Using less of the image circle is an under-appreciated advantage of this lens/camera strategy, as maximizing sharpness is so important for the target market. It will make the intended photographers happy.
You mean almost half the price? 1400+1500 vs 2400+2600 € , at least in my country... that is 2900 vs 5000, 2100 € difference you can get Sony 16-55 f2.8G and 11mm f1.8G with money to spare... and it's not like Sony AF is bad... 11fps might be slightly disappointing for SOME people though.
I'm happy to see some FF lens designs coming to M43. Obviously lots of people go with M43 for compactness, but there's also a benefit to be had in bringing over large telephotos or bright primes and there's no reason why they can't both exist on the same platform. It would be nice to see some updates to some of the older compact designs as well though.
Can you elaborate on that? Full frame lenses on a mft camera? It's rather obvious that it's much better to have 600mm micro 4/3 lens rather than 600mm full frame. Or am I missing something?
I have no problems with a full frame lens on mft if it is doing the job! So the Sigma in OMSystem housing is a good idea. The only thing for me is the price. Over 1000$ more only for the SyncIS is a lot of money and a deal breaker for me!
I think it would probably be a pretty nice combo for the stuff I do. Mostly small birds. But I think I'd lean towards the R7 + 200-800, which gives a 320-1280mm equivalent. Nowadays, when it comes to sharpness, basically ALL of the new long lenses for modern mirrorless cameras are plenty sharp, especially when the images are sized down to 3 to 5 mp for typical digital viewing. I currently shoot with the "slow" 800 F11, on my R7, and I'm super happy with the image quality, (my work can be seen at the link in my channel). Waiting on the 200-800 to be "in stock" and refurbished for a few hundred dollars off, but killing it with my 800 F11 while I wait :) Huge, heavy, very fast, and super expensive lenses are becoming less and less important as time goes on. Which I'm sure is a tough pill to swallow, for folks who have spent $12K or more on a Big White or other "Pro" lens in the past.
Nice day out. However it’s not the same lens as the old Sigma, but hey, who would want to get in the way of a good story. I’m looking forward to trading stuff in I don’t use to offset the cost.
I used to use the Sigma 150-600mm with a Meabones adapter. While it was soft at 600mm, the main problem was trying to use the setup in the wind. Anything more than a stiff breeze became frustrating as the lens hood acted like a sail and made keeping the subject in the frame really hard.
For 1200mm equivalent you will never find such a light combo, 2600g. I use it with the GH7, and I had it for a week with the OM-1 mark 2, I find that it works better with the Lumix, the autofocus is much better.
I don't get why they never released an old full frame lens design with a perfectly matched speedbooster hidden inside to get better low light performance in a telephoto.. I think that's the only way I could justify full frame lens size on m43. That price is also outrageous for that lens... and I thought L mount was expensive haha.
It is a great lens, but in using a full frame size they open the possibility for Panasonic to make a MFT design that has the same focal range, but is half the size and weight.
I don't think that it would be significantly smaller if designed for mFT. The image circle is naturally pretty large for long lenses, so not much to be gained in terms of size making it smaller.
Have you tried to put it in front of a full frame camera to see it's image circle out of curiosity? My take is that it covers full frame or maybe a little less depending on the design of the rear mount attachment. Judging by the bokeh shape it seems about right
What were OM thinking? 😂. Crazy that such a big heavy lens for M43s was released, then finding it’s a Sigma with a very inflated price adds insult to injury. 🧐
Bought my wife a bridge camera with 1200mm equivalent for $300. Tiny sensor of course but sharp enough and low enough noise to see the water droplets and individual feather fibers of a duck in the middle of the pond. It's better than 4k resolution, so unl🎉your pictures are on a movie screen or billboard, do you really need to spend 10x as much when you can have something that fits in your purse?
Have you try it on the G9 II, should I look for this or am I better with the 100-400 from Lumix with all the compatibility advantage in MFT, I'm new in this system and kind of lost 😅 Hope you never reed this comment ;)
You can find incredible deals on the 200mm f2.8 with the 1.4 tele converter. It is very comparable to the olympus 300mm f4 and can often be found for half the price of the Olympus in good condition. The 100-400 is certainly great as well, though I'd personally always go for the prime.
Thanks for the advice, already own the 200mm, it literally replaced my EF 500mm f4 L I had before I switch to m43! I'm now looking for more reach and this one look nice, I'm just scared of the mix&match!
@@birdnerdqc4028 I would love to see a direct comparison between the 100-400 at 400mm compared to the 200mm with the 1.4 TC cropped to 400mm. I have a feeling with the 24mp of the G9II this could be a close call. The 200mm f2.8 is an unreal sharp lens. It also plays very well with the Camera Raw/Lightroom "Enhance" feature, and you can get more reach that way.
@@IsawUupThere I was able to try both before I bought the 200mm and when I looked to my shot, I was satisfied on a 4k monitor to looked at them at 100% with the 200mm when I felt like the 100-400mm I needed to go down 50% to get the same sharpness, don't know if it was a bad copy or not, both were second hand. Plus you get more than double the light even with the TC. It was an easy choice. Maybe I will rent the second version of the 100-400 to see if there is some upgrade other than the smoothness of the zoom.
Listening to several comments on different you tube channels to my opinion you forgot to mention one important factor that this lens is superior to the sigma and that is the sychronized stabilization from camera and lens. I also learned that other brands have the same price difference on non stabilized lenses to stabilized lenses. Judgement seems to me a bit biassed.
When I first looked at the thumbnail, I thought it's physically too big to be a 150-600 for an MFT. Turns out it's a badge engineering job of an FF lens with a $1000 premium because.. reasons.
I rented this lens to use with my Panasonic G9 M2 and it definitely took the joy out of my MFT experience. I found that my shoulder got sore from trying to keep it steady at 600mm and would want at least a monopod if I was going out for a couple of hours. I didn't love the pictures enough to spend $2,700 for it. I had an overlapping rental for the Panasonic Leica 200mm and loved it. Even with a teleconveter on a dark day I really liked my images so I bought the 200mm copy I rented. Sure, the reach isn't there but I'm fortunate enough to have other camera combos that scratch that itch, including the Panasonic 100-400mm M2.
Thomas Stirr wrote basically a rave review of this lens with an E-M1X. He can take wonderful photos with any lens, though. I'm not crazy about OM Systems' strategy with this lens, though.
I disagree with the claim at 3:40 that an M43-optimized equivalent could be either smaller or offer more speed for the same size. The effect of coverage (m43 vs FF, etc) on lens size becomes insignificant at long focal lengths. Taking this lens as an example, 600 mm f/6.3 requires an input pupil diameter of 95 mm, so that alone accounts for the _entire_ diameter of this lena. Reducing the FoV won't allow you to make it any smaller. I doubt that reducing the FoV would allow you to make it any shorter, either, since the optical complexity is mostly driven by the zoom ratio and the need to counter axial chromatic aberration.
@@TITAOSTEIN What I didn't say (because Chris didn't bring it up) is that optimizing for m43 might have allowed them to improve quality a little. Presumably Sigma optimized the formula for quality across the entire FF image circle, which would entail some compromises in the center to ensure adequate corner quality. If you reoptimize the lens for m43 you _might_ eke out some more quality within that smaller image circle.
The biggest savings are in girth. M43 lenses tend to have smaller diameter than their FF counterparts - the 150-400 f/4.5 is a good example. Length is not the only thing that counts, girth matters too, when you're stuffing your junk (into a bag).
Would it be correct to say that the front diameter would have to stay the same (for the same f-stop rating) but the girth could be narrower along the length of the lens?
Yes - there is a reason Olympus got rid of it. But honestly, all this is more of a marketing problem. The budget contrains you have you cannot change as a company, but their marketing here was a desaster. They should have admitted the obvious and focus on the improvements. E.g. this lens is NOT a pure rebadge. Lots more special glas (still disappointing, but just not what now everyone on the internet says and believes). Same with the OM 1 mk ii: They HAD TO get rid of the Olympus name b/c of legal reasons, so they made a "new" camera after half the normal cycle time (!), an incredible short amount of time, compared to old Olympus cycle times. This is also something that nobody seems to understand. So, basically a marketing fail. Tell the people what you did, and why, and focus on all the good (there is still a lot). Instead, they decided to play dumb.
@@unn4medfeel1ng Yes! As I said, it's mostly a marketing desaster. They could - and should - have handled all of it (incl. the lens) quite differently.
