📛 Become a channel member: ruclips.net/user/thomaseislphotographyjoin ☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel: ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography ❓📩 Direct support: thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket
This analysis sets a standard for youtube in general - comprehensive, precise, very helpful and no bs hyperbole that ruins most instructional videos. Thank you.
Great to hear! I can wholeheartedly recommend this setup and I hope that you like it as much as I do. It is because of comments like yours that the work that goes into these video is so rewarding. Thank you very much. Yours, Thomas
I have the 300/4, and what impresses me the most (apart from sharpness) is that it's almost impossible to get any aberrations, even in extremely backlit situations.
I think this video will help a lot of people. Excellently presented and organised as usual Thomas. I love the 100-400, including for some macro-ish shooting of insects and so on. It’s a little bit awkward having to stand over a metre away. But also it means you’re not blocking the light, and I’ve got some nice pictures this way. Clearly I was wrong to rule out getting a teleconverter. There’s so much rhetoric to scare you about lack of light on MFT and so on. But really, with such macro shooting, you want more depth of field anyway.
Thank you very much! Completely agree. The complaints are not founded in photographic practice, often factually wrong and therefore irrelevant althogether.
The Olympus 75-300 is what makes me enjoy the idea of even taking pictures of birds. I'm not a strong person and I prefer a light setup, and this is really the only solution out here on any camera system.
Thank you for sharing! And as you've said, the 75-300 is truly special and a USP. To me, it is as impressive as the high end options and I actually use it a lot. So easy to take along! Best, Thomas
Im excited, my 75-300 arrives tuesday ❤ i know its not the best optically, but i backpack and hike a lot and i’m always wishing i could have a super zoom lens with me
@@baqcasanke While you're out hiking with that lens, don't forget to use it for 'near macro' shots of flowers and insects -- it does an amazing job at full zoom.
Awesome overview of the options. I much appreciate the effort you have recently put into the often overlooked long lenses to the point I have joined. My head and my heart would choose the white lens every time. My checkbook, says differently. If we are putting the 75-300 in the mix, it seems like the 40-150mm with the MC-20 and improving one's field craft should get some consideration. 🤠
Thank you very much for your kind words and for becoming a channel member. That is just great! Yes, the white 150-400 is truly an investment. The good thing is that all other options on the chart are also perfectly adequate to get professional results. And I completely agree, the 40-150 with the MC would also be a contestant - definitely noted for future videos. Reminds me very much of my old Four Thirds setup: 50-200 and the 2x converter. Best, Thomas
Excellent review again, Thomas. I had great success with the 300mm f/4 including adding on both TCs. Subsequently , I was an early adopter of the 150-400mm lens and found that I almost never took my 300mm f/4 into the field again. I finally sold the 300mm to a friend as it was too good and too valuable to keep on a shelf. I look forward to your comparison of both the 40-150mm f/2.8 (one of my favorites and the 40-150mm f/4.
Good analysis. It’s important to note that teleconverters not only affect effective aperture they also affect maximum stops of ibis. When accounting for that properly they still perform quite well on the lenses they are adapted for. I also have the Sony FF latest models and 200-600. My experience is that Olympus is the best existing system for nature and event photography when you can expect the unexpected. Once a person become well acquainted with the capabilities of the system and functions, there is hardly any other system that comes close to the flexibility for quickly adapting to something that requires a very sudden adjustment in several settings to capture properly. I am an extended event (multi-day) shooter who typically uses two bodies. My go to kits in outdoor all day events is one OM-1 and 12-100/4 and another OM-1 with 40-150/2.8 and MC20 2x Teleconverter. For a winter trip to photograph bald eagles and other large wingspan subjects and handholding all day, I will add a third kit with the 300mm and either MC14 1.4x Teleconverter or MC20 2x Teleconverter, based on my experience with the area. If I could add a lens to the graph it would be for OM to create a new lens: 50-200/2.8 with syncIS and designed for the Teleconverters. I think it’s been on the roadmap for a few years now. My 40-150 is ten years old and works as good as new so I would love to update it to a new model with syncIS and if they could take it to 50-200/2.8 I’d be extremely happy.
Excellent as always. Personally I changed from Canon FF to m4/3 (OM-System) in part because of weight issues - I had the Sigma 150-600 Canon mount which is what the OM-System lens is built on. Optically good but so heavy to haul around all day, I'm not going to start doing that again. Ideally I'd like the pro 150-400 but for now I have the Leica Lumix 100-400 on my OM-1 and that works just fine - it's also a touch faster aperture wise than the equivalent OM-System lens. It might be interesting to see a comparison of non OM-Systems lenses on the OM-1, given one of the benefits of m4/3 is cross manufacturer compatibility by design.
As always a great presentation and technically 101% accurate in every respect. I’ve been using the 150-400mm lens for 11 months and 95% of my pro image making including close-up work. Just followed you on IG. 👍🙂
Thanks for a great video and non-biased analysis. Owning both the 300 F/4 since 2016 and the 150-400 F/4.5 since 2021 and having used both them for thousands of hours in the field, coupled with both EM-1.2, EM-1X amnd OM-1 I can confirm they are fine lenses, delivering superb results. I can also confirm the weather and dust sealing are excellent. I will not hesitate to use my gear in any weather, including torrential rain or very dusty conditions. Which one do I prefer? If the main concern is portability or the subject/s can be expected to be at a distance (e.g. bird photography) with little risk of clipping the subject, then the 300 F/4, potentially coupled with any of the MC14 or MC20. If you cannot anticipate how close or how big the subject is (e.g. mammals) then the zoom is a blessing. Regarding the use of teleconverters: the 300 F/4 accommodates both without any significant degradation of IQ, and the AF performs well with both (although the speed is somewhat impacted). The 150-400 F/4.5 performs fine with the MC14, even with the 1,25 engaged, and the IQ is not significantly impacted. The MC20 however seems to impact the precision of the AF, to be on the safe side and get the correct focus I would recommend fine-tuning the AF manually (using focus aid either peaking or magnification). These findings are in line with what you say in the video; F/8 being the upper limit for reliable AF. In practice, this means that the lenses can be extended to 600mm/700mm (at F/8), still offering fast and reliable AF. You could use the 150-400 F/4.5 at 800mm or even 1000mm with the MC20, which is a huge reach, however the application area is limited -- better try to get closer to the subjects. And lastly, I should mention the dual IS is amazing. Shooting handheld and getting sharp photos at 500mm at 1/25s is feasible.
