150-600mm vs 150-400mm +1.25 extender How do they compare to each other ?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- In this, the third video of my series on OM System`s 150-600mm F5/6.3 lens, I test it out in comparison to my own 150-400mm + 1.25 extender. The difference in price between the two lenses is huge, but is the 150-400mm worth the extra money ?
Track 1 :
Title - Tenderness
Artist : Benjamin Tissot
Music by: Bensound.com/free-music-for-videos
License code: TY9UQYJJUB3LZMPQ
Track 2 :
Title : Summer
Artist : Benjamin Tissot
Music by www.bensound.com
License code: ENBFM4O707NNVDI4
Track 3 :
Title : Dreams
Artist : Benjamin Tissot
Music: Bensound.com/royalty-free-music
License code: LJX2TBBZQINDPL40
Links to my previous videos on the 150-600mm :
Part 1 : • Testing out OM System`...
Part 2 : • Testing out OM System`...
Thank you for taking the time to do this Roger. A very helpful comparison. Super video footage a stills, top work 👍
Cheers John. Thanks for the kind comment.
The flying owl video is fantastic. I've never seen it captured like that.
Thank for taking the time to make this video Roger. At the risk of stating the obvious I suspect a great many of the potential purchases of this lens and some who are perhaps still saving for the 150-400 were anxiously waiting on something like this. Well done.
Thanks for the kind comment Steve
I bought the 150-400mm last year and still have sticker shock, but no regrets. I still would buy the 150-400 over the 150-600. I have used the 150-400 with MC-14 and with great results. Just got the MC-20 and when needed would not hesitate using. Images still look very good.
The 150-400mm is a great lens, and although expensive, it well worth the money.
Really good comparison, thanks for taking the time to create and share. A number of videos also state that 150-600mm, at its full zoom distance of 600mm is sharp, it should be considering it’s the Sigma lens designed for a full frame sensor and is now only covering an m4/3 sensor, most of the glass is extra weight. Admittedly it’s been tweaked for use with the OM System but not built specifically for it. I have used the 150-400mm on an expedition to the Arctic and it’s a fantastic lens that ticks all the boxes, except price, but it is designed specifically for the format and I believe that’s where it’s strengths show through between the two lenses. Imo
Fair enough comment. Not everyone can afford the 150-400mm, so this is where this lens is aimed at.
@@rogerhance5883 I totally agree as to where its aimed. However it's still the full frame lens from Sigma (same for the Sony & L mount variants) engineered to work on M4/3, thus over engineered for the system and hence why it performs well on M4/3. A fact that no reviewer seems to point out.
Even at 2kg, I reckon this lens will be extremely popular. Yes the Sigma design will annoy a lot of people with the price hike but you can't get this specs anywhere else. OM system has modified it and put Sync IS at 6ev for the long end, if that's true and 1200 at 6 EV, that's even better than the 150-400 pro because with the built in teleconverter, I don't think it will have 6 EV anymore. It has better weather sealing than the Sigma and it works with the two MC teleconverter, you are not getting these features with the Sigma lens alone and you can to 1200mm with m43 instead of a crop in 900mm with either APSC bodies or full frame. OM system knows it and that's why it charge us the premium
Well said. Thank you for commenting. I totally agree with you.
I use a 500mm lens on mft and I think the stabilization alone is worth the price. From what I’ve seen people can somewhat handhold this lens without having to worry about tripod and monopod. I’ll buy it when the second hand ones start appearing.
This is great but I think it would be even better is to show images of the Owl from the monitor and crop in to see the difference between these two lenses of shots from the same distance. That way we can clearly see how much of a difference between the image quality of both lenses.
Agreed, but very difficult to do with RUclips.
Excellent video Roger, Olympus has a couple of really good offers for wildlife photographers now. All the best Steve.
Cheers Steve
Just found you - that was great! The kestrel footage was delicious, as was its dance with the owl. Lkd&Subd. Many thanks from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
Thanks for the very kind comment, and for liking and subscribing. Its very much appreciated.
great stuff Roger, enjoyed the video, still saving for the 150-400.....
