Hi Fabian: A very good comparison of the three lenses. Initially, I shot with the 300mm f4, almost always with the 1.4x extender, and when the 150 - 400mm with the built in 1.25x extender zoom came out I switched to that lens. I could not be happier with the 150 - 400mm with the built in 1.25x extender zoom lens, and find it to be an excellent lens with the OM1. PJI
Thanks for another excellent video Fabian. Love your channel. I got a second hand OM-1 earlier this year and a new M.Zuiko 100-400 f5-6.3, and MC-14 TC. I was looking for good reach and light weight at an affordable price. (The 300mm f4 at the equivalent of $US2700 new or $US1900 used was out of range.) I was prepared to live with the compromises. I have generally been happy with this combination. It is very convenient as a single lens carry. it also turns out to be a really good option for pseudo macro - including with the in-camera focus stacking. Recently I found great deals on a second hand M.Zuiko 300 f4 Pro then the M.Zuiko 40-150 f2.8 Pro and couldn't resist. The Pro lenses are in a different class - both excellent lenses and very sharp. And of course the faster aperture is a big advantage for low light and subject separation. The only downside of the 40-150 is that it has no in-lens stabilisation. The Sync IS on the 300 is great. Both work well with the TC. I have set the lens function button to Subject Detection - I can turn it on or off, or hold the button and toggle between bird and mammal detection. As you pointed out, there are pros and cons of each. The 100-400 is light, versatile and good value for money. But my advice to anyone thinking about M43 wildlife options is that if you can afford the 300 (and 40-150 if you want a wider range) - even if you have to wait for a good deal on second hand ones - that's the combination to get (assuming the 150-400 f4.5 is out of range). The Pro lenses are something special - as they ought to be for the price.
I bought a 100-400 on sale for €900 a couple months back as an upgrade for my 75-300 and I have to say it's been transformative for my photos, in background blur, autofocus speed as well as sharpness (sharpness lottery is real for non-pro lenses). I looked for used copies of the 300 at first but no one was selling one at a decent price, and for small birds the extra reach of the 400 is very handy, but I regularly make use of the ability to zoom out as well for small mammals or macro work. If I had the budget I'd get the 300 as well for low light forest hikes, but I never find myself wanting more when I go out with my 100-400.
If one can afford it, the M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO is the one to get! Used ones are going for around $5,500 in the US. If you're not needing quite as much ready, the M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO is excellent also. Works great with extenders, with the 1.4x it's roughly the equivalent of a full frame 100-400/5.6.
I have both the 300mm and the 150-600mm and I can recommend them both. Your review is right on the money. The 150-600mm is a tank. Nicely built, good IQ, IS and focus speed. I can hand hold it - but a monopod gets a fair bit of use. I use it for birds and sports and the reach is unbeatable - just don't think of backpacking more than a couple of miles. But the 300mm f4 is sublime. Fast, sharp, and nicely balanced, also the IS seems better than the 150-600 (but crazy subject distances might be factor with the big boy). I've had sharp photos from both on the OM1 at relatively slow shutter speeds. Good stuff Olympus - oops OM systems.
Update. I have the 1.4x and it works well on 300f4 and the 40-150f2.8. But it’s too soft on the 159-600. Unusable for the quality I need. But that’s not surprising.
I have the 300mm f4 and love it probably my favorite lens. I have the pany 100-400mm but it hardly sees much use after getting the 300 f4 the 300mm just spoils you. The other lens for m43 that I would never do without is the PL 200mm 2.8. I used to think the 300mm was sharp which it definately is but then I got the PL 200 and wow just amazing. The one thing to be aware of though is the two brands teleconverters are not interchangable. They will physically fit between the two but the proper aperture and focal lengths are not transferred properly when mixing the two. Not a huge deal but something to be aware of when using PL on Olympus and vise versa
Very comprehensive and well presented. I received the 300 for Christmas but the weather is not cooperating for a good test. I also got the 90mm macro and it is A+.
