Jeremy - I beg to differ with your assessment of this lens. I have owned this one for 2 years and have never been disappointed with its performance and clarity. I also have the 300 mm, but I always prefer this one while on travel. Neither the quality of the photographs nor the sharpness has been a problem for me. I have also owned canon products and I certainly prefer Olympus over Canon anytime for both price and service.
Canon definitely is overpriced often I can agree with that. I don’t think my assessment was inaccurate, but you’re opinion can be whatever it is! My goal is just to assess technical qualities and accuracy and my brief perspective at the end and let the viewer decide, but personally, I’d never pay that much money for this lens knowing it’s sharpness that I showed examples of and the fact that it’s MFT format at that price (a price that is much more FF appropriate)
Before commenting, 3 questions to think about :) 1. Ask yourself how many camera lenses you've reviewed and compared that are current and not outdated. 2. Why would OM Systems ask for my feedback on this lens personally in meetings if I was just trying to put them down? 3. I'm making less money on affiliate sales because I point out the downsides I notice about each camera :) So honesty and accuracy is the only goal here Additionally: I've opened a submission to receive any content that is able to disprove my sharpness test with another proper sharpness and have yet still to receive a response after 2 weeks and counting. So even though many talks of how my sharpness test is wrong, no one has been able to disprove it so far with a proper sharpness test of their own, so please consider this in your comment, and if you'd like to submit it yourself check out my post on Bird Burger to see how you can submit it. (No online review has ever done a proper sharpness test on RU-vid either... all the reviews that people keep sending to me are not in a controlled environment and the reviewers even say so themselves that they are in-the-field comparisons.)
I wonder if your copy is off, I have currently both the 300 and the 150-400 and the difference in sharpness, if any at all, is negligible. Definitely nothing close to what you show. The 300 does take the tc much better although that’s to be expected with a prime.
Could be, but I don’t think so as it’s OM-Systems official loaner copy so I doubt they would let that one be sub par. I would encourage you to do a side-by-side test of your own, it’s probably the same as my results you’ve just never noticed before cause it can be hard to tell on a normal basis
@@JeremyNeipp quite puzzling. I have done my own tests and tbh most of the time can’t tell them apart. Feather detail is always outstanding. Your shots are downright soft, so you’re clearly onto something but definitely not my experience nor the experience of other reviewers and owners. To be fair, a loaner is probably the most likely copy to have been knocked around and given the very limited production I doubt OM would be swapping their loan unit often . Still, not really acceptable imo. If you were closer I’d lend you mine 😅
@@shinysurfer I would agree with you. So far, OM-1 for still users experiences from many others including me have been excellent. This is the first review showing 150-400mm F4.5 lens IQ is worse than 300mm F4 lens. I am not saying Jeremy is trying downplay OMDS. But something is off for sure.
If you could >> It would really be interesting to see these results: Oly 300mm f4 or this 150-400mm compared to a $1500-$3000 FF 400mm or 600mm cropped to 800mm or 1000mm... (i really doubt that these kind of FF lenses resolve 50+mp resolution... or even some expensive 400mm FF primes for that matter... nonetheless it would really be interesting to see) best regards
I’ll keep that in mind and see if I could do a comparison sometime in the future! May be difficult to get my hands on the gear again but I agree that would be a great test
you keep on saying the f stop equivalent, and ignore the light gathering capability. thanks so much for your honest review, i don't have this lens and not planning to get it, as the much much cheaper 100-400 mm f6.3 is doing well with me. yes it is less sharp than the 300 mm f4 which is no longer with me now, and i think i may get a second one soon.
I would do the same thing as you in regards to lens decisions! I think you’ve made good decisions. And yes the light gathering capability is f/4.5, but since it goes onto an MFT sensor it would be the same as taking a FF image, cropping it down to MFT f/9 depth-of-field, calling for an increase by 2 stops in noise quality. So if you don’t crop on a FF image, a f/4.5 on MFT is much less effective than an f/4.5 on FF due to the fault of the sensor (not the lens). Kind of complicated but I hope that makes sense.
its not as bad as you make it sound. in an f4 lens on ff sensor the depth of field might be too thin to make the whole bird sharp so you will be using more shutter seed and more iso. look i am not a fan girl here but really when i had the d810 + 200-500 mm f5.6 it was almost unusable for early hour shots in my garden and kept on getting my olympus setup all the time, with f4 i could go as low as 1/60 sec with less active birds and the higher fps ensure getting at least one or two sharp. at the end i sold my ff setup with no regrets.
Try out the Nikon Z8 & Z400mm f4.5. In DX mode(20MP on Z8) you get 600mm f4.5 exposure & with a 1.4 Tc you can get upto 840mm f6.3 in 20MP DX mode. Its super light & Super stable. Way cheaper than Sony A1 & Canon R3 with 20FPS RAW lossless and blackout free viewfinder.
