I wish I could win the lottery and get it lol. I think dismissing it because it's an MFT lens is really discounting that good glass is good glass. And the built in teleconverter is an innovation you don't see anywhere but Nikon.
@@youknowwho9247 actually, it gives f4.5 but at twice the distance of a full frame lens for the same image size. Full frame snobs - I also own a Z8 and D850 - usually get it wrong.
@@youknowwho9247 4.5 is 4.5 on any format. Use the lens yourself and get a feel for it. For MFT, while the field of view is narrower, it's still very possible to get subject separation and a clean image. Not everyone is going to feel like carrying around a $12,000 600 f/4 FF because that's for certain situations like super early morning or late evening (hell, most FF people are going to go for lighter zooms with slower apertures because it's more convenient to move around with and they're already good lenses). Don't knock something until you try it.
@@youknowwho9247 Same would go for an actual 900mm f/9 FF lens, which could be quite a treat, too. Same physical aperture as a 300mm f/3 lens, not too different from a 300mm f/2.8.
I love this lens! Ordered it when it first came out and had to wait six month to get it. It´s light, extremely versatile and has great image quality. It´s one of the best lenses I´ve owned and I had several of Canons "big whites". With the reach it has you can get pictures no one else can if you are photographing from a hide and can´t move. I find that it works well with the MC-20 2x converter but you loose a little bit of sharpnes.
It's expensive relative to mft pricing, but a FF 800 or 1000mm reach lens with AF, weather sealing, ibis, etc. Is going to dwarf it in size and cost just by nature of requiring more glass and all the extra processing that goes with more surface area of that glass. I kind of wish some of the content creators that give mft fair air time would also point out that with owners like the Olympus 45/75 f1.8, 17/25/45 f.2, Pana Leica 42.5 fwd.2, and even the Sigma 30/56mm f1.4 lenses you can can get great portraits with mft. It isn't just a wild life system, and if more people knew that after being told outdated lies that it's worthless by marketing for so long, mft would sell even more to enthusiast and really boost it overall as the om-1 has already been doing.
An around 50 MP full-frame camera with a 200-600 lens is only slightly heavier/bigger, but gives you about the same output as the mFT camera with that 150-400 lens. I do not see a clear benefit of using mFT with such a lens. Panasonic's 100-300 and 100-400 lenses are much more portable and in line with the main mFT idea of having a lighter setup while sacrificing on light gathering.
A Nikon Z7ii with a 180-600 Z has the better performance with a cheaper total price AND you can use APSC mode to crop in to 900mm equivalent. The whole setup is only around 300g heavier
People keep making price comparisons between effective focal length and real focal length. The fact this is an expensively priced 150-400 zoom by even G Master standards. For comparison, you can get a Nikon z8+600/6.3 combo, which is lighter, cheaper and physically shorter than the OM1 combo. If ability to zoom is the most important thing to you, you can get the Z 80-600 and save 40% off the total and add 16% more weight.
@@Jay-sr8ge @wj45 @cyberwarfare9118 When you crop any of your FF 45MP - 61MP to APS-C size you'll get exactly the same DR and noise as the OM-1 from ISO 200 and up (or any m4/3 20MP). Check your fact at P2P and DPR comparator. Your f/6.3 lens will get you exactly the same IQ as any of the cheaper MZ or Lumix 100-400/6.3 zooms. This lens is a huge step up from the cheaper 100-400/6.3. What you step up to from your cheap 600 zooms that will get you faster aperture, high quality, light weight, handhold-ability and versatility of a zoom? You'll pay almost twice the price more for more weight, plus tripod and gimbal, and can't use it handheld and have to zoom with your feet (into the ditch).
I have been using this lens daily for two months now and am extremely impressed by it. The added reach over my old 300 f4.0 makes a real difference. Being able to zoom wider is occasionally handy. With a good shoulder strap I can bird all day while carrying it comfortably. Two small complaints: I wish the focus limiter was 4 m to infinity not 6 m to infinity. I find that I need to leave the limiter off, i.e., 1.3 m to infinity, because birds are seldom closer than 4 m away but often closer than 6 m. The other small issue is that I find that birds notice this white lens more than the black 300 mm. I need to be more careful of my movements with this lens to avoid putting my subject to flight.
Just get a camouflage lens covers and there are plenty of options available now for this lens. I found that the built in 1.25 TC isn’t as sharp as I would have like compare to the 1.4 TC in my opinion. I would only put on the TC if the subjects are relatively large in size and I just want it to be a bit bigger. I would say this lens is just as sharp on its own as the 300 f4 but I find that the 300 f4 takes TC better than this zoom. I guess it is very hard to make it as sharp as a prime lens and Olympus already did the best they could.
I tend to agree the 6m limiter is often a bit too long. One point I really like about the zoom is that it makes finding small subjects a much easier. I can find the subject at 150 (or 187.5 with the TC) and very quickly flick the zoom ring to 400 or 500mm, whereas a fixed 400 or 500 (= 800 or 1000 FF in terms of field of view) would be a lot trickier to point.
Interesting review. I have had one now for about 18 months and really pleased with in. I shoot mainly motorsports with it has been a game changer for me. I like to be able to move around because of the lightness of the kit and always use it handheld. I have put mine in a camouflage cover mainly for protection the down side of this makes say the zoom ring soft to use. I regularly use the builtin teleconverter again with no issues. I have tried the 1.4 and 2 times convertors but I struggled to locate the subject, taking the zoom back select the subject then zoom back in. Although I have an OM-1 I prefer using with my EM1-X as it balances better.
I love this lens! It's almost always on my camera and I take it everywhere. I waited exactly 7 months for mine. When I first received it, I had an E-M1 Mk3, but I traded that camera in for an OM-1 as soon as that became available, as the ideal must-have accessory for this lens!
Have this lens. For me it is the the most versatile Wildlife Lens on the market and together with the latest Pro Grade Nikon Z Long Tele the Goto Wildlife Package. Really glad that the close focusing got a mentioning because normally it is not looked at. And this close focusing makes it a perfekt lens for butterflies, dragonflies, large bugs and the like. All OMDS really needs to do is is to release the FW 2.0 for the OM1 and gives us an OM1X. Now as for the focussing speed, thats something I do not get, never heard a single complain, but more a load of praises how bloody fast this lens is and reacts. The Onion Ring thingy is a m4/3 issue in general an most likely never good enough , but the 150-400 has very good bokeh in as how smooth the transitions can be if the background is not to close to the subject. It is not harsh for m4/3 and on par with the best 4/3 lenses (the f2 ones).
YES, an updated M1X .... and keep those cross sensors, unlike the Z's that need to figure out shapes, then back focus during the critical moment. With a little practice, the red dot sight is a nice addition... but some practice is needed!
Excellent review of an amazing lens! I use mine with am OM-1 body and the PBH (battery grip) attached to the OM-1. Great feel whether shooting horizontal or vertical. I usually shoot this combo handheld. I use the Cotton Carrier G3 harness system to carry the system and this is very comfortable while hiking. The outstanding image quality and amazing reach of this lens make it a keeper!
Oh yes!!!! Love the vid boys! This is THE lens that I would love to own (not that I shoot any wildlife, but may be I can try a super tele-portrait session with my clients hahah).
You said most of things i need to know, a lot of folks out there still confusing about evaluating focal length on other systems. They expected 150-400mm (300-800mm crop look) to look the same with the fullframe 600mm or 800mm at the same aperture.
One thing not discussed and not directly related to a review of the lens concerns how well the entire kit travels. I travel with two bodies, two lenses (12-100mm and 150-400mm), spare batteries and a laptop. It all fits into one bag and can be carried on most commercial flights. The zooms provide flexibility that require multiple primes to achieve. As noted in the video, the 150-400mm is a good macro lens.
I love all of your guys work and in-depth reviews. I also think this was an excellent lens review. With that said, I'm wondering why you didn't compare it to (or even mention) other lenses in this same focal range or use case. I know sensor size debates are sketchy territory. However, with a higher megapixel camera body, (through the use of cropping or with a teleconverter), there are other telephoto lenses that can obtain very similar field of view, achieve increased light gathering capabilities, weigh nearly the same, have the same length (or smaller), and cost less (or nearly the same as this individual lens). Examples that come to mind are: Canon R5 w/ Canon RF 100-500 L, Nikon Z series cameras w/ Nikon 600mm f6.3, Sony A7RIV w/Sony 200-600, etc.). I know it would be time intensive, and probably a long review, but it would be fascinating and informative to see a comparison video describing the pros/cons across these different camera/lens combinations.
