150-600mm OM System Lens Thoughts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2024
- These are just my thoughts about this lens. I think it is a very good addition and fills a gap in their lens portfolio. There are also some miss conceptions or just outright wrong info going put out on the forums about the size of the lens that I adress here.
- Наука та технологія
So glad you addressed the speed of the lens and brought out a telescope to explain. People are confusing themselves. What you’re getting with the smaller sensor is the crop factor (magnification for want of a better word). So the rear element should be designed for a m43 sensor. Also don’t know why people are complaining about the size, that it’s not in keeping with m43 philosophy. We have a good selection of smaller telephoto lenses already. (3 40-150mm, 12-200mm, 75-300mm, 100-400mm and hopefully soon a 50-250mm). This is filling a need for a longer reach for those who want it without buying the white lens.
Thanks Ben. Your comments made a lot of sense. The 300mm f4 Pro is still the jewel in the crown as far as I’m concerned.
Totally agree
Been waiting for this one!
I've had the 150-600 for full frame Sony since mid-2022. I regard it as a VERY good lens, and overall, think there was an olde tyme Sigma (and Tamron) that made lenses that are now in the free box, but that those companies lately are in a whole new class. The lens is the Sport model, and I've found its focal range to be just right for most shooting at the horse race track, where there are plenty of long range things to shoot, but also, lots of good closer shots. Ironically, on micro four thirds, this Sport lens becomes a Sometimes-too-close-for-Sport lens, as the 300mm equivalent will simply make some shots impossible. Add a teleconverter (and I'm amazed that it's going to work with those), and it's just too telephoto for many sports shots, so becomes an almost exclusively nature lens.
Good stuff... I've noted a lot of the same issues with people these days, too lol... I'm not sure why some don't get the size issues you discussed for even though math has never been my strong suit (just ask my math professor, who suggested I never try for engineering lol), the focal length/ aperture relationship make perfect sense to me. As for the 100-400 mm I bought last June, I've loved shooting with it but there are times when I've desired a bit more reach... I debated obtaining a teleconverter but I just don't like being hampered by losing a stop as a result. As soon as the 150-600 mm was announced, I was interested. The synched IS, in addition to not losing light (and extra expense), tempts me to trade in the 100-400 mm on this new offering. Plus, if one thinks about knocking of the money spent on a teleconverter to obtain the same reach as this new lens, it drops the expenditure down all the more.
Glad to see you looking healthier with each new vid. Thanks for sharing, as always. :)
My experience with the Bigma 50-500 makes me think the 150-600 and 100-400 to be very different lenses in use, the extra reach places it in a different department, as will its size. I would not trade in the 100-400.
I have the 150-600 Sigma for EF mount. Its great that I can use it with my Canon 5dsr, and adapt to my Sony A9. I can even adapt to Fuji with the Fringer Pro and adapt it to the Pen F with metabones.
Unfortunately the metabones does not fit on the OM-1 body.
I would love to be able to adapt EF glass on the OM-1 even if the sacrifice is auto focus performance and weather sealing.
Nice lens, maybe i can think of it.
Nice.
The Sigma 150-600 C and S versions have optical stabilization as well although I don't know whether the OS would work when adapted to an MFT body. Please correct me if I'm wrong, could they not make the MFT version smaller by reengineerimg the optics? Issue probably was Sigma didn't want to allocate their resources for a platform that they wanted to give up on.
No the lens would be the same size. I addressed this near the end of the video.
It's that the IS would not sink with the body. That is a big difference.
I may be misunderstanding the maths, but regardless of the projection area, the diameter of the aperature at f/6.3 for 600mm is 95mm wide. That gives you a minimum size for the front element, and a minimum width of the extenable barrel. If you look at the measurements for this lens that would suggest this lens is pretty much literally as small as it could possibly be made.
Hi Ben. I've been a long-time viewer of your channel, and keep up the excellent work 👍🏼. I am proud of you.
I've been trying to contact OM System on IG, and they don't want to answer my simple questions. Does the 150-600mm lens work on the E-M1X, is there sync IS for it on the E-M1X, and is there an update for it like the 90mm f3.5 lens?
I know you and I love the E-M1X, and I don't see an OM-1X come out anytime soon. Thanks Ben, and I hope you have a speedy recover.
Thanks for convincing me to go FF. Always thought portability and lower cost of MFT was a big selling point, but I am wrong.
If you want portability then the 75-300 is your ticket.
I currently have the 100-400mm thank you. The selling points that brought me to MFT have vanished.