First of all, thanks for doing the review and I have seen some of yours in the past. I don't question your intention at all. However, your experiences with OM-1 and this lens are a bit off from many people I have seen their results and feedbacks. I agree OM-1 video AF needs big improvement but for still it blew my mind and many others I know. I often shoot side by side with friends that are using R5 and Z9 with their F4 lens and I can tell you I have just as good of the keepers and in certain circumstances come out better (when light is bad because I am also using Penleica 200mm F2.8 lens). As for 150-400mm F4.5 lens, to date, only you have reported it performs worse than 300mm F3 lens. May be it is a bad copy or something, but clearly, the image you posted in this video, 300mm f4 lens looks better. Regarding DOF, you definitely can produce just as good of results if you approach it right. Of course, it is never going be as good as FF on IQ and BOKEAH if the background is too close to the subject or you are far away from the subject. I find the challenge with MFT improve me faster as a photographer. Cheers.
I appreciate your response, thanks for reading my intention👌 just like you said, all I can go off of is what I noticed with the lens. For my testing as you clearly saw, the image sharpness was worse than the 300mm which is the one thing that really held me back about this lens. So for that reason I say it’s not worth the price. And in regards to AF on the OM-1, remember that I said I found it right in line with those other cameras you mentioned as well. I didn’t view it as worse than those, just not much better like others claim it to be. When bringing this up in a private meeting with OM-Systems they seemed to even be comfortable with my evaluation, so I’m not sure why all the OM users are getting upset about my evaluation? And just as you said, I do state that simply the IQ will never quite be the same as FF, but it’s still great and much better than I expected. It has a different use case and is ultimately a different “tool” than FF. So really, I’ve said everything you mentioned above just in a more blunt way possibly haha. Ultimately with every camera brand I’ve reviewed this year, I always have found that the users of the gear resist the results no matter what brand it’s been, which I believe speaks a little to the bias of the consumer because they don’t want to feel like their purchase was in vain. But that’s my take and it’s just interesting to notice that pattern as I review gear. Especially on brands that are much more of a heavy dedicated following like Sony, Olympus, Canon, people seem to be very heavily set into their perspectives. Thanks for sharing your thoughts respectfully 🙌🏻
@@JeremyNeipp Yeah sometime being honest will not be received well! I also happy to see you take other people honest/blunt feedbacks rather well unlike some others I have come across. Hope your channel grow Jeremy, cheers...
If as suggested Jeremy's copy was 'decentered', how would one test for that at home ?. I am thinking of taking the plunge and buying this lens but would want to be sure If I saw the same results it was not the lens ?
Hi ! Thank you very much for your honesty as always. The difference in sharpness with the prime is strong in your tests. These are the results you got, and I trust you did your best to eliminate all the variables you could, while still keeping a "real-world" like test. I'm still eyeballing this lens, but it's true that the price is just too steep for my budget haha.
Thank you! Yea it was definitely noticeable, and you can see in a different comment I explained some of the process I went through to try and make sure my sharpness test was accurate. It's a great lens, it's just honestly double what I would personally pay for it, but to each their own :)
Any time a photographer is spending this much money on a lens, I think anyone would question whether or not it was worth it. I would be curious to get your opinion after using another copy of this same lens. I saw another review with a Nikon 500mm PF that the photographer sent back for problems with sharpness but then, over a year later, bought another copy of the same lens that did perform to his expectations. With zoom lens being far more complex, there are bound to be more production variables.
Totally fair, it’s definitely possible that it was my specific model, i wish I could try another model but unfortunately I don’t think that will happen anytime soon so at the moment I’ll have to go from what I’ve learned here
@@JeremyNeippI’m sure you had a bad copy to test! This lens is unbelievable sharp! Many experienced photographers like Mike Lane or Daniel J Cox are using this lens and can take very sharp pictures. I’m a photographer since 1998 and I've worked with Nikon and Sony and I've used every type of lens and bazookas you can imagine, and I can assure you that this lens doesn't lose out to many rivals. Of course, a super tele Zoom will perform worse than a prime tele. This is obvious! However you will gain in mobility! As a super tele Zoom this lens is unrivaled!
@@JeremyNeipp I wonder if there is also a problem with the loaner gear from Olympus, you would think it would be in their best interest to send a known good quality lens and non-problematic body out for review purposes but reality might be that these lenses and bodies have been knocked around a bit by other loanees or worse might be lemons that had been returned and "repaired/reconditioned"
Nice video! I use m1 mk2 with 300mm f4 lens. Images are super sharp even when cropped. I thought 150 400 provided the same image quality for that price.
