Image Quality
Sharpness
The 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO indicates its position as a professional-grade optic right in the name of the lens, and it lives up to this billing in its resolution abilities. The lens seems to be optimized for the portrait range distances, and in this range, the lens is incredibly sharp from f/2.8 throughout the entire focal range. Center sharpness is brilliant and even edge and corner sharpness is very good at f/2.8, and improves to excellent when stopped down just a smidge.
While the lens is optimized for closer focusing distances, it’s no slouch further out either, though it falls just short of the very best lenses near infinity. Central sharpness is still absolutely brilliant throughout the focal range, even wide open, though the edges at f/2.8 do tend to suffer a bit. They are good, but not exceptional. Stopping down to f/5.6 brings the edges and corners to very good territory here, while the center remains stunningly sharp. While there are sharper lenses for landscape use, the level of resolution should be enough for all but the most critical pixel peepers when focused near infinity.
Bokeh
Short telephoto zoom lenses tend to be a go-to sort of lens for portrait photography and event shooting, and as such, the out of focus rendering is of concern to most photographers. The 40-150mm f/2.8 is a bit of a mixed bag in this regard. Overall, there’s nothing too objectionable about the bokeh created by the lens, but it also doesn’t generate that smooth bokeh that many other f/2.8 telephoto zooms can create.
Specular highlights are generally evenly illuminated, and the lens avoids bright-ring highlights for the most part. However, out of focus highlights do show the tell-tale onion-ring pattern that is indicative of aspherical elements in the lens design. In many situations, the overall rendering of the lens is quite pleasing, but once you start focusing a bit further out, images can get just a touch nervous in the background depending on the scene. The image below is just such a case.
Contrast, Color and Chromatic Aberration
The Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 produces images with high levels of contrast throughout the focal range and the aperture range. The only mild dip in contrast seems to come wide open at focus distances around 15-40 feet away. However, this is very minor and can be easily compensated for in post-production. Color is rich and natural, with good color response and a neutral rendering.
The lens controls chromatic aberration very well, both laterally and longitudinally, so there’s nothing much to worry about here, except perhaps at the wide end, where a bit of lateral CA can creep into the corners. At the mid and long ends of the zoom, though, it’s extremely minimal.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting
The 40-150mm f/2.8 is quite benign when it comes to distortion, with nothing field relevant in the images. Vignetting is also generally well controlled, with some minor vignetting visible at f/2.8, but gone by f/4. However, if there’s one weakness with the 40-150mm, it’s flare.
This lens flares horribly if the sun (or a reflection of the sun) is either in the frame or just out of the frame. Large purple swaths of flare obscure the image and contrast is massively reduced. Even when the sun is just barely out of frame, a bright purple flare will be quite apparent at the edge of the image frame. The lesson? Don’t shoot this lens into the sun, unless you want to compose with flare in mind. Check out the image above to see how bad it can get.
Thanks for this.
The flare isn’t surprising. A cursory look at lenstip.com reviews shows that most telephoto zooms do fairly poorly in this regard.
And while the bokeh is a bit busy, it still looks like a vast improvment over the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.
Thanks for this review, Jordan.
I was hoping you would have compared the Oly to the Pany 35-100 at their overlapping range.
From 40 to 100, how do they both compare? Mostly in terms of sharpness, bokeh, AF and flare?
Thanks a lot!
Unfortunately I don’t have the 35-100 any more, so I couldn’t do a head to head. In general terms, I think the Olympus is a bit sharper (though we’re splitting hairs here), especially at the longer end. Bokeh is pretty close…maybe a slight nod to the Panasonic. AF is very similar in speed, though I found the Panasonic a bit better in dimmer light. The Panny is way better in the flare department, and it’s a lot lighter and smaller. The range of the Olympus is really useful, though, so I think for most people it’s going to come down to size vs. reach when deciding between the two lenses. Both are stellar.
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for the comparison with the Pany.
I agree, I think these lenses fulfill different need/purpose given how much they differ in terms of size.
Do you plan on testing the Oly with the 1.4x converter as well?
It could be a very interesting combo for wildlife for sure.
For flare, it looks as though you have my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. I’m constantly surprised at how bad it is, and how the repair facility stated that it was normal.
I was shocked while using a pre-production Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 at the same time as the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. With lens hoods in use and the sun out of frame for the Panasonic, and the sun in frame for the Olympus, the Panasonic was horrible and the Olympus showed barely any problem.
