I may have gotten myself into a real jam. I recently traded my Z system for a OM-1 MK ll and OM 150-600 and some cash. To be clear, I wasn't expecting an upgrade, obviously, from my Z9 and Z 180-600. But I was expecting an upgrade over my Olympus 100-400. I spent almost three hours in the kayak yesterday morning with some very cooperative subjects. I was able to get in very close and shoot at a lot of different focal lengths and the results left me very disappointed. So today I did a controlled test with a stuffed bird I bought at an antique store years ago and it seems to me this 150-600 is worse than my 100-400. Even at 400mm where the 100-400 should be softest and the 150-600 should be sharpest. These two images are cropped to about 100% with no sharpening added. Both at 400mm.
I'm returning the 150-600 to MPB but now I don't know what to do. The 300 f4 is most likely too short for what I like to do and the 150-400 which I would love is too expensive. So I'm assuming I got a bad copy of the 150-600 and now thinking of getting a new replacement to try again. Were my expectations just too high ? Here's what I shot yesterday. Everything just seems to lack detail. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1910658/
Gary
the bottom image easily shows details more sharply defined.
one more thing...i shot the 4/300 (always with one or the other TCs attatched) and the Sony FE200-600. I assumed I was 'good to go' as far as using long focal lengths.
when I first received the 150-400 i thought i might have a bad copy as my keeper rate plummeted (vs. the 4/300 with OM-1).
I kept at it, it took a bit, and now I am sure the issue was with me and not the lens as my keeper is great.
-my Nikon friend swapped over to an OM-1 150-400 (i told him about my experiences and advised him to go with a 4/300 TC combo but he wanted the zoom) and for a time he swore his lens was suffering with some issue(s). I'd occasionally use his lens (on his camera or mine) and show him the results I instantly got with it that he wasn't getting. so, he persisted and is now getting the same sharp results as I get with mine.
Paul_100A wrote:
the bottom image easily shows details more sharply defined.
one more thing...i shot the 4/300 (always with one or the other TCs attatched) and the Sony FE200-600. I assumed I was 'good to go' as far as using long focal lengths.
when I first received the 150-400 i thought i might have a bad copy as my keeper rate plummeted (vs. the 4/300 with OM-1).
I kept at it, it took a bit, and now I am sure the issue was with me and not the lens as my keeper is great.
-my Nikon friend swapped over to an OM-1 150-400 (i told him about my experiences and advised him to go with a 4/300 TC combo but he wanted the zoom) and for a time he swore his lens was suffering with some issue(s). I'd occasionally use his lens (on his camera or mine) and show him the results I instantly got with it that he wasn't getting. so, he persisted and is now getting the same sharp results as I get with mine. ...Show more →
Appreciate you taking a moment to comment. I 100% agree that there is a learning curve with any new lens regardless of previous experience. I was ready to send my 500 f4 back years ago when I first got it but I stuck with it and it turned out to be an awesome lens. It's interesting to have you say that the bottom image looks better. When I view these side by side in photoshop the 100-400 clearly looks better but here not so much. I even double checked to make sure I didn't switch them up. I don't understand that at all. But I'm more interested in real world results and I feel that yesterday was a true test. I shot almost 2,000 images in just under three hours. I was able to get close to subjects, a bunch of different focal lengths, and the results for the most part were really bad. I was using Subject detection on the MK ll. Wondering now if that caused problems.
Paul_100A wrote:
the bottom image easily shows details more sharply defined.
one more thing...i shot the 4/300 (always with one or the other TCs attatched) and the Sony FE200-600. I assumed I was 'good to go' as far as using long focal lengths.
when I first received the 150-400 i thought i might have a bad copy as my keeper rate plummeted (vs. the 4/300 with OM-1).
I kept at it, it took a bit, and now I am sure the issue was with me and not the lens as my keeper is great.