Hi Jeremy, thanks for the review. Your review wasn't as positive as some of the others for this lens, but fair and honest. I shoot MFT and have the OM-1, the 300 F4 and recently purchased a refurb 100-400 from OM. The 300 is an outstanding lens. 100-400 is good but the zoom is stiff which can be frustrating when tracking action. I have hesitated on the 150-400. My main reason is at that at $7,500, you have to consider are you better off using that money to switch systems to achieve $7,500 of improved performance. It's a lot to pay for MFT when your not sure of the MFT road map. If Panasonic were to come out with an successor to the G9 with the new 25mp sensor and phase detection, I would probably get the 150-400. OM-1 is great camera, but I would like to see successor flagship camera before investing $7,500 in the system. Based on all the reviews I have seen, there is no doubt the 150-400 is a great lens, but will it continue to grow with the system? That is the question.
Glad you found value in it! I think all your points are very valid. Personally, I think we are going to see some big new opportunities soon that will make this lens more irrelevant especially with some of the recent progressions I know are coming. It’s a good lens, but I don’t think that price tag is currently worth it, and probably even less so in the coming months
Unfortunately I don’t have a GH6 and I’m not planning on getting my hands on one, but, performance should be pretty similar to the OM-1 in terms of compatibility. The MFT format is pretty good at being cohesive across brands. And I agree, this lens is more ideal for video than photo 100%
@@JeremyNeipp Using this lens on a Panasonic body would remove the sync IS functionnality (Pana and OM don't get along in that department), and therefore the main advantage you mentionned: image stabilization, would be lost. I use the OM-1 with the Pana 100-400 (used a Pana G9 before and got that lens before the Oly 100-400 came out), and losing Dual IS is a bummer. Fortunately, it's not an issue for me. But when the image stabilization is the main argument... Well that makes a huge difference.
I’m curious as to how you got such different results? Another RU-vidr did a review of this lens and he says it’s a super sharp lens and compared it to the Sony 600 and Sony 200-600. I have also rented this lens and found it to be very sharp
I did say that it was sharp, just not "super sharp" and as sharp as I would hope for on a $7.5k lens. Also, I've yet to see another RU-vidr do a proper sharpness test on this Olympus 150-400mm, every review I have seen was an "in-the-field" test which you can only get a general gauge for sharpness and not a super accurate testing of... was there a specific RU-vidr that you found that did a proper sharpness test comparison?
Two things: 1 - In that video he even mentions "this is not a scientific test" (his words not mine) 2 - This is a zoom lens comparison, and yes I would agree this Olympus 150-400 is sharper than the 200-600 even though it's marginal. Compare the Olympus 150-400 to the Olympus 300 as I displayed in the video and the results are clear that the 300 is way sharper
Again, I’m surprised and taken aback by your results. If you head on over to dp review, there are countless head to head examples showing the 300 against 150-400 with image quality being the exact same, if not slightly better on the zoom. I wonder why your results with the OM1 and this lens are so different from everyone else’s. Like others have suggested, it might be a faulty unit?
Not saying it’s not possible, I just think it’s unlikely. Not trying offend anyone else out there, but other wildlife photography reviewers dont do very good sharpness tests in my opinion as what most do is just take shots from their daily usage. This results in lots of variables that are impossible to keep the same when shooting wildlife such as motion blur, slightly missed focus, etc. which is why I made sure to do a sharpness test with no variables between the lenses. (I took multiple shots with each camera to make sure to nail focus and select the sharpest, lighting stayed the same, tripod positioning was identical, I did a delayed timer to make sure no motion blur existed… etc. etc.) Speaking with OM Systems they also confirmed with me that the zoom should be less sharp then the prime, so if the company admits that I don’t understand why there is so much argument trying to disprove it
@@JeremyNeipp With all due respect and not trying to offend you, the other channels and photographers that you speak of surely have more experience(collectively speaking) than you alone. Again, not trying to invalidate your findings but it just seems off that you alone were able to discover this out of all the other reviewers and users. I certainly don’t expect MFT to keep up with Full frame when it comes to IQ and low noise but your experience with image softness just stood out to me. Also, like I stated in a previous comment, I am not a OM user so I don’t really have a horse in this race. Just someone who’s been considering the system :)
@@thrallingFRglory most definitely a valid point, and I’m not arguing that I have more experience than everyone else combined or even close to. But I do know as a reviewer the temptations to make things sound more positive than they are for the sake of affiliate sales earnings or even just simply for the sake of not offending peoples feelings. When I look across the whole wildlife photography review industry, people are typically much more generous on gear reviews than other styles of photography/videography But you’re completely valid in saying that it is interesting that I’m the only one to say it, so maybe I am the crazy one 😂 thanks for sharing your thoughts/opinions respectfully!