Getting "closer to the subject" can be risky, if you're shooting a pride of free-range lions, or standing on a cliff edge, with a rock face behind you, and a thousand foot drop. As that is where and how I work. With the lions, one can neither get out of the 4x4, nor start the engine. One has to make do with where you are at that moment. Lions also don't rehearse their hunts. You may have merely a few seconds to capture the action. Cheetahs, although lesser cats, are even faster. But the other lesser cats, such as serval, caracal or the elusive African wildcats are the hardest to spot and shoot. The best place to find these, and leopard, is the Kgalagadi (ineptly called Kalahari by colonisers) and look out for videos here by Safari Expert or Joe's Camera.
The 100 to 400 is an excellent lens and I think getting the 300 is a sound plan. You then have the flexibility of a zoom and the uncompromising quality of an APO lens at your disposal. Best of both worlds and great value for money. Best, Thomas
You can't go wrong with the 300mm. It's much more suitable for hikes than its bigger brothers, and the fixed focal length is easy to get used to. What's interesting is that, even though there is not that much weight difference between 150-400 and 150-600, the former is much easier to handle. Mostly because of the girth and balance differences. I was lucky enough to attend a Polish m43 convention lately, and got the opportunity to play with all of those lenses in the real world :D
Thank you very much! Well, actually in terms of image quality the 300 PRO is definitely at least as good as the 150-400 PRO. And the TC - well, excellent combination! Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you Thomas for the very informative video , i have the OM-1 mark 1 and for sport i use both the 40-150 2.8 pro and the 100-400 and withe the 40-150 i do use the 2x Tele converter which gives me great reach and very sharp photos . The 100-400 i use on it own and for what it is it works well .
Excellent review. Cost and weight have been my first considerations as an older gentleman on retirement income. After graduating from the Panasonic fz300 bridge camera, I bought an OMD M1iii and a 75-300. As a budding wildlife photographer, I yearned for extra reach, and I like a Zoom, so I bought the 100-400. As I become more proficient and I predominantly photo seabirds and raptors in flight, I now know that my next investment should be an OM1 for its AF capabilities. I recently bought an OMD M5iii and I will travel with that, a 12-45mm, and my 75-300.
A superb video! I have both the 75-300 and the 100-400, plus the MC14 & MC20 and your assessments are spot on. The 75-300 is actually very, very good optically through 200mm, which is still a good reach, and is virtually no larger than other MFT 200mm maximum zooms.
Great review as usual! Personally I have the 75-300 and I adapt to make it work for me. I am not a "birder" or wildlife photographer and use mine for some landscape photos. However, having used the Canon 100-400L and Sigma 120-400 on full frame, I was presently surprised by the quality considering it's price and size. Considering I have the 12-40 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8, so I only use this lens on rare occasions and when I do I try to look at it as a 75-250 and of course step it down. For me and my needs it works.
Truly wonderful overview of why you would choose any of these lenses. It has helped me narrow down my choice (150-600) for my personal use and this was just the type of presentation a technical and logically orientated person like me enjoys. Exceptionally clear and logical breakdown of each lens with clear reasoning as to why you would consider (or not) the choice for each. The only thing I didn't like about this review was that Thomas sat just a little off centre against the background grid - LOL! Summary: This guy really knows his stuff!
Really appreciate your in depth comparison of these lenses. I own and use the 300/4 with the MC14 teleconverter. The sharpness (with and without the TC) is so impressive, and the weight (with collar removed) is very manageable for me, even on long photo hikes. Hope someday to be able to have the 150-400, but still extremely happy with the 300. Also, I previously owned the 75-300 and loved the portability. I found that to be a surprisingly decent lens.
Thanks Tamara! I completely agree with your statements. The 75 to 300 is indeed excellent (I love to use it, to be honest) and the 300 is just pure perfection. Optically, the 150 to 400 is not better than the 300. Best, Thomas
This vídeo it is better then the optics classes i attend 30 yars ago. I went with Lumix gear, but the 300mm for my kid's football is in my dream list. Thank you for such informatve video.
Hello, thanks for your good comparison. I'm currently have EM1 Mk3 + 40-150mm f2.8. I also have MC-20 teleconverter. I found a very dissapointing result when I use MC-20 with my lense. It become too soft. I'm planing to buy a new lense from Japan. Which one you recommend for bird shooting between 300 mm F4.0 or 150-600 mm f5.0-6.3. Many thanks for you advice.
@@akechais the advantage of the 150-600 is if u shoot bird in flight, it’s easier to find them at 150, then zoom in to shoot. But u got 2 extra stops for the 300 pro. Which is great in shadows and low light.
Had to watch this again since I'm deciding which lens to buy. Is there a shutter speed at which image stabilization is not needed or keep up with the action? I shoot flying birds mostly and have never used any stabilization. Appreciate your thoughts.
The rule of thumb is of course always that of the "reciprocal shutter speed". To be on the safe side with ultra-long teles, I would always double the value. For example: 300mm = 600mm in 135 --> reciprocal rule: 1/600 --> twice as fast=1/1200s at least.
I just received my most expensive lens I ever bought the 150-400 tc and I am so impressed with everything about this lens. Thanks Tomas your one of the best teachers on you tube. What do you think the best portrait lens for the 4/3 system is? Thanks
First and foremost: Congratulations on your "Big White". This lens is indeed worth every "penny"! Thanks for the amazing feedback and your donation. Regarding portrait lenses, there are actually a lot of options: The optically best from OM System are the 45 1.2 PRO and the 75 1.8. Both are practically "perfect". Two other excellent options are the 42,5 Nokton or the 60 Nokton by Voigtlander. Manual focus, but optically excellent. I currently use the 42,5 Leica Nocticron for most of my portraits. It is excellent as well. You cannot go wrong with any of those. If you want the best value for money, then you should buy the M.Zuiko 45 1.8. It is a gem, and it is hard to believe that it is so good given its incredibly small size. Hope this helps - and once again, thanks a lot! Best, Thomas
Confirmed all my thoughts since I have the 75-300, the 300 f/4 and the 150-400 f/4.5 but generally though, the OM-1 Mk II gets the 150-400 and the OM-1 gets the 300 f/4. The 75-300 is usually relegated to my old E-M5 Mk II as a compact walk-about combo
Really clear and helpful overview of the available lenses. I would love the 100 to 400 lens but the price rules it out. Will be looking at the 150 to 400 but a bit concerned about the weight so will probably stick with my 300 plus my 1.4 converter. Your analysis has been a great help so many thanks.
