Probably the best ( most balanced ) review of this lens I have seen so far. Thank you to for resisting the modern tendency to speak so quickly that it makes it difficult for the viewer to absorb what is being said. Similarly for obviously having thought about the structure of the presentation and in particular for the conclusion section which added much needed context. Very well done.
I very much appreciate your comparative approach to reviewing the 150-600mm lens. Your long experience with the 300mm f/4 and the 150-400 TC1.25x clearly communicates the advantages/disadvantages of each in the field. For years, my go-to lens was the 300mm f/4 with TCs. Then I got the 150-400mm 1.25x TC and just couldn’t put it down for the 300mm f/4 so that I finally sold it to a friend. Thanks for remembering to mention just how great the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens really is. The images with the 1.4x are excellent. It is very useful for close up work with little critters including insects. That said, the 150-400mm TC is fabulous at 1000mm when photographing butterflies.
Hi Espen, I always enjoy your field tests. As far as the OM 150-600 goes, I think it fills a specific need for many M4/3 shooters. Some folks, like me, hate using primes so the M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 is a lens that I would never consider for even a second. The M.Zuiko PRO 150-400 TC1.25 is a superb lens... but one that I could never cost justify for the work I do. The OM 150-600 is an ideal fit for folks like me that don't like to shoot with primes and could never cost justify the PRO 150-400 TC1/25. Tom
So glad you mentioned the 300 f/4 pro - I don’t think I’ve heard anyone else consider that one, and glad to hear it is slightly sharper. I’ll continue to save for the big white one!
I am privileged to be able to own all three lenses. The 100-400, the 300 f4 and the 150-409 f4.5 which I waited for two years to get access to one. To be honest, 100-400 is an enthusiast lens and once you start cropping a lot, you will find this lens is not as sharp especially comparing to the other two which is why it isn’t a pro series lens. The 150-400 is good but it is just as good as the 300 f4 which is so much cheaper. The only advantage of the 150-400 is its ability to zoom and still deliver the same sharpness like the 300 f4. To be honest, I expect more out of the 150-400 with the current price tag
@@ryantang8146 when one gets used to the details coming out from 300f4, the photos from 100-400 just don't look the same anymore. regarding the 150-600 "re-branded" sigma - I had sigma 60-600 before, so I am not sure how did this gigantic thing manage to enter m43 conversations at all. OM threw themselves into a comparison they never wanted to be part of to begin with "what do I buy ? a big heavy expensive fullframe setup, or an equally big, equally heavy and more expensive m43 setup? a tough choice, particularly when all the other lens choices are limited and expensive for the m43 mount [unless one wants to buy those with iphone-like subject separation - those are indeed small and cheap]"
@@ryantang8146 How do you think about sharpness of 300 mm f4 pro with x1.4 and x2.0 coneverter as same as speed? What could be the difference in quality and speed? In speed especially, if you could say, it's twice slower with x2.0?
I managed to pick up my 300mm on eBay for £116! It had been dropped and the mount had come apart, but I’d just read something about the Olympus repair service with a fixed cost per lens. I took the risk and bid, luckily won and then had it repaired for £495. It’s now my favourite lens.
I own the 40-150 f2.8, 300 f4 and the 100-400. Having bought the 150-600 I find the weight is a bit too much for this poor old, arthritic guy to lug around very far, but from a hide it is incredible. Used with either my EM1X or OM1 the results are fantastic, at least as good as the 100-400 and running the 40-150 f2-8 and 300mm f4 lenses a very close second. I'm so pleased I've now got a lens with this kind of reach, it really has given my photography a new life.
I’m interested in autofocus speed & accuracy, as well as IS and image quality compared to the 100-400 on the om-1. Any thoughts would be great. Thank you for doing this review.
Nice video! I think some of the negative comments complaining about this being a Sigma lens make no sense. I have used the FF version on other systems and it is a great lens that can be a bit soft around the corners. With M43 the soft corners aren’t outside the area of the smaller sensor. Clearly OMS did have some input into some changes for this to work better with their bodies. It seems to work decently with the OM TCs for example. I read somewhere that 2 elements were changed along with some coatings. Also firmware. I think this lens fills a hole in the OMS lineup of birding lenses and that is a good thing. I would certainly prefer to own the 150-400 for its sharpness and faster aperture but it is nearly 3 times the price. I have been using the 300mm F4 with the TCs for a while and I love that lens but I do miss using a zoom at times.
@@jessejayphotographyrumours spread so easily on social media but that’s all they are. Nowadays it only takes one person to say something and before you know it it’s “fact”
@@donkeyholmes4581all the critiques of this lens can’t even compare it with the correct sigma model: 150-600 sport which retailed for 1800-1900 and is out of production.
@@andreibrad8487 The only reason the Sigma thing bothers me is that it's a FF lens modified for M43, which means it's larger and/or slower than it needed to be. It also leads me to suspect that the Oly/OM 100-400 is also a Sigma design, which would explain why it's larger and heavier than the Panasonic/Leica 100-400 despite having a slower f-stop for most of the zoon range. While I have no doubt the results from this new lens are amazing, I can't see getting one any time soon.
My complaint would be the price. It is marked up quite a bit higher than the Sigma lens for other mounts. Canon 200-800, Nikon 160-600 and Sony 200-600 are all much less as well. If this was $2,000 or less then I am sure you would see much less complaints.
How much sharper is 150-600mm than 100-400mm at their respective max focal lengths? Is it like night & day difference, noticeable or miniscule difference?
I'm waiting to see this too. It should be able to resolve better detail at 400mm since it will not be at the extent of the optics, and at a slightly wider optimum aperture, but I would be very eager to see this comparison.
The only critiques I've caught comparing the two, only comes in when cropping. But let's be honest, who has the eyes of a hawk to notice the differences being discussed?
Thank you for your honest appraisal; there are way too many ambassadors out there who gush over every new lens or body as if it were the greatest thing in the world. Not you, so thank you. I currently use the 300 mm f4 prime; when outdoors doing bird photography I always have the 1.4x TC connected. (I'll remove the TC when I know I will be close to the subject.) I love the light weight; I can wear it all day and forget that I have it on. And it is compact enough for easy travel in a backpack. I get great results but the inability to zoom out has cost me shots when the subject is surprisingly close. Removing the TC in the field iin real time is obviously a poor option. So I've been considering the 150-400 pro lens but then this 150-600 came out so I've put that decision on hold pending objective reviews. (The 100-400 lens is not a consideration since I know it is pretty soft and slow in comparison with my current set-up). The added reach of 600 mm vs 500 mm is attractive as I find I sometimes can't get close enough to the bird and need to crop extensively; with the 20 megapixel sensor I often lose too much resolution to keep the image (even with upscaling software). Do I understand you correctly that based on my current set-up I'd be happier with the 150-400 mm pro lens than the 150-600 mm new lens? Even with 100 mm less reach (albeit still 80 mm more than I have now)? Would you ever add the 1.4 TC to the 150-400 lens, giving an effective range of 210-700 mm? Or would I lose so much light and sharpness that the negatives would outweigh the reach?? Thanks again!
Hi Steven, thanks for your comment and apologies the delayed response. It really comes down to what you want to spend. I’m happier with the 150-400mm 1.25x despite 100mm less yes, but if I couldn’t justify the price I would be very happy with the 150-600mm. I sometimes add the 1.4x but not that often, I usually find I have plenty of reach.
