Lots of light 'but also long shadows

Supplement - I could now not only compare with Panasonic 2.8 / 35-100 mm, but also with Fuji XT-1 & 2.8 / 50-150 mm and Samsung 2.8 / 50-150 mm.
How well such a push can be at the long focal length and maximum aperture, Fuji is very impressive - this course is also the advantage of almost twice as large sensor. But mechanically are Fuji and Samsung more workable. However, there are still missing the converter.

My pictures are often created at the limit, I use my lenses often with full intensity, I need the fastest AF, with the best precision - because a missed moment is the worst and not perfectly sharp picture, the next worst.
I have worked for 12 years, among other things with the Olympus E-System and know virtually all lenses for MFT / FT - I try again and again from the latest, because I want to have the best possible equipment for myself.
My focus is on the tele-photography - therefore I have the 40-150 mm PRO ordered the same October 2014.
Personally, I've just promised more of it.
The waiting period of just over six months you're not used to from Olympus yes, I had a copy in December, but still without a converter.
It's not a bargain price and the purchase pays for itself at best to the converter.
Neither focal length and light intensity nor I have ever enough.
At the small OM-D cameras, it is heavy or top heavy, very different from the short, inner focus-based Panasonic 2.8 / 35-100 mm OIS.
After the recent Olympus Zoom's up to 2,8 / 12-40 mm PRO & 4,5-5,6 / 9-18 mm were all unsatisfactory, cost structures and had absolutely nothing to do with Zuiko quality from Japan, is the 2.8 / 40-150 mm 1.4x PER and the converter back only "Made in China".
Given the price and the highly acclaimed Zuiko-Japan-production that's very sobering.

The construction with metal elements makes a fine first impression, the tripod adapter is removed luckily quickly.
The sun visor is a nice idea, the lens also makes it extremely thick.
'It would be better in any case, the solution of 4.0 / 300 mm Canon, built, retractable sun visor.
The magnification ratio of 1: (. Bez on full frame) 2.4 is sensational that could replace a telephoto macro lens. However, the sharpness at close range is not really inspiring.

In particular telephoto lens structures are only as good as the accuracy and speed of auto focusing. Olympus has added here learned over the past 12 years, much to slow AF motors in the FT lenses and the SWD technique that came too late and is not really compatible with the contrast AF of mirrorless cameras.
Now is emphasized with every new camera and each new lens as fabulously fast the AF is.
The AF zoom, felt my E-M1 not always really quickly and accurately to, so I have the lens on the Panasonic GH4 set and lo and behold, it focuses almost felt twice as fast.

Sharp and high resolution?
The optical power is already breaking at around 100 mm a little and at 150 mm is achievable its sharpness no longer optimal (in 3 different copies of the trade similar results) ', it is no better than the Panasonic 2.8 / 35 at 100 mm -100 mm OIS 'that has yet very sobered me.

Frustrating was then the use with 1.4x Extender:
The sharpness of detail continues to decline and the AF speed drops to a slow level, especially when there is no optimal contrast in motive prevails. The AF-problems can be with the current Olympus cameras not solve. In the FT lenses were the brakes (up to SWD) and now there are the AF sensors of the cameras.
So even with this well-intentioned telephoto zoom is an e-M1 unfortunately not yet competitive far to Eos 7D2 with 70-200mm f / 2.8 or 4.0 / 70-200 mm 'to remain in the same weight class ,
The combination is a little lighter and more compact, but because it ultimately the sharpness of a Canon 4.0 / 70-200mm L IS visible inferior 'at a significantly higher price and with slower AF' for me it is not a solution. Since I use then rather continue the very good and very handy Panasonic 2.8 / 35-100 mm OIS.
Since just over 1 year I photograph a lot with the 2.8 / 12-40 mm PRO. That was initially mechanically impressive, but now falls to me and colleagues stronger wear on and the newly pimped a polycarbonate tube with a little metal and the materials are bonded to the front only.
The 40-150 mm is similar in construction and rapid wear could come to light even with the expensive telephoto zoom.

The price seems very high for me a price of no more than 1100 would be more appropriate. (A sharper 4.0 / 70-200mm L IS costs with built stabilizer 1000 and a 70-200mm f / 2.8 L IS with more coverage / Aperture costs only 1700 with better optical performance and faster AF.)
In general, the newer systems are very high price without mirrors and lenses to compensate for slight gains at the cameras.

The problem is the handling, though 800g so little balanced feel in only 16,7cm length on the camera, then finally realized that for telephotography larger, firmer cameras are needed. Even the use of the E-M1 with handle and Zusatzaccu I found borderline.
It is, however, on safari or all day scouting is a GH4 also noticeably superior again.
Despite the exciting technique I quickly lost to the E-M1, the joy of use, volume and the folding screen are not ideal for me.
The new E-M5II fixes some bugs but is again lighter and smaller. At the GH4 the zoom is canceled best for me, but the absence of image stabilization leaves a bitter taste, although it is absolutely unnecessary for short periods.
I hope Panasonic / Leica may soon bring itself to its own tele construction as a 4.0 / 50-250 mm or 4,0 / 100-300 mm.

The praise here are unfortunately not understandable for me and will qualify with time and experience.

For all light predominate for me unfortunately:

SHADOW:
- Autofocus needs a lot of light / contrast to be afloat
- Performance at 150 mm, open aperture no longer optimal for me
- Power converter with falls visible from and disappointed me a bit
- Blur rather unpleasant, sometimes angular reflections - beautiful bokeh looks to me otherwise
- Sunshade although refined, but extremely thick auftragend
- Housing material sensitive and probably not really durable
- Front port of polycarbonate, only with front mount glued (!?)
- Ultimately very costly compared to 4.0 / 70-200mm & 2.8 / 70-200mm
- Compared with Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, it falls behind all other 3-party back (which is also on larger sensor)

From the comments here it becomes obvious that brand blindness is our worst virus
since the advantages of open Micro Four Thirds system with Panasonic, Leica, Voigtlander, Yasuhara, Kowa, Samyang are not recognized.
This comes to mind for many years in the forums on, merely not mix with Panasonic Olympus - but when it comes to the best photography equipment, I use all the manufacturers fit.
Sure I can here "just great" write, play Werbegesäusel and give 5 star and rise in the rankings - but that can not be the goal,
To give buyers a good feeling.
I sit rather critical with the product apart and compare and describe potential for improvement.
Seemingly perfect products are an illusion and so why bother to even write much.

When feeling came here "fans" of the feet - I ask the excuse.
Photos with this lens and the converter can be found in my review for Olympus MC-14 converter, since they are not subsequently be inserted here - and even 2 photos that show which I photograph and prove that all accusations are insubstantial.