The 40-150 f2.8 is part of the answer to the question: "what is the lightest, most compact wildlife photography kit if you want to travel with one carry-on bag?". The other half of the answer is the MC-20 teleconverter. I took this kit to Antarctica, and to Yellowstone, and images were very nearly as good as with the 300mm F4 prime lens.
I'm a big advocate of f/4s - especially when size and weight is important to you. I want as small as possible. It's the reason I use the Micro 4/3 system. So, I prefer f/4 zooms, which I pair with a fast prime for low light and subject separation. My current kit is the OM-5, the 12-45mm f/4 Pro and the 45mm f/1.8. It's a great set that covers virtually everything I need.
I'm new to micro four thirds, started off with OM 5, 12-45mm f/4, and quickly added the 45mm f/1.8. I can easily carry all that capability on my motorcycle.
I have the 12-40 f/2.8, 12-45 f/4, the 40-150 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/4. I find that I use the f/4 lenses much more often. Their image quality is great, and their smaller size and lighter weight win me over for my photo walks and for early morning and evening shooting. For most night time or very low light, I usually use prime lenses. For travel, the f/4 lenses are a great choice.
I started out thinking I wanted the “best” so I bought the 12-40 f/2.8. As I added to my lens stable, I stuck with 2.8 when I bought the 40-150. But it got to be too much for travel. So I bought the 12-100 f/4 and sold the 12-40 f/2.8. I couldn’t bear to part with the 40-150, which is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used. Now…the 12-100 goes everywhere. Unless I think there might be some special purpose for the 40-150, it stays home too. When I travel on cruise ships, I also take the 75-300, which I know isn’t the sharpest, but it is surprisingly good for those really long shots. It is super lightweight and compact. I have yet to be disappointed by the 12-100.
This was exactly the choice I had to make over the last two years, getting older and less able to carry heavy kit. Moving from Pentax APS-C bodies and a full range of f2.8 zooms to the OM-1 and 12-40mm f2.8 pro lens as a kit, I then needed to extend both the wide and long ranges. I chose the 8-25mm f4 Pro and the 40-150mm F4 Pro lenses to complete my 'standard trio'. I saw no point in buying the 12-45mm f4 Pro lens as I already had the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens which would do me for the odd time I shoot night scenes or need the extra speed for any other reason. Then came the 12-100 f4 Pro lens and very nearly made all three of my previous lenses redundant. It is an awesome carry-about lens.
This is one of the best camera videos I've ever seen, we need more gear comparison videos like this. I own 4 pro lenses and I did tons of research before making my move to buy them. Videos like this would have saved me a lot of time.
The Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro is my most used lens, by far. I considered getting the f/4 counterpart to save size and weight, but decided against it for two reasons. First, when the lens is extended and fitted with its hood, it is as long as the internal-zoom f/2.8 with its hood retracted (and I love that ingeniously convenient hood mechanism). Second, there are benefits to the f/2.8 beyond the aperture: manual clutch, function button, and teleconverter compatibility. So, the only real attraction for me for the f/4 was the weight-saving, but that just wasn’t enough, especially since I sometimes need the f/2.8 aperture for low light. However, when I went to buy a wide zoom, I chose the f/4 over the f/2.8, but again not for the reason of aperture but simply because the f/4 allowed me to use filters. All of this shows that the design characteristics of a lens are for me important considerations, as long as the image quality is very high.
I just can agree. As a long time user of Canon DSLR and great f/2.8 lenses for low light events photography, I’ve decided this year to travel light and I’ve added OM Systems OM 5 and f/4 Pro lenses to my gear set…so happy!
I have recently converted to an om1 from canon full frame. I'm blown away by the compactness and light weight. I've opted for the 9-18mm , really good and more than sharp enough if stopped down a little. Plus it's absolutely tiny. Then the 12-49 f2.8 pro II. The main workhorse lens, then a 49-150 f4-6.3 r plastic fantastic £80 used this one has surprised me the most. Stop it down to f8 and from 70-199mm it's tack sharp. It also is tiny and so light. Basically the entire outfit weighs in about the same as my old canon 5dmk4 and the 24-105 l series lens. And to top it all off I can get some sandwiches in my camera bag as well👍
Great video! It is good to hear that a new AF MFT lens is coming. I own both the F2.8 and the F4.0 series. Each has their pluses. My least favorite is the 7-14/f2.8 because its light flaring. The 12-45/4.0 is my favorite because of is close focusing ability. When traveling it is the f4.0 series because of their wight and compactness. Plus, couple of fast primes.
As I get older, size and weight becomes more and more of an issue. Also, I have a disability with some steadiness challenges, so stabilization is also very important. That’s why I chose Olympus/OM System and Micro Four Thirds in the first place. I’m shooting with the f4 Pro trinity on the OM 1 Mk2. They do EVERYTHING I need (okay, maybe 95%). But in those situations where I need to shoot in lower light, I can always bump the ISO a bit as needed, and I get great results. However, I also have the four f1 .8 primes, which gives me even more low light options. The fact that I am covered from 8-150mm with just three lenses that fit in a single small sling bag is a continual source of delight for me.
As an enthousiast I own(ed) multiple Oly F/2.8 Pro Zooms, but I find myself increasingly gravitating towards the F/4 Pro zooms as well for most of my photography. Depending on the situation, supplemented by a fast prime or two. I kept my 12-40 F/2.8 Pro, and do use it from time to time, but 12-45 F/4 Pro sees way more use. E-M5 III with the latter is my go-to travel kit, with room to spare to toss a fast prime and/or telephoto lens in my bag. Pairs well with my E-M1 III as well. I'm still working out my kit on the telephoto side of things. I used to own the Oly 40-150 F/2.8. I found it sitting on my shelf gathering dust most of the time due to it's size/weight. So, sold that one, and got a Panasonic 35-100 F/2.8. In terms of size and weight, that's where it's at for me, without compromising on image quality and weather sealing. I use that one a lot more then the Oly 40-150 F/2.8, but still not nearly as much as I thought I would. I'm contemplating trading that lens in the for 40-150 F/4 Pro. Roughly similar in size and weight, but with a little more reach. At the same time, for my use case, I find the Oly 75mm F/1.8 is typically enough for me in terms of reach, and I use that lens whenever I can (also it's in a league of it's own when it comes to image quality) Across the board bokeh/super shallow depth of field is not my primary concern. I like some context/surroundings in my photographs anyway, but a faster aperture is nice to help keep the shutter speed up/ISO down in challenging lighting conditions which I find myself in from time to time. Ideally a weather sealed edition of the 75mm F/1.8 would probably seal the deal for me ;)
For me, f/4 is perfect. Since I bought the 12-100, it has been practically glued to my E-M1 II and now OM-1 body. For the kind of photography I do, I’d rather have more depth of field than subject separation. I don’t do portraits. Plus with Sync IS, I have no problem taking exposures close to 1 second even at long focal lengths, all at 200 ISO and not afraid to crank it up if I have to. And if I want subject separation, it is doable using a longer focal length. It is the best purchase that I’ve made.