Great video and images-I especially loved the crow. You do a fine job of showing the virtues and positioning of this new lens. Personally, I’m very happy with my 100-400; it really suits my style for bird photography on long hikes, but you make a good case for how to choose among the great OM zooms.
Great images and Videos. Also thanks for the quick comparison at the end of the video it answered a question I had, as I own the 150-400 + TC Pro lens. I have two OM1's and usually have the 40-150 on one and the 150-400 on the other with the TC's in my pocket and this usually gives me everything I need.
The big thing people need to realise is that there are very good reasons why these top end lenses cost so much more. They produce better IQ, focus is faster and more important reliable, the f4.5 vs 6.3 especially if M43 is big, benefit, the DOF of f9 vs f13 not only on effect of out of focus area but also light gathering, impact on ISO and focus. The 150-600 lenses are all great value for money, in my view the OM is overly expensive, but that was OM's decision. Unfortunately for the OM user that moved to M43 for small, compact and light, well this is not your lens, My view as a M34, Fuji and Nikon shooter, this lens on OM1 body with grip vs the XH2 with 150-600 Fuji lens vs Nikon Z8 vs 180-600 Nikon, there is very little left between the 3 systems as far as weight and size is concerned. Yes the Nikon is still more expensive. Their focus systems differ in a few respects. the effective FOW is different, but for me 600mm is the long end of my requirements. Bothe the Fuji and Nikon allow for some crop to get to 20 mp. But this is not a competition, it is about what benefits this or any system offer the photographer. In the OM system, If I was prepared to pay $7500 for a lens the 150-400 would be my choice but for me the combination of the 40-150 f2.8 and 300 f4 with 1.4 TC is the perfect combination for size, weight, flexibility.
Good morning. Could you please tell me if you find any substantial differences between the autofocus of the OM 1 compared to the Fuji with the 150 600. And if its possible even betwen fuji and nikon. As a Fuji xh2s shooter I would be very curious about it since you have both. Thank you
There is no difference on effect in light gathering with M43 vs Full Frame, f/4 is the exact same on both as far as gathering the same amount of light.
@@MotoRich900 True. The equivalency arguments are silly. f/4 is the same on both bodies and gathers the same amount of light. What does change is the quality of the bokeh, more pleasing on FF.... but, conversely, if the goal is to get more DoF then the smaller censor would be superior.
Hi espen thank you for all your videos. I’ve learnt such a lot. My question is I have the 300 pro and 100 x 400, and I’ve been thinking about the 150 x 600 your honest opinion is it worth it. I have got some great results from the 300 and 100 and by 400. Kind regards, Phil Longshaw🍺
Mine will be here Friday, and I cannot wait to get it on my OM-1 Mk1. I just cannot get close enough to the wildlife in my area with my 2.0 teleconverter and 40-150mm Lens.
Hi Espen, long time no speak😊Pleased to see you are doing well. As always your integrity shows through, honest review, thank you. Keep up the excellent work.
Very nice video showing the new lens. Yours is the first I’ve seen that mentions the 100-400mm, the 300mm f4, and the 150-400mm pro lenses. Good to know there’s no good reason to sell my 150-400mm lens! Only wish you’d done a bit more of this comparison of the OM-1 mki and mkii and if you feel it’s worth upgrading. Thanks as always for a great video.
Thank you for this interesting video. Can you please give us some information how the new lens performs used with the ‘old’ OM-1 ? Many thanks in advance Robert
Thanks for thereview. I think for me and other MFT users this adds another great lens to choose from. I just find these discussions about focal length and f-stops really annoying.
How does the image quality, focus speed, etc. compare to the 300mm f/4 with teleconverters? I realize that using the 2x teleconverter with the 300mm f/4 gives a maximum aperture of f/8 as opposed to f/6.3 at the same focal length with the 150-600, so that would probably introduce some additional noise, but is the image quality still better with the 300? Since this lens is priced similarly to the 300, which one would you recommend, particularly to someone like myself who already has the teleconverters?
Thank you for your honest review and good advice. I was, indeed, toying with the idea of selling my 150-400 Pro and buying the 150-600 but I have been put off by the reports of the optical performance of the latter, at least at the longer end of the zoom range, so I greatly appreciated your opinion. Would you be willing to post one or two RAW images of birds taken with the 150-600 at 300 mm to 600 mm? It would be very useful to compare these with similar pictures from the 150-400 and it is hard to judge images embedded in a RUclips video!
Thank you for such an honest video. Excellent information and pace of voice just right. Think my 300 with 1.4 extender suits my arthritic hands perfectly amazing lens. 📸👏
Hi Espen, I'm just wondering how does this lens compare with the 300 F4 for imaging and focus. As well, how suitable is it for my now antiquanted OM-1 original?
A great review of the lens Espen and a good summing up at the end comparing to the other lenses. I’ve got the 150-400mm so I’m not looking to get this new lens, but wouldn’t mind trying one out to see what it’s like. I really liked your Hooded Crow shot! Thanks for the video and inspiration.
Great content. Great pictures and video. I'm curious how that 150-600 would compare to the 40-150 with the 1.4 t/c and the 2.0 t/c? Give that a try if you can. Thanks.
Great review and very helpful. It would be nice to see a direct comparison with the 100-400. I have the 40-150, 100-400 and 300 prime. I find myself using the 40-150 and 300 prime much more than the 100-400. Image quality with those two pro lens is clearly better than the 100-400. Those two lens are obviously more flexible in changing light. I use the 100-400 when I am looking for more reach. For that reason I am considering if it is worth getting rid of the 100-400 and getting the 150-600. I might be an outlier, but I think many OM 1 shooters my want to know if the trade off of weight vs is reach between those two lens is worth the price difference. I think the 150-600 is over price by $800-$1000 US. This is a Sigma lens, the full frame version cost substantially less. I haven't seen anything that leads me to be the price difference is justified.
Thanks for your thoughts on this new lens. Could you go over the way to determine and set the focus limiter distances in camera for the OM1.2 and 150-600 I think that may help with a lens with this much zoom At lease this one is more affordable than the 150-400. Hope they do a Sinc IS version of the 100-400 one day as well. A more in depth review of the tele options would be nice one day.
Great info. I'm looking at moving to OM systems and enjoy your RUclips videos. Do you have a video on the Olympus TRINITY lenses? I know you mostly shoot wildlife as do I, but I also shoot people and landscape.
One question: I have em1 mark iii and the olumpus 100-400. I find a 300f4 for 1.600€ second hand in good conditions. Where You invest the money in om1 marl ii or this 300f4? Thank for the video!
im sure lots of people want to know, how does the image quality, focus speed, etc. compare to the 300mm f/4 with teleconverters? also how does it compare to the 300 f4 when useing the om 1 in camera digital 2x converter. i own a 100-400mm which is a great, very light, walk about wildlife lens. i will be buying either the 300mm f4 or this new 150-600mm. what would your advice be, im going on a 4 week wildlife photography trip to borneo in may/june should my kit be, the 100-400mm and the 300mm f4 with converters, or just take the big 150-600mm, i would be very intrested to know what combination you would take on such a trip. thanks for all your videos you provide great information for us amatuer wildlife photographers
Ive went to Borneo multiple times, never for photography. But for work, I’ve done some wildlife trips, you will be photographing under heavy canopies. So I think the wider apertures is gonna make you happy, you can always crop, which will be less worse than forcing higher iso and more depth of field. You can always get some converters, 1.4 or 2.0 if you need the reach
IMHO, if time allows, it is wise to wait for some comprehensive reviews and raws from actual buyers. I have 300mm f4 and both converters. It is great IQ lens, but sometimes lacks flexibility of zoom, especiall with birds in flight, even thoug usually you need more range than less. Also 300mm f4 with MC-20 yelds f8 which is usable only in good light and wgen heat waves absent ; while new lens has native f6.3. But for me it is not yet clear from early reviews how usable this zoom is. But if you can but 150-600 then you can get one from sigma for 1k less and spent some more on a good FF, and have 2 cameras.... life is complicated.
