Many ENG (Electronic News Gathering) lenses has a built in teleconverter. You can find them in the link below. WARNING!!! So you don't become to shocked over the prices, Olympus 150-400mm seems like a budget alternative in comparison: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Lenses/ci/1884?filters=fct_features_2382%3A2x-extender
@Penseur Radical Take an EOS R5 or Z7 and crop down based on these xxx-400mm lenses. The resolution would still be higher at 1000mm equiv. ... To be fair - you'd have to pay substantially more though.
@@klausschroiff4405The resolution in terms of the number of pixels might be higher but only just, but the FF lenses almost certainly won't get near resolving that level of detail they always have lower detail density than M43 or APSC lenses, so you'll need to look at the weakest part of the chain and only a head to head review can prove or disprove true resolving power of any combination of kit.
It is a niche product and I am sure a few people will find it worth the money for their work. Compared with full frame lenses of this focal length, I think they are huge, aren't they the ones at football games on monopods? This Olympus lens can be handheld so we should consider it compact for what it is. From a business standpoint I think it shows what Olympus can do, that is important. Can't wait to see the review Robin!
I don't get why people think ALL M 4/3 lenses should be small. M 4/3 is about *flexibility*. Where if you want to travel light or if you want something more substantial, there are options for you.
Too bad to hear about the partial lockdown. You gave a good summary and your points and conclusions are right one. The Canon 200-400/4 has a built-in 1.4 TC and cost $11,000. Also the Nikon 180-400/4.0 has a built-in TC and cost $12,000. I have the new Olympus 150-400/4.5 on pre-order. I was guessing it would cost $10,000 so it came in less expensive than what I expected. It is also smaller than I expected. I brought the 100-400/5.0-6.3 earlier this year. My thought is that the 150-400/4.5 will never reach the market and a "bird in hand is worth more than a potential better bird in the future". I also thought that I could have a lighter kit for my nature and wildlife hikes by going with the 12-100/f4.0 and the 100-400/5.0-6.3 plus the 3 f1.2 primes. This is what I have been using for a few months and love the kit. With the 150-400/4.5 announcement with specs I measured my camera backpack and just maybe the new lens will fit. If so I could go with the 12-100/4.0 and 150-400/4.5 plus maybe only one or two f1.2 primes. If so I can see selling or giving my wife the 100-400/5.0-6.3. If not I can see keeping both so I can have a lighter kit and a heavier kit. Anyhow, it will be a 2 or three months away and in the mean time I will enjoy using the 100-400/5.0-6.3 lens. I enjoyed your video. Stay Healthy.
Ok. No one else is saying it so I will. This lens is probably the most beautiful on the market! M.Zuiko PRO lenses are always beautiful to look at but this one takes it to a new level!! Yes IQ, sharpness, micro contrast, handling, size, weight, maximum aperture, focal length range, price and added features all matter, but I won't buy a car if I don't like the way it looks and my girlfriend is beautiful in addition to having many fine qualities. If I buy even a cheap product that has nice styling, that is an added bonus.
IMHO, a lot of MFT users are missing the point about equipment size. The goal of MFT is "small/smaller", not "smallest." Sure, you can make a VERY small kit with MFT, but not everyone wants or needs "smallest" and smaller systems than MFT now exist. For me, "small/smaller" is just right. My basic hiking kit (E-M1.3, 12-40, and the little 40-150) weighs a paltry 2.37 lb (1.08 kg) plus extra batteries and accessories. If I swap out the little 40-150 in favor of the 40-150 Pro and add the 60 macro, I am still "small" at 4.03 lb (1.83 kg). Now, add the 7-14 Pro and I barely top 5 lb (5.21 lb or 2.36 kg). My somewhat equivalent basic E-5 kit (w/ 12-60 and 40-150 f/3.5-4.5) weighed in at 4.53 lbs (2.05 kg) and swapping the 50-200 for the 40-150 (which I usually did, along with adding the grip to balance the bigger lens) and maybe including the 11-22 added even more. And yet, the hiking kits owned by my FF Canikon friends weigh several times more again. The beauty of MFT is that you get close to "smallest" if you want, but you can also build a very high capability and still lightweight kit with the flagship bodies and Pro lenses. So, naysayers, be happy with your not-quite-"smallest" kits and please let the rest of us be happy with our "small" or "smaller" kits. BTW, if someone gave me a 150-400, I wouldn't turn it down. Hint, hint. :-) Robin, regarding focal length, except for some VERY expensive specialty lenses, you are not going to get above about 1,000 mm unless you get a telescope. Within amateur level photo and astro budgets, these telescopes will be quite a bit cheaper than the new 150-450 and the optics will pale in comparison. I have three Celestron (brand) Schmidt-Cassegrain (style) telescopes: 5" f/10 (1250 mm FL), 8" f/10 (2032 mm FL), and 11" f/10 (2800 mm FL). I also have 0.63x focal reducers for the 5" and 8" that give me f/6.3 at 788 mm and 1280 mm FLs, respectively. I have used the 8" to photograph climbers on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park at equivalent FLs of 2560 mm with the focal reducer and 4064 mm without. Climbers about half-way up El Cap are roughly 1/2 mile (0.8 km) away by line-of-sight from where I set up in El Capitan Meadow. At 4064 mm equivalent and that distance, a 6-ft-tall (183-cm-tall) climber will fill about 3/4 of the height of the frame.
