Hoping for an OM5 or Pen F next up. My aging Pen F needs an updated EVF and AF in the worst way.

I dont like the new direction, they dumb down their products, no focus clutch and 4.0, thats not pro

With you there. I gave up MFT because they kept trying to do the same stuff the big boys were doing instead of focusing on strengths of the system. These new lenses have me so excited that I’m buying back in. With this lens as one of the ones I’m picking up.

@@HH60gPaveHawk i never bought my mft cameras because they are small. Mft has mich more advantages than this. I want a pro body with space for my fingers and i want pro lenses with manual focus clutch. If i want small i buy a point and shoot.

@@castielvargastv7931 that’s great. There are already a plethora of lenses that suit your needs. Many of us originally bought into MFT for pro level features and IQ in a small body. These lenses are finally addressing the compact adventure/landscape/travel photographers needs. If I want a big lens and body with lots of room and wide apertures I’ll grab my Song body and GM lenses. But now I can also grab a handful of tiny sharp lenses and go travel or backpack and not feel like I need a pack mule

Does it work with pro-capture and in-camera-focus-stacking features?

Dragonflies/butterflies is a key use-case for me as well - debating getting this 40-150 F4 for my OM-D. Did you get it, and how’s it working for you?

I appreciate you saying that, but I still really like the other one too.

I don't think you can no, whereas on the f2.8 version you can.

My dream lense

The original 4/3rds 7-14 F4 was actually an F2.8. Press the lens release and the aperture opened up.

Hi, did you get it? I'm planning to get into Olympus with e-m10 mark iv, with those two lenses. Just wondering if they might be too heavy on its small body. Thanks

The Panasonic is near double the price but the better lens, particularly if using a Panasonic body where you will get sync IS. The extra 50mm is useful too as I would regard 400mm equivalent as the minimum focal length to do most wildlife.

That's a great lens but bigger and heavier. You pays your money and takes your choice.

I think it would be excellent for that. Recently took it fishing with the OM-1 and it was so light to carry.

You basically just described my kit (except with a Mk3). Teeny tiny compared to my FF Sony stuff. Toss a 45/1.8 and 17/1.7 in the bag and you have a fairly complete travel setup too.

I'm sure it would be perfectly weather sealed and lightweight, but I don't know what I would ever use such a lens for when I'm backpacking or mountain biking except perhaps taking pictures of friends, and for that, I'd rather take a small prime or two, like the 75mm f/1.8, 56mm f/1.4, or 42.5mm f/1.7.

@@keithholland4322 Tele Landscape shooting? Light wildlife? Flower/semi macro work? Some sports capability too. Exactly the same reasons my compact FF setup has a 70-200 f/4 as well.

@@HH60gPaveHawk Sure, you can use it for landscape photography, but any lens will do for that, and the 12-100 combined with an 8-18 or 8-25 will usually fill that role nicely without the need for a longer lens, at least in my experience. It doesn't focus close enough for macro and it's a little short for field sports and not bright enough for indoor sports. Maybe it would be useful for beach volleyball or something, although with those types of sports, you won't have to haul it long distances, so you might as well just get a used f/2.8 model for a similar price and get much better subject separation. Remember that the depth of field you get at f/4 on an MFT body is like that of an f/8 lens on a FF body and the low light performance is in the same ballpark as well, provided you're comparing relatively recent models with high-end sensors, so they're very different lenses for very different purposes. It just seems kind of redundant to make this lens and the 12-45 when they already have an outstanding 12-100mm.

yes. exactly! the comparison with the 40-150 2.8 is all what matters.

I tested it against old 40-150 3,5-4,5. If pictures wouldn't have exif, you wound never identify the lens. Major issue of 4.0 is overprice. It costs more then used lime condition 2.8 pro and 12-100, and 25 times more than optically similar 3,5-4,5.

No - but I can not understand, why they do not make a round sensor so that with the push of a button, you can switch between vertical and horizontal - of course with full output to the RAW file, so you can later change your mind about cropping, and not lose data if the horizon is not completely level

@@majamogens#1 If you're familiar with pen f half frame camera you'll know they take portrait orientation naturally. #2 because sensors are the most expensive part of the camera body and they will be better off if they make a bigger sensor rather than having a circle sensor that you cannot maximized edge to edge.

