Comment 2: Also put my thoughts on RED35, who did a great lecture about the state of Olympus. Here was my additional thoughts that also apply here. "I still use my battered, screen cracked Oly 1mark2. I just finished watching Matt G's review on the new lens, and had always loved Olympus... since my first one in 1979. Olympus is the quiet Kung Fu master to TV Star Karate. Its the 700 Tenere Yamaha to some bloated Highway Cruiser. Its K2 to Everest. I may break down and get the mark 3, but yes, the mark 2 is still very much the beast I love. I am not a "wildlife photographer" confined to a sidewalk, boardwalk, or parking lot. I crawl through brush, up wet rocks on mountainsides, and go out a foot above the water in small boats. Perhaps what Olympus and Panasonic need is to rebrand themselves: they make cameras for Adventure Photography. Because thats why all that portability and durability are needed. Not because we just like things small. We need things to be efficient."
Excellent review. Not surprised by any of the comparisons. Portability in the field is no small advantage, IMHO. As I write this, I’m mapping out how to afford one.
Congratulations on being the first indie reviewer to be blessed with a look at this lens! It is hard to choose what to compare it against. I think I would compare it against another zoom rather than a prime myself for the flexibility, maybe the Canon RF 100-500 with a 2x converter, or even just the 100-500 on a higher res R5 and then just crop to match the res of the Olympus. Tricky business to be completely fair.
Cheers Gordon! I could have chosen a different lens and rely on a high res sensor + cropping. I guess the opportunity to test the Canon 800mm was too tempting to pass on! But there are definitely a lot of possibilities on this front. Maybe I can explore that with another video.
Excellent Review Mathieu and Comparison! Great as usual!! Thanks! Gordon, I'm waiting for yours! Suggestion: use an e-m1 iii and compare it with an FF and tele zoom set (R5 + 100-500 as you suggested)
Actually, Olympus asked me if I wanted to test the new lens and compare it to a high end full frame equivalent. Then HAC decided to help when we were considering which FF lens to rent.
Fantastic video Mathieu.. Wow great job. I recently purchased an EM1X used and the Olympus 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4 + 1.4XTC, I also own a Canon R5 with a Canon 500/4 with the 1.4X TC, There is no question that if IQ is most important than using the Canon is a clear winner yet the major downside is the weight of the system and hand hold ability is also an issue. I actually purchased my Canon 500/4 from a excellent wildlife photographer and he just switch to the EM1X... It would seem to me if you want the ultimate hand holdable system the EM1X with the new Olympus 150-400/4.5 would be a no brainer.. I guess the HUGE elephant in the room is with Olympus and if JIP will continue development of a newer EM1X replacement. Obviously no ones knows the answer to that.. In a strange twist of fate, by Olympus finally releasing the 150-400/4 now, is like when Canon introduced the RF mount, they first started with very high quality lenses and then the bodies followed whereas now with Olympus they are now in the same situation, unbelievable lens yet the body is not 100% up to the task as you clearly demonstrated with the keeper rate comparing the R6 to the EM1X, I am not to confident JIP will continue FW updates on the EM1X that would greatly improve CAF performance,...
Thank you! How do you find the R5? I want to test it for bird photography, but we're going into a new lockdown pretty soon and I'm not sure I'll have time before Christmas. As for Olympus, I hope we will get more news at the beginning of next year concerning the future of the brand the cameras.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons it’s hard to beat the R5 such a well rounded camera. I’m hoping Canon releases a 200-600 zoom like Sony has, I tried the RF 100-500 which is really a great lens though for me has one huge drawback. The zoom through is so long to go from 200-500mm which for me was a deal killer so I returned the lens. I guess if you leave it 500mm all the time it works very well as long as you can live at F7.1 which does not give great subject to background isolation
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Yes, I've had two different lenses since early January. First was a preproduction. The second is the one I purchased. Have been very impressed and will be releasing a semi-review in a few weeks. I've been comparing it to the Sony 200-600mm which I've been shooting alongside the 150-400mm. After seeing your exceptional review, in the future I'm going to stop doing what I call reviews. Some fo you guys, you especially are very talented at getting all the details documented. I'm more. of an experience guy. I'll be linking to your video for people who want to know more than what I can provide. Very nice job.
