Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens coming in 2014, new ZUIKO lens roadmap, no more Four Thirds products


Last week I reported that Olympus will announce also a new M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens. The new lens was briefly mentioned in the E-M1 press release:

"The M.ZUIKO Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO (80–300mm, 35mm equivalent) also joins the new M.ZUIKO PRO lens category. This lens is currently under development, with a planned release in the latter half of 2014. It will be a telephoto zoom lens with a bright constant f2.8 aperture and will feature a dustproof and splashproof construction rugged enough for professional use."

Update: here is another picture of the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lens from Olympus Nordic:



Olympus also published a new ZUIKO lens roadmap that revealed two new MFT PRO lenses:

  • M.ZUIKO PRO wide-angle zoom lens
  • M.ZUIKO PRO 150-350mm or similar super-telephoto lens

The Japanese website DC.Watch reported that Olympus has merged their Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds lines and in the future will focus only on Micro Four Thirds products. The E-5 camera (marked as discontinued) and current Four Thirds lenses will still be sold in retailers (Google translation):

"With the launch of E-M1, Olympus to integrate the system of Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds the company has had so far. Future, development of new interchangeable lens type digital camera focus on Micro Four Thirds compatible products. New products of Four Thirds, I have "no plans body, with lens" and (the company). It should be noted that I will continue the time being sold ZUIKO DIGITAL lens and the current E-5 of (Four Thirds lens support)."

Apparently parallel to the E-M1, Olympus also developed a Four Thirds E-7 camera, but it was later determined that the E-M1 delivered superior results (AF) and that's why they decided to merge the systems:

"Olympus, that had been promoted in parallel the development of mirror-less camera and single-lens reflex camera as the next flagship camera. Four Thirds machine was also mock-up to "E-7" and (tentative name), but it was determined mirrorless camera's superior results consideration that this time, "I realize the new AF system nestling in full the performance of the Four Thirds lens" (company) could also become one of the factors that integrate both systems."

Via Olympus Japan, DC.watch

This entry was posted in Olympus and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • fjfjjj

    Revolutionary opaque front element!

    • fkfkkk

      You’re a worse comedian than a troll who has nothing interesting to say.

      • Neopulse

        Wow, who took a shyt in your breakfast cereal today?

        • NeoPun

          I asked and they don’t want you back in there.

          • Neopulse

            Well, you’re by yourself in that poor excuse of a joke. Get better material and then think about whether it’s a good idea to bash people’s posts let alone downvote.

      • Zos Xavius

        Says the troll with nothing interesting to say.

  • nobody

    Can someone explain to me, please… what is MICRO with this lens? It looks rather full frame to me.

    • Nick

      There’s no scale to thos epictures – so how do you know what size it is?
      Also compare it to a 300 f2.8 (or even 300 f4, though to be honest light gathering for shutter speed is oftern more important than DoF on these lenses) on full frame – be it’ll be pretty micro.

      • nobody

        The front lens has to be 150mm : 2.8 = 53.5mm at least, so you can somehow estimate the dimensions.

        And if you compare it to an FX lens, it’s equivalent to a 300mm f5.6 – which needs exactly the same diameter (and has the same light gathering capabilities in conjunction with an FX sensor).

        • Nick

          True – and that makes the lens looks small to me. It’s all relative though.

          Have you ever seen the Olympus 4/3rds (which will be bigger than this lens) 35-100 f2 laid next to a Nikon 70-200 f2.8? Or the 300 f2.8 4/3rds laid next to the Nikon 600 f4?

          No it doesn’t. That just not true. Unless you are seriously sugesting that a well exposed photo on an FF camera taken at f5.6 and 1/250th of a second would need to be taken at f2.8 and 1/250th of a second, or f5.6 and 1/125th of a second on 4/3rds? Or that my Nikon FF lenses stop having the same effective aperture when I put them on my DX second body?

          There’s an awful lot of “that’s not exactly what I want, so must be shit” nonsense on here. I use long lenses reasonably frequently. I can’t afford to buy exotics so tend to rent. Having slogged around the jungles of SEA with a 200-400 f4, and have to try to shephard a 400 f2.8 safely round a two week trip to South Africa, the long lenses being brought into the M4/3rds fold, and the ability fo the EM1 to continually focus M4/3 and 4/3 lenses at dslr matching speeds is very interesting to me

          No these aren’t the type of tiny walk around lenses M4/3 users currently enjoy, but to dismiss them for this reason is the height of ignorance.

