p.1 #3 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
agree with Tony, if there is any difference it is probably very very marginal
other advantages of 150-400
better brightness and built-in TC
also build quality and internal zoom
disadvantage price and size and heavier
p.1 #6 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
All one has to do is look at images from both on this forum. I have seen no images (including mine) that look any better that were taken by the 150-400 than the 100-400.
If you want the slightly longer focal length with the TC engaged, plus a wider aperture, then go buy the 150-400. Paying $7,000 more for a larger and heavier lens that makes it harder to handhold and shoot BIF's is a losing proposition for me, which is why I sold mine at a loss of $2,500.
p.1 #7 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
My wife and I shot the 100-400 for years. We had three, one each and a backup. However, we now have zero 100-400s in our kits, so we simply just disagree with Tony and Ronnie.
My last 100-400 was the mk. 2 which I purchased specifically to test image quality versus the new 50-200 plus a 2.0 TC. On my 4K 32" screen I could no significant image quality difference, so I sold the lens within a week.
On my screen the 150-400 has better image quality. It is not great, but I can see it.
However, the question was about autofocus. When you shoot at 50 f/s versus 25 f/s you get more in focus images and sometimes the higher frame rate scores a tack sharp image when the slower frame rate does not.
Tony also talks the weight and maneuverability advantages of the 100-400 versus the 150-400. In the case of weight this is true but not maneuverability in my personal experience. I find the 150-400 much easier to zoom while shooting. I think it is the shape, the smoother zoom mechanism and the fixed balance of the 150-400 that is the reason.
However, the big jump was when my wife compared the 50-200 with various TC experience to her 100-400 experience. She instantly started getting additional images due to the frame rate, shape, smooth zoom ring and fixed balance of the 50-200. The 50-200 with a 1.4TC seems a bit lighter that the 100-400 and is slightly heavier with the 2.0 TC but my wife doesn't notice the difference. This is why we have moved from the 100-400 to the 50-200 plus various TC's
So my experience and my wife's experience is different from Tont and Ronnie
p.1 #8 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
The OP asked about the 100-400 compared to the 150-400. Nothing to do with the 50-200.
50fps may give you more images than 25fps, but that does not equate to better AF. The 100-400 has 21 elements and weighs 2.9 lbs. compared to the 150-400's 28 elements and weight of 4.14 lbs. Pretty hard to imagine the 150-400 can move those extra 7 elements' weight around faster.
Most people shooting fast BIF's do not zoom while shooting, and most would find the the bigger and heavier 150-400 harder to maneuver. Just like all the Sony shooters that find the 300 f2.8, even with a 2x TC, easier to maneuver than a 600 f4.
Most also do not have the need to shoot at faster than 25fps, and when using FF cameras with 40mp sensors do not want the inconvenience of culling excessive numbers of large files.
p.1 #9 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
OP asked about AF if there were any substantial differences in autofocus behavior, In-focus keeper rate, esp, for BIF
I can't say that I notice any difference between these two
100-400 and 150-400 AF-wise
I have said before that I don't think I take better pictures now with 150-400 than I did with 100-400 but that's my personal opinion, there are many different factors that make the picture better or worse, such as the conditions at the time of the photo being taken
I want to say that 150-400 gives slightly better quality pictures overall but this is nothing that I can't backed up scientifically
but it feels better to write considering the price difference
but I maintain that there are advantages with 150-400 and I have written about these before in different threads, and right now I wouldn't want to change 150-400 for a 100-400 but this is also my personal opinion
wider aperture, built-in TC, also build quality and internal zoom
which I think are nice to have,
I also think the built-in TC on the 150-400 delivers better images than a MC-14 on the 100-400, however, it is a little shorter on the 150-400 if this makes any difference ?
in fact I don't see much difference between 400mm or 500mm f5.6 on the 150-400 in terms of sharpness
Then there are photographers who it doesn't matter what lenses they have, they take good pictures with any lens
p.1 #10 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
This is uncropped, full frame from the Alligator farm, The action lasted 1/2 a second. At 50 f/s my wife captured 24 images with both birds in the shot. This was the best.
I would expect a lens rated at 50 f/s to AF faster than a lens rated at 25 f/s
My experience with the 100-400 is that 25 f/s is a maximum and often takes less and some are OOF.
p.1 #11 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
That image proves nothing about AF. At 50fps you will get more different body positions of the birds than you would at 25fps. If that is all one is interested in, you can get a A9 III and shoot at 120fps.
Many cameras and lenses could capture that image, since the birds are very large, high contrast, close, and moving in pretty well the same focal-plane.
p.1 #14 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
I frankly did that. Four people at the Laguna Seca Ranch. I was shooting the 150-400. Ginnie the 50-200 w/1.4TC. Tamara with the 100-400. Burt was using a Z-8/180-600.
If you have been there, you know that everyone gets to take the same pictures, maybe at slightly different angle in almost ideal conditions.
1-The 150-400 did not disappoint, ever. The only time the 150-400 disappoints is when the subject is too close and that never happened at the Ranch (It did at the Alligator Farm).
2- the Nikon rarely disappointed. Occasionally not having pre-capture in RAW or the extended reach of the 150-400 mattered but the larger sensor pretty much negated any limitations.
3-The 50-200 w/1.4TC occasionally suffered from lack of reach. On the other hand, it has superior handling and zooming qualities that caused my wife to abandon the 100-400 forever. (Later it was ascertained that the 2.0 TC would fix the reach issue at the Ranch)
4-Last was the 100-400. Tamara rarely used pre-capture while Tom (150-400) was in pre-cap all the time. Still, the 100-400 got lots of good action shots because of its light weight and maneuverable.
p.1 #16 · Autofocus comparison: OM 100-400 and 150-400 lenses
Tom Reynolds wrote:
I frankly did that. Four people at the Laguna Seca Ranch. I was shooting the 150-400. Ginnie the 50-200 w/1.4TC. Tamara with the 100-400. Burt was using a Z-8/180-600.
No, you didn't. Either I am confusing you, or you are confusing me to because I am older.
How you expect anyone to take a test seriously that has four people shooting with four different lenses on four different cameras is beyond me. Even if they were all shooting with the same identical gear, they all have different shooting abilities.
And not showing images for comparison is even more ridiculous. IMO
