I wish I could win the lottery and get it lol. I think dismissing it because it's an MFT lens is really discounting that good glass is good glass. And the built in teleconverter is an innovation you don't see anywhere but Nikon.
@@youknowwho9247 actually, it gives f4.5 but at twice the distance of a full frame lens for the same image size. Full frame snobs - I also own a Z8 and D850 - usually get it wrong.
@@youknowwho9247 4.5 is 4.5 on any format. Use the lens yourself and get a feel for it. For MFT, while the field of view is narrower, it's still very possible to get subject separation and a clean image. Not everyone is going to feel like carrying around a $12,000 600 f/4 FF because that's for certain situations like super early morning or late evening (hell, most FF people are going to go for lighter zooms with slower apertures because it's more convenient to move around with and they're already good lenses). Don't knock something until you try it.
@@youknowwho9247 Same would go for an actual 900mm f/9 FF lens, which could be quite a treat, too. Same physical aperture as a 300mm f/3 lens, not too different from a 300mm f/2.8.
I love this lens! Ordered it when it first came out and had to wait six month to get it. It´s light, extremely versatile and has great image quality. It´s one of the best lenses I´ve owned and I had several of Canons "big whites". With the reach it has you can get pictures no one else can if you are photographing from a hide and can´t move. I find that it works well with the MC-20 2x converter but you loose a little bit of sharpnes.
Oh yes!!!! Love the vid boys! This is THE lens that I would love to own (not that I shoot any wildlife, but may be I can try a super tele-portrait session with my clients hahah).
It's expensive relative to mft pricing, but a FF 800 or 1000mm reach lens with AF, weather sealing, ibis, etc. Is going to dwarf it in size and cost just by nature of requiring more glass and all the extra processing that goes with more surface area of that glass. I kind of wish some of the content creators that give mft fair air time would also point out that with owners like the Olympus 45/75 f1.8, 17/25/45 f.2, Pana Leica 42.5 fwd.2, and even the Sigma 30/56mm f1.4 lenses you can can get great portraits with mft. It isn't just a wild life system, and if more people knew that after being told outdated lies that it's worthless by marketing for so long, mft would sell even more to enthusiast and really boost it overall as the om-1 has already been doing.
An around 50 MP full-frame camera with a 200-600 lens is only slightly heavier/bigger, but gives you about the same output as the mFT camera with that 150-400 lens. I do not see a clear benefit of using mFT with such a lens. Panasonic's 100-300 and 100-400 lenses are much more portable and in line with the main mFT idea of having a lighter setup while sacrificing on light gathering.
A Nikon Z7ii with a 180-600 Z has the better performance with a cheaper total price AND you can use APSC mode to crop in to 900mm equivalent. The whole setup is only around 300g heavier
People keep making price comparisons between effective focal length and real focal length. The fact this is an expensively priced 150-400 zoom by even G Master standards. For comparison, you can get a Nikon z8+600/6.3 combo, which is lighter, cheaper and physically shorter than the OM1 combo. If ability to zoom is the most important thing to you, you can get the Z 80-600 and save 40% off the total and add 16% more weight.
@@Jay-sr8ge @wj45 @cyberwarfare9118 When you crop any of your FF 45MP - 61MP to APS-C size you'll get exactly the same DR and noise as the OM-1 from ISO 200 and up (or any m4/3 20MP). Check your fact at P2P and DPR comparator. Your f/6.3 lens will get you exactly the same IQ as any of the cheaper MZ or Lumix 100-400/6.3 zooms. This lens is a huge step up from the cheaper 100-400/6.3. What you step up to from your cheap 600 zooms that will get you faster aperture, high quality, light weight, handhold-ability and versatility of a zoom? You'll pay almost twice the price more for more weight, plus tripod and gimbal, and can't use it handheld and have to zoom with your feet (into the ditch).
I have been using this lens daily for two months now and am extremely impressed by it. The added reach over my old 300 f4.0 makes a real difference. Being able to zoom wider is occasionally handy. With a good shoulder strap I can bird all day while carrying it comfortably. Two small complaints: I wish the focus limiter was 4 m to infinity not 6 m to infinity. I find that I need to leave the limiter off, i.e., 1.3 m to infinity, because birds are seldom closer than 4 m away but often closer than 6 m. The other small issue is that I find that birds notice this white lens more than the black 300 mm. I need to be more careful of my movements with this lens to avoid putting my subject to flight.
