Love the pacing of your reviews. Not a single second is wasted. Well done.

That intro broke my brain.

Was writing a comment while watching the video and Chris hit the nail on the head at the end. There is a zero percent chance I would pay a $1,000 premium on the lens when you compare it to the cost on other mounts. If the rumors are true and an R7 with a stacked sensor is launching sooner rather than later then the combo of it with a 200-800 would be a hell of a lot more attractive.

I rented this lens to use with my Panasonic G9 M2 and it definitely took the joy out of my MFT experience. I found that my shoulder got sore from trying to keep it steady at 600mm and would want at least a monopod if I was going out for a couple of hours. I didn't love the pictures enough to spend $2,700 for it. I had an overlapping rental for the Panasonic Leica 200mm and loved it. Even with a teleconveter on a dark day I really liked my images so I bought the 200mm copy I rented. Sure, the reach isn't there but I'm fortunate enough to have other camera combos that scratch that itch, including the Panasonic 100-400mm M2.

new OM-1 mk2 minimal progress. The new 150-600 lens is a disguised FF Sigma. OM is apparently saving massively on development resources.

In the automotive world we call this phenomenon *Badge Engineering*

Even if a super-telephoto lens is made specifically for Micro Four Thirds, it will hardly become smaller or lighter. The more telephoto, the larger the image circle. The 300/2.8 from the Four Thirds era was heavier than any full-size version.

I thought it was April Fool's Day joke, made by Mr Zuiko himself

Great review. Thanks!

Here we goooooooo! Having watched - completely agree. A nice lens, sure, but it seems to fall short on most of the positive benefits of m43 - size, cost and aperture. It has reach in abundance - but the value of that reach is inherently diminished if you're having to stop down to get good sharpness, and raising the ISO to compensate. AI denoising can get you so far, but it can't really restore lost detail. A sunny day lens for sure. Great video Chris and Jordan. Here's hoping for a true m43 designed bright mid tele, as is on the roadmap. Panasonic could even surprise us with a PanaLeica 100-300 f/4 😂

I'll stay with my 100-400 lens.

I got the 100-300mm and I find its more then adequate for my long reach needs. Its small and easy to carry with me as an extra lens at times and when in use, its easy to use. I have a FF lens and rarely use it because its large and clunky. All that extra size to get an extra 2x reach does not make sense for when/where I use it. Even with my 100-300, I often find myself not needing the full zoom and could always back up a bit wider. The standard 70-200mm is quite adequate for most things. Except for wild life shooting. And then I can see how this new lens could be a treat for those doing that.

Purchased mine. Provantage sells it for 2300. Purchased the teleconverter from Amazon Japan. Mft serves my needs well.

Even though I'll probably never buy something like this, the video was still very entertaining. Thanks!

I'm amused. Fun video.

The slogan bit got a chuckle out of me.

I agree ! My reason to go to m4/3 would be to reduce size and weight. Quite a lot of the bodies are quite large and yes when I picked up this lens I thought why would I swop to something the size of my sigma 150-600 from DSLR days! The sales person was pushing the extra reach, but I could just crop in with full frame and get the same….. Currently very happy with my Sony 300mm 😊

I disagree with the claim at 3:40 that an M43-optimized equivalent could be either smaller or offer more speed for the same size. The effect of coverage (m43 vs FF, etc) on lens size becomes insignificant at long focal lengths. Taking this lens as an example, 600 mm f/6.3 requires an input pupil diameter of 95 mm, so that alone accounts for the _entire_ diameter of this lena. Reducing the FoV won't allow you to make it any smaller. I doubt that reducing the FoV would allow you to make it any shorter, either, since the optical complexity is mostly driven by the zoom ratio and the need to counter axial chromatic aberration.

Chris, here's some really exciting news! I'm shooting the prototype to the stripped down to basics G9ii (PDAF, 24fps) packaged with a 24-600mm ( f2.4-4) zoom lens. The kit weighs just 2 pounds and, get ready for this, is available (camera & lens) for the ridiculous price of $1,600 US. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the GII, but the 7 year old Sony RX10iv does the job without breaking the bank or your back! 😊

Great review. I love to use full-frame lenses on smaller sensor bodies for wildlife and especially small birds. Like my RF 100-500 on my APS-C R7 body for example. I don't mind the extra weight required for full-frame glass. I'm just glad I can use that full-frame lens on my APS-C body because they don't make an APS-C version. So none of that bothers me on this Sigma full-frame to OM system micro 4/3 port. It's the price difference that kills it for me. I could understand a $200 bump but more than that is unreasonable. For that price, it would be much better to buy the sigma E version and use it on a Sony a6700.