@@Nick-wp9rx I do have the 8-25 as well but I don’t use it it as much as I thought I would when I bought it at its launch. Since COVID, I don’t travel much and it is a great lens when going to a new city. I also own a 17mm but this one goes out even less: I don’t really feel the need for wide aperture at the moment.
The 12-100 is really a great travel lens, I usually add the Panasonic 9mm and the Olympus 75-300 but looking at my pictures I could well leave those two lenses at home since most of my keepers come from the 12-100
The F2.8 zoom set always seems to be the choice of the working pro, I imagine they need the extra light gathering and don't want to be swapping lenses all the time. As an enthusiast who does something else for a living, I'm F4 pretty much all the way, as they are always competing for bag space. But I always pack at least one fast prime. Generally this will be the 20mm f1.4 pro or the PanaLeica 15mm 1.7 depending on what I'm doing. Sometimes I just take the 20mm 1.4 and leave everything else at home. For the super tele lenses I'm doing pretty well with some vintage glass. Recently acquired an old OM 200mm f5 lens, which is incredibly sharp, even on the digital bodies and tiny. Also, it can use the converters, so add the MC14 and it becomes a 560mm f6.3ish lens and still pretty good. That lens cost me £49.
When I had a Nikon D700 I bought the Nikon 70-210 F4 and it was great. I have the Fuji 10-24 F4 which is also great. For Olympus I have the 12-40 and 40-150 F2.8. I would like the 40-150 F4 for travel and also the 8-25 F4.
At first, my first Pro lens is 12-40mm f2.8, but i have traded into 12-45 f4 for size. image quality is still great and most importantly, weight is main reason i got into m43 system.
Jimmy, great to see another video from you, and especially one so useful! I'm fortunate enough have collected all of the lenses in your video along with the 12-100mm f4 PRO. I am an advanced armature who shoots a wide variety of subjects and does some travel. I like to travel light all the time, but I also often carry two bodies as I don't like to change lenses in the field if I can avoid it. I got the f2.8's before the f4's but if I had it to over again I would generally recommend the f4's for my kind of shooting. Picking from the discussed lenses, I would say get the 8-25mm f4, 12-40mm f2.8, and 40-150mm f4. The 12-40mm f2.8 is a bit larger then the 12-45mm f4 but having that one extra stop of light and DOF complements the other two f4 lenses. The 8-25mm f4 is always in my bag and FAR more useful to me than the 7-14mm f2.8 because a) it's much smaller, b) it takes conventional filters (like a CPL) and the front element isn't in constant danger, and c) the extra reach from 14mm to 25mm makes it far more versatile. The 40-150 f4 is tiny compared to the 2.8 version as you showed in the video and is so easy to carry you almost don't know it's there. Going outside of the lenses in the video I highly recommend the 12-100mm f4 PRO! Half-again as long as the 12-40mm f2.8 it covers so much so well that I think you could travel the world and not miss more than a handful of shots. It's SyncIS makes up for the f4 max aperture in many situations. I usually carry this lens alone, or with the 8-25 f4 and maybe the 40-150 f4 and only one body (rather then two), as I don't feel the need to change lenses often due to the versatility of the 12-100. Another option is the fantastic Panasonic Leica 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 which has IQ on par with any of the OM PRO series, and is almost exactly the same size as the OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO. I like longer lenses so for me the additional 20mm of this lens (to an FF equivalent of 120mm) is more versatile without any size or weight penalty. Again, paired with the 8-25 f4 and 40-150 f4 you have a very small and light, but highly capable system in a small bag. Ah, but what about the 12-45mm f4 PRO or the 40-150mm f2.8? Well, for me the 12-45mm f4 so tiny that I keep it on my PEN E-P7 as my EDC camera. The combo fits into a large pocket or tiny bag like the Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 10: www.thinktankphoto.com/products/mirrorless-mover-10-v2. The 40-150 f2.8 is surprisingly the smallest lens in this group for it's reach, as used with the MC-20 teleconverter it will cover from 80mm to 600mm in FF equivalent with I find just amazing. There are just no bad choices here. All of these lenses have world class image quality, are fully weather sealed, and will last a life time of real use (at least for a non-professional), and stay true to the compact size ethos of the MFT system.
@@gregfeeler6910 sure, but now you are in a luxurious position to sell the ones you like or need less. The lenses, especially high quality ones, generally hold the value better than the camera bodies...
@@Emerald_City_ Ture that. In fact, it was careful shopping for exceptional deals which has allowed me to enjoy much of this gear, and if I sell a piece I stand a good chance of getting most of my investment back. Thanks.
I have the f2.8 set and yes are bigger and heavier just going to stick with them also had two out of the three before the f4's came out. For travel I use the 12-100 F4 which is another great lens and can cope with the shorter distance.
I’ve used the 12-40 2.8 for travel and the size was fine. It also produced some nice portraits with the perfect amount of subject separation at 40mm wide open. I also owned the 12-45 for a little while but decided to sell it and keep the 12-40 pro. Another option to the Olympus 12-45 is the Panasonic 12-35 2.8. They are both roughly the same size and weight and you get that extra stop of light.
I can only speak about the 40-150mm versions as they are the only focal length where I have both. I totally agree that the F4 is a fantastic travel and walk about lens. For that reason I use it almost daily. Yet, if I had to choose I would instantly choose for the f2.8. My copy of the f2.8 is sharper at f2.8 than my copy of the f4 at f4. Colour, micro contrast and bokeh of the f2.8 are also better (f4 can be very nice but also a bit harsh at times). The f2.8 has manual clutch and function button and can be connected to a teleconverter. Also the f2.8 is not only faster in light but also faster in use as you do not have to extend it to be able to use it. So, I love the f4, but the f2.8 even more.
The f/4 zooms are a perfect match for the M5. Together they make a great travel kit. The f/2.8 zooms are better balanced on the M1, and useful in specific circumstances like astro ( 7-14) portrait (12-40) and indoor sport (40-150).
Those Pro f4 lenses are nice but they are still big and heavy compared with other travel lenses! My travel kit recently has been the Oly 17mm f1.8 and Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6. I agree that f5.6 works well for sunny days, so you can have an even smaller kit than those f4 lenses 😉
Exactly. With “IBIS” i don’t need fast glass. Too big, heavy, and expensive. I love just walking around with my small Olympus PEN and a few tiny lenses.
I use the 8-25 and love it. In the future i change my 12mm f2 and the 12-200 to an 12-100 F4. For Landscape and Travel thats good. For Night sky and Sunnstars i use the 9 mm Pana.
Nice video and good discussion! I went for the 2.8 variations since I can’t have both and because it could allow me more flexibility to shoot later at night and darker indoor spaces such as events or concerts.
Answer is 2.0. Recently I became the owner of 14-35 and 35-100. Both has incredible image and bokeh aka 2.8 FF, but 14-35 also has a competitive AF performance compared to modern pro lenses.