Thank you very much Daniel, I appreciate it. And please don't stop making your reviews, your experience is vaster than mine and I'm sure you'll have a lot of interesting things to say about the Oly lens as well as any other gear you'll test.
Best review I´ve seen of this lens so far. Great work! I´ve ordered one of theese a couple of weeks ago and I´m really looking forward to get it. The m4/3-system has a lot of advantages for wildlife photography. I switched from Canon fullframe to Olympus a couple of years ago (when the EM1mkII came out) and I don't regret it.
Thanks for the review and info! Based on reasonably reliable rumours Canon is releasing the following RF-mount primes during 2021: 400mm f/2,8 500mm f/4 600mm f/4 800mm f/5,6 1200mm f/8 The RF 800mm f/5,6 should weigh below 3,5 kg - maybe even closer to 3 kg.
Has Tony Northrup reviewed this lens yet? I need to know how poor a value this lense is, and which Canon and Nikon lenses are "much better" technically, and why MFT isn't dead yet ;)
Great Review Mathieu! A dream Lens! I would love to have one! But I’m happy with my e-m1 iii (and GH5) + Leica 100-400! And I hope that the m43 system continues. I would love to see new sensors ( with new technologies such as BSI) and new high end Cameras! Panasonic should bring the new G and GH generation as soon as possible!
A very objective review, one for which I've been waiting in the last few weeks. I have read that the first production batch is sold out, though who believes a journalist these days... If the price drops in the UK to less than £5k a couple of years from now I shall get it, and trade in my Olympus 300mm f4, and Leica 200mm f2.8. That's the only aspect of your video that was missing, for me, Mathieu, though I accept your point about the length of the video! How would you rate the 150/400 in comparison with the Olympus 300mm f4 in terms of sharpness, with and without the 1.4x MC14? One last point. I own an A7R3 and various lenses and did own the Sony 200/600mm which at 2.1kgs is only slightly heavier than the 150/400. But it's not only weight that's an issue, it is also length when you want to take it as carry on luggage. And that, for me, sums up the advantages of M43 - acceptable quality 90%+ of the time, for less weight and less volume. But I still own a full frame Sony for those few occasions when I expect the greater dynamic range to be necessary.
Apparently the first batch being sold out is true (that is what Olympus told me). I would have loved to compare the 150-400mm to other lenses but it would have been more time consuming, not just for the final length of the video, but also for the time needed to make all the tests (I had the gear for a limited period). What I can say is that although sharpness on the 150-400 is really good, it didn't give me the impression of being incredibly superior to the 300mm Pro or the Pana-Leica. I'm sure that a side by side test would reveal something, but based on my separate experience with those lenses, it doesn't strike me as a night vs day difference. That is because the 300mm Pro and the 200mm 2.8 are really good themselves.
I would still go for the Olympus setup. Looking at the ISO6400 there ain’t that much difference and the cost and weight makes the Olympus win in my book...."..
The BIF Engineer of Olympus has to consider his job .... with the new Bird Detection Mode .... you would expect higher keeper rate than some of the competition ...but with 74% at the lower margin of ht e competition ... the result is hardly sufficien so improvement in the software are required . Thanks Mathieu for the excellent review. It was correct from Olympus to send you the equipment .....a risk ...but all in all the lens has passed the test fairly .
Wonderful review as usual! Thank you Mathieu! Amazing Lens! Let’s wait till Panasonic bring the new GH6 to see the future of m43. When the price drops it can be a very good option! Around 4500 would be great!
Excellent review accept for the neglect to mention or compare this combination with the Sony a9ll plus 200-600 or Nikon Z7ll plus 500 PF. Both represent equally light systems with superior image quality and significantly lower price tags.