I own the 300mm f4 and I absolutely LOVE this lens. Lot of people keep saying micro 4/3 low light performances are poor and I kinda agree BUT what people always forget to mention is the incredible image stabilisation you get with the system. I can easily get sharps shots at 1/10s handheld. EASILY. When I really struggle to get any sharp shot with the sony 600mm at 1/50s handheld.. Then, add to this the fact you also get procapture at 50fps raw which no other brand actually offer, for half the price of other flagships Z9/R5/A1 bodies. Love it to death. I only wish OM would offer a high resolution camera at some point. 20MP is quite low for wildlife imo.
@@Juni41 You should read an article in mirrorlesscomparison where they test it vs the 600mm f11. The low light performance penalty in m43 is not really there at f4, just that in FF you have more iso stops.
Hmm, I‘m not sure if more than 20MP make much sense with the current lens lineup. A 30MP MFT sensor would be roughly equivalent to 120MP fullframe in terms of pixel density. Btw. The sony a9 III offers procapture raw at 120fps, the canon r1 only at 40fps
I have none of those, but I am quite fond of my Lumix Leica 100-400 II on the OM-1 Mk II. I don't have your skillset or requirements, but I have been very happy with the results. It seems that atmospheric aberrations are the major image quality constraints in my experience at those focal lengths so far. I also have the OM Systems 40-150 F2.8 Pro and a 2x extender. The extender just arrived, so have not got to test it yet, but hopeful.
Then there is Gandalf The Great White Wizard (MZ 150-400 f/4.5 TC 1.25). More expensive yes, but as sharp as the 300 f/4 plus it zooms at a fixed aperture. The one lens that rules them all.
Yea, that seems to be the dream lens! Only problem for me is I'm not convinced by the OM bodies, things like dynamic range, high ISO performance etc. compared to full frame. I will stick with my Sony 200-600mm, my only complaints being the weight, stabilisation, wide open sharpness and AF speed just isn't quite lightning fast.
@@_systemd That's why I mentioned wide open sharpness as a con for the Sony. In terms of aperture equivalence, F4 on a 2x sensor is e.q. to F8 (just for depth of field) I understand F4 remains F4 no matter the sensor, so in terms of noise performance I could predict that F4 on a 4/3 sensor would perform similar to F6.3 on fullframe.
Thanks for the detailed comparison from first hand. I have Olympus 75-300 atm, I’m planning to upgrade to either 100-400 or 300 Pro. In your opinion is 100-400 worth the upgrade? I’m looking forward to better image quality, especially in low light situations during sunsets. I know 300 pro will be the best but the cost and weight is another concern plus zoom seems more versatile. Thanks
I saved enough for the 300mm. F4 helps a lot in low light. Did you try with the 2x TC? I already have the 1.4, not sure if it’s worth to get the other one. The quality of the OM lenses is pretty high, I wish m43 did a high resolution photography focused camera. The canon r5 looks pretty tempting 😅
@ It is very hard to leave m43. I went out to a photo walk with a 100-400 (20-800), 40-150 (80-300), 9mm f1.7 and 25mm in just one bag. But I can see why people like high res full frame. It makes more sense now with the budget rf lenses because you can get something that is ok without it being the price of a 600mm f4. I would not even consider FF if panasonic or Om made a 30-40mp camera. (edit: All I do is wildlife, don’t care about any other genre xD)
@@dasaen That's why you should stay there. I personally use A7-IV and 200-600. I came from A6400 to try full-frame, and after a year, I think I am going 150-400 or 300 + OM1, just becaue of all benefits this combination gives to wildlife. I don't have any benefits from A7-IV since my photos usually in 75% are at 14 mpx crop factor (aps-c mode). I expected to shoot in APS-C mode, but didn't predict it will be so much often. So basically I bought better format camera, to lose all megapixels and lost lowlight performance for cropping (when you crop you also magnify your ISO of -1.5 EV, so it's basically the same as using APS-C sensor). To be honest, from TODAYS perspective, I'd need at least Sony A1 with 50 mpx or A7R series with 61 mpx to have any benefits in wildlife situations. If you think budget RF lenses will give you more sharpness and lightweight performance than your actuall one, you might be seriously wrong. I'd not change anything before seriously testing it out by renting just for 1-2 days. If you could buy 300 mm f4 and get OM-1 with stacked sensor, which you can buy for ~1k used, that includes everything for hiking (like ND filter), and have stacked sensor, that's a serious deal.
