Testing out OM System`s new 150 - 600mm F5/6.3 lens - Part 2 

Thanks for commenting Lucie. Glad you found it helpful.

Thank you. Your very kind.

Cheers Phil. Glad you liked it.

Thanks for commenting Richard. Glad you liked it.

Thanmks for commenting, and the kind words.

Thanks for the kind comment David.

Thanks John. Much appreciated. Glad you like the channel.

Thanks for the very nice comment Kjell. Glad you enjoyed the video.

Thank you very much. Glad you liked it.

There are many advantages of the 300mm F4. Its a lovely lens, and to be honest, I regret selling it. It was incredibly sharp.

Thanks Aron. Glad you liked it.

Thank you very much for the very kind comment. I am glad you have been inspired to shoot more video. It opened up a whole new area of photography for me.

Thank youfor the kind comment. Glad you liked it. The Owl video was uploaded yesterday.

Thanks for commenting Steve. Much appreciated.

Thank you Mike. Your very kind. Glad you liked it.

Glad you found it helpful.

Thanks for commenting Cliff. As you say, at F6.3, its not ideal in dull light, but if the light is good, its definately a winner.

Thanks very much. Much appreciated.

Thanks for commenting Pete. Its much appreciated. The camera is very good, and there are a number of new refinements to it . I hope to do a video testing out the Grad ND in the near future.

Thansk for commenting. Its much appreciated. I think you comments are exactly correct.

Thanks for commenting Phil. Its is a big lump of a lens, but for someone who cannot justify spending £6,700 on the 150-400, its a viable option.

Well... this lens is built from the Sigma 150-600mm Sport for FF.

Merci pour le gentil commentaire. Très appréciée. Content que tu aies aimé.

Thanks for commenting. The 150-400mm is obviously the better lens of the two, - thats why its £4,000 more. having said that, this new lens is a very capable performer. The next video should be finished for next weekend.

Thanks for the kind comment.

Thanks for commenting. You do not need to have a `pro lens ` to use ProCapture. It will work on lenses that are not `Pro lenses` , it just that you will not get the full frame rate burst that is achievable with the pro lenses. For example, a Pro Lens will do SH2 at 50frame per second. The no pro lenses will do ProCapSH2 , but only at 25 frames per second. I hope this makes it more clear. Thanks for the very kind comment about the Kestrel and video. Its much appreciated.

Thanks for commenting Ron. Glad you liked it. The `Big White`is the best option of the two lenses, as I will demonstrate in the next video. Very kind comment about Mike and myself. Our channels are very similar. His channel is better than mine , though I am better looking ! 😂😂😂

@@rogerhance5883 Haha Roger… no you are equally great and you are providing important information about the OM cameras,lenses, menu’s, autofocus etc. etc. for people using this system for wildlife. One question Roger: Is it possible to upload the videos in a higher quality; 2160p instead of 1080p? Would be be nice and helps to judge sharpness of the equipment used.. thanks and enjoy your weekend, regards Ron from The Netherlands.

@@ronschuddeboomdigiscoping3693 Thnaks for commenting again, and glad you liked the joke. I have sent it on to Mike, who has been a friend for many years. He has an upcoming video where he came down to my hide to photograph fighting Starlings, so watch out for that. I think that RU-vid may restrict that size. I shot some video at a higher size a couple of months back, and I had to downsize them before RU-vid would accept them.

Mmm strange.. I make videos on my Digiscoping channel and upload my minor enhanced videos on my iPad mini with the free app iMovie. Maybe Mike can help you out… Your channel deserves good/better quality uploads😀👍

@@ronschuddeboomdigiscoping3693 I will look into it.

So far, I have only tested it with the 1.4 converter, so cannot say what its like with the 2x. I would imagine, althought only guessing, that you would see some loss of quality with a 2x.

The maximum frame rate for the 150-600mm is 25frame per sec on the OM1. The advantage of the 150-600mm over the 100-400 is that the image stabilization works in tandem with the camera body.

Thanks Mike. I was reasonably pleased with how the video turned out. I didn`t know this about Elmley. Thanks for letting me know.

I grew up on a farm opposite. For me elmley has always been a peaceful place to be. However in the last few months it’s become very busy mainly due to the owls currently there. A very sad development as far as I am concerned

@@gavrelle1917 Unfortunately, the Owls ahve been quite a draw.

Thanks for commenting. Glad you like the video. I have never tried fit for a sunrsie so cannot comment. At F6.3, you would have to increase the ISO.

Dont blame you John. Its a very good combination. I used the 300mm F4 for a number of years. Its pin sharp , even with a 1.4 and 2x.