Just get a camouflage lens covers and there are plenty of options available now for this lens. I found that the built in 1.25 TC isn’t as sharp as I would have like compare to the 1.4 TC in my opinion. I would only put on the TC if the subjects are relatively large in size and I just want it to be a bit bigger. I would say this lens is just as sharp on its own as the 300 f4 but I find that the 300 f4 takes TC better than this zoom. I guess it is very hard to make it as sharp as a prime lens and Olympus already did the best they could.
I tend to agree the 6m limiter is often a bit too long. One point I really like about the zoom is that it makes finding small subjects a much easier. I can find the subject at 150 (or 187.5 with the TC) and very quickly flick the zoom ring to 400 or 500mm, whereas a fixed 400 or 500 (= 800 or 1000 FF in terms of field of view) would be a lot trickier to point.
Interesting review. I have had one now for about 18 months and really pleased with in. I shoot mainly motorsports with it has been a game changer for me. I like to be able to move around because of the lightness of the kit and always use it handheld. I have put mine in a camouflage cover mainly for protection the down side of this makes say the zoom ring soft to use. I regularly use the builtin teleconverter again with no issues. I have tried the 1.4 and 2 times convertors but I struggled to locate the subject, taking the zoom back select the subject then zoom back in. Although I have an OM-1 I prefer using with my EM1-X as it balances better.
Excellent review of an amazing lens! I use mine with am OM-1 body and the PBH (battery grip) attached to the OM-1. Great feel whether shooting horizontal or vertical. I usually shoot this combo handheld. I use the Cotton Carrier G3 harness system to carry the system and this is very comfortable while hiking. The outstanding image quality and amazing reach of this lens make it a keeper!
I love this lens! It's almost always on my camera and I take it everywhere. I waited exactly 7 months for mine. When I first received it, I had an E-M1 Mk3, but I traded that camera in for an OM-1 as soon as that became available, as the ideal must-have accessory for this lens!
Seems way too expensive (an A1 and the 200-600 is cheaper!!) and heavy, especially due to the low pixel-count sensors available (and I'm a m43 shooter!)... You get this many pixels across a 30cm subject 20m away (in brackets is the % difference to an A7rV at 600mm), assuming the long ends of lenses are close to what's written on them at longer distances: A7rIV/A7rV @ 600mm = 2376 (=100% say) A1 @ 600mm = 2160 (-9.1%) X-H2 @ 400mm = 1932 (-18.7%) X-H2 @ 600mm = 2898 (+22%) X-H2S @ 400mm = 1560 (-34%) X-H2S @ 600mm = 2340 (-1.5%) OM1 @ 400mm+1.25x = 2439 (= +2.6%) OM1 @ 400mm = 1728 (-27%) R5 + 100-500@500mm+1.4x = 2389 (-0.55%) R5 @ 500mm = 1706 (-28.2%) R5 @ 800mm = 2730 (+14.9%) Cost (slightly out of date perhaps): A7rV with 200-600mm = $5896 A7rIVa with 200-600mm = $5496 A1 with 200-600mm = $8496 ($1003 cheaper than OM-1 and 150-400!) X-H2S with 150-600 = $4497 X-H2 with 150-600 = $3998 X-H2 with 100-400 = $3898 R5 with 100-500 and 1.4x = $6697 OM-1 with 150-400+1.25x = $9499 Weight: A7rV with 200-600mm 2838g A7rIVa with 200-600mm 2780g A1 with 200-600 2852g X-H2S or X-H2 with 150-600 2265g X-H2 with 100-400 2035g OM1 with 150-400+1.25x 2474g R5 with 100-500 and 1.4x 2327g P.S. What do I do - I use a Metabones Smart Adaptor to attach a Canon EF 100-400 II, which is pixel-level sharp at 400mm wide-open on my GH5, sometimes with a EF 1.4x (you lose CAF but I have a large number - alas very large for my time sitting at a computer vs. taking photographs - of Owl photographs, and similar stuff).