@ I agree. My fear is just the slow development in m43 but they did come up with new cameras. I think I just need to forget about what may or may not happen with the system and just get the damn lens lol
@@dasaen Exactly, the lens is the marriage as photographers says! And you would see a difference in prime lens or 150-400 vs rest. That increases photography a lot. Especially if you know that Om System x1.4 TC works stunning with this lens, and doesnt degrade image quality and speed.
hi Fabian let me start by complimenting you on the great images you have captured with this camera system. I guess my eyes are bad, but I see no difference on my iPad 13 inch compared to your very beautiful images taken with your Canon full frame camera system. I must not understand something about you, but what is the reason that you carry a large and heavy full frame camera system on your trips through the mountains? I would never buy either the 100-400 or the 150-600 much big and many, and much too heavy. I would buy the 150-400 or if I had less money to spend the 300 F/4. thank you for this nice review. With kind regards
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Hi Fabian Of course I don't want to criticize your choice for full frame, but the appearance of a camera system is not important to me, but the image quality and ease of handling are. I see no difference in image quality between your full frame images and those made with the Om system. If you present the images to me blind, I will most likely see no difference between your full frame and mft images.
No, I mean the look of the images that come from a full frame. There is a huge difference in terms of Bokeh, if I show them side by side you will see a drastic difference, I guarantee it
Hi Fabian. Great video and very well researched. I am upgrading from a Coolpix p950 with the intention of bird photography. A fair bit will be done at wetlands. If you had to choose would you recommend the R7 + Rf 100-400mm or the Om1 + M.Zuiko 100-400mm? I can get them for similar prices. Thankyou.
The 75-300mm is a very overlooked option. I have both the 100-400mm and the 75-300mm and they are both very good lenses, If I am planning on hiking some distance, or traveling and don't necessarily need the extra reach of the 100-400mm, but want to minimize weight, I find the 75-300mm to be a perfect choice. I have gotten a ton of very good images with that lens.
But if you had to get rid of Canon, would OM systems be a serious consideration? Just curious because I see good reviews but most folks don’t choose OM.
I have both the 100-400mm and the 300mm pro lenses. I also have the 1.4x and the 2x extenders. I will say that the 300mm and the 2x extender work very well together. I am happy with the image quality and the extra reach. As for the 100-400mm, I do use it with the 1.4x extender and it seems okay to me. However, the 2x extender is just too much for the 100-400mm. No improvement in resolution at all over the 1.4x and you lose a stop of light. My guess is diffraction becomes too high at f/13 which is the best you can do with the 100-400mm when using the 2x extender at 400mm. So yes, I prefer to use the 300mm lens, but there are times when I like having a zoom, and the 100-400 is the lens I choose.
Thanks. Great video on comparison of 3 OM tele lens
Thanks
Hi Fabian: A very good comparison of the three lenses. Initially, I shot with the 300mm f4, almost always with the 1.4x extender, and when the 150 - 400mm with the built in 1.25x extender zoom came out I switched to that lens. I could not be happier with the 150 - 400mm with the built in 1.25x extender zoom lens, and find it to be an excellent lens with the OM1. PJI
Thanks for another excellent video Fabian. Love your channel.
I got a second hand OM-1 earlier this year and a new M.Zuiko 100-400 f5-6.3, and MC-14 TC. I was looking for good reach and light weight at an affordable price. (The 300mm f4 at the equivalent of $US2700 new or $US1900 used was out of range.) I was prepared to live with the compromises. I have generally been happy with this combination. It is very convenient as a single lens carry. it also turns out to be a really good option for pseudo macro - including with the in-camera focus stacking.
