Thank you for the review. I’ve preordered this lens to complete my landscape f4 lens set (8-25, 12-45, and 40-150). I love the small form factor and lightweight for wilderness photography where I carry my gear long distances over rough terrain. The F2.8 version was too big and heavy to tempt me.
Good stuff peter. I have the 2.8 version, but I think that this lens is a winner for hiking on my mini EM1X, the EM5 MKiii. Great focal length for hiking and the size is really good. The f4 does not bother me as I am a day shooter and am at f5.6-8 almost all the time. Thanks for the video Peter, Cheers!
I really like the f4 series of lenses because of their size. I would handle most of the missing features and would happily switch, but incompatibility with the teleconverters is rough. I use one with my 2.8 pro a lot. I will have to think about that carefully, as well as whether I want to switch to the OM-1. The light weight is very important to me. I often carry my E-M5m3 because it is so light
This is a good and compact high quality telezoom. I own the 40-150 f/2.8 with both extenders. For a lighter option, I picked up a used Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8, which I absolutely love! Even smaller and lighter than this new 40-150. I'm happy to give up on the long end for that extra stop, and with internal zooming.
The f:4 OM s line-up is probably the only lenses one would need for General Purpose Photography, mix in one or two of the f:1.8 primes to taste and GTG. That said, I have probably more lenses than what is good for me, most of the Lumix, which is what I primarily shoot with, even though I have a tiny collection of Olympus gear, and am pondering off-loading the GX9 to get a OM-d10 MkIV after getting a 10$ MkII with the back screen issue.
I have the 40-150 2.8 Pro and bought it for nature/wildlife photography. I wouldn't replace it with the new f/4 model as I do use the MC20 teleconverter. But, I could see getting the new model lens for those times when I'm "sightseeing" or want to travel light as the new version is so much lighter. Because of the weight of the 2.8 version, I have the plastic fantastic f/4-5.6 version for when I need it. And....beautiful snowfall and it was great to see the cross country skiers in the background at the beginning of the video! Thanks for the review!
Great video about the new 40-15/4.0 lens. I got the 40-150/2.8 and really love it. It is one of my most used lens. I got the 40-150/4.0 on pre-order. I can see myself doing a kit with the 12-40/2.8 and the 40-150/4.0 with couple of fast primes like the 20/1.4 and the 45/1.2. Another possible kit is the 8-25/4.0, the 40-150/4.0 and the two fast primes. Still, I am keeping the 40-150/2.8 lens for event photography. It is so nice having so many great choices. Yes, I do miss the Ln Function button, the Manual Clutch and not being able to take the teleconverters. Still not enough for me not to get the lens.
Thank you for the review Peter. I'm certainly looking at adding this lens to my kit. You are the only person I've seen give a review on the lens. Keep up the great work!
It's very tempting for size and weight. I do a lot of outdoor photography on long hikes. However, I do have the f/2.8 version and the 1.4x extender. While not my main genre, I enjoy using that combo for shooting birds from time to time, something that will be a real challenge with the f/4: no extender and a real issue in those early morning hours where you can best capture birds. - Yes, if I did not have a lens in this range or only the M.Zuiko 40-150, I would consider buying this lens. - However, now, I would have to trade in my f/2.8 + extender and probably still be out of pocket to get the f/4. That doesn't sound like a good deal. - I think, I would miss the versatility of the f/2.8 + extender I got used to.
The focus length is what I like. But, as You Peter I already have 40- 150 f 2,8. In my smal shoulderbag for traveling, I have a Olympus m10 markIV, 12-40 f2,8 and the 40-150 f2, 8 and panasonic 25 mm F1,7. It is small and light bag to Carry.
Hi Peter, thank you for this interesting review, seems to be a an alternative for those who like light weight. Myself, I own the 40-150 mm 2.8 and am pretty lucky with it. I don't find it to heavy and aslo can use the procapture mode handheld - as long as there is enough light. As allrounder I have the 12 to 100 mm 4.0 which als is a very fine lens.
How would it be for photos in a sports hall covered with artificial light? I say this with the f4. It would be enough to raise the ISO a little. The camera I have is the OM1 mark 2. Thank you
Thanks for the review. Yes I'm going to buy this lens. Keeping the weight of my camera bag down. My camera bag will have the EM5 camera and the 12-45 f4 and the 40-150 f4 lenses. If I'm in need of a prime - they are so small and compact I think I will take the 25mm and 45mm f1. 8 lenses.
This fills a gap in the 40-150mm telephoto line up. The Olympus 4-5.6 was marginal in image quality and the focus motor failed on my lens. The 2.8 is too heavy for my mainly outdoor use. I now use the Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8, which is high quality and weather resistant, but lacks the reach of a 150mm and can have slow focus on Olympus EM-1 cameras, especially at close distances. Currently I am undecided between my Panasonic and the new OM F4 lens. Thank you for the review!
This and the 8-25/4 make a perfect combination to me. Instead of a focus clutch, I have a button my thumb hits for manual. I can also peak auto focus manually. I have a 2 camera harness and use primes indoors. So, I do not need the 2.8s. The weight is ideal for me for hiking and my chemo damaged body. I with I could use a 1.4X with it. Still, having 15-300 available as I am shooting covers my general photography, Longer is special use and I can take another lens for that. I will be buying it. The fact the OM1 is two stops better, losing 1 stop to a 2.8 still leaves me 1 stop better than the 2.8 and EM1III. With the f/4s and the OM1 I save money over the EM1IIIs and 2.8 zooms. The synergy of OM Systems means I am buying cameras and lenses again.
I have the 12-40 1nd 40-150 mZuiko lenses. The first lense I plan to buy is a fast wide prime, probably a Sigma 16mm f1.4, then something in the 300-400mm range.
Awesome snow in Finland. To bad we (the Netherlands) didn't had any this year. Nice hands on. Seems like a great lens but I think I like my 40-150 f/2.8 to much to trade in.
Thanks for the review of the lens. Can't wait to see the comparison between this and the 2.8 - at the moment I'm planning to go for the 2.8 - in combination with the 12-40 I have all what I need (as you mentioned). Fast primes I have already.
Hi Peter, thanks for the video. For me, the only possible disadvantage is the lack of a manual clutch. It is the size of the lens which attracts me. As you said, this complements the 12-45mm and 8-25mm f4 Pro lenses, which I already have. I have an order in with Conn's in Dublin for this lens as well as the OM-1.
Having tried this lens for a while now, while it is optically certainly very good I wish they had made it a smaller version of the f2.8 Pro (MF clutch, LF button and to take t/c). Or made the focal length range longer (say 40-200 @ f4), it's smaller than it needs to be.