Thanks Cliff. Its well worth saving up for. Took me a year and a half.
Roger, thanks for this objective and honest assessment of the new lens. I suspect it will be a fairly good selling lens, based on the performance I've seen so far. I really appreciate your skill and objectivity.
Thanks Greg. Much appreciated.
I think the 300mm f4 pro which i own is the best and sharpest lens available for wildlife in MFT along with the panasonic 200mm f2.8 , the expensive zoom is in the same ball park but way too expensive and the new lens is just ok from what i have seen,,, just my view
AS you say, the 300mm F4 is super sharp. I had that lens for many years and its an amazing lens.
That was very diplomatic of you ;-) Great video and wonderful images images@@rogerhance5883
If I want to upgrade the Olympus 300mm prime to 150-600mm,, then will it be a good decision? Pls tell me as you are a user of this lens.
Thank You. Was looking forward to your final assessment. And now, just waiting for the 150-600 to be shipped out.
Glad you liked it.
Thanks Roger, nice video. I’ve found atmospheric distortion also may soften images taken at the end of any of these super telephoto zoom lenses.
Thats a very good point. Atmospheric distortion will soften images when they are in the far distance. I should have pointed that out.
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.
Thanks for commenting Stephen. Its much appreciated, and I am glad you like the video.
Thanks for the info. The lenses look amazing.
Thanks for commenting.
Thanks for the comparison of these lenses Roger. I need to start saving up! Cracking image at 6:13 of the LEO in that light 👍
Thanks for the kind comment Mal, especially about the shot at 6.13. I like that one, and a completely different shot for me.
Very interesting and thorough review Roger. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. 👍 📷 🤩
Thanks for the kind comment.
Thanks for the update Roger.
Cheers Mike. To be honest, it was a very difficult video to put together , and it took far longer than any of my previous videos. I nearly gave up on making it. There are mistakes in the video (the focal length with the 150-400mm+ 1.25 extender is 500mm, not 540mm) , and its internal zooming, not internal focusing. By the time these points had been pointed out to me , it had recieved too many views to delete, correct, and reload. Also, it had drove me up the wall so much, I just wanted to finish it and move on to something else. As my old school reports used to say, `must try harder in future` !
I prefer making films on how I have photographed something rather than equipment reviews.@@rogerhance5883
Hi Roger. Fabulous video as always, packed with great stills and videos along with clear and concise commentary.
Just one point, you say the 150-400 becomes 540 at the long end when in fact it’s 500 so the difference at the long end is 100mm (200mm FF equivalent) which is quite significant. It’s a very tempting lens however, it looks really unwieldy and awkward and once you get beyond 400mm, atmospheric conditions have a large effect on image quality. Sharpness is of course, subjective. What other consider acceptable may not be acceptable to me and vice versa. It would be nice to see side by side images taken at both 400mm and 500mm with both lenses
Agreed about the incorrect focal lenght. Barrie. Maths was not my subject at school ! I thought I was doing well if I got a D or an E ! 🤣
Between 5.6 and 6.3 is not a half-stop, but only 1/3 of a stop. This is how aperture goes in the increment of 1/3 of a stop: 5.6 - 6.3 - 7.1 - 8.0. In most cases, 1/3 of a stop will make no difference. Given that it is 600mm at 6.3 instead of 500mm at 5.6, the 600mm actually collects even marginally more light per subject. On the other hand, in the Sony system, the difference of 1 and 1/3 of a stop between 200-600 and 600 GM amounts to approximately 12000 dollars, so it's 3000 dollars for 1/3 of a stop. By this measure 150-400 is not so ridiculously overpriced 🤣🤣😂.
You are technically correct. It is a 1/3rd of a stop, not half a stop. My mistake.
I rented the 150-400 last year and fell in love with it. I am half way there with saving for it. Now I feel like I should rent this one and see if I would love it as much ( probably not).
It's worth the wait. Having said that the 150-600 is very good. Where abouts are you ? UK ?
@@rogerhance5883 USA
Very helpful video thank you.
Your golden light image is my favorite of all your terrific shots.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the very kind comment Michael. It is much appreciated. I liked the golden light image but its probably to to everybodys liking.