The stabilization is better. You are right about the size and cost. I have the 300/4 and the 100-400. The 300 has a miraculous stabilization and can be hand-held in situations were the 100-400 is gives soft images. The 100-400 has the advantage of zooming. I use two cameras with one lens on each if I’m shooting from my car. The 300 is my choice for hiking.
I also want the 300mm f4 pro 😬 olympus actually played with the idea of a 400mm f2.8, but once again Oms screwed up the plan and made this lens instead. Same size and weight as the 400mm f2.8 would have been. 🤦♂️ @@dwightjones3305
I have similar questions as the original comment as well as other people, so I figured I'd leave them here. Right now my kit is the 100-400, the 300, and the 1.4x TC. My thought is that if the 150-600 is noticeably sharper than the 100-400 and has image stabilization close to that of the 300, it'd be a great option to replace my 100-400. Honestly the 150-400, as implied, would be ideal, but I'd rather take another trip or two than get that lens at this point. The 150-600 seems like its closer to the white lens than the 100-400, image quality wise. Also, I had to laugh at your comment about the 150-600 being a great option for an African safari, as that's the exact case I'm planning for next. I have it reserved as a rental, but am waiting to see additional reviews to see if I should keep that reservation or even try to outright buy it.
With how sharp the 300mm pro is wouldn't you be better with that and cropping? It has amazing cropability if that's a word 😃 Its probably much better at shorter lengths and not far off when cropping to match 1200mm if you use the 1.4tc. Which doesn't degrade the image much if at all. The images I've seen at 1200mm with this lens seem ok but not as good as the F4. So I'm not sure i will buy this one personally.
The 300mm is an incredible lens and so sharp, but the cropping is more to do with the pixels in the camera, I don’t like to crop too much. The 1.4x works great with the lens
hi Espen As you would expect from an OM system ambassador, the images made with this combo are very beautiful. I look forward to the 1 on 1 comparison between the 150-400 and the 150-600. keep the video with the images coming.❤
PC Magazine tested this lens and found it to be unacceptably soft at the telephoto end and slow to focus due to its stepping motor. I don't think they've tested the 150-400, but I am pretty confident that it is much better.
@@keithholland4322 Thanks for sharing this. So far all I've been seeing is glowing reviews from ambassadors for a lens that I know is not perfect from the full frame reviews. The IQ tests results is exactly what I wouldve expected.
@@Jay-sr8ge I'm pretty sure this is a perfectly acceptable lens for the casual birdwatcher who wants to be able to identify the birds they saw after they get home and I'm sure it can take good photos, but if you're wanting to take excellent photos, you should probably go for a 300mm f/4 and a pair of teleconverters or a 150-400mm f/4.5.
@@keithholland4322 The PC Mag scores are about equivalent at the long end to the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 at the long end. Drop off in performance the the longer end of a lens with moving elements is to be expected, and I'd argue acceptable. A 600mm prime would be far sharper of course, but such a thing for MFT does not exist yet, and it returns more lines per picture height than a 2x crop of a photo taken with the 300mm f/4, and performs better than the 300mm f/4 with the MC-20. It also returns more lines per picture height than a 2x crop of an equivalent lens on fullframe, so for the reach, this is unbeatable by anything in the same price range (and a lot above) - if you can tolerate the performance which may be less than professional grade. If you had a 100-400 f/5-6.3 and upgraded to this lens you would have improved performance at 400mm, plus an extra stop of light, plus additional reach without the need for an image degrading teleconverter, plus Sync-IS.
@@robertmills4591 I've rented the 100-400 a couple of times, and it certainly leaves a lot to be desired when trying to use teleconverters to photograph distant wildlife as the sun is starting to set! An extra stop of light would certainly be welcome in such scenarios, as would somewhat sharper images. Such a lens might be worth renting from time to time. Or maybe I would be better off to rent a Nikon Z6 with an 800mm f/6.3 lens and a 1.4x teleconverter.
It does, I own it and the comment to switch to pro obviously exaggerates an occasional issue that he/she probably incorporates in his capturing strategy. As for switching to Canon....yetch!!! Makes me doubt they've held an OM in their hands!! The lens is just another tool in one's TOOLBOX!
Thomas Eisl breaks down the internal changes & improvements. I DON’T UNDERSTAND the negative comments. No one is insulated or attacked. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Buy what you like, mft has an incredible selection to choose from. There is a market for this lens. Purchase what you like and support the market for that.
Would you like to see OM system bring out a pro 250mm f/2.8 with dual IS with the built in TC. Would you like to see faster glass made available for OM system cameras, do you have times that you wish you had access to faster glass for the system you use, would you be interested in having a pro 450mm f/4 duel IS with built in TC.
I see a lot of people in the comments follow the Tony and Chelsea school of advice, I.e. they are able to advise and state opinion as fact whilst never having held the lens or camera 😂
Well, Espen, I just wanted to tell you that at $7,500 for a 150 to 400 mm lens half frame, the lens better have wings to take you on the trips you need to go on to take pictures with it! It's a little rich that you sit and compare it with the 150-600mm lens, telling us that the differences are slight, but you'd prefer the expensive one! Duh!!! I doubt that anyone was surprised with your decision, comparing it with a lens 1/3 the cost! Otherwise, your video was great and thanks!!
I think all of the images at 600mm are soft. I'll take my Z8/100-400 at 60mp and crop, and it will blow that away. I just can't give up sharpness for weight and size.
You state that the 150-600 lens IS works in conjunction with the in-camera stabilisation. Does it really? Because the 100-400 lens IS does not. My biggest disappointment with the 100-400 is that it is incompatible with Blackmagic cameras. I wonder if this one will work with BM?
Ive been told by OM that it syncs and I’ve tried it with very slow shutters at 600mm and getting sharp images. I’m afraid I don’t know about BM compatibility
I think it's good for the need for extra reach if you know what kind of animals you are trying to photograph ahead of time. I'm thinking wintering ducks that tend to be skittish. But the pricing should have been at like 1599 max. The 300 f4 and 200 2.8 are still out there.
My camera silent, sometimes I leave it with just sounds of nature and sometimes I add some fake camera shutters just to make it sound a bit more engaging.
Great review Espen as always. Will be sticking with my 100-400mm and if I need extra reach I’ll whack on my 1.4TC. I went over to M4/3 to reduce weight and this lens just seems to go against that entire principle of smaller and lighter. I also don’t like the fact you can’t seem to remove the tripod collar!
Costs more than most full frame 600mm zooms and weighs just about as much. Not to be a dick, I really don't get it, is it some rebadged sigma full frame lens, or why isn't it cheaper and lighter?
