OM System 40-150mm F4 Pro Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июл 2024
- The OM System 40-150mm F4 Pro is one of the smallest,, lightest constant aperture telephotos we've ever seen. Does that small design come at the cost of image quality? Chris did some street photography in downtown Calgary to find out.
0:00 - Intro
0:43 - Sample images
1:09 - Build quality and design
1:59 - Autofocus
2:17 - Flare and chromatic aberrations
3:15 - Video performance
3:42 - Close-up performance
4:26 - Bokeh
5:37 - Sharpness
6:50 - The wrap
Music provided by BeatSuite.com
www.beatsuite.com
Rental equipment provided by The Camera Store
www.thecamerastore.com
-----------------------
DPReview.com is the world's largest digital camera review website. Welcome to our RUclips channel! Subscribe for new feature videos, reviews, interviews and more.
Discover the world's most in-depth digital camera reviews at www.dpreview.com 
Наука
Like the direction OM System seems to be heading with the lens releases so far... small and compact but good imaging quality and even better build quality. Now just waiting for an OM-5 to complement these lenses!
Hoping for an OM5 or Pen F next up. My aging Pen F needs an updated EVF and AF in the worst way.
I dont like the new direction, they dumb down their products, no focus clutch and 4.0, thats not pro
With you there. I gave up MFT because they kept trying to do the same stuff the big boys were doing instead of focusing on strengths of the system. These new lenses have me so excited that I’m buying back in. With this lens as one of the ones I’m picking up.
@@HH60gPaveHawk i never bought my mft cameras because they are small. Mft has mich more advantages than this. I want a pro body with space for my fingers and i want pro lenses with manual focus clutch. If i want small i buy a point and shoot.
@@castielvargastv7931 that’s great. There are already a plethora of lenses that suit your needs. Many of us originally bought into MFT for pro level features and IQ in a small body. These lenses are finally addressing the compact adventure/landscape/travel photographers needs. If I want a big lens and body with lots of room and wide apertures I’ll grab my Song body and GM lenses. But now I can also grab a handful of tiny sharp lenses and go travel or backpack and not feel like I need a pack mule
I’ve had mine for 1 day and absolutely love it. EM1MkIII and this is so compact yet terrific reach, sharpness. Really happy with it. Perfect for chasing grandchildren around the yard
This lens & the 8-25 f/4 PRO, plus an EM1.3 just supplanted my R6 + EF 16-35 & 70-200 f/4s as my primary camera system while backpacking. About 200 miles logged over the summer, and I can't say I miss the full frame setup all that much - except possibly for taking Milky Way landscapes. For everything else, the results are equally sharp, while saving me over 2lbs in weight. The Olympus IBIS is unreal in low-light; handheld 1 second exposures at 150mm are still sharp. This specific M4/3 system is lightweight, weatherproof, comfortable & ergonomic, while still delivering outstanding outputs. Can I notice a difference when pixel-peeing side-by-side with the full frame files? Yes, but I've got to be zoomed in to 100% or more, and even then the delta is small. For social media posts, viewing on a 4k monitor, or even medium sized prints, the difference in quality is functionally negligible; on the mountain passes, the difference in weight is not.
I have their 12-45mm f4 lens and I love it. Eventually, I'll get this lens. Maybe I'll wait until the first time it goes on sale.
It's surreal to be periodically reminded of just how heavy the new Noct is 🤣
I bought my 40 - 150mm f4 for a specific purpose: capturing butterflies and dragonflies as they take off and land by means of Pro Capture. It is far lighter than the 40 - 150mm f2.8, easily handheld for a considerable time, but still has the required focal lengths. Combined with one of my OM1 bodies, I doubt this lens will disappoint me. The IBIS in the OM1 is brilliant, so I wasn't bothered by the lack of lens stabilisation, I can set the focusing parameters in camera, it will still let me shoot at 20 fps and I don't require an Lfn button and I do not need to add an MC14 or MC20, but it will, of course, take extension rings: so this is a great choice of lens for me.
Does it work with pro-capture and in-camera-focus-stacking features?
Dragonflies/butterflies is a key use-case for me as well - debating getting this 40-150 F4 for my OM-D. Did you get it, and how’s it working for you?
Once again, love your videos Chris and Jordan! They are the highlight of my subscription feed 😄
Great Video Guys, seems to be an amazing lens
Love that you used some tying materials to the left of the test chart! Jordan probably grumbled when he punched in on those shots.
Hey Chris, if you wanted to really push the resolution for the test shots, why not just use the Hi-Res modes rather than shooting on the Panasonic body?