Recently I found great deals on a second hand M.Zuiko 300 f4 Pro then the M.Zuiko 40-150 f2.8 Pro and couldn't resist. The Pro lenses are in a different class - both excellent lenses and very sharp. And of course the faster aperture is a big advantage for low light and subject separation. The only downside of the 40-150 is that it has no in-lens stabilisation. The Sync IS on the 300 is great. Both work well with the TC. I have set the lens function button to Subject Detection - I can turn it on or off, or hold the button and toggle between bird and mammal detection.
As you pointed out, there are pros and cons of each. The 100-400 is light, versatile and good value for money. But my advice to anyone thinking about M43 wildlife options is that if you can afford the 300 (and 40-150 if you want a wider range) - even if you have to wait for a good deal on second hand ones - that's the combination to get (assuming the 150-400 f4.5 is out of range). The Pro lenses are something special - as they ought to be for the price.
I bought a 100-400 on sale for €900 a couple months back as an upgrade for my 75-300 and I have to say it's been transformative for my photos, in background blur, autofocus speed as well as sharpness (sharpness lottery is real for non-pro lenses). I looked for used copies of the 300 at first but no one was selling one at a decent price, and for small birds the extra reach of the 400 is very handy, but I regularly make use of the ability to zoom out as well for small mammals or macro work. If I had the budget I'd get the 300 as well for low light forest hikes, but I never find myself wanting more when I go out with my 100-400.
Thank you for such an in depth insight. Keen to try the 300 f4 some day.
Thanks
If one can afford it, the M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO is the one to get! Used ones are going for around $5,500 in the US. If you're not needing quite as much ready, the M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO is excellent also. Works great with extenders, with the 1.4x it's roughly the equivalent of a full frame 100-400/5.6.
I did a review of the 150-400/4.5 - great lens
I have both the 300mm and the 150-600mm and I can recommend them both. Your review is right on the money. The 150-600mm is a tank. Nicely built, good IQ, IS and focus speed. I can hand hold it - but a monopod gets a fair bit of use. I use it for birds and sports and the reach is unbeatable - just don't think of backpacking more than a couple of miles. But the 300mm f4 is sublime. Fast, sharp, and nicely balanced, also the IS seems better than the 150-600 (but crazy subject distances might be factor with the big boy). I've had sharp photos from both on the OM1 at relatively slow shutter speeds. Good stuff Olympus - oops OM systems.
Thanks for sharing
Update. I have the 1.4x and it works well on 300f4 and the 40-150f2.8. But it’s too soft on the 159-600. Unusable for the quality I need. But that’s not surprising.
I have the 300mm f4 and love it probably my favorite lens. I have the pany 100-400mm but it hardly sees much use after getting the 300 f4 the 300mm just spoils you.
The other lens for m43 that I would never do without is the PL 200mm 2.8. I used to think the 300mm was sharp which it definately is but then I got the PL 200 and wow just amazing.
The one thing to be aware of though is the two brands teleconverters are not interchangable. They will physically fit between the two but the proper aperture and focal lengths are not transferred properly when mixing the two. Not a huge deal but something to be aware of when using PL on Olympus and vise versa
300f4 is a very sharp lens. Can get great images out of it.
Yes!
Very comprehensive and well presented. I received the 300 for Christmas but the weather is not cooperating for a good test. I also got the 90mm macro and it is A+.
The 300mm is the one I use the most by far. Buying the 100-400 first was a mistake for me, since I got the 300mm it sits most of the time at home.
Yes, I can totally imagine that
Nice video, Fabian !
My favourite from the 3 lenses is 300mm F/4.0.
Thanks
I own the 300mm f4 and I absolutely LOVE this lens. Lot of people keep saying micro 4/3 low light performances are poor and I kinda agree BUT what people always forget to mention is the incredible image stabilisation you get with the system. I can easily get sharps shots at 1/10s handheld. EASILY. When I really struggle to get any sharp shot with the sony 600mm at 1/50s handheld.. Then, add to this the fact you also get procapture at 50fps raw which no other brand actually offer, for half the price of other flagships Z9/R5/A1 bodies. Love it to death. I only wish OM would offer a high resolution camera at some point. 20MP is quite low for wildlife imo.
