Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review  (Read 12767 times)

bengeo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« on: December 08, 2014, 12:24:34 pm »

Thanks for the review and informative video Kevin. I'll also be interested to hear how you find C-AF with this lens.

Just one point re "In Body Image Stabilization is the newest feature being added to cameras.  Olympus was the pioneer with this feature ..." - Konica Minolta were the first to feature this.

Andy
Logged

billh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2014, 06:35:41 pm »

I'm also interested in the AFC - are there any mirrorless cameras that will track as well as the DSLRs? I had hopes for the NX1, but while I have seen unfavorable posts of people's AF tracking experiences with the camera, other than video examples, nothing I can find contradicts what users are saying about the poor tracking results with photos. I'd love to be able to leave the heavy Nikon equipment home (the D3s and 70-200 f.8) weigh over 6 lbs - and the 40-150 f2.8, 80-300 f2.8 equivalent is under 2 lbs. That is very appealing, both in the range it covers, and the light weight.
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2014, 09:53:59 pm »

Hi,
A couple of things.  I meant to say in my article regarding Olympus and IBIS is that they were the pioneer of 5 axis stabilization. 

As far as tracking of C-AF, Olympus does a pretty good job with the pro lenses.  The new Fuji lens that I am now testing not so much, however that may be firmware related.

The new Sony a II however is a different story.  We are testing that camera now and both Michael and I have ordered our own systems. The AF tracking in that camera is supposed to be very good.  We'll let you know once we have a production unit.

Kevin Raber
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

Stefan12345

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2014, 03:36:14 am »

First of all, thanks for the informative review!
I've got one question, though: When comparing this lens to an equivalent on FF, shouldn't you also consider depth-of-field? Although the 40-150 may be comparable to a 80-300 2.8 considering light-gathering capabilities, it is comparable to a 80-300 5.6 considering the depth-of-field. (AFAIK)
For me, depth-of-field is more important than light-gathering because (in most situations) I can simply bump the ISO of my camera, but I can never get less DOF when 5.6 is too much...

Stefan.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2014, 04:07:39 am »

Thanks for the write up Kevin. I used the EM-1 with the 12-40 lens for a few months, in the hope of lightning up my backpack. Very nice camera and lens, and indeed the new Pro lenses are fantastic.

However, I shoot a lot of seascape long exposures, and the quality of image from the 4/3 sensor in that situation is still lacking. My Canon 6D with the new EF 16-35 f4 zoom provides vastly better image quality.

I am now eyeing the Sony A7 system, but will let it mature for a few more years. As a try out, I currently use for travel a Sony A6000 with the 16-70 f4 zoom, very good quality.

Indeed zoom lenses have come a long way!

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2014, 07:52:25 am »

Kevin,

Something interesting I found on sensorgen.info re the E-M1 is that ISO 100 is measured by DxO as having the same sensitivity as ISO 200 BUT ISO 200 has both less noise AND a higher DR (by .2) than ISO 100. This would suggest that there's absolutely no loss in IQ when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Does that match your shooting?

Sensor data for Olympus OM-D-E-M1
Logged

billh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2014, 07:56:14 am »

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for offering to test the AFC (or CAF). This is a function that is pretty much ignored by most testers. Most cameras can (or should) be able to track large objects like cars moving toward the camera at a steady speed. The difficulty comes when attempting to track “erratic” motion. An especially good (difficult) subject is animals, and the easiest animal to come by is a dog who will chase a ball or Frisbee and run back toward the camera with it. Their face moves all over the viewfinder and keeping the face (and especially the eyes) in focus is critical, and exceedingly challenging for most cameras.

It is interesting to read the posts of people explaining what is important to them. It makes me realize how difficult the job of the camera designer is - and of course they also have to compete with other makes priced similarly without encroaching on the sales of their more expensive models. I was hoping the specifications the NX1 touted might jar the others, causing them to give consumers more capability in the smaller, less expensive models.

It is always interesting to note when you guys actually buy the cameras you are testing. Over the years I’ve noticed that Michael’s take on a camera is almost inevitably the same as mine. It will be (as usual) interesting to read your report.

Thanks,

Bill
Logged

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2014, 08:42:42 am »

Kevin,

Something interesting I found on sensorgen.info re the E-M1 is that ISO 100 is measured by DxO as having the same sensitivity as ISO 200 BUT ISO 200 has both less noise AND a higher DR (by .2) than ISO 100. This would suggest that there's absolutely no loss in IQ when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Does that match your shooting?

Sensor data for Olympus OM-D-E-M1

I used the software provided by W. Claff ( http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/ )

Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2014, 08:46:07 am »

As I was testing the lens and not the camera I didn't do a test and comparison like you mention.  My experience though is very favorable with higher ISO use with the EM-1.  I am quite amazed that with the small pixels on a MFT sensor that they pull off such good High ISO performance.  And, while I will leave the Dynamic Range testing to those with test equipment to do it, I found that with Capture One I was able to with the highlight and shadow recovery sliders pull in some amazingly fine subtle detail in shadows and highlights.

Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2014, 05:11:54 pm »

Something interesting I found on sensorgen.info re the E-M1 is that ISO 100 is measured by DxO as having the same sensitivity as ISO 200 BUT ISO 200 has both less noise AND a higher DR (by .2) than ISO 100. This would suggest that there's absolutely no loss in IQ when going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Does that match your shooting?

I suspect the E-M1's "ISO 100" is actually a higher ISO overexposed & then pulled down mathematically to 100. I never use it myself.

-Dave-
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2014, 05:39:40 pm »

I've got one question, though: When comparing this lens to an equivalent on FF, shouldn't you also consider depth-of-field? Although the 40-150 may be comparable to a 80-300 2.8 considering light-gathering capabilities, it is comparable to a 80-300 5.6 considering the depth-of-field. (AFAIK)
For me, depth-of-field is more important than light-gathering because (in most situations) I can simply bump the ISO of my camera, but I can never get less DOF when 5.6 is too much...

IMO this has more to do with thinking about photography than actually engaging in it. When I'm working with an APS-C/H or m43 or medium format system I don't have an imaginary "FF" system sitting on my shoulder as well telling me what I could (or couldn't) do if I were using it instead.  :D  I take photos with the gear I'm carrying, and part of the fun is in adapting to the strengths & weaknesses of different systems. If you can't take the photo you have in mind due to gear constraints, change your mind and take a different photo.

-Dave-
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2014, 07:42:01 pm »

As I was testing the lens and not the camera I didn't do a test and comparison like you mention.  My experience though is very favorable with higher ISO use with the EM-1.  I am quite amazed that with the small pixels on a MFT sensor that they pull off such good High ISO performance.  And, while I will leave the Dynamic Range testing to those with test equipment to do it, I found that with Capture One I was able to with the highlight and shadow recovery sliders pull in some amazingly fine subtle detail in shadows and highlights.

The pixels of the Olympus has closely the same size as the Nikon D7100 which has a very good dynamic range. The dynamic range is independent of sensor size (as you know) unless you downsize to the same output size. If you proportionally make e.g. a print with the same number of camera pixels per output PPI then the DR will be the same regardless of sensor size. ISO performance should be as good as the Nikon D7100. The files from the Olymous just makes smaller prints of comparable quality, that's assuming same lens quality. The pixels on the Panasonic NX1 are even smaller than the Olympus. What you describe doing in Capture One can equally well be done in Lightroom.

Attached is the DxO measurements per pixel for the D7100 and the E-M1 and except for the lowest ISO they are pretty much the same in DR.

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2014, 08:57:27 pm »

The dynamic range is independent of sensor size (as you know) unless you downsize to the same output size.
???...  readout related noise depends on technology so much (take Canon sensors for example @ low gains)... may be you mix DR with SNR above deep shadows (per unit of surface), where photon noise dominates, but even there light gathering can be played with (microlenses, filters) - so you can get a very old generation sensor and SNR will not be matching moderns sensors of the same size (or one sensel vs one sensel of the same pitch)  by a noticeable amount
« Last Edit: December 09, 2014, 08:59:57 pm by deejjjaaaa »
Logged

Stefan12345

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2014, 02:56:38 am »

IMO this has more to do with thinking about photography than actually engaging in it. When I'm working with an APS-C/H or m43 or medium format system I don't have an imaginary "FF" system sitting on my shoulder as well telling me what I could (or couldn't) do if I were using it instead.  :D  I take photos with the gear I'm carrying, and part of the fun is in adapting to the strengths & weaknesses of different systems. If you can't take the photo you have in mind due to gear constraints, change your mind and take a different photo.

-Dave-

I fully agree with that, but I was referring to the part in Kevins review where he says "The 40-150mm has an equivalent 35mm full frame focal length of 80-300mm.  That’s a remarkable range and with the 1.4 Tele-extender you have a reach of 420mm, all in a remarkable compact lens."
It may be remarkable compact when you compare it to a 70-200/2.8, but that is comparing apples to oranges. I think you should compare it to a lens that allows you to take the same kind of photo's and when you do that, you'll see that this lens isn't that remarkably compact at all.

Stefan.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2014, 05:19:17 am »

???...  readout related noise depends on technology so much (take Canon sensors for example @ low gains)... may be you mix DR with SNR above deep shadows (per unit of surface), where photon noise dominates, but even there light gathering can be played with (microlenses, filters) - so you can get a very old generation sensor and SNR will not be matching moderns sensors of the same size (or one sensel vs one sensel of the same pitch)  by a noticeable amount

 ??? yes, of course, technology makes a difference on the pixel level performance. I think you missed the point of the post.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2014, 05:28:17 am »

I fully agree with that, but I was referring to the part in Kevins review where he says "The 40-150mm has an equivalent 35mm full frame focal length of 80-300mm.  That’s a remarkable range and with the 1.4 Tele-extender you have a reach of 420mm, all in a remarkable compact lens."
It may be remarkable compact when you compare it to a 70-200/2.8, but that is comparing apples to oranges. I think you should compare it to a lens that allows you to take the same kind of photo's and when you do that, you'll see that this lens isn't that remarkably compact at all.