Thanks you, Thomas. I found this to be a very useful and interesting summary of what OMS has to offer (and not one needs its own porter to carry it). I notice that when the 150-600 was first released, there was a fair amount of scorn directed at it, but now that the hysteria has died-down, its versatility and IQ seems to be better-appreciated. I'd still like the 150-400 - but it's divorce-level expensive - and I'm only an amateur. I like my 100-400 very much: it is compact and not too heavy. I'm in my high 60's this year and am mindful that I have to carry any lens out and back, though I want to allow for every eventuality. (I'm primarily into landscapes and macro, but there's a couple of wedge-tailed eagles that cruise through the nearby Molonglo Gorge and I'd love to get one of them on pixels.😊) That said, if I'm visiting a waterfall, I will usually take out the longer telephoto lens and a few other bits and pieces.
Thanks! The 100 to 400 is an excellent lens, and even though optically the 150 to 400 is better, the other is smaller and if you know what you are doing, you cannot tell the difference at normal print sizes. Even the 75 to 300 is very good. It is actually my most used super telephoto at the moment. Why? It is just so small and portable and good enough. Best, Thomas
@@ThomasEisl.Photography thanks for the reply. I agree that the 100-400 has a lot going for it, and according to Photographyblog, the 150-600 _is_ better optically, but the size and weight would be a concern to me. (As would be the 60% higher cost, in Australia.) I'm very happy with my lenses, covering 8mm to 400, plus 60mm macro, and each is my favorite as soon as it's on the camera.
Thanks Thomas, great analysis as always. Is the 75-300mm able to have a tripod collar? It may seem to defeat its purpose in getting the lens if it does not have the ability to accept a tripod collar. It would also be useless to rely on mounting my camera on the tripod while using this lens as the whole set up may be lopsided and hard to secure properly.
Thank you! The 75-300 does not have a tripod collar - but it is so light that you can just mount the camera and work with it like with a normal telephoto. It is pretty incredible, but it works. I was skeptical at first as well but yes - no issue at all. Best, Thomas 📸
@@bringbackhumanity781you can use a longer arca swiss plate and tripod. You can just slide the plate forward to balance the whole setup. The lens won’t put strain on the mount it is very light 👍
i have 75-300mm and 300mm f4, both are great lens, 300mm f4 is great for birding, the 75-300mm is great for portability and great value, thought the 300mm end is a bit soft but not a big issue to me
I own the 75-300. Good to have fun and carry during hikes or kayak because its so light. Unfortunately, image quality is weak unless the subject is under the sun. I’ll be looking for an upgrade, still not clear if the 150-600 is light enough to carry on the water, mountain or long walking distance.
I have the 75-300 witch gives me a lot of fun. And I recently bought the 40-150 f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. And that gives me the same range. And honestly I believe that the 40-150 with a 2x teleconverter is in the same class as the 300 f4.
Thanks for sharing! Just FYI: While the 40-150 with the TC is very good, and definitely capable of professional results, the IQ of the 300 f4 is definitely better - also measurable in the lab.
Great analyses! I am using a Zuiko 70-300 4-5.6 ED (FT format) with an electronic FT-MFT adapter. The weight (with FT-MFT adapter & tripod collar) is 668g which would be the 2nd lightest lens in this collection. Does anyone have any thoughts on this lens. I had very good results using this lens on a recent cruise along British Columbia's Alberni Inlet where reach was important.
Hello Thomas, Very excellent video - thank you. Have you seen the Viltrox adapter that allows Nikon AF lenses to mount onto MFT cameras ? It is difficult to see if it is a good product - some good reviews and some bad. I could mount Nikon 300 or 500 PF VR lenses to OM-D and G9 body which would be really nice.
Thank you! Well, I have not tried the adapter but I'd say it is worth a try. AF will be impacted, but maybe it will be still fast enough. Please share your experiences! Best, Thomas
always a high quality well articulate video. reg 300 f4 - I can only second what Thomas says - it is one of the sharpest lenses ever for any format. It delivers sharpness better than most of fullframe portrait lenses wide open, you never have to stop it down. With TC - same story - do NOT stop it down, best results wide open. In fact, I did some comparisons and the 300f4 beats all the standard consumer fullframe lenses - on the bench and in the field, out of camera shots, it is sharper than the likes of 150-600s, nikons 200-500, it beats sigma 60-600 (which is known to be a) sharpest consumer telephoto b) sharp at its long end included). All that while being super light, well built and amazingly stabilized. I must say however, that the quality of its output towers over the 100-400. That one is just average imho (= quite decent). It's a shame there aren't more comparisons of the best m43 lenses to their fullframe counterparts - many people would be surprised what m43 can deliver and how hard, sometimes impossible it is to match the results.
Interesting video and a good overview IMO. Not sure if you're an OMDS ambassador now and have to stick with OMDS lenses, but it would have been interesting to see hear your opinion on the Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400. Personally, I chose the Panasonic 100-300 over Olympus 75-300 (slightly faster, lens IS and slightly better reviews, but bigger) and later the Panasonic 100-400. Mainly because it was available first, but it's also smaller and lighter.
Thank you! I'm not an ambassador, it is just that I focused on the M.Zuiko lineup this time. I'd say the Panasonic 100-300 is a very good option as well - especially the OIS is - as you've said - very valuable. I have not tested it yet, but I'm definitely planning to do that. Same goes for the 100 to 400, by the way. Thanks again for watching and the great suggestions! Best, Thomas
If the day is really bright and there are no clouds, I can get amazing shots with the 100-400 mm with the TC14. That said, as soon as the lighting conditions are not ideal, even fully open with f9.0 is too slow for many wild-life applications or I will drown in a sea of noise. Going to f10 for more sharpness makes it even worse of course.
Dear Thomas I'd love to see your shots on the 75-300. It requires proper techniques to get the most out of it. Many posted their photos on various sites (flickr, forums, etc) but there's only very few who managed to truly make it work
There's no fast aperture long lenses from OM/Olympus (or Panasonic either). They should bring back the old 250mm f/2.0 or make it a 100-250/2.0 zoom just to match up with the upcoming Canon 200-500/4.0.