If it had the IBIS and the MF clutch, I might be tempted. The beauty of the pics of the Pro F2.8 version is hard to replace . The F4 doesn't bother me in the least as I have the 12-100mm and its wonderful. Thank you for this wonderful review, sir!!
Thanks, Peter! What a weather for photography in our corner of the planet - whole February as in lightbox. I would like to move Laplandia may be there's some sun over there.
Don't forget to mention the ordinairy lens hood, in contrast to the sophisticated and easy to use (though somewhat fragile) pull-out lens hood of the 2.8 version. The manual focus clutch of the 2.8 includes hard stops, these I would definitely miss. So for me no reason to trade in the 2.8.
This looks like a fantastic addition to the range and the extra stop at the long end over the plastic 40-150 is really handy. Im a little disappointed you cant use this lens with teleconvertor but the bigger issue is the price is very high at launch.
I think the price is ok. When I used Nikon I couldn’t afford the 70-200 2.8 so I bought the F4 version. This also couldn’t use a tc but the price at the time was less than £1000 so this OM lens appears to be a bargain in comparison
@@samson40a there's a heck of a lot more glass on the Nikon f4 lens though. And the subject isolation which can be a desired aspect of a fast telephoto on full frame comparing the two is significantly greater. Not really an exact comparison.
Thanks , Peter... 👌👍👍🙏 I like more the M.Zuiko 12-45 f/4 PRO ... and with the Panasonic-Lumix 100-300 ED II f/4-5.6 or M.Zuiko 100-400 f/5-6.3 ... for the Olympus E-M1X ... 👌👍👍 , but this one is also good... , I don't mind the 25 fps limit on f/4 lenses... with the E-M1X I don't usually go over 10 fps... Greetings... "Saludos... 👋🙋😃 "
I was hoping that an extender can be used on this lens, I am buying it for its smaller and lighter weight. Will the extenders can be used in the future?
I for one don't miss a MF clutch. The AF+MF mode works just as well I find. What I find unfortunate is a lack of teleconverter support. It would be nice if OMDS were to make one that works with the f4 series.
2/26/22 Are the Pro lens good and sharp, Yes, but for my photo needs the Olympus kit lenses meet my needs as far as image quality and sharpness. Even when I shoot with film cameras a lot of the zoom lenses purchased were not from the camera of the manufacturer, but companies like Tamron, Sigma. The photos I take either with film or digital no one ever asked me what lens I use to take a photo, but judged me on the contents of the photo. Some of our greatest photographers that are remembered to this day used lenses that were not even close to what can be made with the use of AI today, but the pictures today are still as good as any digital ones because we judge on content, not how much you paid for a lens. No need to be chasing the latest and greatest, cause it what's behind the viewfinder that makes or breaks a great photo.
Very nice landscapes in Finland! One interesting video it could be compare the depth of field of 14-150mm f4-5.6, 40 - 150 f4 and 40 - 150 f2.8 at the minimum focal distance. I remenber that the 14 - 150 f4 5.6 has 50 cm in m.f.d.
I have the 12-45 f/4, so I get the appeal of the small size/weight of the 40-150 f/4. This could be my next lens purchase. I don't have a lens with focus clutch so I won't miss it. I don't get it, though; I have set up C1 for AF+MF, and additionally, my C2 mode is exclusively MF, which can get overridden by the autofocus button. So what's the need for the focus clutch, at least for still photography?
That is a good work around. MF Clutch is handy and faster. Hand is around the lens anyways no need to move the hand. If you assign the C1 to C2 switch to a button it makes good way.
I've preorded one. I got the 40-150 f4-5.6 and the problem with that is the missing weather and temperature sealing. The 40-150 f2.8 is to large and heavy for me. So this new lens would be a good compromize.
Mine is on pre order and the OMD Solutions website is still showing this lens is compatible with 50 fps. I used to own a 40 - 150mm f2.8 but part exchanged it for a PanaLeica 200mm f2.8 + TC14. I will be using my new 40 - 150mm f4 in ProCapture mode for large insects landing/taking off. The 200mm is a bit too restrictive and the 40 - 150mm f2.8 a bit heavy for handholding in ProCapture. The 40 - 150mm f4 will be just right for me. On insect days I will use it side by side with my 60mm f2.8 and birding days side by side with my 300mm f4.
@@ForsgardPeter. Thanks for the update. I will be speaking to an OMD Solutions representative at my local camera shop on 4th March. He will be demonstrating the OM1 and the new lenses.
I really like the manual focus clutch too. But there's a simple and efficient workaround: use back-button focus and S-AF+M or C-AF+M focusing modes. I've found this works fine with the 100-400 mm Olympus lens (it also does not have the manual focus clutch) when for example there's a bird perched behind leaves or branches--I use back button autofocus to get close, and if it doesn't completely focus on the bird I adjust the focus manually with the focus ring. It's little difference from using the manual focus clutch. I appreciate this review. I'm planning a bucket-list trip to Yellowstone Park in September and expect to spend a lot of time walking, including a 16-mile round-trip hike and overnight stay camping at a lake. I'm considering buying this lens to take with me.
Thanks for the review. If it supported the 1.4x teleconverter to give an option of 56-210mm f/5.6 then it would have been a very easy decision to buy. However I think the Olympus15-150mm f/4-5.6ii and the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 are viable compact and light alternatives for outdoors use.
Another useful review Peter, thanks. This lens is perfect for me, I have the small 12, 17 and 75mm primes but sometimes miss out on shots where a longer lens is required, or settle for a less than ideal crop. I considered the f2.8 but its too big, heavy and expensive for my needs, this f4.0 pro ticks all of the boxes.
I know it's cold, but I don't know why I was breathing just like I was with you at the place. Nice video and I think the price is slightly expensive. 799e maybe fine
I use the "DoF" button on my EM1 for manual focus so don't care about the MF clutch which I never use. Likewise the LF button. But I do wish it supported the teleconvertors. That would have been the icing on the cake. But I'm definitely interested as a replacement for my Lumix 45-175 that I currently use. Glad to see the review, all the focus has been on the OM1 but this is much more interesting to me.
If it had the manual clutch then I would seriously consider it. I have the 12-40mm F2.8, and I love it, but I cannot get on with the manual focusing on the 100-400. I'm not too bothered by the frame rate, or the extender issue. I'll stick with the 40-150 F4-F5.6 for the moment.