@@Centauri27 If you gave up the luxuries of life, such as food, housing, and so on, you could easily afford a nice telescope. :-) Celestron has an excellent lineup of telescopes, but so do other brands. My wife has a 10" goto Orion dob and loves it. The Celestron C5+ was my first scope, bought in 1999. It now sits on a Celestron Advanced VX mount and it's the scope I use for the little bit of astrophotography I do. I bought the CPC-800 in 2008 and it was my workhorse until I bought the CPC-1100 Deluxe HD in 2017. The 11" is a beast (OTA plus forks weighs 65 lb) and is the biggest I want to handle. Fortunately, my club has members with scopes in the 18"-25" range so I can look through bigger scopes from time to time. I usually observe in California's San Joaquin Valley, in the nearby Sierra Nevada (up to elevation 8200 ft) and in the foothills in between. With the 11" under dark, clear, and steady skies, I have seen the hexagon on Saturn's north pole (at 560x), two of Uranus' moon, Pluto many times, and the biggest and brightest globular cluster in the Andromeda Galaxy (Mayall II). To be fair, I have seen Pluto and Mayall II in the 8", but usually just barely (one extraordinary weekend in the mountains, I saw Pluto three nights in a row in the 8" and ID'ed stars in the field that more than a magnitude fainter). The 11" shows the Orion Nebula spilling well beyond the field of view of a 41-mm Panoptic (about 1.0° FOV) and much detail. The 11" resolves many more globular clusters than the 8" and can show me 4 of the 5 galaxies in Stephan's Quintet, vs. just one in the 8".
@@skysurfer5cva Wow. You know what's more impressive than seeing Orion or Pluto? That you have a wife who's also into telescopes! (Mine just tolerates my photography.)
@@Centauri27 My oldest granddaughter (now age 12) has two telescopes. She has been interested in the night sky since she before she turned two. She gets all my old Sky & Telescope and Astronomy magazines, which she has neatly organized by date in her closet. It's probably the only part of her room that is neatly organized. :-) Her first scope is a 6" dob that her dad built for her 7th birthday with my help based around an optical tube I wasn't using. Second light was a lunar eclipse where she helped me entertain about 40 people. She has also brought that scope to our club's big sidewalk astronomy events and entertained many dozens of people each time. The crowds don't faze her. But, because she mostly reads about astronomy and looks at the photos in books and magazine, she is still in a learning phase when it come to observing so I have to help her at these events. As of about two years ago she has been using a Celestron 130 SLT (new, a $500 scope) that her dad found used on Craigslist for $30. The seller said the tube was dented and he didn't know if the computer and drive motors worked. The dent is ugly, but doesn't affect performance, and the scope otherwise works perfectly. My wife, granddaughter, and I did a 3-night camping/astronomy trip in mid-August at our club's best mountain site. With my help, she saw double stars, open clusters, globular clusters, galaxies, etc. We also saw a few Perseid meteors. She is also a budding photographer and is using my wife's old E-P1 (IIRC, Oly's original MFT camera). She had been using her mom's (my oldest daughter's) E-PL3, but it got knocked onto a concrete floor and needs a repair.
The 2 main complaints about this lens are idiotic. PRO lenses are made for professionals, where the equipment is an investment, and the cost is offset by the revenue. I'm not suggesting that there aren't some decent amateur photographers out there, but if you're not a professional photographer who makes income from photography, then don't complain about the cost of a lens, which most likely, you're not using to its fullest. The second complaint is size? Again - idiots. It's big for a m4/3 lens, but like most m4/3 lenses, it is much smaller (almost half the size) and much lighter (almost half the weight) of comparable full frame lenses. It can still be carried in a camera bag or knapsack, not lugged over the shoulder, and be used hand-held. Show me a full frame 800mm lens equivalent that is that small.
Yeah, I whine about its cost but for what you get I really think it is a fair price. Something equivalent from Canon or the others would be much more, heavier and you wouldn't be able to handhold it. This lens is at the top of my list to aquire.
I believe the lens is neither too big nor too heavy compared to the competition (Canon EF 200-400/4 L IS USM Extender 1,4x and Nikons Nikkor AF-S 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR). The price may seem high, but comparing to what Canon and Nikon are asking it is actually competitive.
Canon has had 200-400/F4L with build in 1.4 TC since 2013, That's 7 years ago. Nikon has 180-400/F4 with build in 1.4TC. Glad Olympus decided to join the party. I am sure this lens is going to be awesome!
Hi Robin. Even though you do not have this lens all the points you have raised are more than relevant. I could spend hours discussing the advantages of M4/3rds!!! Not much point in testing the lens if you are locked down and everything is closed. So, there is one reason why - as an amateur wildlife photographer - will not be buying that lens at this point. COVID19 virus!!!!!!! Not much point if I am locked down and cannot come to Malaysia to do some wildlife photography!!!!!! This lens, particularly linked with the forthcoming :”eye detection” software has NO competition. Try taking a full frame 2000mm telephoto and camera as hand luggage on a plane !!!! I will 100% be buying this lens in the future but no point at the moment.
It is even much more expensive than I suspected. It may actually be the new benchmark for super-telephoto lenses in the world, but because of its cost it is out of reach of virtually all non-professional photographers. I never planned to buy it because of its expected price tag - and because of its size and weight - and am very happily settling with the new 100-400mm, so I'm personally not affected by any disappointment about this lens. Professional wildlife and sports photographers however will get a very powerful tool with this lens, for which there is nothing equivalent with larger format cameras. The combination of this lens with M-X1 or the M-1 III will be the go-to tool for those photographers, if they want the best thing available in the market - and if they can overcome their full-format delusions.
Seriously? The price of that lens is a bargain. Compare it against comparable zoom lenses like 200-400 or 180-400 from Canon or Nikon or the supertele prime lenses from the big manufacturers and you are talking about 1,5x or even twice the amount for (mostly) comparable optical designs. The main reason why this Olympus design has such a low price is that they designed it as an F4.5 lens instead of an F4, otherwise it would have been priced well over 10k. Everybody that is whining about the price has clearly no idea how expensive and challenging it gets to manufacture optical lenses above a certain diameter and has clearly no idea about the cost- and time-expensive procedure of producing high purity optical glass. I work in the optical industry and thus know what I am talking about.