Thank you for your series of videos testing this lens. I’ll be buying one.
It's a very nice lens. I had hoped OM Systems would let me keep it but unfortunately not. They wanted it back. 😮
@@rogerhance5883 Same for me. I had it for 4 days.
Nice comparison Roger 👍🏻😁 as you say the 150-400mm looks better as expected. Really nice to see them side by side 📷🎥
Thanks Dennis. Which is lens is best is an easy decission to make, but I had been asked to do a comparison video.
Very informative video Roger and both lenses have the plus and minus points as they should do which you explained perfectly.
Cheers Phil. Although the 150-600mm is a good lens, I dont think we will be selling our 150-400mm`s any time soon.
I totally agree there Roger.@@rogerhance5883
Great video and Nice comparision! Thank you Roger! The 150-600mm is Perfect for my needs and I will buy one as soon as possible! It will be the perfect companion for the 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4
Thanks for the kind comment. The 150-600mm is a very good lens.
The fact that the 150-600 gives great results isn't surprising. I've long wished Sigma made their newer mirrorless lenses in M4/3 mount so I guess this works.
The OM 150-600 is based on the Sigma, which is know to be an EXCELLENT lens that delivers outstanding center sharpness (which is the only part that's being used on M4/3).
Great comparison video. I own the 150-400/f4.5 lens and am very happy with it. I will be trading in my OM-1 for the OM-1 MkII, hopefully next week. I do love Short Ear Owls. Hopefully they will still be around when I get my OM-1 MkII.
Thanks for commenting David. Glad you liked it. The 150-400mm is an amazing lens. Have fun with your mkII.
Max reach of the 150-400 with 1.25 t/c is 500mm (1000mm) equivalent,and difference between the max aperture 6,3 and 5.6 at the longest end is only a 1/3 of stop ,you pay more for Olympus lens due to internal zoom ,weather sealing ,more controls built in t/c ,and of course the option of 4.5 aperture ,the biggest issue with shooting anything at these ranges will be distortion in air quality haze etc .still a fair comparison and I expect many will now choose the sigma rebranded lens for the extra reach and cost savings.
Totally agree with you on air quality. On a crisp winters day - fine. Mid summer? I have had the Om system for about 2 years and have enjoyed it. I am still not happy with the Bokeh on a lot of pictures the system renders compared with other camera manufacturers. The mobility wins however, and it is worth putting up with.
@@davelock3166 bokeh is hard to gain with a small sensor unless you are shooting certain lenses the Panasonic 200mm f2.8 was one of the best also the 75mm f1.8 was excellent also as well as the pro f1.2 lenses ,what om digital needs and I always thought could be achieved especially now Sony has made a 300mm f2.8 around the 1.5kg weight if OM does this it will be a winner ,better still with a 1.4 integrated t/c
Totally agree, Paul. Most pictures are fine, but if you have any sort of background near the subject then on occasions, it becomes fussy. You can mess around with blur in photo developing, but it is never the same, and does not look natural.
A very reasoned and balanced assessment. Nice video Roger.
Thanks David.
Thanks Roger I wonder how the 300 mm lens with two times or1.4 converter would compare with 100 to 400. For sharpness.
Prime lenses are always sharper.
Great question. I use both daily. In terms of sharpness, I can’t tell any difference between the 300mm f4 with 1.4 x converter and the 150-400mm f 4.5. I’ve heard the 300 with 2x converter isn’t as sharp. The only difference the 1.4 x converter has on the 300 is an infinitesimal difference in focus speed. The 300mm is exceptional. The 150-400mm is the same but with convenience of focal range which is more necessary when shooting video. 840mm vs 1,000 mm is very small.
@@d-entrecasteaux
Thank you.
Another great video Roger, minor point I think you meant that the 150-400mm lens is internal zooming not focussing, ie a constant length
Yes, you are correct. It is internal `zooming`, not internal focusing. Well spotted. Unfortunately, I did make a couple of mistakes with this video. To be honest, it was a difficult video to put together , and it took far longer than any of my previous videos. I nearly gave up on making it. There is another mistake about the focal lenght of the 150-400mm with 1.25 extender. I say its 540mm. That wrong. Its 540mm with the 1.4 converter. Its 500mm with the extender. By the time the mistakes were pointed out to me , it had had too many videos to delete, rework and reload. AS my old school reports used to say - `must try harder` !