OM systems needs to bring out a new professional camera with a all new 24 or 26 megapixel BSI stacked sensor and an all new image processor, to complement this lens.
It's only been two years since they brought out the OM-1 being the first to use a BSI stacked sensor & also a new processor, not been used in anything else yet. Better look at what Panasonic are doing with their latest & how well it can perform with higher pixels.
You affirm the consensus of the knowledgeable: this is a fantastic lens! I’m contemplating buying one, and I think the price is quite reasonable for what you get: a 300-800mm (equiv.) f/4.5 that’s extremely sharp and easy to carry and hand hold, with internal zooming. Amazing.
I think in the field, while the Z FF is putzing around the focus settings, messing with a monopod or tripod, the Zuiko gets the shot. 'The' field' lens. Worth every penny.
You get a 300-800mm f/9 equivalent. If you're going to make a crop factor conversion, do it right. Shrinking the sensor doesn't give a lens magic powers
If you shoot 400mm/f4.5 at iso 1600 on MFT then for same shutter speed 800mm/f9 on FF, you will shoot at iso 6400 under same conditions and the performance at these two iso values is not necessarily equivalent.@@youknowwho9247
@@youknowwho9247in terms of total light gathering, yes. But in terms of AF speed, f4.5 lenses are focus significantly faster than f6.3 or f9, which is why the OM1 + 150-400mm has been extremely popular among BIF photographers, even those who own the sony 200-600mm or 180-600mm
Have this lens. For me it is the the most versatile Wildlife Lens on the market and together with the latest Pro Grade Nikon Z Long Tele the Goto Wildlife Package. Really glad that the close focusing got a mentioning because normally it is not looked at. And this close focusing makes it a perfekt lens for butterflies, dragonflies, large bugs and the like. All OMDS really needs to do is is to release the FW 2.0 for the OM1 and gives us an OM1X. Now as for the focussing speed, thats something I do not get, never heard a single complain, but more a load of praises how bloody fast this lens is and reacts. The Onion Ring thingy is a m4/3 issue in general an most likely never good enough , but the 150-400 has very good bokeh in as how smooth the transitions can be if the background is not to close to the subject. It is not harsh for m4/3 and on par with the best 4/3 lenses (the f2 ones).
YES, an updated M1X .... and keep those cross sensors, unlike the Z's that need to figure out shapes, then back focus during the critical moment. With a little practice, the red dot sight is a nice addition... but some practice is needed!
Honestly, I was expecting to hear a mass comparison with the Plena as well as the Noct. Nothing changes to the review but I may have hyped that idea in my head a bit too much since its review and disappointed myself over nothing. oops.
The price is just so ridiculous when you consider the target market and the trade-offs of m4/3... Nobody but wildlife pros and perhaps extremely wealthy enthusiasts are spending $7500 on tele zoom lenses. Why in the world would you drop $7500 on this lens + $2400 on an OM-1 ($9,900 total) when you could buy a system WAY better for wildlife for the same money? Like a Nikon Z8 and a Z 800 f/6.3 is pretty much the same price and is going to perform WAY better for wildlife. Why would any wildlife pro (not being paid by OM) spend that money on this OM setup when they could be getting a far superior pro setup for the same (or less) money? I am glad that this lens performs well but it is insane to me to spend $9900 and then have to use ISO 6400 on a m4/3 sensor while shooting f5.6 @ 1/1600 in daylight lol. How OM justifies this lens at a $1000 premium over the Nikon Z 800 f/6.3 prime is beyond me.
Are you by any chance a used car salesman? Right now at B&H, the Olympus set up sells for $9,500 vs the Nikon set up which sells for $10,497 -- that's right at $1,000 difference. The Nikon Z800 lens is an f/6.3 lens vs the Olympus which is f/4.5, which will give you twice the shutter speed at the same ISO. The Olympus lens also has the built-in TC, which you failed to add to the price of your Nikon set up. The Olympus lens is 3 in. shorter, and weighs a full pound less than the Nikon. Those are just a few reasons why someone in their right mind would choose the Olympus set up.