Sadly this is how all camera reviews were back on 2010 when I started watching Chris & Jordan: good pacing, good comic relief, PG language or censoring and typically worth watching. Nowadays this is rare 😒
Here we goooooooo! Having watched - completely agree. A nice lens, sure, but it seems to fall short on most of the positive benefits of m43 - size, cost and aperture. It has reach in abundance - but the value of that reach is inherently diminished if you're having to stop down to get good sharpness, and raising the ISO to compensate. AI denoising can get you so far, but it can't really restore lost detail. A sunny day lens for sure. Great video Chris and Jordan. Here's hoping for a true m43 designed bright mid tele, as is on the roadmap. Panasonic could even surprise us with a PanaLeica 100-300 f/4 😂
i mean... there really is no comparison out there... the 1200mm lenses for fullframe cost about 10x as much and are twice as heavy or more... with similar apertures... it's not a 150-600mm but a 300-1200mm which is more than just high end on Canon and Nikon and doesn't even exist on E Mount, L Mount or X Mount... for the price of a mid range zoom lens, sure it's weird that it's almost 2x as expensive as the same lens on L and E Mount... but 1200mm reach... that is something you can buy a decent car for usually
@@LoFiAxolotl No, it's a 150-600. The physics of the optics don't change because of the sensor behind it. It's larger and heavier than it needs to be and the difference in quality you're getting between a 61mp Sony camera cropping in vs a 20mp MFT camera is pretty small, because of the optical limits of the lens. Not to mention for the, frankly ridiculous, price premium that Olympus is charging you could get something like a Sony 200-600mm and a 1.4x teleconverter or Nikon 180-600 and 1.4x teleconverter.
@@TechnoBabble both would not have the same reach or aperture with a 1,4x teleconverter, pixel pitch is a huge problem when cropping, the price isn't really different, MFT Pixel crop on a FF body would be x0.25 so even on a 61MP Sony toy it would be less than 20MP with again Pixel Pitch problems... and it would still be more expensive and heavier and in Sonys case worse optical performance... so go ahead play with your Sony toy
@@LoFiAxolotl actually, my APS-C Canon R7 + 800 F11.... or even better, the new 200-800 gives 1280mm equivalent, and works very well also. Not saying the OM + 150-600 is not "as good". They are provably both great :) Very comparable.
@@LoFiAxolotl I'd suggest not being a brand fanboy and actually learning about this stuff rather than believing all of the nonsense marketing from companies that just want to sell you cameras and lenses. You clearly do not understand how smaller sensors effect the image if you think an MFT sensor on the same lens has a different aperture or how the sensor itself is effecting the image quality, a 600mm f/5.6 on MFT and a 1200mm f/11 on FF produce about the same level of overall noise. Let's start with cropping, a 61mp full frame sensor with a 600mm lens cropped into a 1200mm equivalent field of view will be ~15.25mp with the same amount of overall noise as a modern MFT sensor. 15mp vs 20mp in the most extreme scenario but massively more detail in all other use cases. Not only that, but a Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600 with a 1.4x teleconverter is still sharper than the Sigma 150-600 DG DN. So using a TC to allow for cropping in without having the slight resolution disadvantage would end up with the full frame system producing more detail.
I just see it as a worrying sign of what JIP will do with OM systems. If they aren’t going to design new lenses for MFT then work with Sigma to do it. Don’t slap a FF lens on a MFT camera and up-charge. Insulting to their users.
Everything else about the lens could be forgiven if the price tag wasn't so astoundingly stupid. If it was a few hundred bucks more than the Sigma, sure. Everyone's gotta eat. But upping the price by over a thousand dollars for a re-badge and some communications work is just a shitty move.
Get out while you can, grab a Fuji or something that still gives you small bodies along with lenses that are actually optimised to perform the best with the sensor sizes they're built for. Also, a company that is still inovating and developing new tech each generation (unlike OM).
@@willherondale6367 You mean like the new in-camera graduated filters in the OM-1 Mark II? Or all the other features in the Om-1 and other OM cameras that Fuji doesn't even come close to?
@donk8292 Ohh you're 100% right... a minor iteration of an Olympus technology, some newly-rubberised buttons, and an updated af that barely brings it up to modern standards is definitely a huge upgrade worth dropping another 2.2k on. I'd really love to know what these 'loads of other new features' are that OM developed and that weren't just Olympus technologies carried over.
@@willherondale6367there are multiple videos that have compared the OM-1 to the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1…. So with all respect, what in the world are you even taking about?
This is just embarrassing for brand which used to make such a great optics. It should have been a 1750$ "sorry we are trying to save the brand give us more time" kinda situation. But what I see is 2700$ "let's squeeze some dough from loyal Olympus fans before we'll go belly up".
Must be the most controversial release of the year. I would love some engineer to confirm or deny that it could be significantly smaller or faster. I had a lengthy discussion about this on the DPR forums and the general consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be all that much different. And also how does this compares to a high-MPx FF camera with a 50% crop...?
It certainly can't be made faster without making it larger. The _entire_ 95 mm filter thread is accounted for by the 600/6.3 = 95 mm input pupil diameter. It's simply impossible to make a faster 600 mm lens for any format without bumping to a larger diameter. In general the impact of field-of-view (and therefore sensor format) on lens design becomes much less significant as you go longer. The more reasonable question to ask is whether the lens could have been made sharper within the m43 FoV if it had been optimized for only that portion of the image. In other words, could OM (or Sigma) make it sharper in the center by sacrificing quality in the parts of the coverage circle that are outside of m43.
It can't be much smaller, if you design it for a 4/3s sensor. The small 4/3s pixel also need the lens to perform closer to the theoretical limit than large full frame pixel. That higher manufacturing precission increases manufacturing cost a lot.
If you compare it to the 150-400, which was designed for MFT, you will see that the lens could only be narrowre in the last 2 or 3 inches due to the smaller image circle needed. The focal length and the 95mm lens opening determine the basic size and weight.
Was writing a comment while watching the video and Chris hit the nail on the head at the end. There is a zero percent chance I would pay a $1,000 premium on the lens when you compare it to the cost on other mounts. If the rumors are true and an R7 with a stacked sensor is launching sooner rather than later then the combo of it with a 200-800 would be a hell of a lot more attractive.
In optics costs are closely related to manufacturing precission.With a high pixel density 4/3s sensor, you need more precission, so that the lens performs near its theoretical design values. That automatically increases costs. Compare it to a 300-1200 mm full frame lens. ;)
@@Daniel-o1l2e They also changed the glass (more ED elements and similar...) But people are not interested in facts. The marketing desaster is done, no way to correct it now.
I don't know. It seems like a good lens but charging $2700 when it's almost half that on other systems along with full frame weight instead of micro 4/3. What's the point?
Even if a super-telephoto lens is made specifically for Micro Four Thirds, it will hardly become smaller or lighter. The more telephoto, the larger the image circle. The 300/2.8 from the Four Thirds era was heavier than any full-size version.
indeed there's the limitation of focal length and aperture size that influences the opening. Hard to work around that. What they could have done is something like what can be seen in the oly 100-400 (a similar sigma re-design) and panaleica 100-400 - where the latter one is noticeably smaller and lighter, via design choices, while offering even wider aperture. If olympus came up w a ground-up design, hypothetically they could have shrunk it a bit with smarter/more expensive choices, compared to a 1.5k sigma.
Yes, just more ignorant internet propaganda. I overlaid this lens with the 150-400mm - which was designed for MFT, and they are almost identical. The new lens is slightly wider due to the need to house the extending zoom in it's retracted position and only the last couple inches of the lens could have been made narrower due to the smaller image circle of MFT. So, it would have been maybe 100 grams or so lighter and no shorter if designed for MFT.
Pro-Tip/Life-Hack: Carry Panasonic S1R with Sigma 150-600 and OM-1 MZD 150-600, cover everything from 150mm to 1,200mm. When the subject is within the 300 to 600 range you shoot with both cameras, one to each eye and capture stereoscopic imagery at telephoto distances. You're welcome. I solve all world problems. What next?
Tbey should have taken advantage of the FF optics inside and included a built in .71x speed booster. Having the option to click over to a ~ 200-850 f/3.5-4.5 surely would have been a killer feature
What a slap in the face to MFT users... For the frankly insane price premium that they're charging for this you're probably better off selling your MFT gear and buying a used 61mp Sony body and the e-mount version of the Sigma 150-600, it would give similar results when cropped in. Hell, let's say someone was considering between camera systems and didn't have something yet... I probably wouldn't suggest MFT at all at this point, the only benefit I can see for wildlife is faster shooting. For essentially every other type of photography you're losing so much over full frame systems. This kinda just seems like JIP is trying to squeeze as much money out of diehard Olympus fans before the company goes under.