Wonderful images and video. Great comparison. Just the comparison I was looking for.
Thanks for the kind comment Chris. Glad you found it helpful.
Great video and some really stunning images of such amazing birds! Two remarks: I've succesfully managed to have some great images with the TC1.4x on the big white one. Handheld.
But generally, we all sometimes are falling into the trap of shooting animals just too too far away und cropping a lot. Then also the good gear doesn't help. We still have to improve our field craft or wainting for better moments to have the animals closer to us. Just IMHO.
Thanks for commenting, and you do make a good point about cropping too heavily. I think some photographers think that because you have a long focal length lens, you can take pictures of birds a long way off. Unfortunately you still have to get reasonably close to them.
With 1.25x teleconverter activated on 150-400mm, the focal length is just 500mm (not 540mm).
I don't have the lens, but from the samples I saw the 1.25x converter makes the images a bit soft. MC-14 is better because it does not affect the IQ, at least by eye. So if I would have the lens, I would rather use MC-14 instead of internal the 1.25x tc.
YOu are correct about the focal lenght with the 1.25 extender. It is 500mm, not 540mm. WEll spotted. I must be more careful . I was thinking of the 1.4 converter. Interesting your comments about softness with the 1.25 extender. I have not found that . I have found it when using the 1.4 converter plus the extender combined.
Hallo. Sehr schöner Vergleich der beiden Objektive. Die Bilder sind alle klasse geworden. Grüße Stefan
Danke Stefan. Freut mich, dass dir das Video gefällt und danke für den netten Kommentar. Herzliche Grüße Roger
I’m buying one tomorrow.
Enjoy. Its a great lens
Nice and helpful comparison. Very helpful
Thanks very much for the kind comment. Its much appreciated. Glad you liked it.
Excellent! It would be interesting to know how the 150-400 does with both the 1.25 and 1.4 TC compared to the 150-600.
To be honest, I rarely use the 1.4 and the 1.25 extender combined. I have occassionaly done it, but I feel there is a small drop off in quality when they are used together. Its only very slight, but ehen blowing the images up. you can notice it.
Great video as always Roger and some fab shots. Well done 👍🦉
Cheers Richard. Much appreciated.
Hi Roger, great video, I am considering investing in OM Systems for the pre-capture for wildlife so these comparison videos have been great. I think others have already covered the 150-400 max reach (500mm vs 540mm), and the difference in max FStop being only a 1/3 of a stop. Did you realise you mention the cost of the 150-400 is £6699 in the video but show it as £7699 on your thumbnail. Finally are you able to share if the lens is actually a rebadged Sigma, if so quite a price hike from the Nikon and Canon versions.
This is not a rebadged version of those available for Canon or Nikon. It's a reworking of the 150-600 DG DN available in Sony EF and L mount. It's still an eye watering price as OM Systems in Australia are charging over double what the Sigma version goes for.
Bless you Sir
Thanks for the kind comment. Much appreciated.
Hi
I own Olympus 100-400 is it worth the upgrade to 150-600 as already have mc-14
Or go with 300 f4 pro
Not yet convinced 🤔
The best thing to do is to go into a retailers and try it. Most retailers will let you handle it and take a few pictures. You get a lot more reach with the 150-600mm, but its a lot heavier than the 100-400mm.
Great series of the 150-600 lens. Thanks a lot.
Any thoughts on the performance of the Oly 100-400 vs the 150-600 please?
Thanks for the kind comment. The Oly 100-400mm is a very nice lens, and for the price, is amazing value. Its also a LOT lighter than the 150-600mm. The big advantage of the 150-600mm is the extra reach.
Is the 150-600 sharper upto 400mm than the 100-400? Or faster?
The bigger lens with Sync IS will provide more stabilisation however the stabilisation of the smaller lens is pretty good as is.
