a professional soccer match recently.
Oh, pretty neat!
You won't believe it, but I think I'm getting into nature photography. It really is a very special genre and very rewarding. Hope the soccer match worked out for you!
Thank you Thomas very much for this review! I just bought this lens and as an amateur, it is comforting to have you reinforce the validity of my decision to buy it, as to tell you the truth I find it a very expensive lens and is the most expensive lens I own! The amazing thing about this is that I first trained it on the moon, in its first quarter phase and found the resolution of the surface incredible, so I am now inclined to get the MC20 teleconverter specially since you mentioned it in your review!!! 😃
Thank you, that is great to read. It is an excellent lens and definitely a good investment. You should definitely give the MC-20 a try if you are looking for unprecedented reach. Best, Thomas 📸
A very well put together review, The peta pixel review I thought was a very negative review from the start and not at all helpful. Thanks again for your time and effort .
Much appreciated! Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you for your great test.
This is so much better than most other reviews. I made a triple test/review of the Panasonic mFT--Telelenses myself and I know how much work this can be!
By the way: Your videos really have a nice overall touch, background, editing, choice of outfit. Really great! Only the noise, when zooming into an image ... ;-)
Greetings from the lower rhine/Germany
Sven
Thank you very much!
You won't believe it, I was actually thinking about retiring the rubber band zoom sound haha 🤣 now you just gave me the perfect reason to do so!
Thanks again for the nice comment, means a lot to me.
Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you for the idea of using a battery grip. I put mine on and it definitely assists the handling.
Also, I’ve found another good way to carry it. I attached a Peak Design plate and anchor link on the lens foot, attached another anchor plate to one of the built in rings on the lens, and attached my peak design strap to them. That way the camera and lens lays horizontally across my body instead of pointing down like it would connected just to both of the built in rings. There is no danger of hurting either the camera or lens mounts.
Great to hear!
Thanks for sharing this tip, I'll try that and I'm sure many others will do so as well.
Best, Thomas
...great and much detailed review, Thomas. Many thanks.....
Many thanks!
Thank you for your hard work in creating this excellent review.
Much appreciated!
Very competent, well-rounded review. Thank you!
Much appreciated!
Thanks for the excellent review, Thomas!
Thank you!
This was great. Interesting to see it being used in the studio as well. I definitely would love to have the extra 400mm range equivalent, as well as the Sync IS. But it’s just too expensive for me and what I’d be using it for. Although I think the price is reasonable overall when you consider there’s nothing else like it available.
Thank you very much!
It is expensive, but as you've said, justified for what it is. I was pleasantly surprised and I can definitely recommend the lens, especially if one does not have a 4,5 PRO. Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you for a really excellent and compelling review. If you have the time could you consider answering just one question😊 What would you consider to be the downsides of using this lens with the Panasonic GH6.
Thanks!
Just that the Sync IS is not available - but note that the lens IS alone is still very very good. Best, Thomas 📸
Thanks Thomas for this fabulous review😃
Thank you very much for your generous support and the positive feedback! That is really awesome. Best, Thomas 📸
PS: If you have any questions regarding the lens, let me know!
This lens is currently trending best selling in Bic Camera in Japan. That's big praise.
Wow, did not know that! Pretty amazing, but also well deserved, as it is indeed very good.
Hi Thomas, thanks for the video. If this lens was around 300-500 g lighter I could trade in my 100-400 and 300 f4 pro. I much prefer the versatility of a zoom and the sync in stabilisation is really appealing. Just the weight 🫤
Thanks for the comment, Tony!
Yes, I can imagine that. Be that as it may, it is not as heavy as it sounds on paper and optically, it is stunning. However, it is also competing with my 300mm F4 for bag space, which is of course lighter and even sharper.
Great review, thanks. Two questions for you: 1) Did you find the position of the manual focus ring difficult to use, and 2) How would you compare the optical performance of this lens to the 100 - 400, which i currently own? Thank you,
Thank you!
