I still can’t get over the size, weight and optical quality of this lens! The Olympus 40-15mm f/2.8 is seriously a must have lens for any Micro 4/3 system.
I love my two OM-1 mk II cameras with the holy trinity (7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 pro f2.8) lenses, in a small backpack. For longer reach I have the 1.4 and 2.0 converters with stunning quality in those, for me, rear moments. You cannot go wrong with this gear setup is my opinion. Ton
I own a lot of 4/3 glass (50-200 SWD, 150mm F2, etc) so i was looking for a small sharp travel lens. I opted for the 40-150mm Pro F4. OMG is that lens sharp. And it's small. it's not much bigger than my 12-40. I'm sure the F2.8 version is a little better (and you can use the tele-converter) but i'm blown away with the quality and small size of the 40-150mm F4. You should try it one day if you like smaller lenses
My EM1 MKII has better dynamic range than my Canon 5D MKiI and 5D MKIII. You can actually recover a lot more highlights from the EM1 than from the Canons. Yes, it doesn't match my D800 or D810, but it is not all that far behind them. The 40~150 F2.8 is a gem of a lens.
I shoot an E-M1X and have the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro and the regular Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6. THAT M.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 has been my dream lens since my first Olympus, the em10 mk ii that I had about 5 years ago. One day, if I'm still shooting Olympus I will get it. At the same time though, I'm kinda loving Nikon and want the 70-200 f2.8. Life is hard lol
The 40-150 is my second most used lens; the 90 being the most used. I have used the lens for a local theater production, and I am starting to question if I need my full frame system for this anymore.
I have the original OM-1 (Not Mark II), and I've been using it happily for Hiking and nature VS my Nikon Z9/Z8/Z6 class bodies that I use for weddings & events. One wedding when my Z6 started acting-up (Turned out to be "user error" that I didn't realize an assistant had made changes...) I used the OM-1 as a stand-in 4th camera for group shots with a 17mm f/1.2 and after editing in lightroom, NO ONE could tell the difference. But for me, the value is hiking with a hand-holdable 150-600mm that is lighter than my Nikon 300mm F/2.8, but beats my Nikon 500mm for reach every day of the week, even with Nikon TC-20 III 2x teleconverter. 1000mm SOUNDS like a lot, but it's really something to have a tack-sharp capture at anywhere between 300 & 1200mm, and then 600-2400mm with the entirely-usable Olympus 2x & 1.4x teleconverters. MUCH less weight for those of us in the late 50s to 70s who are slowing down, but don't want to "STOP". 🙂
I like seeing the background but also like blurry backgrounds. I do weddings and engagement shoots the blue to me is more about color. Sometimes I'll take two photos one with blur and one stopped down. Also sometimes at weddings you really don't have a good place to take photos. Does not happen a lot but that's when blur can help.
Isn’t ’the Leica pop’ all about separation and a 3D effect? I’m no portrait photographer so have no professional opinion but I knows what I likes! And I like your photos here. I’m sure the girls loved them.
@@christianpetersen1782 There is another Leica photographer that knows how to get the Leica look. I'll see if I can find him just search The Leica Look. He's also British. He used his Panasonic S5ii and the look is the same as Leica. Also I've seen another photographer match leicy with a Sony. I heard the real Leica look is with the rangefinder cameras and the cameras with a lens built into the body.
@@christianpetersen1782 Not entirely. From what I understand, it's got to do with higher microcontrast due to the lower lens element count. That's the nature of the Leica pop or the look that some lenses like Zeiss gives. They may not be clinically perfect with some softness, but some people enjoy the microcontrast. It's not the same as sliding the contrast slider in Lightroom, hence a little more time consuming to reproduce.