I have the F4 - 5.6 version of this lens so this one is very interesting for me. But 900 Euro is steep when you can get the 2.8 version for around 1100 - 1200 euro...
I think this is a miss for me, sadly. I bought the 12-100 as my "do everything" lens (within reason) plus the 8-25 because I love wide-angle shots and was spending some time on a sailing ship where there's a limit in how far you can step back! But on occasion, even switching between those two was a little bit of a chore, worth it only for a very particular shot. I've also got the L-Fn button set up to activate the digital teleconverter which is really useful (obviously just affects the JPGs, not the RAWs but good for getting the shot). The main issue is that the jump from 100-150 really isn't that much - (from roughly 10 degrees field of view to 7, I think), and the bottom end is much more restricted than the 12. Add to that not being able to work with the teleconverter and it simply doesn't add sufficient range to make it worth swapping lenses (unlike 12mm - 8mm, where we go from roughly 73 degrees FOV to 96). Alternatively, if it worked with the TC, it would be worth keeping them together almost all the time to give me a 56-200 or a 80-300 option to switch to (even if f8 would be quite dark a lot of the time). If I had only the 12-40 f2.8 or the 12-45 f4, then yes, it makes perfect sense to add this. But not at all if you have the 12-100. Hopefully one of the unspecified new telephotos that are on the lens roadmap from September 2021 will be a useful pairing with the 12-100. A pro version of the 75-300, for example, would be amazing, and a good option for those of us who really can't justify the £6,500 for the 150-400 f4.5. I would also miss the MF clutch - with it being absent on both this and the 20mm 1.4, I'm worried that OMDS are moving to get rid of it altogether on new lenses. I really hope not, as it's a great feature.
If you need to have the extender ability, and a manual focus clutch, and an LN function button, then you need the f/2.8 version. If they added in the clutch ring and the LN button, and added the ability to use extenders, then it gets bigger, heavier, and more expensive than it is. And it is, this version bits nice in between the 4.5-5.6 version and the way bigger 2.8 version. All these new products that fit nice in a lineup to add a lot of options are great and we shouldn't really tell these manufacturers they should have added X and Y and Z.
I definitely prefer the f/2.8 lens. I want the lower depth of field. If you have enough light f/4 for birds is all right. For bigger animals like dogs, roes or horses I personally prefer f/2.8.
For a hobby photographer would you recommend this lens over a 14-150 f4.0-5.6? I'm tempted but not sure I can justify the cost (tho I can get a really good deal brand new...) I don't shoot in the rain! Are the images that much better? I just upgraded to an OM-1 as a treat.
@@ForsgardPeter As I'm a fairly unskilled hobbyist who understands the basics, do you think I'd be wasting my money? I meant to ask, am I likely to notice that much difference in image quality without pixel peeping?
I do have the 2.8 version, however the focus clutch is a deal-breaker for me. Often I do need quickly tweak focus and to go to menu change the setting maybe too late. Otherwise it looks like pretty good lens.
Manual focus by wire can be done without going to the menu by setting S-AF+MF or C-AF+MF and setting the focus mode to MF autofocus can be used with back butto. focus.
Hi Peter thanks for this review very in depth as always, the price of this lens may make it out of range to some people especially when you can buy other Olympus lens with similar range.
I usually use a UV filter on all my lenses. More of a habit I've been doing for years to protect my lenses. But ask me if this is still necessary with modern lenses. Especially if nowadays you only have to dry the front of your lens during rain or something. (fluorine coating etc...) So do I assume that the coating of an OM System lens is more resistant to the influence of nature? Nowadays, doesn't the use of a UV filter like I used to do detract from the quality of your lens?
I theory an UV-filter will affect the IQ. How much depends on the quality of the filter. The new flourine coating is very good. I would rely on that unless there some other reason you need to protect the lens.
That is the third OM pro lens without an MF clutch! A real deterioration and a bad sign for the future. The MF clutch enables in lens focusing with defined focus positions on the ring and no frickeling endless turns when doing "manual focusing" by wire. The incompatability with the teleconverters may be due to the f/4 (should have been left to the users) but I assume besides cost reasons it may be the plastic body not enduring the manipulation twith the TC for a longer time...
Peter looks very festive. Or maybe it's winter hat. Anyway, about the lens, the lack of focus clutch is most unfortunate and it's pricey, especially compared the 40-150 f4-5.6 and not that fast for the price. :/
The size and weight makes the lens tempting. Still, I love the 2.8 version. Maybe I'm a chicken, but I always have a protective filter on my lenses. I guess this removes any advantage of the protective coating on the front element...
I will almost certainly replace my Panasonic 35-100/f2.8 with this lens. I need the extra reach more often than the extra speed. I don't care about the missing L-Fn or MF clutch. Being able to use existing extenders would have been nice but not that big a deal. Being "only" able to handle 25 fps is a non-issue to me.
I Think it is a huge shame it does not have stabilized build in to the lens like the 12-100 and the 2.8 big brother. F4 is a slow lens and an extra stop stability would be great
This 40-150 f/4 looks and sounds like a very good and useful lens, but it’s not inexpensive. For us amateurs and enthusiasts, the f/3.5 to 5.6 can be had for as little as $99 at times. At that price point, I would call it an excellent buy and a decent lens as well. Of course, it won't match up to the two Olympus PRO versions, but it actually has quite decent IQ for such an inexpensive, basic zoom lens and very nice color rendition also. As for bokeh, at the longer zoom lengths the depth of focus is quite shallow for almost any decently constructed lens so reasonable background separation is not that difficult to achieve either. Just thought I'd mention these aspects of the slowest 40-150mm since you didn't have that lens for any comparisons. In a pinch, I think even a professional photographer would find that inexpensive M.Zuiko lens usable. Bottom line - for $99 it's a "great" lens, too.
I think they missed the boat not making this lens compatible with the teleconverters. I can't see myself buying this when I have the 12-100 f4 PRO. Just not enough long end to make it worth it. Too bad it's not a compact 50-200 f4 PRO...
This lens, while attractive as a travel lens, is very high priced for what it is. Normally f4 zooms are about half the price of f2.8 equivalents. This one is about 75 per cent of the f2.8 version. It also lacks a number of features such as no manual focus clutch, no function button, and collapsible design which slows one down. I’m interested but it would have to be quite a bit cheaper. Nice hat btw. Did you lose a bet😀?