Thank you for the review Mathieu. As a hard-core bird photographer I certainly appreciate your hard work on this. The image stabilization using this setup is amazing when shooting video. I've always been amazed by Olympus's image stabilization capabilities. I once owned many m43 systems and lenses but eventually moved on to full-frame using the Sony A9 with the 200-600mm lens with 1.4x TC as my primary go-to bird photography system. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of m43 for ISO noise levels and depth-of-field (less bokah) and still believe I can be better served with full frame cameras and telephoto lenses. If this lens was half the price, the choice might be harder although the keeper rate is still lower than competition from Canon and Sony. Thanks again!
Thank you Alan. You Sony combo for BIF is a very good one. I've tested the lens with the A9 II and A7R IV, really good quality and performance. And the A9 AF remains the very best.
Hi Mathieu, thanks for the very objective and detailed video. Since I own the 300/4 with the MC14 a comparison of image quality compared to the 150-400 @ 400 (420 mm) mm would be very interesting. If you are not looking for longer focal length or the zoom option this would be the decisive point for buying this lens. Of course f4.5 vs f5.6 helps, too.
I don't have the lens with me anymore, and it will be some time before I can test it again (very few samples for the media at the moment). That said, I've used the 300mm f4 many times, and if you're not looking for the zoom versatility or a longer reach, you probably fine with what you have. I would need a side by side comparison to tell you exactly how they compare in terms of sharpness, but the 300mm pro is an excellent lens and I don't think this new zoom brings a substantial advantage just for that.
Thanks for your evaluation - might save me a lot of money since I also own the 40-150 /2.8😀. The 300/4 is extremely sharp, with the MC14 a little soft and sometimes I do not like the bokeh when you have a structured background
I own a few systems mirrorless/dslrs including EM5/EM1-2/EM1X and always enjoy shooting the X with a pro lens, but for reach I prefer the Canon EF L 100-400 and teleconv. I'm not a fan of Canon's RF "plastic" L lenses...the EF adapter works fine on the R5. Always enjoy your presentations.
Once again, thanks. I own a 300f4 and both TCs, so I probably won't consider the lens. I expected that it is indeed worth the price however, because Olympus, is after all Olympus. I found it absurd that some prominent RU-vid icons scoffed at the price, happy instead to shoot with a $12,000 behemoth. I have wondered why however that since most birds are in the center of the frame on sensors that crop to that center (yet still 20mp) that the advantage remains with m4/3 above all else; as the image would have the same resolution as well as portability. Its just a matter of math. The M4/3 system should just rebrand itself as "Adventure Cameras". It worked for motorcycles; both Olympus and Panasonic need to express what gives them the edge, and while I love your videos, I fid most of the "Olympus Ambassadors" dull as supermarket sliced wheat bread. It won't go away, and as Netflix just sanctioned the latest Panasonic m4/3, (not yet available) its going to grow.
Excellent video Mathieu, well done. Marvellous lens: but as I seldom shoot at less than 300mm, I can't justify the cost. As for the bird recognition, I have found that it hardly misses with my 300mm f4 + MC14 - even with a cluttered background. I have yet to try it with my PL 200mm f2.8, which I tend to use in low light for the tame birds at a local feeding station.
Thank you Matthew for this awesome review. I have canon r5 and 100-500 and em1m2 with 300/4 so this was an especially interesting review since I use both systems
The R5 and RF 100-500mm is on a totally different level when compared. Way better IMHO. ISO3200 to 6400 without much issues. Unless you shoot in midday Sunday with harsh constraint and shadows
Thank you for an exceptionally good review. Please may I clarify one thing: around 27:45 in you mention cropping down from a 45 MP sensor to substitute for using a shorter focal length. In case it is not immediately clear to all, doubling the number of pixels only increases resolution by about 50% and to double the resolution and, therefore, double the detail captured, it would be necessary to quadruple the number of pixels. So, as you say, an image from a 600 mm lens on a 36 x 24 sensor, cropped to 66% of its size would give the same effective resolution as a 400 mm lens on an MFT sensor. My apologies if everyone thinks that I am stating the obvious, but I had to listen to the section a few times to feel sure of what you meant!