@@gregm6894 Except that f/6.3 is going to give you more subject isolation on a full frame sensor and you can use lower iso values. Even if you do use higher iso values, you can do so higher and cleaner on full frame. Nikon Z8 + 180-600 is like $5700 total and stops the OM setup in almost every aspect that a "pro" wildlife photographer would care about.
@@spencergiles72 Look up the work of professional wildlife photographers like Petr Bambousek, Daniel Cox, or Andy Rouse for starters, then get back with me. If you do much wildlife photography you should know that subject isolation at 800-1000mm is virtually guaranteed -- regardless of format. When I shoot a bird, I want the whole bird in focus, not just his head.
@@gregm6894I'm not saying there arent any wildlife pros using OM. My point was that most of those who are are also partnered with OM or getting paid to use that gear as an ambassador. Most pros are fairly system agnostic (including Andy Rouse from your example). The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of wildlife pros and wealthy enthusiasts who would spend $7500 on a zoom lens are not shooting with M43 or OM. There is a reason for that. That is all I'm saying. I respect what OM is doing and think it can be a great system for enthusiast wildlife photogs! Im just not convinced there is really any market for this $7500 m43 zoom lens (much like the 200mm f2 Fuji prime). They are both respectable lenses but...really? Who is actually going to be using them?
love my OM-1 & 150-400 Combo. Easier to pack up, and easier to carry around all day vs A1 & 200-600. Better for extended handholding also. Do miss the zebras and better low light performance of the Sony.
You don't have Zebras but you can set clipping and underexposure warnings (In orange and blue respectively). Would that work? I recommend watching "Thomas Eisl - OM System OM-1 Histogram and exposure Preview Expert Guide".
@@jonatanmartin-dombrowski5660 A little. Setting the a1 up where you can adjust exposure with the thumbwheel and viewing the zebras on the subject itself is much better.
You won't get better IQ in low light with the 200-600/6.3. Shooting from the same distance, you'll have to crop the A1 to about APS-C size to get the same view which reduces DR and noise to the same as the OM-1 from ISO200 up. Check P2P and DPR comparator. At f/6.3 you'll actually get 1 stop worse than the Oly combo. Since you have both, try both combos at or after sunset, same distance, same ISO 12800 (or ISO25600 on A1), same shutter speed, f/6.3 on Sony, f/4.5 on Oly.
@@tntytube It doesn't work that way in real life. I shot thousands of images with every Olympus lens, including this one. I get exponentially better low light performance with the Sony a7riv, even with Sigma super-zoom telephoto lenses. With a 600mm full-frame lens I can easily crop to the same field of view as the Oly lens, and I still have WAY more than 20mp. Resolution matters when it comes to fur and feathers. Whatever math you try to use to make m4/3 equal to full frame sensors... it just isn't.
I want this for my OM-D E-M1 Mark II, but I can't begin to afford it. I think I just need to save my pennies for the 300mm f4 PRO. In the meantime, my 40-150mm f2.8 PRO with the MC-20 teleconverter will have to do. I have rented the 100-400mm, and it's nice, but it's not in this category.
My camera is officially broken. I had dropped it the other day. It acts goofy. On some lenses AF does not even work. Now I have a valid reason to buy another camera. OM please please give us the OM-2 with more resolution and better video features. I just love their lenses.
Canon makes a 100-400mm F4.6-5.6 for $2,300…. Surprised to see a 100-400 f4 go for $8,000 from OM . From a materials , size , cost standpoint I wonder how much more expensive it really is to make the Olympus version. Seems to me like we are being charge based off of what the camera is doing (cropping) and not what the lenses is doing. Seems backwards to me
I don't know - is it just about perceptions? This thing is around 7k - which people think is plenty of coin and they're right. But then i look back to 2003 and the ZD 300mm f/2.8 came out at 8k, and the ZD 90-250 f/2.8 was over 6k - don't know what that equals in today's money, but this marvel sounds cheap by comparison. And 1.8kg? Those two ZDs are each around 3.6kg (ah, but f/2.8) - and it's not so much the carrying them that bothers me, it's that the mass makes them awkward when you're trying to follow something that's moving erratically. This M. Zuiko sounds like a great lens for convenience, IQ, good light and unequalled reach - i think i want it, not instead of, but as well as.