The only two M43 cameras I would buy today are Panasonic G9ii and Blackmagic 4K, but I'd still adapt most of the lenses from Canon instead of buying native glass which are straight up overpriced and stagnant at this point.
I agree with you. It doesn't make any sense to release an APS-C lens for MFT, let alone 35mm such as this one. Olympus had always been very confident about their ZD and MZD lens design and size advantage and I really admired them for that. (Not all of their lenses are original designs though, ZD 70-300 being one of them) It's a whole different story now with OM System, but they seem to be getting a little too comfortable rebadging things. That said, I still use and love MFT for the size and cost/performance advantage as a system. Good examples are Lumix 12-35, 35-100, many Leica Zooms and Primes, MZD 12-40, 40-150, MZD Primes and PRO Primes. I find MFT adequate for my purposes. I just have to know its limit to the core.
I agree. I have and EM 1.2 and I wanted a telephoto lens for birds. The m.zuiko 300 f4 is fantastic but costs CAD 4000. So I picked up a used Sony 200-600 and an A7iv (like new condition) for CAD 4400 all in instead. I still keep my EM 1.2 for macro. Even if the m.zuiko 150-400 was in my budget, I would still prefer the z8+600 f6.3 (cheaper and lighter).
The same lens for almost double the price is almost a bit insulting. This is NOT a $3000 lens. Its a tele superzoom just like every other tele super zoom in that 1200-1800 price point that every other manufacturer makes. No more, no less.
Great review. I love to use full-frame lenses on smaller sensor bodies for wildlife and especially small birds. Like my RF 100-500 on my APS-C R7 body for example. I don't mind the extra weight required for full-frame glass. I'm just glad I can use that full-frame lens on my APS-C body because they don't make an APS-C version. So none of that bothers me on this Sigma full-frame to OM system micro 4/3 port. It's the price difference that kills it for me. I could understand a $200 bump but more than that is unreasonable. For that price, it would be much better to buy the sigma E version and use it on a Sony a6700.
I got the 100-300mm and I find its more then adequate for my long reach needs. Its small and easy to carry with me as an extra lens at times and when in use, its easy to use. I have a FF lens and rarely use it because its large and clunky. All that extra size to get an extra 2x reach does not make sense for when/where I use it. Even with my 100-300, I often find myself not needing the full zoom and could always back up a bit wider. The standard 70-200mm is quite adequate for most things. Except for wild life shooting. And then I can see how this new lens could be a treat for those doing that.
Could have been better researched. Yes, it is a Sigma Lens, but not exactly. The IS is anywhere from 2 to 3 times better than the Sigma - as it had to be with a 2X crop factor. So the IS in this lens is not Sigma, but OM system. And no, it would not be much smaller or lighter if it was designed for micro four thirds. I repeat - no, it would not be much small or lighter. If you overlay this lens against the 150-400 M.Zuiko lens - which was designed for micro four thirds - you will see that only the last 2 inches or so closest to the mount would be narrower if designed for MFT. The 95mm lens opening determines the diameter of the glass needed for the initial and probably middle optical groups. Those parts of the two lenses are essentially identical - with the 150-600 being slightly wider to account for the retracting and extending zoom portion of the lens (the 150-400 is internally zooming). Only the final optical group at the end of the lens is narrower in the 150-400 - and would be narrower in the 150-600 if it were designed for MFT. Certainly you guys at Peta Pixel have reviewed enough lenses to know that the size and weight of a lens is mainly determined by the focal length and the lens opening diameter - not the size of the sensor.
Yeah you're totally right. That's why the Olympus 100-400 is 200 grams lighter and nearly 10mm smaller in diameter than the Sony 100-400. Clearly they're the same exact size though.
this lens makes no sense on m4/3 mount, and the price makes sense even less I'd like to have m4/3 camera with good compact telephoto, otherwise it's just Sony or FF Lumix camera with the same lens
Once we get to 80MP full frame you can crop down to 20mp with the full frame camera. Depending on the price of an 80MP full frame camera it may be cheaper or not?
If this is the direction OM System is gonna take their system (no pun intended), this is truly unfortunate. For the price difference between this lens and the E mount version, you could literally buy at least an APS-C or a used full frame camera to go with it and get more light and a more balanced kit.
$2700 and it still isn't able to shoot at 50FPS with C-AF. It is restricted to 25FPS like all other non 'Pro' OM and Pana Leica lenses. Something I think should have been mentioned in the video.
No, it could not have been smaller if specifically designed for micro four thirds. 600mm at f6.3 literally means that the diameter must be at least 95mm, regardless of sensor format. The only size savings that designing for micro four thirds would have yielded is in the elements at the back of the lens that control the projection of the image onto the sensor, but those elements are a small percentage of the overall design already, so there's not much to be gained there. The "compactness" comes from comparing it to what the size of a 1200mm f6.3 would have to be.
Front element has to be that size, but rest of the barrel could be slightly smaller. Not much but some amount. Look at Panasonic Leica 100-400 vs Olympus 100-400, same aperture and focal length, but PL is smaller.
@@pawelbrzozowski3899 F-stop is the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the diameter of a lens, so 600mm/6.3=95mm (plus a smidge). Other examples: If you want an f1.0 lens that's 95mm in diameter, the longest lens you can make is 95mm. If you want a 300 mm f2 lens, the diameter must be 150mm. When you stop down a lens, you're simply using the iris to constrict the effective diameter of the lens. So this ratio sets the maximum amount of light that can get through a lens, and the size of the sensor on the other end of the lens is irrelevant.
@@heikkivalkonen1075 Yeah, agreed. But the difference is marginal and becomes less as focal lengths increase because the front of the lens dominates the design more and more.
My biggest gripe is opportunity cost. There are decent to great wildlife options that already exist on m43 at a variety of price points. This effort took resources away from something that might have better served the m43 community like firmware updates to existing OM cameras. I was looking at switching from Fuji to m43 and went with G9ii (still keeping Nikon Zf for my full frame/low light fun). It just seems like Panasonic has a more focused strategy that makes sense. I might get am OM down the line as a 2nd body if I see them support their loyal customers who took a chance with them, but this is a strange use of their limited resources when they should have anticipated the beating they are taking over the OM-1 m2.
Panasonic bodies might complete with OM on paper, but in real life, the OM has so many nuanced and subtle features that make it so much better for stills. I would never go back to Panasonic.
to me the om system 150-400 pro is where m43 shines. telephoto wildlife is what m43 should focus on. that and extram light weight, fixed lens cameras for hiking/street.
Also note that MFT and OM in particular is the king of outdoor macro (bugs, flowers, etc). No one else even comes close in this space. The OM 90mm Macro was a HUGE factor in making it the system of choice, along with its great focus stacking capabilities.
I purchased the 100-400 f/5.0-6.3 and it is a really is a nice lens. Unfortunately, it's a bit heavier and bulkier than I feel it should be for m43rds given its focal length range and f-stop range. Now, here's where the problem lies for me, my old OM-D E-M1 Mk I is getting pretty old in the teeth. I've been thinking about upgrading to the OM-1 Mk II, in fact that camera is really compelling, but my reason's for sticking with M43rds have always revolved around just how much I like the whole system. I currently have a number of pro lenses, but like the body, they are beginning to get really old and well used. How much longer are all these parts going to last when I've literally worn the paint of some of it? So, while I've absolutely got my money's worth out of everything I own, and then some, do I want to stick with a system when the manufacturer is opting to use repurposed full-frame lenses for some of their important offerings? The answer seems to be more and more, "no." While I don't own the 150-600mm lens featured in this revue, if I was going to purchase it and pay the size/weight penalty, I may as well match it to the sensor size that it was designed for. I am left wondering if this is the first time that a good lens drives a customer to a different brand? Lens choice and value are extremely important to me when selecting an INTERCHANGEABLE LENS camera system. I wonder why? Olympus seemed to understand that, but I'm not sure OM Systems does. This new lens is a wonderful option to have but I feel that it really needed to be developed from the ground up with micro four-thirds in mind--it needed to be the sort of elegant solution that the 12-40mm f/2,8, 40-150mm f/2.8, and 300mm f/4.0 already are and I don't think it is. So now that I'm on the verge of needing to replace much of my system anyway, the question probably becomes, Sony or Nikon?
Let's thank PANASONIC for not selling their brand to another not known company then??? PS I am sticking with my Fuji for now.... I guess my 150-600 weights even less..