It seems like good reasoning to me, from an experienced point of view. It is difficult to choose, as an example I have always preferred lightness over luminosity, I had been using the 12-45mm f4 for some time and recently I got a 12-40 2.8 and now I love both. If I am going to take portraits I choose the 12-40 2.8 because I love the luck it gives, they are sensational, for the rest of the reasons the 12-45 f4 seems great to me, even that possibility of getting so close to 12mm makes it creative...
If you have an OM camera and are traveling and if you are a minimalist 12-100 F4 would be perfect. At the 100 end you can get very nice bokeh for portraits or you could carry one prime lense a 25 or 45mm f1.2. Two lenses cover almost everything. For Sistine chapel I would carry a wide 8-25mm F4 also.
Super video. Very educational about the choices. I tend to also go for f4 version. 😅 Now I also has begun to collect some of the f1.8/f2 lenses. I choose them because of wonderful size. I wish OM System launched a weatherproof version of them all beside the budget versions.
They are both good, but I prefer the rendition of the 2.8 aperture. One of my most used lenses is the 40-150 2.8. Absolutely love this lens, and especially for portrait work on my Cambodia trips. Surprisingly enough I am using it with my EM1 and the portraits are stunning. Physically they are a perfect balance together. I have the EM1 mk2 for the shorter focal lengths.
I agree, as long as the slower versions can really keep up in terms of quality. Lately on a hiking tour I had to switch from mechanical to digital shutter in order to keep the right exposure by avoiding going beyond f8. As long you do no portraits or lowlight or fast moving objects f4 is absolutely fine. Interesting to me is that especially Panasonic has introduced a very light standard FF zoom lens with a slower aperture. This is an important point to me regarding their in-house competition between their MFT G9ii and their FF S5ii which share the same body. With the brilliant lowlight capability of the FF S5ii and this type of FF lenses you can have a pretty lightweight package.
I know there are limitations but i love the super small zooms like the Lumix 12-32mm and the 35-100mm. Yes, i inow they are slow but for travel amd especially walking, they are great. On size, i recently got hold of the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 for the Sony system. That thing is tiny for an Apsc 2.8 zoom. Obviously gives me 27-75mm on the Sony. I didn’t think that such a size reduction was possible but it really is a great lens and similar size to the Lumix 12-35mm 2.8. I wonder how far physics will let us reduce the MFT lenses?
One of the reason I got the 40-150 f2.8 is to use it with teleconverter. I got the 12-40 f2.8 as a lens kit. In the future I will get 3 prime lens. One ultrawide, one standard, and one telephoto. Ideally the pana leica 9mm f1.7, om 20mm f1.4, and oly 300 f4.
I've been thinking the last few days about this topic and you come up with a video! Hats off, Jimmy. A great idea. However, knowing what you can, I'm a little disappointed now. You could have gone deeper. Some comments go about it. Greetings from the continental side! Keep up good spirits...
Another point to add: The alternative to go light (very light) is still to use primes. Of course that’s not an option for everyone. But I’d encourage people to try it.
Some fabulous images as always Jimmy which makes the video great entertainment for me. I shoot travel type images. When I am not using primes : For STANDARD zooms I prefer the f2.8 just for the few cases I want to restrict DOF even tho I mainly shoot at F4-F8 and for me I don't see a huge diff in size (but that 12-45 f4 is also a great performer and superb at macro and if I was a macro fan I would have gone with the 12-45 f4). For TELEPHOTO zooms the size difference really beings to tell and for me it was a choice between the Oly 40-150 F4 and the Pana 35-100 f2.8 which are both much smaller than the Oly 40-150 f2.8. I went with the Pana 35-100 f2.8 because its older and thus available at a real discount 2nd hand. All the lens in the video are fabulous though.
I go into the woods a lot, so I like taking my 40-150 2.8 PRO and my Panasonic Leica 200 2.8 for those situations, along with my 75 1.8. But I wouldn't mind having having the 40-150 f4 and the PL 50-200 2.8-4 if I had plenty of light and the subjects are in the right spots so long as one can take a teleconverter. Those latter two are my dream travel long lenses (although, I'll say their 2.8 siblings might be big in MFT terms they are still very compact for what they are.)
I love my 12-45! However, if I knew the 8-25 was coming I would have waited. The 8-25 has a much more useful range for me. I am not convinced that the 8-25 is as sharp as the 12-45, so a fast ultra-wide prime is a better addition. The 40-150 F4 will go down into the grave with me. My most favorite lens of all time.
I have the 2.8 collection and had 40-150 F4. I got rid of the F4. I just need the greater light gathering for wildlife. Also the teleconverter capability. For travel. There are 2 lenses for me. For 90% of my shots is use the 12-200. It's the best travel lens ever. I also take the 45mm 1.2 for low light situations.
I own mainly the f2.8 Pro lenses except for the 40-150 f2.8 which I replaced by the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (smaller) Reason, F4 lenses were not announced at the time of starting my MFT journey. Reason not to buy the F4 in addition is easy - money. For traveling and reportage I mainly use the 12-100 F4 (big lens, but fits almost all situations). The smaller F4 lenses would be nice for the 5 series, but as my EM5-M2 just died, buying them to attach them to the om-1 or EM1-M3 doesn't feel right. Increasing body size to attach smaller lenses? 🤔 Starting brand new to MFT I would consider the F4 series definitely.
Forgot to mention. I completely follow your arguments questioning the need for the f2.8s. The 12-100f4 is my "always on and always sharp". Thanks for your video and keep on going.
Good job, Jimmy! I have been using the 12-45mm f/4 for over a year now as my all purpose travel and walking around lens. It's very sharp and also has sufficiently close focus for my nature photography. (I don't aspire to macro portraits of insects.) The f/4 aperture gives adequate separation and bokeh for closeups in the 1 foot or less range, but not for portraits and other subjects at middle distances. I solved that problem not by duplicating my zoom range with the 12-40mm f/2.8, but by getting the 45mm f/1.2, which has great separation and just gorgeous bokeh. Wide open, it's a bit soft so f/2 seems to be a good place to start, opening up to 1.2 only when absolutely necessary. To satisfy my curiosity, I have checked the depth of field at f/2.8, and I don't think the separation is sufficient in some cases where I ended up in the f/1.2 to f/2 range. Therefore I think I chose well to get the 45mm f/1.2 lens.
@@rockitdude yes! Although I must admit so far I used Sigmas only on my G9, but those lenses have no OIS so there should be no difference Panasonic/Olympus. I think - didn't test it in a controlled environment - but I think that infamous Panasonic autofocus works even better with Sigma's than with the native Lumix/Leica lenses.
For landscape photography F4 is perfect. I can see using a F2.8 zoom for indoor sports photography. Also for telephoto wildlife photography, but on the long end F2.8 is usually not even an option. For portraits a prime lens works best. I like the Panasonic 12-60 F2.8-4. I use it as an F4+ most of the time, but I can open it up and use F2.8 when I need a little more light.
I’m photographing quite a lot in the local forest where the light is almost always dim. So I prefer the 2.8 zoom and the 1.8 primes. When travelling to the Alps next year I’d like to have the 40-150 f4 with me; the 12-100 would be ideal but alas too heavy to my taste. Dof is important there, a large aperture not. My back will be grateful.