@@majamogens No, you don't, that's not how that works. If you crop the image, you can get like 1Km of focal length. 🤯 A 600mm lens is a 600mm lens, nothing is preventing you from cropping on bigger sensors, MFT lenses can be smaller and lighter though, since they don't have to cast a full frame image circle.
This is a rebadged Sigma lens, it is actually 130 grams heavier (2030 grams, yes, that’s 2 kilograms!) than the FF version, (they just added a m43 adapter, and maybe a couple grams of sync is stuff and a rubber seal or 2), it is also more than 250% more expensive. €2700 vs €1000 which is outrageous. I just bought an om-1 and I am glad there are lots of good lenses already because this release makes me think they won’t be around for that long anymore 😢
Cool. Now add a fullframe camera with enough MP on the sensor to read double the lines per height on the OM System so you can do a 2x crop and suddenly the OM System version looks cheap.
I'dnt expect from an Ambasador saying anything bad about the equipment they "promote" in someway. He would be fired the same day. It would be TOO HARD for me to talk ANY positives about this lens BEEING HONEST WITH MYSELF at the first place! This lens should not have place in OM System at all. For me it's clear he finds himself in uncomfortable position right now doing such video, and I know he would choose 300 mm f4 EVERYTIME instead of this fullframe lens transfered to M43 system.
im waiting for om ambassador to use it with other olympus/om system bodies to realy see its worth since few to no one has the mk2 yet. also want someone to address that sigma made this lens. not om system. its so obvious. and because of this fact it shows your paying about $500. just for the name.
I don't accept that the lens is called as m.Zuiko. I don't accept that to 75mm f/1.8 nor the 100-400 mm f/5-6.3 either. All three are designed and manufactured by the Sigma, but just rebranded for the Olympus / OM System. (And yes, I know that 100-400mm has two rear elements resized smaller by Olympus, from the 35mm format size to smaller. That made the focusing faster and likely corrected some of the ghosting that other 100-400 Sigma suffers.) The m.Zuiko should mean that lens is purely designed by the Olympus (now OM System). And I think that m.Zuiko should be put in the past like Olympus, and OM System should come up with new brand for their lenses. Be it called as "OM System" or "OM Lens" or what ever...
@@robertmills4591 Yes... But I don't talk about others, but about Olympus/OM System. When Sigma makes their 100-400 or 150-600 to other systems, it is under Sigma brand. It is Sigma's lens. It would be honest from all to really inform that who's lens design they are using, what they have adapted and what is just rebranding. At least Olympus did some changes to 100-400 f5-6.4, even when minor ones.
@@paristo it isn't always under the Sigma brand. Sigma, Tamron, Sanyo, etc. all do OEM for the big brands. There are even Leica branded lenses made in the Sigma factory! You're jumping up and down like only Olympus/ OM System has an OEM/VAR relationship with Sigma (or others), but in reality most camera brands do.
@@robertmills4591 I say literally that others do it as well, and you accuse me that I don't recognize that others do it as well... And if I don't talk about other brands with Sigma because this is about m.Zuiko branding issue in OM system lens, it doesn't mean I say other manufacturers don't do the same thing. Branding is a critical thing for a high end products. And distilling that with a marketing lies is a problematic all around in various businesses. A shoemaker that does handmade shoes, doesn't walk to local sports store and buy cheap 25 € tennis shoes and brand them with own brand and price them as 25 000 € shoes. A cheap manufacturer that does production to many brands can copy some original producer and each call it their own. But it doesn't make it wise. The m.Zuiko was about Olympus own brand. And already 75mm f/1.8 was very controversial for that, as Olympus one of the sharpest and best lenses wasn't even theirs. It does damage the brand no matter quality of the product. Olympus had VF-2, that Leica licensed for themselves, they only changed front shape curvature and branded it as LEICA and multiplied price. Why people bought Olympus one as Leicas dishonesty was obvious. Don't enter a discussion with such dishonesty.
OM user's are really getting stung here. My G-Master 200-600 plus a 2x Tele still comes in way less than this Sigma rebrand. Plus the Sony has internal zoom. Their expensive prices are one reason why I swapped over to Sony.
I lost all interest in the lens once I learned it is an overpriced rebadged Sigma. I am not knocking it being a Sigma, the lens is fine, you just have to look at the price for the M system compared to all the others to see how much of a premium they are charging over every other lens mount Sigma supports.
No new products... the 150-600 lens is a renamed Sigma... all these new products were lying in warehouses after the takeover of Olimpus by JIP. New name, new tires and nothing new... we have to sell what is left after the takeover.
Sigma again, this time just a disguised FF lens. Olympus no longer makes glass for OM lenses, which is increasingly saving on development. OM withholds economic reports, but GfK reports show that OM is falling again. I am sorry...
Dear OM System, we all know that you have repackged the Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG DN, and reselling it at more than double the price. Not sending the lens to all popular reviewer is not going to cut it though.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Probably the best ( most balanced ) review of this lens I have seen so far. Thank you to for resisting the modern tendency to speak so quickly that it makes it difficult for the viewer to absorb what is being said. Similarly for obviously having thought about the structure of the presentation and in particular for the conclusion section which added much needed context. Very well done.
Thank you 🙂
yes, but why play music while shooting :)
I very much appreciate your comparative approach to reviewing the 150-600mm lens. Your long experience with the 300mm f/4 and the 150-400 TC1.25x clearly communicates the advantages/disadvantages of each in the field. For years, my go-to lens was the 300mm f/4 with TCs. Then I got the 150-400mm 1.25x TC and just couldn’t put it down for the 300mm f/4 so that I finally sold it to a friend. Thanks for remembering to mention just how great the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens really is. The images with the 1.4x are excellent. It is very useful for close up work with little critters including insects. That said, the 150-400mm TC is fabulous at 1000mm when photographing butterflies.
Hi Espen, I always enjoy your field tests.
As far as the OM 150-600 goes, I think it fills a specific need for many M4/3 shooters. Some folks, like me, hate using primes so the M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 is a lens that I would never consider for even a second. The M.Zuiko PRO 150-400 TC1.25 is a superb lens... but one that I could never cost justify for the work I do. The OM 150-600 is an ideal fit for folks like me that don't like to shoot with primes and could never cost justify the PRO 150-400 TC1/25.
Tom
Very nice review - and excellent footage / stills
Thank you Thomas 🙂
Currently I am very happy with my 300mm pro. Saving up for the 150-400mmPro. Great review on the OM150-600!
So glad you mentioned the 300 f/4 pro - I don’t think I’ve heard anyone else consider that one, and glad to hear it is slightly sharper. I’ll continue to save for the big white one!
I am privileged to be able to own all three lenses. The 100-400, the 300 f4 and the 150-409 f4.5 which I waited for two years to get access to one. To be honest, 100-400 is an enthusiast lens and once you start cropping a lot, you will find this lens is not as sharp especially comparing to the other two which is why it isn’t a pro series lens. The 150-400 is good but it is just as good as the 300 f4 which is so much cheaper. The only advantage of the 150-400 is its ability to zoom and still deliver the same sharpness like the 300 f4. To be honest, I expect more out of the 150-400 with the current price tag
@@ryantang8146 when one gets used to the details coming out from 300f4, the photos from 100-400 just don't look the same anymore. regarding the 150-600 "re-branded" sigma - I had sigma 60-600 before, so I am not sure how did this gigantic thing manage to enter m43 conversations at all. OM threw themselves into a comparison they never wanted to be part of to begin with "what do I buy ? a big heavy expensive fullframe setup, or an equally big, equally heavy and more expensive m43 setup? a tough choice, particularly when all the other lens choices are limited and expensive for the m43 mount [unless one wants to buy those with iphone-like subject separation - those are indeed small and cheap]"
Have the 100-400 and love it but would love a 300 pro BUT (again) toooo expensive. @wb2pics
@@ryantang8146 How do you think about sharpness of 300 mm f4 pro with x1.4 and x2.0 coneverter as same as speed? What could be the difference in quality and speed? In speed especially, if you could say, it's twice slower with x2.0?