You affirm the consensus of the knowledgeable: this is a fantastic lens! I’m contemplating buying one, and I think the price is quite reasonable for what you get: a 300-800mm (equiv.) f/4.5 that’s extremely sharp and easy to carry and hand hold, with internal zooming. Amazing.
I think in the field, while the Z FF is putzing around the focus settings, messing with a monopod or tripod, the Zuiko gets the shot. 'The' field' lens. Worth every penny.
You get a 300-800mm f/9 equivalent. If you're going to make a crop factor conversion, do it right. Shrinking the sensor doesn't give a lens magic powers
If you shoot 400mm/f4.5 at iso 1600 on MFT then for same shutter speed 800mm/f9 on FF, you will shoot at iso 6400 under same conditions and the performance at these two iso values is not necessarily equivalent.@@youknowwho9247
@@youknowwho9247in terms of total light gathering, yes. But in terms of AF speed, f4.5 lenses are focus significantly faster than f6.3 or f9, which is why the OM1 + 150-400mm has been extremely popular among BIF photographers, even those who own the sony 200-600mm or 180-600mm
love my OM-1 & 150-400 Combo. Easier to pack up, and easier to carry around all day vs A1 & 200-600. Better for extended handholding also. Do miss the zebras and better low light performance of the Sony.
You don't have Zebras but you can set clipping and underexposure warnings (In orange and blue respectively). Would that work? I recommend watching "Thomas Eisl - OM System OM-1 Histogram and exposure Preview Expert Guide".
@@jonatanmartin-dombrowski5660 A little. Setting the a1 up where you can adjust exposure with the thumbwheel and viewing the zebras on the subject itself is much better.
You won't get better IQ in low light with the 200-600/6.3. Shooting from the same distance, you'll have to crop the A1 to about APS-C size to get the same view which reduces DR and noise to the same as the OM-1 from ISO200 up. Check P2P and DPR comparator. At f/6.3 you'll actually get 1 stop worse than the Oly combo. Since you have both, try both combos at or after sunset, same distance, same ISO 12800 (or ISO25600 on A1), same shutter speed, f/6.3 on Sony, f/4.5 on Oly.
@@tntytube It doesn't work that way in real life. I shot thousands of images with every Olympus lens, including this one. I get exponentially better low light performance with the Sony a7riv, even with Sigma super-zoom telephoto lenses. With a 600mm full-frame lens I can easily crop to the same field of view as the Oly lens, and I still have WAY more than 20mp. Resolution matters when it comes to fur and feathers. Whatever math you try to use to make m4/3 equal to full frame sensors... it just isn't.
OM systems needs to bring out a new professional camera with a all new 24 or 26 megapixel BSI stacked sensor and an all new image processor, to complement this lens.
It's only been two years since they brought out the OM-1 being the first to use a BSI stacked sensor & also a new processor, not been used in anything else yet. Better look at what Panasonic are doing with their latest & how well it can perform with higher pixels.
My camera is officially broken. I had dropped it the other day. It acts goofy. On some lenses AF does not even work. Now I have a valid reason to buy another camera. OM please please give us the OM-2 with more resolution and better video features. I just love their lenses.
I want this for my OM-D E-M1 Mark II, but I can't begin to afford it. I think I just need to save my pennies for the 300mm f4 PRO. In the meantime, my 40-150mm f2.8 PRO with the MC-20 teleconverter will have to do. I have rented the 100-400mm, and it's nice, but it's not in this category.
Your still images always appear to be pin sharp. Do you turn off the image stabilising system on your cameras and lenses when using a tripod and/or monopod. Thank you for the excellent videos. Alun
I don’t. I find modern IS systems are smart enough to work on tripods. What I do like to keep in mind is fast enough shutter speeds with big telephoto lenses and I overshoot to insure sharp pics
Trouble is, you would still need to add quite a lot of money to make that work. I've been thinking the same having watched a few videos. The OM-1 mk2 has just moved the goal posts on too. I find my R7 AF very frustrating as soon as the light goes down. If Canon ever upgrades the R7 and aims it at the enthusiast Bird/wildlife market with the specific things we need and made sure the RF200-800 worked really well with it, even on overcast days they would utterly clean up the market. Drop the silly video specs (max. 4K 120) , electronic shutter, no more than 25fps, 32-40mp and an autofocus system that sticks like S to a blanket at least up to the last 15 mins before dusk. Splash resistant, metal body and the ability to add a battery grip.
An interesting lens. You called this a studio review, are you doing a follow up review with more varied conditions out in the field. Perhaps showing image quality with 1.2, 1.4 & 2.0 TC's
Oi! How many plenas does that lens weigh for those of us who use other units 😂. Good review and the audio was very good - didn't peak at all unlike the podcast sometimes.
Thanks for this video. Pretty amazing how sharp it is, but for the price it should be! Compared to the long zooms I see DSLR birders using, it’s really small. If only I had the budget for this...
Would have loved to see 40mm f4.5 on a single bird and cropping out half of the photo. A very typical use case for a bird photographer. My experience with two different copies of this lens is it is soft at 400 mm. Test charts do not reveal the issues.
Honestly, I was expecting to hear a mass comparison with the Plena as well as the Noct. Nothing changes to the review but I may have hyped that idea in my head a bit too much since its review and disappointed myself over nothing. oops.
I own both the 300 and 150-400. Comparing these two the weight and size difference is huge. In your case i recommend testing the 150-400 before buying. It could be too heavy for you.
Just get a camouflage lens covers and there are plenty of options available now for this lens. I found that the built in 1.25 TC isn’t as sharp as I would have like compare to the 1.4 TC in my opinion. I would only put on the TC if the subjects are relatively large in size and I just want it to be a bit bigger. I would say this lens is just as sharp on its own as the 300 f4 but I find that the 300 f4 takes TC better than this zoom. I guess it is very hard to make it as sharp as a prime lens and Olympus already did the best they could.
Your built-in TC could've been damaged or out of specs. It's indistinguishable on my lens whether it's on or off. My 1.4TC on the lens is visibly softer than the built-in. But with even both on and at f/8, it's still very useable for long ID shots - about the same as or better than the MZ 100-400/6.3 at the long end.
@@tntytubeA Uk wildlife photographer Mike Lane has the same opinion on the1.25 TC which is definitely softer but I guess it depends on the quality of the atmosphere at an given time and at 1000mm, heat wave and humidity levels also will affect imagine quality.
@@ryantang8146 I used my 150-400 with the internal 1,25TC combined with the 1.4 or the 2.0 TCs and the results were - at least for me - sharp enough. Surely you cannot beat physics. For far away subjects, atmoshperic distortions will be more problematic than lens imperfections.
The PanaLeica 100-400 is a very worthwhile investment, so long as you have a Lumix body. My 100-300 was nowhere near as nice as the big beastie I have now.
Seems way too expensive (an A1 and the 200-600 is cheaper!!) and heavy, especially due to the low pixel-count sensors available (and I'm a m43 shooter!)... You get this many pixels across a 30cm subject 20m away (in brackets is the % difference to an A7rV at 600mm), assuming the long ends of lenses are close to what's written on them at longer distances: A7rIV/A7rV @ 600mm = 2376 (=100% say) A1 @ 600mm = 2160 (-9.1%) X-H2 @ 400mm = 1932 (-18.7%) X-H2 @ 600mm = 2898 (+22%) X-H2S @ 400mm = 1560 (-34%) X-H2S @ 600mm = 2340 (-1.5%) OM1 @ 400mm+1.25x = 2439 (= +2.6%) OM1 @ 400mm = 1728 (-27%) R5 + 100-500@500mm+1.4x = 2389 (-0.55%) R5 @ 500mm = 1706 (-28.2%) R5 @ 800mm = 2730 (+14.9%) Cost (slightly out of date perhaps): A7rV with 200-600mm = $5896 A7rIVa with 200-600mm = $5496 A1 with 200-600mm = $8496 ($1003 cheaper than OM-1 and 150-400!) X-H2S with 150-600 = $4497 X-H2 with 150-600 = $3998 X-H2 with 100-400 = $3898 R5 with 100-500 and 1.4x = $6697 OM-1 with 150-400+1.25x = $9499 Weight: A7rV with 200-600mm 2838g A7rIVa with 200-600mm 2780g A1 with 200-600 2852g X-H2S or X-H2 with 150-600 2265g X-H2 with 100-400 2035g OM1 with 150-400+1.25x 2474g R5 with 100-500 and 1.4x 2327g P.S. What do I do - I use a Metabones Smart Adaptor to attach a Canon EF 100-400 II, which is pixel-level sharp at 400mm wide-open on my GH5, sometimes with a EF 1.4x (you lose CAF but I have a large number - alas very large for my time sitting at a computer vs. taking photographs - of Owl photographs, and similar stuff).
surprised by how popular this lens seems given the price, would think the 300mm F4 and teleconverter at 1/3 the price would be my go Generally people with the deeper pockets that can afford this type of glass would be in the canon/nikon camp with long fast primes
Listen to the wildlife pros who use it -- there are legitimate advantages to using a very high quality zoom. The 'long fast primes' from Canon/Nikon camp cost way more than this lens.