After 1.5 years with the 12-40mm f/2.8, I’ve found ways to record flare. I just wonder if the coatings are not applied consistently at factories producing any of these lenses.
Hi, great review!
Did you test it with the latest E-M5 firmware update? It should improve autofocus precision in combination with this lens…
Yes, I did the firmware update the day after I got the lens.
Jordan, good review. I am considering this lens for my OMD E 1 but I am also looking at the Olympus 75 mm lens. Have you had a chance to review that lens? It’s a tough decision. The reason I use micro four thirds is the size and weight advantage it seems this lens contradictes that assumption. Let ne know if you have ever looked at the 75 mm lens?
My 75mm review is here: https://admiringlight.com/blog/review-olympus-m-zuiko-75mm-f1-8-ed-msc/
All my reviews can be found by clicking on the Review Index in the main bar at the top of the page.
You should also check the Robin Wong blog about the 40-150mm vs 75mm.
40-150mm is so close to 75mm that it is identical.
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/10/olympus-mzuiko-40-150mm-f28-pro-lens_13.html
I’ve got both and I’ll use them in very different ways – the 75mm is for the best low dof and for ultralight travelling (I cycle & motorcycle with that + the 12-40mm). I was expecting to say that I’d use the 75 for ultimate sharpness too, but my first test shots from the 40-150 are so far beyond anything I’ve seen from a zoom that I’m not so sure now.
I never fail to be amazed by the amount of people who always find the need to comment on the size of a lens as if just because it’s Micro Four Thirds any lens longer than 50 mm should be built to ever diminishing dimensions and weight. If only this were possible, just think, the Micro Four Thirds system would be dead in its tracks as all those big heavy lenses used by the FF army would all be as small as the Oly 75mm prime and 12-40mm zoom, the only benefits left for Oly and Pana would be the smaller bodies in the system, as the gains from the telephoto end of lenses would be no more.
I disagree.
The size is especially important for this lens just because you have a very comparable alternative. Panny 35-100 2.8 has mostly the same optics, speed and build (build is not as rugged but still good and weather sealed).
There area only two differences size and reach. (assuming you have an Olympus body I will ignore stabilization)
What you need to consider is that if you want to sacrifice carrying a lens with 2 times the weight for 50% more reach. And this comes down to personal need.
For my needs i very much prefer having a smaller lens. I realized I carry it with me more often. Even when I am not necessarily going out for photographic purposes.
Excellent review. I would really like to see how this ones compares with Fuji 50-140 and Samsung 50-150.
I hope to have the Fuji in for review sometime in the next week or so. The Samsung may be more challenging, but I really want to get a hold of the NX1, 16-50 and 50-150 for testing.
Great review. i love your images how do you post process them? What are you doing? if Jpegs, what settings?
Keep up the great work
I’m surprised that the click-back manual focus ring has the stepping issue of the 12mm f/2. I’d figured that Olympus had figured that out already with the 17mm. These kinds of steps backwards are disappointing, although this lens is too big for what I want to do anyway. I Am surprised that it didn’t make your “cons” list.
Another angle (since this lens is so expensive)…
There are really two reasons to own a fast zoom lens:
1) Low light gathering performance
2) Subject isolation, or bokeh performance
Not that this Oly doesn’t sound like a really great MFT lens, but…
If a person is trying to obtain light performance, and/or have the best bokeh, full frame is really the ONLY way to go (believe me, I have tried working against that fact, but it doesn’t work).
Of course a person may want to stay in the MFT ecosystem for whatever reasons (I own a GX7 myself), and of course that’s fine, but…
For the same money as this lens, a person can just about buy a decent used full frame camera, AND a used 70-200 2.8.
Now no, you won’t be getting the sharpest lens for that money, but you WILL be getting noticeably better low -light and bokeh performance than this Oly lens…and again, those are really the ONLY reasons to buy a 70-200 2.8 in the first place.
Which FF body +70-200/2.8 can you get for $1500?
Thanks for the review, but why couldn’t you post just one image at full resolution?
Jordan thanks for the follow up about the 75mm lens I may have to put that on my forward purchase list going forward. Good review.
FF cameras do not make a good photograph. The photographer does. We all know that FF cameras offer lower noise and better resolution. The advantages a top-end FF body( 1DX or D4) has are:
-the ability to print gnormous prints with 2-stops less noise and somewhat better resolution.