Have a look at some of the pf lenses Nikon have been doing last few years you might change your mind. That's the direction I would have wanted OM to go I'm getting too old to carry my 600mmF4 FF lens. I also have a Sigma 300-800mm F5.6 stays on an equatorial mount these days. It's not just the objective front lens and back lens size and focal point fixing the length in consideration like your scope. The intermediary lenses I think there is around 25 of them would be much smaller for M43 image circle making it lighter if it was designed for the OM1. I would rather go for their 300mmF4 and converter if I had the OM1.
Spot on. To get beyond the reach of the 100-400, getting a used 300mm f4 with the TC14 and TC20 is the way to go. That's what I did. Cheaper and better in my opinion.
The intermediary lenses still need to fit within a barrel that has space for the widest aperture - which for this focal length and this aperture range is 95mm. This lens has a diameter of 109.4mm at its very widest point, so it's about as small as it can get.
@@robertmills4591 look at the lens construction pics and how much glass would be necessary. Way less also as I said a Fresnel pf lens design would be amazingly small.
@@naturealbums Since it is not an internal zoom, the retractable element can only be as narrow as the widest aperture permits. So there are no size savings to be had. I am confident in saying I am not knowledgeable enough to say if any weight gains could be made by shaving a gram or two here and there off any of the internal elements.
Phase Fresnel can not be applied to zooms as far as I am aware, and I bet Nikon invested more money than OM Systems could ever dream of to create the necessary infrastructure to make sharpe fresnel lenses for their telephoto primes!
@@robertmills4591 Canon Already have a zoom freznel they call it a DO lens CANON EF 70-300MM F/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM anyway don't want a lzoom prefer primes.. I have a Canon R7 on a 300mm F2.8LIS gives me 300mm F2 (speedbooster), 420F4 (1.4xIII), 600mmF5.6 (2xIII) the R7 is 32,5MP apsc but has a slightly higher pixel density as the OM1 so I have more reach for wildlife.
How did you get the new lens early?
Did OMD give you a copy so you'd say great things about it?
I pay retail for my gear, just like most of us.
I'm not going to buy this lens or the incrementally upgraded OM-1.
My OM-1 is the most regretable camera purchase I've made in decades.
I owned the Sigma version of this lens. The size alone made it a chore to use, so I sold it at a loss.
This lens will not retain it value so, if you want to try it wait and get it used.
How so? The OM-1 is a phenomenal camera and it’s even been compared to the a1 and Nikon z9 so I have no clue how you could even possibly make such a comment…
While I agree thag sync IS and OM-System badge adds to the value of the lens, the price of this lens still feels too high. It's not a pro lens, but it is more expensive than the 300mm f4. The price of the lens puts it into competition against entirely new categories. For example, OM-1 II + OM 150-600 is almost the same price as Sony A7RV + Sigma 150-600, more expensive than Canon R5 + RF 200-800mm...
Sorry to discturb the party but YES the 150-600 could have been lighter and less beefier than this FF version. You are right with (focal)length and front element but not with volume and weight. You can easily see that, when you compare the Oly 100-400 and the Lumix 100-400.
Hmmm, another comparison: the Zuiko 300mm/F4 against the Canon EF 300mm/F4. They have the same filter size, their length and weight are similar. The Zuiko is even a bit longer and heavier.
Very good point hveluwen.
Hi Ben, my guess is that they also had to do some redesign to the lens so it could work with the teleconverters. I also don’t understand the negativity. It makes the system more complete and unique. In the current market saving millions on R&D is also beneficial for the future of MFT. While still providing a very good lens, which would be worth buying for some. People don’t have to buy it if it doesn’t suit them😂.
I am also wondering if this negativity is also the case when C/N/S bring out their very expensive products. Like 7k cameras with worse DR and more noise than expected and 14k plus super tele lenses. Their continues updates of lenses getting way more expensive after they went from version I to II or even III. While the older version will lose lots of their resell value.
Regarding the IS of the 100-400 I’ve seen a video that there is some sort of benefit to keep both on. It isn’t as effective as the official sync-IS. The video is called Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3 IS demonstration vs. Sync IS from Rob Knight, as YT won’t allow links in comments you have to search it yourself. When I tried the 150-400 mm with the G9II I realized how great Sync IS is BTW. Though it still works better than no IS. Using the word IS so many times I hope the secret service won’t accuse me for sympathizing with those crazy IS😂.
I have seen that video. It's because the role and yaw of the sensor is synced with the Lens IS. Still to me it seams debatable. I bet. one copy of the lens might yield different results from another. Something I have fond more and more when I get scientific with testing of anything lens or camera related.