Just the review I've been looking for. Thinking about switching from my heavy Nikon gear to this setup. I keep wondering though, is this lens worth $6000 more than the Olympus 100-400? Seen great reviews on that lens and really think that setup is as light as can possibly be for wildlife. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks for sharing.
I love the 100-400, the real driving factor is going to be to faster aperture. Especially in micro 4/3rds the more light the better. I think if you have the budget it’s worth the extra cost. But I get that it’s a big difference!
Faster aperture, longer reach, much sharper even at 500mm, much better IS, faster AF, better operation/control, better build quality, better everything except a bit heavier and much more expensive. It's a huge step up in terms of quality and usability. No other system offers this flexibility/usability with this high quality at this price level though.
If you use the lens for fast moving subjects (like birds), every bit f-stop counts. Or if you want more reach, you can use an 1.4TC with the 150-400, you get a 210-56mm/6.3 (an can add the internal TC to get a 263-700 / f8). You could add a TC to the 100-400, too, but the quality would be worse and you only would get to 560mm. Also a big difference (for non moving subjects) is the superior image stabilisation of the 150-400. With the OM-1 the lens stabilisation and the body stabilisation work together and you can handhold the lens for ridiculously slow shutter speeds...
Check Tony Northrup's review on tele zooms, ua-cam.com/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/v-deo.html. The same person who said MFT is dead a couple of years ago, has compared the two Olympus lenses with leading Sony, Nkon, Canon and Fuji equivalents. Olympus is the only company which has two zooms in his comparison. I have used both the zooms and I prefer 150-400 for its lower f stop, focussing speed and longer reach. Whether that is enough for $6000 is quite subjective. 100-400 lens is also very good for the money and you will also find used one even cheaper.
I seriously considered this lens when it first came out but it was not available anywhere. I then slowly switched all my Canon EF lenses over to the RF models and now I can’t see trading in my RF600 F4 and R3 for this. The size is nice but the low light capability just isn’t there to match my Canon combo. I’ve even seen comparisons with the Olympus 300 F4 and that lens appears to be sharper and a lot less money. I would still like to try the OM-1 out but I’ll probably do it with the 300mm F4.
What the heck is a “noct”?? A brief internet search produces results all over the map. A weight, but what is it really? Where does it come from? Is it anything more cool jargon? Trying to justify buying this lovely lens.
Well if you multiply 400 by 1.25, you get 500. That means the 1.25x teleconverter was enabled. You can also divide 500 by 400 to achieve the number 1.25. That's how you can find out the magnification of the built-in teleconverter!
For a micro 4/3 lens, the price is simply insane. You could get a comparable lens for full frame where you get much better low light performance. Not to mention, last time I checked Olympus didn't exactly have the best tracking AF for sports, so all in all it seems like a strange release. But maybe I'm missing something this lens does that other ones don't?
It’s a wildlife lens principally, and the OM-1 has largely address the AF issues for that type of shooting. The sales have spoken for themselves really; this lens is awesome. I’ve loved my time with it. Low light is better with full frame certainly, but I’ve got perfectly decent photos at 6400 or so which was all I needed during a cloudy woodland morning doing bird photos.
If you are handholding, this lens can outperform many FF combos in low light due to its superior IBIS and sync IS. Not for low light high speed shooting though.
Can anyone give any insight on how this performs on panasonic cameras? I shoot panasonic mostly because video is one of the main things that I shoot, but I do want to get into shooting sports. My problem is, panasonic has nothing quite as fast and long as this aside from the 200mm 2.8 but that’s a prime and I find that 200mm doesn’t always meet my needs depending on the sport I’m shooting. I know the general rule is to put pany on pany and oly on oly but as there aren’t many options for panasonic, I’d like to know how this lens couples. I’ve considered investing in Nikon F mount and shooting sports with dslrs, but I’m hesitant because the video on those isn’t quite up to snuff with my other content and I’d like to avoid investing in another system if at all possible.
Panasonic has the Leica 100-400 F4-6.3 that is somewhat comparable in range (doesn't have an internal 1.25x converter), and is pretty sharp on my G9, and probably better on the G9ii. It is also 1/5 the price of the Olympus lens.
@@joeperrone6677 I’m fully aware of the 100-400. 6.3 is around a full stop, give or take, slower than 4.5. That is a lot of much needed light I would be losing in an already disadvantageous situation for m43. The variable aperture is also not very ideal for video as I zoom. I appreciate the recommendation, but I am not asking this out of ignorance for options. A lens recommendation is not really what I am looking for at this time.
@@joeperrone6677 The 100-400mm mk II can be used with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC, but shooting with f 12.6 is possibly just a gimmick. With 1.4 it's a 560 mm f8.8 lens.
@@questioneverything680 just set f6.3 for a constant aperture zoom. :-p As for the extra stop of light going from f6.3 to f4.5 cost you in this case almost 5x the money.
Canon makes a 100-400mm F4.6-5.6 for $2,300…. Surprised to see a 100-400 f4 go for $8,000 from OM . From a materials , size , cost standpoint I wonder how much more expensive it really is to make the Olympus version. Seems to me like we are being charge based off of what the camera is doing (cropping) and not what the lenses is doing. Seems backwards to me
It's a constant 4.5 aperture, of course it's going to be expensive. The Fuji 150-600 is f8 at the long end, that's near unusable in a lot of situations.
@bIoodypingu on mft system if 4.5 is 9 equivalent. Plus yeah it's expensive. I don't understand people who defend companies for high prices from us. Unless you take a cut of the profit. Its insane that you defend high prices
@@A.Edilbi no it isn't. How are people still getting this wrong? Light gathering doesn't change... F4 on mft is F4 on full frame. Bokeh and noise is equivalent to f8 on ff, not light.
@@bIoodypingu, it is you who is getting it wrong. F4 is a _relative_ value, it is basically useless without knowing the parameter of an image sensor it will be working with. There is a nice article about equivalence on dpreview, read it.
1 stop less light (f4.5 vs 6.3) and no Dual IS on Pana bodies. As for sharpness it seems like an universal claim that sharpness suffers in the 300-400 mm range on both lenses.
@@GrenlandUnderVann Well... you said "1 stop *less* light", implying you are talking about the PanaLeica, and followed that up with "no Dual IS on Pana bodies".
It would be interesting to compare this lens against the much less expensive Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.5 with a 0.71x speed booster, yielding 106.5-426mm f3.5-4.6 (213mm-852mm full frame equivalent). The Sigma combo goes wider and reaches farther, and is much faster through much of the zoom range. You can also swap out the speed booster for a pass-through adapter producing 300mm-1200mm f5-6.5 full frame equivalent.
I was thinking the same. At $7500 this lens is hard to justify unless the IQ is on a whole other level. The Sigma combo just looks to be a much better deal
One thing to keep in mind though, is the 150-400 will likely focus faster, have much better VR, and all the extra features like shooting at higher frame rates.
@@robertpanick2660 that's true, but there are many applications that don't require those features like tripod-mounted eclipse, landscape, and most forms of wildlife photography. The Olympus lens costs nearly 7x of the Sigma combo, which is a lot of money for what might be marginal improvements overall in niche conditions. I wish Sigma would create MFT speed-boosted versions of many of their Sony and Canon lenses. In addition to the 150-400, their 18-35mm 1.8 and 35-200mm f2-2.8 would be amazing.
@@robertpanick2660 It is also very well balanced. I have no experience with the Sigma, but I've seen a comparison review with the Sony 200-600 and the Sony was much more front-heavy and felt much heavier in daily use than the pure numbers suggested...
Used to have the Sigma Sport. Image quality comparison - no real idea as the birds had all migrated by the time I got my tripod and lens set up with the D750 I had then. OK, just joking but don’t underestimate the value of handholding the Oly combo with its astounding stabilisation.
It's a running gag that started at dpreview. Nikon made a 58mm f0.95 lens called the Noct. It's like 2kg and really heavy for a prime lens so it became a way to measure weight in a joking manner.