-high-speed, sequenced-images with decent, but not perfect C-AF(only Canon and Nikon, not Sony).
-2-stops shallower DOF with better bokeh.
– a wider range of lenses.
As a working pro with a newspaper and published freelance images for NG, CNN, NASA, etc…I’ll tell you, I have sold most of my top-end Canon system and L lenses. I have only kept my 200 f1.8…fabulous sharpness and bokeh for the rare occasions I absolutely must have it. I now do 98% of all my work now with the OLY EM-1. For any newspaper or magazine print, the EM-1 gets the same results as the big, heavy guns. And more. The benefits of a top-quality lightweight system cannot be understated:
-After 30+ years of lugging heavy SLRs and DSLRs with their heavy lenses, my body cannot take any more. The OLY system is so lightweight, I am no longer arm, shoulder, neck sore. Though I cannot reverse the long term damage to my joints (arthritis) that my heavy equipment caused. Ask any experienced pro has his back and neck feels.
-The built-in IS allows me to get pics my Canon bodies don’t.
-The tilt screen allows me to get angles my Canon bodies didn’t.
-Ultra-quick S-AF with a higher in-focus keeper rate. One advantage of the Contrast-Detect AF.
-With a non-M43 system, you have to do the tiresome calibration of each lens to each body, otherwise shooting wide open may be off-focus. I had to do this calibration with my 200 f1.8L and my 135 f2L with each of my bodies.
-the image sharpness and contrast of the OLY 75 f1.8 and 12-40 f2.8 easily matches or betters my 135f2L and 24-70L…at a fraction of the cost.
-No more strains, sprains nor fatigue. Shooting is fun again. Can’t wait to get my hands on the 40-150 f2.8 and the 1.4X…the only thing that this high quality pro system was missing for most occasions. The upcoming 600 f4 will offer more possibilities.
If you don’t need the shallow DOF and don’t print large, it is not problem using m43. I even know many photographers of our local newspapers using their IPhones only! Probably, you had the disadvantage to use gear during a less technically advanced area. Since today many cameras provide for small and capable packages. A D750 with primes gives you a very light weight option, which certainly won’t stress your joints dramatically (D750 + 20,50,85 1.8G). Use a 70-300 4-5.6 zoom in addition and you are fine (will give you similar DOF and even stabilisation + articulated screen to the new Oly at a fraction of the price). I use both FF + Oly, the Oly only when traveling far. What I get from FF is much better in my and my wifes opinion (fine tuning is not a problem anymore and works fine with all primes) in terms of noise, tonality and DOF control. The one thing I don’t like about m43 is the lens prices of the better quality lenses (75,42.5, 12-40 …), since our photography is about achieving shallow DOF. For those who can live without needing this, m43 is plenty. The new lens attracted me, but the bokeh is a little too harsh for me and when combining it with the TC you have a 400/F8 in terms of AOV, DOF. Subject separation is quite difficult if your bird is not far away from a distracting background.
HF
You’re correct. If the best bokeh and shallow DOF is what you want, the FF is best.
I rarely need it. And kept my 200 f1.8L for those few occasions.
YES, the best OLY lenses are not inexpensive…but they do cost less, almost half than similar quality Canon L lenses. As stated, the best OLY lenses are as good or better. You must try them to see this for yourself. No softness whatsoever…especially in the corners…a weakness of FF images shot wide-open.
I did a UFC event this year with my 75 f1.8, I was 3.5 feet away from the octagon. My images were sharper than those of a buddy who was shooting with a 70-200 M2 f:2.8 with a 6D (FF). We both shot at 1/3200 sec. He couldn’t believe the detail on the fighters’ faces. I was shooting at f1.8, 800 ISO and S-AF. The AF is instantaneous.
I used my 12-40 f2.8 only when fighters were close to the cage and as they walked out.
For press assignments, I only shoot jpg. Unlike my Canon images, I never have to add PP sharpening. The OLY algorithm is very good. So is the WB.
You can print very large, 5 feet (1.5m) wide and you still get very great results that people will amaze. I have done couple meters size and people amaze the sharpness and details.
All what is required is that you nail the focus and you eliminate the camera motion blur.