I didn't go in-depth into calculations to not make the video too long. But it's an interesting topic. Judging from some of the comments I received, some people think that a high resolution full frame sensor could compensate the shorter focal lenght and get the same quality as m4/3, but I'm not entirely convinced, because the amount of crop would be significant I think. I might do a dedicated video about that.
This is what I have been trying to sort out in my head. I currently have an R5 with RF100-500 lens. I prefer my OM1 (with which I use the 300mm), and have been toying with buying this lens (very seriously as I have just come to the top of the list!!). I'm just trying to reassure myself that I am doing the right thing. I would get rid of the 100-500.
I would have loved to see even a slight test with the E-M1 Mark III, to see if the AF can keep up with the lenses' performance and as a lighter alternative to E-M1 X. (As I own the E-M1 Mark III I am debating if this lens deserves the E-M1 X for wildlife and birds or if it's worth waiting for E-M1 Mark IV / E-M1 X Mark II for wildlife and birds & birds in flight detection with hopefully an improved sensor for low light, like BSI-CMOS). Still, thank you so much for the review and I was waiting for your opinion on the lens and the performance overall of the Olympus to see if it's worth plopping down a soul and half my organs for my dream wildlife lens.
In my experience, the E-M1 III is very close to the E-M1X when it comes to autofocus performance. Bird detection is useful in certain situations, but it doesn't improve the performance with BIF, so the AF is not a decisive factor between these two cameras in my opinion.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons I would love your personal opinion on the potential ergonomics and hand ability (comfort) of such a mix between E-M1 III and 150-400mm f 4.5 Pro (I know this is a very subjective type of subject but given the lack of availability right now and probably in the future I don't see myself being able to test drive one in person). I'm not a big fan of the integrated verticale grip cameras so I'm wondering if I can forgot the E-M1X in all departments in favour of my E-M1 III. Thank you for your reply.
Well to tell you the truth, if it wasn't for the new firmware of the E-M1X, I would have probably asked for an E-M1 III instead. I too am not a big fan of integrated vertical grips, and I find the ergonomics of the E-M1 really good (very comfortable grip and I love how it feels with the 300mm Pro). The 150-400 certainly ads a bit of volume and weight, but I think it can remain comfortable with the E-M1 III. Hopefully somebody else will test the lens with the E-M1 III and give you a more complete feedback than mine.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons - well said; I am always amazed at the photographers who insist on the availability of a vertical grip, then never seem to shoot any vertical photos....;) 98% of my wildlife shooting is landscape orientation, and when seeking lightweight and smaller combinations, it makes no sense to carry around my spare battery in something I have to lift with every shot, vs. staying in my pack. Excellent review!
Excellent review, although I cannot ever see myself justifying the cost of any of those long lenses. All of that said, when you are looking at such heavy lenses, and also dealing with atmospheric effects at those focal lengths, I rather wonder about their true utility anyway. I manage to do some pretty decent wildlife photography using much more modest lenses. The trick for me is approach. Being a little stealthy and smart can get you similar views from much lighter and cheaper optics. It also makes it a little more challenging, which can be fun too.
Very good and in depth review. You are and stay reference in terms of lens reviews on RU-vid, because you do it systematic, independent and very thorough. And I appreciate that you keep your neutral view on mFT. As you stated, it got its place. No other system offers this kind of portability with decent image quality. When going into the real wild life, it needs to walk for days - and if you can leave your tripod home, this adds up to an overall advantage of 5kg easily. Lots to carry.
Thanks for this outstanding review. Of course, one can find it unfair to compare a zoom against a prime lens. Anyway, it is unbelievable for me that the Olympus-zoom with 2x-extender seems to even outperform the Canon prime with 2x-extender. I don't think that there is any other zoom in any camera system available that is able to do that. Of course, not many "normal" photographers will be able to buy one of these dream lenses. However, I think that it is essential for a camera system, that such high end options are available, that people can discuss and dream about. Hopefully Olympus and Panasonic will also continue to improve their autofocus-tracking-capabilities.
