This is not really my thing but I figured before I sent this rental of the 300 F4 back I'd run a quick comparison.
Shot on OM-1 ll locked down on a tripod S-AF, small focus area on the eye. I adjusted the ISO instead of shutter speed because that's how I'd normally shoot. I took five photos each time and tried to pick the best of the five for each example. I opened the Raw file in DxO 5.5.2. No sharpening or other edits applied. I'm sure it comes as no surprise that the 300 is a clear winner in every scenario. The question rolling around in my head is; is the difference worth $2-$3000
For #7,8,9,10 I moved a little closer to the bird and moved the bird a little further away from the background. For #11,12 I moved in close and took full frame uncropped. Maybe I don't have a very discerning eye but I'm having a hard time seeing any difference in the last two shots where I was about 8 feet from the subject.
Gary
Regarding my $2000-$3000 difference comment. I found the 300 was a little quicker to focus and seemed to lock onto flying birds better. I would much prefer f4 over f6.3. The background areas look quite a bit better on the 300, as expected. And I found the 300 to be a better handling lens but of course you give up the other focal lengths. Although, from a reach standpoint, I think my examples show that cropping the 300 F4 image to match the 100-400 @ 400mm is at least a wash and the 300 may actually come out on top so that leaves only the shorter focal lengths which would only come into play if a subject gets too close. I realize none of this is new information for the regulars here but this is helping me work through my decision
Gary
Paul_100A wrote:
whatever you decide I'll suggest keeping the 100-400 as it seems to be an absolute stellar performer.
I agree. Right now, IF I do anything, instead of buying the 300 f4 new, I'm leaning towards a used 300 F4 and a used 40-150 2.8 Pro. Cost would be about the same. That way, when I'm out for a dedicated wildlife shoot I'd take the two lenses on the two bodies and throw in my 17 1.8 just because it's so small. And if I'm just out for a walk or a bike ride and want a "just in case" option I carry the 100-400 and one body. Seems to me that's the most bang for the buck and the option that would give me a different look than what I'm getting now. Appreciate your input Paul.
Sounds great.. I would at least get a Used MC for these lenses
In your case I would have checked the MC-14, it works best on the 300 and also very well on the 40-150.. not something you might use all the time but is good to have in some cases
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Sounds great.. I would at least get a Used MC for these lenses
In your case I would have checked the MC-14, it works best on the 300 and also very well on the 40-150.. not something you might use all the time but is good to have in some cases
Ronny
Yes Ronny. I probably should have rented a TC also, just didn't think of it at the time. I'm in no hurry to do anything. Don't really have any shooting trips planned and winters going to be here very soon
Charlie52 wrote:
I had the 300 and it was an excellent lens, but its weight became an issue for me. Now I have the 100-400 V2 and get very acceptable results.
I'm actually glad I rented the 300 and went through this comparison. I'm not saying there isn't a difference but from what reviewers and some folks on forums were saying I was expecting a much bigger difference. On one hand I'm a bit disappointed because I don't have a clear path to a noticeable upgrade now but on the other hand I can stop thinking of spending more money for the time being.
If I was to show the above test photos to my wife, or anyone else who wasn't a gear junkie for that matter, and told them the cost to get from one to the other was around $3000 they'd look at me like I was crazy. And rightly so, IMHO. I can't help but keep going back to that old adage; "if you want better photos, stand in front of more interesting subjects."
OM-1 Olympus 100-400 V1
Thanks, I found this very helpful. I just purchased the 100-400 and have been happy with it. I've been lusting after the 300 F4 given all the reviews but put off by the price.
I wonder, though, whether more of a difference would appear handheld. The 100-400 is nearing the limit of weight I can, as a 75 year old, hold steady. I wonder if the IS on the 300 (and its sync), along with its brighter aperture, would make a difference. Did you try both handheld?
(I'm using the "old" 100-400 rather than the 100-400 II. I tried both and didn't find the IS sync on the newer model helped much - at least, not worth an additional $500).
oakrrl wrote:
Thanks, I found this very helpful. I just purchased the 100-400 and have been happy with it. I've been lusting after the 300 F4 given all the reviews but put off by the price.
I wonder, though, whether more of a difference would appear handheld. The 100-400 is nearing the limit of weight I can, as a 75 year old, hold steady. I wonder if the IS on the 300 (and its sync), along with its brighter aperture, would make a difference. Did you try both handheld?
(I'm using the "old" 100-400 rather than the 100-400 II. I tried both and didn't find the IS sync on the newer model helped much - at least, not worth an additional $500). ...Show more →
I've been using the 100-400 for almost a couple years now and almost always handheld. I managed to get out once in the kayak with the 300 and a couple times sitting on the edge of a pond for Dragonflies. I used the 300 handheld in the kayak as I do the 100-400, and yes, I believe the IS is better and there's no question that F4 helps. I posted in another thread where I felt the combo of the OM-1 and 300 F4 was the best handling combo I've ever used for tracking flying birds. So yeah, If you consider the upgrade in IQ, even though it's not huge, the brighter aperture, quicker focusing, and better IS, ... Stop it !! I just had myself talked out of it and now I'm back on the fence
oakrrl wrote:
I wonder, though, whether more of a difference would appear handheld. The 100-400 is nearing the limit of weight I can, as a 75 year old, hold steady. I wonder if the IS on the 300 (and its sync), along with its brighter aperture, would make a difference.
