Having used the oly 100-400 on the OM-1 and EM1X, both my wife and I each had one, hers was sharp across the board and mine wasn’t. There is sample variation in the 100-400 that many here and on other forums have stated. Some have gone through two lenses or so to find a good one. I used her lens and got better quality. I have yet to hear of sample variation for quality of the 150-400. And I can tell you that using the 150-400 is very easy handheld and doesn’t feel heavy and f/4.5 is way better than f/6.3 to get lower shutter speeds because you get sync IS that isn’t available with the 100-400 and the on lens 1.25 TC is excellent. Price aside, there is no comparison between the two IMHO. The 150-500 is my wife’s lens. I have seriously thought about the 100-400 again but I hesitate because I don’t want to go through testing and find a problem. I may get the 150-400 but I am not sure. I have the PL 200 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/2.8 and 1.4 TC. I am very happy with both. So I am good for now. The 300 is a possibility too. My statements aren’t absolutes but highlight my experiences. Price is an issue but so is the quality.
I certainly get the size and weight argument. However having shot Nikon and Canon it makes the 150-400 feel lightweight in comparison. I just looked the specs for the two zooms. A big difference.
I shoot birds, birds-in-flight if possible. When shooting my Nikon D-500/500pf I would always be at 1/3200 even if on a tripod or monopod because of "subject movement" which in-camera stabilization does not help. The result was a 20mp image @ F/5.6.
When the birds were small and close I would up the f/stop to f/8 in order to get the entire bird in focus, although I rarely ever captured a medium size fast bird (pigeon for example) in flight when it was close.
In those days the discussion went back and forth between photographers liking the lighter Nikon 300pf and 500pf lenses and photographers shooting much heavier "balanced" lenses hand-held. Some photographers who were also target shooters even claimed they liked the heavier rig.
My experience is clear, lighter and more compact is better. Even if you carry a gimbal/tripod the fact is that you must carry it and even if you can, you can find more subjects or better backgrounds if you can move easily.
My Nikon D-500/500pf was 5.5#. The lens was 9.3". An OM-1/150-400 weighs about the same, but the lens is slightly longer. My experience with a camera rig of that size and weight was that I could rarely even get a pigeon in the frame.
My experience with the OM-1/100-400 is that "sometimes" I can get the pigeons in the frame if they aren't too close. That may not seem like much, but it actually is a big deal. When I move up to easier birds, like sea gulls, my in the frame rate goes from occasionally to usually.
I agree that "your mileage may vary" in terms of how much weight effects your shooting. This is my experience.
Jeepers creepers BobbyV those shots are crazy detailed and most at such slow shutter speeds. Sure does make one thing again about not getting a 150-400 being a mistake. I'll have to keep my eyes on my bank account and see if that lens ever becomes more easily available in the future.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I don't have a 150-400 so I can't personally compare the IQ of the two lenses.
I can, however, see the size and weight of the 150-400 and conclude that "for me, the 150-400 defeats the purpose of the m4/3 system"
I do have a 300f4 so i could compare it with the 100-400.
Tom
the purpose of all cameras is to capture images.
I would strongly conclude that that purpose was the intention of Olympus, and now OMDS, for the m4/3 system as whole.
some folks may use a camera for other purposes (antique/collectable/status symbol/conversation piece) other than for capturing images...to each their own but that does not change the actual original intended purpose of the camera.
the purpose of a lens is to put light onto the camera's film/sensor. the 150-400 does that whether people like the size/price of it or not.
dcisive wrote:
Jeepers creepers BobbyV those shots are crazy detailed and most at such slow shutter speeds. Sure does make one thing again about not getting a 150-400 being a mistake. I'll have to keep my eyes on my bank account and see if that lens ever becomes more easily available in the future.
Dual-IS is/has been the secret weapon of the 150-400, at least for static subjects... other key attributes I've noticed are complete sharpness and minimal distortion across the frame, internal zoom, build quality and zoom feel, fast focusing, close focusing...
With that said, we are indeed spoiled for choice these days and what works for one person might be a mistake for another...everything has tradeoffs otherwise we'd all be shooting the same thing
A shooter with a FF Z9 or A1 camera and a 600f4 lens sitting on a 20# tripod with a 5# gimble head will take a better picture than a m4/3 camera can of exactly the same image. More light, more resolution, less noise.
The problem is that the subject choices and background choices are dramatically more limited for the FF/600f4 than they are for the m43 photographer who is considerably more mobile.
To a lesser extent the choice between a 150-400 and a 100-400 is the same choice.
Simerly, if a 300f4 is the right lens for the shot, that is the choice BUT when it is not the lens for the shot, we don't get that shot. That is why some prefer zooms. The 300f4 will take a better shot than the 150-400 when 300mm is the right lens.
I think you oversimplify.
---I oversimplify?
A shooter with a FF Z9 or A1 camera and a 600f4 lens sitting on a 20# tripod with a 5# gimble head will take a better picture than a m4/3 camera can of exactly the same image. More light, more resolution, less noise.
---I would agree with; a FF Z9 or A1 camera and a 600f4 lens sitting on a 20# tripod with a 5# gimble head could possibly take a better picture than a m4/3 camera can of exactly the same image.