It does seem like a great lens but I will not be getting it due to getting the 2.8 last year. It's just so sharp and having constant 2.8 is great for someone who lives in one of the most consistently overcast regions in north america. Also having the ability to use the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters with it is a big plus- especially the 1.4x since there's virtually no degradation in image quality and sharpness. The weight of the 2.8 does not bother me, however when the 2x is mounted, it becomes noticeably heavier than the Panasonic Leica 100-400. I will probably be selling the 2x soon because of this and the softness it can often times bring to the image.
I was hoping they would replace the old 4/3 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 with a new 50-200mm f/3.5 or f/4 constant aperture with IS that supports Olympus Sync IS. This lens does not excite me, it should at least support the 1.4x TC at minimum.
Lack of MF clutch is a big disadvantage and also the extenders. The lens lacks the built in image stability in the lens like the 20-100 mm F4 Pro Lens.
The cheap 40-150/4-5.6 or the Lumix 35-100/4-5.6 show how small a tele zoom can be, so I find this lens a little too big. Of course we have to take in account the constant aperture and better image quality, especially on the long end. Together with the 8-25 this gives a compact and versatile setup. Usually I would not buy a pro lens without the mf clutch, which I need for video, but this might not be the right gear for that kind of assignments anyway. The lf-n button is a mixed bag: very useful, if all lenses had it, useless otherwise, because I can’t assign anything important to that button. Another lack: Panasonic shows that even small lenses can have image stabilization that adds to the ibis, especially for telephoto. Under the bottom line: I will not buy this lens. I’ll wait for a new 50-200/2.8-3.5 with mf clutch and lf-n button.
I had the non-pro 40-150 and hated it (poor IQ and build quality) and Now have and love the Pro 40-150 f2.8. I would love the smaller and lighter form factor of the f4.0 compared to the f2.8 lens, but the stabilization and MF deficiencies make this one a non-starter. Nevertheless, thanks for the review!
@@sstansm7f yea, I understand that, the AF/AE at 50fps is really useful. But 25tps isn’t too bad. Just surprised as it’s a PRO lens. I assumed all the PRO labeled products would be able to use all functions to its full extent.
@@itsmealex9290 you know, I complained about the size of the 2.8 a whole lot but I didn’t realize how cheap it can be found in the used market. This might have to be the route to go and just suck it up regarding size!
I looked for whether focus staking (in camera) was also possible with this lens but found this nowhere. After inquiring with OM system, I was told that focus staking directly in the camera with this lens was not possible Nevertheless, it is also a PRO lens here Regret this
I think this lens is way overpriced. You can get a used 40-150 f/2.8 for considerably less than that. It seems kind of crazy to assign a professional price to such a lens since the only use I can think of that a professional would have for such a lens is studio portrait photography with backdrops and strobes. If that is all you're doing with it, I guess it makes sense to have the lighter weight f/4 version and if you're using a studio backdrop, that's about where you want to be in terms of depth of field. However, for sports or wildlife photography, you will be much better served by the f/2.8 version since it gets you an extra stop of light and is compatible with teleconverters. What could be a useful addition to their collection of f/4 lenses is a 200mm f/4 that is compact, lightweight, professionally sharp, weather sealed, and compatible with teleconverters. That could be the perfect wildlife lens to take on a long, strenuous hike (with a pair of teleconverters, of course) and also a great tool for parents wanting to photograph their kids soccer and football games without spending big bucks on a Pana/Leica 200mm f/2.8 or 50-200mm f/2.8-4. I would love to have such a lens when I'm hiking. Usually when I go for a long hike, I'm primarily planning to do landscape photography, so I'll bring along the 12-100mm f/4 and the Pana/Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4, but it's nice to have a longer lens for wildlife. Currently, I'm using the Panasonic 100-300 for that, but a pro quality prime lens that is sharp, compact, lightweight, and compatible with teleconverters would be much better. If Olympus made a 200mm f/4, I would keep it on my camera with a 1.4x teleconverter whenever I'm hiking or cycling to be able to grab some quick photos if I see some interesting wildlife while keeping a wider lens or two in the bag for landscapes.
I never got the 40-150 2.8 PRO because I didn’t like the size. This one however is something I’m very interested in! Thanks for doing this!
Agree, owned the 2.8 and sold it due to weight and size.
Thank you for the review. I’ve preordered this lens to complete my landscape f4 lens set (8-25, 12-45, and 40-150). I love the small form factor and lightweight for wilderness photography where I carry my gear long distances over rough terrain. The F2.8 version was too big and heavy to tempt me.
Good stuff peter. I have the 2.8 version, but I think that this lens is a winner for hiking on my mini EM1X, the EM5 MKiii. Great focal length for hiking and the size is really good. The f4 does not bother me as I am a day shooter and am at f5.6-8 almost all the time. Thanks for the video Peter, Cheers!
I really like the f4 series of lenses because of their size. I would handle most of the missing features and would happily switch, but incompatibility with the teleconverters is rough. I use one with my 2.8 pro a lot. I will have to think about that carefully, as well as whether I want to switch to the OM-1.
The light weight is very important to me. I often carry my E-M5m3 because it is so light
This is a good and compact high quality telezoom. I own the 40-150 f/2.8 with both extenders. For a lighter option, I picked up a used Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8, which I absolutely love! Even smaller and lighter than this new 40-150. I'm happy to give up on the long end for that extra stop, and with internal zooming.
The f:4 OM s line-up is probably the only lenses one would need for General Purpose Photography, mix in one or two of the f:1.8 primes to taste and GTG. That said, I have probably more lenses than what is good for me, most of the Lumix, which is what I primarily shoot with, even though I have a tiny collection of Olympus gear, and am pondering off-loading the GX9 to get a OM-d10 MkIV after getting a 10$ MkII with the back screen issue.
I have the 40-150 2.8 Pro and bought it for nature/wildlife photography. I wouldn't replace it with the new f/4 model as I do use the MC20 teleconverter. But, I could see getting the new model lens for those times when I'm "sightseeing" or want to travel light as the new version is so much lighter. Because of the weight of the 2.8 version, I have the plastic fantastic f/4-5.6 version for when I need it. And....beautiful snowfall and it was great to see the cross country skiers in the background at the beginning of the video! Thanks for the review!
Great video about the new 40-15/4.0 lens. I got the 40-150/2.8 and really love it. It is one of my most used lens. I got the 40-150/4.0 on pre-order. I can see myself doing a kit with the 12-40/2.8 and the 40-150/4.0 with couple of fast primes like the 20/1.4 and the 45/1.2. Another possible kit is the 8-25/4.0, the 40-150/4.0 and the two fast primes. Still, I am keeping the 40-150/2.8 lens for event photography. It is so nice having so many great choices. Yes, I do miss the Ln Function button, the Manual Clutch and not being able to take the teleconverters. Still not enough for me not to get the lens.