I photograph birds and insect's full time. 300mm F4 does the bulk of the work - but I also use the 40-150 f2.8 for when I'm close to my subject. I think the 40-150 F4 is a great lens, possibly even better image quality wise than the f2.8 - but for my work I need the focus clutch and the function button (as I map it to AF Limiter). If the 40-150 F4 had a focus clutch and fn button I would probably sell the f2.8 as the weight saving would be welcomed. I don't own the 150-400 because it's too large physically to walk / hike with all day.
May 12-40 2.8 arrives today. It was such a deal at Amazon 575usd. But will probably go with 40-150 f4. I just feel that the 12-40 will be in more low light settings
I have both 12-40 and 40-150 f/2.8, but I think I'll get the 12-100 f/4 soon - for hikes, travel etc. As you mentioned, since I'm already closing down to f/5.6 or tighter, why carry around the extra weight.
I have the 12-45mm f4, but only because I found a fire sale while travelling in Madrid a few years back, got it for €390. I have used all the 2.8 pros but for me they're too big. If I can save the money for it, I'd like to get both the 8-25mm and 40-150mm f4.l, they're amazing for the weight ❤
I'm a hobby photographer and I'm thinking about OM‑D E‑M10 Mark IV and 2 lenses: 7-14 F2.8 and 12-100 F4.0. 90% of my photos are architecture, the rest some landscapes or random other stuff.
Hi Jimmy, nice vlog today. There is a comparison I've been looking for for years and just haven't found a proper one - how does the 40-150/2.8 compare against itself with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and then how does that compare against the 75-300 and 100-400mm Olympus lenses, in terms of weight/size, and image quality. If you could make that assessment, it would be awesome. Best regards!
If you don't need weather sealing the 14-42 and 40-150 "kit" lenses give reasonable IQ at a very reasonable cost. Slightly faster on the short end than the f 4 series and slightly slower on the long end. They are smaller and lighter, and you don't cry as much if they are damaged or go missing. If you really want "tiny and fast" and don't mind manual focus, there are 3rd party and vintage film camera prime lenses that are cheap as chips. "Pro" lenses do make sense for the professional photographer and serious enthusiast who has the budget, but it's nice that there are cheaper options in the micro 4/3rds realm that can work as well for those with less demanding needs.
I agree with you on the 40-150 4-5.6, but I have disdain for the 14-42, so I have the Laowa 17 1.8 glued to my M-10 II and really enjoy that as my walking around combo.
And here's me still shooting the ZD f/2 and f/2.8 zooms and primes on my E-M1X bodies, all because I figure if it ain't broken.... I never bought into the lightweight virtue and, absent that, I couldn't see any advantage in the MFT lens line-up. The only possible exception to this is the 150-400 f/4.5 - for its unprecedented versatility - and people who have both have told me that it's as sharp as Big Tuna (which means it's not quite up there with the 150 f/2, which is a sublime piece of glass). Maybe I'm missing something - I'd appreciate someone with 20 years of shooting all the Oly Pro glass to tell me just what it is (only please don't mention size because I don't care!).
Under really dark conditions the f 4.0 lenses become slow AF. Under normal circumstances i prefer the compact lenses, 8-25 / 4.0 with a perfect range from ultra wide angle to a normal field of view. If bokey becomes very important i use the 1.2 lenses.
I'm surprised that almost no one mentions here the "plastic fantastic" 40-150mm f4.0-5.6, which can be found dirt cheap second hand for under €100 and is an absolute winner in terms of quality/size/weight/cost.
Were you in Japan this year for the cherry blossom season? I recognise a lot of those shots and locations! I did it this year, with the 12-45 F4 pro being an absolute workhorse for most of it.
my R5 ive got 2 faster f2.8 lenses 24-70 an 100mm macro, the rest are f4 (14-35, 70-200) just depends on what your shooting macro i need it, the 24-70 hardly gets used. street photography i use my Q2 f1.7 in low light. landscapes etc, the f4 is perfectly fine.
It depends on situations. If you want the camera to take over, you can select wide area CAF plus face and eye detection. It's quick enough even if you stop down to f8.
i use nothing slower than 2.8 with 4.0 you get the smartphone look. i wish there was a 12-40 f2.0 pro lense from olympus but om system is not interested in improving the system the invest as little as possibel to make as much money as possible. the customer does not really count. at least it looks like it.
You only really need the more expensive and heavier f2.8 lenses if you're doing portraits or low light photography. And then you're usually better off to use primes anyway.
8-25 f4... smaller, can use conventional filters, you need to stop down doing wide angle shots anyway. 12-40 f2.8.... Only slightly bigger, faster and only small price difference. 40-150 f2.8...better separation and you can us tc. If size is consideration then the f4
@@Emerald_City_ Well, it's not just about the aperture you shoot, but also how bright the lens is when viewing things, also I do not want any lens that is not a continuous aperture through zoom range, if you are using flash its a pain in the arse
The 40-150 f2.8 is part of the answer to the question: "what is the lightest, most compact wildlife photography kit if you want to travel with one carry-on bag?". The other half of the answer is the MC-20 teleconverter. I took this kit to Antarctica, and to Yellowstone, and images were very nearly as good as with the 300mm F4 prime lens.
I'm a big advocate of f/4s - especially when size and weight is important to you. I want as small as possible. It's the reason I use the Micro 4/3 system. So, I prefer f/4 zooms, which I pair with a fast prime for low light and subject separation. My current kit is the OM-5, the 12-45mm f/4 Pro and the 45mm f/1.8. It's a great set that covers virtually everything I need.
I'm new to micro four thirds, started off with OM 5, 12-45mm f/4, and quickly added the 45mm f/1.8. I can easily carry all that capability on my motorcycle.
@@elevationmoto6208 yeah they're so easy to carry. I use a wheelchair, so large, heavy kit just doesn't work for me these days
I have the 12-40 f/2.8, 12-45 f/4, the 40-150 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/4. I find that I use the f/4 lenses much more often. Their image quality is great, and their smaller size and lighter weight win me over for my photo walks and for early morning and evening shooting. For most night time or very low light, I usually use prime lenses. For travel, the f/4 lenses are a great choice.
I started out thinking I wanted the “best” so I bought the 12-40 f/2.8. As I added to my lens stable, I stuck with 2.8 when I bought the 40-150. But it got to be too much for travel. So I bought the 12-100 f/4 and sold the 12-40 f/2.8. I couldn’t bear to part with the 40-150, which is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used. Now…the 12-100 goes everywhere. Unless I think there might be some special purpose for the 40-150, it stays home too. When I travel on cruise ships, I also take the 75-300, which I know isn’t the sharpest, but it is surprisingly good for those really long shots. It is super lightweight and compact. I have yet to be disappointed by the 12-100.
