FrankA373 wrote:
Imagemaster shoots Canon these days. He did put up a want to buy add in the for sale forum to get the 150-400 Olympus lens a few weeks ago . I am not sure of the result. He shows up on this forum once in a while.
Thanks for the info FrankA373.
I have noticed that the 150-400 Olympus lens seems now out of production and not for sale anymore at B&H.
Colin F wrote:
^^^ Yes, it was the best option for me given my increasing weakness, and I'm sure I'll be happier with it with better light. Still, we could use a few more megapickles with this OM-1.
One thing I've learned since moving out to the coast is that winter is absolutely the worst time to test new gear - the lack of light hinders the process in more ways than one. You have to work on staying positive until the sun comes out again!
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks for the info FrankA373.
I have noticed that the 150-400 Olympus lens seems now out of production and not for sale anymore at B&H.
K-H.
That's because it got a new SKU number when the name changed to OM Systems.
Most of the bigger stores now have the lens in stock.
Sorry you feel that way Colin
Maybe you remember how the files from A9 -A9II were compared to Om-1? Maybe it's better to compare files from that camera? Maybe it doesn't help that much
It's not easy for om-1 and 150-400 to be compared to A1 (50 MP) + 600 f4 .. I hope you like the files from Om-1 and 150-400 in a better light . I don't think the pictures are bad at all, even if you had to work extra with the files. I have both systems and yes I can agree with you that it is worse with Iso and the dynamic range for sure and MP and with heavy crop the files take a beating
That's what I always think about when I buy new gear
damn this is so bad
but then after a while you may see the benefits and then you learn how to use the equipment you have in the best way
just trying to get you to feel a little better about this system Hahah
and I'm not at all worried that you won't be able to perform top images with this system too
Give it some time
Ronny
Olympus E-M1MarkIII OLYMPUS M.100-400mm F5.0-6.3 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
I am a dual system shooter - Canon R5/R3 with L series glass and now I shoot with a top of the line Nikon Z kit. With the Olympus, unlike your Sony, you have to realize the files from the Olympus aren’t going to have the latitude/range you get from your Sony gear you had. As such you need to really nail the image in camera to get the most out of the files in post. You can’t (in my opinion) just rely on post processing like you can with files from a high MP full frame body.
Colin F wrote:
Thanks, but no, no sarcasm there. The files make me wince compared to the FF files.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks for the info FrankA373.
I have noticed that the 150-400 Olympus lens seems now out of production and not for sale anymore at B&H.
K-H.
Where do you get this misinformation? You type in Olympus 150-400 on B&H Search, and bam, there it is.
Yes, shooting Canon now and now not interested in 150-400. Although not as versatile, the Sony 300 f2.8 is about $1,000 less and one pound lighter. A light 300 f2.8 lens on the Sony A1 is pretty appealing.
Of course the awesome results Ronny is getting shows he knows what he is doing.
Imagemaster wrote:
Where do you get this misinformation? You type in Olympus 150-400 on B&H Search, and bam, there it is.
Yes, shooting Canon now and now not interested in 150-400. Although not as versatile, the Sony 300 f2.8 is about $1,000 less and one pound lighter. A light 300 f2.8 lens on the Sony A1 is pretty appealing.
Of course the awesome results Ronny is getting shows he knows what he is doing.
Thanks Tony, great question: “ Where do you get this misinformation?”
Well, I had expressed to B&H an interest to buy this lens.
Month after month B&H send me an email that it was not in stock, or something to the effect.
Their final email in this series let me know that the lens was discontinued.
Of course, I did not keep these emails and deleted them.
Until I read a post above I was not aware that the lens reappeared for sale under a different label.
Sorry about that.
That lens would still tempt me if OM Systems came out with a more competitive camera.
My benchmark for a comparison is my Sony A1.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Tony, great question: “ Where do you get this misinformation?”
Well, I had expressed to B&H an interest to buy this lens.
Month after month B&H send me an email that it was not in stock, or something to the effect.
Their final email in this series let me know that the lens was discontinued.
Of course, I did not keep these emails and deleted them.
Until I read a post above I was not aware that the lens reappeared for sale under a different label.
Sorry about that.
Odd, since it can be found at a number of retailers, and still by searching for 'Olympus 150-400'.
Although not a zoom, I bet you would love the Sony 300 f2.8 on your A1.
It happened some time ago and I lost interest in the subject.
FE 300/2.8 GM sounds great.
However, I like my FE 400/2.8 GM.
That appears perfect for backyard birds.
Imagemaster wrote:
It would be my choice also, but I can no longer pack around that extra two pounds.
Thanks Tony. I agree, 2 pounds lighter would make a huge difference for me as well.
However I also use a tripod with a fluid head in my yard for heavy lenses.
In my case, I ditched a Canon 600mm f4 (on the R5) for the OM-1 and the 150-400mm. While I have to accept that I cannot get the same limited depth-of-field or shoot in very low light, I enjoy shooting with such a light and versatile kit so much more than the hassle of the old FF f/4 setup. I’d never go back to that cumbersome kit.
johnvanr wrote:
In my case, I ditched a Canon 600mm f4 (on the R5) for the OM-1 and the 150-400mm. While I have to accept that I cannot get the same limited depth-of-field or shoot in very low light, I enjoy shooting with such a light and versatile kit so much more than the hassle of the old FF f/4 setup. I’d never go back to that cumbersome kit.
My gal and I traveled through airports and such with Canon gear, our backpacks each weighed 40 pounds. Now Olympus backpacks smaller in size and weigh 25 pounds. 15 pounds make a difference for those long treks and standing while traveling.
**** and to add that we have a 13 to 20 pound laptop bag to carry also.
PV Hiker wrote:
My gal and I traveled through airports and such with Canon gear, our backpacks each weighed 40 pounds. Now Olympus backpacks smaller in size and weigh 25 pounds. 15 pounds make a difference for those long treks and standing while traveling.
**** and to add that we have a 13 to 20 pound laptop bag to carry also.
My trip to Iceland last summer was the first time I decided to take a 100% M43 kit for travel. Leading up to that trip I was seesawing back and forth between M43 and my Sony kit. At the end the size/weight did play a factor but of course but also some of the other features of the OM-1 won out (better IBIS and live ND for water falls). As this wasn't a photo specific trip I really valued not having to deal with tripods and filters.
When I was deciding I put together a bunch of different options of gear and how much they'd weigh and surprisingly it wasn't as different as I thought it would be. However, there are lighter options with M43 with similar equivalent focal length coverage but that wasn't what my goal was, I wanted the best IQ and faster lenses.
Weight isn’t the only factor. When I compare my Olympus kit to my Nikon kit or previously my Canon kit, the weight was certainly noticeable. However more than the weight was the volume (size) of the pro series glass was substantially less than my RF L series or Z S series glass. Which at the end of the day equates to a more compact kit.
palmor wrote:
My trip to Iceland last summer was the first time I decided to take a 100% M43 kit for travel. Leading up to that trip I was seesawing back and forth between M43 and my Sony kit. At the end the size/weight did play a factor but of course but also some of the other features of the OM-1 won out (better IBIS and live ND for water falls). As this wasn't a photo specific trip I really valued not having to deal with tripods and filters.
When I was deciding I put together a bunch of different options of gear and how much they'd weigh and surprisingly it wasn't as different as I thought it would be. However, there are lighter options with M43 with similar equivalent focal length coverage but that wasn't what my goal was, I wanted the best IQ and faster lenses. ...Show more →
Hahah 