1) It is pretty far back, but that is ideal when using the lens on a tripod. When using the lens handheld, you can focus with the thumb, for example. A bit unusual at first, but once you get used to it, it is pretty convenient.
2) Optically, the 100-400 is one of the best lenses ever made in photographic history, regardless of sensor format. So the 150-600 is very good, but not as good.
Hope this helps!
Well worked out review. And lovely shots, the photo at 1:47 made me pause the video for a while just to look at. This is a perfect image of an ordinary bird made special.
I wont consider the lens right away due to the size but I am happy to see it performs good.
Any chance you will do a review or test on the M.zuiko 100-400 and the 150-400?
Thank you!
The lenses are on my list to be reviewed in a similar manner.
Bro included a labtest 🤯 thats crazy content
Hi Tomas, great video. I have a question, does the 150-600mm lens with OM-1 allow focus bracketing?
Thanks!
Yes, the lens even allows for focus stacking.
Thank you very much for your explizit comments . I had viewed quite a few videos before but all of them, except one from the narrowband channel, were more or less useless and biassed in one way or another. Finally you convinced me and I am going to buy this lens in the next few months.
Thank you very much. I'm very happy to read that this video was helpful. I am convinced that the lens will live up to your expectations. It definitely exceeded mine. By the way: There is another video upcoming discussing the full M.Zuiko telephoto lineup from a prospective buyers perspective, which might be of interest to you as well.
Best, Thomas 📸
I still love mine!
Excellent video! Currently i have the 300mm F4 PRO, and i know how sharp and amazing this lens is. I adore it. But i am thinking of switching over to this lens as i mainly photograph smaller birds and tend to be out in the field a lot photographing nature. What will i be sacrificing moving over to the 150-600mm lens?
Thank you very much!
Coincidentally, I have produced a video which should answer exactly your question: ruclips.net/video/ltrKG2NT29E/видео.html
Enjoy and don't hesitate to get back to me if you need more info! Best, Thomas 📸
@@ThomasEisl.Photography Hi Thomas, i found the section you are refferring to. Thanks for the videos and the help, it is much appreciated. I know i am pretty much at the top of OM-Systems lens and to be honest, whichever i choose, i wont disappointed. I have used the 300mm for over a year and it is one of the best lens' i have used, and i am comparing that even to 200-400 F4 L series canon lens, which i have also owned. Just some food for thought there.... 150-400 might be the better route for me.
This is the king tuna of lenses.
Tuna?
@@ThomasEisl.Photography
excerpt taken from an DPreview post:
"...referring to Super High Grade Olympus Zuiko 4/3 300mm F2.8 the largest and most expensive lens of the ZD range of lens.
This SuperTelephoto was hand built to order in Olympus' factory in Japan. It has a formidable reputation and was christened as 'Big Tuna' by Olympus fans. Its smaller sibling, the ZD150mm x f=2 is known as 'Baby Tuna'."
...and so we can continue with that same classification of nicknames with the new lenses from OM system. lol
@subliminallyinc ahhhhhh! Thanks for sharing, I was not familiar with this quote! Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you for this detailed review! It's a very interesting perspective for me. Only the maximum aperture of f6.3 doesn't convince me but in your tests it seemed cloudy and with high ISO the results seem very good. Or maybe it's better to aim for 4.5 of the 150-400? Thank you
Hi Stefano, it is definitely a viable alternative. If you have the funds and you can get the 4,5 - then do. It is a better lens. But the 150-600 is definitely good enough for professional work. I was very impressed. It did not feel like a compromise.
There is a dedicated video upcoming comparing different super-telephoto lenses to offer additional advice and examining other aspects. I think it would be of interest to you! Stay tuned :-)
Best, Thomas
Great review, thanks. How does this fit in with the M4/3 philosophy of small and compact? Why would you spend this kind of money for use with a crop sensor camera? Then there's the dubious future of the M4/3 system...
Thanks! In short:
1) It is way smaller than any equivalent lens on other systems, so it fits very well.
2) you would spend the money to get the outstanding reach and image quality to capture the images you need. Let's not forget: small does not equate to inexpensive - miniaturization with equal quality is more expensive.