This was exactly the choice I had to make over the last two years, getting older and less able to carry heavy kit. Moving from Pentax APS-C bodies and a full range of f2.8 zooms to the OM-1 and 12-40mm f2.8 pro lens as a kit, I then needed to extend both the wide and long ranges. I chose the 8-25mm f4 Pro and the 40-150mm F4 Pro lenses to complete my 'standard trio'. I saw no point in buying the 12-45mm f4 Pro lens as I already had the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens which would do me for the odd time I shoot night scenes or need the extra speed for any other reason. Then came the 12-100 f4 Pro lens and very nearly made all three of my previous lenses redundant. It is an awesome carry-about lens.
The 12-100 f4 PRO is a as close to a a do-it-all lens as I have found. Love mine!
This is one of the best camera videos I've ever seen, we need more gear comparison videos like this. I own 4 pro lenses and I did tons of research before making my move to buy them. Videos like this would have saved me a lot of time.
Thanks mate.
I have the 12-45 and the 40-150 and I love pairing the f4 Pro series with my lightweight Em5iii. It makes a nice, do it all kit.
The Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro is my most used lens, by far. I considered getting the f/4 counterpart to save size and weight, but decided against it for two reasons. First, when the lens is extended and fitted with its hood, it is as long as the internal-zoom f/2.8 with its hood retracted (and I love that ingeniously convenient hood mechanism). Second, there are benefits to the f/2.8 beyond the aperture: manual clutch, function button, and teleconverter compatibility. So, the only real attraction for me for the f/4 was the weight-saving, but that just wasn’t enough, especially since I sometimes need the f/2.8 aperture for low light. However, when I went to buy a wide zoom, I chose the f/4 over the f/2.8, but again not for the reason of aperture but simply because the f/4 allowed me to use filters. All of this shows that the design characteristics of a lens are for me important considerations, as long as the image quality is very high.
A very ingenious remark! This is deep knowledge.
I just can agree. As a long time user of Canon DSLR and great f/2.8 lenses for low light events photography, I’ve decided this year to travel light and I’ve added OM Systems OM 5 and f/4 Pro lenses to my gear set…so happy!
I have recently converted to an om1 from canon full frame. I'm blown away by the compactness and light weight. I've opted for the 9-18mm , really good and more than sharp enough if stopped down a little. Plus it's absolutely tiny. Then the 12-49 f2.8 pro II. The main workhorse lens, then a 49-150 f4-6.3 r plastic fantastic £80 used this one has surprised me the most. Stop it down to f8 and from 70-199mm it's tack sharp. It also is tiny and so light. Basically the entire outfit weighs in about the same as my old canon 5dmk4 and the 24-105 l series lens. And to top it all off I can get some sandwiches in my camera bag as well👍
Great video! It is good to hear that a new AF MFT lens is coming. I own both the F2.8 and the F4.0 series. Each has their pluses. My least favorite is the 7-14/f2.8 because its light flaring. The 12-45/4.0 is my favorite because of is close focusing ability. When traveling it is the f4.0 series because of their wight and compactness. Plus, couple of fast primes.
Need F2.8 especially covering dayband night sports events
Unannounced lens, that was sneaky!
What great choices we have! (Aka. That’s why there is chocolate & vanilla 😊). Cheers
As I get older, size and weight becomes more and more of an issue. Also, I have a disability with some steadiness challenges, so stabilization is also very important. That’s why I chose Olympus/OM System and Micro Four Thirds in the first place. I’m shooting with the f4 Pro trinity on the OM 1 Mk2. They do EVERYTHING I need (okay, maybe 95%). But in those situations where I need to shoot in lower light, I can always bump the ISO a bit as needed, and I get great results. However, I also have the four f1 .8 primes, which gives me even more low light options. The fact that I am covered from 8-150mm with just three lenses that fit in a single small sling bag is a continual source of delight for me.
As an enthousiast I own(ed) multiple Oly F/2.8 Pro Zooms, but I find myself increasingly gravitating towards the F/4 Pro zooms as well for most of my photography. Depending on the situation, supplemented by a fast prime or two. I kept my 12-40 F/2.8 Pro, and do use it from time to time, but 12-45 F/4 Pro sees way more use. E-M5 III with the latter is my go-to travel kit, with room to spare to toss a fast prime and/or telephoto lens in my bag. Pairs well with my E-M1 III as well.
I'm still working out my kit on the telephoto side of things. I used to own the Oly 40-150 F/2.8. I found it sitting on my shelf gathering dust most of the time due to it's size/weight. So, sold that one, and got a Panasonic 35-100 F/2.8. In terms of size and weight, that's where it's at for me, without compromising on image quality and weather sealing. I use that one a lot more then the Oly 40-150 F/2.8, but still not nearly as much as I thought I would.
I'm contemplating trading that lens in the for 40-150 F/4 Pro. Roughly similar in size and weight, but with a little more reach. At the same time, for my use case, I find the Oly 75mm F/1.8 is typically enough for me in terms of reach, and I use that lens whenever I can (also it's in a league of it's own when it comes to image quality)
Across the board bokeh/super shallow depth of field is not my primary concern. I like some context/surroundings in my photographs anyway, but a faster aperture is nice to help keep the shutter speed up/ISO down in challenging lighting conditions which I find myself in from time to time. Ideally a weather sealed edition of the 75mm F/1.8 would probably seal the deal for me ;)
Great summary, thank you!
For me, f/4 is perfect. Since I bought the 12-100, it has been practically glued to my E-M1 II and now OM-1 body. For the kind of photography I do, I’d rather have more depth of field than subject separation. I don’t do portraits. Plus with Sync IS, I have no problem taking exposures close to 1 second even at long focal lengths, all at 200 ISO and not afraid to crank it up if I have to. And if I want subject separation, it is doable using a longer focal length. It is the best purchase that I’ve made.
Totally agree, my setup is the same, does most of what I want. I’d love the 8-25 f4 if I had the money.
@@Nick-wp9rx I do have the 8-25 as well but I don’t use it it as much as I thought I would when I bought it at its launch. Since COVID, I don’t travel much and it is a great lens when going to a new city. I also own a 17mm but this one goes out even less: I don’t really feel the need for wide aperture at the moment.
The 12-100 is really a great travel lens, I usually add the Panasonic 9mm and the Olympus 75-300 but looking at my pictures I could well leave those two lenses at home since most of my keepers come from the 12-100
And if you ever need to do portraits, add the 45mm F1.8 for a lightweight fast option.
The F2.8 zoom set always seems to be the choice of the working pro, I imagine they need the extra light gathering and don't want to be swapping lenses all the time. As an enthusiast who does something else for a living, I'm F4 pretty much all the way, as they are always competing for bag space. But I always pack at least one fast prime. Generally this will be the 20mm f1.4 pro or the PanaLeica 15mm 1.7 depending on what I'm doing. Sometimes I just take the 20mm 1.4 and leave everything else at home. For the super tele lenses I'm doing pretty well with some vintage glass. Recently acquired an old OM 200mm f5 lens, which is incredibly sharp, even on the digital bodies and tiny. Also, it can use the converters, so add the MC14 and it becomes a 560mm f6.3ish lens and still pretty good. That lens cost me £49.