@@schbasdy I did not write that the price is unreasonable. I only say, that it is far exceeding the budgets of non-professional photographers because of its price.
@@nerdMike Valid concerns. There are lots of pictures available of Nikons P900 and P1000 bridge cameras, where you can see the effects of such conditions - and that one still can get sharp pictures with such a super-tele.
@@schbasdy Well said! I once spoke to a retired 30 year Olympus employee who told me that the element tolerances in the Four Thirds SHG 300mm F/2.8 (originally $8000) were so precise that they were equivalent to the width of a human hair over the length of a football field!!!
The 8 stops is only with M1X and the M1 MIII, what happens with older models? Behaves like the 100-400mm, lens IS or body IS, no Sync IS? Why so much if this is case. Not supporting the older models is hurt IMO. Correct me if I have it wrong.
Looks like a great lens. If I was a pro wildlife or sports photographer I'd have my order in already. I'm not though, I don't have use for a lens in this range so I'll buy the lenses that suit me and be happy that Olympus is building lenses for all photography levels and subjects. This lens is going to make someone's year 🙂 Personally I'll be really happy if they weather seal the 1.8 primes. That will make my year lol.
I am a wildlife photographer and at present I am using Panasonic and Olympus material, including the 300mm f/4 lens. (I also use Nikon and Canon material). I won’t buy this lens, not because of the money, but because with the price of this lens you can buy the new Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5 - 7.1 L IS USM + the Canon EOS R5 + an extender 1.4x. The gain of about half stop of the Olympus lens is more than recuperated by R5's sensor, which performs better than Olympus by 3 or 4 stops!!!!! (source: Chasseur d’Image magazine). The difference in relative magnification can be partly recuperated by cropping the 45MP of the R5, obtaining a high-quality APS-C with a reach of 750mm. The general file quality is not comparable, of course, and can be fully exploited at the shorter focal lengths. Olympus/Panasonic Micro format is a good compromise of price, quality and portability, but it’s a looser if it tries to compete at higher levels, outside the boundaries of said compromise. (by the way: also the Olympus 300mm is too expensive and too heavy, compared with 300mm by Canon and Nikon). I am always amazed at the fact that Olympus (or Panasonic) do not develop a real professional Micro 4/3 underwater camera, insisting on ridiculously tiny sensors. The Panasonic Lumix GM1 is there to prove that 4/3 can be extremely miniaturized: both Olympus and Panasonic are not fully exploiting the strong points of their format.
I would say 150-400 f4.5 1.25xTC PRO is more like a technical showcase product, stating Olympus 'has the technology to design and make this lens'. The price is expensive because it is niche product/ halo product. Normal people definitely go for 100-400... If you are rich and want to taste one of the best of the world then YOLO 150-400 PRO
£6500 (UK) for a PRO standard lens of these abilities is far cheaper than a Nikon/Canon equivalent, in a lighter and smaller package. I would totally condone this price.
If you don’t already know about it, you should take a look at the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG lens as well. It is a TANK, but it has an incredibly bright aperture, built-in TC, and a lot of reach (though not as much given the sensor size it is designed for).
Robin, Thank you for useful videos. What I gained from your videos (and the like of Brit bird UA-camr, Mike Lane, and others) that Olympus is a jewel. I’ve used Olympus since the OM 1 days and the narrative of many critics is never ending observation of shortcomings. I find your narratives constructive as it allows me to take more pictures and better pictures. Do I need a Hasselblad? No. But I have ordered the ‘big iron’ from Olympus. I view this as my ‘Stradivarius violin’ that I can go on to far and distant places where only my feet can get me there after my 25 year old SUV has reached the trailhead.
Good overview given no lens to test :-o; I haven't seen anyone else mention the image stabilization level at more than 150 mm. Some comments: * It is expensive. But that simply means that it is not for everyone: it is for those who make a living out of sports or wildlife photos, for those who want to go into this area, for those with a passionate hobby interest in these areas, or for those with lots of money. * It is big in comparison with other m43 lenses. But those who claim it is too big are simply not the target audience of the lens. -- As an owner of the 100-400/5-6.3, the new 150-400 must be a significant improvement for me to even think about upgrading (since I don't make a living out of sports and/or wildlife photos ). So I'm curious about: * Comparison of IS. I'm able to take photos with the 100-400 with the MC-20 without too much problems. But in comparison with the 12-100, I really, really miss the Sync-IS. So practical comparison between the 100-400 and 150-400 wrt. IS and how long shutter speed is possible, would be very interesting. * Comparison of image quality between the 100-400 and/or the 300 and the 150-400 is very interesting. * CAF+tracking on the E-M1.iii vs. the bird recognition possibilities of the E-M1x is very interesting.
Nice and honest review. Only few people will be able to buy this. Your forgot to mention the incredible proxy capabilities of this lens! I hope you will do some macro test.
I’m just sad Olympus gave up on their camera division-and I own Panasonic cameras. I think the Olympus and Panasonic competition drove both to be better. This 150-400 completes the MFT system, providing extreme telephoto in an OEM, native MFT lens. And as a LUMIX user I would love this lens-if I could afford it. But, I don’t see it as overpriced. The Canon and Nikon super telephotos cost thousands more and are much, much larger and heavier. Thanks for your insights, Mr. Wong.
Looks like Oly have produced another great lens but how well does this match with the M43 sensor and current processing? Compare to what new Canon bodies are offering with that quality of glass. At that price I remain to be convinced by what can be achieved at the image output from the camera - thats what counts. PS Oly from OMD Mk I thro mk II and now Mk III. Have 1.2 primes fantastic, 40-150 and 1.4x great combo and 300 f4. Like most M43 wildlife users speed, ISO and noise trade against bulk of full frame gear. New ff bodies have taken a big step forward, hope Oly have got this one right.