-my Nikon friend swapped over to an OM-1 150-400 (i told him about my experiences and advised him to go with a 4/300 TC combo but he wanted the zoom) and for a time he swore his lens was suffering with some issue(s). I'd occasionally use his lens (on his camera or mine) and show him the results I instantly got with it that he wasn't getting. so, he persisted and is now getting the same sharp results as I get with mine. ...Show more →
I'm curious what were some of your learnings with your OM-1/150-400 combo? I have the same combo and haven't used it much recently as I've found that I've gotten better results with a different combination. I'm probably earlier on the learning curve so figured you might have some suggestions.
I had some bad results when I first got my PL 100-400. Turns out I was the problem. Not saying the same for you.
But here are a few things to think about...
Perhaps MPB had the lens because someone got one that wasn't so great. Sample variation, or maybe it got a hard knock in a bag, not something that would show, but the performance deteriorated.
Perhaps subject detect isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Try them both on a tripod is SAF with a single focus point on the head.
I too think the 150-600 is sharper, especially in the bill and teeth.
Also, do you have a filter on? If so, try it without the filter.
I have no direct advice to give
but the 300mm f4 is a little sharper than the 150-400 at 300mm wide open
since I haven't done any testing how sharp my 300 is with the MC-14 at f5.6 compared to the Zoom .. but clearly the 150-400 is so much smoother and more manageable with the zoom option and then the built-in TC which is worth having
then whether this is worth the extremely large price difference is up to each person to judge .. then this is perhaps uninteresting as the 150-400 is not in the price range you originally intended
a little surprised that you think your 100-400 performs better than the 150-600 at 400mm .. 150-600 should at least be equivalent to the 100-400 at 400mm wide open
then I think size and weight can play a role and here it can probably take some time to learn and feel how to get weight and how to handle it in the best way
Same IS setting? at the time of testing
and you used the same camera with both lenses?
mark II
do you get the same results with OM-1 mark I and you test with that camera and both lenses
I wonder if there is something lurking in the settings etc?
it is important to test so that it is not something with the camera
is it Version 1.3 firmware on mark II
Sometimes I have imagined that Subject detection can make it harder for it to lock on to the subject and the eye.. but I have no evidence for that but sometimes I have imagined it when I have come home with a lot of pictures that are blurry and out of focus..
did you use Subject detection for the test pictures?
I had tried turning it off just in case and tested further
tripod and S-af and single point to do the test on stuffed bird or other subject
sorry that you are experiencing problems Gary and hope it gets resolved
Ronny
Ps: Of course there are good and bad copys.. you can be unlucky even with new stuff
but then it could also be that the 100-400 is equivalent to the 150-600 in performance, but with a shorter focal length ?
I haven't actually seen any direct comparison tests between these lenses
then there are some who say that the first 100-400 zoom f5-6.3 ( is actually a Sigma lens) is basically the same and that is said about the 150-600 also is a sigma construction .. then how credible this is I leave unsaid.. but I thinking that the performance might be more even then ? .. but what do I know
amv8 wrote:
I'm curious what were some of your learnings with your OM-1/150-400 combo? I have the same combo and haven't used it much recently as I've found that I've gotten better results with a different combination. I'm probably earlier on the learning curve so figured you might have some suggestions.
I honestly can’t say much other than I stuck to it and keepers improved.
I remember slowing down my train of thought a bit while out shooting and specifically paying attention to how much camera shake I was seeing in the viewfinder when pressing the shutter. If I saw a lot of shake, I worked on pressing the shutter more softly so that I didn’t see the camera shake in the viewfinder. a 30 second exercise once in a while.
I don’t shoot from a running vehicle (vibrations) or from a really warm vehicle when it’s a lot colder outdoors. If I have to shoot from inside a vehicle then all the windows are down and the vehicle is off. Shooting from a vehicle with cooler outdoor temps will take longer for the lens to acclimate. I allow the lens more time to acclimate even if I exit the vehicle.
I don’t put filters on any lenses.
petersm59 wrote:
I had some bad results when I first got my PL 100-400. Turns out I was the problem. Not saying the same for you.
But here are a few things to think about...
Perhaps MPB had the lens because someone got one that wasn't so great. Sample variation, or maybe it got a hard knock in a bag, not something that would show, but the performance deteriorated.
Perhaps subject detect isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Try them both on a tripod is SAF with a single focus point on the head.