When I had a Nikon D700 I bought the Nikon 70-210 F4 and it was great. I have the Fuji 10-24 F4 which is also great. For Olympus I have the 12-40 and 40-150 F2.8. I would like the 40-150 F4 for travel and also the 8-25 F4.
At first, my first Pro lens is 12-40mm f2.8, but i have traded into 12-45 f4 for size. image quality is still great and most importantly, weight is main reason i got into m43 system.
Jimmy, great to see another video from you, and especially one so useful! I'm fortunate enough have collected all of the lenses in your video along with the 12-100mm f4 PRO. I am an advanced armature who shoots a wide variety of subjects and does some travel. I like to travel light all the time, but I also often carry two bodies as I don't like to change lenses in the field if I can avoid it. I got the f2.8's before the f4's but if I had it to over again I would generally recommend the f4's for my kind of shooting. Picking from the discussed lenses, I would say get the 8-25mm f4, 12-40mm f2.8, and 40-150mm f4.
The 12-40mm f2.8 is a bit larger then the 12-45mm f4 but having that one extra stop of light and DOF complements the other two f4 lenses. The 8-25mm f4 is always in my bag and FAR more useful to me than the 7-14mm f2.8 because a) it's much smaller, b) it takes conventional filters (like a CPL) and the front element isn't in constant danger, and c) the extra reach from 14mm to 25mm makes it far more versatile. The 40-150 f4 is tiny compared to the 2.8 version as you showed in the video and is so easy to carry you almost don't know it's there.
Going outside of the lenses in the video I highly recommend the 12-100mm f4 PRO! Half-again as long as the 12-40mm f2.8 it covers so much so well that I think you could travel the world and not miss more than a handful of shots. It's SyncIS makes up for the f4 max aperture in many situations. I usually carry this lens alone, or with the 8-25 f4 and maybe the 40-150 f4 and only one body (rather then two), as I don't feel the need to change lenses often due to the versatility of the 12-100.
Another option is the fantastic Panasonic Leica 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 which has IQ on par with any of the OM PRO series, and is almost exactly the same size as the OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO. I like longer lenses so for me the additional 20mm of this lens (to an FF equivalent of 120mm) is more versatile without any size or weight penalty. Again, paired with the 8-25 f4 and 40-150 f4 you have a very small and light, but highly capable system in a small bag.
Ah, but what about the 12-45mm f4 PRO or the 40-150mm f2.8? Well, for me the 12-45mm f4 so tiny that I keep it on my PEN E-P7 as my EDC camera. The combo fits into a large pocket or tiny bag like the Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 10: www.thinktankphoto.com/products/mirrorless-mover-10-v2. The 40-150 f2.8 is surprisingly the smallest lens in this group for it's reach, as used with the MC-20 teleconverter it will cover from 80mm to 600mm in FF equivalent with I find just amazing.
There are just no bad choices here. All of these lenses have world class image quality, are fully weather sealed, and will last a life time of real use (at least for a non-professional), and stay true to the compact size ethos of the MFT system.
Great summary, thank you!
@@Emerald_City_ Thanks! You don't want to know how much money it cost me to learn all of that. 🙂
@@gregfeeler6910 sure, but now you are in a luxurious position to sell the ones you like or need less. The lenses, especially high quality ones, generally hold the value better than the camera bodies...
@@Emerald_City_ Ture that. In fact, it was careful shopping for exceptional deals which has allowed me to enjoy much of this gear, and if I sell a piece I stand a good chance of getting most of my investment back. Thanks.
@@gregfeeler6910 I presume the shopping takes place in the US...?
I have the f2.8 set and yes are bigger and heavier just going to stick with them also had two out of the three before the f4's came out. For travel I use the 12-100 F4 which is another great lens and can cope with the shorter distance.
I’ve used the 12-40 2.8 for travel and the size was fine. It also produced some nice portraits with the perfect amount of subject separation at 40mm wide open. I also owned the 12-45 for a little while but decided to sell it and keep the 12-40 pro. Another option to the Olympus 12-45 is the Panasonic 12-35 2.8. They are both roughly the same size and weight and you get that extra stop of light.
For travel, in my opinion:
- pansonic leica 8-18mm f:2.8-4.
- zuiko pro 40-150mm f:4.
- panasonic leica 15mm f:1.7.
Sensibly chosen, however that leaves out my two favorite focal lengths, the 20 and the 30mm...
I can only speak about the 40-150mm versions as they are the only focal length where I have both. I totally agree that the F4 is a fantastic travel and walk about lens. For that reason I use it almost daily. Yet, if I had to choose I would instantly choose for the f2.8.
My copy of the f2.8 is sharper at f2.8 than my copy of the f4 at f4. Colour, micro contrast and bokeh of the f2.8 are also better (f4 can be very nice but also a bit harsh at times). The f2.8 has manual clutch and function button and can be connected to a teleconverter. Also the f2.8 is not only faster in light but also faster in use as you do not have to extend it to be able to use it. So, I love the f4, but the f2.8 even more.
Such kind of elaboration I expected from Mr. Cheng in this video, but he has made this commenting possible in the first place, so kudos to him too!
The f/4 zooms are a perfect match for the M5. Together they make a great travel kit. The f/2.8 zooms are better balanced on the M1, and useful in specific circumstances like astro ( 7-14) portrait (12-40) and indoor sport (40-150).
Those Pro f4 lenses are nice but they are still big and heavy compared with other travel lenses!
My travel kit recently has been the Oly 17mm f1.8 and Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6. I agree that f5.6 works well for sunny days, so you can have an even smaller kit than those f4 lenses 😉
Exactly. With “IBIS” i don’t need fast glass. Too big, heavy, and expensive.
I love just walking around with my small Olympus PEN and a few tiny lenses.
Nice video, thanks for making this. It makes sense what you have said. I'm new to M43 from Nikon and I'm loving the OMsystem.
I use the 8-25 and love it. In the future i change my 12mm f2 and the 12-200 to an 12-100 F4. For Landscape and Travel thats good. For Night sky and Sunnstars i use the 9 mm Pana.
Nice video and good discussion! I went for the 2.8 variations since I can’t have both and because it could allow me more flexibility to shoot later at night and darker indoor spaces such as events or concerts.
But it's just one stop!
Answer is 2.0. Recently I became the owner of 14-35 and 35-100. Both has incredible image and bokeh aka 2.8 FF, but 14-35 also has a competitive AF performance compared to modern pro lenses.
It seems like good reasoning to me, from an experienced point of view. It is difficult to choose, as an example I have always preferred lightness over luminosity, I had been using the 12-45mm f4 for some time and recently I got a 12-40 2.8 and now I love both. If I am going to take portraits I choose the 12-40 2.8 because I love the luck it gives, they are sensational, for the rest of the reasons the 12-45 f4 seems great to me, even that possibility of getting so close to 12mm makes it creative...
If you have an OM camera and are traveling and if you are a minimalist 12-100 F4 would be perfect. At the 100 end you can get very nice bokeh for portraits or you could carry one prime lense a 25 or 45mm f1.2. Two lenses cover almost everything. For Sistine chapel I would carry a wide 8-25mm F4 also.