I have the Panny G9 and Leica 100-400, and the Dual2 stabilisation is not of this world. It's a real game changer. And from what I have seen of Sync-IS on my Olympus backs Sync-IS does not come close to Dual2. It is certainly not the how slow can you hand-hold it CIPA test but steadying the image to frame and AF; if the image is wriggling about it cannot AF so easily.
Using the "Use Lens IS" on an Olympus is not the same as using the Power-OIS on a Panasonic. It should be but its not. Which means using the Olympus IBIS further until the lens simply gets too long.
I do have the old "for Olympus Four Thirds" Sigma Bigma 50-500 and that has fantastic glass but no OS and the AF is "not as we know it" i.e. MF, so it is a tripod only job. The Sigma Moon bazooka do hold their price.
Good stabilisation is worth paying extra for.
I would be happier with this lens for this price, if it was a 150-500mm f/5.6 IS pro, for an $1800 Canadian markup over the sigma, full frame version intended for Sony Mount, if the lens causes an extra $900.00 Canadian for the IS & Micro 4/3 mount tweaks to work properly with the OM system cameras I would not complain like many are doing.
Thanks I agree.
it's 1500. siga lens
Im one of those complaining about the size 'n' weight - however Im not saying a 600 f6.3 should be smaller - as you say it can't be. I am wondering about the business decision of putting m43 setup into the size and price category of FF, loosing the biggest selling points and facing new comparisons that should have never happened. The amount of people who walk into a store and leave with a 2x crop sensor camera and 2x priced lens over literally saving up by fullframe purchase is going to be fractional.
And secondly, the oly 100-400 there is a significantly bigger lens than its counter-part by panasonic, which is even brighter - rebadging "" a sigma lens - they skipped on the opportunity of design their own lens that could have been slightly more compact (again,see the panasonic). Last hope for me was that this 600 would deliver towards its long end mostly (such as for instance sigma 60-600 was able to), but based on limited reviews and sample shots it seems it's not the case.
Your post doesn't make much sense to me. You say you are complaining about the size and weight, then proceed to say that you understand that a 600mm f/6.3 zoom lens should not necessarily be smaller -- why complain then? It's not like OM System or Panasonic did away with all their smaller, lighter weight lenses with the release of this one. From what I've seen (Roger Hance, Petr Bambousek, Andy Rouse, for example) the lens performs very well at 600mm f/6.3 -- even hand held.
The size alone will have people regretting buy this lens.
The used market will be flooded, so wait. Don't buy new.
Hey man where is this place I can go get a sigma 150-600 for free? 😂 I agree the stabilization is ok for that money, but also lemme in on the free lens xD
They don't have one of those in the box. However its price over the future years will drop a lot faster than branded glass. They always doo.
If you want free gear you gotta be a saleman on UA-cam and say good things to drive sales.
@@formermpc10 I guess I’ll start hitting that rec button more often.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel That is true. And maybe they even updated the autofocus motors and stuff we don’t see. It is definitely a lot of reach, hard to pick now when you compare to the pro line. Just the 100-400 made it hard already.
My channel is to small for that though. @@formermpc10
1. No Olympus body work at all with adapted EF lenses
2. Panasonic Bodies work with adapted EF lenses but C-AF SUCK in DFD and just resuse to work with PDAF (in G9II)
3. Sigma lens this OM-Sigma 150-600mm lens is based on is actually a mirrorless desiggn available with mounts (E and L) that has flange distance too small to adapt in onto M43
4. No Sync-IS in not worth twice the price (in EU it is basically twice the price of the Sigma 150-600mm DG DN Sport) for wildlife shooters as they (we) almost always shoot with very fast shutter speeds
5. Charging twice as much for a lens that you performed ZERO R&D just buying a licence and that you do not manufacture (it is manufactured in Sigma's factory in Japan) SUCKS really bad.
The 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS & 150-600mm f/5-6.3 IS, Have the same type of image stabilization, which is not the same as IS Pro, which is superior image stabilization, which is only on three other lenses that OM system makes One of them being the 300mm f/4 IS Pro.
You're wrong about this. The 100-400mm does not have 'Synch IS' -- the new OM 150-600mm does have Synch IS, even though it is not a 'Pro' Series lens. Ben made this pretty clear in the video - and OM makes it very clear in their marketing material.
Thanks Greg.
The listed price for this new 150-600mm f/5-6.3 IS,
$3599.99 Canadian +15% sales tax.
Your currency is out the window sadly.
Overpriced. Pass.