          • Carl Showalter

            “[…] to dismiss them for this reason is the height of ignorance.” True.

            Yet stating that m4/3-systems are equivelent to some fullframe systems is at least just as ignorant.

      • Cinekpol

        You can’t compare it to 300 f/2.8 – it’s more like 300 f/5.6 on FF.

        • Mr.Black

          Exactly, and 300mm f/5.6 is consumer speed lens in DSLR world. Pro lenses are 1 or 2 stops faster.

          p.s. Don’t get me wrong, I like Olympus cameras, and I will probably buy OM-D E-M10 for vacations and city breaks but I hate this “pro” gimmick with E-M1. Big body with small d*ck.

  • Darren

    All this glass for a m43 sensor? Haha

    • SteveHood

      Canikon APS-C owners must be getting jealous of the m43 lens selection. 🙂

      • nobody

        I have an OMD E-M5, but I would not want to mount to mount that brick in front of it whenever I need a focal length of more than 40mm.

        • SteveHood

          Fortunately m43 has other smaller options.

      • When people go for APS-C, they have already given up on mFT and they ultimately desire a larger sensor like full frame. By your logic, people must get jealous of security cameras with fast lenses 🙂

  • King of Swaziland

    Oh look! It’s an 80-300 f/5.6 for $2K

    • But it’s just as difficult to make as a 80-300 f/2.8 full frame lens, if not more difficult because of tolerances. So, Oly’s pricing is pretty fair… it’s the users who had unreasonable, win-win expectations from a small sensor system.

      • Cinekpol

        Nope, just some people don’t try to hide or dismiss the disadvantages that m4/3 sensor size brings, like you just did here.

        • Zos Xavius

          His point is valid and true. I don’t think he is hiding anything with that.

        • LOL you’re completely off the ball on this. Take some time to think before you hit reply and write.
          Once again, I blame Apple for putting the horde on the net.

    • Nick

      No it’s not.
      Light gathering is just as important as DoF for a lens like this. In fact it’s often a problem having too shallow dof because you have to open the aperture all the way to have enough shutter speed when using long lenses in lower light.
      Fed up of people talking crap about DoF all the time when discussing APS-C and M4/3 (and I use exclusively FF and MF).

      • Bollox

        Yes it is… And chill out, will ya? You have a chance to learn something, you should be happy. Nothing wrong with M43, just with your trolling.

  • zoron

    40-150mm is about 4x zoom….ff 70-200mm is only abut 3x zoom.

    • zoron

      it has a zoom advantage which is a lot more beneficial than dof…..

      • zoron

        i hope their next lens in line would b 150-400mm 2.8

        • Cinekpol

          It’d need to be something around f/1.4 to be of any competition for FF 70-200 f/2.8, and so far Oly can’t even release f/1.8 zoom for m4/3.

          • YouSmartAssTroll

            A 70-200 f/1.4 zoom for m4/3 WOULD BE SUPERIOR to a FF 70-200 f/2.8. Yeah DOF would be the same for both but the amount of light per unit of area would be greater on m4/3. Razor Thin DOF might not always be worth the extra weight

          • Cinekpol

            You assume that m43 cameras got same noise levels in a same light as FFs – they don’t.
            And it still wouldn’t be superior, because building lens keeping up the same IQ at f/1.4 as the other one does at f/2.8 is next to impossible.

          • Zoron

            I m sayin m43 had the advantage of 4/3 sensor size, mirrorless and ibis, all these 3 allow a smaller and lighter lens with longer zoom, it’s a gift of convenience over FF dof. And assuming sensor performance improve by 1 stop every 2-3 year, sooner or later we don’t need bright 2.0 zoom lens for sports, the longer zoom is more helpful.

          • Cinekpol

            I think you’re very mistaken that ISO will eliminate the need of bright tele lenses for sports – sports photographis is also using shallow depth of field – not just portrait.

            And a small size is rarely really important thing in sports photography – there you can easily set up a tripod and simply tilt around / move it around when needed. Hoping for shooting 90 minute match hand-held is ridiculous, even if a total weight of your whole gear would be 500g (and it won’t be).
            Sorry, but for this and many other reasons you won’t see any crowds of sports photographers shooting m43 sensor cameras. Yes, there are some exceptions from that rule even right now, but that’s all – an exception.

          • Zoron

            Who would b first to release a FF, mirrorless and ibis body, the lean machine with even leaner lens? No compromise on dof……i think SONY can do it they have all 3 tech.