Breaks my heart. Olympus was so good in terms of their research and development for photography and lens tech, that this move seems to cheapen the entire OM brand. Thanks for confirming what I thought that I was seeing when OM announced this lens.

Now did you try it on the G9ii or just the OM1 ii? And Jordan still loving the G9ii ? Nicely done guys !

Tbey should have taken advantage of the FF optics inside and included a built in .71x speed booster. Having the option to click over to a ~ 200-850 f/3.5-4.5 surely would have been a killer feature

I used to use the Sigma 150-600mm with a Meabones adapter. While it was soft at 600mm, the main problem was trying to use the setup in the wind. Anything more than a stiff breeze became frustrating as the lens hood acted like a sail and made keeping the subject in the frame really hard.

Must be the most controversial release of the year. I would love some engineer to confirm or deny that it could be significantly smaller or faster. I had a lengthy discussion about this on the DPR forums and the general consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be all that much different. And also how does this compares to a high-MPx FF camera with a 50% crop...?

I just wish there was a Sony-E mount adapter to M43 with autofocus. It would be sweet to be able to use that Sony 200-600 lens as a telezoom for M43.

Oof that butterfly shot is money! The butterfly garden is either too many people or too little butterflies for me 😅

For around the same price, the 300mm F4 has absolutely stunning resolution. Even with the 1.4x and 2x TC, the images are way way better the cropping based on my extensive testing. Not as versatile but extremely good.

Will be interesting to see a direct comparison with the 150-400 f4.5 Pro with the TC engaged and see how much of a difference shooting at the same distance 😅

I think it would probably be a pretty nice combo for the stuff I do. Mostly small birds. But I think I'd lean towards the R7 + 200-800, which gives a 320-1280mm equivalent. Nowadays, when it comes to sharpness, basically ALL of the new long lenses for modern mirrorless cameras are plenty sharp, especially when the images are sized down to 3 to 5 mp for typical digital viewing. I currently shoot with the "slow" 800 F11, on my R7, and I'm super happy with the image quality, (my work can be seen at the link in my channel). Waiting on the 200-800 to be "in stock" and refurbished for a few hundred dollars off, but killing it with my 800 F11 while I wait :) Huge, heavy, very fast, and super expensive lenses are becoming less and less important as time goes on. Which I'm sure is a tough pill to swallow, for folks who have spent $12K or more on a Big White or other "Pro" lens in the past.

So a similar rante of ff lens with a high res ff camera and just crop in will be better?

to me the om system 150-400 pro is where m43 shines. telephoto wildlife is what m43 should focus on. that and extram light weight, fixed lens cameras for hiking/street.

I like the quite balanced review, but also great points made in the comments, about much more investment that needed to go into this lens... and from other sources I also know that this lens is still the brightest relatively light lens... I do miss a new 100-400mm that would be cheaper and lighter though. It could be darker, like Canon did with theirs RF100-400mm lens, but an ability to put it on a $600 EM1.2 would be great. Currently using a $300 75-300mm lens and an upgrade to M.Zuiko 100-400 mm (also a reengeneered Sigma btw) would be at least $1000 at used prices. Canon has a cheaper proposition with the lens, but R7 is very much undercooked and still oberpriced (small buffer, bad pre-capture compared to ProCap in an 8-year-old EM). I wonder if M.Zuiko (or Panasonic) will ever care about cheaper and lighter stuff with all the hype going into serious wildlife territory...

You can get Sony A6700 AND this lens for E mount for basically same price as m43 version lol

One thing that seems to be either minimized or ignored completely in all the discussions of FF/A-PSC equivalent camera/lens combos is the fact that this lens does offer 'Synch IS' up to 7 stops -- I'm not aware of any other 1200mm FOV set up that would be close to that. There is a video clip on the OM System website that shows this lens on the OM-1 Mkll and the MC-20 TC (2400mm equivalent FOV), hand held -- with and without IS on and it is a very impressive difference.

Do you get to keep it for the Solar Eclipse?