Thank you for the review Peter. I'm certainly looking at adding this lens to my kit. You are the only person I've seen give a review on the lens. Keep up the great work!
When this video was published it was the only review, but now I think there are a few more.
It's very tempting for size and weight. I do a lot of outdoor photography on long hikes. However, I do have the f/2.8 version and the 1.4x extender. While not my main genre, I enjoy using that combo for shooting birds from time to time, something that will be a real challenge with the f/4: no extender and a real issue in those early morning hours where you can best capture birds. - Yes, if I did not have a lens in this range or only the M.Zuiko 40-150, I would consider buying this lens. - However, now, I would have to trade in my f/2.8 + extender and probably still be out of pocket to get the f/4. That doesn't sound like a good deal. - I think, I would miss the versatility of the f/2.8 + extender I got used to.
The focus length is what I like. But, as You Peter I already have 40- 150 f 2,8. In my smal shoulderbag for traveling, I have a Olympus m10 markIV, 12-40 f2,8 and the 40-150 f2, 8 and panasonic 25 mm F1,7. It is small and light bag to Carry.
Thank you Peter, seems to be a great and lighweight lens
If I were just starting out with micro 4/3, this might be a nice option for me. At this point, I have a variety of lenses that cover the same range.
Hi Peter, thank you for this interesting review, seems to be a an alternative for those who like light weight. Myself, I own the 40-150 mm 2.8 and am pretty lucky with it. I don't find it to heavy and aslo can use the procapture mode handheld - as long as there is enough light.
As allrounder I have the 12 to 100 mm 4.0 which als is a very fine lens.
Yep, I think the 12-100 f4 along with this 40-150 f4 is a nice match.
@@ridealongwithrandy in addition to the 12-100/4,0 I would like to have a 75-300/4,0 or a 100-400/4,0 with IS and L-FN button
I started out with the 14-150 and still use it because of the size for traveling light.
Updated to 45-150 2.8 a couple of years ago.
I was considering this lens but with no extender it is a no go. Thanks for the review and for saving me some money
How would it be for photos in a sports hall covered with artificial light? I say this with the f4. It would be enough to raise the ISO a little. The camera I have is the OM1 mark 2. Thank you
Thanks for the review. Yes I'm going to buy this lens. Keeping the weight of my camera bag down. My camera bag will have the EM5 camera and the 12-45 f4 and the 40-150 f4 lenses. If I'm in need of a prime - they are so small and compact I think I will take the 25mm and 45mm f1. 8 lenses.
This fills a gap in the 40-150mm telephoto line up. The Olympus 4-5.6 was marginal in image quality and the focus motor failed on my lens. The 2.8 is too heavy for my mainly outdoor use. I now use the Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8, which is high quality and weather resistant, but lacks the reach of a 150mm and can have slow focus on Olympus EM-1 cameras, especially at close distances. Currently I am undecided between my Panasonic and the new OM F4 lens. Thank you for the review!
This and the 8-25/4 make a perfect combination to me. Instead of a focus clutch, I have a button my thumb hits for manual. I can also peak auto focus manually. I have a 2 camera harness and use primes indoors. So, I do not need the 2.8s. The weight is ideal for me for hiking and my chemo damaged body. I with I could use a 1.4X with it. Still, having 15-300 available as I am shooting covers my general photography, Longer is special use and I can take another lens for that. I will be buying it. The fact the OM1 is two stops better, losing 1 stop to a 2.8 still leaves me 1 stop better than the 2.8 and EM1III. With the f/4s and the OM1 I save money over the EM1IIIs and 2.8 zooms. The synergy of OM Systems means I am buying cameras and lenses again.
Love your hat! Do the tentacles spread out when you spin? If so, you can do a slow mo shot with that to show the quality of higher frame rates.
I will do that!
I have the 12-40 1nd 40-150 mZuiko lenses. The first lense I plan to buy is a fast wide prime, probably a Sigma 16mm f1.4, then something in the 300-400mm range.
Awesome snow in Finland. To bad we (the Netherlands) didn't had any this year. Nice hands on. Seems like a great lens but I think I like my 40-150 f/2.8 to much to trade in.
Thanks for the review of the lens. Can't wait to see the comparison between this and the 2.8 - at the moment I'm planning to go for the 2.8 - in combination with the 12-40 I have all what I need (as you mentioned). Fast primes I have already.
Ive been eyeing up the 40-150 2.8 for a while now. This lens for the reduced size and weight seems like a much better option for my uses
Hi Peter, thanks for the video.
For me, the only possible disadvantage is the lack of a manual clutch.
It is the size of the lens which attracts me. As you said, this complements the 12-45mm and 8-25mm f4 Pro lenses, which I already have.
I have an order in with Conn's in Dublin for this lens as well as the OM-1.
Having tried this lens for a while now, while it is optically certainly very good I wish they had made it a smaller version of the f2.8 Pro (MF clutch, LF button and to take t/c). Or made the focal length range longer (say 40-200 @ f4), it's smaller than it needs to be.
If it had the IBIS and the MF clutch, I might be tempted. The beauty of the pics of the Pro F2.8 version is hard to replace . The F4 doesn't bother me in the least as I have the 12-100mm and its wonderful. Thank you for this wonderful review, sir!!
Thanks, Peter! What a weather for photography in our corner of the planet - whole February as in lightbox. I would like to move Laplandia may be there's some sun over there.
Yes the sky is the biggest soft box in the world. Very soft light.
Don't forget to mention the ordinairy lens hood, in contrast to the sophisticated and easy to use (though somewhat fragile) pull-out lens hood of the 2.8 version. The manual focus clutch of the 2.8 includes hard stops, these I would definitely miss. So for me no reason to trade in the 2.8.
This looks like a fantastic addition to the range and the extra stop at the long end over the plastic 40-150 is really handy. Im a little disappointed you cant use this lens with teleconvertor but the bigger issue is the price is very high at launch.
I think the price is ok. When I used Nikon I couldn’t afford the 70-200 2.8 so I bought the F4 version. This also couldn’t use a tc but the price at the time was less than £1000 so this OM lens appears to be a bargain in comparison
@@samson40a there's a heck of a lot more glass on the Nikon f4 lens though. And the subject isolation which can be a desired aspect of a fast telephoto on full frame comparing the two is significantly greater. Not really an exact comparison.
@@steventhomas231 must admit I did like that lens.