Hi Robin, I would have loved one but cannot justify the UK price of £6499: in anycase, I already own 4 brilliant Olympus and PL lenses so I have no complaints. The lens I now really look forward to, is the proposed 100mm (ish) Pro macro. I saw an Olympus lens road map a couple of weeks ago and it was missing. Do you have any idea if it has been dropped? I have seen it on other lens road maps.
Very interesting lens by Olympus, huge reach and light weight! 2000mmm FF equivalent is definitely enough. By the way, Canon does have a 200-400mm with built in TC, Nikon has something similar too...BUT, they are HEAVY! At 1.8kg, the 150-400mm is comparatively light and makes it totally handholdable, I’m hand-holding a Sigma 150-600mm C that’s at 1.9kg, but it doesn’t have the IS and the image quality is not great. Look forward to sample images from this lens :)
It's a lot of money, but it's not in any way 'expensive'. Consider: 'Big Tuna' - Oly's legendary 4/3 mount 300mm f/2.8 - came out in 2003 with a list of US$8k. US$1k in 2003 dollars is equivalent to US$1.7k in 2023 dollars. 'Big Tuna' in today's money equals US$13.6k. This thing, given its quality and capabilities, is a bargain by comparison.
I would love to get my hands on that lens but not at that price. I anticipate a price adjustment from Olympus at some point after they notice very few people buying it. The same thing they did with the M1X camera recently with a 30% price reduction. Keep it up Robin with your great videos and stay safe.
Looking forward when you have the lens Robin. From what I've heard, it should retain the shortest focus distance even with the MC-20. Stay safe Robin!!!
Okay Robin.. The amazing 300F4 pro, and 2.0TC is according to the math is 1200mm. Glad you mention it. The tank of a lens was dropped to concrete, which crippled the manual focus. Yet for two years it continues flawlessly. Bird photography often tends to max out the reach so I don't miss the Zoom. The idea that I could buy a new 300f4 for half the price? I will pass on this lens while great I am sure.. not for me. . For the price they want it reminds me of the strange jumps they have made in the past. I look at this lens and say: Sony. Not good. I sometimes wish that Olympus would listen. I love the company but they continue to be a mystery.
Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens = $11,000 Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR Lens = $ 12,400 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO Lens = $7,500 It's a bargain! With better IS, better weatherproofing, 4 presets, more beautiful appearance, etc.
I won’t buy this fantastic lens, but its release shows both Oly is able to make any product as good as the best, and the brand is absolutely alive. Both are great news for all of us, Oly users.
This is one Camera Firmware I don’t have to worry about getting, the Lens too big and too expensive. It doesn’t fit my style of carry anywhere Camera gear. I still go Birding though. Stay safe.
Just look at the competition anything else is twice the size, weight & price! If you are only a hi day/holiday snapper then this is not aimed at you anyway.
It's a big expensive lens but still small and cheap! I have the Olympus 100-400mm but still struggling to decide not to order one of these. Stay safe and well.
For comparison, my 5” telescope is a 1250mm lens making it 2500mm with my m4/3rd camera. Granted this is manual focus and due to the secondary mirror being in the middle you get donut out of focus areas.
Indeed. With the money you save by not having to travel to remote places in this world to get the shot you can finance the lens and stay safe at home. Win-win.
Somehow I feel that almost anyone who wants a lens with a focal length like this, would also have been very happy with a 400 or 500mm fixed focal length. Maybe a little lighter, or a little brighter, and/or for a lot less money. You don't buy a lens like this for its excellent quality at 150mm.
@@robinwong Not a good idea. Even if a few would be happy, many more including me will miss you. Is it difficult for your tongue to pronounce mil? English is only my second language.
@@torbjornelvius7564 strange observation - most first language English speakers don't have issues. Usually people who give me feedback on my writing or speaking do not have English as their first tongue. Of course I am flawed. At this moment in my life, I have 2678 things to worry about first, before I can start to think how "mil" can bother someone so much. Don't take this the wrong way. This is an open platform and anyone can voice their opinion. But imagine, I have to read HUNDREDS of comments, emails and messages every single day. It is overwhelming. While I recognize that your intention is good, but I hope you can understand how I see it as being misplaced.
![New Olympus FIRMWARE - [BIRD Detection is here!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PbxbbkwJyY8/mqdefault.jpg)
This one has built in converter CANON EF 200-400/4 L IS USM Extender 1,4x
Thanks for that!
Nikons Nikkor AF-S 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR as well.
Many ENG (Electronic News Gathering) lenses has a built in teleconverter. You can find them in the link below.
WARNING!!! So you don't become to shocked over the prices, Olympus 150-400mm seems like a budget alternative in comparison:
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Lenses/ci/1884?filters=fct_features_2382%3A2x-extender
@Penseur Radical Take an EOS R5 or Z7 and crop down based on these xxx-400mm lenses. The resolution would still be higher at 1000mm equiv. ... To be fair - you'd have to pay substantially more though.
@@klausschroiff4405The resolution in terms of the number of pixels might be higher but only just, but the FF lenses almost certainly won't get near resolving that level of detail they always have lower detail density than M43 or APSC lenses, so you'll need to look at the weakest part of the chain and only a head to head review can prove or disprove true resolving power of any combination of kit.
It is a niche product and I am sure a few people will find it worth the money for their work. Compared with full frame lenses of this focal length, I think they are huge, aren't they the ones at football games on monopods? This Olympus lens can be handheld so we should consider it compact for what it is.
From a business standpoint I think it shows what Olympus can do, that is important. Can't wait to see the review Robin!
I don't get why people think ALL M 4/3 lenses should be small. M 4/3 is about *flexibility*. Where if you want to travel light or if you want something more substantial, there are options for you.
