I drove myself nuts for the last few months trying to come up with an affordable upgrade for my Olympus 100-400 V1. I bought that lens and the OM-1 V1 while I was still using the Z9 and Z 180-600 as my primary wildlife setup. It was only supposed to be a "just in case" carry for me. A lightweight, small option that I could carry while out on walks just in case I saw something. Well, I liked it so much the Z9 and Z 180-600 are now gone.
I rented the 300 F4. I bought and returned the OM 150-600. I almost purchased the Panasonic 200 2.8 with TC. I thought of upgrading to the V2 for the better IS but decided against it. The 150-400 is too expensive. The new 50-200 looks fantastic but I had a 100-400 in Nikon F-mount and rarely used that FL. So that's it, I'm done. The 100-400 isn't the sharpest, doesn't have the nice OOF falloff as the Z 180-600, is a little slow, but I honestly don't care anymore. That's not to say someone else shouldn't. I totally understand why people want the best of the best. I'm just at a point in my life where it's not as important as I once thought it was. 200-800 is a perfect focal length for me. It's a fantastic Dragonfly, Butterfly, Lizard lens. And most importantly it's so easy to pack and carry. We're driving to Los Angeles and back shortly. Eight days on the road one way. Passing through Colorado and Utah. Bringing the two OM-1 bodies. The Leica/Lumix 9 1.7, the Panasonic 14-140 ll, the 90 3.5 Macro. The Olympus 17 1.8, the Sigma 56 1.4, and my trusty Olympus 100-400. Should be good
I like your philosophy!
Unrelated, but may I ask why the Panasonic 14-140 ll, and not the Oly? Has this just happened by chance or was this a deliberate choice?
ruthenium wrote:
I like your philosophy!
Unrelated, but may I ask why the Panasonic 14-140 ll, and not the Oly? Has this just happened by chance or was this a deliberate choice?
I'm assuming you're referring to the Olly 14-150 ? I bought the Panny a while ago. I do remember comparing both and neither one stuck out to me as being noticeably better than the other. Then I took a trip to Los Angeles to visit my daughter and Sammy's in Pasadena had a used 14-140 so I ended up buying that. This was still before I decided to switch over completely to the OM system. So that's another scenario I'm looking at right now. Maybe looking at a 12-100 f4. It would be nice to have something a bit faster but not sure it's worth the upgrade price.
Gary, these images are superior quality, regardless of what was used. I have seen enough of your images from your 100-400mm to know that it's a good unit, and you certainly know how to get the most from it. Your reasoning here sounds very solid to me.
Funny thing is that while I'm typing this, sitting in front of me is my OM-1 Mkll with 100-400mm Mkll attached and next to that is my 12-100mm f/4 Pro -- a really superior lens.
gmccroskery wrote:
Gary, these images are superior quality, regardless of what was used. I have seen enough of your images from your 100-400mm to know that it's a good unit, and you certainly know how to get the most from it. Your reasoning here sounds very solid to me.
Funny thing is that while I'm typing this, sitting in front of me is my OM-1 Mkll with 100-400mm Mkll attached and next to that is my 12-100mm f/4 Pro -- a really superior lens.
Greg
---------------------------------------------
ab7638 wrote:
What’s not to like about these photos? I think they are stellar
---------------------------------------------
gregfountain wrote:
I can't tell. Do you like the lens? Great photography as usual gramps. But really, the camera and lens hardly matter in your hands.
Peace,
Greg
I think what I'm finding with this lens mirrors what I've heard quite a bit of chatter about, it can be inconsistent. There are times I really like it and then there are times that its performance gets me to thinking about an upgrade. Even after all I said above, I wouldn't be surprised if a 300 f4 showed up on my doorstep down the road. Appreciate all your comments !
Gary
Great shots! I bought one of those 100-400 V1 lenses for my wife and she has very much enjoyed it as well. Glad to have that reassurance that I didn't make a bad call!
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I drove myself nuts for the last few months trying to come up with an affordable upgrade for my Olympus 100-400 V1. I bought that lens and the OM-1 V1 while I was still using the Z9 and Z 180-600 as my primary wildlife setup. It was only supposed to be a "just in case" carry for me. A lightweight, small option that I could carry while out on walks just in case I saw something. Well, I liked it so much the Z9 and Z 180-600 are now gone.
I rented the 300 F4. I bought and returned the OM 150-600. I almost purchased the Panasonic 200 2.8 with TC. I thought of upgrading to the V2 for the better IS but decided against it. The 150-400 is too expensive. The new 50-200 looks fantastic but I had a 100-400 in Nikon F-mount and rarely used that FL. So that's it, I'm done. The 100-400 isn't the sharpest, doesn't have the nice OOF falloff as the Z 180-600, is a little slow, but I honestly don't care anymore. That's not to say someone else shouldn't. I totally understand why people want the best of the best. I'm just at a point in my life where it's not as important as I once thought it was. 200-800 is a perfect focal length for me. It's a fantastic Dragonfly, Butterfly, Lizard lens. And most importantly it's so easy to pack and carry. We're driving to Los Angeles and back shortly. Eight days on the road one way. Passing through Colorado and Utah. Bringing the two OM-1 bodies. The Leica/Lumix 9 1.7, the Panasonic 14-140 ll, the 90 3.5 Macro. The Olympus 17 1.8, the Sigma 56 1.4, and my trusty Olympus 100-400. Should be good ...Show more →
Nice ! But what is a Red Whiskered Bulbul doing in that set ! Have you been to Hong Kong / China recently ?!
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I think what I'm finding with this lens mirrors what I've heard quite a bit of chatter about, it can be inconsistent. There are times I really like it and then there are times that its performance gets me to thinking about an upgrade. Even after all I said above, I wouldn't be surprised if a 300 f4 showed up on my doorstep down the road. Appreciate all your comments !