Thanks , Peter... 👌👍👍🙏
I like more the M.Zuiko 12-45 f/4 PRO ... and with the Panasonic-Lumix 100-300 ED II f/4-5.6 or M.Zuiko 100-400 f/5-6.3 ... for the Olympus E-M1X ... 👌👍👍 , but this one is also good... , I don't mind the 25 fps limit on f/4 lenses... with the E-M1X I don't usually go over 10 fps...
Greetings... "Saludos... 👋🙋😃 "
I was hoping that an extender can be used on this lens, I am buying it for its smaller and lighter weight. Will the extenders can be used in the future?
Most likely not.
I for one don't miss a MF clutch. The AF+MF mode works just as well I find. What I find unfortunate is a lack of teleconverter support. It would be nice if OMDS were to make one that works with the f4 series.
2/26/22 Are the Pro lens good and sharp, Yes, but for my photo needs the Olympus kit lenses meet my needs as far as image quality and sharpness. Even when I shoot with film cameras a lot of the zoom lenses purchased were not from the camera of the manufacturer, but companies like Tamron, Sigma. The photos I take either with film or digital no one ever asked me what lens I use to take a photo, but judged me on the contents of the photo. Some of our greatest photographers that are remembered to this day used lenses that were not even close to what can be made with the use of AI today, but the pictures today are still as good as any digital ones because we judge on content, not how much you paid for a lens. No need to be chasing the latest and greatest, cause it what's behind the viewfinder that makes or breaks a great photo.
Very nice landscapes in Finland!
One interesting video it could be compare the depth of field of 14-150mm f4-5.6, 40 - 150 f4 and 40 - 150 f2.8 at the minimum focal distance. I remenber that the 14 - 150 f4 5.6 has 50 cm in m.f.d.
I have the 12-45 f/4, so I get the appeal of the small size/weight of the 40-150 f/4. This could be my next lens purchase. I don't have a lens with focus clutch so I won't miss it. I don't get it, though; I have set up C1 for AF+MF, and additionally, my C2 mode is exclusively MF, which can get overridden by the autofocus button. So what's the need for the focus clutch, at least for still photography?
That is a good work around. MF Clutch is handy and faster. Hand is around the lens anyways no need to move the hand. If you assign the C1 to C2 switch to a button it makes good way.
The 40-150/4 is a great lens but is the aperture enough for concerts? (the 40-150 2.8 is heavy and bulky)
I want one. I've not been interested in the 12-100mm, but I'm going to get one of these.
I will get one of these eventually, I already have the F2.8 Pro.
I've preorded one. I got the 40-150 f4-5.6 and the problem with that is the missing weather and temperature sealing. The 40-150 f2.8 is to large and heavy for me. So this new lens would be a good compromize.
Mine is on pre order and the OMD Solutions website is still showing this lens is compatible with 50 fps. I used to own a 40 - 150mm f2.8 but part exchanged it for a PanaLeica 200mm f2.8 + TC14. I will be using my new 40 - 150mm f4 in ProCapture mode for large insects landing/taking off. The 200mm is a bit too restrictive and the 40 - 150mm f2.8 a bit heavy for handholding in ProCapture. The 40 - 150mm f4 will be just right for me. On insect days I will use it side by side with my 60mm f2.8 and birding days side by side with my 300mm f4.
I know that it says that. I checked from OMDS and they said that it is not. They also say that they will fix it.
@@ForsgardPeter. Thanks for the update. I will be speaking to an OMD Solutions representative at my local camera shop on 4th March. He will be demonstrating the OM1 and the new lenses.
I really like the manual focus clutch too. But there's a simple and efficient workaround: use back-button focus and S-AF+M or C-AF+M focusing modes. I've found this works fine with the 100-400 mm Olympus lens (it also does not have the manual focus clutch) when for example there's a bird perched behind leaves or branches--I use back button autofocus to get close, and if it doesn't completely focus on the bird I adjust the focus manually with the focus ring. It's little difference from using the manual focus clutch.
I appreciate this review. I'm planning a bucket-list trip to Yellowstone Park in September and expect to spend a lot of time walking, including a 16-mile round-trip hike and overnight stay camping at a lake. I'm considering buying this lens to take with me.
That is a good way to do it if there is no MF Clutch.
I have pre-ordered this lens, but I do wish it could use the extenders. I would have accepted a heavier and more expensive lens with that ability.
Thanks for the review. If it supported the 1.4x teleconverter to give an option of 56-210mm f/5.6 then it would have been a very easy decision to buy. However I think the Olympus15-150mm f/4-5.6ii and the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 are viable compact and light alternatives for outdoors use.
Another useful review Peter, thanks. This lens is perfect for me, I have the small 12, 17 and 75mm primes but sometimes miss out on shots where a longer lens is required, or settle for a less than ideal crop. I considered the f2.8 but its too big, heavy and expensive for my needs, this f4.0 pro ticks all of the boxes.
Glad it was helpful!
I know it's cold, but I don't know why I was breathing just like I was with you at the place. Nice video and I think the price is slightly expensive. 799e maybe fine
I'll keep my 2,8. Bought it 6 years ago, as soon as I could.
I've never looked back.
I use the "DoF" button on my EM1 for manual focus so don't care about the MF clutch which I never use. Likewise the LF button. But I do wish it supported the teleconvertors. That would have been the icing on the cake. But I'm definitely interested as a replacement for my Lumix 45-175 that I currently use. Glad to see the review, all the focus has been on the OM1 but this is much more interesting to me.
If it had the manual clutch then I would seriously consider it. I have the 12-40mm F2.8, and I love it, but I cannot get on with the manual focusing on the 100-400. I'm not too bothered by the frame rate, or the extender issue. I'll stick with the 40-150 F4-F5.6 for the moment.
I have the F4 - 5.6 version of this lens so this one is very interesting for me. But 900 Euro is steep when you can get the 2.8 version for around 1100 - 1200 euro...
I think this is a miss for me, sadly.
I bought the 12-100 as my "do everything" lens (within reason) plus the 8-25 because I love wide-angle shots and was spending some time on a sailing ship where there's a limit in how far you can step back! But on occasion, even switching between those two was a little bit of a chore, worth it only for a very particular shot.
I've also got the L-Fn button set up to activate the digital teleconverter which is really useful (obviously just affects the JPGs, not the RAWs but good for getting the shot).