(Btw the term crop sensor is misleading, it implies the existence of a kind of standardized sensor format, which does not exist).
3) "Dubious futures" are only predicted by those who run clickbaity channels/media outlets. I recommend not paying attention to those to avoid being mislead.
Thanks for asking, I hope I was able to help!
Best, Thomas 📸
Oh, on a side note - I don't use OM System gear primarily because it is small (that is just the bonus) but because of the capabilities & imaging performance.
Excellent review - thanks!
Very welcome!
What color settings/preset have you applied to those bird shots? They’re cool but I quite like it.
Stay tuned, I plan on publishing more infos on those in the future - spoiler: I edited the RAWs in OM Workspace.
Thank you very much for this excellent review! It is truly useful to me. Very satisfying to see a review firmly grounded in practical photography. Could you comment on image quality in comparison to the 300 F4 with TC14, which is what I mostly use. I am seriously tempted to go for the 150-600, though. Thanks again for all your videos, which are really top notch.
Thank you very much, that is great to read!
I'm already working on a video comparing various ultra-zoom M.Zuiko options. Stay tuned 📸
Spoiler, the 300 is optically better, but the 150-600 is definitely capable of professional results and is of course more flexible. Best, Thomas 📸
Many of us are looking at this lens as the cheaper alternative to the 'OM SYSTEM M. Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO' Lens. The core question is image quality performance compared to price between them. Can we justify the 150-400mm cost over the 150-600? Is the 150-600mm 'good enough'? As these two lenses are performing in the same space.
I’ve got this lens the 150 x 600 and I’m getting really really good results
There is a dedicated video upcoming - I can only second what was posted one comment above, it is an excellent lens.
The 150-600 is the best value for money option, and not a compromise. The 4,5 PRO is the king of the hill in terms of raw performance, but the 150-600 is definitely a compelling alternative which will give you professional results.
I wish it would be sharper at f6.3. For wild-life applications I typically have shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000. To avoid as much noise as possible I then want to shoot as wide open as I can regarding aperture. I think this is where the main selling point of the 150-400 f4.5 is. I currently use the 100-400 f6.3.
Most definitely!
Good review. Very thorough.
Thank you.
Thanks Thomas for doing a decent test on this somewhat controversial lens.
Thank you! I was also sceptical at first, but it is a very good lens indeed.
Hello Thomas, is there anyone know's if the 150-600 zuiko lens performs on the lumix cameras G9 ore G9II?
Hey there, I don't know anyone who has tested that, but it should work fine, albeit with less capable stabilization as the protocols don't match.
Best Thomas 📸
Thank you Thomas! Now I want this lens, even though I may not actually need it for what I do 😉.
Very detailed review, unlike many other reviewers (and commenters) who complain that this lens is so much more expensive than the standard FF Sigma lens. You explain very well what design changes have been made by OM system to make it better.
Being a FF design obviously helps corner sharpness on a crop sensor ... but unfortunately also results in extra weight.
About the MFT chart, you say that the MFT value is about half at 600mm vs 150mm,but looking at the numbers, it looks like the resolution drops to 2/3 of the value of 150mm (0.2 vs 0.13+), which is significantly better than 1/2. Is my reasoning correct?
Thank you very much!
Regarding the FF design, I'm pretty sure the lens elements have been rearranged inside, which ensures a closer focusing distance and better optical performance. The lens actually uses the full front element. When you move a finger over the front element, you almost immediately get vignetting at some focusing distances. So it seems they utilized the full size to achieve actually something the 35mm lens cannot do. That should also explain the good resolving power.
You are correct regarding the MTF value, it is less than halved. I've just added a correction, I was a bit too pessimistic about this one.
Best, Thomas
❤❤❤
Planning to buy it.
Definitely a good choice!
