I think we sometimes forget that, for most of us, photography is just a hobby and the idea is to take photos, not worry about equivalence and specs and so on. It's quite amazing to be able to carry your camera kit to work just in the off chance that you might end up going out and taking some photos. Also, great photos!
i like the lens so much, have it now for almost 2 years, and happy with it so much, as much as i was happy with the remarkable 40-150mm pro. took the 300 prime with me in the trip to Indonesia, got some real good results, and i was very happy, as Indonesia's birds are always in tress and forests, unlike jeddah (where i live) that is always sunny and mostly desert surroundings. thanks a million for this lovely video, your bird shots and so stunning, added you as a friend in flickr.
Hey Marcus, it's hard to tell on youtube but almost all of those looked great. Nobody is gonna take the time to magnify these to the fine feather detail, You're a good photographers and that's a great lens.
great pictures, especially the waders were super good, so good that I wish I´d taken them ! and great video. I was actually thinking about the capability of the olympus system and it looks quite good, how do you feel the 4/3 handles noice if compared with a aps-c system?
Hi Marcus just been over to your flickr page you have some really stunning pictures. How far away our you from the birds as you have isolated the subject well?
Great review!!! Thank you!!! I had the 100-400 and did not like it. The action was stiff and awkward. Your pictures look GREAT!!! Much like what I’m getting with the Leica 50-200. I tried the 2x converter on the Leica but wasn’t thrilled with the results. This lens and the 1.4x sounds like it will be perfect👍
Great pictures. The Olympus 300mm f4 looks like a dream for wildlife and nature! I think its the best choice out there for enthusiasts. Full frame offers marginal quality improvements at huge weight and size increase. Weight and size matters when hiking.
Thank you for this video. I have watched the Tony Northrup video about the Olympus 300mm F4 Pro lens and found that his lens comparisons are strange and even fake. If you look closely at his book-end comparisons, you will see that the Canon crop is very clear and the Olympus crop is highly pixelated. This is a bizarre comparison and makes me wonder what lies behind it. He completely fails to mention the incredible advantages of the Olympus lens IS combined with the IBIS of the latest Olympus cameras, and also fails to stress the truly amazing performance of the Olympus lens at closeup photography and the beautiful photos it produces. It is actually the idea of being able to handhold a 600mm lens equivalent at a moderately slow shutter speed indoors at close focus that appeals to me as an 83 year old housebound photographer. Tony makes a point about the difficulty of trying to locate the subject with a 600mm lens and it being easier with a zoom lens. I agree with that, but what is he really saying? Don't buy a prime lens with a focal length over 200mm?
Great review, thanks. This lens is just about as sharp as Primes from Canon and Nikon at equivilent FL costing (and weighing) much more despite Northrup's biased and unfair review -this is born out by many unbiased reviews on RU-vid, or by viewing examples on Flickr.
In 2016 I sold my 2 x Olympus EM1 bodies and purchased an EM1 mark II and a Nikon D500. I also owned a PanaLeica 100 - 400mm and an Olympus 300mm f4 + MC14. Additionally, I had a Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR + TC14III. I decided to sell one of my M43 lenses, but which one? I ran a test in my garden and used my Nikon gear as the baseline. I put a very hairy cuddly toy out at 15 metres and using a tripod checked out all three lenses, both with and without the 1.4TC's for the Nikkor and Olympus lenses. I discovered that I could not distinguish between the Nikkor 300mm f4 and the Olympus f4 and that both were superior to the PanaLeica. Given the difference in sensor size between the Nikon D500 and EM1 mark II, this said a lot about thew quality of the Oly 300mm f4.
Hey Marcus - thanks for sharing. How does the 300 + 1.4x compare to the 100-400? 300mm gives an extra stop of light, but i wonder about IQ, sharpness etc?
The 300 with the 1.4 is what I use most of the time. As much as I wish the 100-400 was as sharp as that combination, it’s not really even close. The TC doesn’t affect the sharpness of the 300 in any noticeable way (at least to me).
I love the m43 system. I have been a videographer for over 15 years and I thought it was fantastic to leave my big camcorders at home and go out to work with a GH5. But not only that. The tripod is also at home and now I work with the camera in my hand. And if video is my job, photography, especially Birding, is my hobby. Just like in the case of camcorders, I just can't imagine carrying huge and extremely expensive equipment to obtain a gain in IQ that is proportionately insignificant. I believe that huge equipment is ideal for those who do not work alone, for those who photograph in places that are easier to access, for those who like to parade expensive equipment as a status symbol or for professionals who work to print in giant format. For the vast majority, who photograph for the pleasure of being in nature, in contact with animals and who want quality, but without the need to print outdoors, the M43 system is irreplaceable. I am currently about to order an Olympus em1 iii. Greetings from the Black Forest and congratulations for the excellent work! Your photos are really great!