The 135 format 36Mpix sensor has negligent difference to 16Mpix 4/3 sensor. You need 64Mpix 135 sensor to really see a difference.
And 135 format shooters have long time already learned that 10-12Mpix offers possibilities to make huge sharp prints, and you are not looking those from 50cm distance.
As sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VHuY4cIrSk&t=60
And one o those is taken with Nikon D3s, a camera that as 12.1Mpix sensor!
Everyone already knows this ad I suppose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39tFGoO4008
But you really can make large great looking prints from 4/3 sensor. You can even make over 4×3 meter size prints. Meaning that one pixel from current 16Mpix m4/3 camera is 1×1 millimeters by size. _one millimeter_. Now, you can go close proximity and look how detailed the photo is, or you can step back to see the whole frame filling one room in your house and yet get your mind blowed because it is sharp and very detailed HUGE print (if people would often see and get those size prints).
The 135 format doesn’t have a edge in large prints, it doesn’t have edge in noise. It doesn’t have edge in the shallow depth of field. Instead 135 format has limits, as m4/3 cameras has 2 stop benefit receiving more light for same depth of field. And you want your subject to be in focus, you want your subjects in group photograph to have their faces in focus, you want your landscape to be in focus from foreground to background, you want your subject in macrophotography to be in focus, you don’t want out of focus photographs! A many m4/3 lens is sharper than 135 format lens already from from the wide open and 135 format lenses needs to be stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 level to get that sharpness, And if you stop down m4/3 lens to f/4, it is almost twice as sharp at that point than 135 format lens.
We have digital technology to minimize noise and grain, we can add contrast and sharpen details where needed high levels, we can easily even blur areas that are little bit defocus and get it look natural with good bokeh.
Instead what we can’t do easily is to get out of focus subject or motion blurred subject back in the focus.
With m4/3 we get 2 stops more light than 135 format gets, and that we can use to either faster shutter speed or lower ISO, or to both. We can lighten the subject further with our flashes, or we can get twice amount of cycles from our flash because we can use smaller power.
But with m4/3 we have penalty as well, we need more often use ND filter as the sensor receives 2 stops more light, so we easily hit to fastest possible shutter speed limits or diffraction limit or we can’t get lower ISO. So we swap the light gathering power of 2 stops to requirement to carry ND filters with us to stop down 2-3 stops.
There are people who hunts the “out of focus” photographs, where they want that their subject is perfectly sharp and background is perfectly blur. There is no difference in that between 135 and 4/3 formats. Same possibilities with both.
Yet people like to say “But the m4/3 camera doesn’t blur so…”. Answer for that is just “learn to take photographs”.
Jayo,
I agree with everything you said. FF definitely has a few drawbacks, perhaps the biggest one being size/weight.
If this lens was maybe $1200 or less, it starts to make sense to buy it over a FF/Lens combo for the specific purpose of what this kind of lens is typically bought for…low light performance and bokeh.
I would love to jump completely to APS-C or MFT, but I shoot indoor high school sports (crappy light of course), an FF just can’t be beat for the HI-ISO noise performance.
Bill,
You’re absolutely right. FF has a 2-stop advantage in low light situations…when there is movement involved, ie indoor sports. It’s why I still have my 200 f1.8L.
On the other hand, noise doesn’t affect me as much as purists. The content of the image is always more important than the noise-quality. High speed 35 mm film was much noisier than today’s sensors. And the pictures told a thousand words.
Again, FF is visibly better for large sized images. I’ve chosen to trade off a little bit of image quality for much better comfort and a smaller footprint. I still get the shot.
Olympus has updated their firmware twice to accomodate the 40-150mm F2.8 lens. The newest firmware – version 2.2 was released to correct some focusing issues in version 2.1. I would like to know which version of the firmware was used in conducting this review. I own this lens, use it with my E-m1 and have not noticed focusing difficultites after updating the firmware to version 2.2. I used firmware version for 3 days and had some focusing difficulties.
Wow, i like the grass-photo you made.
Agreed, the grass photo caught my attention. Looking forward to this lens arriving tomorrow and seeing if it and the
EM-1 can kick the D810 out of my bag for travel.
Matt
My lens arrived Friday and almost my first use of it on my E-M1 was available light shooting @1600iso in the Kunsthistorisches museum in Vienna – I was startled by how fast the low-light focussing is. Initial results support your “stellar” assessment, even without the latest 2.1 firmware.