AlanD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
| p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Big Tuna vs. Great White : 300mm/2.8 vs 150-400/4.5 (sorry no images) | |
“Big Tuna” 300mm f/2.8 SHG
“Great White” 150-400/4.5 1.25x PRO
Summary: The 300/2.8 SHG beats the 150-400/4.5 at image quality except the SHG has more chromatic aberration in the out-of-focus areas and is disproportionately heavy and slower to focus. The 300/2.8 SHG’s chromatic aberration can be improved in Lightroom so I don’t know if that just means that the 150-400 has a better lens profile. You will get more successful shots with the 150-400/4.5 takes to weight and AF but any shots you do get with the 300/2.8 are better. This is a combination of center sharpness, bokeh, as well as any advantages you get from faster shutter speeds or lower ISO.
Build
I have owned Canon EF 200/1.8L and Nikon Ai-S 200/2 as well Canon FL-F 300/2.8 Fluorite SSC and the Canon FD 800/5.6L. On top of that I have had APO telescopes from Astro-Physics, TEC, and Takahashi.
In terms of pure build quality, the SHG 300/2.8 beats them all. The focus by wire nature of the SHG is a wild card for long term viability but just in general, the 300mm SHG precision of everything is subjectively better. The drop in filter mechanism for the 300mm has less play than those in my Canon and Nikon systems. The hood fits very securely and straddles between being too tight and just right. It feels just a tiny bit too tight even at its age. The FujiFilm XF200/2 has exceptional build quality too, but the pearlescent paint finish seems like it will be more fragile.
Early marketing information for the Zuiko ED 300mm 2.8 noted that the front element is polished to nanometer level precision with deviations being less than a human hair if scaled up to the size of the Tokyo Dome. Since everything is spherical, you theoretically should be able to get λ/10 to λ/20 wave surface P-V with automated polishing. Without manual focus, it will be hard to get it on an interferometer to actually test it. The number of hours on the automated polisher just get higher and higher with precision.
For comparison, the Leica M historical standard is λ/4 only. (https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-M-Lenses-Their-Soul-and-Secrets_en.pdf).
What is also important beyond automated polishing is the alignment of the lens elements and lens figure. Given how sharp my copy of the 300/2.8 is, I expect that most of the weight in the 300/2.8 can be attributed to the mechanical design to maintain the proper alignment and centering of the lens elements. This component of the build is why some lenses have wider or narrower tolerances.
Lens figure can be understood as the smoothness of the polish in relation to the target curve. Imagine if I had a curved lens and I polished it until it was a flat piece of glass. You can have a smooth surface with minimal disturbances but it wouldn’t reproduce the actual bending of light that is needed.
Optics
The 150-400 and 300/2.8 are/were “Made to Order” products in Japan. I have read that there are only three opticians certified to assemble the 150-400. I don’t know what the numbers are for the 300/2.8 but reports of 2 year wait lists were described in archived forums. The laws of physics indicate that clear aperture is a critical factor in maximum resolution. The 150-400 has a front element that is ~86mm while the 300/2.8 is ~105mm based upon the patents. So, the 300/2.8 should deliver more resolution than the 150-400/4.5 even though the angle of view is wider.
https://www.cloudynights.com/documents/Understanding%20Resolution.pdf
In addition to theoretical resolution delivered by the front aperture, you have diffraction related to the f/ratio and size of the Airy disc. A f/4.5 lens has an airy disc of 6 microns, which is larger than pixels of the OM-1. The f2.8 lens will have an Airy disc of 3.9 microns.
By the math, the SHG should deliver superior resolution. It does both in the center and the edges in my early impression for static subjects.
The 150-400/4.5 is sharper than even a Nikon Z100-400 on a Z9 (https://www.oxbowphoto.com/articles/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame-which-gives-you-more-telephoto-reach) so to say the 300/2.8 is even sharper says something.
There is a more chromatic aberration on the 300/2.8 under high contrast backlight out of focus scenes (green/purple) fringing which is pretty easily corrected with Lightroom. There is minimal to no CA when in focus.
The added light from the 300/2.8 allows faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISOs so you also gain image quality from there.
Autofocus is slow and loud relative to the 150-400/4.5 which is considered to be one of Olympus’s fastest focusing lenses. I was able to track a distant Boeing 787 with ease in the 300/2.8 and I found the OM-1 single point focus precision to be exceptionally good with both lenses. On the other hand, tracking objects coming toward the camera was worse on the 300/2.8 compared to the 150-400/4.5.
I would generally say that an EM1X with C-AF+TR and the 150-400/4.5 is the speed of the OM-1 in C-AF with AI with the 300/2.8. I only get about 10-15% keeper rate with the E-M1X and 150-400 although I know more experienced have had better success.
Handling
Everything about the 300/2.8 is awkward. The hood straddles between just right and too tight whereas the 150-400 is just right. To mount the hood on the 300/2.8 requires careful alignment. You cannot just slide it on.
The lens is heavy and then front heavy. You need a long lens plate to have proper balance and handholding the lens is really tough. In contrast, the 150-400/4.5 allows me to handhold to 1000mm with a 1.25 and 2x stack of the teleconverters.
Final Thoughts.
The 150-400/4.5 is a $7500 lens where you are paying $1500 for IP53 certification, lightweight design, and go anywhere capability. The replacement lens hood is $750 after all. There are better lenses out there, but none with the flexibility or weight savings. The trade off of the zoom isn’t image quality — it’s cost.
The 300/2.8 is a $11,000 lens that when adjusted for inflation is 2003 dollars. The E-1 from 2003 would be $2800 accounting for inflation. This, it’s pretty clear that the SHG 300/2.8 reflects a higher tier product than 150-400/4.5. But unlike the 150-400 where a premium is paid for lightweighting, the 300/2.8 incurs a penalty for its weight and slow AF. I cannot emphasize enough how heavy the 300/2.8 SHG is. 7.2 lbs all biased to the front. The Sony and Canon RF 600/4 are lighter. It’s pretty much the same weight as the RF 1200/8.
|
Sadly, I don't think that's in the cards. If the 2022 300mm f/2.8 SHG Version II has to keep the same image quality, it'll likely be $11k and it'll be hard to cut down the weight.