My biggest gripe is opportunity cost. There are decent to great wildlife options that already exist on m43 at a variety of price points. This effort took resources away from something that might have better served the m43 community like firmware updates to existing OM cameras. I was looking at switching from Fuji to m43 and went with G9ii (still keeping Nikon Zf for my full frame/low light fun). It just seems like Panasonic has a more focused strategy that makes sense. I might get am OM down the line as a 2nd body if I see them support their loyal customers who took a chance with them, but this is a strange use of their limited resources when they should have anticipated the beating they are taking over the OM-1 m2.

My impression was that telephoto lens size is more related to the focal length rather than the image circle size - so maybe a bespoke lens for m43 wouldn’t be that much smaller? Whereas you’d see a big difference with a m43 wide angle

It is a bit unfortunate that they didn’t make a specific MFT lens. But with this; they presumably save a lot of money in development (although it doesn’t seem as if they’ve fully passed that onto customers which isn’t cool). And you still have insane reach for a pretty small size compared to full frame. So I get why they do it this way. And I have the 100-400 myself, which I love.

Great review but sad that this is just a marked up sigma 150-600. Times are tough in MFT land these days :(

I can get the Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T CINE Speed Booster XL 0.64x, put on my Pen E-PL7, and use my Canon mount sigma 150-600mm with an aperture multiplier of 0.64 so a faster lens is clearly possible. I think it's something nice to have, though. Incredible reach for reasonable money. What is your better choice for the latest OM System's camera that doesn't cost thousands more?

Hi Guys, any news on the Sony A7S IV?

Have om made anything spectacular since they took over ? Besides cameras and lenses Olympus already was working on . Serious question haven’t followed them at all

wonder what the sigma and a speedbooster would look like. better performance for same lens less price?

I would love for a company to make an EF to M43 autofocus adapter. The metabones does not fit the OM-1

This vs the 300mm f4 with mc20 on the 300mm. Who performs best on the 1200mm part?

Given that you had it with you, was there no testing it with the G9ii? One of m43’s strengths is still being able to use different brands.

sticking to my 300 F4 Pro, with the 2x TC I also get 1200mm, next to that that, just bought the Leica 100-400 II - that is realy lightweight and compact works great both on my G9 II and OM1 - used to carry around a Nikon Z7II with the 150-600 - never go back to that situation

I'm happy to see some FF lens designs coming to M43. Obviously lots of people go with M43 for compactness, but there's also a benefit to be had in bringing over large telephotos or bright primes and there's no reason why they can't both exist on the same platform. It would be nice to see some updates to some of the older compact designs as well though.

You've forgot to mention the weigh in Plena. 2 Plena. One Noct. :D

Interesting all the folks saying this is basically the old 150-600 with a new mount. Okay, so I guess I have actually had this lens then :) Optically, it was fantastic. It just didn't like to play well (lots of focus pulsing) on my Canon mirrorless bodies. But on the 1 out of 10 or 20 shots when the focus actually hit, it was fantastic :)

Olympus owner rave about reach, but it is a crop! Canon's 200-800 is 1280mm eq on the R7, and the sensor is 32mp and larger than the M43.

A thousand more than what should be

I’m sticking to my Sigma 150-600!

It is just my old (bought in 2022) Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS installed to m43

Great review. How is this not a 3.5 to 5.6? 😂

Using less of the image circle is an under-appreciated advantage of this lens/camera strategy, as maximizing sharpness is so important for the target market. It will make the intended photographers happy.

This is how a sushi company destroyed a camera company

I used the Sigma Canon mount for many years - optically a very sharp lens wide open, even at 600mm. I shot birds handheld all the time, and I'm a short woman. I would not pay the extra for a m43 mount however. If it was the regular price of the sigma, maybe a few more dollars,, ok.

Have you try it on the G9 II, should I look for this or am I better with the 100-400 from Lumix with all the compatibility advantage in MFT, I'm new in this system and kind of lost 😅 Hope you never reed this comment ;)

Nice day out. However it’s not the same lens as the old Sigma, but hey, who would want to get in the way of a good story. I’m looking forward to trading stuff in I don’t use to offset the cost.

Pro-Tip/Life-Hack: Carry Panasonic S1R with Sigma 150-600 and OM-1 MZD 150-600, cover everything from 150mm to 1,200mm. When the subject is within the 300 to 600 range you shoot with both cameras, one to each eye and capture stereoscopic imagery at telephoto distances. You're welcome. I solve all world problems. What next?

