Olympus 150-400 f4.5 IS Pro coming real soon now?

[Lcrunyon]

This is in Chinese, but you can jump to about 8 minute for multiple fantastic images taken with the lens.

Cheers

Some crazy sharp images. I didn’t much care for the JPEG treatment on Vivid setting, but that has nothing to do with the lens.

 

[Hypilein]

I am more than happy for those who intend to get this lens in the immediate future. Put it this way, it's about the cost of a world cruise or a decent funeral.

I'd pick the world cruise anytime over both the lens and (obviously) the funeral. I might rent a lens to bring on the cruise though. Probably it would be the Panasonic 200 f2.8 though.

 

[RS86]

As long as you don’t need weather sealing that is almost true. The IQ of the 200-600 is more on par with the 100-400 or xx-300 lenses. Not close to the 300/4 or other pro lenses.

I saw this thread on another forum. Do you have comments on why he says Sony 200-600mm is slightly better in IQ than Olympus 300mm? He rated IQ as Sony A- vs. Olympus B+.

From what I saw in those dove photos, I think the Sony had some motion blur on the head, or something, and Olympus didn't.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1655108/0

Does someone have comments on this thread, I'm not totally sure I understand it? Why does it talk about horizontal pixels only, M43 has more vertical pixels with 4:3 ratio?

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1635612

 

[doxa750]

That crop of a bird after about 9:30~ seems too good to believe. Would not have thought that was possible.
Unless i totally missed what this was showing. I took it as implied that the bird was extracted from the circle in the first image

Edit;
Confirmed below by @Aristophanes two different lenses. Top image with 12-45 Pro bottom with the 150-400.
Thought I may have got that wrong, just seemed too good to be true.


Below with 12-45 Pro
View attachment 859162 to

Below with 150-400
View attachment 859163

I think it is possible for 30meters distance at 2000mm FL with crop. I don't speak Chinese, but that is my best guess . The Bokeh seems too good to be true either there is nothing behind or it was edited, IMHO.

 

[doxa750]

I saw this thread on another forum. Do you have comments on why he says Sony 200-600mm is slightly better in IQ than Olympus 300mm? He rated IQ as Sony A- vs. Olympus B+.

From what I saw in those dove photos, I think the Sony had some motion blur on the head, or something, and Olympus didn't.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1655108/0

Does someone have comments on this thread, I'm not totally sure I understand it? Why does it talk about horizontal pixels only, M43 has more vertical pixels with 4:3 ratio?

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1635612

Comparing between camera, I believe A9II would win any day. It is a much more expensive camera BTW. However, comparing lenses Sony 200-600mm vs Olympus 300mm F4, I have seen it first hand that Olympus is better from a side by side comparison. However, Olympus is more expensive but weighs much lighter.

 

[SpecFoto]

I saw this thread on another forum. Do you have comments on why he says Sony 200-600mm is slightly better in IQ than Olympus 300mm? He rated IQ as Sony A- vs. Olympus B+.

From what I saw in those dove photos, I think the Sony had some motion blur on the head, or something, and Olympus didn't.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1655108/0

Does someone have comments on this thread, I'm not totally sure I understand it? Why does it talk about horizontal pixels only, M43 has more vertical pixels with 4:3 ratio?

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1635612

I think you are reading too much into Galenpass's ratings in the post. He states in the rating of the lenses themselves that the Sony 200-600 is a A and the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro an A+, while adding the MC-14 the 300 f4 combo is an A. He also says "Sharpness clearly takes a hit with the TC but not so much that it is an issue." Of his 12 posted shots all but 1 are stationary birds and he also says that the liked the extra reach of the 200-600 which becomes a 300-900mm lens with the A6400, and therefore he like those files better. The only one with a flying bird was with the EM1-X.

Having both the Sony A7III and A7RIII, and using a friends A6400, I can tell you that the A6400 is egronomically a bad camera and has a very short battery life. I shot with my friends to see if it was for me, but I won't own one. Galenpass agrees giving it an F vs. an A+ for the EM1-X!! This is WAY more important than the very slight IQ rating difference of the A- vs. B+. I know that Galenpass finally ended up buying a Sony A9, simply because the A6400 was so bad, so now his slightly higher IQ rating because of the reach is gone. And the 200-600, while a great range, is a very large and heavy lens at 4.65 pounds and 12-1/2 inches long. The 300 f4 Pro is 1/3 less in size and weighs at 3.25 pounds and the new Olympus 100-400 with even a bigger range is even less weight at 2.46 pounds while just 8" long.