Thank you. A better comparison would have been with the Sigma 300-800mm 5.6, but it can't be found easily anymore (and might be a bit too old to accurately test things like the AF, and it doesn't have IS either if I remember correctly).
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons I don't think a comparison with the Sigma 300-800 would have been much more revealing. I once had the opportunity to compare the "Sigmonster" with my Canon 400mm f5.6 (mounted on a Pansonic G81 via adapter, which also gave me an angle of 800mm). The achievable resolution of the two setups was very similar. Therefore, I think that the Sigma would have been clearly outperformed by both the Canon 800mm and the new Olympus in a side-by-side review, which would have flattered the Olympus, but would certainly not have been as informative as the comparison with the top notch Canon prime lens. Maybe, a comparison with the fantastic Canon EF 200-400mm f / 4L IS USM Extender 1.4x on a high-resolution Canon R5 would have been interesting too, but I guess it is very hard to get one of these.
I think it can be confusing more than anything else if there isn't a clear explanation associated with it. If I take two photos, one with m4/3 and one with full frame, using the same frame (angle of view) and same exposure settings (including the same aperture), I get the same brightness level on the two images. The depth of field will be different, but aperture is not just about depth of field. If I remember correctly, Tony also includes in his crop factor definition the difference in signal/noise between the two sensors, but to me it sounds like an over-simplification that can lead to confusion, with people thinking that the Olympus lens is two stops darker when it is not. A small sensor has more noise than a big sensor, it has always been like this, there is no need to force that into the definition of aperture. That is my view, but I know it is a topic in which people will continue to have different opinions.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons We agree, exposure is the same regardless of the size of the sensor. He likes to think we should apply the crop factor on the aperture too so the depth of field is comparable to full-frame...
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons As user of both M43 and FF systems, i agree with your opinion. I think Tony is taking this equivalence way too far than it really is. Just my opinion based on my personal experience. I also think that the true advantage of M43 is at telephoto and super telephoto lengths, so in this regard, i really hope that M43 survives. Cheers!
I think Tony’s point is that the total amount of light entering the lense is factor 2x smaller on m43. The f-stop is the same because it is a relative and not a total number. But also I feel Tony is pretty harsh in his way to express this topic and this might let it seem more important than it is. On the other hand m43 must perform better in some regards like C-AF to balance out the disadvantage of the smaller sensor (I have G9 and video AF is not so reliable).
2 yrs later and OM systems is doing better than ever. The OM-1 and the collection of lenses set's it apart from other systems in many ways. For me making the change recently is the value for money vs performance. Yes, I would probibly not buy the 150-400 f4.5 due to price but the 300 f4 and the 40-150 f2.8 with TC's make for an amazing compact and powerful lens system. Add the 12-40 f2.9 and one of the wide angle lenses with two OM bodies and you have one fantastic system. With Post Processing software, noise reduction is not a problem any longer.
This 150-400mm lens, the spec by itself look very very attractive, but the photos are just not as attractive when compared to Canon 600mm f4.0 or even the rf100-500 mm. Background separation is really just so so. Having said so, this 150-400mm is really light, portable and zoomable if we compared to the the 600mm from Nikon and Canon.
I wish you would have compared it with the Canon 100-400mm or the 100-500mm combined with the Canon R5. That would make so much more sense, since the weight and size and price is similar. Crop the images with the R5 to the same field of view as the OIympus and then let's see the actual difference in image quality! Especially with real life images of birds. Maybe you could do another video with that comparison, I would appreciate it!
I think it's going to be a while before I can try that lens again, given the few samples available for the press. But you're not the first one to mention the R5 and 100-500mm, so perhaps I'll work on that, once the lockdown ends.
It's hard to tell from an optical quality point of view without side by side images. I'd say the 150-400 Pro has the edge, but not necessarily by a long margin. Then of course we have the obvious pros (build quality, constant aperture, built-in teleconverter, stabilisation) and cons (size and price).