The PanaLeica 100-400 is a very worthwhile investment, so long as you have a Lumix body. My 100-300 was nowhere near as nice as the big beastie I have now.
I love all of your guys work and in-depth reviews. I also think this was an excellent lens review. With that said, I'm wondering why you didn't compare it to (or even mention) other lenses in this same focal range or use case. I know sensor size debates are sketchy territory. However, with a higher megapixel camera body, (through the use of cropping or with a teleconverter), there are other telephoto lenses that can obtain very similar field of view, achieve increased light gathering capabilities, weigh nearly the same, have the same length (or smaller), and cost less (or nearly the same as this individual lens). Examples that come to mind are: Canon R5 w/ Canon RF 100-500 L, Nikon Z series cameras w/ Nikon 600mm f6.3, Sony A7RIV w/Sony 200-600, etc.). I know it would be time intensive, and probably a long review, but it would be fascinating and informative to see a comparison video describing the pros/cons across these different camera/lens combinations.
Your still images always appear to be pin sharp. Do you turn off the image stabilising system on your cameras and lenses when using a tripod and/or monopod. Thank you for the excellent videos. Alun
I don’t. I find modern IS systems are smart enough to work on tripods. What I do like to keep in mind is fast enough shutter speeds with big telephoto lenses and I overshoot to insure sharp pics
It's a constant 4.5 aperture, of course it's going to be expensive. The Fuji 150-600 is f8 at the long end, that's near unusable in a lot of situations.
@bIoodypingu on mft system if 4.5 is 9 equivalent. Plus yeah it's expensive. I don't understand people who defend companies for high prices from us. Unless you take a cut of the profit. Its insane that you defend high prices
@@A.Edilbi no it isn't. How are people still getting this wrong? Light gathering doesn't change... F4 on mft is F4 on full frame. Bokeh and noise is equivalent to f8 on ff, not light.
@@bIoodypingu, it is you who is getting it wrong. F4 is a _relative_ value, it is basically useless without knowing the parameter of an image sensor it will be working with. There is a nice article about equivalence on dpreview, read it.
You said most of things i need to know, a lot of folks out there still confusing about evaluating focal length on other systems. They expected 150-400mm (300-800mm crop look) to look the same with the fullframe 600mm or 800mm at the same aperture.
One thing not discussed and not directly related to a review of the lens concerns how well the entire kit travels. I travel with two bodies, two lenses (12-100mm and 150-400mm), spare batteries and a laptop. It all fits into one bag and can be carried on most commercial flights. The zooms provide flexibility that require multiple primes to achieve. As noted in the video, the 150-400mm is a good macro lens.
What the heck is a “noct”?? A brief internet search produces results all over the map. A weight, but what is it really? Where does it come from? Is it anything more cool jargon? Trying to justify buying this lovely lens.
Trouble is, you would still need to add quite a lot of money to make that work. I've been thinking the same having watched a few videos. The OM-1 mk2 has just moved the goal posts on too. I find my R7 AF very frustrating as soon as the light goes down. If Canon ever upgrades the R7 and aims it at the enthusiast Bird/wildlife market with the specific things we need and made sure the RF200-800 worked really well with it, even on overcast days they would utterly clean up the market. Drop the silly video specs (max. 4K 120) , electronic shutter, no more than 25fps, 32-40mp and an autofocus system that sticks like S to a blanket at least up to the last 15 mins before dusk. Splash resistant, metal body and the ability to add a battery grip.
An interesting lens. You called this a studio review, are you doing a follow up review with more varied conditions out in the field. Perhaps showing image quality with 1.2, 1.4 & 2.0 TC's
Would have loved to see 40mm f4.5 on a single bird and cropping out half of the photo. A very typical use case for a bird photographer. My experience with two different copies of this lens is it is soft at 400 mm. Test charts do not reveal the issues.
Oi! How many plenas does that lens weigh for those of us who use other units 😂. Good review and the audio was very good - didn't peak at all unlike the podcast sometimes.