Having shot with numerous systems, here is my bottom line: If you must have the highest keeper rate of BIF/action shots, the A9/A9II is the best, it will be 94% or more. My D500 is pretty close at 85% and that is using two 15 year old NIkkor AF lenses (could be higher with newer lenses) and being a DX crop camera you get added reach. For this reason I am not interested in the slightly better keeper rate of the A9's, the added native reach is more important to me. The newest Sony AF-C cameras, which are the crop sensor, will be at 75-80%, while my A7's, where I use the Sony 100-400 GM lens will be around 70-75%. The EM1-X (before upcoming BIF upgrade) and EM1 MkIII with 40-150mm f2.8 Pro, will be at 70%, the G9, which I also own, will be at 55% (DFD with no phase detect AF is the issue here). ALL of them can do the job, and with some you will just have more in focus shots at the end of the day, but you CAN get great results with all.

As far as IQ the 20MP EM1.3 and G9 are right up there with the 20MP D500, 24MP Sony A9/A7, A64xx, and A7C, there is very little difference. Where you will notice a difference is with a much higher MP camera, like my A7RIII at 46MP. There is a bit more detail and you have ability to crop the in-camera and get a 18MP file, or the newest A7RIV at 61MP, this becomes a 26MP cropped file. If you were a Pro or get paid for for your BIF/Action shots then by all means a A9 or D500 is what you should get. But if you are a hobbyist, then other factors like size, weather ability, cost, weight restrictions for travel and the ability of lenses becomes more important, like who but Olympus has a 40-150mm (80-300mmFF) f2.8 zoom that is so small? While I like that my D500 because it is so accurate, I tend to use my EM1.3 a lot more because it is so easy to carry and does the job for my needs.

Re all the crap about the horizontal pixels in the 2nd post is just that, crap. Don't worry about some pixel peepers convoluted ways to say his equipment he owns is the best.

 

[Aristophanes]

Classic marmot to gerbil equivalence nonsense. This place is out of hand.

But what about guinea pig equivalence?

They sell far more guinea pigs than either marmots or gerbils.

And at lower altitudes we'd have to throw in beaver-sized rodents for a true comparison.

 

[RS86]

I think you are reading too much into Galenpass's ratings in the post. He states in the rating of the lenses themselves that the Sony 200-600 is a A and the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro an A+, while adding the MC-14 the 300 f4 combo is an A. He also says "Sharpness clearly takes a hit with the TC but not so much that it is an issue." Of his 12 posted shots all but 1 are stationary birds and he also says that the liked the extra reach of the 200-600 which becomes a 300-900mm lens with the A6400, and therefore he like those files better. The only one with a flying bird was with the EM1-X.

Having both the Sony A7III and A7RIII, and using a friends A6400, I can tell you that the A6400 is egronomically a bad camera and has a very short battery life. I shot with my friends to see if it was for me, but I won't own one. Galenpass agrees giving it an F vs. an A+ for the EM1-X!! This is WAY more important than the very slight IQ rating difference of the A- vs. B+. I know that Galenpass finally ended up buying a Sony A9, simply because the A6400 was so bad, so now his slightly higher IQ rating because of the reach is gone. And the 200-600, while a great range, is a very large and heavy lens at 4.65 pounds and 12-1/2 inches long. The 300 f4 is 1/3 less in size and weighs at 3.25 pounds and the new Olympus 100-400 with even a bigger range is even less weight at 2.46 pounds while just 8" long.