I managed to pick up my 300mm on eBay for £116! It had been dropped and the mount had come apart, but I’d just read something about the Olympus repair service with a fixed cost per lens. I took the risk and bid, luckily won and then had it repaired for £495. It’s now my favourite lens.
I own the 40-150 f2.8, 300 f4 and the 100-400. Having bought the 150-600 I find the weight is a bit too much for this poor old, arthritic guy to lug around very far, but from a hide it is incredible. Used with either my EM1X or OM1 the results are fantastic, at least as good as the 100-400 and running the 40-150 f2-8 and 300mm f4 lenses a very close second. I'm so pleased I've now got a lens with this kind of reach, it really has given my photography a new life.
Glad to hear it Geoff! Enjoy 🙂
I’m interested in autofocus speed & accuracy, as well as IS and image quality compared to the 100-400 on the om-1. Any thoughts would be great. Thank you for doing this review.
Great honest review Espen, thank you
I like your honesty on the different lenses. Great Info.
Thorough explanation of the lens’ mechanics and use. Thank you. One question: were the various bird images shot in hi-res mode?
Nice video! I think some of the negative comments complaining about this being a Sigma lens make no sense. I have used the FF version on other systems and it is a great lens that can be a bit soft around the corners. With M43 the soft corners aren’t outside the area of the smaller sensor. Clearly OMS did have some input into some changes for this to work better with their bodies. It seems to work decently with the OM TCs for example. I read somewhere that 2 elements were changed along with some coatings. Also firmware. I think this lens fills a hole in the OMS lineup of birding lenses and that is a good thing. I would certainly prefer to own the 150-400 for its sharpness and faster aperture but it is nearly 3 times the price. I have been using the 300mm F4 with the TCs for a while and I love that lens but I do miss using a zoom at times.
The Oly 75mm f/1.8 has long been rumored to be a contract lens from Sigma.
@@jessejayphotographyrumours spread so easily on social media but that’s all they are. Nowadays it only takes one person to say something and before you know it it’s “fact”
@@donkeyholmes4581all the critiques of this lens can’t even compare it with the correct sigma model: 150-600 sport which retailed for 1800-1900 and is out of production.
@@andreibrad8487 The only reason the Sigma thing bothers me is that it's a FF lens modified for M43, which means it's larger and/or slower than it needed to be. It also leads me to suspect that the Oly/OM 100-400 is also a Sigma design, which would explain why it's larger and heavier than the Panasonic/Leica 100-400 despite having a slower f-stop for most of the zoon range. While I have no doubt the results from this new lens are amazing, I can't see getting one any time soon.
My complaint would be the price. It is marked up quite a bit higher than the Sigma lens for other mounts. Canon 200-800, Nikon 160-600 and Sony 200-600 are all much less as well. If this was $2,000 or less then I am sure you would see much less complaints.
How much sharper is 150-600mm than 100-400mm at their respective max focal lengths? Is it like night & day difference, noticeable or miniscule difference?
I'm waiting to see this too. It should be able to resolve better detail at 400mm since it will not be at the extent of the optics, and at a slightly wider optimum aperture, but I would be very eager to see this comparison.
The only critiques I've caught comparing the two, only comes in when cropping. But let's be honest, who has the eyes of a hawk to notice the differences being discussed?
Great video! Your reviews are among the best on RUclips for OM-System gear. I´m looking forward to a more deeper review of the OM-1 mkII.
Thank you for your honest appraisal; there are way too many ambassadors out there who gush over every new lens or body as if it were the greatest thing in the world. Not you, so thank you. I currently use the 300 mm f4 prime; when outdoors doing bird photography I always have the 1.4x TC connected. (I'll remove the TC when I know I will be close to the subject.) I love the light weight; I can wear it all day and forget that I have it on. And it is compact enough for easy travel in a backpack. I get great results but the inability to zoom out has cost me shots when the subject is surprisingly close. Removing the TC in the field iin real time is obviously a poor option. So I've been considering the 150-400 pro lens but then this 150-600 came out so I've put that decision on hold pending objective reviews. (The 100-400 lens is not a consideration since I know it is pretty soft and slow in comparison with my current set-up). The added reach of 600 mm vs 500 mm is attractive as I find I sometimes can't get close enough to the bird and need to crop extensively; with the 20 megapixel sensor I often lose too much resolution to keep the image (even with upscaling software).
Do I understand you correctly that based on my current set-up I'd be happier with the 150-400 mm pro lens than the 150-600 mm new lens? Even with 100 mm less reach (albeit still 80 mm more than I have now)? Would you ever add the 1.4 TC to the 150-400 lens, giving an effective range of 210-700 mm? Or would I lose so much light and sharpness that the negatives would outweigh the reach??
Thanks again!
Hi Steven, thanks for your comment and apologies the delayed response. It really comes down to what you want to spend. I’m happier with the 150-400mm 1.25x despite 100mm less yes, but if I couldn’t justify the price I would be very happy with the 150-600mm.
I sometimes add the 1.4x but not that often, I usually find I have plenty of reach.
Great video and images-I especially loved the crow. You do a fine job of showing the virtues and positioning of this new lens. Personally, I’m very happy with my 100-400; it really suits my style for bird photography on long hikes, but you make a good case for how to choose among the great OM zooms.
Great images and Videos. Also thanks for the quick comparison at the end of the video it answered a question I had, as I own the 150-400 + TC Pro lens. I have two OM1's and usually have the 40-150 on one and the 150-400 on the other with the TC's in my pocket and this usually gives me everything I need.
The big thing people need to realise is that there are very good reasons why these top end lenses cost so much more. They produce better IQ, focus is faster and more important reliable, the f4.5 vs 6.3 especially if M43 is big, benefit, the DOF of f9 vs f13 not only on effect of out of focus area but also light gathering, impact on ISO and focus. The 150-600 lenses are all great value for money, in my view the OM is overly expensive, but that was OM's decision. Unfortunately for the OM user that moved to M43 for small, compact and light, well this is not your lens, My view as a M34, Fuji and Nikon shooter, this lens on OM1 body with grip vs the XH2 with 150-600 Fuji lens vs Nikon Z8 vs 180-600 Nikon, there is very little left between the 3 systems as far as weight and size is concerned. Yes the Nikon is still more expensive. Their focus systems differ in a few respects. the effective FOW is different, but for me 600mm is the long end of my requirements. Bothe the Fuji and Nikon allow for some crop to get to 20 mp. But this is not a competition, it is about what benefits this or any system offer the photographer. In the OM system, If I was prepared to pay $7500 for a lens the 150-400 would be my choice but for me the combination of the 40-150 f2.8 and 300 f4 with 1.4 TC is the perfect combination for size, weight, flexibility.