@@Juni41 You should read an article in mirrorlesscomparison where they test it vs the 600mm f11. The low light performance penalty in m43 is not really there at f4, just that in FF you have more iso stops.
Hmm, I‘m not sure if more than 20MP make much sense with the current lens lineup. A 30MP MFT sensor would be roughly equivalent to 120MP fullframe in terms of pixel density.
Btw. The sony a9 III offers procapture raw at 120fps, the canon r1 only at 40fps
If 20Mp are not enough, you can get GH7 or G9 MK II which have 25 Mp sensors.
@@dasaen I will check that article out, thanks. :)
@@tonigenes5816 But those don't feature a stack sensor unfortunately. But I heard really good things about the video af on these bodies. :)
I have none of those, but I am quite fond of my Lumix Leica 100-400 II on the OM-1 Mk II. I don't have your skillset or requirements, but I have been very happy with the results. It seems that atmospheric aberrations are the major image quality constraints in my experience at those focal lengths so far. I also have the OM Systems 40-150 F2.8 Pro and a 2x extender. The extender just arrived, so have not got to test it yet, but hopeful.
Nice, enjoy!
Then there is Gandalf The Great White Wizard (MZ 150-400 f/4.5 TC 1.25). More expensive yes, but as sharp as the 300 f/4 plus it zooms at a fixed aperture. The one lens that rules them all.
Yea, that seems to be the dream lens! Only problem for me is I'm not convinced by the OM bodies, things like dynamic range, high ISO performance etc. compared to full frame. I will stick with my Sony 200-600mm, my only complaints being the weight, stabilisation, wide open sharpness and AF speed just isn't quite lightning fast.
Did you use it claiming it's equally sharp. I call nonsense on that.
@@KurtisPapeRemember that your sony is at f6.3 . 300f4 is sharper, much better stabilized and at f4. Move those snr and dr curves closer.
@@_systemd That's why I mentioned wide open sharpness as a con for the Sony. In terms of aperture equivalence, F4 on a 2x sensor is e.q. to F8 (just for depth of field)
I understand F4 remains F4 no matter the sensor, so in terms of noise performance I could predict that F4 on a 4/3 sensor would perform similar to F6.3 on fullframe.
I did a review of the 150-400/4.5 - great lens (just the price is a bit high)
Thank you! Well done!🏆
Thanks for the detailed comparison from first hand. I have Olympus 75-300 atm, I’m planning to upgrade to either 100-400 or 300 Pro. In your opinion is 100-400 worth the upgrade? I’m looking forward to better image quality, especially in low light situations during sunsets. I know 300 pro will be the best but the cost and weight is another concern plus zoom seems more versatile. Thanks
I have never used the 75-300
I saved enough for the 300mm. F4 helps a lot in low light. Did you try with the 2x TC? I already have the 1.4, not sure if it’s worth to get the other one.
The quality of the OM lenses is pretty high, I wish m43 did a high resolution photography focused camera. The canon r5 looks pretty tempting 😅
Now ask yourself, if people who uses "R5" tier cameras comes to M43 and are more happy. This is one way to go. Just rent, and try it out first.
@ It is very hard to leave m43. I went out to a photo walk with a 100-400 (20-800), 40-150 (80-300), 9mm f1.7 and 25mm in just one bag.