Interesting - but always keep in mind: an f/2 lens does not match an f/4 lens - such equivalence considerations are deeply flawed on many levels. I've got a few videos on that which might be of interest.
Thank you for this. Here is a my question: Various Talking Heads on different RUclips channels mention that diffraction starts to limit sharpness of M43 lenses around F11. How do teleconverters affect this rule of thumb? For example, suppose we use the M20 tele converter. Does defraction set in at the effective F11 or the effective F32?
Thank you! First, the f/11 is completely random and does not bear any significance without context - meaning desired output size. Diffraction is also the same regardless of sensor format - but you've probably already seen my video on that: ruclips.net/video/NAMxTN3vzRA/видео.htmlsi=wAIk5wlHieEXcAWp Regarding TCs: as you are basically forcing the light through a small opening (the TC) diffraction effects scale proportionally - but as I've said in my video, this is exactly (!) the same on any camera. Best, Thomas 📸
I wish they implement 300 mm f2.8 as Sony one.. that would be so good, and lightweight, and if they addapt x1.4 TC that would be nr 1 lens to wildlife.
Yes yes yes, but where is the new 50-200 lens (to mimic the old four thirds lens)? I sold the bloody 200 f2.8 prime expecting this new lens last month!
Thomas - how does the 40-150 pro 2.8 stack up (with the teleconverters)?? I have the 40-150 2.8 and was thinking of buying the teleconverters instead of a whole other super tele lens.
I can only answer from my perspective but used the 40-150 F2.8 for some bird and wildlife (including with a 1.4 TC) when it first came out. Still have it and it's a great lens, but it's simply not a "super tele" - not enough range in my opinion for what you'd typically use a super tele for. I found that the Panasonic 100-300 worked much better for birds even if 300mm often isn't enough. The 40-150 is great if you need a fairly fast medium tele and preferably without a TC so you get the F2.8 that makes it stand out compared to most other MFT tele lenses. Take a look at the TC-prices and compare it to a Olympus 75-300 or Panasonic 100-300 prices. Of course you'll save some money, but if you frequently need more that 150mmm I'd say get a lens that give you extra range in stead.
It is just awesome to read the many great contributions - thanks for that! I can only underline what the other knowledgeable photographers shared here. Optically, the combination is definitely very sound. The reach might not be enough, depending on what you want to do. Getting a TC is always great, as you can use it on other lenses as well and it is just a great addition to have - a long-term investment. If you have to go for one or the other, then a longer lens might be more useful.
Hi Thomas, I sent you an email on Saturday 4 May, to the contact@ email address found on your channel details. Just wondered if it was received? Thanks.
Great comparison, thanks so much. One thing not covered was the cooperation of IBIS and lens stabilisation: the Zuiko m lenses that cooperate are limited to the PRO series, and this has influence on hand-holdability vs needing a tripod. I use the Leica 100-400 (version 1) as it was the only such lens available when I bought it: if I were to use a G9 or G9.2, then that lens would cooperate to reach the best possible stabilisation, but not with any Olympus body. I am strongly tempted to sell that lens and get the 150-600, but given that I travel a fair amount, the portability is a concern: my magic travel kit is the Olympus 7-14, Olympus 12-100 and Leica 100-400. The gap of 50mm for the 150-600 is not so much a concern as the cooperation between the OM1.1 and EM1-x IBIS with the lens stabilisation (the dual stabilisation with the 12-100 is magical!).
Will never sell my 300mm f4 by far best lens on the market, Razor sharp, Nail biting fast focus. Amazing macro. great with 1.4 X and even 2X, blow away with my moon picture alone. on my large TV it look like the moon want to fall out of the tv, onto my floor break like Humpty Dumpty.
📛 Become a channel member:
ruclips.net/user/thomaseislphotographyjoin
☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel:
ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography
❓📩 Direct support:
thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket
This analysis sets a standard for youtube in general - comprehensive, precise, very helpful and no bs hyperbole that ruins most instructional videos. Thank you.
Thank you very much, your feedback means a lot and is very encouraging! Best, Thomas 📸
It is because of your videos that this week i bought myself an OM1mkII and the 150-600mm. Thanks for the effort you put in to this work!
Great to hear! I can wholeheartedly recommend this setup and I hope that you like it as much as I do.
It is because of comments like yours that the work that goes into these video is so rewarding. Thank you very much. Yours, Thomas
I have the 300/4, and what impresses me the most (apart from sharpness) is that it's almost impossible to get any aberrations, even in extremely backlit situations.
Thanks for sharing! Cannot agree more. It is truly an APO lens, I'm also very impressed by its performance.
Great comprehensive, no drama objective review!! Should be the template for all lens and camera YT channels, Ted.
I think this video will help a lot of people. Excellently presented and organised as usual Thomas. I love the 100-400, including for some macro-ish shooting of insects and so on. It’s a little bit awkward having to stand over a metre away. But also it means you’re not blocking the light, and I’ve got some nice pictures this way. Clearly I was wrong to rule out getting a teleconverter. There’s so much rhetoric to scare you about lack of light on MFT and so on. But really, with such macro shooting, you want more depth of field anyway.
Thank you very much! Completely agree. The complaints are not founded in photographic practice, often factually wrong and therefore irrelevant althogether.
The Olympus 75-300 is what makes me enjoy the idea of even taking pictures of birds. I'm not a strong person and I prefer a light setup, and this is really the only solution out here on any camera system.
Thank you for sharing! And as you've said, the 75-300 is truly special and a USP. To me, it is as impressive as the high end options and I actually use it a lot. So easy to take along!
Best, Thomas
Im excited, my 75-300 arrives tuesday ❤ i know its not the best optically, but i backpack and hike a lot and i’m always wishing i could have a super zoom lens with me
@@baqcasanke While you're out hiking with that lens, don't forget to use it for 'near macro' shots of flowers and insects -- it does an amazing job at full zoom.
@@gregm6894so far i am really enjoying it! I hadn’t thought of using it for that but you’re right! It can focus very close at 600. I am very impressed
Awesome overview of the options. I much appreciate the effort you have recently put into the often overlooked long lenses to the point I have joined. My head and my heart would choose the white lens every time. My checkbook, says differently. If we are putting the 75-300 in the mix, it seems like the 40-150mm with the MC-20 and improving one's field craft should get some consideration. 🤠
Thank you very much for your kind words and for becoming a channel member. That is just great!