I don't know - is it just about perceptions? This thing is around 7k - which people think is plenty of coin and they're right. But then i look back to 2003 and the ZD 300mm f/2.8 came out at 8k, and the ZD 90-250 f/2.8 was over 6k - don't know what that equals in today's money, but this marvel sounds cheap by comparison. And 1.8kg? Those two ZDs are each around 3.6kg (ah, but f/2.8) - and it's not so much the carrying them that bothers me, it's that the mass makes them awkward when you're trying to follow something that's moving erratically. This M. Zuiko sounds like a great lens for convenience, IQ, good light and unequalled reach - i think i want it, not instead of, but as well as.
With the 1.25 extender and a 2x crop sensor, you’re actually at f11. The camera may read f5.6, but that’s misleading. A 2x crop has the same real effect as adding a 2x extender; 3/4 of the incoming light doesn’t reach the sensor.
This is so false and there are many videos out there explaining this; yes, it will have more of the depth of field of a f11 BUT it still has the same light gathering abilities of a f5.6. Again, many videos out on UA-cam explain this
The price is just so ridiculous when you consider the target market and the trade-offs of m4/3... Nobody but wildlife pros and perhaps extremely wealthy enthusiasts are spending $7500 on tele zoom lenses. Why in the world would you drop $7500 on this lens + $2400 on an OM-1 ($9,900 total) when you could buy a system WAY better for wildlife for the same money? Like a Nikon Z8 and a Z 800 f/6.3 is pretty much the same price and is going to perform WAY better for wildlife. Why would any wildlife pro (not being paid by OM) spend that money on this OM setup when they could be getting a far superior pro setup for the same (or less) money? I am glad that this lens performs well but it is insane to me to spend $9900 and then have to use ISO 6400 on a m4/3 sensor while shooting f5.6 @ 1/1600 in daylight lol. How OM justifies this lens at a $1000 premium over the Nikon Z 800 f/6.3 prime is beyond me.
Are you by any chance a used car salesman? Right now at B&H, the Olympus set up sells for $9,500 vs the Nikon set up which sells for $10,497 -- that's right at $1,000 difference. The Nikon Z800 lens is an f/6.3 lens vs the Olympus which is f/4.5, which will give you twice the shutter speed at the same ISO. The Olympus lens also has the built-in TC, which you failed to add to the price of your Nikon set up. The Olympus lens is 3 in. shorter, and weighs a full pound less than the Nikon. Those are just a few reasons why someone in their right mind would choose the Olympus set up.
@@gregm6894 Except that f/6.3 is going to give you more subject isolation on a full frame sensor and you can use lower iso values. Even if you do use higher iso values, you can do so higher and cleaner on full frame. Nikon Z8 + 180-600 is like $5700 total and stops the OM setup in almost every aspect that a "pro" wildlife photographer would care about.
@@spencergiles72 Look up the work of professional wildlife photographers like Petr Bambousek, Daniel Cox, or Andy Rouse for starters, then get back with me. If you do much wildlife photography you should know that subject isolation at 800-1000mm is virtually guaranteed -- regardless of format. When I shoot a bird, I want the whole bird in focus, not just his head.
@@gregm6894I'm not saying there arent any wildlife pros using OM. My point was that most of those who are are also partnered with OM or getting paid to use that gear as an ambassador. Most pros are fairly system agnostic (including Andy Rouse from your example). The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of wildlife pros and wealthy enthusiasts who would spend $7500 on a zoom lens are not shooting with M43 or OM. There is a reason for that. That is all I'm saying. I respect what OM is doing and think it can be a great system for enthusiast wildlife photogs! Im just not convinced there is really any market for this $7500 m43 zoom lens (much like the 200mm f2 Fuji prime). They are both respectable lenses but...really? Who is actually going to be using them?
@@MercedesBenzGKlassenot if you put it on an R7, which will give you the same reach and better tracking AF / subject recognition. Or a Nikon 180-600+1.4x, which is still $5000 cheaper and can pay for a Z8 to pair with it. Same depth of field as well. It’s just so hard to justify spending $7500 on a high end m4/3 super telephoto.
@@owenrodgers8020 I mean, if people are invested in m4/3, and really want to spend the money, more power to them. I shot m4/3 for quite a while and made some excellent images with it, but I find the value proposition on their high end glass to be very much out of whack with the competition when you really look at like for like capabilities. I think m4/3 makes for an excellent good quality travel setup, with some excellent lenses like the 7-14/2.8 and 12-40/2.8 Pro lenses from Olympus. It's also a great setup for lightweight compact telephoto reach. However, when you start looking at lenses like the PanaLeica 42.5/1.2, or the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8, and this lens here from Olympus, it really starts making less and less sense, as those lenses aren't really small, and they also don't give you anything special from an imaging standpoint, yet cost significantly more than what a similar rendering lens would give you on a larger format.
I have this lens since last summer; shooting it on my OM1. Fantastic combo. And Chris is right, it’s made to shoot almost always wide open.
I wish I could win the lottery and get it lol. I think dismissing it because it's an MFT lens is really discounting that good glass is good glass. And the built in teleconverter is an innovation you don't see anywhere but Nikon.
Given that wide open gives you f/9 full frame equivalent - yeah, it'd better perform "wide" open.
@@youknowwho9247 actually, it gives f4.5 but at twice the distance of a full frame lens for the same image size. Full frame snobs - I also own a Z8 and D850 - usually get it wrong.
@@youknowwho9247 4.5 is 4.5 on any format. Use the lens yourself and get a feel for it. For MFT, while the field of view is narrower, it's still very possible to get subject separation and a clean image. Not everyone is going to feel like carrying around a $12,000 600 f/4 FF because that's for certain situations like super early morning or late evening (hell, most FF people are going to go for lighter zooms with slower apertures because it's more convenient to move around with and they're already good lenses). Don't knock something until you try it.
@@youknowwho9247 Same would go for an actual 900mm f/9 FF lens, which could be quite a treat, too. Same physical aperture as a 300mm f/3 lens, not too different from a 300mm f/2.8.
I love this lens! Ordered it when it first came out and had to wait six month to get it. It´s light, extremely versatile and has great image quality. It´s one of the best lenses I´ve owned and I had several of Canons "big whites". With the reach it has you can get pictures no one else can if you are photographing from a hide and can´t move. I find that it works well with the MC-20 2x converter but you loose a little bit of sharpnes.
It's expensive relative to mft pricing, but a FF 800 or 1000mm reach lens with AF, weather sealing, ibis, etc. Is going to dwarf it in size and cost just by nature of requiring more glass and all the extra processing that goes with more surface area of that glass.
I kind of wish some of the content creators that give mft fair air time would also point out that with owners like the Olympus 45/75 f1.8, 17/25/45 f.2, Pana Leica 42.5 fwd.2, and even the Sigma 30/56mm f1.4 lenses you can can get great portraits with mft. It isn't just a wild life system, and if more people knew that after being told outdated lies that it's worthless by marketing for so long, mft would sell even more to enthusiast and really boost it overall as the om-1 has already been doing.
An around 50 MP full-frame camera with a 200-600 lens is only slightly heavier/bigger, but gives you about the same output as the mFT camera with that 150-400 lens. I do not see a clear benefit of using mFT with such a lens. Panasonic's 100-300 and 100-400 lenses are much more portable and in line with the main mFT idea of having a lighter setup while sacrificing on light gathering.
A Nikon Z7ii with a 180-600 Z has the better performance with a cheaper total price AND you can use APSC mode to crop in to 900mm equivalent. The whole setup is only around 300g heavier
@@cyberwarfare9118reminder: Z7ii has only 9fps.
If you want both resolution & fps, Z1 should be a better comparison.
People keep making price comparisons between effective focal length and real focal length. The fact this is an expensively priced 150-400 zoom by even G Master standards. For comparison, you can get a Nikon z8+600/6.3 combo, which is lighter, cheaper and physically shorter than the OM1 combo. If ability to zoom is the most important thing to you, you can get the Z 80-600 and save 40% off the total and add 16% more weight.
@@Jay-sr8ge @wj45 @cyberwarfare9118 When you crop any of your FF 45MP - 61MP to APS-C size you'll get exactly the same DR and noise as the OM-1 from ISO 200 and up (or any m4/3 20MP). Check your fact at P2P and DPR comparator.
Your f/6.3 lens will get you exactly the same IQ as any of the cheaper MZ or Lumix 100-400/6.3 zooms.
This lens is a huge step up from the cheaper 100-400/6.3. What you step up to from your cheap 600 zooms that will get you faster aperture, high quality, light weight, handhold-ability and versatility of a zoom? You'll pay almost twice the price more for more weight, plus tripod and gimbal, and can't use it handheld and have to zoom with your feet (into the ditch).