Super video. Very educational about the choices. I tend to also go for f4 version. 😅 Now I also has begun to collect some of the f1.8/f2 lenses. I choose them because of wonderful size. I wish OM System launched a weatherproof version of them all beside the budget versions.
They are both good, but I prefer the rendition of the 2.8 aperture. One of my most used lenses is the 40-150 2.8. Absolutely love this lens, and especially for portrait work on my Cambodia trips. Surprisingly enough I am using it with my EM1 and the portraits are stunning. Physically they are a perfect balance together. I have the EM1 mk2 for the shorter focal lengths.
I agree, as long as the slower versions can really keep up in terms of quality. Lately on a hiking tour I had to switch from mechanical to digital shutter in order to keep the right exposure by avoiding going beyond f8. As long you do no portraits or lowlight or fast moving objects f4 is absolutely fine. Interesting to me is that especially Panasonic has introduced a very light standard FF zoom lens with a slower aperture. This is an important point to me regarding their in-house competition between their MFT G9ii and their FF S5ii which share the same body. With the brilliant lowlight capability of the FF S5ii and this type of FF lenses you can have a pretty lightweight package.
I know there are limitations but i love the super small zooms like the Lumix 12-32mm and the 35-100mm. Yes, i inow they are slow but for travel amd especially walking, they are great.
On size, i recently got hold of the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 for the Sony system. That thing is tiny for an Apsc 2.8 zoom. Obviously gives me 27-75mm on the Sony. I didn’t think that such a size reduction was possible but it really is a great lens and similar size to the Lumix 12-35mm 2.8.
I wonder how far physics will let us reduce the MFT lenses?
One of the reason I got the 40-150 f2.8 is to use it with teleconverter. I got the 12-40 f2.8 as a lens kit. In the future I will get 3 prime lens. One ultrawide, one standard, and one telephoto. Ideally the pana leica 9mm f1.7, om 20mm f1.4, and oly 300 f4.
I've been thinking the last few days about this topic and you come up with a video! Hats off, Jimmy. A great idea. However, knowing what you can, I'm a little disappointed now. You could have gone deeper. Some comments go about it.
Greetings from the continental side! Keep up good spirits...
I have definitely gravitated to to f4 lenses.
I have the f4 series of lenses for the size and weight. I also love the 8-25mm lens.
Another point to add: The alternative to go light (very light) is still to use primes. Of course that’s not an option for everyone. But I’d encourage people to try it.
I’m loving my little Olympus E-PL7.
Olympus 45mm 1.8
Lumix 20mm 1.7
Lumix 12-32mm (3.5-5.6)
Some fabulous images as always Jimmy which makes the video great entertainment for me. I shoot travel type images. When I am not using primes : For STANDARD zooms I prefer the f2.8 just for the few cases I want to restrict DOF even tho I mainly shoot at F4-F8 and for me I don't see a huge diff in size (but that 12-45 f4 is also a great performer and superb at macro and if I was a macro fan I would have gone with the 12-45 f4). For TELEPHOTO zooms the size difference really beings to tell and for me it was a choice between the Oly 40-150 F4 and the Pana 35-100 f2.8 which are both much smaller than the Oly 40-150 f2.8. I went with the Pana 35-100 f2.8 because its older and thus available at a real discount 2nd hand. All the lens in the video are fabulous though.
And, how does the Pana 35-100mm f2.8 perform?
@@Emerald_City_ its a great pro weather sealed telezoom, check out the plentiful reviews on youtube
I go into the woods a lot, so I like taking my 40-150 2.8 PRO and my Panasonic Leica 200 2.8 for those situations, along with my 75 1.8. But I wouldn't mind having having the 40-150 f4 and the PL 50-200 2.8-4 if I had plenty of light and the subjects are in the right spots so long as one can take a teleconverter. Those latter two are my dream travel long lenses (although, I'll say their 2.8 siblings might be big in MFT terms they are still very compact for what they are.)
I love my 12-45! However, if I knew the 8-25 was coming I would have waited. The 8-25 has a much more useful range for me. I am not convinced that the 8-25 is as sharp as the 12-45, so a fast ultra-wide prime is a better addition. The 40-150 F4 will go down into the grave with me. My most favorite lens of all time.
I have the 2.8 collection and had 40-150 F4. I got rid of the F4. I just need the greater light gathering for wildlife. Also the teleconverter capability.
For travel. There are 2 lenses for me. For 90% of my shots is use the 12-200. It's the best travel lens ever. I also take the 45mm 1.2 for low light situations.
Gotta love the 45mm 1.2
@@Red35Photography I'll never stop crying for not having bought one virtually new for €500 in 2022...
I own mainly the f2.8 Pro lenses except for the 40-150 f2.8 which I replaced by the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (smaller)
Reason, F4 lenses were not announced at the time of starting my MFT journey.
Reason not to buy the F4 in addition is easy - money.
For traveling and reportage I mainly use the 12-100 F4 (big lens, but fits almost all situations). The smaller F4 lenses would be nice for the 5 series, but as my EM5-M2 just died, buying them to attach them to the om-1 or EM1-M3 doesn't feel right. Increasing body size to attach smaller lenses? 🤔
Starting brand new to MFT I would consider the F4 series definitely.
Forgot to mention. I completely follow your arguments questioning the need for the f2.8s.
The 12-100f4 is my "always on and always sharp".
Thanks for your video and keep on going.
Good job, Jimmy!
I have been using the 12-45mm f/4 for over a year now as my all purpose travel and walking around lens. It's very sharp and also has sufficiently close focus for my nature photography. (I don't aspire to macro portraits of insects.)
The f/4 aperture gives adequate separation and bokeh for closeups in the 1 foot or less range, but not for portraits and other subjects at middle distances. I solved that problem not by duplicating my zoom range with the 12-40mm f/2.8, but by getting the 45mm f/1.2, which has great separation and just gorgeous bokeh. Wide open, it's a bit soft so f/2 seems to be a good place to start, opening up to 1.2 only when absolutely necessary. To satisfy my curiosity, I have checked the depth of field at f/2.8, and I don't think the separation is sufficient in some cases where I ended up in the f/1.2 to f/2 range. Therefore I think I chose well to get the 45mm f/1.2 lens.
Let us not forget Sigma's f1.4 gems...
@@Emerald_City_ for Olympus?
@@rockitdude yes! Although I must admit so far I used Sigmas only on my G9, but those lenses have no OIS so there should be no difference Panasonic/Olympus. I think - didn't test it in a controlled environment - but I think that infamous Panasonic autofocus works even better with Sigma's than with the native Lumix/Leica lenses.
For landscape photography F4 is perfect. I can see using a F2.8 zoom for indoor sports photography. Also for telephoto wildlife photography, but on the long end F2.8 is usually not even an option. For portraits a prime lens works best. I like the Panasonic 12-60 F2.8-4. I use it as an F4+ most of the time, but I can open it up and use F2.8 when I need a little more light.