There is something to mention about that lens. If I have understood it right, you can not use it with (TC) teleconverter.
I don't think you can no, whereas on the f2.8 version you can.
You guys do good work.
I think you forgot(?) to mention whether it's compatible with the MC14/20 adapters, like the 2.8 version is?
For a fun hobby photographer would you recommend this lens over my 14-150mm f4.0-5.6 II? I'm tempted but not sure I can justify the cost (tho I can get a really good deal brand new...)
I don't really shoot in the rain! Are the images that much better to the point I'd see a difference without pixel peeping?
I just upgraded to an OM-1 as a treat.
What type of license you buy for the music for these videos?
I've taken a look at the website linked, and at the checkout i couldn't decide what licence was the right one for this usecase
So I have the 40-150 R, besides the weather sealing does this outperform the R to justify paying 8 times as much to move up? I’ve been debating for months if I want to upgrade to a pro lens for my street photography, I was gonna gob with the 12-100 f4 pro but they have taken the price up to $1300 from $900, I originally was thinking the 40-150 Pro f2.8 but that’s over kill for street lol. If the pro isn’t that much better then the R I’ll stay were I’m at.
Is this changing focus when move from 40-150mm? I need to know because I’m video guy and like compact style lens.
I'm glad you saved the bee. Sadly we had a bee fly into our garden today but despite us giving it some sugar water it perished. Anyway, good job with the review; it seems to be a decent lens but with some compromises-I believe you can't attach teleconverters either right? Plus, there is no tripod foot like on the 40-150mm f.28 version. And actually, it's not really that much cheaper considering the differences.
So far I'm very happy with this lens. I have a bad back and carrying my 100-400 for any kind of hiking is impossible. This doesn't have quite the reach, but it's sufficient for what I need it for and it's sharp as a tack. I've just added the 8-25 Pro to lighten my gear that much more, as I don't need to carry the 7-14 2.8 for anything but astro. Kaui in two weeks will be so much easier this time!
That shirt looks so much better on you than the one from the Nikon firmware video Chris.
I appreciate you saying that, but I still really like the other one too.
Regarding the aperture, I wonder if the lens was originally designed as a 3.5 or so, but OM found that it did not perform satisfactorily wide open. It wouldn't be the first time a lens manufacturer has limited the aperture like this. I think there was a Viltrox lens that could be "upgraded" ever so slightly, as well as one from Hasselblad.
The original 4/3rds 7-14 F4 was actually an F2.8. Press the lens release and the aperture opened up.
Looks nice. Small enough, yet still fast enough.
What do y'all think about this compared to the panisonic-leica 50-200? I'd l love to see a shoot out there.
The Panasonic is near double the price but the better lens, particularly if using a Panasonic body where you will get sync IS. The extra 50mm is useful too as I would regard 400mm equivalent as the minimum focal length to do most wildlife.
That's a great lens but bigger and heavier. You pays your money and takes your choice.
I wonder how useful this lens, along with the 12-45 f4 would be on the EM5 MK2 as a wet weather kit, ie. for backpacking or overnight mountain bike exploring. Places where light and compact along with rugged durability and “lower” cost gear make a difference. But this one looks like a keeper, too bad about not adding lens stabilization though.
I think it would be excellent for that. Recently took it fishing with the OM-1 and it was so light to carry.
You basically just described my kit (except with a Mk3). Teeny tiny compared to my FF Sony stuff. Toss a 45/1.8 and 17/1.7 in the bag and you have a fairly complete travel setup too.
I'm sure it would be perfectly weather sealed and lightweight, but I don't know what I would ever use such a lens for when I'm backpacking or mountain biking except perhaps taking pictures of friends, and for that, I'd rather take a small prime or two, like the 75mm f/1.8, 56mm f/1.4, or 42.5mm f/1.7.
@@keithholland4322 Tele Landscape shooting? Light wildlife? Flower/semi macro work? Some sports capability too. Exactly the same reasons my compact FF setup has a 70-200 f/4 as well.
@@HH60gPaveHawk Sure, you can use it for landscape photography, but any lens will do for that, and the 12-100 combined with an 8-18 or 8-25 will usually fill that role nicely without the need for a longer lens, at least in my experience. It doesn't focus close enough for macro and it's a little short for field sports and not bright enough for indoor sports. Maybe it would be useful for beach volleyball or something, although with those types of sports, you won't have to haul it long distances, so you might as well just get a used f/2.8 model for a similar price and get much better subject separation. Remember that the depth of field you get at f/4 on an MFT body is like that of an f/8 lens on a FF body and the low light performance is in the same ballpark as well, provided you're comparing relatively recent models with high-end sensors, so they're very different lenses for very different purposes. It just seems kind of redundant to make this lens and the 12-45 when they already have an outstanding 12-100mm.