I have been using this lens daily for two months now and am extremely impressed by it. The added reach over my old 300 f4.0 makes a real difference. Being able to zoom wider is occasionally handy. With a good shoulder strap I can bird all day while carrying it comfortably.
Two small complaints: I wish the focus limiter was 4 m to infinity not 6 m to infinity. I find that I need to leave the limiter off, i.e., 1.3 m to infinity, because birds are seldom closer than 4 m away but often closer than 6 m. The other small issue is that I find that birds notice this white lens more than the black 300 mm. I need to be more careful of my movements with this lens to avoid putting my subject to flight.
Just get a camouflage lens covers and there are plenty of options available now for this lens. I found that the built in 1.25 TC isn’t as sharp as I would have like compare to the 1.4 TC in my opinion. I would only put on the TC if the subjects are relatively large in size and I just want it to be a bit bigger. I would say this lens is just as sharp on its own as the 300 f4 but I find that the 300 f4 takes TC better than this zoom. I guess it is very hard to make it as sharp as a prime lens and Olympus already did the best they could.
I tend to agree the 6m limiter is often a bit too long. One point I really like about the zoom is that it makes finding small subjects a much easier. I can find the subject at 150 (or 187.5 with the TC) and very quickly flick the zoom ring to 400 or 500mm, whereas a fixed 400 or 500 (= 800 or 1000 FF in terms of field of view) would be a lot trickier to point.
If you are using OM1, u can use the camera's focus distance limiter to set your preferred range (any distance).
This still remains on my dream lens list. I have watched too many videos saying how great it is. But that price tag keeps it in dream land.
Interesting review. I have had one now for about 18 months and really pleased with in. I shoot mainly motorsports with it has been a game changer for me. I like to be able to move around because of the lightness of the kit and always use it handheld. I have put mine in a camouflage cover mainly for protection the down side of this makes say the zoom ring soft to use. I regularly use the builtin teleconverter again with no issues.
I have tried the 1.4 and 2 times convertors but I struggled to locate the subject, taking the zoom back select the subject then zoom back in.
Although I have an OM-1 I prefer using with my EM1-X as it balances better.
I love this lens! It's almost always on my camera and I take it everywhere. I waited exactly 7 months for mine. When I first received it, I had an E-M1 Mk3, but I traded that camera in for an OM-1 as soon as that became available, as the ideal must-have accessory for this lens!
i legit thought i accidently clicked the podcast video from that intro lol
Can't wait for the OM-2 with the 20 megapixel sensor
Have this lens. For me it is the the most versatile Wildlife Lens on the market and together with the latest Pro Grade Nikon Z Long Tele the Goto Wildlife Package. Really glad that the close focusing got a mentioning because normally it is not looked at. And this close focusing makes it a perfekt lens for butterflies, dragonflies, large bugs and the like. All OMDS really needs to do is is to release the FW 2.0 for the OM1 and gives us an OM1X. Now as for the focussing speed, thats something I do not get, never heard a single complain, but more a load of praises how bloody fast this lens is and reacts. The Onion Ring thingy is a m4/3 issue in general an most likely never good enough , but the 150-400 has very good bokeh in as how smooth the transitions can be if the background is not to close to the subject. It is not harsh for m4/3 and on par with the best 4/3 lenses (the f2 ones).
YES, an updated M1X .... and keep those cross sensors, unlike the Z's that need to figure out shapes, then back focus during the critical moment. With a little practice, the red dot sight is a nice addition... but some practice is needed!
Even though I already have this lens, I still waited for this review video for nearly three years. Great Video! 🥳🥳
Excellent review of an amazing lens! I use mine with am OM-1 body and the PBH (battery grip) attached to the OM-1. Great feel whether shooting horizontal or vertical. I usually shoot this combo handheld. I use the Cotton Carrier G3 harness system to carry the system and this is very comfortable while hiking. The outstanding image quality and amazing reach of this lens make it a keeper!
Oh yes!!!! Love the vid boys! This is THE lens that I would love to own (not that I shoot any wildlife, but may be I can try a super tele-portrait session with my clients hahah).
You said most of things i need to know, a lot of folks out there still confusing about evaluating focal length on other systems. They expected 150-400mm (300-800mm crop look) to look the same with the fullframe 600mm or 800mm at the same aperture.
One thing not discussed and not directly related to a review of the lens concerns how well the entire kit travels. I travel with two bodies, two lenses (12-100mm and 150-400mm), spare batteries and a laptop. It all fits into one bag and can be carried on most commercial flights. The zooms provide flexibility that require multiple primes to achieve. As noted in the video, the 150-400mm is a good macro lens.
Damn it OM system, give us the Pen F ii 😭
I love all of your guys work and in-depth reviews. I also think this was an excellent lens review. With that said, I'm wondering why you didn't compare it to (or even mention) other lenses in this same focal range or use case. I know sensor size debates are sketchy territory. However, with a higher megapixel camera body, (through the use of cropping or with a teleconverter), there are other telephoto lenses that can obtain very similar field of view, achieve increased light gathering capabilities, weigh nearly the same, have the same length (or smaller), and cost less (or nearly the same as this individual lens). Examples that come to mind are: Canon R5 w/ Canon RF 100-500 L, Nikon Z series cameras w/ Nikon 600mm f6.3, Sony A7RIV w/Sony 200-600, etc.). I know it would be time intensive, and probably a long review, but it would be fascinating and informative to see a comparison video describing the pros/cons across these different camera/lens combinations.
Tony Northrup made such a video.
2:30 as this is a wildlife lens I am safely assuming that scratch was an eagle trying to steal the lens but you won 🤜
You affirm the consensus of the knowledgeable: this is a fantastic lens! I’m contemplating buying one, and I think the price is quite reasonable for what you get: a 300-800mm (equiv.) f/4.5 that’s extremely sharp and easy to carry and hand hold, with internal zooming. Amazing.
I think in the field, while the Z FF is putzing around the focus settings, messing with a monopod or tripod, the Zuiko gets the shot. 'The' field' lens. Worth every penny.
You get a 300-800mm f/9 equivalent. If you're going to make a crop factor conversion, do it right. Shrinking the sensor doesn't give a lens magic powers
Just for the record, focal length equivalence and aperture equivalence are separate calculations.
If you shoot 400mm/f4.5 at iso 1600 on MFT then for same shutter speed 800mm/f9 on FF, you will shoot at iso 6400 under same conditions and the performance at these two iso values is not necessarily equivalent.@@youknowwho9247
@@youknowwho9247in terms of total light gathering, yes. But in terms of AF speed, f4.5 lenses are focus significantly faster than f6.3 or f9, which is why the OM1 + 150-400mm has been extremely popular among BIF photographers, even those who own the sony 200-600mm or 180-600mm
OM systems if you’re listening bring out an all new OM-2 & OM-1X to compliment this wonderful lens.
I am really interested in adding the OM-1 to my collection. Thanks for a review for its lens.
Finally my request for reviewing this lens come true. Great job guys 🎉❤
With my OM-1 I use with any worries 6400-8000 ISO, with older cameras will be a little bit harder to do that.
love my OM-1 & 150-400 Combo. Easier to pack up, and easier to carry around all day vs A1 & 200-600. Better for extended handholding also. Do miss the zebras and better low light performance of the Sony.
You don't have Zebras but you can set clipping and underexposure warnings (In orange and blue respectively). Would that work?
I recommend watching "Thomas Eisl - OM System OM-1 Histogram and exposure Preview Expert Guide".
I prefer the Sony combo
@@jonatanmartin-dombrowski5660 A little. Setting the a1 up where you can adjust exposure with the thumbwheel and viewing the zebras on the subject itself is much better.
You won't get better IQ in low light with the 200-600/6.3. Shooting from the same distance, you'll have to crop the A1 to about APS-C size to get the same view which reduces DR and noise to the same as the OM-1 from ISO200 up. Check P2P and DPR comparator.
At f/6.3 you'll actually get 1 stop worse than the Oly combo. Since you have both, try both combos at or after sunset, same distance, same ISO 12800 (or ISO25600 on A1), same shutter speed, f/6.3 on Sony, f/4.5 on Oly.
@@tntytube It doesn't work that way in real life. I shot thousands of images with every Olympus lens, including this one. I get exponentially better low light performance with the Sony a7riv, even with Sigma super-zoom telephoto lenses. With a 600mm full-frame lens I can easily crop to the same field of view as the Oly lens, and I still have WAY more than 20mp. Resolution matters when it comes to fur and feathers. Whatever math you try to use to make m4/3 equal to full frame sensors... it just isn't.
