OM System's 150-600mm lens will change wildlife photography FOREVER!

The OM system 150-600mm f/5-6.3 IS lens offers an equivalent focal length of 300-1200mm!! Matty takes this brand new optic to the photo hide to put it through its paces...
#photography #video #camerareview #cameratest #adventure #omsystem #150600mm #wildlife #wildlifephotography #naturephotography

[@kokhowe]

I've just sold my Olympus 100-400 to get this lens. Been using it for slightly more than a month. Its sharp, the AF is fast, and the extra zoom range is very noticeable. The only problem is the extra 1kg is also noticeable. Will need some time to get used to this new weight, but I do find that its quite balance. Also, I found that switching from a neck strap to a sling strap helps a lot to avoid neck aches.

[@RobertSagan-p9f]

I think you are spot on. Is it for everyone? Nope. Is is large? Depends on your perspective. If you are a street photographer with an M5 and regularly use the compact and amazing f4 pro lenses then this isn't for you. And that's okay. Don't buy it. However, for a 1200mm reach in a super zoom, it is compact & reasonably priced. Which coincidentally does maintain a main attraction of the mft format. I can't afford the otherworldly big white 150-400 but this unique lens is possible and exciting for me. I am glad we have another choice added to the wide range of mft lenses.

[@danncorbit3623]

I think that this application is the one area where micro four thirds has a genuine advantage over bigger formats. The weight is no problem for a large person, but smaller people might need a gimbal. Canon has 1200mm prime which has the same reach, but it's f8 and twenty thousand dollars. Also about twice as heavy. Sure, the bokeh of a lens that long will be better on full frame, and the depth of field will be smaller. But who cares about bokeh balls on specular highlights and razor thin depth of field for wildlife? Thinner depth of field is a big disadvantage. We want the whole mallard duck in focus, not just the nostril openings on his beak. I have heard people complain that the lens is too heavy or too expensive. I shoot mostly full frame so I laugh at those remarks.

[@ryantang8146]

Even at 2kg, I reckon this lens will be extremely popular. Yes the Sigma design will annoy a lot of people with the price hike but you can’t get this specs anywhere else. OM system has modified it and put Sync IS at 6ev for the long end, if that’s true and 1200 at 6 EV, that’s even better than the 150-400 pro because with the built in teleconverter, I don’t think it will have 6 EV anymore. It has better weather sealing than the Sigma and it works with the two MC teleconverter, you are not getting these features with the Sigma lens alone and you can to 1200mm with m43 instead of a crop in 900mm with either APSC bodies or full frame. OM system knows it and that’s why it charge us the premium 😅

[@tobiasdavid3096]

I think the lens fits perfectly in the OM lineup. The 40-150 pro is more for sports and events. The 100-400 is a very good entry-level lens for an acceptable price. The 300 pro gives you excellent IQ, but might be a bit limiting. The 150-600 gives you the ultimate reach and the 150-400 is still a class of it‘s own.

[@isotechimages.9130]

Love the OM systems gear and considering getting into it but let me just state my Canon R7 with RF 200/800mm gives me 1280mm and is within 50grams of your setup and with the R6ii you get 800mm full frame at just a few more grams. In fact the 200/8000 lens is 15grams lighter than the 150/600 so weight becoming bit of a non issue. I rely on lens hood for front element protection with no problems and yes as these lenses get longer it hard to go back to shorter focal lengths even with brighter apertures.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

I don't see a single reason to get this lens+any OM camera over an RF200-800+ whatever RF camera with digic X. This lens is DOA and brings nothing to appeal new buyers to OM... You can literally crop down the R7 to a 20mp MFT FOV, do people not think about that fact? Seriously, I want OM to succeed, but all I see here is a dud, and a LOT of coping lol

[@christophmuller3511]

It’s so heavy because it’s literally the FF Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports with a M43 mount for twice the price of the E-Mount version - same optical formula, same button placements. If you use a high resolution FF body and crop to M43 you get pretty much the same image, but you have more leeway as you can reframe more carefully while cropping than what you can do free hand. And then the larger FF sensor has the benefit of being able to AF track outside the M43 image circle. I don’t think this is much of a game changer.