Please don't encourage the fact denying section of the m43 world. The 40-150mm which I own for clarity does the exact same job as a 80-300mm F/5.6 on FF { that is same diagonal AOB, same DOF/subject isolation and total light gathering }. All you need to do is add the same x2 to the aperture if you must compare it at all. Tell me do you think that the 600mm { FF equiv AOV at the long end of the Sony RX10 IV } with nominal F/4 aperture is the same as the far larger far heavier far more expensive Olympus 300mm F/4 with no camera thrown in is the same ? Bearing in mind the 1" sensor performance is closer to m43 than m43 is to FF. Again to be clear I own the lens and it is a great performer and I find it works well with the 1.4x TC
I don’t consider the depth of field factor at all. A 2.8 lens brings in the same light as the 2.8 on a full frame. Forget the depth of field factor - when I’m at a concert and need a 2.8 gathering lens the 5.6 just won’t work. So no, the two lenses are not at all equal to what matters most in photography-light.
@@kaskoPhoto A lot of my fellow m43 fans don't consider facts much of an issue and find it nigh on impossible to understand the most simple explanations of equivalence . So I assume by your answer that the RX10 IV with a free camera and extra 24-599mm FF equiv AOV and 600mm at the nominal aperture of F/4 is the same as the Olympus 300mm F/4 . As for your concert here is how it would work if you had a FF 300mm F/5.6 bump the ISO and you will get the same shutter speed, same DOF/subject isolation and the critical factor the same total light gathering as the m43 , giving the same end result . If you are at just about any concert I have ever been to you better be a paid pro with permission to be there or you will not be getting in with the 40-150mm F/2.8. And if you are the designated pro shooter you can pretty much stand where you want. I will not reply to any further posts the guy is enthusiastic and comes across very well and I don't really want to upset the natives too much. As I posted I have the 40-150mm F/2.8 and it is a great bit of kit that is all that is needed to say , right up until you post a thumbnail saying 40-300mm F/2.8 which it isn't
Thanks for your input. Everyone has the gear that works for them. And in the end that’s all that matters. It’s all good. Wasn’t meaning to ruffle your feathers at all. Have an amazing day.
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
That last shot is a beauty! I have this lens also, but I like my Oly 12-100 f4 more for general all around shoot days. The lens is a ton of fun.
This is my favourite lens of all time ❤️
The 75mm f1.8 is a killer concert and court-sports lens too. Especially in poor light.
I def will be trying at my next concert.
I love my two OM-1 mk II cameras with the holy trinity (7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 pro f2.8) lenses, in a small backpack.
For longer reach I have the 1.4 and 2.0 converters with stunning quality in those, for me, rear moments.
You cannot go wrong with this gear setup is my opinion.
Ton
I own a lot of 4/3 glass (50-200 SWD, 150mm F2, etc) so i was looking for a small sharp travel lens. I opted for the 40-150mm Pro F4. OMG is that lens sharp. And it's small. it's not much bigger than my 12-40. I'm sure the F2.8 version is a little better (and you can use the tele-converter) but i'm blown away with the quality and small size of the 40-150mm F4. You should try it one day if you like smaller lenses
Yes the 7-14, 12-40 & the 40-150 are all must have lenses. The Teleconverters on the 40-150 are also very good!
These PRO lenses are indeed seriously good. Esp. when you need telephoto lenses, the m43 system is a fantastic platform.
Hearing that and experiencing that are two separate things. The experience does live up to the hype
My EM1 MKII has better dynamic range than my Canon 5D MKiI and 5D MKIII. You can actually recover a lot more highlights from the EM1 than from the Canons. Yes, it doesn't match my D800 or D810, but it is not all that far behind them. The 40~150 F2.8 is a gem of a lens.
I shoot an E-M1X and have the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro and the regular Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6. THAT M.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 has been my dream lens since my first Olympus, the em10 mk ii that I had about 5 years ago. One day, if I'm still shooting Olympus I will get it. At the same time though, I'm kinda loving Nikon and want the 70-200 f2.8. Life is hard lol
The 40-150 is my second most used lens; the 90 being the most used. I have used the lens for a local theater production, and I am starting to question if I need my full frame system for this anymore.
Hi if you can try the 50-200 from Panasonic/leica it s also really amazing.