OM systems needs to bring out a new professional camera with a all new 24 or 26 megapixel BSI stacked sensor and an all new image processor, to complement this lens.
It's only been two years since they brought out the OM-1 being the first to use a BSI stacked sensor & also a new processor, not been used in anything else yet. Better look at what Panasonic are doing with their latest & how well it can perform with higher pixels.
I agree / I brought a used Nikon d780 and it’s sharper in every focal range / om needs an EM1x part 2
@@kbruff2010 Don't confuse lens sharpness with camera's pixel count.
@@rossthefiddler5890 Sadly there is no Dual IS when you put a OM lens on a Panasonic body.
@@GrenlandUnderVann And vice-versa.
My camera is officially broken. I had dropped it the other day. It acts goofy. On some lenses AF does not even work. Now I have a valid reason to buy another camera. OM please please give us the OM-2 with more resolution and better video features. I just love their lenses.
Thank you for the amazing video :). Did you use the Japan or the Vietnamversion from the lens?
Nice video. A use with the G9 II would have been cool. I‘m always surprised how many people actually have this lens.
Great review! How do you think this lens would work for video when coupled with the ZCam E2M4?
Neat. An awesome lens that I don't really understand but I'm glad you were able to get one to test.
Bought it as soon at it came out ... never had a doubt about the quality , only it did hurt a bit. No regrets whatsoever for African Wildlife .
KeH is going to lowball you professionally 😂😂
Same thought I had 😂
💯
I watched this video just to find out how to pronounce Zuiko. Worth it.
I want this for my OM-D E-M1 Mark II, but I can't begin to afford it.
I think I just need to save my pennies for the 300mm f4 PRO. In the meantime, my 40-150mm f2.8 PRO with the MC-20 teleconverter will have to do.
I have rented the 100-400mm, and it's nice, but it's not in this category.
You will get better bird photographs if you switch the camera body to OM-1 for lesser cost rather than going for the any of the two lenses.
@@pankajnjoshi9673If my lens doesn't reach far enough, getting a new camera body will not help.
Great review. Just purchased it recently,love love it
Now it’s time to do a comparison video between the 150-400 and the RF 200-800
Outstanding video / where may I get this test chart
Hallo, I would say this is the best and mostiniversl wildlife lens you can buy!
"Universal wildlife lens"🤣
Your still images always appear to be pin sharp. Do you turn off the image stabilising system on your cameras and lenses when using a tripod and/or monopod. Thank you for the excellent videos. Alun
I don’t. I find modern IS systems are smart enough to work on tripods. What I do like to keep in mind is fast enough shutter speeds with big telephoto lenses and I overshoot to insure sharp pics
Thank you so much Chris for your prompt and helpful reply. Very much appreciated. Alun
if you owned a canon 300mm f2.8ef mk2 lens and a rf 100-500 R6 R7 would you consider trading them in for the om1 and 150-400 ???
Trouble is, you would still need to add quite a lot of money to make that work. I've been thinking the same having watched a few videos. The OM-1 mk2 has just moved the goal posts on too.
I find my R7 AF very frustrating as soon as the light goes down. If Canon ever upgrades the R7 and aims it at the enthusiast Bird/wildlife market with the specific things we need and made sure the RF200-800 worked really well with it, even on overcast days they would utterly clean up the market.
Drop the silly video specs (max. 4K 120) , electronic shutter, no more than 25fps, 32-40mp and an autofocus system that sticks like S to a blanket at least up to the last 15 mins before dusk. Splash resistant, metal body and the ability to add a battery grip.
Gt mine today at 10% discount and three days after ordering it!
my dream lens
An interesting lens.
You called this a studio review, are you doing a follow up review with more varied conditions out in the field. Perhaps showing image quality with 1.2, 1.4 & 2.0 TC's
Hi, can you check this lens performance with the new 25mp Panasonic?
Oi! How many plenas does that lens weigh for those of us who use other units 😂. Good review and the audio was very good - didn't peak at all unlike the podcast sometimes.
Thumbed up before watching. I wish I still had my EM-1 mk2 with this.
Superb lens if i can find and afford one for my om1 mkii..now.....about that dji pocket 3 your working on !
Thanks for this video. Pretty amazing how sharp it is, but for the price it should be! Compared to the long zooms I see DSLR birders using, it’s really small. If only I had the budget for this...
We need comparison with Sigma 300-800 :)
Nice video, great lens👍 Thank you 🙏
A very good an versatile lens, but the 300 F4 is even sharper if that more important.
What happened to the new weight reference system, was it abandoned?
This lens is just so close to a noct so we still use that, but anytime I need odd numbers I’ll use the plena
Would have loved to see 40mm f4.5 on a single bird and cropping out half of the photo. A very typical use case for a bird photographer. My experience with two different copies of this lens is it is soft at 400 mm. Test charts do not reveal the issues.
Honestly, I was expecting to hear a mass comparison with the Plena as well as the Noct. Nothing changes to the review but I may have hyped that idea in my head a bit too much since its review and disappointed myself over nothing. oops.
Looks like my next lens
I am short (
I own both the 300 and 150-400. Comparing these two the weight and size difference is huge. In your case i recommend testing the 150-400 before buying. It could be too heavy for you.
Just get a camouflage lens covers and there are plenty of options available now for this lens. I found that the built in 1.25 TC isn’t as sharp as I would have like compare to the 1.4 TC in my opinion. I would only put on the TC if the subjects are relatively large in size and I just want it to be a bit bigger. I would say this lens is just as sharp on its own as the 300 f4 but I find that the 300 f4 takes TC better than this zoom. I guess it is very hard to make it as sharp as a prime lens and Olympus already did the best they could.
That's kinda disappointing. I would have expected the 1.25x to have little impact to the image quality.
Your built-in TC could've been damaged or out of specs. It's indistinguishable on my lens whether it's on or off. My 1.4TC on the lens is visibly softer than the built-in. But with even both on and at f/8, it's still very useable for long ID shots - about the same as or better than the MZ 100-400/6.3 at the long end.
@@tntytube one can easily verify whether the 1.25x is damaged with a test chart.
@@tntytubeA Uk wildlife photographer Mike Lane has the same opinion on the1.25 TC which is definitely softer but I guess it depends on the quality of the atmosphere at an given time and at 1000mm, heat wave and humidity levels also will affect imagine quality.
@@ryantang8146 I used my 150-400 with the internal 1,25TC combined with the 1.4 or the 2.0 TCs and the results were - at least for me - sharp enough. Surely you cannot beat physics. For far away subjects, atmoshperic distortions will be more problematic than lens imperfections.
Its happening !! Its finally happening!!
What is a "noct"? Never heard of that term before...
I love the idea of this lens. But the price... I think I'll stick with my Panasonic 100-300mm
The PanaLeica 100-400 is a very worthwhile investment, so long as you have a Lumix body. My 100-300 was nowhere near as nice as the big beastie I have now.
Best lens ever!
Seems way too expensive (an A1 and the 200-600 is cheaper!!) and heavy, especially due to the low pixel-count sensors available (and I'm a m43 shooter!)...
You get this many pixels across a 30cm subject 20m away (in brackets is the % difference to an A7rV at 600mm), assuming the long ends of lenses are close to what's written on them at longer distances:
A7rIV/A7rV @ 600mm = 2376 (=100% say)
A1 @ 600mm = 2160 (-9.1%)
X-H2 @ 400mm = 1932 (-18.7%)
X-H2 @ 600mm = 2898 (+22%)
X-H2S @ 400mm = 1560 (-34%)
X-H2S @ 600mm = 2340 (-1.5%)
OM1 @ 400mm+1.25x = 2439 (= +2.6%)
OM1 @ 400mm = 1728 (-27%)
R5 + 100-500@500mm+1.4x = 2389 (-0.55%)
R5 @ 500mm = 1706 (-28.2%)
R5 @ 800mm = 2730 (+14.9%)
Cost (slightly out of date perhaps):
A7rV with 200-600mm = $5896
A7rIVa with 200-600mm = $5496
A1 with 200-600mm = $8496 ($1003 cheaper than OM-1 and 150-400!)