Good morning. Could you please tell me if you find any substantial differences between the autofocus of the OM 1 compared to the Fuji with the 150 600. And if its possible even betwen fuji and nikon. As a Fuji xh2s shooter I would be very curious about it since you have both. Thank you
There is no difference on effect in light gathering with M43 vs Full Frame, f/4 is the exact same on both as far as gathering the same amount of light.
@@MotoRich900 True. The equivalency arguments are silly. f/4 is the same on both bodies and gathers the same amount of light. What does change is the quality of the bokeh, more pleasing on FF.... but, conversely, if the goal is to get more DoF then the smaller censor would be superior.
Thanks
Thank you so much Polly 🙂
Hi espen thank you for all your videos. I’ve learnt such a lot. My question is I have the 300 pro and 100 x 400, and I’ve been thinking about the 150 x 600 your honest opinion is it worth it. I have got some great results from the 300 and 100 and by 400. Kind regards, Phil Longshaw🍺
Mine will be here Friday, and I cannot wait to get it on my OM-1 Mk1. I just cannot get close enough to the wildlife in my area with my 2.0 teleconverter and 40-150mm Lens.
Hi Espen, long time no speak😊Pleased to see you are doing well. As always your integrity shows through, honest review, thank you. Keep up the excellent work.
Thank you John 🙂
Thank you / can you do macro with it? As in plants and insects.
Very nice video showing the new lens. Yours is the first I’ve seen that mentions the 100-400mm, the 300mm f4, and the 150-400mm pro lenses. Good to know there’s no good reason to sell my 150-400mm lens! Only wish you’d done a bit more of this comparison of the OM-1 mki and mkii and if you feel it’s worth upgrading. Thanks as always for a great video.
Thank you for this interesting video. Can you please give us some information how the new lens performs used with the ‘old’ OM-1 ? Many thanks in advance Robert
Nice, well balanced review. Clear, concise and balanced in comparison to the other telephoto lenses available.
Thank you 🙂
Would be nice to have some photo comparisons between the 150-600 and the 150-400 Pro and the 300 Pro around the same distance .
Great review of M.Zuiko 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lens. Thanks for sharing. 1 LIKE and greetings from Singapore.
Thanks a lot!
Thanks for thereview. I think for me and other MFT users this adds another great lens to choose from.
I just find these discussions about focal length and f-stops really annoying.
How does the image quality, focus speed, etc. compare to the 300mm f/4 with teleconverters? I realize that using the 2x teleconverter with the 300mm f/4 gives a maximum aperture of f/8 as opposed to f/6.3 at the same focal length with the 150-600, so that would probably introduce some additional noise, but is the image quality still better with the 300? Since this lens is priced similarly to the 300, which one would you recommend, particularly to someone like myself who already has the teleconverters?
@Espen is this lens compatible with the Panasonic g9m2 camera ? Great videos m8 take care
Thanks a lot, best to check with someone from OM System or Panasonic about that. Really not sure.
Thank you for your honest review and good advice. I was, indeed, toying with the idea of selling my 150-400 Pro and buying the 150-600 but I have been put off by the reports of the optical performance of the latter, at least at the longer end of the zoom range, so I greatly appreciated your opinion. Would you be willing to post one or two RAW images of birds taken with the 150-600 at 300 mm to 600 mm? It would be very useful to compare these with similar pictures from the 150-400 and it is hard to judge images embedded in a RUclips video!
Thank you for such an honest video. Excellent information and pace of voice just right. Think my 300 with 1.4 extender suits my arthritic hands perfectly amazing lens. 📸👏
Hi Espen, I'm just wondering how does this lens compare with the 300 F4 for imaging and focus. As well, how suitable is it for my now antiquanted OM-1 original?
Thank you for your review. I like your honesty. Is it worthy to upgrade from OM1 Mark I to Mark II?
A great review of the lens Espen and a good summing up at the end comparing to the other lenses. I’ve got the 150-400mm so I’m not looking to get this new lens, but wouldn’t mind trying one out to see what it’s like. I really liked your Hooded Crow shot! Thanks for the video and inspiration.
Great content. Great pictures and video. I'm curious how that 150-600 would compare to the 40-150 with the 1.4 t/c and the 2.0 t/c? Give that a try if you can. Thanks.
Great review and very helpful. It would be nice to see a direct comparison with the 100-400. I have the 40-150, 100-400 and 300 prime. I find myself using the 40-150 and 300 prime much more than the 100-400. Image quality with those two pro lens is clearly better than the 100-400. Those two lens are obviously more flexible in changing light. I use the 100-400 when I am looking for more reach. For that reason I am considering if it is worth getting rid of the 100-400 and getting the 150-600. I might be an outlier, but I think many OM 1 shooters my want to know if the trade off of weight vs is reach between those two lens is worth the price difference. I think the 150-600 is over price by $800-$1000 US. This is a Sigma lens, the full frame version cost substantially less. I haven't seen anything that leads me to be the price difference is justified.
5:50 May be you need photoaim EE-1 dot sight?
Many thanks for this great review! 👍
Thanks for your thoughts on this new lens.
Could you go over the way to determine and set the focus limiter distances in camera for the OM1.2 and 150-600
I think that may help with a lens with this much zoom
At lease this one is more affordable than the 150-400. Hope they do a Sinc IS version of the 100-400 one day as well.
A more in depth review of the tele options would be nice one day.
Great info. I'm looking at moving to OM systems and enjoy your RUclips videos. Do you have a video on the Olympus TRINITY lenses? I know you mostly shoot wildlife as do I, but I also shoot people and landscape.
Wonder how the sharpness of the 150-400 with 1.4 TC + built-in 1.25 @ 700mm compares in sharpness to the 150-600 @600mm ?
Are the buttons around the lens only programmable on the OM-1 Mark II?
No, you can program them with any OM System camera, but they’re all only programmable to one function.
One question: I have em1 mark iii and the olumpus 100-400. I find a 300f4 for 1.600€ second hand in good conditions. Where You invest the money in om1 marl ii or this 300f4?
Thank for the video!
Thank you Espen.
Does it have a focus clutch?
1200mm is simply a great range, I using 1280mm EQ prime lens and is very hard for me to go back to 160-640mm zoom.
im sure lots of people want to know, how does the image quality, focus speed, etc. compare to the 300mm f/4 with teleconverters? also how does it compare to the 300 f4 when useing the om 1 in camera digital 2x converter. i own a 100-400mm which is a great, very light, walk about wildlife lens. i will be buying either the 300mm f4 or this new 150-600mm.
what would your advice be, im going on a 4 week wildlife photography trip to borneo in may/june should my kit be, the 100-400mm and the 300mm f4 with converters, or just take the big 150-600mm, i would be very intrested to know what combination you would take on such a trip.
thanks for all your videos you provide great information for us amatuer wildlife photographers
Ive went to Borneo multiple times, never for photography. But for work, I’ve done some wildlife trips, you will be photographing under heavy canopies. So I think the wider apertures is gonna make you happy, you can always crop, which will be less worse than forcing higher iso and more depth of field. You can always get some converters, 1.4 or 2.0 if you need the reach
300 mm f4 everytime, no question.