Yes, the white 150-400 is truly an investment. The good thing is that all other options on the chart are also perfectly adequate to get professional results.
And I completely agree, the 40-150 with the MC would also be a contestant - definitely noted for future videos. Reminds me very much of my old Four Thirds setup: 50-200 and the 2x converter.
Best, Thomas
Excellent review again, Thomas. I had great success with the 300mm f/4 including adding on both TCs. Subsequently , I was an early adopter of the 150-400mm lens and found that I almost never took my 300mm f/4 into the field again. I finally sold the 300mm to a friend as it was too good and too valuable to keep on a shelf. I look forward to your comparison of both the 40-150mm f/2.8 (one of my favorites and the 40-150mm f/4.
@jonerikrolf2029 Thank you for the feedback and for sharing your valuable experiences. Your suggestion is duly noted!
Good analysis. It’s important to note that teleconverters not only affect effective aperture they also affect maximum stops of ibis. When accounting for that properly they still perform quite well on the lenses they are adapted for.
I also have the Sony FF latest models and 200-600. My experience is that Olympus is the best existing system for nature and event photography when you can expect the unexpected. Once a person become well acquainted with the capabilities of the system and functions, there is hardly any other system that comes close to the flexibility for quickly adapting to something that requires a very sudden adjustment in several settings to capture properly.
I am an extended event (multi-day) shooter who typically uses two bodies. My go to kits in outdoor all day events is one OM-1 and 12-100/4 and another OM-1 with 40-150/2.8 and MC20 2x Teleconverter. For a winter trip to photograph bald eagles and other large wingspan subjects and handholding all day, I will add a third kit with the 300mm and either MC14 1.4x Teleconverter or MC20 2x Teleconverter, based on my experience with the area.
If I could add a lens to the graph it would be for OM to create a new lens: 50-200/2.8 with syncIS and designed for the Teleconverters. I think it’s been on the roadmap for a few years now. My 40-150 is ten years old and works as good as new so I would love to update it to a new model with syncIS and if they could take it to 50-200/2.8 I’d be extremely happy.
Thank you very much for taking the time to write this very insightful, extensive comment! I completely agree with what you stated. Best, Thomas 📸
Excellent as always. Personally I changed from Canon FF to m4/3 (OM-System) in part because of weight issues - I had the Sigma 150-600 Canon mount which is what the OM-System lens is built on. Optically good but so heavy to haul around all day, I'm not going to start doing that again. Ideally I'd like the pro 150-400 but for now I have the Leica Lumix 100-400 on my OM-1 and that works just fine - it's also a touch faster aperture wise than the equivalent OM-System lens. It might be interesting to see a comparison of non OM-Systems lenses on the OM-1, given one of the benefits of m4/3 is cross manufacturer compatibility by design.
As always a great presentation and technically 101% accurate in every respect. I’ve been using the 150-400mm lens for 11 months and 95% of my pro image making including close-up work. Just followed you on IG. 👍🙂
Thank you very much! The PRO lenses are just amazing.
By the way, I'll follow back immediately.
Best, Thomas
Another well researched and presented video. Thanks for your time and effort.
So nice of you, thanks!
I am using a 4/3 50-200 swd, plus ec14. Great results.
An excellent lens
Thanks for a great video and non-biased analysis. Owning both the 300 F/4 since 2016 and the 150-400 F/4.5 since 2021 and having used both them for thousands of hours in the field, coupled with both EM-1.2, EM-1X amnd OM-1 I can confirm they are fine lenses, delivering superb results. I can also confirm the weather and dust sealing are excellent. I will not hesitate to use my gear in any weather, including torrential rain or very dusty conditions. Which one do I prefer? If the main concern is portability or the subject/s can be expected to be at a distance (e.g. bird photography) with little risk of clipping the subject, then the 300 F/4, potentially coupled with any of the MC14 or MC20. If you cannot anticipate how close or how big the subject is (e.g. mammals) then the zoom is a blessing. Regarding the use of teleconverters: the 300 F/4 accommodates both without any significant degradation of IQ, and the AF performs well with both (although the speed is somewhat impacted). The 150-400 F/4.5 performs fine with the MC14, even with the 1,25 engaged, and the IQ is not significantly impacted. The MC20 however seems to impact the precision of the AF, to be on the safe side and get the correct focus I would recommend fine-tuning the AF manually (using focus aid either peaking or magnification). These findings are in line with what you say in the video; F/8 being the upper limit for reliable AF. In practice, this means that the lenses can be extended to 600mm/700mm (at F/8), still offering fast and reliable AF. You could use the 150-400 F/4.5 at 800mm or even 1000mm with the MC20, which is a huge reach, however the application area is limited -- better try to get closer to the subjects. And lastly, I should mention the dual IS is amazing. Shooting handheld and getting sharp photos at 500mm at 1/25s is feasible.
Getting "closer to the subject" can be risky, if you're shooting a pride of free-range lions, or standing on a cliff edge, with a rock face behind you, and a thousand foot drop. As that is where and how I work. With the lions, one can neither get out of the 4x4, nor start the engine. One has to make do with where you are at that moment. Lions also don't rehearse their hunts. You may have merely a few seconds to capture the action. Cheetahs, although lesser cats, are even faster. But the other lesser cats, such as serval, caracal or the elusive African wildcats are the hardest to spot and shoot. The best place to find these, and leopard, is the Kgalagadi (ineptly called Kalahari by colonisers) and look out for videos here by Safari Expert or Joe's Camera.
great video as usual ! you are a gift for us & OM System
Thank you so much, Alexander!
Great comparison. I currently have the 100-400, I'd love the 150-400 but the price is prohibitive! I'm saving my pennies for the 300mm
The 100 to 400 is an excellent lens and I think getting the 300 is a sound plan. You then have the flexibility of a zoom and the uncompromising quality of an APO lens at your disposal. Best of both worlds and great value for money.
Best, Thomas
You can't go wrong with the 300mm. It's much more suitable for hikes than its bigger brothers, and the fixed focal length is easy to get used to.
What's interesting is that, even though there is not that much weight difference between 150-400 and 150-600, the former is much easier to handle. Mostly because of the girth and balance differences.
I was lucky enough to attend a Polish m43 convention lately, and got the opportunity to play with all of those lenses in the real world :D
Spot on as usual, thanks Thomas. 300mm Pro + MC14 works for me, pension doesn't extend to the best lens, especially here in Australia. C'est la vie.