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons just what I thought it's a beautiful lens and perfect for a working photographer, I think it's the sensor holding back MFT hopefully it will improve soon and then maybe make full frame redundant.
Great video. I think the fact that they already sold all of the lenses they planned to make tells us that there's a market for this lens. I figure I will try to rent it at some point to give it a spin but since I don't do pro wildlife photography I can't see buying one myself.
Terrifically balanced, thoughtful and detailed commentary, Matthieu. Unfortunately, this lens is out of reach and I’ll be sticking to my 300mm with teleconverters. As an E-M1.3 owner not interested in the E-M1X, I was interested to see that you obtained superior results with your standard set-up over the bird detection AF. And the Canon animal AF shows again how great it is, even on the R6. But your comparison of the available lenses to match the 150-400 puts a lot into perspective. Well done and best wishes for an improvement in COVID status in the UK soon and a happier 2021.
As always very good. You do it objective. Pro & Contra. So there is nothing to criticism. Only to ask "rhetorical question": Do you buy such a (in subjective perspective) expensive lens or do you invest the money in buying a used car? By myself I have some Olympus cameras /equipment - but the future perspective of this company is not convincing me. So I decide to have a second mainstay with Canon fullframe. I will not invest more money in Olympus. Since many years I was very convinced about the system and liked it very well. All your thoughts of the conclusion are right. I personally guess there is no real future in the market for the successor. Canon & Sony will survive and perhaps one/two others in this shrinking market - going into a niche...
Thank you. Because of price I bought a Canon RP /RF 24-105mm. I know the limitations - but can live with it. I wished to get a new Canon R6, but you know for much less money I got a full frame camera with lens. For me the RP is good enough and I enjoy it. Perhaps later I can get a used R6...
A superb in depth review which I have come to expect from you. Shared it to my facebook page for my photographer friends to enjoy. Please keep up your excellent work in these difficult times and have as great Christmas as is possible regards Phil..
I know it's nitpicking but couldn't they have just given everyone an F4 rather than the slightly odd F4.5? I think it's a fantastic lens that I would genuinely aspire to own one day and it seems like it could be the ONLY telephoto lens you would need on M43.
Thank you! Unfortunately I don't know when I'll test the A7S III. I have other things to finish first, and we're going into another lockdown pretty soon, sigh.
I end up not really seeing what the "sacrifice in quality" is here. The slight increase in noise at high ISO can be partly remedied via first-rate noise reduction software like Topaz. Mostly I am shooting at ISO levels under 3200, where the difference in noise levels is very small. The ability to CARRY the lens and pack it for overseas travel trumps these small optical quality "problems." Now if only I could find a copy of this lens to actually purchase :-(
I'm glad you compared it to the 800mm Canon. The market for this lens is people always wanting to get closer, no matter what equipment they have. It's never enough! Versatility be darned! If people are going to be spending that much money on either system, they need to know how the end results compare. Great review.
Great review I have the Canon R3, And I been eyeing the OM-1 plus this lens, My question is if you had to go out to photograph wildlife/BIF would you take R3 or the OM-1? Thanks; )
Interesting question. I tested the R3 about 8 months ago and fell in love with it. Normally, I would choose a compact solution without too much hesitation (OM-1 + 300mm Pro is a superb combo for the money/quality/size for example), but there is something about the R3 that is quite special. It also has better image quality and autofocus in my opinion, and the Eye Control AF is superb. That said, the OM-1 has stunning speed and stabilization, and the versatility of the 150-400mm m4/3 lens is hard to ignore.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons I love my R3 also but I just sold off my Z7II and a few Z lenses so I can purchase the OM-1 and the 150-400 as it's available here in Greece, But when you say R3 has better image quality you mean high ISO right? The way I see it is with Canon I'm not gonna buy their very expensive huge tanks of lenses and right now I have the RF 100-500 so I don't know how that compares to the 150-400? Thanks;)
No one is going to drop $8,000.00 for a lenses that camera's sensor is less than 22M. It's like going to buy Sony A mount system when not a single one saying Sony A mount is dead. Photography studios, school, magazines & professionals left the fields long time ago. Photography has been dead over decades ago. People are shooting for fun & printing creased down beyond 74% People are shooting more with their phones & tablets.