I wish you had tested it against 40-150mm F2.8 Pro, as well. It would have been very helpful to see how sharpness, CA, flare etc. compares.
yes. exactly! the comparison with the 40-150 2.8 is all what matters.
I tested it against old 40-150 3,5-4,5. If pictures wouldn't have exif, you wound never identify the lens. Major issue of 4.0 is overprice. It costs more then used lime condition 2.8 pro and 12-100, and 25 times more than optically similar 3,5-4,5.
What bag is that you're carrying?
2:48 That’s why i subscribed, that’s why you too guys are so special and that’s why you got my like: „splash of loca“.
It will match perfect with 12-45 F4 on my Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV.
Hi, did you get it? I'm planning to get into Olympus with e-m10 mark iv, with those two lenses. Just wondering if they might be too heavy on its small body. Thanks
OMDS, give us that 50-250mm f/4!!!
My dream lense
The GH6 has a bit a of green tint to it eh? Chris’s hair is a bit green as well as everything else 4:05. Other than that the footage looked pretty good!
Not on my screen, but some ND filters could do that.
OM system should release a pen f line with vertical oriented sensor. ❤️
No - but I can not understand, why they do not make a round sensor so that with the push of a button, you can switch between vertical and horizontal - of course with full output to the RAW file, so you can later change your mind about cropping, and not lose data if the horizon is not completely level
@@majamogens#1 If you're familiar with pen f half frame camera you'll know they take portrait orientation naturally. #2 because sensors are the most expensive part of the camera body and they will be better off if they make a bigger sensor rather than having a circle sensor that you cannot maximized edge to edge.
@@majamogens because it would be more expensive and the body would need to be significantly bigger, that's why.
Thanks for a neutral review of this lens.
The comment here goes on your remark that one can see that the aperture does not open completely.
Olympus' first 7-14 for 4/3 was a f: 4. I saw at one point that someone had figured out that the lens could be 'opened' to f: 2.8.
The answer was that the lens was not corrected well enough for that.
I rather think it's because they want their PRO lenses to be with fixed largest aperture, so this lens could actually be a f: 2.8-4.0.
I have never understood constant aperture design as a target. I do not see anything wrong if the lens is faster at its widest setting. Provided that optical quality is maintained.
@@komandagleby_GB Neither do I - but as I understand it, it's those video filming who really want it, but why they can not 'just' start with the smallest common opening, and then ignore the larger opening, I do not understand.
I was gonna do the same comment, I've used the olde 7-14 f4 and did the 'open-up' trick (if you hold down the lens eject button it opens up the true aperture on the old 4/3). The lens quality did drop at "f2.8" (vignetting, CA) so they decided to release it with the auto-f4 lock. I guess a bad f2.8 performance would've not sold at much vs a good f4 performance.
The 12-40/2.8 has this behavior; it's fully open at 40mm and stopped down a bit at anything shorter. I managed to take a picture with it wide open at 12mm by disconnecting it at 40mm and zooming to 12, and while it was impossible to focus, I could tell there was severe vignetting and distortion toward the edges. Based on the camera's exposure metering, it seems to be about a 2/3 stop difference. I wanted to be mad at them for the artificial limitation, but in reality I'd probably never choose to take badly distorted photos just to be at f/2.2 instead of f/2.8.
@@komandagleby_GB A constant aperture is useful when you're shooting in manual mode and you don't want your exposure to change when you zoom. Of course, you could set a variable aperture lens to shoot at the smallest maximum aperture throughout the entire zoom range, but I think it's easy to forget to do that or to accidentally reset it. I do a lot of wildlife photography and pet photography with the 40-150 f/2.8 and often a 2x teleconverter for wildlife, and I use manual mode most of the time because I want my aperture wide open, I usually want a minimum shutter speed of 1/2000th of a second, and auto ISO.
Seiji knocking it out of the park)
Who told you!?
Need to test this lens against the Canon/Nikon/Sony FF 80-300/f4 bazookas for sharpness, weigh, portability, IP rating, etc etc.
I'd say the OM is better in everything, even before testing. Olympus PRO image and build quality is comparable or better than Canon L. Very lightweight and portable + has an IP rating unlike really any lenses on the FF market. DOF is of course not as good but you can just get closer.