My impression was that telephoto lens size is more related to the focal length rather than the image circle size - so maybe a bespoke lens for m43 wouldn’t be that much smaller? Whereas you’d see a big difference with a m43 wide angle
You say "reach" a lot, but that's only in comparison to a 20MP FF sensor, what you always get is the restricted Field of View of a 2x longer lens for finding/following things. I shoot 20MP m43 and 50MP FF and sometimes with the same lenses. You only get a little more detail at the same actual focal length with m43 (back with 16MP m43 it was a wash). BTW on weight - the OMDS 150-400 you mentioned as "light" is 1,875g which is just slightly heavier than a full-frame Canon EF 100-400 II (1590g) and a 1.4x III (225g), or very slightly heavier if you add a Metabones EF-m43 Smart Adapter (144g), although the Canon combo is a fraction of the price. So not light as such. The native lens will AF quite a bit better tho.
This lens is a disgrace tbh. They could've changed the glass elements inside so it would use all the light and give you like an idk 150-600 F/3.5 to F/5? Something like that I guess. Or drastically reduce it's size and weight. This is just very lazy
That $2,700 price tag! LOL. Even against the $7,500 150-400 + 1.25TC f4.5 lens, the price is still absurd. Not only lacking the constant aperture but inferior construction (extending barrel for instance), inferior optical performance and worst, wasted and compromised design for the much smaller M4/3 sensor in the name of lower R&D cost which somehow doesn't reflect in the final price tag. The previous 100-400 seems to be a much better buy if the goal is to really save money. And though the hardware again can't be compared to the flagship constant aperture zoom but the derivative design of that lens seems less compromised. I have had the single focal length 300 f/4 prime for quite a while now and despite everything about the lens being super e.g. mechanical construction, optical performance, AF speed and response, effectiveness of synchronized image stabilization etc. I have always felt the weight and size of the lens are already at or maybe beyond the limit for me for extended handheld shooting because the real beauty of this system is how small and light the cameras and lenses are. Other bigger systems become not only more cost effective with this type of derivative lens but make the assumed weight and size penalty disappear.
Every time a respected manufacturer gets bought, it always start with "Nooo don't worry we THRIVE for quality and for bringing up the name of your favourite brand etc". And every single time this kind of garbage happens. The last OMD M1 with no real improvements on the old, outdated M43 Olympus sensor was already a red flag. Just buying something nice from Sony cut down to M43 would have done the job and given either a decent low light performance or a higher resolution. And now, Pentax-style cheap tactics 🙄 Damnit I WANT to keep using the M43 format. I hope it will not go down.
I'm getting older. My shoulders are crying out for lighter lenses. The range sounds fantastic but, because of the weight vs how much light is allowed in equation, I'll never be able to justify this one.
Retail prices here in Norway (in us dollar): Sigma 150-600 f/5,0-6,3 for Sony: 1500.- Rebranded, and fitted for OM-system/mtf: 2900.- That`s quite rude to OM-system/mtf - owners!
The Olympus 100-400 mm f/5-6.3 is as well the Sigma lens, it can be seen it is at the end of the Olympus being in Olympus and transitioning to JP or what ever. But that 100-400 mm version isn't exact clone. Olympus changed the optical last group in it. It is clearly fitted to match 4/3" (there is no such thing as "Micro 4/3 sensor" as the sensor has always been 4/3" aka "FourThirds") sensor and likely crop the image circle to improve contrast and all, and then maybe match the Olympus tele-converters. Is this lens exactly the clone optically, or is there a small change as well? I think it is exactly same optically based what Sigma shows and what OM System show. But does it exactly matter? No... You get the teleconverter compatibility, Sync-IS and Fn button to go for that extra money.. And the style, of course..
For around the same price, the 300mm F4 has absolutely stunning resolution. Even with the 1.4x and 2x TC, the images are way way better the cropping based on my extensive testing. Not as versatile but extremely good.
Chris, here's some really exciting news! I'm shooting the prototype to the stripped down to basics G9ii (PDAF, 24fps) packaged with a 24-600mm ( f2.4-4) zoom lens. The kit weighs just 2 pounds and, get ready for this, is available (camera & lens) for the ridiculous price of $1,600 US. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the GII, but the 7 year old Sony RX10iv does the job without breaking the bank or your back! 😊
This is pretty much a Sigma lens under Olympus name. Yes, it is a full frame lens. that's why is GIGANTIC for the OM System. Cheap shot from Olympus. The Sigma is sold for 3 times less. Olympus is simply ridiculous with their lenses prices. One of the reasons I will never purchase this system. There's is a reason why this system never gets to be popular. Well, they eventually are going to break anyways LOL who cares! LOL
Comments are too extreme about OM and the m43 platform. Rebadging Sigma has been done before by Olympus. A huge indicator is when an M Zuiko lens comes with big specs but isn’t labeled “Pro. I will worry if they put out a bad pro lens.
Exactly. Even OM could have done that from their end of design. The original 150-600 speed boosted by 0.67x would be a nice 100-400 f3.4-4.2 A lot of people would pay the asking price of this 150-600 gladly for such a lens.
@@PrimalShutter Oh that's an interesting idea. I don't know if that's even possible, but I would be fine with just using my existing speedbooster with the Sigma 150-600mm if only the autofocus worked reliably.
Just doesn't make any sense. It's so heavy, big, and expensive, you might as well just go full frame at that point. You're paying a significant premium for a rebadged Sigma lens, over the original Nikon/Sony 600mm zooms, for seemingly no reason at all. OM should try to actually for once make something themselves, instead of re-releasing other companies work, and charging ridiculous prices for it.
Absolutley nonsense what OM System is doing here. MFT's advantage was always its compactness. Now they are driving crazy, adapting a fullframe lens to MFT and double the price! Oh no!
I used the Sigma Canon mount for many years - optically a very sharp lens wide open, even at 600mm. I shot birds handheld all the time, and I'm a short woman. I would not pay the extra for a m43 mount however. If it was the regular price of the sigma, maybe a few more dollars,, ok.
That intro broke my brain.
Using less of the image circle is an under-appreciated advantage of this lens/camera strategy, as maximizing sharpness is so important for the target market. It will make the intended photographers happy.
You can get Sony A6700 AND this lens for E mount for basically same price as m43 version lol
Yes, but the Sony A6700 is not even close to the specs and performance of the Om-1 or other OM cameras.
@@donk8292in some areas it's better, in some worse (compared to top OM-1) and it's certainly better than some lower OM models...
You mean almost half the price? 1400+1500 vs 2400+2600 € , at least in my country... that is 2900 vs 5000, 2100 € difference you can get Sony 16-55 f2.8G and 11mm f1.8G with money to spare... and it's not like Sony AF is bad... 11fps might be slightly disappointing for SOME people though.
I'm happy to see some FF lens designs coming to M43. Obviously lots of people go with M43 for compactness, but there's also a benefit to be had in bringing over large telephotos or bright primes and there's no reason why they can't both exist on the same platform. It would be nice to see some updates to some of the older compact designs as well though.
Can you elaborate on that? Full frame lenses on a mft camera? It's rather obvious that it's much better to have 600mm micro 4/3 lens rather than 600mm full frame. Or am I missing something?
I have no problems with a full frame lens on mft if it is doing the job! So the Sigma in OMSystem housing is a good idea. The only thing for me is the price. Over 1000$ more only for the SyncIS is a lot of money and a deal breaker for me!
I think it would probably be a pretty nice combo for the stuff I do. Mostly small birds. But I think I'd lean towards the R7 + 200-800, which gives a 320-1280mm equivalent. Nowadays, when it comes to sharpness, basically ALL of the new long lenses for modern mirrorless cameras are plenty sharp, especially when the images are sized down to 3 to 5 mp for typical digital viewing. I currently shoot with the "slow" 800 F11, on my R7, and I'm super happy with the image quality, (my work can be seen at the link in my channel). Waiting on the 200-800 to be "in stock" and refurbished for a few hundred dollars off, but killing it with my 800 F11 while I wait :) Huge, heavy, very fast, and super expensive lenses are becoming less and less important as time goes on. Which I'm sure is a tough pill to swallow, for folks who have spent $12K or more on a Big White or other "Pro" lens in the past.
Hilarious comment, thanks for the laugh!
Nice day out. However it’s not the same lens as the old Sigma, but hey, who would want to get in the way of a good story. I’m looking forward to trading stuff in I don’t use to offset the cost.
9:11 View Tom Eisl’s review of this lens. Now that’s a good story with some content thrown in.
I used to use the Sigma 150-600mm with a Meabones adapter. While it was soft at 600mm, the main problem was trying to use the setup in the wind. Anything more than a stiff breeze became frustrating as the lens hood acted like a sail and made keeping the subject in the frame really hard.
For 1200mm equivalent you will never find such a light combo, 2600g. I use it with the GH7, and I had it for a week with the OM-1 mark 2, I find that it works better with the Lumix, the autofocus is much better.