Too bad to hear about the partial lockdown. You gave a good summary and your points and conclusions are right one. The Canon 200-400/4 has a built-in 1.4 TC and cost $11,000. Also the Nikon 180-400/4.0 has a built-in TC and cost $12,000. I have the new Olympus 150-400/4.5 on pre-order. I was guessing it would cost $10,000 so it came in less expensive than what I expected. It is also smaller than I expected. I brought the 100-400/5.0-6.3 earlier this year. My thought is that the 150-400/4.5 will never reach the market and a "bird in hand is worth more than a potential better bird in the future". I also thought that I could have a lighter kit for my nature and wildlife hikes by going with the 12-100/f4.0 and the 100-400/5.0-6.3 plus the 3 f1.2 primes. This is what I have been using for a few months and love the kit. With the 150-400/4.5 announcement with specs I measured my camera backpack and just maybe the new lens will fit. If so I could go with the 12-100/4.0 and 150-400/4.5 plus maybe only one or two f1.2 primes. If so I can see selling or giving my wife the 100-400/5.0-6.3. If not I can see keeping both so I can have a lighter kit and a heavier kit. Anyhow, it will be a 2 or three months away and in the mean time I will enjoy using the 100-400/5.0-6.3 lens. I enjoyed your video. Stay Healthy.
Lucky guy :-))
Ok. No one else is saying it so I will. This lens is probably the most beautiful on the market! M.Zuiko PRO lenses are always beautiful to look at but this one takes it to a new level!!
Yes IQ, sharpness, micro contrast, handling, size, weight, maximum aperture, focal length range, price and added features all matter, but I won't buy a car if I don't like the way it looks and my girlfriend is beautiful in addition to having many fine qualities. If I buy even a cheap product that has nice styling, that is an added bonus.
IMHO, a lot of MFT users are missing the point about equipment size. The goal of MFT is "small/smaller", not "smallest." Sure, you can make a VERY small kit with MFT, but not everyone wants or needs "smallest" and smaller systems than MFT now exist. For me, "small/smaller" is just right. My basic hiking kit (E-M1.3, 12-40, and the little 40-150) weighs a paltry 2.37 lb (1.08 kg) plus extra batteries and accessories. If I swap out the little 40-150 in favor of the 40-150 Pro and add the 60 macro, I am still "small" at 4.03 lb (1.83 kg). Now, add the 7-14 Pro and I barely top 5 lb (5.21 lb or 2.36 kg). My somewhat equivalent basic E-5 kit (w/ 12-60 and 40-150 f/3.5-4.5) weighed in at 4.53 lbs (2.05 kg) and swapping the 50-200 for the 40-150 (which I usually did, along with adding the grip to balance the bigger lens) and maybe including the 11-22 added even more. And yet, the hiking kits owned by my FF Canikon friends weigh several times more again. The beauty of MFT is that you get close to "smallest" if you want, but you can also build a very high capability and still lightweight kit with the flagship bodies and Pro lenses. So, naysayers, be happy with your not-quite-"smallest" kits and please let the rest of us be happy with our "small" or "smaller" kits. BTW, if someone gave me a 150-400, I wouldn't turn it down. Hint, hint. :-)
Robin, regarding focal length, except for some VERY expensive specialty lenses, you are not going to get above about 1,000 mm unless you get a telescope. Within amateur level photo and astro budgets, these telescopes will be quite a bit cheaper than the new 150-450 and the optics will pale in comparison. I have three Celestron (brand) Schmidt-Cassegrain (style) telescopes: 5" f/10 (1250 mm FL), 8" f/10 (2032 mm FL), and 11" f/10 (2800 mm FL). I also have 0.63x focal reducers for the 5" and 8" that give me f/6.3 at 788 mm and 1280 mm FLs, respectively. I have used the 8" to photograph climbers on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park at equivalent FLs of 2560 mm with the focal reducer and 4064 mm without. Climbers about half-way up El Cap are roughly 1/2 mile (0.8 km) away by line-of-sight from where I set up in El Capitan Meadow. At 4064 mm equivalent and that distance, a 6-ft-tall (183-cm-tall) climber will fill about 3/4 of the height of the frame.
Wow, you've got quite the gear collection! When I was young, I had a little 4" reflector. I always dreamed of getting a Celestron.
@@Centauri27 If you gave up the luxuries of life, such as food, housing, and so on, you could easily afford a nice telescope. :-)
Celestron has an excellent lineup of telescopes, but so do other brands. My wife has a 10" goto Orion dob and loves it.
The Celestron C5+ was my first scope, bought in 1999. It now sits on a Celestron Advanced VX mount and it's the scope I use for the little bit of astrophotography I do. I bought the CPC-800 in 2008 and it was my workhorse until I bought the CPC-1100 Deluxe HD in 2017. The 11" is a beast (OTA plus forks weighs 65 lb) and is the biggest I want to handle. Fortunately, my club has members with scopes in the 18"-25" range so I can look through bigger scopes from time to time.
I usually observe in California's San Joaquin Valley, in the nearby Sierra Nevada (up to elevation 8200 ft) and in the foothills in between. With the 11" under dark, clear, and steady skies, I have seen the hexagon on Saturn's north pole (at 560x), two of Uranus' moon, Pluto many times, and the biggest and brightest globular cluster in the Andromeda Galaxy (Mayall II). To be fair, I have seen Pluto and Mayall II in the 8", but usually just barely (one extraordinary weekend in the mountains, I saw Pluto three nights in a row in the 8" and ID'ed stars in the field that more than a magnitude fainter). The 11" shows the Orion Nebula spilling well beyond the field of view of a 41-mm Panoptic (about 1.0° FOV) and much detail. The 11" resolves many more globular clusters than the 8" and can show me 4 of the 5 galaxies in Stephan's Quintet, vs. just one in the 8".
@@skysurfer5cva Wow. You know what's more impressive than seeing Orion or Pluto? That you have a wife who's also into telescopes! (Mine just tolerates my photography.)