@@majamogens because it would be more expensive and the body would need to be significantly bigger, that's why.

I have never understood constant aperture design as a target. I do not see anything wrong if the lens is faster at its widest setting. Provided that optical quality is maintained.

@@komandagleby_GB Neither do I - but as I understand it, it's those video filming who really want it, but why they can not 'just' start with the smallest common opening, and then ignore the larger opening, I do not understand.

I was gonna do the same comment, I've used the olde 7-14 f4 and did the 'open-up' trick (if you hold down the lens eject button it opens up the true aperture on the old 4/3). The lens quality did drop at "f2.8" (vignetting, CA) so they decided to release it with the auto-f4 lock. I guess a bad f2.8 performance would've not sold at much vs a good f4 performance.

The 12-40/2.8 has this behavior; it's fully open at 40mm and stopped down a bit at anything shorter. I managed to take a picture with it wide open at 12mm by disconnecting it at 40mm and zooming to 12, and while it was impossible to focus, I could tell there was severe vignetting and distortion toward the edges. Based on the camera's exposure metering, it seems to be about a 2/3 stop difference. I wanted to be mad at them for the artificial limitation, but in reality I'd probably never choose to take badly distorted photos just to be at f/2.2 instead of f/2.8.

@@komandagleby_GB A constant aperture is useful when you're shooting in manual mode and you don't want your exposure to change when you zoom. Of course, you could set a variable aperture lens to shoot at the smallest maximum aperture throughout the entire zoom range, but I think it's easy to forget to do that or to accidentally reset it. I do a lot of wildlife photography and pet photography with the 40-150 f/2.8 and often a 2x teleconverter for wildlife, and I use manual mode most of the time because I want my aperture wide open, I usually want a minimum shutter speed of 1/2000th of a second, and auto ISO.

Who told you!?

Not on my screen, but some ND filters could do that.

The 40-150mm that is not a pro is f4.0 - f5.6, while there are two Pro model 40-150mm lenses, one is f4.0 all the way through it’s zoom range, and the other is f2.8 all the way through it’s zoom range.

I'd say the OM is better in everything, even before testing. Olympus PRO image and build quality is comparable or better than Canon L. Very lightweight and portable + has an IP rating unlike really any lenses on the FF market. DOF is of course not as good but you can just get closer.

@@te0pol159 I bet the OM gets crushed in image quality by a crappy third party 70-300m zoom an any 10 year old, dirt cheap FF camera.

@@evrythingis1 Troll.

@@te0pol159 Uh, how is it trolling if its 100% verifiably true? Your post says the m43 is better than everything full frame, but it is complete fact that even a 10 year old FF camera + off brand 70-300mm lens is not only cheaper, but massively better in literally every image quality metric.

@@evrythingis1 Have you even used an Olympus lens? The image quality is something like Sigma Art, Canon L or better.

@@MercedesBenzGKlasse The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is lightweight and compact. Both lenses I mentioned have internal focusing, which is an advantage for me. The f2.8 light is an advantage, you can buy a x1.4 or x2 converter with them and still get good results. The Olympus 40-150 f4 is not bad, but at the moment it has been badly priced - that's my opinion.

Don’t forget the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4. Seems better than the Oly in most respects except size and it is not much bigger than the Oly.

For a comparison with the Z9: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y66bd8-cyd7Fgac.html. If you don’t understand Spanish, you can use the auto translate for captions in English.

​@@djstuc Haha! That's funny. The NOCT is a beast, and it's interesting that its weight is exactly 2 kilos. I guess Nikon added some weight to reach the exact number. It's hard to believe they got to that naturally. Still, ignoring pound/ounces sounds off to me since a great deal of DPReview audience uses the imperial system and is based--that's my guess--in the US and UK. Anyways... Thanks for the explanation.

@@djstuc Got it

No flies on you are there?