Hows the 2x on the 300? I use the 1.4 and its not bad. Thinking about the 2x

@@timothylabrecque8589 TO be honest Timothy, I did not test it out with the 2x. I only had the lens for a couple of weeks, so I was a bit limited. I did test it out with the 1.4, and it was pretty good.

The 150-600 has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 at 600mm whereas the 300mm f/4 has a maximum aperture of f/8 with the MC-20 2x teleconverter. However, it would be interesting to see how the image quality and focus speed compares. I would accept losing 2/3 of a stop of light at the telephoto end if the images were a lot sharper and autofocus was much faster and I could get an extra 2/3 of a stop at the wide end, since I only occasionally feel the need for more than 400mm or so.

The sytem is not for everyone. I think there is some degrading of images when converting to a RU-vid video.

The OM System is amazing for what it is - a lightweight yet powerful system. The debate between full frame and pro lenses (Crop) and M4/3 cropped sensor and pro lenses (reach) will debate until FF prices come down to earth. I can see myself switching to a Nikon z8 + 500 mm and then using a crop to achieve better resolution and low light than I can now with OM-1 + 300 pro + 1.4 TC.

As you so rightly say, full frame prices are a lot more than M4T cameras. The M4T sytems is cheaper and lighter, bit it is not for everyone.

Having someone drive the car is the best way to photograph at this location. UNfortiunately, I could not afford a chauffeur. I was shooting at 120fps, and I did slow the Kestrel down a bit in the editing. The G9mkII does look a very nice camera.

Thanks for commenting. Although I no longer have the 300mm F4, it was an incredibly sharp lens, and I would imagine that in a test, the 300mm would win regarding sharpness. The problem with a fixed lens is that if the bird comes closer, you will not be able to get all of the bird in. Having said that, the 300mm F4 is probably the sharpest lens I have ever used, and its still pin sharp with both the 1.4 and the 2x.

@@rogerhance5883 Thanks! I guess I'll be saving up for it! I've actually been trying to decide between that one and the Pana/Leica 200mm f/2.8, which is reported to be sharper, even with the 1.4x teleconverter. I guess the question is just whether I would use a 200mm or 600mm focal length more often and whether I would have any use for 50 fps bursts with AF. I'm not worried about image stabilization because IBIS is good enough. I already have the 40-150 and both teleconverters, so I have another option if anything comes too close. The 200mm f/2.8 would be better for photographing beavers and muskrats because I can often get closer to them, but usually it's right around dusk. The 300 with a 2x would be better for more distant subjects like birds, otters, and moose on the lakes when I'm shooting from a kayak. It's going to be a touch choice! Maybe one day I'll end up with both!

@@keithholland4322 AS you say Keith, a tough choice. The lens is definately not for everyone, but as you say , there are times the extra reach would be useful. I must admit, that 200mm F2.8 sounds great.

@@rogerhance5883 Yeah, I really wish OMDS would make an f/2.8 prime lens in the 250-300mm range with a built-in teleconverter that weighs and costs less than the 150-400! A brighter aperture really makes a difference when the light starts to fade.

Like a lot of photographers, I have owned a lot of Sigma lenses over the years, and I will not buy another. Buy genuine camera manufacturers and you will not be generally disappointed. I cannot see the point of such a long zoom - better off using the 300mm F4 and cropping!

My experience is all of my Olympus and OMDS lenses are pin sharp. (I use mostly the Pro series lenses)

@@user-tm9gx3uk7g Fair enough, plenty of people seem to say that. I haven’t seen a single Olympus lens that’s anywhere near as sharp as my full frame sigma primes, but then I’ve only tried the 45mm 1.8, 17mm 1.8, 60mm 2.8, 12-100mm 100-400 and whatever kit lens my camera came with.

Likely your technique and not the lens. I have used almost all Olympus MFT lenses, the ones I would say have soft IQ are 75-300mm i and the 12-200mm.

@@uyims56 my technique wouldn’t change just because I picked up a full frame camera and lens though right? And when I do side by side tests off a tripod I’m doing the same thing with both camera / lens systems.

This is not abnormal practice. Two Olympus branded lenses were made this way and Sigma has done it for other brands too.

Because it has the OM brand on it .. Ironic as chuff

I have seen a claim that there was som improvements to it.

You stole my thunder I think they’ve just made minor. alterations so it’s compatible with Olympus cameras. That’s not fair on Roger I’m sure he would not have reviewed this lens if he had known this. As much as I love Olympus cameras they’ve been underhanded with this one. Never mind it’s always good to Listen to Roger and see his shorts.

@thomasreed49 You are blabbing. Of course he would have reviewed it. Even if they didn't make any significant changes, I fear that this is a low volume product. That means more expensive. And expensive means lower sales. But we have something of value to people who need that sort of thing.

Because both brands need income from a single lens sold.