@@user-re7hu7gr8v I do not have the 100-400mm ( when I did a previous video on this lens, I borrowed one from a freind) So not having the 100-400mm, it would be difficult to say. To be honest, when using the the 100-400mm, I have always found it to be sharp, even at the 400mm end. Whether the 150-600mm is sharper at 400mm than the 100-400mm, is very difficult to say.
Accepting the subjectivity of lens comparisons and your own humble approach to the subject which I greatly appreciate I have to say that I am not convinced that the 150-400 is worth 3 times more. Your arguments for the 400 being worth more in terms of quality I get but you get a few useful bits at to great of an expense. So when comparing two lenses in their 'natural state', that is, without multipliers you have apples to apples but comparing one with an extender, (whether 'built in' or not it's still an extender), and one without, you have apples to oranges. Since there are no stand alone extenders rated at 1.25x I would say using the 1.4x on the 600 you get 840mm/1680mm FF vs 500mm/1000 FF which is what is literally available it is a significant difference. Without unlimited funds the gains and losses simply don't add up. But to avoid being a complete hypocrite if I could, I would have both 🙂.
Fair enough comment. To be honest, I got the maths wrong in this video. The 150-400mm +1.25 extender is 525mm, not 600mm. Maths was not my strong point at school ! 😂 I would have liked to have had both the 150-400mm and the 150-600mm. I had the lens for a couple of months, and I was just starting to think Om Systems had forgotten about it, and they asked for it back ! 😠 Have you seen Mike Lane`s video that he released yesterday about the 150-600mm ?
@@rogerhance5883 I haven’t but I will go there now. Thank you.
@@rogerhance5883 In spirit of pluses and minuses I recommend ThomasEisel. Photography (YT) ‘OM System M.Zuico Super Telephoto Buyers Guide. I think you will enjoy it.
@@rogerhance5883 I saw Mike Lane's YTV. Well done and real world as are yours. I have the 600 on it's way to my doorstep so I'm anxious to work with the information I've received from you both.
Roger,
Lovely video. However, the 150-400mm lens plus the built-in 1.25x TC gives a focal length of 500mm, not 540mm, and the aperture difference, when the built-in TC is in place, gives a one third change in the f stop compared to the 150-600mm lens (f5.6 to f6.3) and not a half stop.
Thanks for the kind comment about the video. You are correct about the 150-400mm + 1.25 extender only being 500mm. This was my mistake, and a few other people have picked up on it. I must be more carefull when checking my vidoes ! In my defence, I was always rubbish at maths at school ! 😂
I really appreciate and enjoy your videos, but please, please start recording them in a resolution higher than 1080p, how on earth can we ever see any true difference when the video is a mushy blur ?
He should simply provide links to raw files, at worst to full res jpgs.
Surely with 1.25 converter engaged the focal length of the 150-400 is 500mm not 540mm?
Yes, you are correct. It is 500mm , not 540mm. My mistake, and a couple of other people have pointed it out. In my defence, maths was nerver my strong point at school !😂
Roger, please tell me. Did you shoot the video using the OM1 MKII C-AF bird tracking or manual focus? Thanks!!!
My method for shooting the video was to use the cameras autofocus(with bird tracking) to lock on to the Owl, and then press the record button. Because I had the setting set to 120fps slow motion , the autofocus does not work. In one of the clips you can see the bird goes out of focus as it flys nearer. I try to refocus manually as the bird comes towards me , but its very difficult. Apparently, it will autofocus at 120fps on the Panasonic G9mkII.
@@rogerhance5883thank you!
Avidly watching this comparison, painfully aware that the photos have a lot to do with who's behind the camera, as well as what lens is in front of it...
Thanks for the comment. Thats why, at the end, I say, `and in the right hands, will produce some stunning images`
nice comparison.
Thanks Steve.
Excellent thanks
Thanks for the kind comment. Glad you liked it.
Wonder if the 150-600 is capable of procap SH2 speeds and just limited by OM's firmware paywall?
Not really sure what you mean by `OM`s Firmware paywall` ? The lens will do 25fps for ProCap .
super amazing
Thanks for the kind comment
What do you think, is there a big difference between om-1 and om-1 mark II,when you compare them for BIF and AF?