That's the Wotancraft Pilot bag, easily my favourite shoulder bag of all time.

@@niccollsvideo Thanks Chris!

Who cares about using MC14 and MC20?

@@TL-xw6fh Me, so?

@@TL-xw6fh Anyone wanting to use it for wildlife photography. They can be useful for some sports and events too.

I wonder if OM Systems decides to make a mark II version soon…

Yeah going to have to disagree there. Different lenses for different use cases. With the 12-45/4 I can have a two lens 24-300 FOV f/4 setup for the same total cost, size, and weight. I have literally zero interest in the 40-150/2.8, and I’ve owned it in the past.

When I have to pick a sharp, weatherproof lens to lug for 50+ miles on a multi-day backpacking trip, I can think of exactly 378 reasons to prefer the f/4

Nah

You must have too much time on your hands. If you feel you don't need it, don't buy it.

You mean like the Panasonic 35-100 2.8? That would be a tough sale...

No only in the way it resolves bokeh in every other aspect it’s a f4

F8 equivalent DOF, nothing else.

The OM 40-150 f/4 weighs half what the Nikon 300mm f/4 does, offers the flexibility of a zoom, and it works on a Micro Four Thirds camera!

@@millsnerd That is all true but the 300mm F/4 on FF does the same job as a m43 150mm f/2 which would be just about as big and in all likelihood more expensive . Sadly endless and typically inaccurate comparisons to FF are a depressing stalwart of m43 forums . The lens looks to be a great proposition for a travel kit combine it with maybe the 12-45mm and maybe throw in my beloved Pany 20mm for a helluva good set -up covering a lot of ground. I don't need the F/2.8 option so a smaller lighter cheaper lens works for me

@@jimstirling7223 WRONG! It does the same job as a M43 150mk F4 lens. Tony Northrup is wrong.

Yeah, a 37.5mm aperture won't capture enough luminiferous aether to fully phlogisticate the sensor pixels. No sale! Sure, in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, Einstein argued that light was "a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole," which would mean that each of them could affect only one sensor pixel without regard for how many others are or are not captured elsewhere. But heck, what did HE know?

@@jlwilliams You mean "photons"? Because yes, that is the entire point, a 37.5mm aperture wont capture nearly enough photons. You do know that is the literal reason that most professional photographers use rather large lenses, right?

Then you would lose your money as the image quality is superb - and I am comparing it to my Z7ii with 70-200 2.8. You need to use the Oly M43 system in the field with the Pro lenses to see how good the system really is - And how easy it is to carry!

@@Hemlck That's interesting because I compared it to a $500 10 year old Sony A7R with a $500 Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-F6.3 and the images from the A7R have much much more clarity, color, and detail. The combination only weighs exactly 1kg too, What is the weight for your set up on M43? Mine feels almost the exact same weight in the hand.... but it's sensor is so small in comparison.

@@evrythingis1 I can only compare the systems I own and use ..Nikon and Olympus. The em5 mark 3 with the two f4 pro lenses makes an ideal kit for long walks and for me when touring by motorcycle. These lenses on a m43 sensor give extremely sharp detailed and contrasty images….which m43 lenses and body have you used and how big do you print?

@@Hemlck Ah yes, argument as old as time. If you don't print large then you dont need the resolution and detail right? What about in 15 years when people's displays and VR headsets are 8k resolution? M43 has many excellent lenses, this one being no exception, and the image quality at low iso is great, still definitely better than a smart phone, however is it the literal bottom of the barrel in terms of image quality among all interchangeable lens camera formats. It's a simple fact.

@@evrythingis1 Resolution doesn't equal image quality...

nah..it is 40-150 f4 for a m43 sensor (crop), nothing more nothing less.The commonly used "conversion" is false/misleading.

Yes, and what ?

What's the closest full-frame equivalent lens in size and weight

@@Simoneister 70-300 lens 4-5.6👀🤷‍♂️

@@yizhe7512 the commonly used conversion is completely accurate when you account for iso. Yes it's still 40-150, but 80-300 is the field of view equivalent on FF