I have the original OM-1 (Not Mark II), and I've been using it happily for Hiking and nature VS my Nikon Z9/Z8/Z6 class bodies that I use for weddings & events. One wedding when my Z6 started acting-up (Turned out to be "user error" that I didn't realize an assistant had made changes...) I used the OM-1 as a stand-in 4th camera for group shots with a 17mm f/1.2 and after editing in lightroom, NO ONE could tell the difference. But for me, the value is hiking with a hand-holdable 150-600mm that is lighter than my Nikon 300mm F/2.8, but beats my Nikon 500mm for reach every day of the week, even with Nikon TC-20 III 2x teleconverter. 1000mm SOUNDS like a lot, but it's really something to have a tack-sharp capture at anywhere between 300 & 1200mm, and then 600-2400mm with the entirely-usable Olympus 2x & 1.4x teleconverters. MUCH less weight for those of us in the late 50s to 70s who are slowing down, but don't want to "STOP". 🙂
I like seeing the background but also like blurry backgrounds. I do weddings and engagement shoots the blue to me is more about color.
Sometimes I'll take two photos one with blur and one stopped down.
Also sometimes at weddings you really don't have a good place to take photos. Does not happen a lot but that's when blur can help.
Oh that messy room or the misplaced portable toilet 😂😂 yes, blur is important in some situations for sure.
Isn’t ’the Leica pop’ all about separation and a 3D effect? I’m no portrait photographer so have no professional opinion but I knows what I likes! And I like your photos here. I’m sure the girls loved them.
@@christianpetersen1782 There is another Leica photographer that knows how to get the Leica look. I'll see if I can find him just search The Leica Look. He's also British. He used his Panasonic S5ii and the look is the same as Leica. Also I've seen another photographer match leicy with a Sony.
I heard the real Leica look is with the rangefinder cameras and the cameras with a lens built into the body.
@@christianpetersen1782 Not entirely. From what I understand, it's got to do with higher microcontrast due to the lower lens element count. That's the nature of the Leica pop or the look that some lenses like Zeiss gives. They may not be clinically perfect with some softness, but some people enjoy the microcontrast. It's not the same as sliding the contrast slider in Lightroom, hence a little more time consuming to reproduce.
You pick up the lens and know that it is very good.....without having taken any photos with it.
That is a fair statement! I totally agree
Please don't encourage the fact denying section of the m43 world. The 40-150mm which I own for clarity does the exact same job as a 80-300mm F/5.6 on FF { that is same diagonal AOB, same DOF/subject isolation and total light gathering }. All you need to do is add the same x2 to the aperture if you must compare it at all. Tell me do you think that the 600mm { FF equiv AOV at the long end of the Sony RX10 IV } with nominal F/4 aperture is the same as the far larger far heavier far more expensive Olympus 300mm F/4 with no camera thrown in is the same ? Bearing in mind the 1" sensor performance is closer to m43 than m43 is to FF. Again to be clear I own the lens and it is a great performer and I find it works well with the 1.4x TC
I don’t consider the depth of field factor at all. A 2.8 lens brings in the same light as the 2.8 on a full frame. Forget the depth of field factor - when I’m at a concert and need a 2.8 gathering lens the 5.6 just won’t work. So no, the two lenses are not at all equal to what matters most in photography-light.
@@kaskoPhoto A lot of my fellow m43 fans don't consider facts much of an issue and find it nigh on impossible to understand the most simple explanations of equivalence . So I assume by your answer that the RX10 IV with a free camera and extra 24-599mm FF equiv AOV and 600mm at the nominal aperture of F/4 is the same as the Olympus 300mm F/4 .
As for your concert here is how it would work if you had a FF 300mm F/5.6 bump the ISO and you will get the same shutter speed, same DOF/subject isolation and the critical factor the same total light gathering as the m43 , giving the same end result . If you are at just about any concert I have ever been to you better be a paid pro with permission to be there or you will not be getting in with the 40-150mm F/2.8. And if you are the designated pro shooter you can pretty much stand where you want. I will not reply to any further posts the guy is enthusiastic and comes across very well and I don't really want to upset the natives too much. As I posted I have the 40-150mm F/2.8 and it is a great bit of kit that is all that is needed to say , right up until you post a thumbnail saying 40-300mm F/2.8 which it isn't
Thanks for your input. Everyone has the gear that works for them. And in the end that’s all that matters. It’s all good. Wasn’t meaning to ruffle your feathers at all. Have an amazing day.