There is a difference. Its not the huge difference that we saw between the EM1X and the OM1. Ifs difficult to say how much the autofous is better. Probaly 15% to 20%, or something like that.
@@rogerhance5883 Thanks a lot for the information.
I will stick to my 300 F4 Pro
Same here.
@@kevinprideaux6653 There is nothing wrong with the 300mm F4. Its an absolutely smashing lens, and incredibly sharp. I sold mine to help buy the 150-400mm, but in hindsight, I wish I had been in a financial position where I could have afforded to keep it. If nice and light (for the focal lenght) and at F4. it lets in a lot of light.
@@rogerhance5883 my financial position is: 75-300 and act like it is the best lens ever ahahhahah :)🤣
If I want to upgrade the Olympus 300mm prime to 150-600mm,, then will it be a good decision? Pls tell me as you are a user of this lens. The background music is quite loud compared to the voice.
I do not actually have the 150-600mm any longer. OM Systems only loaded it to me for a short period. Its a good lens, but difficult to do a straight comparrison with the 300mm. I would think that in a test, the 300mm would prove to have the edge.
It should be its the most expensive lens, the 150 -600 is a good lens which i used on sony but be warned if hand holding for long periods you'll know it
Can anyone tell me the minimum aperture at each main stop? 150mm f5, ...,600mm f6.3. What about 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm?
Look at what the Sigma 150-600mm DN lens for Sony and you will have your answer. f/5: 150-175mm
f/5.6: 176-368mm
f/6.3: 369-600mm
I dont really understand why mft users would want a FF lens on the mft system? Defeats the object completely, might as well get a ff body and have the benefits of lower light capabilities. Why have a massive lens and a tiny sensor🤔
Reason…twice the magnification (2x equivalent focal length) without loosing light. The added DoF is usually an advantage at these extreme focal lengths allowing most of the animal to be in focus without stopping down (w/o slowing down the lens). A FF lens with this performance would be far heavier and many many times more expensive.
@@user-tm9gx3uk7gYou seem to be forgetting sensor size, its not 6.3 its more like f8/11 on a ff eqivalent so your losing more light to begin with. Secondly if you use for example the sony a7r5 and a 60mp camera you can either use an apsc mode or crop heavily so you don't need anything far heavier or more expensive. Infact the mft version if far more expensive than the FF version
Reading your post - 'defeats the object' - it seems that maybe you don't shoot with MFT? And consider - FF is a 'tiny sensor' for those of us who also shoot MF.
@@luzr6613 I have shot with mft and it was all designed to be small and light, the 150 - 600 is the opposite of that, if you really dont understand what i'm saying i cant really help you. Saying FF is a tiny sensor is quite a ridiculous comment. I do suggest thinking about what you're going to write before doing it👍
Hello, honest question, honest answer: Is the OM1 II autofocus worth an upgrade.
Honest answer Richard. If you already have the OM1, you will not see a huge improvement. Its difficult to say how much better the autofocus is, but I would say about 15-20%. It does have an extra stop of LiveND and the new GradND. If these are not really for you, your probably better sticking with the OM1.
Thank you@@rogerhance5883
@@rogerhance5883 If you are a BIF tog as I am, a 15-20% AF performance improvement is attractive. As is the deeper buffer which, in my case, would largely prevent buffer overruns and give me more headroom for quick successive Pro capture bursts. I doubt I'll use the improvements such as grad ND etc. So, for me, I'll be moving to the mk2. However, I'd struggle to see the attraction if I were a general photographer or into landscapes or street. I think the appeal of the mk2 will be quite niche and the mk1 at current prices is a bargain.
@@stevemurnan1702 Good point Steve. For birds in flight, the autofocus is improved, and would there be worth upgrading for. The larger buffer is very useful when shooting using SH2 and ProcapSH2.
@@stevemurnan1702
400 x 1.25 = 500mm
Correct ! Well spotted. Maths was not my stong subject at school. All I recieved was D`s and E`s. 😂 Must be more carful in future.