Who Chose the 300 f4 over the 100-400 for Birding and Why?

sdw1 wrote:

petebuster wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

petebuster wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

petebuster wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

Pd printer wrote:

I am interested in a M4/3 system for photography which requires more magnification i.e. macro and birds/reptiles. Both the 300 and 100-400 allow quite close focusing which would important use of these lenses for me but I have not seen any comparison at the closest range. Otherwise I would tend to the 300.

Also I have not made any decision on which camera: GX8 or PenF. Panasonic uses the same batteries as my Leica Q and I like the tiltable viewfinder but I am concerned losing the advantage of IBIS working with Olympus lenses.

We are thinking the same thing Pd printer.

The 6 stop sync IS available with the 300 and EM5 II seems very desirable.

Another feature we like in the 100-400 is the 72mm filter size which would allow us to use the filters we already have for the 40-150 Pro.

I guess we're like everyone else; we wish the Oly and Panny stabilizer systems were fully cross compatible.

Both the 300 and 100-400 have advantages and disadvantages, but I'm glad they are here!

Doc

The thing with the Olympus 300mm f4 price is for less cost you could get a nikon dslr, tc and their image stabilised 300mm f4 and have a bigger sensor so Imo it's a no brainer and there's little difference in size and weight so why spend all that on a lens??? To me Olympus have shot themselves in the foot with that one.over 2k for a not very versatile lens is ridiculous.

Petebuster:

Are you referring to the Nikkor 300 F4 made for full frame? I'll look into it - saw a price of $1995.00 on it but need to know more.

And, thanks for your response.

Doc

It works just as well on aspc, I know I've tried it, on ff it's not going to be a cheaper combo but with say a d7100 it's much cheaper than the Olympus lens alone, it's the newer pf ed vr

So, if I have this right, on a D7100 the 300 PF becomes a 450mm, add a 1.4TC and it becomes a 630mm F5.6, and a 2.0TC takes it out to 900mm at F6.3?

Also, you probably crop pics in PP some as well, right?

Is that working well for you?

My thought about the Oly 300 F4 (600mm on an EM5 II) was also to use it with the MC-14 TC which I already have and which would take the 300 out to 840mm at F5.6... ...and I would not have to invest in another body or system.

But yes, I see some advantages of going with a bigger sensor and another system; just don't know if I want to do that right now - but am open.

Doc

Obviously it's a personal choice I'm merely putting out an alternative option considering the extortionate price of the Olympus prime, had they priced it competitively then the Olympus would be the obvious option. If MFT want more wildlife shooters I think now they are bringing the lens possibilities out they have to price them competitively which they don't seem to be doing.

I have to admit that, given my interest in birding, the Nikon D500 and a 300 PF would be a strong choice. I've read some D500 reviews and will have to look into the 300 PF more closely. Its the D500's AF speed and accuracy and ISO strengths, etc. that really seem great - making APSC very interesting again. If I was already invested in Nikon it would be a no brainer.

And, thanks again for taking your time to offer an alternative point of view. I didn't take it as an attack on my interest in Olympus at all - just a good discussion which I appreciate.

I'm not "locked in" to Olympus just because I'm currently using it. I've had a Canon 7D, a GH2 and 4 beforehand. As I deepen my skills into birding and nature photography I think I'll be able to make a more informed choice.

We all have many good choices - and the choices just seem to be getting better - making it somewhat harder to choose. Take the EM5 II, EM1, A6300, D500 and others as examples; wow! Even the more recent 1" sensor superzooms are looking good.

It's all good, huh?

Doc

This has been a great discussion and something I have not brought up is why not look at switching your EM5 for an EM1.  The EM1 is worlds better at AFC then the EM5.  I have an EM5 I bought when I wanted to test out the OMD line before going all in.  Once I made that decision I got the EM1 because I mostly shoot wildlife and sports and the EM5 is not very good for that really.

The Nikon D500 is an amazing camera and for AFC is way better then the EM1 and the sensor is a lot better.  But it is the newest tech and the EM1 is 3 years old now.  I expect the EM1mk2 to close that gap, maybe not Nikon D500 good but I expect it to be much closer (close enough that for me it will not be an issue and I stay Olympus).  Also, as a system it is going to be much bigger and heavier and require larger lenses for the same effective reach.  I don't care about DoF differences, in wildlife photography I am more often then not to be stopping down to get more (even with µ4/3) and the 1 stop difference between APSC and µ4/3 is very small.  What I care about are effective reach, shutter speed (need fast shutter to freeze action while also keeping ISO low) and lenses that allow me to cover miles per day in the swamps without killing me.