OM System
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
Micro Four Thirds Mount
IP53 weather-sealed standard zoom with constant F2.8, MSC autofocus, and 0.3× magnification at 40mm.
$1,299
Launch priceReleased Feb 2022
OM System
M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Micro Four Thirds Mount
300–1200mm-equiv. super-tele zoom with 0.7× magnification at 56 cm, Sync IS, and 2060 g body.
$1,999
Launch priceReleased Jun 2024
M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS is 2.3 years newer.
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Wins
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
Wins
M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Which would you choose?
TL;DR — Key differences
- BM.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS has higher OIS effectiveness (5 stops vs 0 stops)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Weight (382 g vs 2060 g)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Length (84 mm vs 264.4 mm)
- AM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II has lower Min focus distance (20 cm vs 56 cm)
- BM.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS has higher Max magnification (0.7 × vs 0.3 ×)
Key specs at a glance
Size and weight, to scale
📸 Snap this lens size diff to shareM.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
⌀70 × 84 mm
382 g (0.84 lb / 13.47 oz)
Credit card
85.6 × 54 mm
for scale
M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS
⌀109 × 264 mm
2060 g (4.54 lb / 72.66 oz)
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is 180mm shorter and 40mm narrower than M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS.
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is 1678 g lighter than M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS.
Diameter (⌀) is the maximum barrel width; length is measured from the mount to the front of the lens.
Use-case scoring
Which one for what?
Algorithmic scores from verified specs · 10 = best in class
Why pick one over the other
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 1 EDA, 2 Aspherical, 1 DSA…
- ✓
Weight
382 g vs 2060 g — lower is better
- ✓
Length
84 mm vs 264.4 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Min focus distance
20 cm vs 56 cm — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Tele)
f/2.8 vs f/6.3 — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Wide)
f/2.8 vs f/5 — lower is better
- ✓
Diameter
69.9 mm vs 109.4 mm — lower is better
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
5 stops vs 0 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 4 Super ED, 1 Aspherical
- ✓
Optical stabilization
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS supports it
- ✓
Max magnification
0.7 × vs 0.3 × — higher is better
Shared specifications
Internal focus
Both support internal focus
Weather sealing
Both support weather sealing
Control ring
Both support control ring
Custom function button
Both support custom function button
Pros & cons at a glance
Editorially curated highlights and trade-offs.
M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
Pros
- ✓Constant F2.8 across 12–40mm (24–80mm equiv.)
- ✓IP53 dust/splash/freeze resistance with ZERO coating
- ✓Compact 382g body with MF clutch and L-Fn button
Cons
- –No lens-based IS — relies on Sync IS in compatible bodies
- –Extending barrel design
M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Pros
- ✓Versatile zoom range covers multiple focal lengths in one lens
- ✓Built-in optical image stabilization
- ✓Weather-sealed construction for outdoor shooting
Cons
- –Relatively heavy for extended handheld use
- –Slower maximum aperture limits low-light performance
Decided which one is right for you?
Compare live prices for the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II and M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS at major authorized retailers.
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Full specifications
✓ = category winner
Specs sourced from manufacturer data. Use-case scores algorithmically derived. Last reviewed June 2026.