Gary
Haha yes as I may have mentioned before - I had the 100-400 v1 but sold it and bought the 300/4 + TC14. The IQ jump is substantial (inc. with the TC attached) and I'll take that over the lack of flexibility of a prime lens. There's a reason 500/4 and 600/4 lenses were/are the 'birders lenses' across all brands
Frogfish wrote:
Haha yes as I may have mentioned before - I had the 100-400 v1 but sold it and bought the 300/4 + TC14. The IQ jump is substantial (inc. with the TC attached) and I'll take that over the lack of flexibility of a prime lens. There's a reason 500/4 and 600/4 lenses were/are the 'birders lenses' across all brands
I did quite a bit of testing comparisons between the two after renting the 300 for a week. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1916081/ I certainly did not see the difference as "substantial". But I may have a very good copy of the 100-400 and maybe rented a subpar copy of the 300 ? Who knows. I prefer the flexibility of the zoom. To each their own.
Appreciate the input !
Gary
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I did quite a bit of testing comparisons between the two after renting the 300 for a week. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1916081/ I certainly did not see the difference as "substantial". But I may have a very good copy of the 100-400 and maybe rented a subpar copy of the 300 ? Who knows. I prefer the flexibility of the zoom. To each their own.
Appreciate the input !
Gary
You can see my post on the 300/4 (birds) on the MU-43 forum. Superb. The 100-400 is (as I said) very good for close in (insects/birds) but at distance it falls apart in comparison (the reason I sold it). The 300mm is super sharp even at long distance (say 40 metres!). Check out my post there (as TheDragonsFather).
I'm happy you seem to have a lovely copy of the 100-400 !
Frogfish wrote:
You can see my post on the 300/4 (birds) on the MU-43 forum. Superb. The 100-400 is (as I said) very good for close in (insects/birds) but at distance it falls apart in comparison (the reason I sold it). The 300mm is super sharp even at long distance (say 40 metres!). Check out my post there (as TheDragonsFather).
I'm happy you seem to have a lovely copy of the 100-400 !
You will never get an argument from me that the 300 F4 is not a sharper lens. "substantially sharper" leaves some room for debate. However, such debates are endlessly boring. I'm really sorry I brought it up.
I understand perfectly why you love the 100-400. It is the perfect range for bird photography and on an OM-1 weighs 3.9 pounds sans lens foot but with hood, battery and cards. It hangs very nicely on a Black Rapids strap. So, it is not a sharp as other lens but so what?
BUT-----I give you a reason to spend money: 50 f/s
That's what you get with a 50-200 and a 2.0TC-50f/s not 25 f/s.
Nope, the 50-200 is no better than the 100-400 with the 2.0TC and is somewhat heavier. It is a better macro lens, and the controls are wonderfully smooth but semi-macro is probably not a wildlife photographer's focus. Bare or with a 1.4TC it does have better IQ but who wants to fool around changing TCs in the field. I get all that.
But, and I say this from experience, you will have more fun shooting ProCapure at 50F/s and get more cool actions shots. And fun is the bottom line at our age, eh?
Frogfish wrote:
You can see my post on the 300/4 (birds) on the MU-43 forum. Superb. The 100-400 is (as I said) very good for close in (insects/birds) but at distance it falls apart in comparison (the reason I sold it). The 300mm is super sharp even at long distance (say 40 metres!). Check out my post there (as TheDragonsFather).
I'm happy you seem to have a lovely copy of the 100-400 !
I did check out your website. Very impressive travel photography. I'm confused though, I see no mention of M4/3 equipment being used.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I understand perfectly why you love the 100-400. It is the perfect range for bird photography and on an OM-1 weighs 3.9 pounds sans lens foot but with hood, battery and cards. It hangs very nicely on a Black Rapids strap. So, it is not a sharp as other lens but so what?
BUT-----I give you a reason to spend money: 50 f/s
That's what you get with a 50-200 and a 2.0TC-50f/s not 25 f/s.
Nope, the 50-200 is no better than the 100-400 with the 2.0TC and is somewhat heavier. It is a better macro lens, and the controls are wonderfully smooth but semi-macro is probably not a wildlife photographer's focus. Bare or with a 1.4TC it does have better IQ but who wants to fool around changing TCs in the field. I get all that.
But, and I say this from experience, you will have more fun shooting ProCapure at 50F/s and get more cool actions shots. And fun is the bottom line at our age, eh?
Appreciate the input Tom. I am happy with the 100-400 for what it is but I don't love it. I had and sold the Nikon 80-400 G while still using Nikon because I found little use for that focal length. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense to purchase a lens you know you'll use primarily with tc's. I really wish they would have done a true upgrade with the Olly 100-400. But then I guess they'd be pushing into 150-400 territory. I'm not sure what I want to do for a long lens. I've also considered going back to Nikon for my long lens needs. But I'd want to stay small so I've been considering a Z50 ll and the Z 400 4.5. I owned that lens for a couple years and it's fantastic. Anyways, I've been losing interest in bird photography as it is. Not sure if it's a phase or real. I'll have to see where that leads me. I usually buy used and now is not the time to be buying used equipment so I'm in no hurry to do anything.
Gary
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I did check out your website. Very impressive travel photography. I'm confused though, I see no mention of M4/3 equipment being used.
Thank you !
Ah on the website I rarely write what equipment was used and I haven't updated the 'equipment' page in about 3 years ! Oops
On IG I almost always write what I used and often the settings. Virtually everything on IG, for the past 18 months is OM, last 12 months nearly all OM-3.
