You have now joined a small, elite, cadre of Olympus 300mm f2.8 lens owners. I suspect that, over time, you won't be yearning for the m4/3 300mm f4 lens. It's not just the fact that this lens is a stop faster, it's how it's been designed and built that makes it so special, like the 150mm f2. And I don't own either one, so I'm kind of unbiased.
I think I'll be ok, I'm just glad to own a lens that for once I won't be in danger of misplacing somewhere, as there is no place for that behemoth to hide.…entertainment package all on your own. Like the circus coming to town!
Big tuna indeed. More like a killer whale!
I wouldn't dare have a camouflage package like that on a lens or camera -- I might never find the dang thang!
Most of the F4 pics were shot with the 1.4 teleconverter though. I'm sure when I get better light I'll experiment with stopping the lens down more, but that may be awhile as we are in our awful aleutian low weather patterns now, and aren't getting much sun. Until then, I'm all about seeing what I can do wide open, or mostly open.
The 300mm was the one lens in four thirds I never owned not got to use. Thank you for the images taken with it as well. I will be in line for the micro four thirds 300mm, and look forward to it.I used to own a really nice tripod head with my larger tripod. Unfortunately I sold it when I went through a career transition. I'm actually going to have to buy a whole new tripod now, as the sirui unit I love so much for landscape and backpacking use will probably be quite inadequate for this much weight.That is a beautiful piece of glass -- although at this stage in my life I wouldn't want to wrestle with it.
If you don't have one, you really should think about a gimbal head for your tripod. I have one I used to use with my Bigma, before I sold it. Gimbal heads make maneuvering a large, heavy lens a piece of cake. The only down side is that they are a bit bulky and usually weigh 2-3+ lbs.
I have a hard time imagining that the 300 F4 won't be on par with the focusing ability of the 40-150 pro. I think I'll probably get one myself eventually, assuming the overall weight isn't insane, since I could actually imagine hiking an f4 lens quite a bit, where I couldn't imagine doing much more than a few short miles and an afternoon with the 2.8. If the 300 F4 is to the 40-140 F2.8 as the 300 F2.8 is to the 150 F2, I think I'll enjoy it as a lens I could actually pack and take on a multi-day summit hunt for ptarmigan or other alpine critters. Of course, now that I have the prime, the panny 100-400 sounds like a reasonable second long lens as well, so it'll be nice to sit back and read the reviews.
Thanks. Considering the cost, I think it was very worth it, especially since I saw just how much the 2.8 aperture opens up my ability to go out and get the shot in the usually gray, blah weather where I live. Another plus I realized is that I can use the 2x teleconverter to get a very usable 600mm F5.6 when I want a telescope on a tripod, which won't be an option in M4/3 land anytime soon, at least not with native AF.
Thx for your reply. Your Aleutian Weather is mostly identical to our Dutch weather including the light. It is so warm here there is no snow either to lighten up the place. January might become much colder it seems so more snow and more sun to be expected. So if you send me your lens, I'll see what I can do ;-)
I actually prefer using my gimbal on my monopod.
Yeah, that's the biggest thing. I'll always have a use for the 2.8, but a more modernized F4 would be a more practical lens for hiking any distance, maybe even for traveling as well depending on what my objectives are on a given trip. I've thought for years that a 300 F4 or 400 F5.6 is what I really wanted if I could only own one good tele.
I was surprised to see the IQ was as good as it was, wide open with the 2x TC. Definitely a tangible benefit when I just want to shoot with a telescope in good light. I have been very surprised at how well the lens handles with the M4/3 body. I haven't even felt like the grip is a necessity, though I could see why it might feel a little better to have a bulkier body to match the lens. Considering how good the images seem to be at 100%, I am not really tempted to go back to a lower resolution sensor, though I admit, if they made an E-7 with a modern sensor, I might be tempted.
Yeah, the AF has it's moments, but overall I am satisfied with it, and agree that comparing it with an E-5 which I used to own seems like a mixed bag.