Stefan.

Yes, comparing an f/2.8 m4/3 lens to a 35mm FF f/2.8 lens is exactly comparing apples and oranges. A f/2.8 lens on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to a 80-300 f/5.6 lens on 35mm FF in terms of DOF. If you compare the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens to the Olympus they are close in size and weight. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens is the same weight as the Olympus lens and a constant f/4. This is the lens I now use on my Nikons and I sold the f/2.8 lens. The f/4 lens is even slightly sharper.

I have come across this in several reviews that an f/2.8 on a smaller format is compared to f/2.8 on a larger format. Clearly the larger format has a different DOF and if you are looking for shallow DOF then the f/2.8 on m4/3 is not what you will be wanting for. The equivalent on m4/3 to a 70-200 f/2.8 on 35mm FF would be a 35-100 f/1.4 lens. This would likely be as large and heavy as the f/2.8 lenses for 35mm FF. It would be great if reviews on this site could start to be a bit more objective in how different formats are compared. At the moment it sounds like a used car salesman promoting on format over the other.  :)

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2014, 08:55:48 am »

Yes, comparing an f/2.8 m4/3 lens to a 35mm FF f/2.8 lens is exactly comparing apples and oranges. A f/2.8 lens on a m4/3 camera is equivalent to a 80-300 f/5.6 lens on 35mm FF in terms of DOF. If you compare the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS lens to the Olympus they are close in size and weight. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens is the same weight as the Olympus lens and a constant f/4. This is the lens I now use on my Nikons and I sold the f/2.8 lens. The f/4 lens is even slightly sharper.

I have come across this in several reviews that an f/2.8 on a smaller format is compared to f/2.8 on a larger format. Clearly the larger format has a different DOF and if you are looking for shallow DOF then the f/2.8 on m4/3 is not what you will be wanting for. The equivalent on m4/3 to a 70-200 f/2.8 on 35mm FF would be a 35-100 f/1.4 lens. This would likely be as large and heavy as the f/2.8 lenses for 35mm FF. It would be great if reviews on this site could start to be a bit more objective in how different formats are compared. At the moment it sounds like a used car salesman promoting on format over the other.  :)

I wonder what proportion of readers here shoot wide open?

Because more often than not, folks doing landscape shooting are using smaller apertures (I'd wager that f/8 - f/11 are more common then f/2.8 - f/4) so whether or no the 50-140/f2.8 is a 2.8 or 5.6 lens is not so interesting.
Logged

Stefan12345

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2014, 09:20:23 am »

I wonder what proportion of readers here shoot wide open?

Because more often than not, folks doing landscape shooting are using smaller apertures (I'd wager that f/8 - f/11 are more common then f/2.8 - f/4) so whether or no the 50-140/f2.8 is a 2.8 or 5.6 lens is not so interesting.

That can be a very viable statement, but the point is that the review seems to say that this lens is much more compact than a comparable lens on FF and that seems not to be true if you compare it with a lens that has equal capabilities.

Personally, I would love to use a camera/lens combination that delivers the same results as my 1DsII with the 70-200/4.0L in a smaller package, but it seems that with the smaller formats, you only get smaller camera's, not smaller (or cheaper) lenses.

Stefan.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2014, 10:12:36 am »

That can be a very viable statement, but the point is that the review seems to say that this lens is much more compact than a comparable lens on FF and that seems not to be true if you compare it with a lens that has equal capabilities.

Personally, I would love to use a camera/lens combination that delivers the same results as my 1DsII with the 70-200/4.0L in a smaller package, but it seems that with the smaller formats, you only get smaller camera's, not smaller (or cheaper) lenses.

Stefan.

Have you considered the full frame Canon 6D? It weighs 770g (about 300g more than the Olympus) and is rather compact and much smaller than the 1Ds II. IQ is much better also.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 10:14:29 am by Hans Kruse »
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 review
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2014, 02:38:21 pm »

I wonder what proportion of readers here shoot wide open?

Because more often than not, folks doing landscape shooting are using smaller apertures (I'd wager that f/8 - f/11 are more common then f/2.8 - f/4) so whether or no the 50-140/f2.8 is a 2.8 or 5.6 lens is not so interesting.

You are right that for landscape apertures like f/8 or larger would be the choice on 35mm full frame. On an APS-C sensor that would be f/5.6 or larger and on m4/3 the equivalent would be f/4 or larger for similar DOF. So yes, if you are shooting landscapes on 35mm full frame and you can find sharp lenses at f/5.6 then enjoy the weight savings. More realistically you can find very good f/4 lenses which in size and weight are very reasonable in weight. The challenge on any format is if the lens is sharp enough wide open. The other thing is when diffraction starts to hurt resolution. Was that your point too? As I pointed out some time ago a full set of f/4 zoom lenses from 16mm to 200mm using 3 lenses on either Sony A7(R) or Canon 6D the weight difference was 20%.

When not shooting landscape I enjoy shooting at f/2.8 or even less with more shallow DOF. I also shoot landscapes with flowers at f/2.8 or f/4 to have shallow DOF and nice bokeh.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up