Oof that butterfly shot is money! The butterfly garden is either too many people or too little butterflies for me 😅
I don't get why they never released an old full frame lens design with a perfectly matched speedbooster hidden inside to get better low light performance in a telephoto.. I think that's the only way I could justify full frame lens size on m43. That price is also outrageous for that lens... and I thought L mount was expensive haha.
This is how a sushi company destroyed a camera company
something is fishy... for sure!
It is a great lens, but in using a full frame size they open the possibility for Panasonic to make a MFT design that has the same focal range, but is half the size and weight.
Now did you try it on the G9ii or just the OM1 ii? And Jordan still loving the G9ii ? Nicely done guys !
I would love for a company to make an EF to M43 autofocus adapter. The metabones does not fit the OM-1
Couldn't they have used some form of a speedbooster to actually gain sth from the original OM Sigma FF design?!
I don't think that it would be significantly smaller if designed for mFT. The image circle is naturally pretty large for long lenses, so not much to be gained in terms of size making it smaller.
A thousand more than what should be
Have you tried to put it in front of a full frame camera to see it's image circle out of curiosity? My take is that it covers full frame or maybe a little less depending on the design of the rear mount attachment. Judging by the bokeh shape it seems about right
Won't be all that big with that MFT mount on the back. 😜
Kidding aside there isn't much doubt that this is actually the Sigma lens
@@hendrickziegler8487 Considering the flange distance and diameter are similar to E mount it's literally the same lens
@@tankivulture148 but the mount would literally obscure the image circle.
@@robertmills4591 It kinda depends on a lot of things, but you can always remove the mask on the rear that blocks the light
What were OM thinking? 😂. Crazy that such a big heavy lens for M43s was released, then finding it’s a Sigma with a very inflated price adds insult to injury. 🧐
OM threw those who could not afford the 150-400 a bone...that's it.
Bought my wife a bridge camera with 1200mm equivalent for $300. Tiny sensor of course but sharp enough and low enough noise to see the water droplets and individual feather fibers of a duck in the middle of the pond. It's better than 4k resolution, so unl🎉your pictures are on a movie screen or billboard, do you really need to spend 10x as much when you can have something that fits in your purse?
Great review. How is this not a 3.5 to 5.6? 😂
Have you try it on the G9 II, should I look for this or am I better with the 100-400 from Lumix with all the compatibility advantage in MFT, I'm new in this system and kind of lost 😅 Hope you never reed this comment ;)
You can find incredible deals on the 200mm f2.8 with the 1.4 tele converter. It is very comparable to the olympus 300mm f4 and can often be found for half the price of the Olympus in good condition.
The 100-400 is certainly great as well, though I'd personally always go for the prime.
Thanks for the advice, already own the 200mm, it literally replaced my EF 500mm f4 L I had before I switch to m43! I'm now looking for more reach and this one look nice, I'm just scared of the mix&match!
@@birdnerdqc4028 I would love to see a direct comparison between the 100-400 at 400mm compared to the 200mm with the 1.4 TC cropped to 400mm. I have a feeling with the 24mp of the G9II this could be a close call. The 200mm f2.8 is an unreal sharp lens. It also plays very well with the Camera Raw/Lightroom "Enhance" feature, and you can get more reach that way.
@@IsawUupThere I was able to try both before I bought the 200mm and when I looked to my shot, I was satisfied on a 4k monitor to looked at them at 100% with the 200mm when I felt like the 100-400mm I needed to go down 50% to get the same sharpness, don't know if it was a bad copy or not, both were second hand. Plus you get more than double the light even with the TC. It was an easy choice. Maybe I will rent the second version of the 100-400 to see if there is some upgrade other than the smoothness of the zoom.
Listening to several comments on different you tube channels to my opinion you forgot to mention one important factor that this lens is superior to the sigma and that is the sychronized stabilization from camera and lens. I also learned that other brands have the same price difference on non stabilized lenses to stabilized lenses. Judgement seems to me a bit biassed.
Sync is isn't worth 1500 extra dollars.
@@bIoodypingu It also has a different set of optics inside. The Sigma lens provided a starting point for a redevelopment.
Imagine if OM made a 150mm-600mm f/4. It would most likely be the same dimensions as this Sigma
Holy cow that price should have been in the title 🤣
When I first looked at the thumbnail, I thought it's physically too big to be a 150-600 for an MFT. Turns out it's a badge engineering job of an FF lens with a $1000 premium because.. reasons.
Yeah but carry around a ff 1200mm and tell me its not lightweight compared to it!
Chris, you should lift some weights to handle the bulkiness of that special lens.
Couldn't you put a speed booster on this?
Wow what a joke of a lens! The sad sad state of OM System....
I thought it was April Fool's Day joke, made by Mr Zuiko himself
I rented this lens to use with my Panasonic G9 M2 and it definitely took the joy out of my MFT experience. I found that my shoulder got sore from trying to keep it steady at 600mm and would want at least a monopod if I was going out for a couple of hours. I didn't love the pictures enough to spend $2,700 for it. I had an overlapping rental for the Panasonic Leica 200mm and loved it. Even with a teleconveter on a dark day I really liked my images so I bought the 200mm copy I rented. Sure, the reach isn't there but I'm fortunate enough to have other camera combos that scratch that itch, including the Panasonic 100-400mm M2.
Thomas Stirr wrote basically a rave review of this lens with an E-M1X. He can take wonderful photos with any lens, though. I'm not crazy about OM Systems' strategy with this lens, though.
I'll stay with my 100-400 lens.
I disagree with the claim at 3:40 that an M43-optimized equivalent could be either smaller or offer more speed for the same size.
The effect of coverage (m43 vs FF, etc) on lens size becomes insignificant at long focal lengths. Taking this lens as an example, 600 mm f/6.3 requires an input pupil diameter of 95 mm, so that alone accounts for the _entire_ diameter of this lena. Reducing the FoV won't allow you to make it any smaller. I doubt that reducing the FoV would allow you to make it any shorter, either, since the optical complexity is mostly driven by the zoom ratio and the need to counter axial chromatic aberration.
Exactly! They miss the point here! Math! It could probably be a little bit smaller but not much.
@@TITAOSTEIN What I didn't say (because Chris didn't bring it up) is that optimizing for m43 might have allowed them to improve quality a little.
Presumably Sigma optimized the formula for quality across the entire FF image circle, which would entail some compromises in the center to ensure adequate corner quality. If you reoptimize the lens for m43 you _might_ eke out some more quality within that smaller image circle.
The biggest savings are in girth. M43 lenses tend to have smaller diameter than their FF counterparts - the 150-400 f/4.5 is a good example.
Length is not the only thing that counts, girth matters too, when you're stuffing your junk (into a bag).
Would it be correct to say that the front diameter would have to stay the same (for the same f-stop rating) but the girth could be narrower along the length of the lens?
@@gregsullivan7408 yep. Just compare how easy to handle the 150-400/4.5 is, even though it has a brighter (and constant) aperture.
new OM-1 mk2 minimal progress. The new 150-600 lens is a disguised FF Sigma. OM is apparently saving massively on development resources.
and OM-1 is only one camera with new sensor, all other Oly camera use like 8 year old sensors....
Yes - there is a reason Olympus got rid of it. But honestly, all this is more of a marketing problem. The budget contrains you have you cannot change as a company, but their marketing here was a desaster. They should have admitted the obvious and focus on the improvements. E.g. this lens is NOT a pure rebadge. Lots more special glas (still disappointing, but just not what now everyone on the internet says and believes). Same with the OM 1 mk ii: They HAD TO get rid of the Olympus name b/c of legal reasons, so they made a "new" camera after half the normal cycle time (!), an incredible short amount of time, compared to old Olympus cycle times. This is also something that nobody seems to understand. So, basically a marketing fail. Tell the people what you did, and why, and focus on all the good (there is still a lot). Instead, they decided to play dumb.
They left the 90 degree clicks out of the tripod mount...
@@thomaslilly5834 they could've just put another name and not call it mk ii
@@unn4medfeel1ng Yes! As I said, it's mostly a marketing desaster. They could - and should - have handled all of it (incl. the lens) quite differently.
In the automotive world we call this phenomenon *Badge Engineering*
it's wild that even a camera company is going down the rebadging route.
Love the pacing of your reviews. Not a single second is wasted. Well done.
Do you like those cuts from daylight to black?
Sadly this is how all camera reviews were back on 2010 when I started watching Chris & Jordan: good pacing, good comic relief, PG language or censoring and typically worth watching. Nowadays this is rare 😒
Here we goooooooo!