Thanks :) I like Tony, but his video on this lens did drop his credibility for me, and I've found I've not watched much of his material since. I'm curious about the 40-150mmF2.8 with the new MC-20 teleconverter.
Hi Fellow Citizen. I haven't tried that exact combination but i will say that with the 1.4x on the 300mm I don't notice any degradation of sharpness (just brightness) but with the 2x TC does seem to decrease the sharpness rather noticeably.
@@MarcusVorwaller I use the MC-14 with my Canon FD 300mm f2.8 lens. I never used native TCs because they always degraded IQ, but I often wished for longer focal length for birds. My photos are sharp and detailed with the MC-14. So even though I do not use either Pro lens, I too can attest that the Olympus 1.4x is an excellent choice. :)
@@MarcusVorwaller Yes, precisely. I use a dumb adapter (FD-m43) to use that lens with my m43 body. Since there are no glass elements in the adapter, there's enough space to safely mount the TC between the adapter and the body.
Have you had issues with C-AF tracking using the Olympus lens on the G9 compared to using the 100-400? Just trying to see how much DFD matters for my G85. Also, it sucks that Panasonic and Olympus won't cooperate on their image stabilization systems. At least I also still have my original OM-D E-M1.
Hey Daniel, no the AF continuous has been fine, better than with the 100-400 actually. And yeah, dual stabilization would be great but even with only in-body it far exceeds the stabilization on, for example the Sony 200-600mm,and really is not that noticeably different from the stabilization of the Panasonic 100-400 on the G9.
I have a G9 with the PL 100-400mm. I do like the Olympus lenses. Too bad the dual image stabilization doesn't work on the Panasonic body and Olympic lenses, and vice-versa. I am tempted to go to a system with better auto focus for birds-in-flight. There are trade-offs in terms of weight, size, and cost vs. image quality, low light, and noise in the image, but for what it is, the Olympus 300 with the teleconverter is looking outstanding!
Hi William. I agree, it's a shame not to get both stabilizations but it's not nearly as noticeable as I thought it may be. The IBIS on the 300mm is very good by itself. I've found it to be a pretty good system for BiF but it could just be that I haven't tried other systems that are much better. As it is though, I get a near 100% hit rate on birds on solid backgrounds (e.g. the sky) and not nearly as good on busy backgrounds, maybe 70%. The more I'm around people shooting on big 600mm f/4's the more I appreciate the portability of m43. There are a lot of shots that they're not even attempting because it's too hard to get super low fast or to maneuver the lens without a tripod, but that I'm getting usable results from. The shots they do get though are, as you might expect, frequently of higher quality in terms of bokeh and sharpness in part simply due to the higher resolution.
Well, Tony seems to be happy to carry around humongous and insanely expensive gear. I no longer watch his videos, he's gone overboard with clickbaity stuff. It matters much more to go out and shoot what you want to shoot with the gear that suits your needs. And some really nice shots you have there!
Thanks! I agree with your conclusion--the important part is going out and shooting with what fits your budget and style. I actually think Tony and Chelsea are pretty awesome and do a great job, but it's hard for any one person (or couple in their case) to know everything about photography and gear and there are bound to be differences in opinion on gear and presentation.
A question for you.... where you on a tripod or were you hand-holding, or a little of both? You mention a huge consideration, which is portability, cost, ergonomics and practicality. The previous comment regarding cost is right on. I’ve only trialed the lens while at a local store here in Seattle, but as I scan through a variety of real world samples with people using the Olympus gear, the sharpness comment seems really negligible. The fact that you can easily hand-hold a 600mm+ lens and get into situations and positions unlikely with larger and bulkier gear is what’s most compelling. As with many things, personal preference..... Cheers!
IMO (which I've formed from watching results from these 300mm F/4 and other full frame lenses) It's a compromise; less noise and sharper results vs weight. Are the differences in results in the same condition significant enough to carry many times more weight? Your choice should be around your shooting style, if you are mostly static in more comfortable conditions, go full frame, but if you are moving around going up 'n down scrambling around to get the compositions you want, are you willing to carry such a big lens instead?
exactly, besides the question of price, it is exactly the shooting style that matters. one has to realize those FF primes or anything above certain weight, are best used on a tripod, which dictates the shooting scenario mostly. When I used my "only" 3kgs sigma 60-600, I figured out its the best to take tripod along. As a result I would walk around the woods with 6.5+ kgs of equipment and with limited stamina/flexibility. And that wasn't an exotic prime on a heavy quality tripod. Nowadays I can get into challenging positions/spots while holding my olympus kit in my hand comfortably. I am for sure an "optical quality enthusiast" with incurable case of GAS, but the practical implications about weight and size just can't be ignored.