I agree, something seems off. to me the pictures almost seems to be out of focus. which is something I have experienced when using C-AF in contrary to S-AF which usually nails the focus better on static or stationary subjects. my 100-400mm f6.3 with the MC-20 give me MORE detailed pictures than my Nikon D5 and 500mm F4 lens + Tc-20. So I would at least expect the 150-400 F4.5 to be sharper then the 100-400 F6.3 lens. (which in my opinion is very sharp already) and on the second note, I have a friend who got the 300mm F4 oly and struggled for a long time to get as sharp images as I got with the 100-400mm lens.
I held the 150-600 sigma for Sony and even the 200-600 and they’re just too big to make it fun in a regular basis. Is FF IQ better? Sure. Substantially where it’s worth the weight penalty ? No I don’t think so.
I take my FF lenses out of that size and heavier on a weekly basis handheld and don’t mind it at all. But for older folks or with physical disabilities I totally understand the dilemma. This Olympus 150-400 is actually a nearly identical weight to the 150-600 Sigma you mention with being less than half a pound difference, so I’m not sure what weight difference you mean there?
@@JeremyNeipp I’m referencing more the 300/4 vs 150-600. I am perfectly healthy and capable of carrying that large of a lens, just more so if I want to or would enjoy it. In fact I was seconds away from an S5.2 and 159-600 yesterday. Couldn’t pull the trigger. Oly + 300/4 is where I’ll stay for a while.
Disclaimer: I didn’t get to do any official comparison side-by-side between the two lenses you mention. But if you asked me based on experience and knowledge of the top of my head on IQ, autofocus, etc…. I’d say that this Olympus is ever so slightly faster in AF than the Sigma, although it’s practically negligible. In regards to IQ they are on a similar wavelength with this lens being probably incrementally sharper. But obviously, remember the price difference between the two as this one is almost 4 times the cost
@@JeremyNeipp Tnx yeah, I figured that much on the IQ side from the pictures you shared although one can never really be certain with youtube. Indeed I heard from other reviews similar reports.
Respectfully, given that your findings are completely at odds with the rest of the communities experience, I would suggest that prior to publication you would stepped back for a moment and discussed your findings with OM-Systems. In doing so you would at least have known whether the lens was within specification. This aside, there are other issues which need to be addressed and clarified. By way of example: were the soft images taken hand held and if so at what shutter speed and focal length? Did you use the optional grip, which improves the balance and generally assists focusing, particularly at slower speeds? Did heat haze or other atmospheric conditions play a part? You imply the lens is both expensive, but fail to properly say compared to what? I assume because you recognise that there is nothing else comparable with it in the market. In truth, it’s expensive only in so far as it is the most expensive micro four thirds zoom lens currently available for still photography but that doesn’t mean that it’s expensive when compared with trying to obtain the same focal length range at a constant f4.5 from a full frame manufacturer, which would require you to purchase multiple lenses. More so if you take into account the built in teleconverter and the option to add additional external converters too. You say the lens is light, but imply this is suggestive of a lightweight build quality, which is simply not the case. The lens is extremely well made. The surprise, particularly from people coming from FF is the expectation that it will be so much heavier. I strongly suggest you take the time out to revisit your experience with this lens and have the courtesy to discuss your finding with OM-Systems.
The answer to all your questions is yes I’ve taken them into consideration. My sharpness tests were not done handheld. And shots I did do handheld were done with the grip, etc. etc. And yes, I did discuss it all with OM Systems team personally before releasing these reviews, and they were even on the same page as me for most everything I said. We had a positive and intellectual conversation about it. They agreed that this lens is softer than the 300 prime and other primes which is what most people are trying so hard to fight here in the comments.
Hello, as far as the exposure parameters and the angle of view are concerned, that would be a 300-800mm/4.5 on ff format and there is no such thing! And then always the annoying talk about dof is overrated in my eyes.
I wouldn’t buy either this one or the 800 f/5.6 prime personally, both are overpriced in my opinion… and again, that 4.5 gets lost in translation to MFT sensor. It’s depth of field and low light abilities are halved by the physical size of the sensor. Not all sensors are created equal but rather have different pros and cons. It’s not an “annoying talk”, it’s a very valid conversation a lot of people care about, and personally, I care about a lot as well. It doesn’t help to overcompensate and pretend that gear is better than it is so my goal is to give accurate information to people to make their own decisions with, no need to get defensive about it
Personally, I would never judge the sharpness of a lens by handholding it. Even with the super lens stabilization, I would test it on a tripod. I know you are young and strong, but take yourself out of the motion blur calculation!