Having watched - completely agree. A nice lens, sure, but it seems to fall short on most of the positive benefits of m43 - size, cost and aperture. It has reach in abundance - but the value of that reach is inherently diminished if you're having to stop down to get good sharpness, and raising the ISO to compensate. AI denoising can get you so far, but it can't really restore lost detail.
A sunny day lens for sure. Great video Chris and Jordan. Here's hoping for a true m43 designed bright mid tele, as is on the roadmap.
Panasonic could even surprise us with a PanaLeica 100-300 f/4 😂
i mean... there really is no comparison out there... the 1200mm lenses for fullframe cost about 10x as much and are twice as heavy or more... with similar apertures... it's not a 150-600mm but a 300-1200mm which is more than just high end on Canon and Nikon and doesn't even exist on E Mount, L Mount or X Mount... for the price of a mid range zoom lens, sure it's weird that it's almost 2x as expensive as the same lens on L and E Mount... but 1200mm reach... that is something you can buy a decent car for usually
@@LoFiAxolotl No, it's a 150-600. The physics of the optics don't change because of the sensor behind it.
It's larger and heavier than it needs to be and the difference in quality you're getting between a 61mp Sony camera cropping in vs a 20mp MFT camera is pretty small, because of the optical limits of the lens.
Not to mention for the, frankly ridiculous, price premium that Olympus is charging you could get something like a Sony 200-600mm and a 1.4x teleconverter or Nikon 180-600 and 1.4x teleconverter.
@@TechnoBabble both would not have the same reach or aperture with a 1,4x teleconverter, pixel pitch is a huge problem when cropping, the price isn't really different, MFT Pixel crop on a FF body would be x0.25 so even on a 61MP Sony toy it would be less than 20MP with again Pixel Pitch problems... and it would still be more expensive and heavier and in Sonys case worse optical performance... so go ahead play with your Sony toy
@@LoFiAxolotl actually, my APS-C Canon R7 + 800 F11.... or even better, the new 200-800 gives 1280mm equivalent, and works very well also. Not saying the OM + 150-600 is not "as good". They are provably both great :) Very comparable.
@@LoFiAxolotl I'd suggest not being a brand fanboy and actually learning about this stuff rather than believing all of the nonsense marketing from companies that just want to sell you cameras and lenses.
You clearly do not understand how smaller sensors effect the image if you think an MFT sensor on the same lens has a different aperture or how the sensor itself is effecting the image quality, a 600mm f/5.6 on MFT and a 1200mm f/11 on FF produce about the same level of overall noise.
Let's start with cropping, a 61mp full frame sensor with a 600mm lens cropped into a 1200mm equivalent field of view will be ~15.25mp with the same amount of overall noise as a modern MFT sensor. 15mp vs 20mp in the most extreme scenario but massively more detail in all other use cases.
Not only that, but a Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600 with a 1.4x teleconverter is still sharper than the Sigma 150-600 DG DN. So using a TC to allow for cropping in without having the slight resolution disadvantage would end up with the full frame system producing more detail.
I just see it as a worrying sign of what JIP will do with OM systems. If they aren’t going to design new lenses for MFT then work with Sigma to do it. Don’t slap a FF lens on a MFT camera and up-charge. Insulting to their users.
Everything else about the lens could be forgiven if the price tag wasn't so astoundingly stupid. If it was a few hundred bucks more than the Sigma, sure. Everyone's gotta eat. But upping the price by over a thousand dollars for a re-badge and some communications work is just a shitty move.
Price is the issue for this lens. A markup of $1200 doesn't just come close to being offensive; it is downright provocative & it makes me angry.
Great review but sad that this is just a marked up sigma 150-600. Times are tough in MFT land these days :(
I mean, the Olympus 100-400mm f/5-6.3 is a Sigma lens made in the Sigma Aizu factory too. It's not a new phenomenon.
(Other brands also do this).
Get out while you can, grab a Fuji or something that still gives you small bodies along with lenses that are actually optimised to perform the best with the sensor sizes they're built for. Also, a company that is still inovating and developing new tech each generation (unlike OM).
@@willherondale6367 You mean like the new in-camera graduated filters in the OM-1 Mark II? Or all the other features in the Om-1 and other OM cameras that Fuji doesn't even come close to?
@donk8292 Ohh you're 100% right... a minor iteration of an Olympus technology, some newly-rubberised buttons, and an updated af that barely brings it up to modern standards is definitely a huge upgrade worth dropping another 2.2k on. I'd really love to know what these 'loads of other new features' are that OM developed and that weren't just Olympus technologies carried over.
@@willherondale6367there are multiple videos that have compared the OM-1 to the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1….
So with all respect, what in the world are you even taking about?
And the award for the worst lens of the year goes to..... 😂
This is just embarrassing for brand which used to make such a great optics. It should have been a 1750$ "sorry we are trying to save the brand give us more time" kinda situation. But what I see is 2700$ "let's squeeze some dough from loyal Olympus fans before we'll go belly up".
What a cashgrab of a lens ....
Great video though.
Purchased mine. Provantage sells it for 2300. Purchased the teleconverter from Amazon Japan. Mft serves my needs well.
This lens isn't the sharpest, and it especially isn't the sharpest on m43. Meh performance for crazy pricing.
Must be the most controversial release of the year. I would love some engineer to confirm or deny that it could be significantly smaller or faster. I had a lengthy discussion about this on the DPR forums and the general consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be all that much different. And also how does this compares to a high-MPx FF camera with a 50% crop...?
It certainly can't be made faster without making it larger. The _entire_ 95 mm filter thread is accounted for by the 600/6.3 = 95 mm input pupil diameter. It's simply impossible to make a faster 600 mm lens for any format without bumping to a larger diameter.
In general the impact of field-of-view (and therefore sensor format) on lens design becomes much less significant as you go longer.
The more reasonable question to ask is whether the lens could have been made sharper within the m43 FoV if it had been optimized for only that portion of the image. In other words, could OM (or Sigma) make it sharper in the center by sacrificing quality in the parts of the coverage circle that are outside of m43.
It can't be much smaller, if you design it for a 4/3s sensor.
The small 4/3s pixel also need the lens to perform closer to the theoretical limit than large full frame pixel. That higher manufacturing precission increases manufacturing cost a lot.
If you compare it to the 150-400, which was designed for MFT, you will see that the lens could only be narrowre in the last 2 or 3 inches due to the smaller image circle needed. The focal length and the 95mm lens opening determine the basic size and weight.
Was writing a comment while watching the video and Chris hit the nail on the head at the end. There is a zero percent chance I would pay a $1,000 premium on the lens when you compare it to the cost on other mounts.
If the rumors are true and an R7 with a stacked sensor is launching sooner rather than later then the combo of it with a 200-800 would be a hell of a lot more attractive.
In optics costs are closely related to manufacturing precission.With a high pixel density 4/3s sensor, you need more precission, so that the lens performs near its theoretical design values. That automatically increases costs.
Compare it to a 300-1200 mm full frame lens. ;)
@@Daniel-o1l2e They also changed the glass (more ED elements and similar...) But people are not interested in facts. The marketing desaster is done, no way to correct it now.
Buy the older EF Sigma 150-600mm and adapt it, save yourself a ton of money, why not even buy a speedbooster and get more light than this offers?
600 6.3 with a speedbooster is the low budget 400 4.5
I don't know. It seems like a good lens but charging $2700 when it's almost half that on other systems along with full frame weight instead of micro 4/3. What's the point?
Its better then nothing and will be prefect and within the budget of some users...but yes, they could have done better.
Even if a super-telephoto lens is made specifically for Micro Four Thirds, it will hardly become smaller or lighter.
The more telephoto, the larger the image circle.
The 300/2.8 from the Four Thirds era was heavier than any full-size version.
indeed there's the limitation of focal length and aperture size that influences the opening. Hard to work around that. What they could have done is something like what can be seen in the oly 100-400 (a similar sigma re-design) and panaleica 100-400 - where the latter one is noticeably smaller and lighter, via design choices, while offering even wider aperture. If olympus came up w a ground-up design, hypothetically they could have shrunk it a bit with smarter/more expensive choices, compared to a 1.5k sigma.
TOKINA AF80-400/4.5-5.6 is 990g
You can make something bright and light.
The 300 is afixed focal lense with an f/4 aperture, thus can not be sincerely compared with.
Yes, just more ignorant internet propaganda. I overlaid this lens with the 150-400mm - which was designed for MFT, and they are almost identical. The new lens is slightly wider due to the need to house the extending zoom in it's retracted position and only the last couple inches of the lens could have been made narrower due to the smaller image circle of MFT. So, it would have been maybe 100 grams or so lighter and no shorter if designed for MFT.