@@Centauri27 My oldest granddaughter (now age 12) has two telescopes. She has been interested in the night sky since she before she turned two. She gets all my old Sky & Telescope and Astronomy magazines, which she has neatly organized by date in her closet. It's probably the only part of her room that is neatly organized. :-)
Her first scope is a 6" dob that her dad built for her 7th birthday with my help based around an optical tube I wasn't using. Second light was a lunar eclipse where she helped me entertain about 40 people. She has also brought that scope to our club's big sidewalk astronomy events and entertained many dozens of people each time. The crowds don't faze her. But, because she mostly reads about astronomy and looks at the photos in books and magazine, she is still in a learning phase when it come to observing so I have to help her at these events.
As of about two years ago she has been using a Celestron 130 SLT (new, a $500 scope) that her dad found used on Craigslist for $30. The seller said the tube was dented and he didn't know if the computer and drive motors worked. The dent is ugly, but doesn't affect performance, and the scope otherwise works perfectly. My wife, granddaughter, and I did a 3-night camping/astronomy trip in mid-August at our club's best mountain site. With my help, she saw double stars, open clusters, globular clusters, galaxies, etc. We also saw a few Perseid meteors.
She is also a budding photographer and is using my wife's old E-P1 (IIRC, Oly's original MFT camera). She had been using her mom's (my oldest daughter's) E-PL3, but it got knocked onto a concrete floor and needs a repair.
Hoping that your zoos/parks open soon. And that Olympus puts this marvelous lens in your very capable hands for testing!
The 2 main complaints about this lens are idiotic. PRO lenses are made for professionals, where the equipment is an investment, and the cost is offset by the revenue. I'm not suggesting that there aren't some decent amateur photographers out there, but if you're not a professional photographer who makes income from photography, then don't complain about the cost of a lens, which most likely, you're not using to its fullest. The second complaint is size? Again - idiots. It's big for a m4/3 lens, but like most m4/3 lenses, it is much smaller (almost half the size) and much lighter (almost half the weight) of comparable full frame lenses. It can still be carried in a camera bag or knapsack, not lugged over the shoulder, and be used hand-held. Show me a full frame 800mm lens equivalent that is that small.
If I go on safari I'm definitely renting this one. Seems amazing.
Yeah, I whine about its cost but for what you get I really think it is a fair price. Something equivalent from Canon or the others would be much more, heavier and you wouldn't be able to handhold it. This lens is at the top of my list to aquire.
This one is way out of my budget, I hope you’ll have a chance to compare the 150-400 pro with their 100-400
I believe the lens is neither too big nor too heavy compared to the competition (Canon EF 200-400/4 L IS USM Extender 1,4x and Nikons Nikkor AF-S 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR).
The price may seem high, but comparing to what Canon and Nikon are asking it is actually competitive.
Canon has had 200-400/F4L with build in 1.4 TC since 2013, That's 7 years ago. Nikon has 180-400/F4 with build in 1.4TC. Glad Olympus decided to join the party. I am sure this lens is going to be awesome!
Hi Robin. Even though you do not have this lens all the points you have raised are more than relevant. I could spend hours discussing the advantages of M4/3rds!!! Not much point in testing the lens if you are locked down and everything is closed. So, there is one reason why - as an amateur wildlife photographer - will not be buying that lens at this point. COVID19 virus!!!!!!! Not much point if I am locked down and cannot come to Malaysia to do some wildlife photography!!!!!! This lens, particularly linked with the forthcoming :”eye detection” software has NO competition. Try taking a full frame 2000mm telephoto and camera as hand luggage on a plane !!!! I will 100% be buying this lens in the future but no point at the moment.
looking forward to JIP make OMD body after to get it
It is even much more expensive than I suspected. It may actually be the new benchmark for super-telephoto lenses in the world, but because of its cost it is out of reach of virtually all non-professional photographers. I never planned to buy it because of its expected price tag - and because of its size and weight - and am very happily settling with the new 100-400mm, so I'm personally not affected by any disappointment about this lens.
Professional wildlife and sports photographers however will get a very powerful tool with this lens, for which there is nothing equivalent with larger format cameras. The combination of this lens with M-X1 or the M-1 III will be the go-to tool for those photographers, if they want the best thing available in the market - and if they can overcome their full-format delusions.
Seriously? The price of that lens is a bargain. Compare it against comparable zoom lenses like 200-400 or 180-400 from Canon or Nikon or the supertele prime lenses from the big manufacturers and you are talking about 1,5x or even twice the amount for (mostly) comparable optical designs. The main reason why this Olympus design has such a low price is that they designed it as an F4.5 lens instead of an F4, otherwise it would have been priced well over 10k. Everybody that is whining about the price has clearly no idea how expensive and challenging it gets to manufacture optical lenses above a certain diameter and has clearly no idea about the cost- and time-expensive procedure of producing high purity optical glass. I work in the optical industry and thus know what I am talking about.
@@schbasdy I did not write that the price is unreasonable. I only say, that it is far exceeding the budgets of non-professional photographers because of its price.
@@nerdMike Valid concerns. There are lots of pictures available of Nikons P900 and P1000 bridge cameras, where you can see the effects of such conditions - and that one still can get sharp pictures with such a super-tele.
@@LevAizik True.
@@schbasdy Well said! I once spoke to a retired 30 year Olympus employee who told me that the element tolerances in the Four Thirds SHG 300mm F/2.8 (originally $8000) were so precise that they were equivalent to the width of a human hair over the length of a football field!!!
The 8 stops is only with M1X and the M1 MIII, what happens with older models? Behaves like the 100-400mm, lens IS or body IS, no Sync IS? Why so much if this is case. Not supporting the older models is hurt IMO. Correct me if I have it wrong.
Just recived it today never look back
at least I have own this len nothing is better since I use olympus over 15 years
As usual, excellent reasoning and wisdom. Thanks again.