But I can see why people like high res full frame. It makes more sense now with the budget rf lenses because you can get something that is ok without it being the price of a 600mm f4. I would not even consider FF if panasonic or Om made a 30-40mp camera. (edit: All I do is wildlife, don’t care about any other genre xD)
@@dasaen That's why you should stay there. I personally use A7-IV and 200-600. I came from A6400 to try full-frame, and after a year, I think I am going 150-400 or 300 + OM1, just becaue of all benefits this combination gives to wildlife. I don't have any benefits from A7-IV since my photos usually in 75% are at 14 mpx crop factor (aps-c mode). I expected to shoot in APS-C mode, but didn't predict it will be so much often. So basically I bought better format camera, to lose all megapixels and lost lowlight performance for cropping (when you crop you also magnify your ISO of -1.5 EV, so it's basically the same as using APS-C sensor). To be honest, from TODAYS perspective, I'd need at least Sony A1 with 50 mpx or A7R series with 61 mpx to have any benefits in wildlife situations. If you think budget RF lenses will give you more sharpness and lightweight performance than your actuall one, you might be seriously wrong. I'd not change anything before seriously testing it out by renting just for 1-2 days. If you could buy 300 mm f4 and get OM-1 with stacked sensor, which you can buy for ~1k used, that includes everything for hiking (like ND filter), and have stacked sensor, that's a serious deal.
@ I agree. My fear is just the slow development in m43 but they did come up with new cameras. I think I just need to forget about what may or may not happen with the system and just get the damn lens lol
@@dasaen Exactly, the lens is the marriage as photographers says! And you would see a difference in prime lens or 150-400 vs rest. That increases photography a lot. Especially if you know that Om System x1.4 TC works stunning with this lens, and doesnt degrade image quality and speed.
hi Fabian
let me start by complimenting you on the great images you have captured with this camera system. I guess my eyes are bad, but I see no difference on my iPad 13 inch compared to your very beautiful images taken with your Canon full frame camera system. I must not understand something about you, but what is the reason that you carry a large and heavy full frame camera system on your trips through the mountains? I would never buy either the 100-400 or the 150-600 much big and many, and much too heavy. I would buy the 150-400 or if I had less money to spend the 300 F/4. thank you for this nice review.
With kind regards
Thanks! I chose full frame because of the look and image quality
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Hi Fabian
Of course I don't want to criticize your choice for full frame, but the appearance of a camera system is not important to me, but the image quality and ease of handling are. I see no difference in image quality between your full frame images and those made with the Om system. If you present the images to me blind, I will most likely see no difference between your full frame and mft images.
No, I mean the look of the images that come from a full frame. There is a huge difference in terms of Bokeh, if I show them side by side you will see a drastic difference, I guarantee it
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography so if I understand you correctly, the Bokeh is where the difference lies, do I understand you correctly?
Mostly. It looks like f/4 vs f/8. also, if I shoot my full frame at 25‘600 ISO, the quality is comparable to 6400 ISO on MFT
Hi Fabian. Great video and very well researched. I am upgrading from a Coolpix p950 with the intention of bird photography. A fair bit will be done at wetlands. If you had to choose would you recommend the R7 + Rf 100-400mm or the Om1 + M.Zuiko 100-400mm? I can get them for similar prices. Thankyou.
Thanks😊
What about Olympus 75-300mm? It is so lightweight and versatile "sunny" lens. So good for travelling.
The 75-300mm is a very overlooked option. I have both the 100-400mm and the 75-300mm and they are both very good lenses, If I am planning on hiking some distance, or traveling and don't necessarily need the extra reach of the 100-400mm, but want to minimize weight, I find the 75-300mm to be a perfect choice. I have gotten a ton of very good images with that lens.
But if you had to get rid of Canon, would OM systems be a serious consideration? Just curious because I see good reviews but most folks don’t choose OM.
Personally, I prefer full frame. So no, I would go for Nikon or Sony
I have both the 100-400mm and the 300mm pro lenses. I also have the 1.4x and the 2x extenders. I will say that the 300mm and the 2x extender work very well together. I am happy with the image quality and the extra reach. As for the 100-400mm, I do use it with the 1.4x extender and it seems okay to me. However, the 2x extender is just too much for the 100-400mm. No improvement in resolution at all over the 1.4x and you lose a stop of light. My guess is diffraction becomes too high at f/13 which is the best you can do with the 100-400mm when using the 2x extender at 400mm. So yes, I prefer to use the 300mm lens, but there are times when I like having a zoom, and the 100-400 is the lens I choose.
The most important lens is missing....the 150 to 400!
Because I did a separate video about that one 😊