On paper, the OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS ($2,699.99) is an incredible lens for wildlife enthusiasts with a Micro Four Thirds camera. And it lives up to its billing in some ways, offering an extremely narrow angle of view and very effective optical stabilization. We question its value, however: It costs a lot, weighs more than pro options like the Olympus 150-450mm F4.5 TC 1.25 ($7,499), and its optics aren’t impeccable. Wildlife photographers are better off spending less for the Panasonic 100-400mm II ($1,599.99) or upgrading to the stunning Olympus 300mm F4 IS Pro ($2,999.99), our Editors’ Choice winner for Micro Four Thirds zoom lenses. A Big Lens for Smaller CamerasThe Micro Four Thirds camera system started the mirrorless revolution, with releases that cut space and weight compared with SLR peers. Their smaller-format image sensors, along with the omission of a mirror box, allow for especially slim lens designs. I’ve seen this build philosophy bear fruit, even with telephoto lenses from Olympus: The 300mm F4 Pro weighs just 3.3 pounds, for instance, and the 150-450mm F4.5 is just 4.1 pounds despite its bright optics and integrated rear teleconverter.
Since 1982, PCMag has tested and rated thousands of products to help you make better buying decisions. See how we test.
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
Getting to 600mm takes more glass for sure, so the M.Zuiko 150-600mm’s 4.6-pound frame and 10.4-by-4.3-inch (HD) barrel aren’t shocking. But I can’t help but wonder if the lens’ pedigree comes into play. Some cosmetic differences aside, the OM 150-600mm appears to be the same as the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports for Sony and L-mount cameras. The Sigma’s optics cover full-frame sensors, an aspect that calls for larger, heavier glass.To be fair, OM does not specify the lens manufacturer. I asked an OM representative if it is working with a partner for the lens and received a bit of a nonanswer: “This lens is manufactured and brought to market with full support from OM Digital Solutions for the OM System Micro Four Thirds Standard.” Given the exterior, optical specs, and general performance, however, I’m confident the OM 150-600mm comes out of Sigma’s factory in Aizu, Japan.
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
To that last point, the lens even says it is made in Japan, a country in which Sigma is the only major camera maker with a complete assembly operation. OM makes most of its cameras and lenses in Vietnam, for comparison. Another giveaway is that the lenses share a 25-element/15-group optical formula. A lens formula is much like a fingerprint and is typically patented. A rebranded lens is not unprecedented, either. OM’s previous ownership, Olympus, did the same thing with its M.Zuiko 100-400mm, a lens that appears to be a similarly customized version of the full-frame Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary. The 100-400mm is fairly light (2.5 pounds), however, so it doesn’t stick out as much on a smaller-format camera.But does it matter? In the case of the OM 150-600mm, I think it does. The lens’ resolving power suffers (especially at long focal lengths) because its optics aren’t made for a small sensor. It also gathers less light than the 300mm F4 or 150-450mm F4.5. Those aren’t cheap lenses by any stretch, but I must point out that OM is charging $1,200 more for the 150-600mm versus the full-frame Sigma edition. For that money, you could just about afford the Sigma version in E-mount and a Sony a6700 ($1,399.99) to go with it. As for mid-priced Micro Four Thirds alternatives, I gave middling marks to the $1,500 M.Zuiko 100-400mm. I haven’t tested either version of the Lumix 100-400mm, but users of those lenses generally seem to regard them well.
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
No Complaints About Material QualityFor $2,600, I expect a lens with a quality construction, and the OM 150-600mm meets that standard with a mix of magnesium and high-grade plastics for its barrel. It’s nearly twice as long at the 600mm setting versus the 150mm end due to its telescoping design and takes big 95mm front filters. The barrel has an IPX1 splash protection rating and OM System says it is dustproof, so the lens pairs well with the IP53-rated OM-1 Mark II. Otherwise, the front glass has an anti-smudge fluorine coating. A reversible lens hood and a pinch cap ship with the lens.