Looks like a great lens. If I was a pro wildlife or sports photographer I'd have my order in already. I'm not though, I don't have use for a lens in this range so I'll buy the lenses that suit me and be happy that Olympus is building lenses for all photography levels and subjects. This lens is going to make someone's year 🙂 Personally I'll be really happy if they weather seal the 1.8 primes. That will make my year lol.
I am looking at the Pentax version. 150-450mm At some point I will own one. I suspect the Olympus is a nice lens.
I am a wildlife photographer and at present I am using Panasonic and Olympus material, including the 300mm f/4 lens. (I also use Nikon and Canon material). I won’t buy this lens, not because of the money, but because with the price of this lens you can buy the new Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5 - 7.1 L IS USM + the Canon EOS R5 + an extender 1.4x. The gain of about half stop of the Olympus lens is more than recuperated by R5's sensor, which performs better than Olympus by 3 or 4 stops!!!!! (source: Chasseur d’Image magazine). The difference in relative magnification can be partly recuperated by cropping the 45MP of the R5, obtaining a high-quality APS-C with a reach of 750mm. The general file quality is not comparable, of course, and can be fully exploited at the shorter focal lengths. Olympus/Panasonic Micro format is a good compromise of price, quality and portability, but it’s a looser if it tries to compete at higher levels, outside the boundaries of said compromise. (by the way: also the Olympus 300mm is too expensive and too heavy, compared with 300mm by Canon and Nikon). I am always amazed at the fact that Olympus (or Panasonic) do not develop a real professional Micro 4/3 underwater camera, insisting on ridiculously tiny sensors. The Panasonic Lumix GM1 is there to prove that 4/3 can be extremely miniaturized: both Olympus and Panasonic are not fully exploiting the strong points of their format.
🇫🇷Sorry, I can’t pay you for coffee...I have to save to buy this Lens 😂
I would say 150-400 f4.5 1.25xTC PRO is more like a technical showcase product, stating Olympus 'has the technology to design and make this lens'. The price is expensive because it is niche product/ halo product. Normal people definitely go for 100-400...
If you are rich and want to taste one of the best of the world then YOLO 150-400 PRO
£6500 (UK) for a PRO standard lens of these abilities is far cheaper than a Nikon/Canon equivalent, in a lighter and smaller package. I would totally condone this price.
I got this lens a few days ago and I can say it is awesome! I have shared 2 sets of first test shots in Jimmy's "See the world" group on FB.
If you don’t already know about it, you should take a look at the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG lens as well. It is a TANK, but it has an incredibly bright aperture, built-in TC, and a lot of reach (though not as much given the sensor size it is designed for).
Think you will be able to get your hands on this lens soon?
Robin,
Thank you for useful videos. What I gained from your videos (and the like of Brit bird UA-camr, Mike Lane, and others) that Olympus is a jewel. I’ve used Olympus since the OM 1 days and the narrative of many critics is never ending observation of shortcomings. I find your narratives constructive as it allows me to take more pictures and better pictures. Do I need a Hasselblad? No. But I have ordered the ‘big iron’ from Olympus. I view this as my ‘Stradivarius violin’ that I can go on to far and distant places where only my feet can get me there after my 25 year old SUV has reached the trailhead.
Just pre ordered it.........scared of cost but thinking about potential 😅
Good overview given no lens to test :-o; I haven't seen anyone else mention the image stabilization level at more than 150 mm. Some comments:
* It is expensive. But that simply means that it is not for everyone: it is for those who make a living out of sports or wildlife photos, for those who want to go into this area, for those with a passionate hobby interest in these areas, or for those with lots of money.
* It is big in comparison with other m43 lenses. But those who claim it is too big are simply not the target audience of the lens.
--
As an owner of the 100-400/5-6.3, the new 150-400 must be a significant improvement for me to even think about upgrading (since I don't make a living out of sports and/or wildlife photos ). So I'm curious about:
* Comparison of IS. I'm able to take photos with the 100-400 with the MC-20 without too much problems. But in comparison with the 12-100, I really, really miss the Sync-IS. So practical comparison between the 100-400 and 150-400 wrt. IS and how long shutter speed is possible, would be very interesting.
* Comparison of image quality between the 100-400 and/or the 300 and the 150-400 is very interesting.
* CAF+tracking on the E-M1.iii vs. the bird recognition possibilities of the E-M1x is very interesting.
Love your enthusiasm!
any news on the 100mm macro?
Isn't this lens with the 1.25 extender in use, and the MC-20 attached, using an aperture that many consider to be in the m43 "diffraction zone"?
So they are still in business! I believe that is impressive
Of course they are
Thanks for your thoughts Robin. It sounds like a fabulous lens. I look forward to you getting your hands on one at some stage. Stay safe 😀
Nice and honest review. Only few people will be able to buy this. Your forgot to mention the incredible proxy capabilities of this lens! I hope you will do some macro test.
Do you think Olympus will be add 4k60 on the EM1 Mark III ? I hope ...
I’m just sad Olympus gave up on their camera division-and I own Panasonic cameras. I think the Olympus and Panasonic competition drove both to be better. This 150-400 completes the MFT system, providing extreme telephoto in an OEM, native MFT lens. And as a LUMIX user I would love this lens-if I could afford it. But, I don’t see it as overpriced. The Canon and Nikon super telephotos cost thousands more and are much, much larger and heavier. Thanks for your insights, Mr. Wong.
Unfortunately way out of my price range Robin. It does look special though, I shall admire it from afar.
What is your thought about OMD EM10 M4, why is E10 M3S coming now?
Looks like Oly have produced another great lens but how well does this match with the M43 sensor and current processing? Compare to what new Canon bodies are offering with that quality of glass. At that price I remain to be convinced by what can be achieved at the image output from the camera - thats what counts. PS Oly from OMD Mk I thro mk II and now Mk III. Have 1.2 primes fantastic, 40-150 and 1.4x great combo and 300 f4. Like most M43 wildlife users speed, ISO and noise trade against bulk of full frame gear. New ff bodies have taken a big step forward, hope Oly have got this one right.