X-H2S with 150-600 = $4497
X-H2 with 150-600 = $3998
X-H2 with 100-400 = $3898
R5 with 100-500 and 1.4x = $6697
OM-1 with 150-400+1.25x = $9499
Weight:
A7rV with 200-600mm 2838g
A7rIVa with 200-600mm 2780g
A1 with 200-600 2852g
X-H2S or X-H2 with 150-600 2265g
X-H2 with 100-400 2035g
OM1 with 150-400+1.25x 2474g
R5 with 100-500 and 1.4x 2327g
P.S. What do I do - I use a Metabones Smart Adaptor to attach a Canon EF 100-400 II, which is pixel-level sharp at 400mm wide-open on my GH5, sometimes with a EF 1.4x (you lose CAF but I have a large number - alas very large for my time sitting at a computer vs. taking photographs - of Owl photographs, and similar stuff).
surprised by how popular this lens seems given the price, would think the 300mm F4 and teleconverter at 1/3 the price would be my go
Generally people with the deeper pockets that can afford this type of glass would be in the canon/nikon camp with long fast primes
Listen to the wildlife pros who use it -- there are legitimate advantages to using a very high quality zoom. The 'long fast primes' from Canon/Nikon camp cost way more than this lens.
@@gregm6894 yes zooms have some benefits.
and yes the canon/nikon primes are more expensive, and the people at that price level dont really care.
Just the review I've been looking for. Thinking about switching from my heavy Nikon gear to this setup. I keep wondering though, is this lens worth $6000 more than the Olympus 100-400? Seen great reviews on that lens and really think that setup is as light as can possibly be for wildlife. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks for sharing.
I love the 100-400, the real driving factor is going to be to faster aperture. Especially in micro 4/3rds the more light the better. I think if you have the budget it’s worth the extra cost. But I get that it’s a big difference!
Faster aperture, longer reach, much sharper even at 500mm, much better IS, faster AF, better operation/control, better build quality, better everything except a bit heavier and much more expensive. It's a huge step up in terms of quality and usability. No other system offers this flexibility/usability with this high quality at this price level though.
If you use the lens for fast moving subjects (like birds), every bit f-stop counts. Or if you want more reach, you can use an 1.4TC with the 150-400, you get a 210-56mm/6.3 (an can add the internal TC to get a 263-700 / f8). You could add a TC to the 100-400, too, but the quality would be worse and you only would get to 560mm. Also a big difference (for non moving subjects) is the superior image stabilisation of the 150-400. With the OM-1 the lens stabilisation and the body stabilisation work together and you can handhold the lens for ridiculously slow shutter speeds...
@@volkerwurst179 AND the cross sensors missing in the Z's
Check Tony Northrup's review on tele zooms, ua-cam.com/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/v-deo.html. The same person who said MFT is dead a couple of years ago, has compared the two Olympus lenses with leading Sony, Nkon, Canon and Fuji equivalents. Olympus is the only company which has two zooms in his comparison. I have used both the zooms and I prefer 150-400 for its lower f stop, focussing speed and longer reach. Whether that is enough for $6000 is quite subjective. 100-400 lens is also very good for the money and you will also find used one even cheaper.
People say m43 lenses are cheap
Olympus: And I took that personally
Good match for a G9II? What's lost by using a Paney-cam instead of an Oly?
Sync IS, which mostly useful for video
Thanx.
I imagine using the lens with my Lumix GX85, damn!
KEH. Still have to deal with exchange rates and cross boarder s*** in Canada. 😑
5 years later
I seriously considered this lens when it first came out but it was not available anywhere. I then slowly switched all my Canon EF lenses over to the RF models and now I can’t see trading in my RF600 F4 and R3 for this. The size is nice but the low light capability just isn’t there to match my Canon combo. I’ve even seen comparisons with the Olympus 300 F4 and that lens appears to be sharper and a lot less money. I would still like to try the OM-1 out but I’ll probably do it with the 300mm F4.
Don't rely on reviews. Try it out yourself and then decide.
It's in my wishlist!
Is compatible with Panasonic ‘s m4/3 cameras? … G9II..?
Yeah, but no Dual IS. So lens IS only is the best option.
What the heck is a “noct”?? A brief internet search produces results all over the map. A weight, but what is it really? Where does it come from? Is it anything more cool jargon? Trying to justify buying this lovely lens.
Just curious why one of the shots shows a 500mm lens when the max length is 400?
Well if you multiply 400 by 1.25, you get 500. That means the 1.25x teleconverter was enabled. You can also divide 500 by 400 to achieve the number 1.25. That's how you can find out the magnification of the built-in teleconverter!
Thanks for the info!
@@HokKan
For a micro 4/3 lens, the price is simply insane. You could get a comparable lens for full frame where you get much better low light performance. Not to mention, last time I checked Olympus didn't exactly have the best tracking AF for sports, so all in all it seems like a strange release. But maybe I'm missing something this lens does that other ones don't?
It’s a wildlife lens principally, and the OM-1 has largely address the AF issues for that type of shooting. The sales have spoken for themselves really; this lens is awesome. I’ve loved my time with it. Low light is better with full frame certainly, but I’ve got perfectly decent photos at 6400 or so which was all I needed during a cloudy woodland morning doing bird photos.
If you are handholding, this lens can outperform many FF combos in low light due to its superior IBIS and sync IS. Not for low light high speed shooting though.
wow this looks like a literal telescope
It's a 1000mm lens, so yeah. It is a telescope.
Can anyone give any insight on how this performs on panasonic cameras? I shoot panasonic mostly because video is one of the main things that I shoot, but I do want to get into shooting sports. My problem is, panasonic has nothing quite as fast and long as this aside from the 200mm 2.8 but that’s a prime and I find that 200mm doesn’t always meet my needs depending on the sport I’m shooting. I know the general rule is to put pany on pany and oly on oly but as there aren’t many options for panasonic, I’d like to know how this lens couples. I’ve considered investing in Nikon F mount and shooting sports with dslrs, but I’m hesitant because the video on those isn’t quite up to snuff with my other content and I’d like to avoid investing in another system if at all possible.
Panasonic has the Leica 100-400 F4-6.3 that is somewhat comparable in range (doesn't have an internal 1.25x converter), and is pretty sharp on my G9, and probably better on the G9ii. It is also 1/5 the price of the Olympus lens.
@@joeperrone6677 I’m fully aware of the 100-400. 6.3 is around a full stop, give or take, slower than 4.5. That is a lot of much needed light I would be losing in an already disadvantageous situation for m43. The variable aperture is also not very ideal for video as I zoom. I appreciate the recommendation, but I am not asking this out of ignorance for options. A lens recommendation is not really what I am looking for at this time.
The only downside using this on a Pana body is the fact that Dual IS will no be working.
@@joeperrone6677 The 100-400mm mk II can be used with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC, but shooting with f 12.6 is possibly just a gimmick. With 1.4 it's a 560 mm f8.8 lens.
@@questioneverything680 just set f6.3 for a constant aperture zoom. :-p As for the extra stop of light going from f6.3 to f4.5 cost you in this case almost 5x the money.
Canon makes a 100-400mm F4.6-5.6 for $2,300…. Surprised to see a 100-400 f4 go for $8,000 from OM .
From a materials , size , cost standpoint I wonder how much more expensive it really is to make the Olympus version. Seems to me like we are being charge based off of what the camera is doing (cropping) and not what the lenses is doing. Seems backwards to me
Kind of a waste of money. Id rather buy an a1 with the Sony 200-600 and just crop for the reach. So much more versatility in low light
Looks like an amazing lens but $8K is pretty steep.
Don't you think it's over priced for what it is ? Equivalent fuji 150_600 is less than quarter the price
It's a constant 4.5 aperture, of course it's going to be expensive. The Fuji 150-600 is f8 at the long end, that's near unusable in a lot of situations.
@bIoodypingu on mft system if 4.5 is 9 equivalent. Plus yeah it's expensive. I don't understand people who defend companies for high prices from us. Unless you take a cut of the profit. Its insane that you defend high prices
@@A.Edilbi no it isn't. How are people still getting this wrong? Light gathering doesn't change... F4 on mft is F4 on full frame. Bokeh and noise is equivalent to f8 on ff, not light.
@@bIoodypingu, it is you who is getting it wrong. F4 is a _relative_ value, it is basically useless without knowing the parameter of an image sensor it will be working with. There is a nice article about equivalence on dpreview, read it.
Olympus 100-400/5.0-6.3 costs 1250 Euro!@@bIoodypingu
It's a dream lens if you win the lottery but not for 99% of us amateurs 😂😂😂
But how does it compare to the PanaLeica 100-400ii?
1 stop less light (f4.5 vs 6.3) and no Dual IS on Pana bodies. As for sharpness it seems like an universal claim that sharpness suffers in the 300-400 mm range on both lenses.
@@GrenlandUnderVann Both versions of the 100-400 have dual I.S. with Panasonic bodies.
@@AoyagiAichou where did I claim otherwise?