Those comparisons are fun - one lens is great, the other is somewhat better. But, I can afford one, and not the other :D. I refuse to even consider photographic equipment that costs as much as a car - especially when you will need a car to haul around your nikon 600/4. At some point Tony joined the club of people that hold some unexplicable grudge against M43. Maybe they're salty, because once you stop pixel-peeping and actually print your results, the difference becomes negligible.
Now in late 2022, it would be good to look at the same photos run through software like Topaz Photo AI that reduce noise, sharpen and enhance subjects. Especially images shot at high ISOs.
Thank you for sharing this. You do good work! Stop beating up on yourself. One question, do you prefer that lens combo to the Nikon P1000? I own the P900 and haven't tried the 1000 but I couldn't fo better with apsc and mirror lenses. I thought about the combo you showed here but never tried it. So thank you for this video. I look forward to more videos from you!
Thanks Adrian. I strongly prefer this combo to the P1000. It's faster, sharper, and focuses better. The P1000 is versatile, but there are too many tradeoffs to make it a good system for getting the type of images I'm looking for.
For maximum sharpness, use the electronic shutter or anti-shok mode. This is the problem of the m43 cameras and such long focal lengths. This lens is incredibly sharp. It beats my Nikon 300mm and 500mm pf easily. Tony usually has no idea what he's talking about when he picks up an m43 camera.
Having both of those lenses for birding is an embarrassment of riches. I use the 40-150mm f2.8 PRO with the MC-14 and MC-20 teleconverters, and that does a good job as well. But I always want more reach and more light.
I think Tony Northrup comes from different perspective. More like - what gives the best IQ. I think this is the wrong question for the majority of shooters, who are not hardcore pro photographers. The real question is - what gives very good IQ, when comfort and affordability are factored in.
Momchil Yordanov yeah I agree, I can’t think of any reason for Tony to fabricate results and he’s definitely pro enough to run a fair comparison. That said, this lens seems sharper to me than what he saw. In any case, you’re right, it’s very good IQ for the price.
Thanks for taking the trouble to refine Tony's video. Because the tests he does with the book image results honestly make it hard for me to believe it. I did tests with 12MPX FF and M43 sensors with similar optics I could see slight difference difference by enlarging to 300 percent, with advantage for FF. After watching Tony's video I think that anyone who doesn't know photography would tend to think that yes, the Olympus lens is small but they don't have the quality of the Nikkor and not for a small difference as Tony points out. And what this is absolutely against is the idea that one pays what it is worth, as if that difference in price were the indicator of difference in quality. It is true that the Olympus cannot do the same as the Nikkor but the same can be said of the Nikkor, and in terms of image quality, if the correct framing was done in the shot and you are not photographing in near darkness, the Olympus does a nice job in good hands, as your photos show.
I have that lens as well and still very frequently find myself reaching for the smaller Olympus. The 200-600 is fantastic, but it’s nowhere near as portable. You’d be hard pressed to tell which of my images were shot with the Olympus vs the Sony. Check my Flickr if you’d like to see for yourself :)
@@MarcusVorwaller I don't doubt that it is smaller and lighter. I'll do the lifting of an extra pound or two for better results. I can also pick up the stellar Sony 20mm f/1.8 for the difference in money.
@@MarcusVorwaller I know you aren't. I like the video you posted. I just get a lot of fanboys still telling new photographers that micro is the way to go. It's not...not anymore. have the system now? It will serve you well for years to come...but the innovation is dead. Heck, I have a fellow forum member telling everyone he is saving up for the $7500 boondoggle Olympus zoom. Never mind that he could buy an entire FF system and a quality lens to go with it for that price...have somewhere to go in the future. It's a recurring pattern and not just in photography. The less popular a product becomes, the louder the last adherents are. I'm not talking about you.
A full frame system will always be heavier. Less fun to carry and use. A small Olympus camera with this 300 f4 can’t really be beat for practicality and fun. PS I’m a full frame Nikon user.
I take no notice of Tony northrup he is a ff snob and hates m43, never has a good word to say. He is obsessed with bokeh, imho he is a very average photographer and not worth listening to. Amazing images by the way
Listen, Tony did not say it is not a sharp lens, he said it is not sharp and comparable to a Nikkor 600mm 4.0 FL what is not a surprise as this lens cost 4x the price of an Olympus 300mm 4.0. I don't get it what you guys here want to see or expect? That physics can be changed because you don't like such facts? My god. That's poor enough here with all these Fanboys around.
He said the same thing when comparing it to the nikon 200-500 5.6 and I tried that one and in the 400 to 500mm it is not the sharpest. I didn't tried the 300 but I'm struggling believing that it is outperformed by the nikon considering every other reviewers opinion on the olympus prime.
