At present I use the 300mm f4+1.4TC but miss the flexiibility of a zoom and am therefore considering the 150-600mm. For those who have used both is there much of a difference in image quality between the two options at the same focal length. I appreciate there is also the 100-400mm but there are reports that this lens is more of a lottery in obtaining a good copy.
Thanking you for any future replies.
dwalk wrote:
At present I use the 300mm f4+1.4TC but miss the flexiibility of a zoom and am therefore considering the 150-600mm. For those who have used both is there much of a difference in image quality between the two options at the same focal length. I appreciate there is also the 100-400mm but there are reports that this lens is more of a lottery in obtaining a good copy.
Thanking you for any future replies.
I don't have either the 300mm, nor the 150-600mm, but I do have the 100-400mm Mkll. From what I've seen, the 150-600mm is a very sharp lens -- but big and heavy. Unless you feel you need the extra reach of the 150-600mm, you really should consider the 100-400mm Mkll -- it's a very sharp lens. When paired with that 1.4TC your at 560mm anyway, albeit at f/9. If you were to get the 100-400mm, you could test it against your 300mm to make sure it is sharp -- if not, return it and make sure you get a sharp copy. Mine is extremely sharp, as is my Mkl which I still own but need to sell.
As I said, if you want that extra reach of the 150-600mm, the images I've seen from it are impressively sharp too.
Like Greg said, get the 100-400 MkII, and return it if it is not sharp. You can see plenty of images of this site that demonstrate how sharp it is, as well as being flexible.
I use either the 300+1.4 and the 150-600 depending on what I expect to find (usually nothing) at my local nature preserve. I like the image quality from the 150-600 but the reach and zoom flexibility are the main reasons I got the lens. The weight is more than I would like but it's manageable as long as I'm not in ProCapture and the damn bird won't take off. Holding it for thirty seconds for more is taxing. That said, I'm likely the oldest one on this forum and manage it just fine. Stabilization is very good, and it acquires focus quickly. I carry it with a wrist strap and just let it hang down.
It's sharp at both the short and long ends. Here are some shots from late last year.
Finding a bird in the air with a 1200mm field of view is not easy, and I'm not embarrassed that I use a dot sight. Works for me. The Olympus is perfect, if you can find one.
OM-1MarkIIOM 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 lens600mmf/6.31/400s6400 ISO+0.3 EV
OM-1MarkIIOM 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 lens600mmf/6.31/2000s1000 ISO+0.7 EV
OM-1MarkIIOM 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 lens600mmf/6.31/1600s6400 ISO+1.0 EV
I should have noted that in comparison with the 300+, the IS in the 150-600 settles more slowly when the camera is set to focus priority so the mechanical shutter speed slows down noticeably. For shutter speeds above about 1/2500 sec I turn off the IS. The dot sight is a boon in those situations. Align it a a middle distance, say 100 yards, and make allowances for parallax as the ducks get closer. It works even better with the 300+ because of the lower weight to swing around. It's easier to keep the sight on the target.
Any comments on comparing sharpness can only be anecdotal because I don't like doing tests, but the 150-600 is sharp enough for me. I need the reach, and the zoom versatility and close focus capability make it the lens I reach for most. I was shooting eagles at a quarter mile yesterday and got some keepers.