[@srp5402]

I am sad that this design was not changed. because a small Image sensor makes it possible to make either a smaller lens, or to significantly increase the light power with the same dimensions and weight

[@GreggFellows]

erm no it won't, a big slow heavy lens designed for FF makes the m4/3rds kit as bulky as a FF system, and more expensive...... and kind of pointless

[@klackon1]

It's not as heavy as the OMS 150 - 400mm, and that has been flying off the shelves from the day it was launched. In fact, OMS did not anticipate the popularity of that lens. If you think this 150 - 600mm is near to being too heavy, what about the FF 400mm, 600mm and 800mm lenses designed to be used with Canon, Nikon and Sony lightweight mirrorless cameras, or the Sigma 150 - 600mm Sports lens, which may also be used with the big three mirrorless cameras? A battery grip is available for the OM1 and OM1 mark II and the lens can always be mounted on a tripod.

[@ammadoux]

i already love it. it will bring back my bigma + e5 days 😍. i was devastated when the e5 stoped working, and olympus said they will stop developing e7 and go fully mirrorless. Ok em 5 mark ii was a brilliant camera but both the lumix 100-300 mm and olympus 75-300 were a major down grade for me. not saying they are bad lenses, actually both are fabulous and nicely priced. right now i am using the 300 mm f4 since 2017, learnt how to approach birds or just include them in wider scene. this lens will be excellent for desert birds and those very shy migrating birds who stop in my garden. thanks a million for this video. subscribed.

[@derekmidgley]

I gave up on m4/3rds cause the lenses grew bigger and this looks absolutely bloated. Now I shoot birds with Canon's RF 100-500mm & R7. I'd be carrying around almost 1kg less than this kit. My combo would probably cost slightly less. And I suspect a 32mp R7 ( 1.5x crop factor ) would compete very closely, possibly even out resolve a 20mp (2 x crop factor) OM 1. This whole system is a hectic missed opportunity. They never "got it". They could have made the lenses much smaller and lighter. The sensor is small. Why not the glass?!

[@sweden_ove2074]

I don't care it's a FF lens. Its a 300-1200 zoom with Sync-IS. And with 50% better IS than the FF lookalike. OM System has together with Sigma made a great lens. I would love to ask FF users how they like their 300-1200 lens. Are they towing it with a truck? Yes, i like it. Its mabe too long for my use, but my astro photo friend would be so jealous if I had it. I will wait for the comming 250 or so zoom. Thats what I need

[@andrenj1970]

UV filter useless, use the provided hood.

[@ryzgms]

Rebranding a Sigma 150-600 does not make it a game changing lens

[@ajs1501]

To big to heavy and far to expensive.

[@chetanunindracusin664]

For person with 150-400 not for me555

[@luzr6613]

Hi - an interesting thing that brings up some questions for me. The longest native lenses I shoot - on E-1, E-5, E-M1 and E-M1X - are both original 4/3 lenses - the 300 f/2.8 and the 90-250 f/2.8. These are magnificent constructions that work well for me. At five and six hundred FF equivalent, they are plenty long, and at constant f/2.8, fast as. TC1.4 is very usable on both and TC2.0 works for magnifying mid range targets. Both weigh over 3.3 kg but on all but the E-M1 feel well balanced. To get the same reach/framing as this 150-600, I have to halve the distance to subject. When I halve the distance, I'm shooting through a lot less atmosphere. A lot less atmosphere equals a lot less potential for atmospheric disturbance messing with IQ. I can see this lens making it much easier to fill the frame, but if you're willing to do the work to get physically close with a 300 instead, is this lens (forgetting aperture differences) likely to deliver the same quality? If it does, it's miraculous, and if not, is it better getting dirty and wet? What do you think?

[@srp5402]

how fast are these lenses on mirrorless cameras? quite a bit of material about these lenses

[@donaldmiller7098]

I'd like to get this lens. I don't mind that it is a rebranded Sigma but I do mind that it's, effectively, a rebranded Sigma with a $1000 OM System adapter. Did it really cost that much extra to modify the lens to fit the OM cameras?