Vielen Dank für diesen aussagekräftigen Test. Ich sehe meinen Kauf dadurch mehr als bestätigt! Bin allerdings gespannt, wie ich auf Dauer mit dem Gewicht klarkomme 😉 So einfach um den Hals hängen ist ja leider nicht mehr 🤷
Danke für das Feedback, freut mich sehr! Und Gratulation zum Kauf, ein sehr schönes und überaus leistungsfähiges Objektiv.
PS: Am liebsten trage ich persönlich das 150-600 über der Schulter.
Thanks for your thoughts on this lens
How does the rotation feel on this lens? On my 100-400 the rotation feels a little gritty.
Definately looking at this one but no stores have it in stock, order in only so I cant check the feel myself.
With the weight of this I would be using a mono pod so I will need a good rotation feel.
Most welcome.
To me it felt very smooth. And thanks to the adjustable resistance, you can always switch "gears" if needed.
Thanks!
Thank you very much for your support!
Bravo Thomas! As usual, you get used us to see an high professional exam of a gear. What I would ear in addition ? A comparison among the wide variety of telephoto lenses: 150/600 - 150/400 TC1.25 - 100/400 - 300 - 75/300. Each of them has a proper profile and, for ex., the last one it isn't less useful as others, with only 500 gr. lightweight. I would like to know your opinion about. Sergio from Milano
Thank you very much Sergio! Noted - I'm already shooting with the 300 F4 and some Four Thirds lenses.
Best, Thomas 📸
An interesting description of some obviously excellent chunks of glass skillfully stuck together. At the moment my zoom range ends at 600mm FF equiv. (Different camera, different system.) 600mm MFT is naturally 1200mm FF equiv. That is an impressive reach and extremely useful. If I go that far, by software in the camera or by cropping in post, I am down to 5MP! 🙂
150mm MFT (i.e. 300mm equiv.) is really a rather long focal length for a studio photo session with a model. Definitely an acoustic communications problem. And I must say, that the dangerous wild duck Thomas stalked looked rather urbane and completely tame!
Imagine spending 2.600 euros just to shoot a tame duck and keep a pretty girl at a safe distance!
Take two 🎬😉
Haha yes! That was strange 🤔
YOU ARE A GENIUS.
Oh wow, that is a nice compliment!
I wish you had covered the reason why the lens, that folks claim is based on a full frame lens, could not have been made smaller because of the reach like the width of the opening...
Ah, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. Maybe you can rephrase that. Best Thomas
I think this lens is really good if a bit overpriced for me. It solves the problems of adapting the sigma 150-600 (C-AF and stabilization), and the smaller aperture means lens because you trade off for reach. The f5-6.3 may seem dark for the 100-400, but at 600mm f6.3 is very good. It also overlaps less with the panasonic 100-300 or the olympus 70-300, making it make more sense for someone that wants to carry a long lens and a shorter brighter one.
Thank you very much for sharing - a very thoughtful comment! Best, Thomas 📸
I’ve heard on more than 1 RUclips channel that this lens could have been made smaller, which would imply that the front element could be less than 95mm and the thus lens could also be shorter in length with the same maximum f6.3 aperture at the long end. I’m assuming they’re wrong since we calculate the front element size by dividing 600 by the maximum aperture of 6.3.
Am I correct? My wife tells me that many times I’m not. 😀
It is actually a complicated topic - but you've hit the nail almost perfectly, and here is why:
1) If the lens covers a bigger area, and you are using only a small portion, you could basically remove the "excess glass" and still get a center area with the same amount of light
2) The lens might project a bigger circle, but most likely not across the whole focal range - which indicates an optical re-design. How do I come to this conclusion: This is observable when moving an object in front of the lens element - it starts to vignette almost immediately.
Side note: It is not the front element but the entrance/exit pupil which determine the light gathering. More info in my video on equivalence: ruclips.net/video/FVHTLFD_7o8/видео.html
The S on the lens is for Smooth and T is tight zooming. Am I good with carrying the lens with like an R strap from the foot? I don't really like it with the lens hanging down an banging against my knee. BTW, I have put my MC14 on it and rarely take it off. Thanks!
I'd say that should work, as long as the r strap is of good quality!