          • Cinekpol

            Yep, seems like Sony will have a release within next 2 months.
            Sadly – they won’t start with more than 3 lenses which means one is forced into adaptors.

          • You are not confident of what you write and that’s why you’re using a temporary alias instead of using your regular alias here.

            First, you need a 35-100 f/1.4 on FT/mFT to get an image that is theoretically comparable to what you get with a 70-200 f/2.8 on FF.

            Light gathered = light_per_unit_area x area

            If f/2.8 is 1 unit of light, then f/1.4 is 4 units of light (2 stops). If FF area is 864 sq.mm and FT area is 224.9 sq.mm.

            FF light gathered = 1 x 864 = 864
            FT light gathered = 4 x 224.9 = 899.6

            While the light per unit area is higher from the f/1.4 lens, the smaller total area offsets that benefit. So they both gather approximately the same amount of light at the end of the day.

            But in terms of optics, a 70-200 f/2.8 will have better image quality than a 35-100 f/1.4 because that’s just plain common sense. It’s not like the difference between a f/22 lens and a f/11 lens… A speed difference like that can’t come without a significant compromise in image quality one way or another.

  • D4ve

    How can they market it as a PRO lens, when it’s built for a camera with a sensor 1/4th the size of a PRO sensor?

    Doesn’t Olympus have enough legal issues?

    • That is SOOOOO TRUEEEEE!!!!!!!!! Same goes for Nikon and Canon. How the hell are they pro level cameras when they are no where near Digital Backs. Those marketers are bastards!

      • bort

        omigod MF digital backs are for posers they can’t even iso

        35mm fx is the one true pro size em1 has nothing on the d800

        • lol ok. Well I guess having a d800 and showing everyone your camera makes you a pro. So many “photographers” love shooting themselves in the mirror with their pro camera, I guess it’s to show other people that they are pro photographers because of their gear. Makes sense, its all about the gear.

    • apolloOMDEM5

      I am an actual pro with a successful photography business who only shoots M43. My clients are more than blown away by their images. I have shot every level of Nikon and Canon and I would take my EM5 and EM1 over any of their cameras any day! I am going to tell you a secret. The megapixel count and full frame arguments are myths. You can get an unbelievably amazing shot with a M43 sensor and only 16 million pixels too! Oh and I never ever have a back focus issue. Had 3 Nikons in a row with horrible back focusing issues. Low light high ISO performance has also blown me away. People say but aren’t you worried about a little grain? No! Remember film anyone? Remember how grain adds to the artistic value? Grain at higher ISO’s helps make the image look more real and less processed. Don’t be affriad of a little grain. Look at all the pros switching to mirror less systems for more evidence.

    • Daniel

      You can capture some truly amazing photos with Micro Four Thirds. I wouldn’t recommend it for sports shooting, but it’s great for just about anything else. Most people aren’t pixel peepers…they just want beautiful photos — and Micro Four Thirds delivers them at a reasonable price and size. The saying goes that “the best camera is the one you have with you,” and the compactness of Micro Four Thirds means it’s easier to have a great camera with you.

  • Sebastian

    Lets assume we want to capture the same field of view from the same distance. Then for each sensor size there is one focal length which achieves that FOV. That focal length is proportional to sensor diagonal.
    Light collection is proportional to sensor area, or to diagonal squared.
    Light collection is also proportional to 1/f-stop squared.
    Depth of field is proportional to 1/square root of light collection. So it’s proportional to f-stop and and 1/sensor diagonal.
    So in both DOF and light collection 150 f/2.8 on m43 are equivalent to 300 f/5.6 on FF.
    But aberrations do not scale as simply as the above. So in this particular case, 300 5.6 may be cheaper and even lighter to achieve than 150 2.8.
    But you are also going to use that same camera body for ultra-wide. Same physics apply to DOF and light collection, but the aberrations may be different. And now you may not care about light, because its landscape work. Or you may because it’s astro. Now the m43 may be better off.
    The point is, it’s about the system. And the different trade offs for different purposes.

    • Chris

      You’re right about the DOF argument, but wrong about the light collection. DOF has to do with the geometry of the aperture to the sensor, but light collection is purely related to the aperture. f/2.8 is f/2.8 for light capture, no matter the size of your sensor.

      • Sebastian

        My iPhone 4 has an f/2.4 lens. Why is the low-light performance so much worse than even my old D90 at f/2.4?

  • Back to top