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
The lens has several useful on-barrel controls. There are three copies of the configurable L-Fn button (all perform the same function), as well as switches to enable stabilization, set the focus mode, and adjust the focus limiter. That last toggle supports near, far, or full-range autofocus, with 10 meters as the cutoff point. The two manual control rings, a slim one for manual focus and a large one for zoom, include rubber ribs for a ready grip even if you are wearing gloves. Rounding out the controls is an S/T/L toggle that changes the zoom tension between Smooth (S) and Tight (T), or locks the lens to the 150mm length (L).
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
A rotating tripod collar is integral to the design. The collar is metal, tightens with a thumbscrew, and rotates freely without detent stops. It has a pair of lugs to accommodate the included lens strap, and the tripod foot has dovetail edges for direct mounting onto an Arca-Swiss tripod plate. You can remove the foot with a hex key if you prefer.
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
Of course, the appeal of an OM camera is the ability to use a lens like this without a tripod. The 150-600mm’s angle of view is extreme, equivalent to 300-1,200mm in full-frame terms. The zoom has a built-in optical stabilization system that syncs up with your camera’s sensor to provide up to 7 stops of compensation at 150mm and 6 stops at 600mm. Although I still recommend using a brisk shutter speed to freeze the motion of critters out in the wild, the optical stabilization keeps the viewfinder jitter-free even at the 600mm end. A stable viewfinder is very helpful for finding animals hiding in the wild or tracking on-field athletes, both typical use cases for this type of lens.
(Credit: Jim Fisher)
Surprisingly, you can extend the focal length further with a teleconverter. OM doesn’t sell one, but the Olympus 1.4x and 2.0x converters are still available. I tried the zoom with the 1.4x, which narrows the angle of view and aperture (210-840mm and F7.1-F9.0). Meanwhile, the 2.0x turns the zoom into a 300-1,200mm F10-F13 optic. With the 1.4x, focus speed takes a slight hit and details aren’t as sharp due to atmospheric haze and heat distortion. I recommend skipping a teleconverter for this particular lens, especially if you aren’t an expert.
OM-1, 600mm, f/6.3, 1/1,000-second, ISO 3200 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
Without a teleconverter, the focus response of the stepping motor (STM) is quick, but not as snappy as the Olympus 300mm F4 Pro, which I tested side-by-side for comparison. I recommend setting the focus limiter to the far setting if you know your subject isn’t moving closer, as doing so speeds up the autofocus operations.In the lens’ favor, its focus speed is still fast enough for songbirds and other backyard fauna, as well as small planes from a local airport. The lens supports 25fps drive and focus with OM-1 and OM-1 II bodies, though the 300mm F4 and high-end 150-450mm F4.5 work at 50fps.
OM-1, 1.4x TC, 840mm, f/9, 1/1,000-second, ISO 5000 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
Close focus is available to 22.1 inches (0.56m) at 150mm and 9.2 feet (2.8m) at 600mm for 1:2.9 and 1:5 reproductions, respectively. It makes more sense to take macro photos at the wider end since the magnification is greater and you still have enough working distance to avoid casting a shadow. The Olympus 300mm F4 falls in between for small subjects; it focuses to 4.6 feet (1.4m) for 1:4.2 results.OM 150-600mm: In the LabI used Imatest and an SFRplus test chart to check the 150-600mm’s resolution with an OM-1 body. The lens is by far the sharpest at its widest angle. It shows an outstanding 2,700 lines at 150mm f/5 and maintains excellent marks from f/8-16 (2,400-2,200 lines). However, contrast drops significantly at 360mm and 600mm. It delivers 1,800 lines at 360mm f/6, for instance, the score that marks my cutoff for acceptable resolution on a 20MP sensor. Results dip further at narrower apertures. At 600mm f/6.3, I see about 1,725 lines, a mark slightly shy of the minimum I prefer with the OM-1.