Tolles Review. Ich persönlich schätze das Olympus 300mm f4 Pro mit beiden Telekonvertern und das 150-600er wäre mir persönlich schwer. Am Rande: Für die OM-1 gab es jetzt die Firmware 1.6 und ich muss sagen, die AF-Leistung hat sich damit in vielen Bereichen merklich verbessert.
Vielen Dank, auch für den Tip bezüglich des FW updates. LG Thomas 📸
Hello Thomas, I still think that the optics is not changed to the related lens from the other company. You mentioned the short focus distance at 150mm as difference, but that is also available with the „original“.
Yes, the IS is modified to allow the Sync IS. That is without doubt one of the great features. But the general lens design can not be modified in single points without the integration to the whole system. Modern lenses are too complicated to allow that.
So for me all changes are related to body, electronic, maybe the water proof classification. But not the optic on its own.
BTW: In Germany the option of manual use of the zoom at the the front lens barrel was explicitly mentioned by German Nils Häusler in the presentation of the lens…
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Regarding the zooming: Well, I've heard that as well, but personally I strongly advice against "grab-zooming" for obvious reasons, even if the manufacturer says it is okay.
Thank you. great!
You are welcome!
Thoughts on use with OM-1 Mk 1?
I've tested it with my Mark I as well, delivers the same high level of performance.
good work!
Thank you very much!
Hello Thomas, at which park are you in Vienna?
Hello Gerhard, that was the Stadtpark - near U3 Landstraße
The question remains why they chose to keep the range from 150 to 600 and the aperture from 5 to 6.3 (like Sigma and Tamron did).
Would it not be more obvious to choose a different range for the smaller sensor? Indeed people will question if this lens is in fact the Sigma in a Zuiko body... Olympus has proven many times they can look after themselves and this lens is a joke, I suppose. I am sure the optics are of pristine quality, but my Sigma 150-600 also has an extreme resolution (I used it on my OM-D to photograph the moon and sun and even with a 1.4x converter, there's no need to choose a smaller aperture to get more resolution!).
But in the end I should not complain, because with the IS and phenomenal focus tracking, this is a treat for sports and especially wildlife.
Oh, and thanks for another to the point review, Thomas!
whats the minimum focus distance at 600mm?
Please refer to the latest video.
Very good review. I really hope OM System commit to the new lens roadmap and give us what looks to be a 40 to 200.
Hopefully by leveraging this sigma design and dropping the other lens from the roadmap they are focusing the RbD on a single dedicated M43 lens.
Thanks!
I'm pretty optimistic about that - in the meantime, I have the excellent FT lens on my OM-1II.
Best, Thomas 📸
请问一年下来那边存钱更多一些呢？
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. Could you rephrase the question?
This is a nice thorough review , in the field and in the lab. if the variables are kept the same it also allows for future comparisons to make things even more interesting.
As far as the lens goes, i remain unimpressed. Paying the premium over fullframe even, carrying the extra weight and getting 50% resolving power toward the long end (other reviews mentioned the drop in IQ but without a measurement to confirm) which is the whole point of this lens is b-r-u-t-a-l.
Thanks for the comment and for sharing your perspective! It is definitely not a lens for everybody, even though it is very good.
Allow me a few remarks - small does not mean inexpensive. Quite the contrary, smaller often means more expensive as the tolerances are tighter. This and the mentioned improvements are why the MFT lens is more expensive than the 35mm lens. The drop in IQ is actually very acceptable, if you look at practical applications. Maybe you can join the live stream in a few days, I'll talk about the resolving power of this lens in detail. Best, Thomas
I can't even imagine how big the equivalent FF lens would look like....and cost.
Yes, definitely not as small and inexpensive like this one
There's the Canon RF1200mm F8 L IS USM Lens which costs an unholy 20k USD so no need to imagine.