@@GrenlandUnderVann Well... you said "1 stop *less* light", implying you are talking about the PanaLeica, and followed that up with "no Dual IS on Pana bodies".
My Panasonic Leica 100-400 lens serves me well for wildlife photography, I mainly use it with a Lumix G9 and it handles well for a wee lady like me.
It would be interesting to compare this lens against the much less expensive Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.5 with a 0.71x speed booster, yielding 106.5-426mm f3.5-4.6 (213mm-852mm full frame equivalent). The Sigma combo goes wider and reaches farther, and is much faster through much of the zoom range. You can also swap out the speed booster for a pass-through adapter producing 300mm-1200mm f5-6.5 full frame equivalent.
I was thinking the same. At $7500 this lens is hard to justify unless the IQ is on a whole other level. The Sigma combo just looks to be a much better deal
One thing to keep in mind though, is the 150-400 will likely focus faster, have much better VR, and all the extra features like shooting at higher frame rates.
@@robertpanick2660 that's true, but there are many applications that don't require those features like tripod-mounted eclipse, landscape, and most forms of wildlife photography. The Olympus lens costs nearly 7x of the Sigma combo, which is a lot of money for what might be marginal improvements overall in niche conditions.
I wish Sigma would create MFT speed-boosted versions of many of their Sony and Canon lenses. In addition to the 150-400, their 18-35mm 1.8 and 35-200mm f2-2.8 would be amazing.
@@robertpanick2660 It is also very well balanced. I have no experience with the Sigma, but I've seen a comparison review with the Sony 200-600 and the Sony was much more front-heavy and felt much heavier in daily use than the pure numbers suggested...
Used to have the Sigma Sport. Image quality comparison - no real idea as the birds had all migrated by the time I got my tripod and lens set up with the D750 I had then. OK, just joking but don’t underestimate the value of handholding the Oly combo with its astounding stabilisation.
Arrgh! If only I was 20 yrs younger and $7000 richer!
cool.
I'll stick with my Oly 75-300 and Oly 40-150 F4 Pro though.
But why the hell are telephoto lenses always white …
Its to reflect light and minimise thermal expansion. Basically it reacts better to hot environments
Not always. Nikon normally doesn't paint its telephoto lenses white.
@@ashesonwool4011, but is it really proven? Nikon for example do not paint their lenses white and no one complains about it.
I wonder how it works with the new Panasonic G9 ll
Please OM-D, when you release your yearly product in 2024 let it be a version iii of the 75-300mm and make it weather sealed this time.
You guys forgot to compare the weight with the Plena! Super disappointing :,(
HEY, you forgot to use your new measurement, the Plena!
PanaLeica 100-400ii comparison please...also why no video info on this lens
What is a "noct" when they talk about weight?
It's a designation of the Nikon Z 58/0.95 lens
It's a running gag that started at dpreview. Nikon made a 58mm f0.95 lens called the Noct. It's like 2kg and really heavy for a prime lens so it became a way to measure weight in a joking manner.
I don't know - is it just about perceptions? This thing is around 7k - which people think is plenty of coin and they're right. But then i look back to 2003 and the ZD 300mm f/2.8 came out at 8k, and the ZD 90-250 f/2.8 was over 6k - don't know what that equals in today's money, but this marvel sounds cheap by comparison. And 1.8kg? Those two ZDs are each around 3.6kg (ah, but f/2.8) - and it's not so much the carrying them that bothers me, it's that the mass makes them awkward when you're trying to follow something that's moving erratically. This M. Zuiko sounds like a great lens for convenience, IQ, good light and unequalled reach - i think i want it, not instead of, but as well as.
With the 1.25 extender and a 2x crop sensor, you’re actually at f11. The camera may read f5.6, but that’s misleading. A 2x crop has the same real effect as adding a 2x extender; 3/4 of the incoming light doesn’t reach the sensor.
This is so false and there are many videos out there explaining this; yes, it will have more of the depth of field of a f11 BUT it still has the same light gathering abilities of a f5.6. Again, many videos out on UA-cam explain this
The price is just so ridiculous when you consider the target market and the trade-offs of m4/3... Nobody but wildlife pros and perhaps extremely wealthy enthusiasts are spending $7500 on tele zoom lenses. Why in the world would you drop $7500 on this lens + $2400 on an OM-1 ($9,900 total) when you could buy a system WAY better for wildlife for the same money? Like a Nikon Z8 and a Z 800 f/6.3 is pretty much the same price and is going to perform WAY better for wildlife. Why would any wildlife pro (not being paid by OM) spend that money on this OM setup when they could be getting a far superior pro setup for the same (or less) money?
I am glad that this lens performs well but it is insane to me to spend $9900 and then have to use ISO 6400 on a m4/3 sensor while shooting f5.6 @ 1/1600 in daylight lol. How OM justifies this lens at a $1000 premium over the Nikon Z 800 f/6.3 prime is beyond me.
Are you by any chance a used car salesman? Right now at B&H, the Olympus set up sells for $9,500 vs the Nikon set up which sells for $10,497 -- that's right at $1,000 difference. The Nikon Z800 lens is an f/6.3 lens vs the Olympus which is f/4.5, which will give you twice the shutter speed at the same ISO. The Olympus lens also has the built-in TC, which you failed to add to the price of your Nikon set up. The Olympus lens is 3 in. shorter, and weighs a full pound less than the Nikon. Those are just a few reasons why someone in their right mind would choose the Olympus set up.
@@gregm6894 Except that f/6.3 is going to give you more subject isolation on a full frame sensor and you can use lower iso values. Even if you do use higher iso values, you can do so higher and cleaner on full frame.
Nikon Z8 + 180-600 is like $5700 total and stops the OM setup in almost every aspect that a "pro" wildlife photographer would care about.
Please read what you wrote there! btw, only primes for FF are available for over 15.000 Euro!@@spencergiles72
@@spencergiles72 Look up the work of professional wildlife photographers like Petr Bambousek, Daniel Cox, or Andy Rouse for starters, then get back with me. If you do much wildlife photography you should know that subject isolation at 800-1000mm is virtually guaranteed -- regardless of format. When I shoot a bird, I want the whole bird in focus, not just his head.
@@gregm6894I'm not saying there arent any wildlife pros using OM. My point was that most of those who are are also partnered with OM or getting paid to use that gear as an ambassador. Most pros are fairly system agnostic (including Andy Rouse from your example).
The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of wildlife pros and wealthy enthusiasts who would spend $7500 on a zoom lens are not shooting with M43 or OM. There is a reason for that.
That is all I'm saying. I respect what OM is doing and think it can be a great system for enthusiast wildlife photogs! Im just not convinced there is really any market for this $7500 m43 zoom lens (much like the 200mm f2 Fuji prime). They are both respectable lenses but...really? Who is actually going to be using them?
Funny how for less money you can get a Canon R5 and RF 100-500 or Sony A7RV and 200-600. $7500 is way too overpriced for that.
@@MercedesBenzGKlasse on full frame though
@@MercedesBenzGKlassenot if you put it on an R7, which will give you the same reach and better tracking AF / subject recognition. Or a Nikon 180-600+1.4x, which is still $5000 cheaper and can pay for a Z8 to pair with it. Same depth of field as well. It’s just so hard to justify spending $7500 on a high end m4/3 super telephoto.
@@JordanCS13I mean they literally say that they couldn't get one to test because demand out stripped supply... So good for you
15.000 Euro for 600mm/4.0?!?! A PRIME LENS@@JordanCS13
@@owenrodgers8020 I mean, if people are invested in m4/3, and really want to spend the money, more power to them. I shot m4/3 for quite a while and made some excellent images with it, but I find the value proposition on their high end glass to be very much out of whack with the competition when you really look at like for like capabilities. I think m4/3 makes for an excellent good quality travel setup, with some excellent lenses like the 7-14/2.8 and 12-40/2.8 Pro lenses from Olympus. It's also a great setup for lightweight compact telephoto reach. However, when you start looking at lenses like the PanaLeica 42.5/1.2, or the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8, and this lens here from Olympus, it really starts making less and less sense, as those lenses aren't really small, and they also don't give you anything special from an imaging standpoint, yet cost significantly more than what a similar rendering lens would give you on a larger format.
I'm a aviation photographer. i.e. landing/takeoff, airshows etc. Anyone that has this lens that takes aircraft photos, whats it like?
❤❤✌✌👌👌👍👍😊😊l have this lens and it's topp of all lenses, as I have the best Cannons too!
Kidney Stones - Worth the Wait?
They are the gift that keeps on giving. I’m not looking forward to the next bout.