I too think the 150-600 is sharper, especially in the bill and teeth.
Also, do you have a filter on? If so, try it without the filter....Show more →
I tried it this afternoon on my OM-1 V1. No subject detection, no difference. I never use filters. Let's say the 150-600 does show a bit sharper here. We're comparing the 100-400 @ 400mm where it should be at its weakest to the 150-600 @ 400mm where it should be at its sharpest. Something isn't adding up. Appreciate the input.
Ronny Olsson wrote:
I have no direct advice to give
but the 300mm f4 is a little sharper than the 150-400 at 300mm wide open
since I haven't done any testing how sharp my 300 is with the MC-14 at f5.6 compared to the Zoom .. but clearly the 150-400 is so much smoother and more manageable with the zoom option and then the built-in TC which is worth having
then whether this is worth the extremely large price difference is up to each person to judge .. then this is perhaps uninteresting as the 150-400 is not in the price range you originally intended
a little surprised that you think your 100-400 performs better than the 150-600 at 400mm .. 150-600 should at least be equivalent to the 100-400 at 400mm wide open
then I think size and weight can play a role and here it can probably take some time to learn and feel how to get weight and how to handle it in the best way
Same IS setting? at the time of testing
and you used the same camera with both lenses?
mark II
do you get the same results with OM-1 mark I and you test with that camera and both lenses
I wonder if there is something lurking in the settings etc?
it is important to test so that it is not something with the camera
is it Version 1.3 firmware on mark II
Sometimes I have imagined that Subject detection can make it harder for it to lock on to the subject and the eye.. but I have no evidence for that but sometimes I have imagined it when I have come home with a lot of pictures that are blurry and out of focus..
did you use Subject detection for the test pictures?
I had tried turning it off just in case and tested further
tripod and S-af and single point to do the test on stuffed bird or other subject
sorry that you are experiencing problems Gary and hope it gets resolved
Ronny
Ps: Of course there are good and bad copys.. you can be unlucky even with new stuff
but then it could also be that the 100-400 is equivalent to the 150-600 in performance, but with a shorter focal length ?
I haven't actually seen any direct comparison tests between these lenses
then there are some who say that the first 100-400 zoom f5-6.3 ( is actually a Sigma lens) is basically the same and that is said about the 150-600 also is a sigma construction .. then how credible this is I leave unsaid.. but I thinking that the performance might be more even then ? .. but what do I know
I also thought it could possibly be the camera so I tried again this afternoon in the yard with my stuffed bird. This time I used my OM-1 V1 with no subject detection because I know that body is fine. Images are just soft overall.
I shot with the Sigma 150-600 S for seven years. First on my D500 and then on my Z9. I kept it that long because I thought it was a great lens. Since the new OM lens is a similar design I was expecting results very similar to the Sigma S. Taking into consideration that I'm now on a smaller sensor of course. I hesitated posting this because I knew it would open the can of worms of User VS Equipment. But I just know something is not right. Anyways, I returned the lens today and I'm going to put some thought into where to go from here. Appreciate the input Ronny
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I may have gotten myself into a real jam. I recently traded my Z system for a OM-1 MK ll and OM 150-600 and some cash. To be clear, I wasn't expecting an upgrade, obviously, from my Z9 and Z 180-600. But I was expecting an upgrade over my Olympus 100-400. I spent almost three hours in the kayak yesterday morning with some very cooperative subjects. I was able to get in very close and shoot at a lot of different focal lengths and the results left me very disappointed. So today I did a controlled test with a stuffed bird I bought at an antique store years ago and it seems to me this 150-600 is worse than my 100-400. Even at 400mm where the 100-400 should be softest and the 150-600 should be sharpest. These two images are cropped to about 100% with no sharpening added. Both at 400mm.
I'm returning the 150-600 to MPB but now I don't know what to do. The 300 f4 is most likely too short for what I like to do and the 150-400 which I would love is too expensive. So I'm assuming I got a bad copy of the 150-600 and now thinking of getting a new replacement to try again. Were my expectations just too high ? Here's what I shot yesterday. Everything just seems to lack detail. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1910658/
Gary...Show more →
While I've often floated a move to u4/3, it would only to get access to the 150-400 w/ built in TC. You've had a lot of really great success with the Nikkor 180-600, I am curious as to why you'd shift to the OM system. If weight is a concern, you could have sold the Z9 for a Z8 and shaved some mass.