👍🏻
👍
Thank you for posting this excellent review. The 150 600 is the best choice obviously to magnify small and/or distant subjects. I have tried the lens myself for 3 weeks but could not find sufficient reason to keep it. I find it balances poorly on the small Om1m2, even with the grip. It is too obviously a FF design. OM did their best to adapt it but, I feel in the end, it is too limited by its origin and m43 sensor limitations. F8 on this lens for best optical performance restricts its use severely. The 150 600 should be mentioned is clearly and visibly better than the 100 400, however at overlapping focal lengths massively behind the 40-150+1,4TC. The latter shows what is possible on m43 for a zoom. For some reason that beats me you have to shell out 7k for the big white lens to have a really top range zoom on m43. In my opinion, there is a gaping quality gap in OMs zoom line this side of the 150-400 f4.5 that the reviewed lens does not address.
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. I'm afraid that my review was not very good, as it gave you the wrong impression about the lens - two remarks: just because peak performance is achieved at f/8 this does not mean that the performance wide open is bad. Quite the contrary. Second, I do not think there is a gap in the lineup at all, quite the contrary. Take a look at my overview presentation which you might find helpful: ruclips.net/video/ltrKG2NT29E/видео.html
Thanks again for contributing and all the best, Thomas 📸
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. I'm afraid that my review was not very good, as it gave you the wrong impression about the lens - two remarks: just because peak performance is achieved at f/8 this does not mean that the performance wide open is bad. Quite the contrary. Second, I do not think there is a gap in the lineup at all, quite the contrary. Take a look at my overview presentation which you might find helpful: ruclips.net/video/ltrKG2NT29E/видео.html
Thanks again for contributing and all the best, Thomas 📸
Great review, but really disappointing 600mm results, with roughly 1/2 the resolving power compared to 150mm. $2700 for what is essentially a very good 150-300mm not a very good 150-600mm telephoto lens; I'm not sure how such a favorable assessment can be given with such a resolution degradation. The very first question invariably asked when evaluating a super telephoto like this is how well the sharpness is maintained from near to far. I was hoping this would be the one to use for airshows where the Olympus 100-400 often wasn't quite long enough, and resolution drops off at 400mm in a similar fashion to this lens. Too bad OM didn't adapt the Sigma 60-600 DG DN, which appears to be a bit better at 600mm, but a pound heavier.
Thanks for the positive feedback.
To add to your perspective: I would not call the results disappointing at all - we should not assess a loss in resolving power relatively, but we have to evaluate how much resolving power there is in absolute terms. As the 150-600 starts way above average, it might loose some of it, but there is still more than enough left. It is a very good lens, not just for the low price tag. Also, other optical phenomena which also degrade Image quality are practically not present at all. That is why I come to a very positive conclusion.
Thanks again for the elaborate comment, an excellent contribution indeed! Best, Thomas 📸
Regarding dust collection, any tromboning lens will suck air in. So it will inevitably let dust in, no matter how highly IP rated it is.
Yes, my words exactly.
The founder of LensRentals has repeatedly gone on record saying that after looking at their hundreds of lenses over their useful lifetime there’s been no obvious correlation between zoom style and propensity for dust collection.
Looking at the internal design this makes sense, whether elements move on the inside or out there will be a pressure differential and air is going to follow the path of least resistance, and even for internal zooms this sometimes means air getting pushed in and out from outside rather than in. Modern high end lenses have intentional filtered air vents that are filtered to allow air pressure to equalize while capturing dust, regardless of whether they’re internal or external zoom. Of course your mileage may vary for lower cost optics.
It seems to me that this is a myth that really needs to die at this point.
This is a sigma lens with an Olympus stamp on top. Why do we have to pay more than double!
Olympus sollte dich wirklich einstellen! Deine Erfahrungsberichte zu den Produkten haben einfach mehr Hand und Fuß. P.S.: Die OM1 II hat, was den Autofokus angeht, bei der "Menschenfotografie" deutlich zugelegt, bei allen anderen Modi spürbar, aber jetzt nichts Welt bewegendes. Das ist aber nur meine Einschätzung....andere ziehen, für mich unverständlich, andere Schlüsse.