The main issue is that the jump from 100-150 really isn't that much - (from roughly 10 degrees field of view to 7, I think), and the bottom end is much more restricted than the 12. Add to that not being able to work with the teleconverter and it simply doesn't add sufficient range to make it worth swapping lenses (unlike 12mm - 8mm, where we go from roughly 73 degrees FOV to 96). Alternatively, if it worked with the TC, it would be worth keeping them together almost all the time to give me a 56-200 or a 80-300 option to switch to (even if f8 would be quite dark a lot of the time).
If I had only the 12-40 f2.8 or the 12-45 f4, then yes, it makes perfect sense to add this. But not at all if you have the 12-100. Hopefully one of the unspecified new telephotos that are on the lens roadmap from September 2021 will be a useful pairing with the 12-100. A pro version of the 75-300, for example, would be amazing, and a good option for those of us who really can't justify the £6,500 for the 150-400 f4.5.
I would also miss the MF clutch - with it being absent on both this and the 20mm 1.4, I'm worried that OMDS are moving to get rid of it altogether on new lenses. I really hope not, as it's a great feature.
If you need to have the extender ability, and a manual focus clutch, and an LN function button, then you need the f/2.8 version. If they added in the clutch ring and the LN button, and added the ability to use extenders, then it gets bigger, heavier, and more expensive than it is. And it is, this version bits nice in between the 4.5-5.6 version and the way bigger 2.8 version. All these new products that fit nice in a lineup to add a lot of options are great and we shouldn't really tell these manufacturers they should have added X and Y and Z.
I definitely prefer the f/2.8 lens. I want the lower depth of field. If you have enough light f/4 for birds is all right.
For bigger animals like dogs, roes or horses I personally prefer f/2.8.
For a hobby photographer would you recommend this lens over a 14-150 f4.0-5.6? I'm tempted but not sure I can justify the cost (tho I can get a really good deal brand new...)
I don't shoot in the rain! Are the images that much better?
I just upgraded to an OM-1 as a treat.
This is a better lens than 14-150mm, but it is not as versatile. Here is a video about the 14-150mm: ua-cam.com/video/75E61lqKJaI/v-deo.html
@@ForsgardPeter As I'm a fairly unskilled hobbyist who understands the basics, do you think I'd be wasting my money? I meant to ask, am I likely to notice that much difference in image quality without pixel peeping?
I do have the 2.8 version, however the focus clutch is a deal-breaker for me. Often I do need quickly tweak focus and to go to menu change the setting maybe too late. Otherwise it looks like pretty good lens.
Manual focus by wire can be done without going to the menu by setting S-AF+MF or C-AF+MF and setting the focus mode to MF autofocus can be used with back butto. focus.
Hi Peter thanks for this review very in depth as always, the price of this lens may make it out of range to some people especially when you can buy other Olympus lens with similar range.
I have 12-45 f4, so I am thinking 40-150 f4, but still not decided regarding price. Also no idea about availability in my country.
An em5 mkiii + 12-45 f4 + 40-150 f4 + 20 f1.4 could make my ideal travel kit...
Only thing I’m a bit disappointed in with this lens is inability to use extenders! If it’s a pro lens you should be able to use the extender!
Does it work with Pro-capture and in-camera-focus-stacking features?
Yes and Yes.
Not being able to use the MC14 or MC20 teleconverters is the main downside. Are there plans for new teleconverters?
I have no idea if they are making new extenders.
I usually use a UV filter on all my lenses.
More of a habit I've been doing for years to protect my lenses.
But ask me if this is still necessary with modern lenses. Especially if nowadays you only have to dry the front of your lens during rain or something. (fluorine coating etc...) So do I assume that the coating of an OM System lens is more resistant to the influence of nature?
Nowadays, doesn't the use of a UV filter like I used to do detract from the quality of your lens?
I theory an UV-filter will affect the IQ. How much depends on the quality of the filter. The new flourine coating is very good. I would rely on that unless there some other reason you need to protect the lens.
That is the third OM pro lens without an MF clutch! A real deterioration and a bad sign for the future. The MF clutch enables in lens focusing with defined focus positions on the ring and no frickeling endless turns when doing "manual focusing" by wire. The incompatability with the teleconverters may be due to the f/4 (should have been left to the users) but I assume besides cost reasons it may be the plastic body not enduring the manipulation twith the TC for a longer time...
Peter looks very festive. Or maybe it's winter hat.
Anyway, about the lens, the lack of focus clutch is most unfortunate and it's pricey, especially compared the 40-150 f4-5.6 and not that fast for the price. :/
G'day Peter, have you done a review for 24-100 f4 lens ?
I have an old review of the 12-100mm f4 Pro: ua-cam.com/video/0-tgzcD9yOs/v-deo.html
@@ForsgardPeter Thank you --- am really hoping you said it's a really bad idea so I my current ideas become really bad ideas :lol: .
For me, I can't do without the 2X converter which doesn't fit this one. Plus, I love using the collar as a grip.
Hi, could this lens bi used with 2x converter?
Unfortunately no.
Aside from the focal length, which do you find most pro? That one or the 12-100mm? And quality wise.
There is no difference, both lenses feels really pro.
The size and weight makes the lens tempting. Still, I love the 2.8 version.
Maybe I'm a chicken, but I always have a protective filter on my lenses. I guess this removes any advantage of the protective coating on the front element...
I will almost certainly replace my Panasonic 35-100/f2.8 with this lens. I need the extra reach more often than the extra speed. I don't care about the missing L-Fn or MF clutch. Being able to use existing extenders would have been nice but not that big a deal. Being "only" able to handle 25 fps is a non-issue to me.
Any news about a new OMS macro lens?
Not anything new. The 100mm macro is in the lens roadmap, but no idea when it is launched.
Does it have internal zoom or does it extend like the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6? Too bad you didn't show that.
Yes it does.
This didn't talk me out of my 2.8. But I might be interested in a 2.8 update. #lenscoatings Thank you for the review. Well done as always.
I Think it is a huge shame it does not have stabilized build in to the lens like the 12-100 and the 2.8 big brother. F4 is a slow lens and an extra stop stability would be great
Actually, a TC would also drop it down to an f/5.6 or f/8. They have several other zooms that would fit that range better.
@@stephanarts3803 The 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro does not have stabilization either, only the 12-100 f/4 Pro IS does.
If the lens would allow MC that would be a nice choice. But without I stay with my Oly 14-150.
This 40-150 f/4 looks and sounds like a very good and useful lens, but it’s not inexpensive. For us amateurs and enthusiasts, the f/3.5 to 5.6 can be had for as little as $99 at times. At that price point, I would call it an excellent buy and a decent lens as well. Of course, it won't match up to the two Olympus PRO versions, but it actually has quite decent IQ for such an inexpensive, basic zoom lens and very nice color rendition also. As for bokeh, at the longer zoom lengths the depth of focus is quite shallow for almost any decently constructed lens so reasonable background separation is not that difficult to achieve either.