Retail prices here in Norway (in us dollar): Sigma 150-600 f/5,0-6,3 for Sony: 1500.- Rebranded, and fitted for OM-system/mtf: 2900.- That`s quite rude to OM-system/mtf - owners!

You say "reach" a lot, but that's only in comparison to a 20MP FF sensor, what you always get is the restricted Field of View of a 2x longer lens for finding/following things. I shoot 20MP m43 and 50MP FF and sometimes with the same lenses. You only get a little more detail at the same actual focal length with m43 (back with 16MP m43 it was a wash). BTW on weight - the OMDS 150-400 you mentioned as "light" is 1,875g which is just slightly heavier than a full-frame Canon EF 100-400 II (1590g) and a 1.4x III (225g), or very slightly heavier if you add a Metabones EF-m43 Smart Adapter (144g), although the Canon combo is a fraction of the price. So not light as such. The native lens will AF quite a bit better tho.

Should have done a build in metabones adaptor to get a faster lens. that would have helped to make it worth the price.

Couldn't you put a speed booster on this?

Great review. Seems like a great lens for the money. I'd pay extra for an internal zoom on that lens. Wish they'd update the 100-400 to be internal zoom as well. Thanks.

It's a pitty that You didn't test IS. But in general - thumb up.

They missed the opportunity to create it like unit with optional speedbooster.

For all that extra money, couldn't they fit a speed booster in it to use all that extra light from the full image circle? Why are the markings still 100-600, when the mount is for a smaller sensor, and thus the light path/circle in use all equates to double the focal length to the markings? Unanswered questions, maybe for your podcast?

I adored my EM1.3 and still love my army of P4k’s using Olympus and PanaLeica glass… but this announcement is a sad news for MFT. Just put the A7cII sensor in an A7iii body, charge us the same price as the OM-1 II and hammer in the last nail of the coffin. 😢

How could it gather more light at the same size, if designed for MFT? You need a 95mm front element in order to get f6.3 at 600mm, no matter how you spin it; changing the mount doesn't change physics. Maybe it could have been made a little smaller towards the mount, if it didn't need to cover a FF size sensor, but those are already the smallest & lightest elements in the lens anyway.

I don't know. It seems like a good lens but charging $2700 when it's almost half that on other systems along with full frame weight instead of micro 4/3. What's the point?

You have failed to speak to OMD where you would have been told the internal elements have been re-jigged to focus all the light onto the smaller sensor... Hence the increase in price

I don't know that this is much bigger, heavier, or darker than it had to be. If you look at the recent Fuji 150-600, that's a little lighter than this, but not any smaller, and it's actually a tad darker. Something like the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 is close the same size and weight as the Fuji 50-140 f/2.8, being only slightly lighter and smaller. The Nikkor Z 100-400 sits right between the darker Oly 100-400 and brighter Oly 150-400 in terms of size. With these pro-level telephoto zooms, the size, weight, and aperture differences are pretty marginal for lenses with the same actual focal lengths. M43 still often makes a tonne of sense, since the bodies are smaller, the sensor read-out is really quick, and the pixel pitch of the sensor means much higher resolution in the area covered by the m43 sensor. As such, rebadging a Sigma, getting very good corner performance, and saving significantly in R&D doesn't seem that problematic. The $1100 markup feels *ridiculously* high, tho. A 70% increase in price is absurd. If this lens was, say, $1900, folks wouldn't be complaining about the markup.

Why not test the sharpness on the G9II? Also would have liked to hear your thoughts on the effectiveness of the stabilization in video at 1200mm

Can we just have the 100-400mm with full "Sync-IS" and a waterproof 75-300mm? That would be really cool....

I don't get why they never released an old full frame lens design with a perfectly matched speedbooster hidden inside to get better low light performance in a telephoto.. I think that's the only way I could justify full frame lens size on m43. That price is also outrageous for that lens... and I thought L mount was expensive haha.

So if I buy a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary DG full frame version and an adapter I can save over 50%? COOL!

If this is the direction OM System is gonna take their system (no pun intended), this is truly unfortunate. For the price difference between this lens and the E mount version, you could literally buy at least an APS-C or a used full frame camera to go with it and get more light and a more balanced kit.