Vielen herzlichen Dank! Es gibt doch hoffentlich niemanden der meint die Mark II ist AF-technisch schlechter als die Mark I oder andere aktuelle Kameras?
F-me! Pocket size 1200mm lens! And i am stuck with Canon :(
Oh, which Canon camera are you using at the moment?
Numbers you provide in resolution testing are not very usefull. We would need LW/PH that would let us infer anything about the resolution. Values of c/p below 0.2 or even 0.13 are ABYSMAL! Heavily limiting sensor's resolving power which at 20Mpix is troublesome.
Well, I don't agree, but thanks for the contribution nonetheless. For example, as long as you have no information on the demosaicing method used, you cannot assess whether the value is abysmal or not, due to the nature of MTF calculations. Spoiler alert - it is not abysmal at all. Most testing sites don't share that, but I do - just refer to the web link for further information on this and other crucial aspects of the test.
Also, you can easily calculate LW/PH from c/p, as you know for sure. If you need help with that, get in touch via mail, I can provide you some useful information regarding that.
Best, Thomas
@@ThomasEisl.Photography I base my opinion on imatest reference of what each value mean. They use 0.18 c/p value to describe poor lens. If I got something wrong, correct me pointing out where I got it wrong. It would be nice if you express the results in units that are widely used, easily understandable and comparable between platforms and between lenses. But honestly 7.5 pixels to cover one cycle between black and white sounds very bad. Why covering that in e-mail. Let all the viewers see the results.
@@ThomasEisl.Photography BTW. I have just done the calculations. 0.135c/p on an OM-1 20Mpix sensor with pixel pitch of 3.32um (0.00332mm) translates to 40.6lpmm which is considered by optycze .pl as below the level of decency for a lens tested on 12Mpix E-PL1 sensor. For reference Olympus 300mm Pro scored 75lpmm, 12-100mm Pro exceeded 80lpmm just like 75mm 1.8. Poor Leica 100-400mm @400mm was below 40lpmm but on 12Mpix sensor. Leica 200mm 2.8 scored 91.2lpmm on 16Mpix. So how can you call 40.6lpmm on 20Mpix if not abysmal? Especially when we factor in the outrageous price of this baby. I wonder if your measurements are precise as 150-600mm is considered slightly sharper than Olympus 100-400mm which in turn is noticeably sharper than Leica 100-400mm. All in all I guess I cannot trust any test until it is backed up by test on optyczne.pl
I think there are several topics on the table which get mixed together. Let me try to sort this out:
First and foremost, if you want to take my measurements as an indicator that the lens is bad, then you are completely on the wrong track. It is actually very, very good.
Second, you cannot compare my results to different sources unless you know all the testing parameters. That is why I said you should go to my website and learn about the method & setup. Drawing conclusions without doing that is futile, because MTF 50 can be drastically impacted by the demosaicing method, as I've said.
Third, we are talking about system MTF, so the conversions to different systems (like the PL1 plus another lens) are very problematic. You basically add another factor (or more if you consider OLPF, shutter vibration and so on as separate factors) to the already incomparable measurements.
Last but not least, sorry for the inconvenience caused by C/P. However, I won't change the metric as it is the most useful in digital photography in my opinion, once you get used to it. Give it a try, you will see that it makes the most sense and can be converted easily. You should definitely not use LP/mm, because then you have to deal with enlargement and physical sensor size to come to any meaningful conclusions. It is an old relic from film days, not entirely misleading, but I'd say there are better alternatives - like c/p, right :-)
My offer regarding the email was to send you links to various research papers regarding the topic and help you converting the units, but by googling a few of the things I've mentioned, you can find them yourself, I'd say.
I hope this was helpful, it is a complex topic with no easy answers and many testing sites obscure how the results were obtained (in-cam JPEG, RAW, which mosaicing method, and so on). Bottom line - always stick to one source and hope they know what they are doing. Also, be careful about certain "decency" levels. Those are arbitrary and you are better off determining what you personally need, not just picking a value someone else decided on.
Thanks for engaging and all the best, Thomas