Thank you very much!
Well, actually in terms of image quality the 300 PRO is definitely at least as good as the 150-400 PRO. And the TC - well, excellent combination!
Best, Thomas 📸
Thank you Thomas for the very informative video , i have the OM-1 mark 1 and for sport i use both the 40-150 2.8 pro and the 100-400 and withe the 40-150 i do use the 2x Tele converter which gives me great reach and very sharp photos . The 100-400 i use on it own and for what it is it works well .
Just a fabulous comparison video. Enjoy the coffee
Thank you very much!
Appreciate your breakdown here. It helps me think through what I need.
Thankyou Thomas, another very well constructed and informative video, much appreciated.
Excellent review. Cost and weight have been my first considerations as an older gentleman on retirement income.
After graduating from the Panasonic fz300 bridge camera, I bought an OMD M1iii and a 75-300. As a budding wildlife photographer, I yearned for extra reach, and I like a Zoom, so I bought the 100-400. As I become more proficient and I predominantly photo seabirds and raptors in flight, I now know that my next investment should be an OM1 for its AF capabilities.
I recently bought an OMD M5iii and I will travel with that, a 12-45mm, and my 75-300.
Thank you very much for the feedback and for sharing your valuable perspective!
A superb video! I have both the 75-300 and the 100-400, plus the MC14 & MC20 and your assessments are spot on. The 75-300 is actually very, very good optically through 200mm, which is still a good reach, and is virtually no larger than other MFT 200mm maximum zooms.
Thanks Greg, completely agree!
Great review as usual! Personally I have the 75-300 and I adapt to make it work for me. I am not a "birder" or wildlife photographer and use mine for some landscape photos. However, having used the Canon 100-400L and Sigma 120-400 on full frame, I was presently surprised by the quality considering it's price and size. Considering I have the 12-40 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8, so I only use this lens on rare occasions and when I do I try to look at it as a 75-250 and of course step it down. For me and my needs it works.
The 75-300 is indeed very good, thanks for sharing!
Truly wonderful overview of why you would choose any of these lenses. It has helped me narrow down my choice (150-600) for my personal use and this was just the type of presentation a technical and logically orientated person like me enjoys. Exceptionally clear and logical breakdown of each lens with clear reasoning as to why you would consider (or not) the choice for each. The only thing I didn't like about this review was that Thomas sat just a little off centre against the background grid - LOL!
Summary: This guy really knows his stuff!
Thank you very much, that means a lot to me!
PS: I noticed that the chair was not dead center too late haha 😆
Really appreciate your in depth comparison of these lenses. I own and use the 300/4 with the MC14 teleconverter. The sharpness (with and without the TC) is so impressive, and the weight (with collar removed) is very manageable for me, even on long photo hikes. Hope someday to be able to have the 150-400, but still extremely happy with the 300. Also, I previously owned the 75-300 and loved the portability. I found that to be a surprisingly decent lens.
Thanks Tamara!
I completely agree with your statements. The 75 to 300 is indeed excellent (I love to use it, to be honest) and the 300 is just pure perfection. Optically, the 150 to 400 is not better than the 300.
Best, Thomas
This vídeo it is better then the optics classes i attend 30 yars ago. I went with Lumix gear, but the 300mm for my kid's football is in my dream list. Thank you for such informatve video.
Thank you very much!
Hello, thanks for your good comparison. I'm currently have EM1 Mk3 + 40-150mm f2.8. I also have MC-20 teleconverter. I found a very dissapointing result when I use MC-20 with my lense. It become too soft.
I'm planing to buy a new lense from Japan. Which one you recommend for bird shooting between 300 mm F4.0 or 150-600 mm f5.0-6.3.
Many thanks for you advice.
@@akechais the advantage of the 150-600 is if u shoot bird in flight, it’s easier to find them at 150, then zoom in to shoot. But u got 2 extra stops for the 300 pro. Which is great in shadows and low light.
Had to watch this again since I'm deciding which lens to buy. Is there a shutter speed at which image stabilization is not needed or keep up with the action? I shoot flying birds mostly and have never used any stabilization. Appreciate your thoughts.
The rule of thumb is of course always that of the "reciprocal shutter speed". To be on the safe side with ultra-long teles, I would always double the value. For example: 300mm = 600mm in 135 --> reciprocal rule: 1/600 --> twice as fast=1/1200s at least.
Great info! I also like your travel tips and images! Thanks!
Thank you very much for your kind support and positive words! Stay tuned, more travel photography content is coming. Best, Thomas 📸
I just received my most expensive lens I ever bought the 150-400 tc and I am so impressed with everything about this lens. Thanks Tomas your one of the best teachers on you tube. What do you think the best portrait lens for the 4/3 system is? Thanks
First and foremost: Congratulations on your "Big White". This lens is indeed worth every "penny"!
Thanks for the amazing feedback and your donation.
Regarding portrait lenses, there are actually a lot of options: The optically best from OM System are the 45 1.2 PRO and the 75 1.8. Both are practically "perfect". Two other excellent options are the 42,5 Nokton or the 60 Nokton by Voigtlander. Manual focus, but optically excellent. I currently use the 42,5 Leica Nocticron for most of my portraits. It is excellent as well. You cannot go wrong with any of those. If you want the best value for money, then you should buy the M.Zuiko 45 1.8. It is a gem, and it is hard to believe that it is so good given its incredibly small size.
Hope this helps - and once again, thanks a lot!
Best, Thomas
I just order the om1 mark 2 on eBay got it for
A good deal new with 12-40 but I already have that lens so I am selling it the kit was 2100
That is a great deal!
Confirmed all my thoughts since I have the 75-300, the 300 f/4 and the 150-400 f/4.5 but generally though, the OM-1 Mk II gets the 150-400 and the OM-1 gets the 300 f/4. The 75-300 is usually relegated to my old E-M5 Mk II as a compact walk-about combo
Really clear and helpful overview of the available lenses. I would love the 100 to 400 lens but the price rules it out. Will be looking at the 150 to 400 but a bit concerned about the weight so will probably stick with my 300 plus my 1.4 converter. Your analysis has been a great help so many thanks.
Great to hear!
Really comprehensive video. Impressive. ❤
Thank you so much!