$10,000 CAD. It looks like a phenomenal lens, but I'd be hesitant to spend that kind of money on a system that hasn't really seen significant sensor or AF improvements in half a decade.
Does it make sense to use this brilliant lense, which i adore :-) with the M5 Mark III? Thinking about buying this 150-400mm lense or the 300mm with 1.4 TC. Nice Video btw 💪
That new less expensive plastic fantastic 800mm from Canon as a comparison would be nice, one wonders if for example using that new 800mm on a higher megapixel R5 then reducing or down sampling to the resolution of the R6 how that would compare to what you got on the R6 with that 13K lens and the Olympus lens.
Best review I have watched!!! I enjoyed seeing all the particular function buttons on the lens. I plan on purchasing this lens. I have no read the complete review yet...but do you mention your IS settings for BIF with this new lens? Thanks for the GREAT thorough work!!!
I did a mix of IS off, and IS on with vertical shake correction only (especially when using the built-in teleconverter), but I didn't see any real difference. 1/2500s is fast enough so that you can leave the stabilisation off.
This was a very objective, and well expressed review. For those questioning the value of the Olympus set up, I would recommend Daniel Cox's review where he uses the Olympus set up to shoot from a kayak. I cannot imagine doing that, but he obviously is comfortable doing it, and produced some excellent results. I would have had to have the camera and lens encased in some sort of 'floatie' device -- not to mention myself!
It helps more with static subjects, especially because it focuses on the head of the bird so you can compose your image without worrying about moving the AF point all the time.
Rob You do an outstanding job on all your videos including this lens review. Thank you for providing all you reviews, tips, and "hot-to's.' Your explanations are well thought out, concise, and intelligible. To my ears, you have a "golden" voice with clear diction! Good Job!!
It really depends if you need the versatility of a zoom, or the extra reach with the built-in teleconverter and options TC. Personally I find that 300mm (or 600mm equivalent with other systems) is always good enough for my needs. But that is me.
Yes renting is a good point. I initially included a few words about it in the video, but it didn't make it the final cut because I wanted to keep the duration reasonable. But I suppose the 800mm is a lens that is rented more often that it is purchased. Also, if a photographer is working for an agency or a big magazine, I suspect they would provide one for him/her.
Is there any way to map the bird eye af to a single custom button like the Canon Eos R5 ? I find that you can map that to the Fn lever but have yet to found that you can map to a single button. I heard someone said you can map it to the exposure + and - button but have not yet tried
I'm not sure. You can assign the AF mode to a button, and from there select C-AF + Tracking (with Bird already selected as the tracking subject in the menu). I'm not sure if there is a way to activate all at once with the simple press of a button.
Mathieu, After 1 year + what do you think about this Lens compared with the alternatives in the Market and for €7000? Do you still see this Lens as a good alternative? I just want to buy this Lens but afraid about the future of the system.
I still think it's one of a kind, for the features it offers and the versatility with field of view on the m4/3 sensor. I think it's one of those lenses that, once mounted on the camera, you never take it off (for wildlife of course). It's always difficult to talk about the future of a system. When I made this video, it seems it had its days numbered, yet it's still here, and new products are being released (albeit not always exciting, I'll give you that). Ultimately, the question is: do you need it, and do you need it now? Are you a full time wildlife photographer who is going to use the lens everyday?
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons thank you for your opinion! I continue to work with Nikon, Panasonic and OM. I have a wonderful arsenal of MFT Lenses and very tempted to buy this Lens. But it costs a lot of money. The OM1 and the GH6 were a fresh wind on the system but the OM5 brought new worries to me. I’m just watching some videos from Mike Lane and others that are really enjoying the Lens. I was curious to hear your opinion! It is really important to hear from non Ambassadors! Thank you Mathieu!