Thanks for this video. Pretty amazing how sharp it is, but for the price it should be! Compared to the long zooms I see DSLR birders using, it’s really small. If only I had the budget for this...
@@gregm6894 glad that you can afford it. I live for around $3500-4000 a year for family of three in developing country. And also tons of congenital health issues on top. Hopefully you'll never experience living in borderline poverty.
@@quite1enough If what you say is true, I feel for you and hope your situation improves. However, that begs the question of why you are even posting a comment about this lens. Clearly, any quality, long telephoto lens would be an expensive monstrosity to you -- not just this one.
I seriously considered this lens when it first came out but it was not available anywhere. I then slowly switched all my Canon EF lenses over to the RF models and now I can’t see trading in my RF600 F4 and R3 for this. The size is nice but the low light capability just isn’t there to match my Canon combo. I’ve even seen comparisons with the Olympus 300 F4 and that lens appears to be sharper and a lot less money. I would still like to try the OM-1 out but I’ll probably do it with the 300mm F4.
Can anyone give any insight on how this performs on panasonic cameras? I shoot panasonic mostly because video is one of the main things that I shoot, but I do want to get into shooting sports. My problem is, panasonic has nothing quite as fast and long as this aside from the 200mm 2.8 but that’s a prime and I find that 200mm doesn’t always meet my needs depending on the sport I’m shooting. I know the general rule is to put pany on pany and oly on oly but as there aren’t many options for panasonic, I’d like to know how this lens couples. I’ve considered investing in Nikon F mount and shooting sports with dslrs, but I’m hesitant because the video on those isn’t quite up to snuff with my other content and I’d like to avoid investing in another system if at all possible.
Panasonic has the Leica 100-400 F4-6.3 that is somewhat comparable in range (doesn't have an internal 1.25x converter), and is pretty sharp on my G9, and probably better on the G9ii. It is also 1/5 the price of the Olympus lens.
@@joeperrone6677 I’m fully aware of the 100-400. 6.3 is around a full stop, give or take, slower than 4.5. That is a lot of much needed light I would be losing in an already disadvantageous situation for m43. The variable aperture is also not very ideal for video as I zoom. I appreciate the recommendation, but I am not asking this out of ignorance for options. A lens recommendation is not really what I am looking for at this time.
@@joeperrone6677 The 100-400mm mk II can be used with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC, but shooting with f 12.6 is possibly just a gimmick. With 1.4 it's a 560 mm f8.8 lens.
@@questioneverything680 just set f6.3 for a constant aperture zoom. :-p As for the extra stop of light going from f6.3 to f4.5 cost you in this case almost 5x the money.
a little disappointed for no in depth field review. this studio shoot is not the same as your other outdoor shoots and seeing little om system content lately, it really is a bummer. sorry!
I own both the 300 and 150-400. Comparing these two the weight and size difference is huge. In your case i recommend testing the 150-400 before buying. It could be too heavy for you.
@@willhouse, you are wrong. Take something like Sony A7r IV with its 60 MP sensor, switch it to APS-C crop mode and strap a 200-600 lens on it. You will get an equivalent to 300-900 with 26 MP images. It is basically the same result, even weight & size are almost the same: 2.8 kg for Sony and 2.5 kg for mFT. Plus benefits of being able to go wider if needed and to have full 60 MP resolution up until 600mm. Way more versatile. And way cheaper too.
Well, that´s not entirely serious, is it? you could also compare it with the 10.000 Euro 600mm/4.0! And than ask the question wether the 10.000 Euro surcharge is justified?@@wj45
@@wj45 You are wrong. The autofocus of the OM-1 blows away the A7RIV. The A1/200-600 combo is the appropriate comparison. It IS about $1000 cheaper, but a pound heavier. And the balance of the 150-400 is far better. Much easier to handhold for extended periods. Much better IBIS and better weather sealing also. I'm not knocking the Sony kit, I have it and it's difficult to choose between the two.
For a micro 4/3 lens, the price is simply insane. You could get a comparable lens for full frame where you get much better low light performance. Not to mention, last time I checked Olympus didn't exactly have the best tracking AF for sports, so all in all it seems like a strange release. But maybe I'm missing something this lens does that other ones don't?