​ @patrickchase5614 Not sure about the argument on 600/5.6 = 9xmm. That is true only if you use the whole 600mm but you are not. You only use 1/2 of the area as the effective length is 1200mm. Say we do 200-400 mm; 400/4 = 100 mm but you have F4 not F6.3, 400/5.6 = 80 mm, 400 / 6.3 = 64 mm; Now 400 give you 800mm and that is the effectove longest len Nikon provided for wild life shooting. Hence, as said in the review it can be better. The key here is that it is m3/4, you do NOT need to go to 600 mm if you are tailored made for m3/4 for wild life shooting. (Of course for small bird you crop but finding a bird in 800 mm effective ...). The key is whether it has the same auto-focus of Z9. If the OM1 had, and give a even 400 F6.3 or better 200-400 F3-F6.3 with 64mm (which I assume will be closer to Z 400/6.3 Nikon in weight), I might switch as an old man carry the Z9 400 F6.3 vs OMx 200-400 F3-F6.3!!! Just need auto-focus for auto-bird in flight plus auto-capture, it will be winning solution you can have. P.S. Of course one can be more realistic try 200-400 77mm F3.2 - F5.2 for small bird photography. For larger one the 100-300 is good enough. P.S.2: As a lens reviewed kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ipZ3fsJ5qeCWd58.html here you do have a 3 Kg (camera plus len, per olympus or OM adverstisment) for this 150-400 x1.25 but that is close to US$10,000 together. What you need a similar price one as the Nikon 400 F4.5 or 100-400 F6.3 etc.

Have you tried to put it in front of a full frame camera to see it's image circle out of curiosity? My take is that it covers full frame or maybe a little less depending on the design of the rear mount attachment. Judging by the bokeh shape it seems about right

So its Sigma 150-600 sport

Couldn't they have used some form of a speedbooster to actually gain sth from the original OM Sigma FF design?!

I don't think that it would be significantly smaller if designed for mFT. The image circle is naturally pretty large for long lenses, so not much to be gained in terms of size making it smaller.

Sigma!

What were OM thinking? 😂. Crazy that such a big heavy lens for M43s was released, then finding it’s a Sigma with a very inflated price adds insult to injury. 🧐

Can it shoot at 120 fps?

It is a great lens, but in using a full frame size they open the possibility for Panasonic to make a MFT design that has the same focal range, but is half the size and weight.

All Sigma really had to do was make a speedbooster with better autofocus for, say, Canon EF and Nikon F. I think people would prefer that.

could they not have speed boosted it?

I recall there was rumors that the 100-400mm was also a Sigma Lens underneath. It's too bad that MFT Users are paying a premium to have these lenses. If Sigma releases a Sigma Version at the same price as the other mounts, I would be all over that.

it's correct. a true mft lens would be faster. they could use the base of the 150 to 400 and scale down development / manufacturing costs to a non pro lens or use the base of the 100 to 400. we will see where OM System will go for next approaches. the latest launches are in my opinion a start of a new philosophy at OM System. we all can discuss about companies benefits, earnings etc. but all Olympus shooters followed a philosophy over years and now a change is approaching and we as customers are not feeling whats the future goal. their marketing and information performance is critical in my understanding.

I half expected OM System to release a statement on April 1st along the lines of "Hahah! Gotcha! Here's the REAL lens"

Thanks Chris. You confirmed my suspicions that this is a re-badged Sigma. It's so not keeping with the MFT philosophy. Ug.

Living and working the arctic and antarctica during the midnightsun this lens looks very promising for Polar Bears and other far off wildlife. But i have a Lumix G9 mII, what would be the downside of using this lens on a Lumix body? I read somewhere that when using a olympus lens on lumix body, only the lens stabilization will work. Is this true?

No, it could not have been smaller if specifically designed for micro four thirds. 600mm at f6.3 literally means that the diameter must be at least 95mm, regardless of sensor format. The only size savings that designing for micro four thirds would have yielded is in the elements at the back of the lens that control the projection of the image onto the sensor, but those elements are a small percentage of the overall design already, so there's not much to be gained there. The "compactness" comes from comparing it to what the size of a 1200mm f6.3 would have to be.

For those that can not afford the 150-400 (like me), OM threw them a bone.

It is expensive compared to other mounts, not sure it is physically possible to make an F/6.3 600mm that much lighter and smaller. On the Fuji X Mount fujis own 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 (1375g) designed for APSC is heavier than the Full Frame designed Sigma 100-400 F/5-6.3 (1135g) ported to Fuji X, so a slightly faster APSC designed lens is heavier than a full frame lens.

Great lens, but waiting the price drop