Nikon and Canon Photographers scooped up most of the wildlife awards.

SteveY80 wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

C Sean wrote:

The only problem is when it comes to the blurred background the M43 can't compete very well against the Full Frame cannons.

Let me quote Eric Hosking, one of the best wildlife photographer of all times.

"Many photographers are very proud of their wide aperture lens without thought as to its use. An f3.5 lens of 300mm is certainly an expensive job, but this focal length working at maximum aperture gives such a tiny depth of field, particularly when working at short range, that it is to be discouraged in most circumstances. There are altogether too many photographs that have a narrow band of focus separating unsightly blurs at the top and bottom of the picture. ..."

Looking at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year finalists, there are plenty of images shot with narrow apertures, or using wide angle lenses to get a lot in focus, but there are also great images that use shallow depth of field in a creative way.

It's a tool that can be overused, but there are circumstances where the wide open aperture was necessary for an award winning shot. I can see why wildlife photographers would want that tool at their disposal, even if they'd agree with Eric Hosking that it isn't a good idea in "most circumstances".

I just watched a lecture (on youtube) and he use the best Canon gear Canon has to offer in terms of bodies and he probably has each of the fastest Canon super telephoto primes. So he has the 400mm 2.8 instead of the F4 or the 5.6. The shot he showed in his presentation most of his birds photographs were in focus and the background is a nice creamy blur.

To achieve these shots you need the right conditions and settings unless the 800mm or 600mm primes just blur the close background to oblivion. I seen photographers using similar gear and the results they show are not in the same league as the talented pros.

The Panasonic 200mm 2.8 is a very nice and expensive lens, however it like comparing this lens to the Panasonic 42.5mm 1.7 vs 1.2. You either need that lens or you don't. To get the shots with a creamy background, the background need to be some distance away from the subject and to justify the price tag if you own the 100-400 you will need to shoot F2.8 to F4.

In today news Panasonic said they will announce something big in December. Which could be organic sensor, new LX camera etc or the 50-200mm. The 50-200 was delayed and I believed it was due to the high sales of the 12-60, 8-16 and the 100-400. On the Wex website, all three Leica branded zooms were constantly were selling out last Summer. The other reason why the lens could be delayed because to make it compatible with the Panasonic teleconverters.

I'm not expecting the 50-200 to come out before my trip to Africa and if it does I probably give it a miss. I will get the lens but I would rather have the 35-100 2.8 with me than have a lens that approx half a stop quicker than the 100-400.