No, it wouldn't if you are finding your 100-400 heavy when the 300 weighs .75 lbs. more. And remember the 100-400 is many lenses in one package. If you got the 300, would you then want to pack around something in the100-250mm range and 350-400mm range?
Personally I've had both, eventually selling my 100-400. I found the weight balance of the 100-400, particularly when tromboning the zoom in an out to be more uncomfortable to wield than the 300 f4 pro.
I'm not sure how that works, but I can use the 300f4 pro all day without issue, while doing the same with the 100-400 gave me aches and pains afterwards.
Imagemaster wrote:
No, it wouldn't if you are finding your 100-400 heavy when the 300 weighs .75 lbs. more. And remember the 100-400 is many lenses in one package. If you got the 300, would you then want to pack around something in the100-250mm range and 350-400mm range?
That was always my argument with the Z 180-600 VS the Z 600 6.3. Everyone talked about the weight savings with the 600 (close to a pound ), but failed to mention the likelihood of needing to bring along another lens, which obviously adds to weight. The slight difference in IQ between the two was never enough in my mind to consider the prime over the zoom. It gets a little more complicated with the 300 f4 VS the 100-400 because not only is there a difference in IQ but one is a 6.3 lens and the other an f4. In the case of the Nikons, both were 6.3 lenses. From what I saw in my testing and the short time I had the 300 out in the field I don't feel the increased reach of the zoom is much of an advantage because cropping in with the 300 gives nearly identical results. And yes, I know, the obvious solution is the 150-400 4.5 but that lens is too expensive for me.
Gary
Petrov788 wrote:
Personally I've had both, eventually selling my 100-400. I found the weight balance of the 100-400, particularly when tromboning the zoom in an out to be more uncomfortable to wield than the 300 f4 pro.
I'm not sure how that works, but I can use the 300f4 pro all day without issue, while doing the same with the 100-400 gave me aches and pains afterwards.
From my short experience with the 300 I would agree. I found the 300 effortless when tracking flying birds. I don't find the 100-400 to be a pain or anything like that it's just that the 300 is a more balanced, compact option.
Gary
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Sounds great.. I would at least get a Used MC for these lenses
In your case I would have checked the MC-14, it works best on the 300 and also very well on the 40-150.. not something you might use all the time but is good to have in some cases
Ronny
Absolutely agree with this. The x1.4 is stellar on both my 40-150 and 300.
I'm going to chime in here with some observations after having owned the 100-400 v1 (now gone to a new home) and owning the 300/4 + x1.4 TC :
1. The 100-400 is an excellent lens up to a certain distance (and is superb for pseudo macro) but after that I found the IQ dropped off significantly more than the 300mm. The 300+TC beats it all ends up.
2. The 300mm has a brighter aperture, quicker focusing and better IS as noted above. All major benefits which go to explain the significant price difference.
3. Weight : Slightly heavier but I agree with Petrov above, the tromboning of the 100-400 is the issue as it destabilised the combination so the weight difference isn't an issue for me per se.
A simple science experiment proves this point - a heavier weight closer to the camera feels less than a lighter weight further from the anchor point.
4. On the issue of carrying two lenses. Firstly most birds I shoot are small and there is a reason why the majority of top birding lenses are 500, 600, 800 primes, it's because you very rarely fill the frame and almost always you'll still need to crop in! And after many years birding I do have good stalking skills so getting close isn't the issue (though you can't always).
However, in the event that I get that close to larger birds, then the 40-150+TC fills that niche. That said the weight in my hands is still only the 300+OM1 and the other lens is in my backpack (or my bag is on the ground if I'm in situ) so not an issue unless I'm hiking long distances to get to the subjects.
For me it comes down to this: if you are a serious birder (esp. of smaller or distant birds) then you'll notice the difference and monetarily it's worth it. Get the x1.4 TC, the AF is still excellent and the IQ holds up superbly (90+%?).
I dithered and ummed and ahhed on forking out the money for the 300mm for 2 years - from when I first started using M43 (I finally bought a used copy from MPB - in the UK they are much better it seems than in the US), I regret not buying it much earlier.
Following this post and it persuaded me to sell Canon 500mm f4 v2 and 1Dx MK II to MPB. OM1 from Olympus direct is $1399 now with free shipping and cheaper than some used. 300mm f4, 1.4x TC and 30mm Macro both arrive tomorrow
The Merganzer photos convinced me this is a good birding kit.
I have been lucky enough to have both 300 (bought used long ago) and 100-400 mk 1, both with OM-1, and I agree that the 300 is better. However, the zoom has advantages that make me use it quite a lot - being able to zoom out, and the lighter weight, and shorter length in the camera bag. It is often the one I take with me for birds, handheld, and I often use TC’s, though the 100-400+MC20 does seem a step too far.
This all led me to wonder how much of the difference is due not to the quality of the glass, but to the better stabilization on the 300. That led me to wonder whether the 100-400 mk 2, with its improved stabilization and allegedly better AF, might be sufficiently better than the mk 1 to be a worthwhile upgrade even though is has the same glass.