[@J-Young_photography]

OM should do a 200-500mm and try to cut down the weight,. I agree that if you are a serious birds photographer then this focus length is definitely a plus, weight is acceptable for this purpose, 100-400 may be a bit short,

[@dirkziegler9580]

Spending double the price of the original Sigma 150-600....and folks buying this. So OM-System knows they can charge whatever they want. Crazy.

[@tapere7277]

The reason I moved from full frame to M43 is so that I didn't have to lug my Sigma 150-600 around. So I sold it and got an OM-1 and the Panasonic Leica 100-400 (faster and lighter than the OM Systems equivalent). I'm not going to start carrying that weight again.

[@insightvideo6136]

“Game changer.” ? Uh, OK. Not seeing it here, but OK. Price is astronomical.

[@davelock3166]

I use om, but I would not buy this Sigma. How does it change wildlife photography? It has been available from sigma in other mounts for ages AND it is cheaper!!

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

This is simply a highly priced Sigma lens. Due to its small size (they serve only 1/2% of the camera market), Om-systems is not able to develop new lenses in-house. They would have been better off sitting down with Olympus and asking them to develop a new lens. they are missing the point with this Bigma. Overall, the reactions to both the OM-1 Mark II and this lens have been disappointing. if OM systems do not respond well to this. they have a serious problem.

[@HokKan]

Olympus is known for releasing products with poor initial response, but when the products hit the shelves and reviews start coming in, people start buying them. Most people forget quite quickly of how the original OM-1 was received upon release. Same with the 150-400. Yet, they're selling very well now and praised by wildlife shooters.

[@Group51]

Rolls Royce is a highly priced BMW 7 series. Except it isn’t and this isn’t given OM has adapted it. If it wasn’t for the 7 series the small volume of the RR might not be viable today.

[@brucegraner5901]

This Sigma lens is reported to have excellent center sharpness which is exactly where an MFT sensor would need it. However, I agree that this pushes what I generally consider to be one of the most attractive features of the format which is light weight and portability. It would be interesting to compare the image quality of this lens against the 100-400mm with a TC1.4 . But the 15-600mm also makes me wonder what its performance will be like with converters. Sometimes there is just no substitute for extra reach.

[@dvd0505]

before that i use sigma 150600, low focus speed and low quality image. Now I am glad om have this lens. i will save money to buy it😊😊😊

[@marklaurendet1861]

Looks to be a good lens but in Australia it is 4K+ But affordable compared to the 150-400 that is out of reach for a very large proportion of Mu-43 users 100-400 will still be the go to option when you need close up focus distance, and wider view at the short end. Plus a lot more budget friendly

[@studio1966]

This lense can change birding. But actually it is to expensive. The waight is the elefant in the room. I was happy to see a test with the Panasonic G9II

[@yewtewbtoo]

Put a UV filter on it? Geez, use a lens hood.

[@truenetgmx]

No idea if this is just yt compression, but on all channels photos seem a little bit soft. I will wait for sharpness tests

[@Sourav1973]

This looks like a heavier lens than a FF counterpart.

[@adamkerezsy8460]

This will obviously render the 100-400 somewhat obsolete, especially given compatible lens-body IS (which for some insane reason the 100-400 didn't have). But it looks BIG. So I guess the question becomes - for wildlife people - is it any use compared to the 300 or the 150-400 Pro lenses??

[@ryantang8146]

I think it depends. The 100-400 is not as good but still it is a lot cheaper and it weights only 1kg and much smaller so for family trip and hiking it would be a better option if weight is a concern but for dedicated birding trip, the 150-600 would be superior.

[@majamogens]

Why dont you use the lens hood to protect the front element?

[@AmrominAlex]

Hi all. Thanks for the review. This lens is somehow suspiciously similar to the Sigma 150-600, or is it just me? Based on the quality of the images shown, this is Sigma. My Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 lens, in combination with the Olympus OM - D1 Mark III, produces exactly the same picture as the lens in this review. The color of the pictures in the review is a little better, I think due to the newer coating and backlight, the new lens holds better. But overall it's a Sigma, possibly a Sigma Sport. But then it’s not clear why the price is so high?