In my experience of looking at thousands of images from numerous brands and formats I've found that there is absolutely not a given that an A1, Z9, R5 shooter will come away with better IQ visible and evident in their pictures vs a m4/3 rig. My compatriots whom use those listed cameras and 4/600s would not argue with me on that point nor would not challenge me to a photo IQ contest.
The problem is that the subject choices and background choices are dramatically more limited for the FF/600f4 than they are for the m43 photographer who is considerably more mobile.
---I would wholeheartedly say that the person operating the camera(and computer/editing) is the main problem or the main solution. I right-clicked your two images and viewed them in a separate tab...I am not sure what camera/lens they came from and if you are trying to show poor IQ. they are severely over-sharpened and poorly sharpened/processed. My compatriots would likely fall off of there stools if they clicked on an image from my m4/3 camera/lens and saw the same IQ.
To a lesser extent the choice between a 150-400 and a 100-400 is the same choice.
---not even close.
Simerly, if a 300f4 is the right lens for the shot, that is the choice BUT when it is not the lens for the shot, we don't get that shot. That is why some prefer zooms. The 300f4 will take a better shot than the 150-400 when 300mm is the right lens.
---I still have the 4/300 and I have used it for ~5 years (with EM1mkII, EM1X, and the OM-1). Both great lenses. No...the 4/300 will not take a better shot than the 150-400 in any condition/situation that I can think of and I've been at this for a good long while. Add the 1.4X and the MC20 to the 4/300 and the 150-400 easily pulls ahead in that comparison.
I just came from a R5 and 6 RF L lenses all of which were top flight in terms of resolution, sharpness and contrast. On a lark when I tried an OM-1 along with their equivalent lenses (a 12-40 f2.8 Pro and 100-400) taking images of identical subjects that had tons of fine detail, color etc, I ended up after weeks of going through these tests, selling off all my Canon gear. I'm not crazy. The OM-1 with Pro glass simply delivered near identical results in resolving and sharpness of all I could muster up. You can go right on being determined that FF has a litany of advantages. But I'll maintain in decent light, those differences fade quickly. I couldn't be happier with my 6 Pro lenses and OM-1 and my shoulder and back thank me daily.
I chose the OM-1 path instead of the Z-9/800pf path and am happy with my images.
That being said, all my old Nikon buddies will assert that you simply can't get the subject separation with a m4/3 that you can with a FF and fast glass.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
That being said, all my old Nikon buddies will assert that you simply can't get the subject separation with a m4/3 that you can with a FF and fast glass.
Tom
That's true to a certain extent, but it is also highly dependant on the distance from the camera to the subject versus the distance from the subject to the background. Then there's the issue of not having enough DOF with FF when the subject is really close to the camera...
I think sharpening and processing falls into the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" realm. I finish my shots the way I like them and so does everyone else. "Different strokes for different folks."
I personally like the background on your Elk shots, but some would prefer the "buttery" background they would get with a FF 600mm @ F4. I think that the background gives presence to the subject. Others think it distracts from the subject.
Actually, I would have added texture and sharpened the subject more but that's me.
molson wrote:
That's true to a certain extent, but it is also highly dependent on the distance from the camera to the subject versus the distance from the subject to the background. Then there's the issue of not having enough DOF with FF when the subject is really close to the camera...
To say nothing of the issues surrounding the size, weight and inflexibility that accompanies a FF camera and a 600 F4 prime. My back hurts just thinking about it.
Tom
Attached: Shot without sufficient subject isolation in 600f4 types view
For those that shoot with the fixed full frame 600mm f/4 or m4/3 300 f/4 and need to crop, you'll still get a background as shot after post processing crop. If I use my 150-400mm zoomed to 500mm f/5.6 the background will be more blurry than if I used the lens at 300mm f/4.5.
Zooming out you gain more depth of field and see more of the background. Zooming in the background blurs more.
So if I shot next to a ff 600mm f/4 and they were not able to make a subject full frame for no post processing cropping, I with the 150-400mm Zooming to achieve no post cropping it will make my background possible blurry depending how close is the background.
The 150-400mm from 150 to 500mm zoom is very convenient to crop in the camera getting more pixels on a duck...love this lens!
Those arguing as to what has better background blurs ff or m4/3, it depends on equipment used, what each situation holds for distances and how the person uses equipment. It can go either way at anytime.
Without a doubt, the 150-400 is the best lens I've ever owned - and the most expensive - but I've used lots of more expensive lenses in my newspaper days (600 4's, etc ...) and the 150-400 is simply sublime. I briefly used the 100-400 and it is quite good, and for a month used the 300 F4, and it is great. The 150-400 is at another level, as it should be for the price, but optically it is amazing and functionally it is insane - but my favorite thing about the lens is how close it can focus.
Here are a few more from the last week or so.
500mm (1000mm equivalent), 1/640s, ISO 5000, F5.6
500mm (1000mm equivalent), ISO 640, 1/4000s, F5.6
grab shot at 500mm, full width, cropped from top and bottom 1/800s, ISO 250, F5.6
Water reflects morning light, juvie black-crowned night heron. 400mm, 1/400 4.5 ISO 2000