The markup over the Sigma version is way too much.
Pro-Tip/Life-Hack: Carry Panasonic S1R with Sigma 150-600 and OM-1 MZD 150-600, cover everything from 150mm to 1,200mm.
When the subject is within the 300 to 600 range you shoot with both cameras, one to each eye and capture stereoscopic imagery at telephoto distances.
You're welcome. I solve all world problems. What next?
Tbey should have taken advantage of the FF optics inside and included a built in .71x speed booster. Having the option to click over to a ~ 200-850 f/3.5-4.5 surely would have been a killer feature
110-420mm 3.5-4 with built in teleconverter lol
What a slap in the face to MFT users...
For the frankly insane price premium that they're charging for this you're probably better off selling your MFT gear and buying a used 61mp Sony body and the e-mount version of the Sigma 150-600, it would give similar results when cropped in.
Hell, let's say someone was considering between camera systems and didn't have something yet... I probably wouldn't suggest MFT at all at this point, the only benefit I can see for wildlife is faster shooting. For essentially every other type of photography you're losing so much over full frame systems.
This kinda just seems like JIP is trying to squeeze as much money out of diehard Olympus fans before the company goes under.
The only two M43 cameras I would buy today are Panasonic G9ii and Blackmagic 4K, but I'd still adapt most of the lenses from Canon instead of buying native glass which are straight up overpriced and stagnant at this point.
I agree with you. It doesn't make any sense to release an APS-C lens for MFT, let alone 35mm such as this one. Olympus had always been very confident about their ZD and MZD lens design and size advantage and I really admired them for that. (Not all of their lenses are original designs though, ZD 70-300 being one of them) It's a whole different story now with OM System, but they seem to be getting a little too comfortable rebadging things.
That said, I still use and love MFT for the size and cost/performance advantage as a system. Good examples are Lumix 12-35, 35-100, many Leica Zooms and Primes, MZD 12-40, 40-150, MZD Primes and PRO Primes. I find MFT adequate for my purposes. I just have to know its limit to the core.
I agree. I have and EM 1.2 and I wanted a telephoto lens for birds. The m.zuiko 300 f4 is fantastic but costs CAD 4000. So I picked up a used Sony 200-600 and an A7iv (like new condition) for CAD 4400 all in instead. I still keep my EM 1.2 for macro.
Even if the m.zuiko 150-400 was in my budget, I would still prefer the z8+600 f6.3 (cheaper and lighter).
The same lens for almost double the price is almost a bit insulting. This is NOT a $3000 lens. Its a tele superzoom just like every other tele super zoom in that 1200-1800 price point that every other manufacturer makes. No more, no less.
Great review. I love to use full-frame lenses on smaller sensor bodies for wildlife and especially small birds. Like my RF 100-500 on my APS-C R7 body for example. I don't mind the extra weight required for full-frame glass. I'm just glad I can use that full-frame lens on my APS-C body because they don't make an APS-C version. So none of that bothers me on this Sigma full-frame to OM system micro 4/3 port. It's the price difference that kills it for me. I could understand a $200 bump but more than that is unreasonable. For that price, it would be much better to buy the sigma E version and use it on a Sony a6700.
You have the OM Systems IS system rather than the Sigma, resulting in a 2 to 3 times better IS performance. That's worth a lot in my book.
I got the 100-300mm and I find its more then adequate for my long reach needs. Its small and easy to carry with me as an extra lens at times and when in use, its easy to use. I have a FF lens and rarely use it because its large and clunky. All that extra size to get an extra 2x reach does not make sense for when/where I use it. Even with my 100-300, I often find myself not needing the full zoom and could always back up a bit wider. The standard 70-200mm is quite adequate for most things. Except for wild life shooting. And then I can see how this new lens could be a treat for those doing that.
So its Sigma 150-600 sport
but costs more than twice as much and only works on M4/3
OM, the company clearly out of business.
how can you review camera gear this long and still enjoy it?? you must be bored to death by now
Why not just buy a regular Sigma and adapt it?
Could have been better researched. Yes, it is a Sigma Lens, but not exactly. The IS is anywhere from 2 to 3 times better than the Sigma - as it had to be with a 2X crop factor. So the IS in this lens is not Sigma, but OM system. And no, it would not be much smaller or lighter if it was designed for micro four thirds. I repeat - no, it would not be much small or lighter. If you overlay this lens against the 150-400 M.Zuiko lens - which was designed for micro four thirds - you will see that only the last 2 inches or so closest to the mount would be narrower if designed for MFT. The 95mm lens opening determines the diameter of the glass needed for the initial and probably middle optical groups. Those parts of the two lenses are essentially identical - with the 150-600 being slightly wider to account for the retracting and extending zoom portion of the lens (the 150-400 is internally zooming). Only the final optical group at the end of the lens is narrower in the 150-400 - and would be narrower in the 150-600 if it were designed for MFT. Certainly you guys at Peta Pixel have reviewed enough lenses to know that the size and weight of a lens is mainly determined by the focal length and the lens opening diameter - not the size of the sensor.
Yeah you're totally right. That's why the Olympus 100-400 is 200 grams lighter and nearly 10mm smaller in diameter than the Sony 100-400. Clearly they're the same exact size though.
this lens makes no sense on m4/3 mount, and the price makes sense even less
I'd like to have m4/3 camera with good compact telephoto, otherwise it's just Sony or FF Lumix camera with the same lens
Once we get to 80MP full frame you can crop down to 20mp with the full frame camera. Depending on the price of an 80MP full frame camera it may be cheaper or not?
If this is the direction OM System is gonna take their system (no pun intended), this is truly unfortunate. For the price difference between this lens and the E mount version, you could literally buy at least an APS-C or a used full frame camera to go with it and get more light and a more balanced kit.
$2700 and it still isn't able to shoot at 50FPS with C-AF. It is restricted to 25FPS like all other non 'Pro' OM and Pana Leica lenses. Something I think should have been mentioned in the video.
No, it could not have been smaller if specifically designed for micro four thirds. 600mm at f6.3 literally means that the diameter must be at least 95mm, regardless of sensor format. The only size savings that designing for micro four thirds would have yielded is in the elements at the back of the lens that control the projection of the image onto the sensor, but those elements are a small percentage of the overall design already, so there's not much to be gained there.
The "compactness" comes from comparing it to what the size of a 1200mm f6.3 would have to be.
Front element has to be that size, but rest of the barrel could be slightly smaller. Not much but some amount. Look at Panasonic Leica 100-400 vs Olympus 100-400, same aperture and focal length, but PL is smaller.
Why it has to be exactly 95mm? What is the math behind it?
@@pawelbrzozowski3899
600mm ÷ 6.3 = 95mm
@@pawelbrzozowski3899 F-stop is the ratio between the focal length of a lens and the diameter of a lens, so 600mm/6.3=95mm (plus a smidge). Other examples: If you want an f1.0 lens that's 95mm in diameter, the longest lens you can make is 95mm. If you want a 300 mm f2 lens, the diameter must be 150mm. When you stop down a lens, you're simply using the iris to constrict the effective diameter of the lens.
So this ratio sets the maximum amount of light that can get through a lens, and the size of the sensor on the other end of the lens is irrelevant.
@@heikkivalkonen1075 Yeah, agreed. But the difference is marginal and becomes less as focal lengths increase because the front of the lens dominates the design more and more.
Terribly overpriced sadly
My biggest gripe is opportunity cost. There are decent to great wildlife options that already exist on m43 at a variety of price points. This effort took resources away from something that might have better served the m43 community like firmware updates to existing OM cameras. I was looking at switching from Fuji to m43 and went with G9ii (still keeping Nikon Zf for my full frame/low light fun). It just seems like Panasonic has a more focused strategy that makes sense. I might get am OM down the line as a 2nd body if I see them support their loyal customers who took a chance with them, but this is a strange use of their limited resources when they should have anticipated the beating they are taking over the OM-1 m2.
Panasonic bodies might complete with OM on paper, but in real life, the OM has so many nuanced and subtle features that make it so much better for stills. I would never go back to Panasonic.
wonder what the sigma and a speedbooster would look like. better performance for same lens less price?
to me the om system 150-400 pro is where m43 shines. telephoto wildlife is what m43 should focus on. that and extram light weight, fixed lens cameras for hiking/street.
Also note that MFT and OM in particular is the king of outdoor macro (bugs, flowers, etc). No one else even comes close in this space. The OM 90mm Macro was a HUGE factor in making it the system of choice, along with its great focus stacking capabilities.