OM-1 Mark II, 150mm, f/9, 1/500-second, ISO 200 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
I saw similar test results with the Sigma 150-600mm on a full-frame sensor, which lost about 20% of its contrast at the long end. The drop with the OM 150-600mm is closer to 30%. That more significant decline makes sense for a lens that is trying to resolve 20MP of information from a small portion of a full-frame image circle.
OM-1 Mark II, 600mm, f/9, 1/500-second, ISO 200 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
For comparison, the Olympus 300mm F4 IS Pro’s optical formula is tailor-made for Micro Four Thirds sensors. It’s lighter and brighter, with a prime angle that falls near the midpoint of the 150-600mm’s zoom range. I used different charts to compile results in my original review of the lens, so I ran fresh tests with my current setup to see how it holds up. The 300mm F4 buries the needle for a 20MP sensor, notching an outstanding 3,000 lines from f/4-8. The 300mm F4 might be from 2016, but it’s still one of the best telephotos for this or any camera system.
OM-1 Mark II, 600mm, f/6.3, 1/1,000-second, ISO 250 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
A lens’s baseline optical quality strongly influences how well its pictures hold up with teleconverters. After all, a lens with a 1.4x converter gathers half as much light as without, while a 2.0x converter cuts available light down to a quarter. Losing a stop or two of light with an F5-6.3 zoom is significant, especially since Micro Four Thirds lenses show less resolution at apertures narrower than f/8. Pictures from the 150-600mm and 1.4x converter look great at the wide angle but suffer at longer focal lengths. Although the 300mm F4 Pro has less zoom power, its image quality holds up better with a 1.4x converter since it’s so sharp to start. I haven’t had the chance to try either lens with a 2.0x extender.
OM-1, 1.4x TC, 840mm, f/9, 1/1,600-second, ISO 1600 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
Looking beyond resolution, pictures show no visible barrel or pincushion distortion through the range. This is true for both out-of-camera JPGs and Raw files, the latter of which use a built-in profile to save you editing time in Adobe Lightroom or Capture One. Pictures are free of a vignette too, which isn’t surprising given the 150-600mm’s full-frame image circle.Despite the relatively tiny f/5-6.3 aperture range, the telephoto focal length still creates a very shallow depth of field. Background blur is readily achievable, especially if you get close enough to a subject to position it prominently in the frame. I didn’t spot any false color (LoCA) in the blur, nor are there any other obvious distracting aspects. As such, images present a modern, clinical character.
OM-1 Mark II, 600mm, f/6.3, 1/1,000-second, ISO 500 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
Overall, the OM 150-600mm’s optical performance is mixed. Photos from the 150mm end look great, but picture quality drops off by the time you get to 300mm. You might not notice a lack of fine detail if you’re just sharing photos on social, but it’s apparent at magnification. The Olympus 300mm F4 doesn’t have as much telephoto reach, but its narrow angle is still sufficient for wildlife and field sports. It also benefits from a brighter aperture that supports lower ISO capture, an aspect that’s more meaningful to Micro Four Thirds cameras than full-frame ones.
OM-1 Mark II, 600mm, f/6.3, 1/1,000-second, ISO 250 (Credit: Jim Fisher)
Too Many Compromises for the CostThe M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS isn’t a bad lens, but it doesn’t do enough to justify its pro-level price. First, the positives: Its stabilization system does an exceptional job of keeping a 1,200mm-equivalent view steady in the viewfinder and top-tier construction quality brings allusions to Sherman tanks to mind. But picture quality suffers as you zoom in and the full-frame lens design can’t match the contrast and light demands of smaller crop sensors. Enthusiasts and pros are much better off spending $300 more for the optically superior Olympus 300mm F4, our Editors’ Choice winner among Micro Four Thirds telephoto lenses.
Like What You’re Reading?
Sign up for Lab Report to get the latest reviews and top product advice delivered right to your inbox.
This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.