Having shot with numerous systems, here is my bottom line: If you must have the highest keeper rate of BIF/action shots, the A9/A9II is the best, it will be 94% or more. My D500 is pretty close at 85% and that is using two 15 year old NIkkor AF lenses (could be higher with newer lenses) and being a DX crop camera you get added reach. For this reason I am not interested in the slightly better keeper rate of the A9's, the added native reach is more important to me. The newest Sony AF-C cameras, which are the crop sensor, will be at 75-80%, while my A7's, where I use the Sony 100-400 GM lens will be around 70-75%. The EM1-X (before upcoming BIF upgrade) and EM1 MkIII, which I own will be at 70%, the G9, which I also own, will be at 55% (DFD with no phase detect AF is the issue here). ALL of them can do the job, and with some you will just have more shots at the end of the day, but you CAN get great results with all.

As far as IQ the 20MP EM1.3 and G9 are right up there with the 20MP D500, 24MP Sony A9/A7, A64xx, and A7C, there is very little difference. Where you will notice a difference is with a much higher MP camera, like my A7RIII at 46MP. There is a bit more detail and you have ability to crop the in-camera and get a 18MP file, or the newest A7RIV at 61MP, this becomes a 26MP cropped file. If you were a Pro or get paid for for your BIF/Action shots then by all means a A9 or D500 is what you should get. But if you are a hobbyist, then other factors like size, weather ability, cost, weight restrictions for travel and the ability of lenses becomes more important, like who but Olympus has a 40-150mm (80-300mmFF) f2.8 zoom that is so small? While I like that my D500 because it is so accurate, I tend to use my IM1.3 a lot more because it is so easy to carry and does the job for my needs.

Re all the crap about the horizontal pixels in the 2nd post is just that, crap. Don't worry about some pixel peepers convoluted ways to say his equipment he owns is the best.

Hey thanks, didn't expect to get this level of an answer. Great to hear from someone who really owns both systems and has tested them thoroughly.

Would you be interested to make a comment in Fred Miranda? I thought about asking same questions there, so there wouldn't be any misinformation.

But clearly if you make this kind of comment with your experience, you can bring another view there so everyone is more well-informed.

For example I have not much idea how that "ducks per pixel" or whatever is done or means, but you could explain how that might be wrong if so.

 

[SpecFoto]

Hey thanks, didn't expect to get this level of an answer. Great to hear from someone who really owns both systems and has tested them thoroughly.

Would you be interested to make a comment in Fred Miranda? I thought about asking same questions there, so there wouldn't be any misinformation.

But clearly if you make this kind of comment with your experience, you can bring another view there so everyone is more well-informed.

For example I have not much idea how that "ducks per pixel" or whatever is done or means, but you could explain how that might be wrong if so.

Oh I post there occasionally, but the M4/3 forum there tends to be a bloodbath at times, too many posters from DPR. I much prefer to hang out here Galenpass is a good guy and in more current postings, has pretty much come to the same conclusion, he is keeping his M4/3 gear to shoot along with his Sony and uses each one when it is best to fit his needs. And I have used these systems real world, check out this D500 vs. G9 vs. EM1 (original) 2-part post I did here almost 3 years ago:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/g9-with-birds.96288/page-3#post-1113694

I should mention since this post my G9 has had a big FW update that helped with the Eye Af and Af-C (but it is still last) and the D500 has had a service and it's contacts cleaned which improved the CA-F too. So the keeper rate is higher now than back then.

 

[RS86]

Oh I post there occasionally, but the M4/3 forum there tends to be a bloodbath at times, too many posters from DPR. I much prefer to hang out here Galenpass is a good guy and in more current postings, has pretty much come to the same conclusion, he is keeping his M4/3 gear to shoot along with his Sony and uses each one when it is best to fit his needs. And I have used these systems real world, check out this D500 vs. G9 vs. EM1 (original) 2-part post I did here almost 3 years ago:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/g9-with-birds.96288/page-3#post-1113694

Yeah, this forum is the best. In recap, how would you rate/estimate Sony A9I/II & 200-600mm vs Olympus E-M1X/III & 150-400mm?

This is something a certain T-person (thou shall not pronounce his name) said would be much cheaper choice for similar results. Or actually I think he said A7RIV would give similar results with cropping, but I think that has worse AF?

 

[Mack]

Was looking at the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens and startled to find it weighs one pound less than the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 and is 3 inches shorter as well, likely due to the PF element in the 500mm.