The OM systems 150-600 is a Sigma designed (and built?) lens, and they are notoriously heavy. In addition, the lens telescopes as you zoom, so even if it is lighter than the Nikon, it would feel front heavy as you approach 600mm.
With this, my question still lingers... why make the switch when you were producing wonderful work with the kit you had..
OwlsEyes wrote:
While I've often floated a move to u4/3, it would only to get access to the 150-400 w/ built in TC. You've had a lot of really great success with the Nikkor 180-600, I am curious as to why you'd shift to the OM system. If weight is a concern, you could have sold the Z9 for a Z8 and shaved some mass.
The OM systems 150-600 is a Sigma designed (and built?) lens, and they are notoriously heavy. In addition, the lens telescopes as you zoom, so even if it is lighter than the Nikon, it would feel front heavy as you approach 600mm.
With this, my question still lingers... why make the switch when you were producing wonderful work with the kit you had..
In hindsight, I'm now asking myself the same question. I've been thinking of switching for quite a while. Size and weight were factors. The 150-600 with the OM-1 is much, mush easier to pack than the 180-600 with the Z9 and I was finding myself not taking the Z system with me because of this. The last two trips I made to California I left the Z system at home. My wife has Parkinsons and she needs my help with her carry-ons and such so that limits what I can schlep around. I was finding myself using it less and less and I figured I was getting very nice results from my Olympus 100-400 and by all accounts the 150-600 would be clearly better so I didn't expect that much of a drop off from the Z system. I was never going to be able to afford an exotic Nikon prime so my logic was why have a $5000 camera body sitting around hardly being used. I also was tired of switching between two different systems. I really enjoy the OM system. Too much to abandon it. And as I was using the Z system less and less, when I picked up the Z9 it all felt foreign to me and I had to relearn all my buttons, etc. I knew when I made the switch I would be compromising. If the new 150-600 performed as expected I wouldn't be having this conversation. This is just a hobby for me and I am not a rich man. I have to make sense of all my expenditures. I figured if I could improve upon the 100-400 I would be happy, even though it would be a downgrade from my Z9 and Z 180-600. I figured I would always be taking it with me and that to me is more important. I just feel this lens isn't performing even as well as my old 100-400 and that shouldn't be. I haven't given up on the 150-600 just yet. I sent this one back but I'm most likely going to try another.
I tried to upload the Raws but was unable to. So I just exported the Raw file as a jpeg.
My thinking at this point is if I can't really see a clear difference why spend the extra money on a new lens. I realize the new lens gets me more reach but it doesn't get better at 500mm or 600mm. My hope was I was getting a clearly better lens than the 100-400. It doesn't seem to be the case.
And I'll say it again, we're comparing the 100-400 @ 400mm where it's most likely at its weakest against the 150-600 @ 400mm where it should be performing better.
Just as a frame of reference, these are typical results from the 100-400. After shooting over 3,000 images I'm not seeing anything close to this from the 150-600.
And this I think should help explain why I was okay with the switch. Every review I read claimed the 150-600 was clearly a sharper lens than the 100-400. Not 300 f4 sharp or 150-400 tc sharp, but sharper than the 100-400. So I figured if I was going to improve on the 100-400 that would suit me fine. Doesn't seem to be the case.