@@te0pol159 I bet the OM gets crushed in image quality by a crappy third party 70-300m zoom an any 10 year old, dirt cheap FF camera.
@@evrythingis1 Troll.
@@te0pol159 Uh, how is it trolling if its 100% verifiably true? Your post says the m43 is better than everything full frame, but it is complete fact that even a 10 year old FF camera + off brand 70-300mm lens is not only cheaper, but massively better in literally every image quality metric.
@@evrythingis1 Have you even used an Olympus lens? The image quality is something like Sigma Art, Canon L or better.
Why OM 40-140mm F4 with collapse design can achieve waterproof & dust proof, but Ricoh GR series can't?
I saw some youtube shorts on people with severe focus issues on the om-1, it apparently gives random focus confirmation so many shots end up out of focus. Do other people have this?
There is a 40-150 F4 but it’s not a pro??? Is that correct?
The 40-150mm that is not a pro is f4.0 - f5.6, while there are two Pro model 40-150mm lenses, one is f4.0 all the way through it’s zoom range, and the other is f2.8 all the way through it’s zoom range.
This lens makes some sense for travel, but the price is over the top given the lack of features.
Please shoot this on your GH6
If you show three weight measurements and mention two, why do you mention it in NOCT and not in pound (and/or ounce) if the latter is more common? What in the world is NOCT?
@@djstuc Haha! That's funny. The NOCT is a beast, and it's interesting that its weight is exactly 2 kilos. I guess Nikon added some weight to reach the exact number. It's hard to believe they got to that naturally. Still, ignoring pound/ounces sounds off to me since a great deal of DPReview audience uses the imperial system and is based--that's my guess--in the US and UK. Anyways... Thanks for the explanation.
@@djstuc Got it
In this price I would rather buy Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 or wait, add some money and buy Olympus 40-150 f2.8.
@@MercedesBenzGKlasse The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is lightweight and compact. Both lenses I mentioned have internal focusing, which is an advantage for me. The f2.8 light is an advantage, you can buy a x1.4 or x2 converter with them and still get good results. The Olympus 40-150 f4 is not bad, but at the moment it has been badly priced - that's my opinion.
Don’t forget the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4. Seems better than the Oly in most respects except size and it is not much bigger than the Oly.
🐝
compact lens with great quality
a bigger range but panasonic 35-100 is in the same size and 2.8
No flies on you are there?
Testing this at f/4 and f/6.3 feels like you're personally attacking my ASD.
More OM system please. Im in love with this camera, is probably not accurate but i think is a mini Z9, and we all are inlove with that camera!
For a comparison with the Z9: ruclips.net/video/-HkDlkdxaQs/видео.html. If you don’t understand Spanish, you can use the auto translate for captions in English.
The audio synch seems OFF on this video….
I know what you're thinking. Does the stabilization go six stops of five?
Well, does it, punk?
I hate to be that guy, but what bag does Chris have? 😬
That's the Wotancraft Pilot bag, easily my favourite shoulder bag of all time.
@@niccollsvideo Thanks Chris!
Not as little as a zest of loca though
For the light weight, it should be my choice. Buy without the compatibility of using together with the MC14 and MC20, it isn't. The f/2.8 is still better when using.
Who cares about using MC14 and MC20?
@@TL-xw6fh Me, so?
@@TL-xw6fh Anyone wanting to use it for wildlife photography. They can be useful for some sports and events too.
I'm still trying to figure out who this lens is for. The only professional use I can think of for such a lens is studio portraits with flash and controlled backdrops. It's too short for wildlife photography, too dim for most sports and events, doesn't focus close enough for macro (and doesn't accept teleconverters), so what is anyone spending that much on a lens going to use it for? I guess it could be used for landscape photography, but I find that the 12-100 and 8-18 cover 95% of my landscape photography needs. It just seems like an overpriced mid grade kit lens to me.
You must have too much time on your hands. If you feel you don't need it, don't buy it.
I have about the same intention of buying into the OM system as putting a fork in my eye, but I love watching you guys so here I am.
Take-a-ways from the video.
Good, not great lens.
Chinook winds?
I own the 40-150mm f2.8 PRO, and it will have to be pried from my cold, dead hand because it's so amazing. It's so useful to have f2.8 on Micro Four Thirds when you're shooting fast action due to the fast shutter speeds you need to use. Plus, the f2.8 is compatible with teleconverters, and I use the MC-20 all the time to get twice the reach (yes, at f5.6 but still).
I would recommend that people skip this lens and go for the f2.8 version, especially since it can be found at reasonable prices on the used market.