Thanks you, Thomas. I found this to be a very useful and interesting summary of what OMS has to offer (and not one needs its own porter to carry it). I notice that when the 150-600 was first released, there was a fair amount of scorn directed at it, but now that the hysteria has died-down, its versatility and IQ seems to be better-appreciated. I'd still like the 150-400 - but it's divorce-level expensive - and I'm only an amateur. I like my 100-400 very much: it is compact and not too heavy. I'm in my high 60's this year and am mindful that I have to carry any lens out and back, though I want to allow for every eventuality. (I'm primarily into landscapes and macro, but there's a couple of wedge-tailed eagles that cruise through the nearby Molonglo Gorge and I'd love to get one of them on pixels.😊) That said, if I'm visiting a waterfall, I will usually take out the longer telephoto lens and a few other bits and pieces.
Thanks!
The 100 to 400 is an excellent lens, and even though optically the 150 to 400 is better, the other is smaller and if you know what you are doing, you cannot tell the difference at normal print sizes. Even the 75 to 300 is very good. It is actually my most used super telephoto at the moment. Why? It is just so small and portable and good enough.
Best, Thomas
@@ThomasEisl.Photography thanks for the reply. I agree that the 100-400 has a lot going for it, and according to Photographyblog, the 150-600 _is_ better optically, but the size and weight would be a concern to me. (As would be the 60% higher cost, in Australia.) I'm very happy with my lenses, covering 8mm to 400, plus 60mm macro, and each is my favorite as soon as it's on the camera.
Thanks Thomas, great analysis as always. Is the 75-300mm able to have a tripod collar? It may seem to defeat its purpose in getting the lens if it does not have the ability to accept a tripod collar. It would also be useless to rely on mounting my camera on the tripod while using this lens as the whole set up may be lopsided and hard to secure properly.
Thank you!
The 75-300 does not have a tripod collar - but it is so light that you can just mount the camera and work with it like with a normal telephoto. It is pretty incredible, but it works. I was skeptical at first as well but yes - no issue at all.
Best, Thomas 📸
@@ThomasEisl.Photography Thanks, at 400g++, it is actually heavier than my camera 🤣
@bringbackhumanity781 oh haha - which camera is it?
@@bringbackhumanity781you can use a longer arca swiss plate and tripod. You can just slide the plate forward to balance the whole setup. The lens won’t put strain on the mount it is very light 👍
i have 75-300mm and 300mm f4, both are great lens, 300mm f4 is great for birding, the 75-300mm is great for portability and great value, thought the 300mm end is a bit soft but not a big issue to me
Amazing amount of information. You are the best.
I appreciate that. Thank you very much!
I own the 75-300. Good to have fun and carry during hikes or kayak because its so light. Unfortunately, image quality is weak unless the subject is under the sun. I’ll be looking for an upgrade, still not clear if the 150-600 is light enough to carry on the water, mountain or long walking distance.
@@FrancoisMcinnes I think 40-150 f2.8 pro and a t.converter is better for kajak.
I have the 75-300 witch gives me a lot of fun. And I recently bought the 40-150 f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. And that gives me the same range. And honestly I believe that the 40-150 with a 2x teleconverter is in the same class as the 300 f4.
Thanks for sharing!
Just FYI: While the 40-150 with the TC is very good, and definitely capable of professional results, the IQ of the 300 f4 is definitely better - also measurable in the lab.
Great analyses! I am using a Zuiko 70-300 4-5.6 ED (FT format) with an electronic FT-MFT adapter. The weight (with FT-MFT adapter & tripod collar) is 668g which would be the 2nd lightest lens in this collection. Does anyone have any thoughts on this lens. I had very good results using this lens on a recent cruise along British Columbia's Alberni Inlet where reach was important.
Interesting that no one mentions apo or achro in photography.
In the telescope world its a core consideration.
Yes, I know. In photography, APO is much less needed as the IQ requirements are actually somewhat "lower". That is maybe the reason.
Hello Thomas, Very excellent video - thank you. Have you seen the Viltrox adapter that allows Nikon AF lenses to mount onto MFT cameras ? It is difficult to see if it is a good product - some good reviews and some bad. I could mount Nikon 300 or 500 PF VR lenses to OM-D and G9 body which would be really nice.
Thank you! Well, I have not tried the adapter but I'd say it is worth a try. AF will be impacted, but maybe it will be still fast enough. Please share your experiences! Best, Thomas
always a high quality well articulate video.
reg 300 f4 - I can only second what Thomas says - it is one of the sharpest lenses ever for any format. It delivers sharpness better than most of fullframe portrait lenses wide open, you never have to stop it down. With TC - same story - do NOT stop it down, best results wide open.
In fact, I did some comparisons and the 300f4 beats all the standard consumer fullframe lenses - on the bench and in the field, out of camera shots, it is sharper than the likes of 150-600s, nikons 200-500, it beats sigma 60-600 (which is known to be a) sharpest consumer telephoto b) sharp at its long end included). All that while being super light, well built and amazingly stabilized. I must say however, that the quality of its output towers over the 100-400. That one is just average imho (= quite decent).
It's a shame there aren't more comparisons of the best m43 lenses to their fullframe counterparts - many people would be surprised what m43 can deliver and how hard, sometimes impossible it is to match the results.
Thank you very much for a very valuable contribution!
Excellent breakdown of these lenses.
Interesting video and a good overview IMO. Not sure if you're an OMDS ambassador now and have to stick with OMDS lenses, but it would have been interesting to see hear your opinion on the Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400. Personally, I chose the Panasonic 100-300 over Olympus 75-300 (slightly faster, lens IS and slightly better reviews, but bigger) and later the Panasonic 100-400. Mainly because it was available first, but it's also smaller and lighter.
Thank you! I'm not an ambassador, it is just that I focused on the M.Zuiko lineup this time.
I'd say the Panasonic 100-300 is a very good option as well - especially the OIS is - as you've said - very valuable. I have not tested it yet, but I'm definitely planning to do that. Same goes for the 100 to 400, by the way.
Thanks again for watching and the great suggestions! Best, Thomas
Excellent, thank you.
If the day is really bright and there are no clouds, I can get amazing shots with the 100-400 mm with the TC14. That said, as soon as the lighting conditions are not ideal, even fully open with f9.0 is too slow for many wild-life applications or I will drown in a sea of noise. Going to f10 for more sharpness makes it even worse of course.