So its a rebadged Sigma for almost double the price and way over sized for M43....
OM is acting a bit like Leica now.
It's a pitty that You didn't test IS. But in general - thumb up.
Rebranded. No sir.
Great review. Thanks!
I purchased the 100-400 f/5.0-6.3 and it is a really is a nice lens. Unfortunately, it's a bit heavier and bulkier than I feel it should be for m43rds given its focal length range and f-stop range. Now, here's where the problem lies for me, my old OM-D E-M1 Mk I is getting pretty old in the teeth. I've been thinking about upgrading to the OM-1 Mk II, in fact that camera is really compelling, but my reason's for sticking with M43rds have always revolved around just how much I like the whole system. I currently have a number of pro lenses, but like the body, they are beginning to get really old and well used. How much longer are all these parts going to last when I've literally worn the paint of some of it? So, while I've absolutely got my money's worth out of everything I own, and then some, do I want to stick with a system when the manufacturer is opting to use repurposed full-frame lenses for some of their important offerings? The answer seems to be more and more, "no." While I don't own the 150-600mm lens featured in this revue, if I was going to purchase it and pay the size/weight penalty, I may as well match it to the sensor size that it was designed for. I am left wondering if this is the first time that a good lens drives a customer to a different brand? Lens choice and value are extremely important to me when selecting an INTERCHANGEABLE LENS camera system. I wonder why? Olympus seemed to understand that, but I'm not sure OM Systems does. This new lens is a wonderful option to have but I feel that it really needed to be developed from the ground up with micro four-thirds in mind--it needed to be the sort of elegant solution that the 12-40mm f/2,8, 40-150mm f/2.8, and 300mm f/4.0 already are and I don't think it is. So now that I'm on the verge of needing to replace much of my system anyway, the question probably becomes, Sony or Nikon?
They missed the opportunity to create it like unit with optional speedbooster.
Let's thank PANASONIC for not selling their brand to another not known company then??? PS I am sticking with my Fuji for now.... I guess my 150-600 weights even less..
I wish this whole lens was an april fools joke
My impression was that telephoto lens size is more related to the focal length rather than the image circle size - so maybe a bespoke lens for m43 wouldn’t be that much smaller? Whereas you’d see a big difference with a m43 wide angle
You say "reach" a lot, but that's only in comparison to a 20MP FF sensor, what you always get is the restricted Field of View of a 2x longer lens for finding/following things.
I shoot 20MP m43 and 50MP FF and sometimes with the same lenses. You only get a little more detail at the same actual focal length with m43 (back with 16MP m43 it was a wash).
BTW on weight - the OMDS 150-400 you mentioned as "light" is 1,875g which is just slightly heavier than a full-frame Canon EF 100-400 II (1590g) and a 1.4x III (225g), or very slightly heavier if you add a Metabones EF-m43 Smart Adapter (144g), although the Canon combo is a fraction of the price. So not light as such. The native lens will AF quite a bit better tho.
This lens is a disgrace tbh. They could've changed the glass elements inside so it would use all the light and give you like an idk 150-600 F/3.5 to F/5? Something like that I guess. Or drastically reduce it's size and weight. This is just very lazy
That $2,700 price tag! LOL. Even against the $7,500 150-400 + 1.25TC f4.5 lens, the price is still absurd. Not only lacking the constant aperture but inferior construction (extending barrel for instance), inferior optical performance and worst, wasted and compromised design for the much smaller M4/3 sensor in the name of lower R&D cost which somehow doesn't reflect in the final price tag. The previous 100-400 seems to be a much better buy if the goal is to really save money. And though the hardware again can't be compared to the flagship constant aperture zoom but the derivative design of that lens seems less compromised.
I have had the single focal length 300 f/4 prime for quite a while now and despite everything about the lens being super e.g. mechanical construction, optical performance, AF speed and response, effectiveness of synchronized image stabilization etc. I have always felt the weight and size of the lens are already at or maybe beyond the limit for me for extended handheld shooting because the real beauty of this system is how small and light the cameras and lenses are. Other bigger systems become not only more cost effective with this type of derivative lens but make the assumed weight and size penalty disappear.
You've forgot to mention the weigh in Plena. 2 Plena. One Noct. :D
Every time a respected manufacturer gets bought, it always start with "Nooo don't worry we THRIVE for quality and for bringing up the name of your favourite brand etc". And every single time this kind of garbage happens.
The last OMD M1 with no real improvements on the old, outdated M43 Olympus sensor was already a red flag. Just buying something nice from Sony cut down to M43 would have done the job and given either a decent low light performance or a higher resolution.
And now, Pentax-style cheap tactics 🙄 Damnit I WANT to keep using the M43 format. I hope it will not go down.
I'm getting older. My shoulders are crying out for lighter lenses. The range sounds fantastic but, because of the weight vs how much light is allowed in equation, I'll never be able to justify this one.
Retail prices here in Norway (in us dollar): Sigma 150-600 f/5,0-6,3 for Sony: 1500.- Rebranded, and fitted for OM-system/mtf: 2900.- That`s quite rude to OM-system/mtf - owners!
The Olympus 100-400 mm f/5-6.3 is as well the Sigma lens, it can be seen it is at the end of the Olympus being in Olympus and transitioning to JP or what ever.
But that 100-400 mm version isn't exact clone. Olympus changed the optical last group in it. It is clearly fitted to match 4/3" (there is no such thing as "Micro 4/3 sensor" as the sensor has always been 4/3" aka "FourThirds") sensor and likely crop the image circle to improve contrast and all, and then maybe match the Olympus tele-converters.
Is this lens exactly the clone optically, or is there a small change as well?
I think it is exactly same optically based what Sigma shows and what OM System show.
But does it exactly matter? No...
You get the teleconverter compatibility, Sync-IS and Fn button to go for that extra money.. And the style, of course..
For around the same price, the 300mm F4 has absolutely stunning resolution. Even with the 1.4x and 2x TC, the images are way way better the cropping based on my extensive testing. Not as versatile but extremely good.
Chris, here's some really exciting news! I'm shooting the prototype to the stripped down to basics G9ii (PDAF, 24fps) packaged with a 24-600mm ( f2.4-4) zoom lens. The kit weighs just 2 pounds and, get ready for this, is available (camera & lens) for the ridiculous price of $1,600 US. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the GII, but the 7 year old Sony RX10iv does the job without breaking the bank or your back! 😊
This is pretty much a Sigma lens under Olympus name. Yes, it is a full frame lens. that's why is GIGANTIC for the OM System. Cheap shot from Olympus. The Sigma is sold for 3 times less. Olympus is simply ridiculous with their lenses prices. One of the reasons I will never purchase this system. There's is a reason why this system never gets to be popular. Well, they eventually are going to break anyways LOL who cares! LOL
Comments are too extreme about OM and the m43 platform. Rebadging Sigma has been done before by Olympus. A huge indicator is when an M Zuiko lens comes with big specs but isn’t labeled “Pro.
I will worry if they put out a bad pro lens.
All Sigma really had to do was make a speedbooster with better autofocus for, say, Canon EF and Nikon F. I think people would prefer that.
Exactly. Even OM could have done that from their end of design. The original 150-600 speed boosted by 0.67x would be a nice 100-400 f3.4-4.2
A lot of people would pay the asking price of this 150-600 gladly for such a lens.
I really hoped this lens could have a built in booster like some lens have a TC, OM/sigma dropped the ball big time
@@PrimalShutter Oh that's an interesting idea. I don't know if that's even possible, but I would be fine with just using my existing speedbooster with the Sigma 150-600mm if only the autofocus worked reliably.
Just doesn't make any sense.
It's so heavy, big, and expensive, you might as well just go full frame at that point. You're paying a significant premium for a rebadged Sigma lens, over the original Nikon/Sony 600mm zooms, for seemingly no reason at all. OM should try to actually for once make something themselves, instead of re-releasing other companies work, and charging ridiculous prices for it.
Can we just have the 100-400mm with full "Sync-IS" and a waterproof 75-300mm?
That would be really cool....
Absolutley nonsense what OM System is doing here. MFT's advantage was always its compactness. Now they are driving crazy, adapting a fullframe lens to MFT and double the price! Oh no!
I’m a big fan of Olympus cameras. However, the company died in my heart the moment they changed their name to OM SYSTEM
Not only the longest lense for MFT but its by far the HEAVIEST
I used the Sigma Canon mount for many years - optically a very sharp lens wide open, even at 600mm. I shot birds handheld all the time, and I'm a short woman. I would not pay the extra for a m43 mount however. If it was the regular price of the sigma, maybe a few more dollars,, ok.