IMHO, if time allows, it is wise to wait for some comprehensive reviews and raws from actual buyers. I have 300mm f4 and both converters. It is great IQ lens, but sometimes lacks flexibility of zoom, especiall with birds in flight, even thoug usually you need more range than less. Also 300mm f4 with MC-20 yelds f8 which is usable only in good light and wgen heat waves absent ; while new lens has native f6.3. But for me it is not yet clear from early reviews how usable this zoom is. But if you can but 150-600 then you can get one from sigma for 1k less and spent some more on a good FF, and have 2 cameras.... life is complicated.
@@nikaberzina2478 Imagine this lens would be JUST (!) 750$ less. That would fit perfectly in the price.
Worth an upgrade from 100-400mm? Or still the same 3 stop IS? And is it seriously worth the size? Om-1 with 100-400mm is only 1.7kg
Honestly from what I've seen elsewhere I'd stick with your 100-400.
The stabilization is better. You are right about the size and cost.
I have the 300/4 and the 100-400. The 300 has a miraculous stabilization and can be hand-held in situations were the 100-400 is gives soft images. The 100-400 has the advantage of zooming. I use two cameras with one lens on each if I’m shooting from my car. The 300 is my choice for hiking.
I also want the 300mm f4 pro 😬 olympus actually played with the idea of a 400mm f2.8, but once again Oms screwed up the plan and made this lens instead. Same size and weight as the 400mm f2.8 would have been. 🤦♂️ @@dwightjones3305
I have similar questions as the original comment as well as other people, so I figured I'd leave them here. Right now my kit is the 100-400, the 300, and the 1.4x TC. My thought is that if the 150-600 is noticeably sharper than the 100-400 and has image stabilization close to that of the 300, it'd be a great option to replace my 100-400. Honestly the 150-400, as implied, would be ideal, but I'd rather take another trip or two than get that lens at this point. The 150-600 seems like its closer to the white lens than the 100-400, image quality wise.
Also, I had to laugh at your comment about the 150-600 being a great option for an African safari, as that's the exact case I'm planning for next. I have it reserved as a rental, but am waiting to see additional reviews to see if I should keep that reservation or even try to outright buy it.
How will it be compared to 300 f:4 with either 1,4 or 2 teleconverter?
Is this not a rebadging (and slight tweaking) of an older Sigma design??
With how sharp the 300mm pro is wouldn't you be better with that and cropping? It has amazing cropability if that's a word 😃
Its probably much better at shorter lengths and not far off when cropping to match 1200mm if you use the 1.4tc. Which doesn't degrade the image much if at all.
The images I've seen at 1200mm with this lens seem ok but not as good as the F4.
So I'm not sure i will buy this one personally.
The 300mm is an incredible lens and so sharp, but the cropping is more to do with the pixels in the camera, I don’t like to crop too much. The 1.4x works great with the lens
hi Espen
As you would expect from an OM system ambassador, the images made with this combo are very beautiful. I look forward to the 1 on 1 comparison between the 150-400 and the 150-600. keep the video with the images coming.❤
PC Magazine tested this lens and found it to be unacceptably soft at the telephoto end and slow to focus due to its stepping motor. I don't think they've tested the 150-400, but I am pretty confident that it is much better.
@@keithholland4322 Thanks for sharing this. So far all I've been seeing is glowing reviews from ambassadors for a lens that I know is not perfect from the full frame reviews. The IQ tests results is exactly what I wouldve expected.
@@Jay-sr8ge I'm pretty sure this is a perfectly acceptable lens for the casual birdwatcher who wants to be able to identify the birds they saw after they get home and I'm sure it can take good photos, but if you're wanting to take excellent photos, you should probably go for a 300mm f/4 and a pair of teleconverters or a 150-400mm f/4.5.
@@keithholland4322 The PC Mag scores are about equivalent at the long end to the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 at the long end. Drop off in performance the the longer end of a lens with moving elements is to be expected, and I'd argue acceptable. A 600mm prime would be far sharper of course, but such a thing for MFT does not exist yet, and it returns more lines per picture height than a 2x crop of a photo taken with the 300mm f/4, and performs better than the 300mm f/4 with the MC-20. It also returns more lines per picture height than a 2x crop of an equivalent lens on fullframe, so for the reach, this is unbeatable by anything in the same price range (and a lot above) - if you can tolerate the performance which may be less than professional grade. If you had a 100-400 f/5-6.3 and upgraded to this lens you would have improved performance at 400mm, plus an extra stop of light, plus additional reach without the need for an image degrading teleconverter, plus Sync-IS.
@@robertmills4591 I've rented the 100-400 a couple of times, and it certainly leaves a lot to be desired when trying to use teleconverters to photograph distant wildlife as the sun is starting to set! An extra stop of light would certainly be welcome in such scenarios, as would somewhat sharper images. Such a lens might be worth renting from time to time. Or maybe I would be better off to rent a Nikon Z6 with an 800mm f/6.3 lens and a 1.4x teleconverter.
Interesting.... will this 150-600 sync with the EM1X's stabilization?
It's doubtful, the em1x is still a great body but to the people at OM it's dead.
Yes. No reason to think not.
@@ajc1482so dead it had firmware updates last year.
Discountinued, but not dead. It's still a fine camera.
Would OM-1 mk 1 handle this new gun or that camera is outdated now ?
It will.
this 600mm lens produce very low quality images. use PRO lenses or switch to canon. Else you are wasting om1 body power.
@@esterix101 Ok. But, btw, why exactly Canon ?
It does, I own it and the comment to switch to pro obviously exaggerates an occasional issue that he/she probably incorporates in his capturing strategy. As for switching to Canon....yetch!!! Makes me doubt they've held an OM in their hands!! The lens is just another tool in one's TOOLBOX!
I really like the fact, that it is not that big. Its good for long walks and for spontanious pictures. Greets Stefan
Thomas Eisl breaks down the internal changes & improvements.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND the negative comments. No one is insulated or attacked. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Buy what you like, mft has an incredible selection to choose from. There is a market for this lens. Purchase what you like and support the market for that.
Would you like to see OM system bring out a pro 250mm f/2.8 with dual IS with the built in TC.
Would you like to see faster glass made available for OM system cameras, do you have times that you wish you had access to faster glass for the system you use, would you be interested in having a pro 450mm f/4 duel IS with built in TC.
Hi all I’ve just bought this lens 150 x 600 took it out this afternoon and found the photographs to be very noisy. My camera is a OM 1 any ideas why?
I see a lot of people in the comments follow the Tony and Chelsea school of advice, I.e. they are able to advise and state opinion as fact whilst never having held the lens or camera 😂
How come you don't share the mm’s in normal frame values 548 mm or 2x558 etc…
Well, Espen, I just wanted to tell you that at $7,500 for a 150 to 400 mm lens half frame, the lens better have wings to take you on the trips you need to go on to take pictures with it! It's a little rich that you sit and compare it with the 150-600mm lens, telling us that the differences are slight, but you'd prefer the expensive one! Duh!!! I doubt that anyone was surprised with your decision, comparing it with a lens 1/3 the cost! Otherwise, your video was great and thanks!!
Nice 😍
I think all of the images at 600mm are soft. I'll take my Z8/100-400 at 60mp and crop, and it will blow that away. I just can't give up sharpness for weight and size.
You state that the 150-600 lens IS works in conjunction with the in-camera stabilisation. Does it really? Because the 100-400 lens IS does not. My biggest disappointment with the 100-400 is that it is incompatible with Blackmagic cameras. I wonder if this one will work with BM?