This was a great review overall. I do think that the AA filter on the R6 probably came into to play with the r6 + 800 f5.6 vs em1x + 150-400 comparison. As someone that owns the 800 f5.6 and also the canon 200-400 f4 w/1.4x I have noticed that when I used the r6 the files were a bit softer with both lenses then my r5 and notably softer then my 5dsr even when I backed up to get the same amount of pixels on the subjects. Your sharpness results with the r6 mirror what I've found when I compared it to my other cameras so I do suspect the AA filter is an important factor. Did you run into any issues with moire with the em1x? I ran into it a lot with the 5dsr but since switching over to the r5 it has been less of an issue at the slight loss of sharpness.
I haven't noticed moiré with the E-M1X, but I didn't test for that specifically. The AA filter is most likely playing a role in the sharpness result for the R6, although I can't quantify exactly how much.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Thanks for the response! Yeah moire is really hard to test for, it really only something I have been able to get a feel of after using a camera for a while. It is also very hard to quantify the role of the AA filter in sharpness loss, and then the question remains, how much does it actually matter once sharpening is applied in post
Thanks for the wonderful comprehensive review. I am wondering if the lens cap and lens hood come in the box or does one need to order them separately. Thanks
Okay let's make a thought experiment: disregard the sensor noise performance, we know Olympus fails in that regard. My best argument for the Olympus is mobility and versatility: close focusing, zoom for framing, huge range, 1.8kg. It very well might be the best walk around lens for wildlife. The huge problem is however the camera you put it on. The AF is lagging behind the 3 big brands as shown in the comparison. Plus, the flagship camera has sub par video features (weird interface, convoluted video menu, 8 bit, no 120fps 4k, no autofocus in 240fps hd). The lens seems to be way better than the best camera you can put it on. Plus, the price: sure it's cheaper than the 800mm f5.6 but you can buy a sony a9 mark 2 with a sony 200-600mm and a 1.4x TC for the price of this lens and enjoy similar range and f stop and weight with better AF and viewfinder. I wish it would be something like 4k euros instead of 7500 that is just a bit too hard to justify. If I'm paying the price of a car for a nature lens in 2023 I want something that has state of the art focusing.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Yeah I haven't tried it myself but I know it's good. I tried both the sony a9 ii and the canon r3 though and those are like magic. I think I'm gonna go with an a9 ii once it gets a discount- as awesome as the 150-400mm lens is it doesn't compensate for all the compromises of the om-1 for me.
My experience with this lens on an OM-1 is that the AF is almost identical to my R5 600 F4 + 1.4TC in terms of accuracy, speed and sharpness. The A1, Z9 and R3 AF are better though but not by as much as you would expect given the price difference. The sensor noise is also very similar to the R5 as well but inferior to the R6 and probably the Sony FF offerings. The size and weight mean it gets more use than my Canon kit so I sold my Canon gear and I enjoy using the OM-1 so much more. Carrying around a 4.8kg lens plus R5, battery grip, heavy duty tripod etc. began to make photography a chore for me. The M43 system has been liberating.
@@stevemurnan1702 I'm just thinking about doing the same. I've not tested scientifically, but my gut feeling is that the AF just works better on my OM1 with 300mm lens than my R5 with 100-500. I think I'm about to buy this 150-400 😳😳😳😳
I do admire your BIF testing over the years, but I have to say with my limited testing of the EM1X Bird Detection / Tracking I have found an improvement for me over C-AF. It's not perfect, but I get noticeably less variation shot to shot using the new tracking. I find I do have to be patient and let the camera see the subject and start to track - if I try and force it too quickly then it can get confused.
Thanks for the feedback. Glad to hear that bird detection has brought a positive improvement for you. When testing the AF with the kites, it's difficult to wait for the camera to track the subject because the action can be really fast, so perhaps a situation like this makes it more difficult for the E-M1X.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Yes, to be fair most of my shots have been birds moving across at a steady speed: Red Kite and Hen Harrier. The action at a feeding station can be quite hectic!