I’m photographing quite a lot in the local forest where the light is almost always dim. So I prefer the 2.8 zoom and the 1.8 primes. When travelling to the Alps next year I’d like to have the 40-150 f4 with me; the 12-100 would be ideal but alas too heavy to my taste. Dof is important there, a large aperture not. My back will be grateful.
I photograph birds and insect's full time. 300mm F4 does the bulk of the work - but I also use the 40-150 f2.8 for when I'm close to my subject. I think the 40-150 F4 is a great lens, possibly even better image quality wise than the f2.8 - but for my work I need the focus clutch and the function button (as I map it to AF Limiter). If the 40-150 F4 had a focus clutch and fn button I would probably sell the f2.8 as the weight saving would be welcomed.
I don't own the 150-400 because it's too large physically to walk / hike with all day.
I still would go with 2.8 , even though the size is a factor, depends if you shoot alot of fast moving subjects, or a lot of low light...
May 12-40 2.8 arrives today. It was such a deal at Amazon 575usd. But will probably go with 40-150 f4. I just feel that the 12-40 will be in more low light settings
I have both 12-40 and 40-150 f/2.8, but I think I'll get the 12-100 f/4 soon - for hikes, travel etc. As you mentioned, since I'm already closing down to f/5.6 or tighter, why carry around the extra weight.
I have the 12-45mm f4, but only because I found a fire sale while travelling in Madrid a few years back, got it for €390. I have used all the 2.8 pros but for me they're too big. If I can save the money for it, I'd like to get both the 8-25mm and 40-150mm f4.l, they're amazing for the weight ❤
40-150 f4 is really excellent, the single downside to it that it only takes pictures...
I'm a hobby photographer and I'm thinking about OM‑D E‑M10 Mark IV and 2 lenses: 7-14 F2.8 and 12-100 F4.0.
90% of my photos are architecture, the rest some landscapes or random other stuff.
Good choice for lenses.
Hi Jimmy, nice vlog today. There is a comparison I've been looking for for years and just haven't found a proper one - how does the 40-150/2.8 compare against itself with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and then how does that compare against the 75-300 and 100-400mm Olympus lenses, in terms of weight/size, and image quality. If you could make that assessment, it would be awesome. Best regards!
If you don't need weather sealing the 14-42 and 40-150 "kit" lenses give reasonable IQ at a very reasonable cost. Slightly faster on the short end than the f 4 series and slightly slower on the long end. They are smaller and lighter, and you don't cry as much if they are damaged or go missing. If you really want "tiny and fast" and don't mind manual focus, there are 3rd party and vintage film camera prime lenses that are cheap as chips.
"Pro" lenses do make sense for the professional photographer and serious enthusiast who has the budget, but it's nice that there are cheaper options in the micro 4/3rds realm that can work as well for those with less demanding needs.
I agree with you on the 40-150 4-5.6, but I have disdain for the 14-42, so I have the Laowa 17 1.8 glued to my M-10 II and really enjoy that as my walking around combo.
@@mne9476 Is Laowa 17mm f1.8 sharper than its Olympus counterpart?
Probably not but I never used the Olympus lens.
@@mne9476 how can you then have disdain for the 14-42 and agree on 40-150 4-5.6 ...?
@@Emerald_City_ It's easy. I have both lenses :-)
And here's me still shooting the ZD f/2 and f/2.8 zooms and primes on my E-M1X bodies, all because I figure if it ain't broken.... I never bought into the lightweight virtue and, absent that, I couldn't see any advantage in the MFT lens line-up. The only possible exception to this is the 150-400 f/4.5 - for its unprecedented versatility - and people who have both have told me that it's as sharp as Big Tuna (which means it's not quite up there with the 150 f/2, which is a sublime piece of glass). Maybe I'm missing something - I'd appreciate someone with 20 years of shooting all the Oly Pro glass to tell me just what it is (only please don't mention size because I don't care!).
2.8 for sure , the 40150 is a pure beast, yes it is big, but still one of a kind in all systems
In the photo in the boxing ring (2.43), what lens was that? Awesome video and photos.
Under really dark conditions the f 4.0 lenses become slow AF. Under normal circumstances i prefer the compact lenses, 8-25 / 4.0 with a perfect range from ultra wide angle to a normal field of view. If bokey becomes very important i use the 1.2 lenses.
Great summary, thank you!
I'm surprised that almost no one mentions here the "plastic fantastic" 40-150mm f4.0-5.6, which can be found dirt cheap second hand for under €100 and is an absolute winner in terms of quality/size/weight/cost.
For me, splash-proof is essential, so pro lenses only.
@@rockitdude you taking pictures in the rain a lot?
Were you in Japan this year for the cherry blossom season? I recognise a lot of those shots and locations! I did it this year, with the 12-45 F4 pro being an absolute workhorse for most of it.
Yes!!! I was there for two and a half weeks. I used 40-150mm f4 a lot
my R5 ive got 2 faster f2.8 lenses 24-70 an 100mm macro, the rest are f4 (14-35, 70-200) just depends on what your shooting macro i need it, the 24-70 hardly gets used. street photography i use my Q2 f1.7 in low light. landscapes etc, the f4 is perfectly fine.
Micro four thirds lens manufactures could capture the 3D emerging market by suppling users of the system with a dual fisheye lens F2.8.
Just bought the OM5 after watching your channel, but struggling to understand best CAF setting for street, so many AF settings.
It depends on situations. If you want the camera to take over, you can select wide area CAF plus face and eye detection. It's quick enough even if you stop down to f8.
i use nothing slower than 2.8 with 4.0 you get the smartphone look. i wish there was a 12-40 f2.0 pro lense from olympus but om system is not interested in improving the system the invest as little as possibel to make as much money as possible. the customer does not really count. at least it looks like it.
F4 🎉
You only really need the more expensive and heavier f2.8 lenses if you're doing portraits or low light photography. And then you're usually better off to use primes anyway.
The problem is that you can't always have both on you
8-25 f4... smaller, can use conventional filters, you need to stop down doing wide angle shots anyway.
12-40 f2.8.... Only slightly bigger, faster and only small price difference.
40-150 f2.8...better separation and you can us tc. If size is consideration then the f4
This should have been the kind of summary Jimmy explored the matter further and finished off his video... great comment!
1.4 :D
telexetenders mean you can take one lens which can cover 40-300mm .THe hit is on the aperture but this at worst gives you 300mm for a f5.6 hit
Where can I get the Olympus hat?
Looks like a new wide lens, something between 10 an 1 7 mm
WHAT UNANNOUNCED LENS?!
Someone is paying attention!!! Coming soon
@@Red35Photography Looks like a 17mm?
🥱
F2.8! Slow lenses are soooo depressing...
😂
Yeah, but be honest, analyze your shots - how many are at f2.8? And how many f4 or smaller.
@@Emerald_City_ Well, it's not just about the aperture you shoot, but also how bright the lens is when viewing things, also I do not want any lens that is not a continuous aperture through zoom range, if you are using flash its a pain in the arse
@@LeeHarris OK as to flash but the rest is not that critical, is it?