It’s a wildlife lens principally, and the OM-1 has largely address the AF issues for that type of shooting. The sales have spoken for themselves really; this lens is awesome. I’ve loved my time with it. Low light is better with full frame certainly, but I’ve got perfectly decent photos at 6400 or so which was all I needed during a cloudy woodland morning doing bird photos.
If you are handholding, this lens can outperform many FF combos in low light due to its superior IBIS and sync IS. Not for low light high speed shooting though.
Just get a camouflage lens covers and there are plenty of options available now for this lens. I found that the built in 1.25 TC isn’t as sharp as I would have like compare to the 1.4 TC in my opinion. I would only put on the TC if the subjects are relatively large in size and I just want it to be a bit bigger. I would say this lens is just as sharp on its own as the 300 f4 but I find that the 300 f4 takes TC better than this zoom. I guess it is very hard to make it as sharp as a prime lens and Olympus already did the best they could.
Your built-in TC could've been damaged or out of specs. It's indistinguishable on my lens whether it's on or off. My 1.4TC on the lens is visibly softer than the built-in. But with even both on and at f/8, it's still very useable for long ID shots - about the same as or better than the MZ 100-400/6.3 at the long end.
@@tntytubeA Uk wildlife photographer Mike Lane has the same opinion on the1.25 TC which is definitely softer but I guess it depends on the quality of the atmosphere at an given time and at 1000mm, heat wave and humidity levels also will affect imagine quality.
@@ryantang8146 I used my 150-400 with the internal 1,25TC combined with the 1.4 or the 2.0 TCs and the results were - at least for me - sharp enough. Surely you cannot beat physics. For far away subjects, atmoshperic distortions will be more problematic than lens imperfections.
surprised by how popular this lens seems given the price, would think the 300mm F4 and teleconverter at 1/3 the price would be my go Generally people with the deeper pockets that can afford this type of glass would be in the canon/nikon camp with long fast primes
Listen to the wildlife pros who use it -- there are legitimate advantages to using a very high quality zoom. The 'long fast primes' from Canon/Nikon camp cost way more than this lens.
@@MercedesBenzGKlassenot if you put it on an R7, which will give you the same reach and better tracking AF / subject recognition. Or a Nikon 180-600+1.4x, which is still $5000 cheaper and can pay for a Z8 to pair with it. Same depth of field as well. It’s just so hard to justify spending $7500 on a high end m4/3 super telephoto.
@@owenrodgers8020 I mean, if people are invested in m4/3, and really want to spend the money, more power to them. I shot m4/3 for quite a while and made some excellent images with it, but I find the value proposition on their high end glass to be very much out of whack with the competition when you really look at like for like capabilities. I think m4/3 makes for an excellent good quality travel setup, with some excellent lenses like the 7-14/2.8 and 12-40/2.8 Pro lenses from Olympus. It's also a great setup for lightweight compact telephoto reach. However, when you start looking at lenses like the PanaLeica 42.5/1.2, or the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8, and this lens here from Olympus, it really starts making less and less sense, as those lenses aren't really small, and they also don't give you anything special from an imaging standpoint, yet cost significantly more than what a similar rendering lens would give you on a larger format.
Well if you multiply 400 by 1.25, you get 500. That means the 1.25x teleconverter was enabled. You can also divide 500 by 400 to achieve the number 1.25. That's how you can find out the magnification of the built-in teleconverter!
It's a running gag that started at dpreview. Nikon made a 58mm f0.95 lens called the Noct. It's like 2kg and really heavy for a prime lens so it became a way to measure weight in a joking manner.
Why is it nobody is able to capture a jet at 35,000ft . To at least prove the ability of the Lense it can get you clear capture of a plane at 35,000ft or more . Or even Ships anchored far offshore . I don't go out n capture wildlife 24/7 .
As i use my Sigma 150-600 ,,as i live under transatlantic flight route i've bagged numerous ,, AL Nippon R2D2 , Numerous 747s , 380s 787s even the odd C17 and C5 .
Shooting a jet at 35,000 ft. proves absolutely nothing. It's like saying, 'Why doesn't anyone take some photos with Vasoline smeared on the front element of this lens?" Silly comment.
