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

Phocal wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

Phocal wrote:

petebuster wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

petebuster wrote:

just putting other options forward for those who think it's a ridicoulusly high price

The price is so high that you have to wait in line for a couple of month to get the lens

So 2k suddenly becomes cheap because you have to wait??? Very logical, a line of pros no doubt where cost doesn't come into it

2k is still 2k but the fact that they are selling faster then supply can keep up says that you are in a minority when it comes to thinking they are to expensive. I highly doubt that it is Pros buying up all the 300mm ƒ4.0 lenses as there are not many working Pro photographs using µ4/3. That buying is coming from the 1000's of amateurs who look at the Olympus 300mm as a small and light way of getting 600mm of effective reach. It is way lighter and smaller then a 400mm or 600mm lens and much cheaper. I run across 20 normal people every time I go to my favorite state park for gator photography who are out taking photos with more expensive gear then an EM1 and 300/4. On Facebook the Birds of Texas group has 23,042 members and at least 1/2 of them are serious amateur bird photographers who spend $1,000's on their gear. Being one of the few µ4/3 users in the group I have been fielding a lot of questions about the system and lenses as more hear about the 300mm ƒ4.0. There are a lot of older members who currently shoot older full frame Canon/Nikons with 500/600/800mm lenses looking to down size as they get older and can't or don't want to lug that stuff around anymore. They could sell a 600mm lens and but several 300/4's and EM1's to attach them to.

Just because you can't afford the 300/4 does not mean there are not 100000000000 out there who can and obviously are considering the wait time on them.

That's interesting to know Phocal - that questions are coming in about m43 equipment and the 300 (I assume the 100-400 too). I've wanted a lens that could get out beyond the 600mm range since using a 100-300 and 75-300 II and now we have two choices. That the price is higher than other m43 lenses doesn't bother me.

Pete buster's comments were meant to offer an alternative. But, if I switched to Nikon just to get the Nikkor 300 PF it would be even more expensive because I'd have to get another body and other things as well.

My wife and I both use Oly right now, enjoy the system, share our learning experiences, and we're not likely to add another system at this point. Especially her - she loves the Olympus lenses we have.

It's all good here.

Doc

The addition of those two lenses has really peaked the interest in the wildlife photography area. I actually get asked more about what I think about the 300/4 then the 100-400. When I am at the state parks shooting I got asked a lot of question about what I am using (currently the 150/2 with both TC's). I think the 300/4 will bring a lot of new people over to µ4/3 because of the IQ it has as well as the effective reach in what really is a small package (considering your other choices would be a 400/4 or 600/4 depending on sensor size).

I was hoping good things for Olympus with the 300/4 and based on how hard they are to get right now it looks like that has come to fruition. If the EM1mk2 is what they are saying it will be, I expect the 300/4 to be even harder to get after the mk2 is released. I know a few people in my Texas Bird Group are waiting to see what the mk2 brings to the table and if they like what Olympus has done fully intend to buy an EM1 and 300/4 as their main birding lens. I am also waiting to see what the mk2 brings before I drop any more cash on lenses. If it as they say I will get one, if not I will probably get a D500 and their 200-400 ƒ4.0. Honestly I want to stay with Olympus because I do value the smaller size for my shooting style.

We haven't yet gone out to shoot with other birders - and have seen few in our area - possibly because we are out so early and late - and possibly because one of the places we frequent the most is the Accotink Bay area of Fort Belvoir, VA. (have to have I.D. access to get on post).  The marsh area has trails, on-land and in-water blinds, is full of waterfowl, including eagles and osprey and the distances to subjects can be quite long.  Kayaks are a great way to get closer to shore and access the in-water blinds.  The majority of the time 420mm is not nearly enough - making the 840mm possible with the 300 very desirable.

When using the 75-300 II even 600mm was too short many times.  And, I shot it backed off to 282mm to mitigate softness at the long end.  But, what the area and that lens did do was allow me to start practicing tracking with the EE-1 dot sight - which is great fun.  It really works.  And, at the same time I continued to practice without it and keep both eyes open - right eye dominant looking through the EVF, left eye capturing fuller field of view.  That works for me too - and is a useful skill to have when in a pinch.  We think, in the shooting areas we've been in and the style we use that the 300 is fine; meaning not a problem that it is not a zoom.

I sure wish I had had the pleasure of being around other birders, because it might have sped up the learning process for my wife and I.  I'll have to look into finding clubs nearby.  Nevertheless, through sustained trial and error, and reading on this forum and elsewhere, we've progressed.

It is very interesting to us to read your experiences with other birders in Texas.  If you have been getting more questions about the 300 than the 100-400 then that says something.  I've done enough birding to know that reach, sharpness, speed, smaller size and weight, stabilization at long telephoto reach, rugged build, and weather sealing are what we need.

The D500 sounds amazing.  But for now switching systems to accommodate two photographers (wife and I) just isn't possible - making acquiring one 300 F4 actually cheaper to us.

We are waiting to see what the EM1 II will be like as well.  That , and a 300, could be the trick!

Thanks for your post,

Doc