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens400mmf/6.31/800s500 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens400mmf/6.31/500s500 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens400mmf/6.31/1600s1600 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens300mmf/6.31/1600s800 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens400mmf/6.31/2000s1000 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens400mmf/6.31/800s640 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens400mmf/6.31/800s1000 ISO0.0 EV
OM-1OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 lens328mmf/6.31/1600s1250 ISO0.0 EV
I absolutely do not think that your pictures with the 150-600 are blurry in any way Gary and I am a little surprised by the result on the dragonflies with the lens as I think it performs well at least in the pictures you have shown
Then I think like you that if you buy a new and more expensive lens that there should be a noticeable difference with the one you had before otherwise you will of course be disappointed .. I hope you got a worse copy and that the new one will be better .. otherwise I think you should think about what to do
and also send it back again,..
how about the camera then?
do you think you notice any difference compared to Om-1mark I
both flying and sitting bird... AF accuracy and speed etc
So I really do not think that there is a night and day difference between
150-400 and 100-400 in sharpness and AF speed how accurate AF etc
So we are talking 4-5 times more expensive lens against 100-400 mark II and more on mark I .. then there are as I wrote before advantages with 150-400
too bad we live in different parts of the world Gary.. otherwise we could have met up so you could have tested mine and also the 300f4 with MC etc to see what you thought of these.. I hope it works out for you and that you find something you are happy with.
I'm biased against the Sigma lens, but that's based on the first generation of that lens on Canon. If I were you, I'd pick up the 300mm plus a 1.4x TC or get the 100-400mm again until you can save up enough for the 150-400mm.
To be clear, I never used that particular 150-600mm on Olympus because it's too heavy and large to my liking.
Ronny Olsson wrote:
I absolutely do not think that your pictures with the 150-600 are blurry in any way Gary and I am a little surprised by the result on the dragonflies with the lens as I think it performs well at least in the pictures you have shown
Then I think like you that if you buy a new and more expensive lens that there should be a noticeable difference with the one you had before otherwise you will of course be disappointed .. I hope you got a worse copy and that the new one will be better .. otherwise I think you should think about what to do
and also send it back again,..
how about the camera then?
do you think you notice any difference compared to Om-1mark I
both flying and sitting bird... AF accuracy and speed etc
So I really do not think that there is a night and day difference between
150-400 and 100-400 in sharpness and AF speed how accurate AF etc
So we are talking 4-5 times more expensive lens against 100-400 mark II and more on mark I .. then there are as I wrote before advantages with 150-400
too bad we live in different parts of the world Gary.. otherwise we could have met up so you could have tested mine and also the 300f4 with MC etc to see what you thought of these.. I hope it works out for you and that you find something you are happy with.
My results so far with the new body have been mixed. At times okay, and other times horrible. I have a sequence of 48 shots
of a Great Egret flying in front of me from my right to my left in the kayak. That's a slow moving bird, large in the frame. Every image looks like this one. This is unedited, full frame. I know I was on the bird, nothing seems to be in focus. Maybe the problem is the Bird Subject Detection. I would expect that a few from a 48 sequence burst might be oof but they all look like this. Now admittedly, my shutter speed is lower than I would have liked but it caught me by surprise. But still, a very slow moving bird. And this is at 358mm so the bird was relatively close. So I think it's too soon to draw any conclusions about the body.
Yes, the Dragonfly images look good I think. Just going from 600mm to 550mm makes a huge difference in the MFD. So I'm getting decent results when I'm six feet away from the subject but that's about it.
It would be worth the price of the trip to spend a day or two out in the field with you
At this point I'm thinking I don't want to spend another two thousand dollars on a lens that is not a marked improvement over what I have. I think I'm going to rent the 300 f4 just to see what the fuss is all about
But then I was able to get this the same day. This is uncropped at 400mm. I feel I would have gotten the same results from my 100-400. I wouldn't blame anyone here for thinking I'm just crazy and I need to keep using the lens. But I've been doing this a long time and after looking through over 3,000 images something is not right. I guess my point is why pay for extra reach if that extra reach is unusable and the two lenses perform the same up to 400mm.
johnvanr wrote:
I'm biased against the Sigma lens, but that's based on the first generation of that lens on Canon. If I were you, I'd pick up the 300mm plus a 1.4x TC or get the 100-400mm again until you can save up enough for the 150-400mm.
To be clear, I never used that particular 150-600mm on Olympus because it's too heavy and large to my liking.
I may have just been lucky with my copy of the Nikon F mount Sigma 150-600 S. As I mentioned above, I used that lens for seven years. I still have my 100-400. I may rent the 300 f4 and saving up for the 150-400 is on my to do list
