First Impressions of 150-400 f4.5 OM System Lens

[@whatmattersmost6725]

YES Ben, you deserve that lense!!!

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

Thanks!

[@randominterest8868]

You are 100% correct about this lens, it is a great 'buy', when compared to other sensor formats and professional lens of the same caliber. Paired with the EM1X, they are made for each other... very happy for you! The clarity is amazing.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

Yes, exactly

[@TheSannaeriksson]

Oh so nice to see you making videos! ♥️ When I buy lenses, I buy used lenses with warranty from camera sellers in Sweden. Have saved a lot of money that way and even had the opportunity to buy the "big white" almost new soon after it was launched that way. It's an expensive lens, but worth every penny. I hope you can get one soon, you really deserve it!

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

Oh wow! and thanks I will.

[@flyfishnfoto]

Ben good to see you back online. Glad your neuropathy is improving.

[@macg33zr]

Good to see you're doing more videos and you finally got this lens! It will be interesting to see your astrophotography with it. I have taken some hand held moon shots with the MC-20 at 1000mm at only 1/25s - the stabilisation is incredible. I mainly use it for wildlife / birds, you get nice bokeh if you get low on the subject. I hold it near the ground for those shore birds - we call them Sanderling in the UK, I'm not sure if it is different over there. Have fun!

[@soundknight]

Beautiful candid photos of the pipers.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@comeraczy2483]

Thanks a lot for this video. I love the pipers. At 9:30, I had to laugh! I was just thinking: "that's about $6000 more that I would ever spend on a similar-ish lens" when you said "let's say you are a thousand bucks short for this lens...". I am surprised that you think it costs $20000 to buy a similar lens for full frame. Sure, there won't be the integrated 1.25 TC, but 150-600mm FF lenses are typically less than $2000 new (with a front element diameter of 95mm instead of 89mm on the OM lens), and a TC costs $500 new (for those who are into these things). Both can easily be bought used from reputable sellers. $20000 would be a Canon RF 1200mm f/8, but that is a very different league!

[@stevenbirds2920]

Nice to see you. Take care and yes, whilst I don’t own the lens myself, I recognise from a brief tryout close to its launch, that’s a credit to its designers and the people who make it.

[@michaelhall2709]

So, you took the plunge! Good for you; enjoy!

[@ddiver7908]

OMG! You got it!! That's awesome!

[@PaintedCloudsStudio]

Thank you for the review! It is always interesting to hear from you.

[@johnleach324]

Sold! Enjoy Ben

[@matttheking1655]

You finally got it!....well deserved🎉

[@soundknight]

Wow, nice lens. A bit big for what I'm used to. I normally hate carbon products because companies and people don't really understand it properties and they go on about it like its a super material when it's just epoxy wrap. I can see how it makes sense in this lens though.

[@haroldgraham4441]

Super

[@jhgrc]

I do wideband astro tests with the big white & benro polaris astro. As you have much more experience on deepsky photography I hope you could make a video about using it.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

I sure will be.

[@scottgarriott3884]

Nice overview! Maybe Olympus/OMS should have made more than 25 of these. Unit cost could have been a hair lower and serious photogs could actually find it. yeah - I want it so bad.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

Lol you must read the forums to much. Those are full of bad info. Olympus when they had one production line was making one a day. So two years ago that was 1600 of them made and that was 2 years ago. They have made a lot more of them now. Never trust the forum garbage out there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iImaZouKf6iah8Usi=miGs7FuzN0QslaTh

[@scottgarriott3884]

@@TheNarrowbandChannel OH, you are likely quite right. However my frustration at not being able to afford one colours my reaction. And I'm known for hyperbole. 😆

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

hello there thank you for making this video and sharing your beautiful bird photos. I want to share some thoughts and facts with you. An Om-1 MK II costs €2049 and the 150-400 costs €6999, a total of €9049. This combination weighs 2474 grams. a Canon R6 Mark II costs €2499 and the Canon Rf 100-500 with the RF 1.4 esxtender costs €3899 and weighs 2480 grams, which differs by 7 grams with the Om system combination. However, the price difference is significantly larger, namely €2652. the advantage of the Canon Combination. Add to this that the Canon R6 Mark II has a much larger censor, allowing you to continue taking photos even under difficult lighting conditions. In short, a full frame compares to the MFT format in both price and weight. these were just some thoughts. yours sincerely from the Netherlands

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

This is not correct. We astrophotographers know better. Larger sensor does not collect more light. You MUST have a larger aperture to do that. That is science. This type of thinking only get pushed on photography forums. It never goes on astrophotography forums because we would call out that as fake science.

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

@ I'm not talking about astrophotography. and that a larger aperture gives more light to a censor, everyone who thinks knows. This is amplified even more with a larger (full frame) censor. You don't have to be a scientist for that, an adolescent can tell you that.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

@@theflyingdutchman7127 I think you did not understand my last response. I think you are also comparing a variable aperture, and telescoping lens with one that does neither. These are two different categories. Like comparing cows to mules.

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

@@TheNarrowbandChannel I invite you to explain it in such a way that I understand it.

[@dasaen]

I have an impossible decision. I can only buy 150-600 or the 40-150f2.8

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

What do you want to image?

[@dasaen]

@ I mainly do telephoto landscapes, portraits that involve the environment (100-200 range), and birds. I was fully satisfied with the 100-400 panasonic, and saved to replace my other main lens, the 40-1504-5.6, for the f2.8. The thing I like about the 40-150f2.8 is that it is like a macro lens with the tc, 3 portrait primes, and 300mm f2.8 for fast action, all in one lens. Winter low light is also a problem in my area because most my walks are in the evening, I really do consider that lens a must have for the system. But the 150-600 is a 150-600 xD How can someone pass on 1200mm?

[@Biosynchro]

​@@dasaen If you already have the 100-400, maybe the 40-150 Pro is the lens you want. Perhaps 600mm is a bit of an indulgence?

[@dasaen]

@ I think you are right. Whenever the 100-400 was not enough, it was because of heat haze, or the subject being too close to a “messy” background. The 1200mm would be cool but it would have those same problems.

[@JACKnJESUS]

Fine, as long as you are okay with every shot having the DOF of an f/9 FF lens...at best. Always a trade off.

[@Biosynchro]

That's not a trade-off to me!

[@JeffreyMcPheeters]

it's not like that in real life, if you use super telephoto for the subjects we want, especially with deep space. So when I use this lens on my OM-1 and my Sony 200-600 on my A7RV or A1, there's a lot of comparable results. Especially in situations where I would have loved to get even closer. Now granted, on the sidelines at football games, I prefer the 400/2.8 on the full frame to get the separation. But in wildlife and nature photography, generally speaking, the distance to subjects is such that there is an over abundance of separation and the background is almost always blown out, no matter the aperture I use. There are a lot of reasons to prefer the in-camera crop of the m43 kit and there are also reasons to prefer the wider view we get with FF at a give focal length. It just depends on the situation and we make decisions based on what is best with the gear we have available.

[@robertkomarek1387]

@@JeffreyMcPheeters This lens is way too slow for astro work...serious astro work anyway. Focal length can be easily remedied these days with cropping and post processing...if necessary. DOF is baked into every image. What you don't notice is the difference. I have two different formats...and have done A/B testing...big difference. By using your approach...a cellphone beats micro.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

DOF can be digitally increased. So no reason to consider this an advantage anymore. Plus digitally doing it is reversible. Optical DOF is not.

[@JACKnJESUS]

@@TheNarrowbandChannel Never fix with software that which cannot be fixed by hardware first. Medium Format is better than FF. FF is a better option than crop...and crop is better than micro