Hi Robin, I would have loved one but cannot justify the UK price of £6499: in anycase, I already own 4 brilliant Olympus and PL lenses so I have no complaints. The lens I now really look forward to, is the proposed 100mm (ish) Pro macro. I saw an Olympus lens road map a couple of weeks ago and it was missing. Do you have any idea if it has been dropped? I have seen it on other lens road maps.
Very interesting lens by Olympus, huge reach and light weight! 2000mmm FF equivalent is definitely enough.
By the way, Canon does have a 200-400mm with built in TC, Nikon has something similar too...BUT, they are HEAVY!
At 1.8kg, the 150-400mm is comparatively light and makes it totally handholdable, I’m hand-holding a Sigma 150-600mm C that’s at 1.9kg, but it doesn’t have the IS and the image quality is not great. Look forward to sample images from this lens :)
It's a lot of money, but it's not in any way 'expensive'. Consider: 'Big Tuna' - Oly's legendary 4/3 mount 300mm f/2.8 - came out in 2003 with a list of US$8k. US$1k in 2003 dollars is equivalent to US$1.7k in 2023 dollars. 'Big Tuna' in today's money equals US$13.6k. This thing, given its quality and capabilities, is a bargain by comparison.
Thanks for the video Robin looks sounds fantastic I think I will wait a year for the Price to Decrease by half just lick the OMDEM1X
I would love to get my hands on that lens but not at that price. I anticipate a price adjustment from Olympus at some point after they notice very few people buying it. The same thing they did with the M1X camera recently with a 30% price reduction.
Keep it up Robin with your great videos and stay safe.
They may slash prices on the bodies, but not the lens.
Looking forward when you have the lens Robin. From what I've heard, it should retain the shortest focus distance even with the MC-20.
Stay safe Robin!!!
Yes it does retain the closest focus distance with the MC-20
@@tordandreasson Toppen!
You're the best!
No, the Nikon P1000 does 3000mm.
Is this Olympus last lens?
Hey Robin, nice video!
Do you know news about the 8-25mm F4 which was mentioned on the roadmap?
Greetings from germany
Okay Robin.. The amazing 300F4 pro, and 2.0TC is according to the math is 1200mm. Glad you mention it. The tank of a lens was dropped to concrete, which crippled the manual focus. Yet for two years it continues flawlessly. Bird photography often tends to max out the reach so I don't miss the Zoom. The idea that I could buy a new 300f4 for half the price? I will pass on this lens while great I am sure.. not for me. . For the price they want it reminds me of the strange jumps they have made in the past. I look at this lens and say: Sony. Not good. I sometimes wish that Olympus would listen. I love the company but they continue to be a mystery.
Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens = $11,000
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR Lens = $ 12,400
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO Lens = $7,500
It's a bargain! With better IS, better weatherproofing, 4 presets, more beautiful appearance, etc.
They closed the parks? Wow....
Also post a video when you get it in your hand.
I won’t buy this fantastic lens, but its release shows both Oly is able to make any product as good as the best, and the brand is absolutely alive. Both are great news for all of us, Oly users.
This is one Camera Firmware I don’t have to worry about getting, the Lens too big and too expensive. It doesn’t fit my style of carry anywhere Camera gear. I still go Birding though. Stay safe.
Just look at the competition anything else is twice the size, weight & price!
If you are only a hi day/holiday snapper then this is not aimed at you anyway.
Should I buy this lens or keep my kidney? Tough call ...
It's a big expensive lens but still small and cheap! I have the Olympus 100-400mm but still struggling to decide not to order one of these. Stay safe and well.
Lucky man on the O' 100-400, I can't get one in the UK for love nor money at the moment.
price 7500$
Nikon 180/400 1,4x Canon 200/400 teleconverter 1,4 x
For comparison, my 5” telescope is a 1250mm lens making it 2500mm with my m4/3rd camera. Granted this is manual focus and due to the secondary mirror being in the middle you get donut out of focus areas.
Just can't afford it, since I have an addiction to eating with my cup of coffee,
I can take pictures from my recliner. Ha ha
Indeed. With the money you save by not having to travel to remote places in this world to get the shot you can finance the lens and stay safe at home. Win-win.
The 8 stops is measured at 150mm according to some other reports. Keep safe my friend.
As I have mentioned, I personally don't trust the numbers, until I verify them myself.
It is the same, the speaking here 8 stops at "300 equivalent" witch is in fact 150mm
Somehow I feel that almost anyone who wants a lens with a focal length like this, would also have been very happy with a 400 or 500mm fixed focal length. Maybe a little lighter, or a little brighter, and/or for a lot less money.
You don't buy a lens like this for its excellent quality at 150mm.
Olympus filed a patent for a 500mm prime lens several years ago but I don't think that is going to happen at this point.
$$$$$. Sorry Olympus.
Dear Robin, do not say "mju" (my) when you mean "millimeter" (mm). A my is 1/1000 mm, much smaller!
I think he's saying "mil"
Maybe I should make the video in Malay. How does that sound? English is my THIRD language.
@@robinwong Not a good idea. Even if a few would be happy, many more including me will miss you. Is it difficult for your tongue to pronounce mil? English is only my second language.
@@torbjornelvius7564 strange observation - most first language English speakers don't have issues. Usually people who give me feedback on my writing or speaking do not have English as their first tongue.
Of course I am flawed. At this moment in my life, I have 2678 things to worry about first, before I can start to think how "mil" can bother someone so much.
Don't take this the wrong way. This is an open platform and anyone can voice their opinion. But imagine, I have to read HUNDREDS of comments, emails and messages every single day. It is overwhelming. While I recognize that your intention is good, but I hope you can understand how I see it as being misplaced.
@@robinwong Ignore them Robin, your dedication and reviews are well received and much appreciated here in the UK.📷👏