Notice: Undefined variable: splityear in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewtopic.php on line 99 Micro Four-Thirds Image Thread - Leica & Alternative Gear - Photography - FM Forums
Paul_100A wrote:
absolutely fantastic images.
the type of images that make me wish I was there too.
Thanks Paul. Right after I sent that message above to Tony I finally went ahead and ordered a rental of the 300 F4. It should be here next week. My thought is I can now have the 100-400 on one body and the 300 F4 on the other body. That's providing I see a noticeable improvement with the 300 over the zoom. Should be an interesting comparison
Was supposed to be up in the mountains this weekend, but sitting here with covid instead going through some of my old OM1 pics. Hike on Steamboat mountain 10.2022 all with OM1 and 60mm
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Love that third shot Tony. Just curious, do you see a noticeable difference in IQ between the 150-400 and the 300 F4 @ 300mm ?
You can disregard Tony. I just rented a 300 F4 to see for myself
from my tests, the 300/4 is a tiny bit sharper at farther distances at wide open (there is veiling on the 150-400) but it's really only noticeable when going to 300%. they're pretty much the same at close to mid distances even wide open.
the 300mm also has higher magnification than the 150-400 (@ 300) on close distances
dalegaspi wrote:
from my tests, the 300/4 is a tiny bit sharper at farther distances at wide open (there is veiling on the 150-400) but it's really only noticeable when going to 300%. they're pretty much the same at close to mid distances even wide open.
the 300mm also has higher magnification than the 150-400 (@ 300) on close distances
I think that's where I'm looking to see some improvement, farther distances. That's where my 100-400 breaks down a bit. I was only using the 150-400 comparison as a frame of reference. That lens is not in the cards because of price. Looking forward to getting my hands on that 300 !
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I think that's where I'm looking to see some improvement, farther distances. That's where my 100-400 breaks down a bit. I was only using the 150-400 comparison as a frame of reference. That lens is not in the cards because of price. Looking forward to getting my hands on that 300 !
spoiler alert: you will not be disappointed. below are a couple of BIF with the OM-1...granted they are not exactly that far away but still representative of what the lens can do even with my own questionable photography skills...note the absence of any form of fringing even with the challenging relatively high-contrast subject..and these are at f4.0
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Thanks Paul. Right after I sent that message above to Tony I finally went ahead and ordered a rental of the 300 F4. It should be here next week. My thought is I can now have the 100-400 on one body and the 300 F4 on the other body. That's providing I see a noticeable improvement with the 300 over the zoom.
Should be an interesting comparison
You’ll surely enjoy the 4/300…I don’t know if you’ll need it though.
You are producing nice sharp images with the 100-400. I had one for a spell (while I was using the 4/300) and managed some sharp results but not always (like the 4/300 provided). I could never figure out the rhyme or reason how to get the consistency.
When I started birding I was using Olympus m4/3 and picked up the 4/300. After a while I was using either TC on the 4/300 most of the time (which is why I tried a 100-400).
Paul_100A wrote:
You’ll surely enjoy the 4/300…I don’t know if you’ll need it though.
You are producing nice sharp images with the 100-400. I had one for a spell (while I was using the 4/300) and managed some sharp results but not always (like the 4/300 provided). I could never figure out the rhyme or reason how to get the consistency.
When I started birding I was using Olympus m4/3 and picked up the 4/300. After a while I was using either TC on the 4/300 most of the time (which is why I tried a 100-400).
I guess I'm just like a lot of other folks involved in this pastime. Always thinking of something else Honestly, I just wanted to rent the 300 so I can stop thinking about it one way or another. Reading reviews can only get you so far. Everything is relative in the eyes of the reviewer and the person reading/watching the review. So I'm going to do a comparison @ 300mm between the two lenses paying attention mostly to the out of focus rendering. Also I want to see if I notice any improvements with subjects at distance. Straight up sharpness comparisons are not all that important to me. If the only obvious improvement is the extra light gathering I'm not sure that's going to be worth spending close to $2000 on the used market for a focal length I already have covered.
Appreciate your input Paul. I agree, the 100-400 can be inconsistent but as you say, that's a difficult thing to pin down.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I guess I'm just like a lot of other folks involved in this pastime. Always thinking of something else Honestly, I just wanted to rent the 300 so I can stop thinking about it one way or another. Reading reviews can only get you so far. Everything is relative in the eyes of the reviewer and the person reading/watching the review. So I'm going to do a comparison @ 300mm between the two lenses paying attention mostly to the out of focus rendering. Also I want to see if I notice any improvements with subjects at distance. Straight up sharpness comparisons are not all that important to me. If the only obvious improvement is the extra light gathering I'm not sure that's going to be worth spending close to $2000 on the used market for a focal length I already have covered.
Appreciate your input Paul. I agree, the 100-400 can be inconsistent but that's a difficult thing to pin down. ...Show more →
Possibly a small thing, but generally lenses that have a high optical quality (sharpness, negligible chromatic aberrations) may work better for cropping in post, as well as work better with teleconverters. You may want to check how an image with the 300mm looks like when cropped to 400mm, when compared to your 100-400 mm lens at 400mm.
I should add that I am very satisfied with my 300mm f4. This is a high quality and versatile lens that I find very useful.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I guess I'm just like a lot of other folks involved in this pastime. Always thinking of something else Honestly, I just wanted to rent the 300 so I can stop thinking about it one way or another. Reading reviews can only get you so far. Everything is relative in the eyes of the reviewer and the person reading/watching the review. So I'm going to do a comparison @ 300mm between the two lenses paying attention mostly to the out of focus rendering. Also I want to see if I notice any improvements with subjects at distance. Straight up sharpness comparisons are not all that important to me. If the only obvious improvement is the extra light gathering I'm not sure that's going to be worth spending close to $2000 on the used market for a focal length I already have covered.
Appreciate your input Paul. I agree, the 100-400 can be inconsistent but as you say, that's a difficult thing to pin down. ...Show more →
I recently bought a 75-300II for my 9 year old daughter (she has an OM-1).
Of course I wasn't expecting to see any results, from a plastic kit lens in a child's hands, remotely approaching nicely sharp and certainly not super sharp but, I am surprised to say, I have.
*I can send you a RAW file. I'm sure it'll make you think WTH, as it did me.
I would say many folks would believe that file came from the 4/300 or 150-400.
like the 100-400 though...no explanation why or how to nail results like those consistently.
Paul_100A wrote:
I recently bought a 75-300II for my 9 year old daughter (she has an OM-1).
Of course I wasn't expecting to see any results, from a plastic kit lens in a child's hands, remotely approaching nicely sharp and certainly not super sharp but, I am surprised to say, I have.
*I can send you a RAW file. I'm sure it'll make you think WTH, as it did me.
I would say many folks would believe that file came from the 4/300 or 150-400.
like the 100-400 though...no explanation why or how to nail results like those consistently.
I suspect that some slightly soft images of nature (e.g. flowers), landscapes may often look more visually appealing (nice?) than the same when sharp. This is just a suspicion, and the 100-400 lens may have that amount of softness that makes the photos look "nice" when these are well-composed and don't have a strong dominant subject. This softness is not desirable if there is a dominant subject, e.g. a bird that is the only or the principal part that attracts all attention.
In the 50 years I've been living in my house I've never had a Dragonfly land on a plant in the yard. My 300 F4 rental arrived this morning so I was sitting in a lawn chair pointing it at flowers, lawn statues, whatever. Then this guy decided to show up and plopped himself down right in front of me. Didn't even move out of my chair
OM-1 Olympus 300 F4