Dear Thomas I'd love to see your shots on the 75-300. It requires proper techniques to get the most out of it. Many posted their photos on various sites (flickr, forums, etc) but there's only very few who managed to truly make it work
Noted! I'm working on the full review, but also I'll share images on Instagram soon. I'm in love with this lens (OM System Version II).
Best, Thomas 📸
There's no fast aperture long lenses from OM/Olympus (or Panasonic either). They should bring back the old 250mm f/2.0 or make it a 100-250/2.0 zoom just to match up with the upcoming Canon 200-500/4.0.
Interesting - but always keep in mind: an f/2 lens does not match an f/4 lens - such equivalence considerations are deeply flawed on many levels. I've got a few videos on that which might be of interest.
Excellent! Congrats!
Thank you very much!
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 for this. Here is a my question:
Various Talking Heads on different RUclips channels mention that diffraction starts to limit sharpness of M43 lenses around F11. How do teleconverters affect this rule of thumb? For example, suppose we use the M20 tele converter. Does defraction set in at the effective F11 or the effective F32?
Thank you!
First, the f/11 is completely random and does not bear any significance without context - meaning desired output size. Diffraction is also the same regardless of sensor format - but you've probably already seen my video on that: ruclips.net/video/NAMxTN3vzRA/видео.htmlsi=wAIk5wlHieEXcAWp
Regarding TCs: as you are basically forcing the light through a small opening (the TC) diffraction effects scale proportionally - but as I've said in my video, this is exactly (!) the same on any camera.
Best, Thomas 📸
I have 2 of these lens,
need to get the 150-400 next
Another factor to consider is AF performance, since these longs lense will often be used for BIF. I found the 100-400 w/1.4 TC the AF was too slow.
Thanks for sharing, yes, that is very important as well!
Hi Thomas, how flexible is the 300mm f4? I am split bet ween buying 300f4 or 150-400 f4.5
I wish they implement 300 mm f2.8 as Sony one.. that would be so good, and lightweight, and if they addapt x1.4 TC that would be nr 1 lens to wildlife.
You mean a 150 2.8?
Excellent review!
Thank you kindly!
Yes yes yes, but where is the new 50-200 lens (to mimic the old four thirds lens)? I sold the bloody 200 f2.8 prime expecting this new lens last month!
Oh no!
Well, I'm actually using the Four Thirds lens, that is why I am quite "patient".
Great awesome overview 👍
Thanks! 👍
Thomas - how does the 40-150 pro 2.8 stack up (with the teleconverters)?? I have the 40-150 2.8 and was thinking of buying the teleconverters instead of a whole other super tele lens.
I use the 40-150mm f2.8 Pro with both the MC-14 and the MC-20 teleconverter for bird photography and insect photography. I'm very happy with it.
I can only answer from my perspective but used the 40-150 F2.8 for some bird and wildlife (including with a 1.4 TC) when it first came out. Still have it and it's a great lens, but it's simply not a "super tele" - not enough range in my opinion for what you'd typically use a super tele for. I found that the Panasonic 100-300 worked much better for birds even if 300mm often isn't enough. The 40-150 is great if you need a fairly fast medium tele and preferably without a TC so you get the F2.8 that makes it stand out compared to most other MFT tele lenses.
Take a look at the TC-prices and compare it to a Olympus 75-300 or Panasonic 100-300 prices. Of course you'll save some money, but if you frequently need more that 150mmm I'd say get a lens that give you extra range in stead.
It is just awesome to read the many great contributions - thanks for that!
I can only underline what the other knowledgeable photographers shared here.
Optically, the combination is definitely very sound.
The reach might not be enough, depending on what you want to do.
Getting a TC is always great, as you can use it on other lenses as well and it is just a great addition to have - a long-term investment. If you have to go for one or the other, then a longer lens might be more useful.
As a Fuji owner I’m very “jealous” of the 150/400 😊. If only OM system was able to be more proactive on their future I would consider to buy it.
Haha thanks for sharing! Yeah, every lens lineup has its strengths, but MFT certainly sticks out with some unique offerings.
Thanks what a fantastic explanation , thanks.lll
You are welcome!
Except the 150-600mm, as you can have pretty much the same lense from Sigma for other Systems. The Sony version is 0.03g heavier than the om version.
Thanks
Thank you very much!
Thanks!
Thank you very much for your support!
ich habe das 35-300 & das 300/f4. Auf Japan nehme ich nun das 75-300 mit wegen der Kompaktheit. Dank IBIS & TOPAZ AI ist es nun (fas) perfekt!!!!
Das 75-300 ist wirklich sehr gut! Ich bin gespannt auf Deine Aufnahmen - Japan, das wird sicher sehr besonders!
300mm with TC will be my choice. 1.4x and 2x, aldo it will push the price up.
Excellent !
good
Hi Thomas, I sent you an email on Saturday 4 May, to the contact@ email address found on your channel details. Just wondered if it was received? Thanks.
Hi Marcus! Just saw it, thanks for the heads up - the inbox is flooded at the moment. I'm going to reply as soon as I'm behind my PC. Best, Thomas 📸
Great comparison, thanks so much. One thing not covered was the cooperation of IBIS and lens stabilisation: the Zuiko m lenses that cooperate are limited to the PRO series, and this has influence on hand-holdability vs needing a tripod. I use the Leica 100-400 (version 1) as it was the only such lens available when I bought it: if I were to use a G9 or G9.2, then that lens would cooperate to reach the best possible stabilisation, but not with any Olympus body. I am strongly tempted to sell that lens and get the 150-600, but given that I travel a fair amount, the portability is a concern: my magic travel kit is the Olympus 7-14, Olympus 12-100 and Leica 100-400. The gap of 50mm for the 150-600 is not so much a concern as the cooperation between the OM1.1 and EM1-x IBIS with the lens stabilisation (the dual stabilisation with the 12-100 is magical!).
Thank you very much for the feedback!
Will never sell my 300mm f4 by far best lens on the market, Razor sharp, Nail biting fast focus. Amazing macro. great with 1.4 X and even 2X, blow away with my moon picture alone. on my large TV it look like the moon want to fall out of the tv, onto my floor break like Humpty Dumpty.
I had both300and 150-400 enjoy Ed them😂
Neat
Brilliant - cropping destroys IQ more than a mid-tier lens (used well)
Thank you very much!
Are you paid by Olympus?
No - I'm also not paid by OM System.
You get what you pay for
Exactly!
This is a weak offering in the middle price range.
Please elaborate
Thanks
Thank you very much!