I wonder if OM Systems decides to make a mark II version soon…
Yeah going to have to disagree there. Different lenses for different use cases. With the 12-45/4 I can have a two lens 24-300 FOV f/4 setup for the same total cost, size, and weight. I have literally zero interest in the 40-150/2.8, and I’ve owned it in the past.
When I have to pick a sharp, weatherproof lens to lug for 50+ miles on a multi-day backpacking trip, I can think of exactly 378 reasons to prefer the f/4
As long as the wonderful 40-150 2.8 pro exists the 4.0 is not an option
Nah
Doesn't it mean it's f8?
No only in the way it resolves bokeh in every other aspect it’s a f4
35-100 would have been better
You mean like the Panasonic 35-100 2.8? That would be a tough sale...
Та кому оно надо. "Система" мертва
A 100-300 (roughly) F8 equivalent. Cool.
F8 equivalent DOF, nothing else.
37.5mm aperture.
In terms of light gathering it's almost compact ultra zoom territory.
Ok, i get it. Compact, light, nice casing. But i more on the side things like Nikon 300 4, where manufacturer tries put in small package as many meat as possible, than justifying really tiny optical formula. I mean 37.5mm "pro" tele lens, really ?! My 50 1.4 has bigger front element !
The OM 40-150 f/4 weighs half what the Nikon 300mm f/4 does, offers the flexibility of a zoom, and it works on a Micro Four Thirds camera!
@@millsnerd That is all true but the 300mm F/4 on FF does the same job as a m43 150mm f/2 which would be just about as big and in all likelihood more expensive . Sadly endless and typically inaccurate comparisons to FF are a depressing stalwart of m43 forums . The lens looks to be a great proposition for a travel kit combine it with maybe the 12-45mm and maybe throw in my beloved Pany 20mm for a helluva good set -up covering a lot of ground. I don't need the F/2.8 option so a smaller lighter cheaper lens works for me
@@jimstirling7223 WRONG! It does the same job as a M43 150mk F4 lens. Tony Northrup is wrong.
Yeah, a 37.5mm aperture won't capture enough luminiferous aether to fully phlogisticate the sensor pixels. No sale!
Sure, in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, Einstein argued that light was "a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole," which would mean that each of them could affect only one sensor pixel without regard for how many others are or are not captured elsewhere. But heck, what did HE know?
@@jlwilliams You mean "photons"? Because yes, that is the entire point, a 37.5mm aperture wont capture nearly enough photons. You do know that is the literal reason that most professional photographers use rather large lenses, right?
I bet this image quality gets crushed by a super cheap 70-300mm off brand lens on a 8-10 year old used $500 full frame camera. I would also be willing to bet a point and shoot superzoom like the Sony RX10 mark iii or iv would offer nearly as good image quality, while being way smaller/cheaper/more convenient.
Then you would lose your money as the image quality is superb - and I am comparing it to my Z7ii with 70-200 2.8. You need to use the Oly M43 system in the field with the Pro lenses to see how good the system really is - And how easy it is to carry!
@@Hemlck That's interesting because I compared it to a $500 10 year old Sony A7R with a $500 Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-F6.3 and the images from the A7R have much much more clarity, color, and detail. The combination only weighs exactly 1kg too, What is the weight for your set up on M43? Mine feels almost the exact same weight in the hand.... but it's sensor is so small in comparison.
@@evrythingis1 I can only compare the systems I own and use ..Nikon and Olympus. The em5 mark 3 with the two f4 pro lenses makes an ideal kit for long walks and for me when touring by motorcycle. These lenses on a m43 sensor give extremely sharp detailed and contrasty images….which m43 lenses and body have you used and how big do you print?
@@Hemlck Ah yes, argument as old as time. If you don't print large then you dont need the resolution and detail right? What about in 15 years when people's displays and VR headsets are 8k resolution? M43 has many excellent lenses, this one being no exception, and the image quality at low iso is great, still definitely better than a smart phone, however is it the literal bottom of the barrel in terms of image quality among all interchangeable lens camera formats. It's a simple fact.
@@evrythingis1 Resolution doesn't equal image quality...
80-300 F8
nah..it is 40-150 f4 for a m43 sensor (crop), nothing more nothing less.The commonly used "conversion" is false/misleading.
Yes, and what ?
What's the closest full-frame equivalent lens in size and weight
@@Simoneister 70-300 lens 4-5.6👀🤷♂️
@@yizhe7512 the commonly used conversion is completely accurate when you account for iso. Yes it's still 40-150, but 80-300 is the field of view equivalent on FF