Just thought I'd mention these aspects of the slowest 40-150mm since you didn't have that lens for any comparisons. In a pinch, I think even a professional photographer would find that inexpensive M.Zuiko lens usable. Bottom line - for $99 it's a "great" lens, too.
I think they missed the boat not making this lens compatible with the teleconverters. I can't see myself buying this when I have the 12-100 f4 PRO. Just not enough long end to make it worth it. Too bad it's not a compact 50-200 f4 PRO...
This lens, while attractive as a travel lens, is very high priced for what it is. Normally f4 zooms are about half the price of f2.8 equivalents. This one is about 75 per cent of the f2.8 version. It also lacks a number of features such as no manual focus clutch, no function button, and collapsible design which slows one down. I’m interested but it would have to be quite a bit cheaper.
Nice hat btw. Did you lose a bet😀?
No, I have had for a long time.
It does seem like a great lens but I will not be getting it due to getting the 2.8 last year. It's just so sharp and having constant 2.8 is great for someone who lives in one of the most consistently overcast regions in north america. Also having the ability to use the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters with it is a big plus- especially the 1.4x since there's virtually no degradation in image quality and sharpness.
The weight of the 2.8 does not bother me, however when the 2x is mounted, it becomes noticeably heavier than the Panasonic Leica 100-400. I will probably be selling the 2x soon because of this and the softness it can often times bring to the image.
I am interested in this lens quite a lot, but not at the current asking price of £799.00 in the UK. Ridiculous.
have it love it
I was hoping they would replace the old 4/3 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 with a new 50-200mm f/3.5 or f/4 constant aperture with IS that supports Olympus Sync IS. This lens does not excite me, it should at least support the 1.4x TC at minimum.
Great len but for meI just sit around my car taking picture so I had 40-150 2.8 +mc14 and mc20 is more than enough thank
No IS would be a draw back?
That would be good in longer lenses.
Lack of MF clutch is a big disadvantage and also the extenders. The lens lacks the built in image stability in the lens like the 20-100 mm F4 Pro Lens.
The lack of an MF clutch is a deal-breaker for me, as is the inability to work with the extenders.
Looks like it comes with a hood 👍
Yes it does.
The cheap 40-150/4-5.6 or the Lumix 35-100/4-5.6 show how small a tele zoom can be, so I find this lens a little too big. Of course we have to take in account the constant aperture and better image quality, especially on the long end. Together with the 8-25 this gives a compact and versatile setup. Usually I would not buy a pro lens without the mf clutch, which I need for video, but this might not be the right gear for that kind of assignments anyway. The lf-n button is a mixed bag: very useful, if all lenses had it, useless otherwise, because I can’t assign anything important to that button. Another lack: Panasonic shows that even small lenses can have image stabilization that adds to the ibis, especially for telephoto. Under the bottom line: I will not buy this lens. I’ll wait for a new 50-200/2.8-3.5 with mf clutch and lf-n button.
The MF clutch is essential for me. I'll stick with the 2.8
I had the non-pro 40-150 and hated it (poor IQ and build quality) and Now have and love the Pro 40-150 f2.8. I would love the smaller and lighter form factor of the f4.0 compared to the f2.8 lens, but the stabilization and MF deficiencies make this one a non-starter. Nevertheless, thanks for the review!
Thanks Peter!
I even got Older 40-150mm for Four Thirds with the adapter for M43 mount. It create nice image, just slow in focus.
For a Pro lens and its pricing it should have a clutch. The 12-100 f4 Pro has the clutch, so, why not this one.
I shoot a lot of birds. I need the MC extenders. That's a deal breaker for me.
That is a pity that it does not take extenders.
I do not see a great advantage over the 12-100 f4.
They are a different lenses for different purpose. 40-150mm f4 gives you extra reach and the 12-100mm f4 gives you extra on the wider end.
I’m so surprised this can’t do 50fps! I was really hoping it could do that!
It is a pity that it cannot.
You can film 50 or 60 fps with it anyway - it just can't focus per each individual frame.
@@sstansm7f yea, I understand that, the AF/AE at 50fps is really useful. But 25tps isn’t too bad. Just surprised as it’s a PRO lens. I assumed all the PRO labeled products would be able to use all functions to its full extent.
If you really need the 50fps, take the f/2.8 version😉
@@itsmealex9290 you know, I complained about the size of the 2.8 a whole lot but I didn’t realize how cheap it can be found in the used market. This might have to be the route to go and just suck it up regarding size!
I looked for whether focus staking (in camera) was also possible with this lens but found this nowhere.
After inquiring with OM system, I was told that focus staking directly in the camera with this lens was not possible
Nevertheless, it is also a PRO lens here
Regret this
I think I would really miss the MF clutch. I already have the older 40 - 150 Pro so I wouldn't buy it anyway.
I think this lens is way overpriced. You can get a used 40-150 f/2.8 for considerably less than that. It seems kind of crazy to assign a professional price to such a lens since the only use I can think of that a professional would have for such a lens is studio portrait photography with backdrops and strobes. If that is all you're doing with it, I guess it makes sense to have the lighter weight f/4 version and if you're using a studio backdrop, that's about where you want to be in terms of depth of field. However, for sports or wildlife photography, you will be much better served by the f/2.8 version since it gets you an extra stop of light and is compatible with teleconverters.
What could be a useful addition to their collection of f/4 lenses is a 200mm f/4 that is compact, lightweight, professionally sharp, weather sealed, and compatible with teleconverters. That could be the perfect wildlife lens to take on a long, strenuous hike (with a pair of teleconverters, of course) and also a great tool for parents wanting to photograph their kids soccer and football games without spending big bucks on a Pana/Leica 200mm f/2.8 or 50-200mm f/2.8-4. I would love to have such a lens when I'm hiking. Usually when I go for a long hike, I'm primarily planning to do landscape photography, so I'll bring along the 12-100mm f/4 and the Pana/Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4, but it's nice to have a longer lens for wildlife. Currently, I'm using the Panasonic 100-300 for that, but a pro quality prime lens that is sharp, compact, lightweight, and compatible with teleconverters would be much better. If Olympus made a 200mm f/4, I would keep it on my camera with a 1.4x teleconverter whenever I'm hiking or cycling to be able to grab some quick photos if I see some interesting wildlife while keeping a wider lens or two in the bag for landscapes.