Ive been told by OM that it syncs and I’ve tried it with very slow shutters at 600mm and getting sharp images. I’m afraid I don’t know about BM compatibility
I think it's good for the need for extra reach if you know what kind of animals you are trying to photograph ahead of time. I'm thinking wintering ducks that tend to be skittish. But the pricing should have been at like 1599 max. The 300 f4 and 200 2.8 are still out there.
I wonder just where the Squirrel was getting those Sunflower seeds from.
Must have gone to the shop ;)
why do people always turn the music up when they start shooting !?! ( what's wrong with just hearing the nature of the camera : )
My camera silent, sometimes I leave it with just sounds of nature and sometimes I add some fake camera shutters just to make it sound a bit more engaging.
Great review Espen as always. Will be sticking with my 100-400mm and if I need extra reach I’ll whack on my 1.4TC. I went over to M4/3 to reduce weight and this lens just seems to go against that entire principle of smaller and lighter. I also don’t like the fact you can’t seem to remove the tripod collar!
Wieviel Partikel beladene Luft transportiert das Objektiv beim Zoomen von 150-600 mm ❓ In spätestens 12 Monaten sind alle Linsen-Gruppen beschlagen ✅
Nei Espen, -dette er akkurat likt min gamle Sigma!
En Sigma til to ganger prisen.
astro turf/10
Costs more than most full frame 600mm zooms and weighs just about as much. Not to be a dick, I really don't get it, is it some rebadged sigma full frame lens, or why isn't it cheaper and lighter?
That is exaxtly what it is.
It's oms. Their goal is to ruin olympus.
Owned by OM, so yeah; they want to rip you off and make money
Remember that you have to compare with a 1200 mm in full frame.
@@majamogens No, you don't, that's not how that works. If you crop the image, you can get like 1Km of focal length. 🤯
A 600mm lens is a 600mm lens, nothing is preventing you from cropping on bigger sensors, MFT lenses can be smaller and lighter though, since they don't have to cast a full frame image circle.
This is a rebadged Sigma lens, it is actually 130 grams heavier (2030 grams, yes, that’s 2 kilograms!) than the FF version, (they just added a m43 adapter, and maybe a couple grams of sync is stuff and a rubber seal or 2), it is also more than 250% more expensive. €2700 vs €1000 which is outrageous. I just bought an om-1 and I am glad there are lots of good lenses already because this release makes me think they won’t be around for that long anymore 😢
Well because you’ve stated it as fact it must be true 😂
Cool. Now add a fullframe camera with enough MP on the sensor to read double the lines per height on the OM System so you can do a 2x crop and suddenly the OM System version looks cheap.
I'dnt expect from an Ambasador saying anything bad about the equipment they "promote" in someway. He would be fired the same day.
It would be TOO HARD for me to talk ANY positives about this lens BEEING HONEST WITH MYSELF at the first place!
This lens should not have place in OM System at all.
For me it's clear he finds himself in uncomfortable position right now doing such video, and I know he would choose 300 mm f4 EVERYTIME instead of this fullframe lens transfered to M43 system.
If the OM system are just going to adapt FF frame lenses then mft will die completely. Defeats the whole object of mft
im waiting for om ambassador to use it with other olympus/om system bodies to realy see its worth since few to no one has the mk2 yet. also want someone to address that sigma made this lens. not om system. its so obvious. and because of this fact it shows your paying about $500. just for the name.
I don't accept that the lens is called as m.Zuiko. I don't accept that to 75mm f/1.8 nor the 100-400 mm f/5-6.3 either. All three are designed and manufactured by the Sigma, but just rebranded for the Olympus / OM System. (And yes, I know that 100-400mm has two rear elements resized smaller by Olympus, from the 35mm format size to smaller. That made the focusing faster and likely corrected some of the ghosting that other 100-400 Sigma suffers.)
The m.Zuiko should mean that lens is purely designed by the Olympus (now OM System). And I think that m.Zuiko should be put in the past like Olympus, and OM System should come up with new brand for their lenses. Be it called as "OM System" or "OM Lens" or what ever...
You know every other brand does this too right?
@@robertmills4591 Yes... But I don't talk about others, but about Olympus/OM System.
When Sigma makes their 100-400 or 150-600 to other systems, it is under Sigma brand. It is Sigma's lens.
It would be honest from all to really inform that who's lens design they are using, what they have adapted and what is just rebranding.
At least Olympus did some changes to 100-400 f5-6.4, even when minor ones.
@@paristo it isn't always under the Sigma brand. Sigma, Tamron, Sanyo, etc. all do OEM for the big brands. There are even Leica branded lenses made in the Sigma factory! You're jumping up and down like only Olympus/ OM System has an OEM/VAR relationship with Sigma (or others), but in reality most camera brands do.
@@robertmills4591 I say literally that others do it as well, and you accuse me that I don't recognize that others do it as well... And if I don't talk about other brands with Sigma because this is about m.Zuiko branding issue in OM system lens, it doesn't mean I say other manufacturers don't do the same thing.
Branding is a critical thing for a high end products. And distilling that with a marketing lies is a problematic all around in various businesses. A shoemaker that does handmade shoes, doesn't walk to local sports store and buy cheap 25 € tennis shoes and brand them with own brand and price them as 25 000 € shoes.
A cheap manufacturer that does production to many brands can copy some original producer and each call it their own. But it doesn't make it wise.
The m.Zuiko was about Olympus own brand. And already 75mm f/1.8 was very controversial for that, as Olympus one of the sharpest and best lenses wasn't even theirs. It does damage the brand no matter quality of the product.
Olympus had VF-2, that Leica licensed for themselves, they only changed front shape curvature and branded it as LEICA and multiplied price. Why people bought Olympus one as Leicas dishonesty was obvious.
Don't enter a discussion with such dishonesty.
OM user's are really getting stung here. My G-Master 200-600 plus a 2x Tele still comes in way less than this Sigma rebrand. Plus the Sony has internal zoom. Their expensive prices are one reason why I swapped over to Sony.
Who doesn't want a lens that starts out at 300mm f/10?
nonsens!
"promo sm"
I lost all interest in the lens once I learned it is an overpriced rebadged Sigma. I am not knocking it being a Sigma, the lens is fine, you just have to look at the price for the M system compared to all the others to see how much of a premium they are charging over every other lens mount Sigma supports.
Nice infomercial.......
Morning video candy. Slava Ukraini.
No new products... the 150-600 lens is a renamed Sigma... all these new products were lying in warehouses after the takeover of Olimpus by JIP. New name, new tires and nothing new... we have to sell what is left after the takeover.
It's an improved Sigma. Different lens elements, coatings, and focus motors, but yeah, still overpriced.
The lowest JIP stunt ever. Convert a 35 mm Sigma lens to m43 and double the retail cost.
Sigma again, this time just a disguised FF lens. Olympus no longer makes glass for OM lenses, which is increasingly saving on development. OM withholds economic reports, but GfK reports show that OM is falling again. I am sorry...
Big lol. Such a joke release. OM systems are slowly but surely killing the system..
Dear OM System, we all know that you have repackged the Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG DN, and reselling it at more than double the price. Not sending the lens to all popular reviewer is not going to cut it though.
Would you upgrade from 100-400 to the new 100-600? @wb2pics
wold you upgrade to an old Sigma?
good point! 😁@@bolleolympus
Overpriced Sigma lens?