Given it is about $3,300 and the 45MP Nikon Z7 II is $3,000 the combo is less than the Olympus lens alone. With cropping off the Nikon 46MP FF sensor it will be interesting to compare the two systems. My hope with the Z7 II (I'm transitioning back to Nikon, but will keep all the Olympus stuff.) is to avoid the blotchiness I see with the Olympus and maybe in their denoising or demosaicing algorithm that i did not see in my old D800E.

 

[RS86]

Was looking at the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens and startled to find ti weighs one pound less than the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 and is 3 inches shorter as well, likely due to the PF element in the 500mm.

Given it is about $3,300 and the 45MP Nikon Z7 II is $3,000 the combo is less than the Olympus lens alone. With cropping off the Nikon 47MP FF sensor it will be interesting to compare the two systems. My hope with the Z7 II (I tranisitioning back to Nikon, but will keep all the Olympus stuff.) is to avoid the blotchiness I see with the Olympus and maybe in their denoising or demosaicing algorithm that i did not see in my old D800E.

SpecFoto said above that the crop is 18MP file from his 46MP A7RIII.

What kind of crop factor is it? 2x? What kind of reach & aperture would this Nikon lens give? Of course it is not a zoom lens.

 

[Mack]

SpecFoto said above that the crop is 18MP file from his 46MP A7RIII.

What kind of crop factor is it? 2x? What kind of reach & aperture would this Nikon lens give? Of course it is not a zoom lens.

Might be even less given Nikon says their DX size is about 19.4 MP in largest (L) saved size, and a 2x crop is even more.

Still, the Nikon and the 500mm PF smaller size and weight is definitely a win, and something surprising coming from their larger DSLR era. Hopefully in the future, they can also come out with even smaller travel lenses for their Z-mount and maybe even a smaller PF-style of zoom. With them shrinking their gear size and weight, it is a problem for Olympus and maybe why they could see the need to exit.

 

[RS86]

Might be even less given Nikon says their DX size is about 19.4 MP in largest (L) saved size, and a 2x crop is even more.

Still, the Nikon and the 500mm PF smaller size and weight is definitely a win, and something surprising coming from their larger DSLR era. Hopefully in the future, they can also come out with even smaller travel lenses for their Z-mount and maybe even a smaller PF-style of zoom. With them shrinking their gear size and weight, it is a problem for Olympus and maybe why they could see the need to exit.

I'm interested on what kind of reach does that lens give and what aperture with the Z 7 I/II in crop mode?

Hard to compare at all without this information. Does the crop mode affect the aperture?

Primes are of course smaller and lighter, so Olympus 300mm f/4 is a better comparison?

 

[SpecFoto]

Yeah, this forum is the best. In recap, how would you rate/estimate Sony A9I/II & 200-600mm vs Olympus E-M1X/III & 150-400mm?

This is something a certain T-person (thou shall not pronounce his name) said would be much cheaper choice for similar results. Or actually I think he said A7RIV would give similar results with cropping, but I think that has worse AF?

Really not much to comment on the new 150-400 f4.5 Pro, being retired now it is out of my league, as is the A9II. But it will be a faster focusing lens no doubt that is truly weather sealed and can handle much tougher environments that the Sony. Might be more important for some vs. a few added keepers. IQ wise I can't see where there will be much difference between the two as again Oly 20MP vs Sony 24MP I don't see any real world differences for what I shoot. But, the latest rumors say a new A9III (or whatever) is coming and it will have a sensor between 32 and maybe up to 50MP depending who you believe. (but at a significant cost). THAT could be a game changer for some Pros. The Sony A7RIV did have AF issues since day 1 with the 200-600 lens. But last month Sony finally released a FW upgrade that quietly fixed this issue for most without mentioning it. The A9/A9II were fine and never had an issue.

We are getting a bit OT, but the 150-400 f4.5 is such a specialized lens and not mainstream, so hope no one cares, as after all the 150-400 f4.5 must be competitive with other systems to be successful. I will most likely buy the new Olympus 100-400mm lens, as I would use it at the Salton Sea or Colorado River for birds, where it is almost always sunny, or for photographing surfers and boats at the ocean, again during the day, where the weather ability of the Olympus stands out. So the slightly slower speed of f6.3 at the long end is manageable for me. For airshows though I would most likely still use the 40-150 f2.8 the most, but I bring the D500 and 300mm f4 (450 FF) as the 2nd body to airshows and would prefer that to changing Olympus lenses on just 1 body.

 

[Mack]

I'm interested on what kind of reach does that lens give and what aperture with the Z 7 I/II in crop mode?

Hard to compare at all without this information. Does the crop mode affect the aperture?

My Sekonic meter says f/8 is f/8 no matter what camera I use, otherwise it would need to have a entire camera model listing (FF, APC, m43, MF, etc.) programmed into it to deal with. I wouldn't expect crop to affect the f/stop.

 

[SpecFoto]

SpecFoto said above that the crop is 18MP file from his 46MP A7RIII.

What kind of crop factor is it? 2x? What kind of reach & aperture would this Nikon lens give? Of course it is not a zoom lens.

Sony in camera crop is 1.5, so my Sony 100-400 GM becomes a 150 to 600mm. It does not affect the aperture, but it does reduce the MP. Same 1.5x crop for the D500 DX vs. Nikon FX, again with no aperture affect. My Nikon 300mm f4 becomes a 450mm f4 on the D500. And you can add TC's to either, but lose a stop with the 1.4x or 1.5 stops with my Nikon 1.7x TC.

 

[RS86]

Sony in camera crop is 1.5, the same as the D500 DX vs. NikonFX. So my Sony 100-400 GM becomes a 150 to 600mm. It does not affect the aperture, but it does reduce the MP. My Nikon 300mm f4 becomes a 450mm f4 on the D500, again with no aperture affect. And you can add TC's to either, but lose a stop with the 1.4x or 1.5 stops with my Nikon 1.7x TC.

Ah of course, because they compare the "crop" mode to their own crop sensors.

So this Nikon 500mm lens would be 750mm f/5.6 lens in the 17-18MP file?

While Olympus would be a zoom, 300-800mm f/4.5 (plus built-in 1.25x TC) & 20MP file?

So do you think Sony A7R III/IV & 200-600mm can now match E-M1X/III on AF & performance? Burst speed etc.?

 

[Pluttis]

Was looking at the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens and startled to find it weighs one pound less than the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 and is 3 inches shorter as well, likely due to the PF element in the 500mm.

Given it is about $3,300 and the 45MP Nikon Z7 II is $3,000 the combo is less than the Olympus lens alone. With cropping off the Nikon 46MP FF sensor it will be interesting to compare the two systems. My hope with the Z7 II (I'm transitioning back to Nikon, but will keep all the Olympus stuff.) is to avoid the blotchiness I see with the Olympus and maybe in their denoising or demosaicing algorithm that i did not see in my old D800E.

Yeah Nikon PF lenses is attractive due to their size and weight.

But comparing it to a 150-400 zoom lens that is faster its a bit like comparing apples to pears.

The Nikon PF 500mm f5.6 is also quite much smaller than Nikons 200-500 f5.6

Not sure you will get more keepers with Nikon Z7 II when shooting BIF...Z7 II can shoot up to 10fps( maybe 8fps in real world use?) but that is only with single point AF plus you get slightly lower AF performance with F-mount lenses.

 

[SpecFoto]

Ah of course, because they compare the "crop" mode to their own crop sensors.

So this Nikon 500mm lens would be 750mm f/5.6 lens in the 17-18MP file?

While Olympus would be a zoom, 300-800mm (plus built-in 1.25x TC) & 20MP file?

Don't confuse in-camera crop like on my A7RIII or Nikon Z7, to a cropped sensor camera like a D500 or Sony A6400. Similar results but confusing. Using a FF lens on a in-camera crop does not affect the aperture but it does reduce the MP. Using a FF lens on a cropped sensor camera does not affect the aperture OR reduced the MP. So the Nikon 500mm PF on the Nikon Z7 with in-camera crop results with a 19MP file from a 750mm lens at f5.6. But on the D500, a native 20 MP body, the result is a 20 MP file from the 750mm at f5.6 lens. Now you know why so many shooters want a higher crop sensor Sony or Nikon APSC body, they get the best of both worlds. Give me a 35MP D500 and I would be so happy.

Yes your Olympus numbers are correct.