Great picturesI don't do real wildlife, these were taken at the local wildlife park with the 75-300 at 300
Peter Del
Thank you that is really helpful. So despite maybe some quirks of that lens it can deliver if used with those quirks in mind (good light and allowing for autofocus).
The lightest weight high IQ lens is likely the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm F2.8-4.0, which weighs in at 655g, the image quality is supposed to be pretty good even with the included 1.4x TC (there is also a 2xTC).
Thank you that is really helpful. I developed an extreme "pickiness" for IQ before the days of digital. Went through all kinds of cameras and lenses and nothing quite was there for me until I bought a contax t2. Ended up with a small contax system which I loved. That did the IQ for me. Prior to that I had canon slr lenses which just weren't quite there for me. Except a 24mm one.In my experience "best IQ" is very relative. Until you have seen, often enough, what the best glass is capable of, you don't know what "best IQ" means. Not aiming to be argumentative - but am speaking from my own experience from decades of shooting pics with a wide variety of camera systems.
And, to be clear - in my case, even when I got to shoot with the best glass, I very quickly had my nose rubbed in the fact that I did not, initially, have the skill to shoot it, to it's capability - but once I got there, with coaching and a lot of practice, I came to appreciate how special that kind of lens is. And honestly, I put the 300mm f/4 in that class - at least the sample I have.
I'll say upfront, wildlife is my thing, and have travelled all over the world and US to capture it - birds, mammals, amphibians, insects, . . .
Considering everything else, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, in terms of "best IQ" I would suggest the 300mm f/4. The lens has a good IS, don't know if that camera offers IS sync, but when you have to choose, use the IS of the largest item (lens or camera). The 300mm f/4 comes with a tripod foot already shaped for Arca-Swiss and can work very well on a monopod or light, but quality tripod. I use only carbon fiber based support - it's lighter and more resistant to shake. It will cost more, but if you cry once, that is pay up for better than you think you need in the moment, you will save in the long run, versus dipping your toe, then realizing it's not doing what you need and buying another and another.
The IS of the 300 is very good, though I have only ever used it on a camera that would sync IS, so I'm spoiled in that regard. I can't tell you how it compares to the Oly zooms - never used them. Plenty here that have. My experience with other systems, though, seems born out - consumer zooms never compete with a prime, if IQ is a high priority. Most will say they are good enough, but need to say so because that is the choice they made. (We all tend to rationalize our choice as the right choice.) If "best IQ" is your priority, then I think the 300mm f/4 is your best option - used on a monopod or tripod, so the weight doesn't give your wrist issues. I use it regularly by itself and with the TCs. Depending on what I am shooting and if with a TC and which TC, I will shoot hand held, on a monopod, or more commonly on a tripod.
With a monopod or tripod, you can shoot with lower ISO and lower shutter speeds and get razor sharp images. Lower ISO tends to lead to "best IQ". One example of what I'm talking about, shot with the EM1X with the 300mm f/4 and the 2.0x TC, so EFV of 1200mm:
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Not sure if the EXIF will show or not, this was shot at ISO 400 and a shutter speed of 1/320. This is an extremely active and twitchy bird, and tiny. This could not be shot handheld anywhere close to these numbers and still be as sharp - but perhaps I am wrong, and should just say I could not do it. So, I accept my lack of skill and use a tripod, because "best IQ" is important to me.
Good luck as you consider your options. Lots of options these days, and that is a good thing.
Didn't even know about that one! Thanks. Will check it out. It's not 400 of course but I'm not going to get a "light" 100-400.
The 300mm f/4 with the 1.4x will get you to 420mm (840mm FOV) and that combo works really well. I find it balances well on monopod or tripod - I use it on both.Thank you that is really helpful. I developed an extreme "pickiness" for IQ before the days of digital. Went through all kinds of cameras and lenses and nothing quite was there for me until I bought a contax t2. Ended up with a small contax system which I loved. That did the IQ for me. Prior to that I had canon slr lenses which just weren't quite there for me. Except a 24mm one.In my experience "best IQ" is very relative. Until you have seen, often enough, what the best glass is capable of, you don't know what "best IQ" means. Not aiming to be argumentative - but am speaking from my own experience from decades of shooting pics with a wide variety of camera systems.
And, to be clear - in my case, even when I got to shoot with the best glass, I very quickly had my nose rubbed in the fact that I did not, initially, have the skill to shoot it, to it's capability - but once I got there, with coaching and a lot of practice, I came to appreciate how special that kind of lens is. And honestly, I put the 300mm f/4 in that class - at least the sample I have.
I'll say upfront, wildlife is my thing, and have travelled all over the world and US to capture it - birds, mammals, amphibians, insects, . . .
Considering everything else, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, in terms of "best IQ" I would suggest the 300mm f/4. The lens has a good IS, don't know if that camera offers IS sync, but when you have to choose, use the IS of the largest item (lens or camera). The 300mm f/4 comes with a tripod foot already shaped for Arca-Swiss and can work very well on a monopod or light, but quality tripod. I use only carbon fiber based support - it's lighter and more resistant to shake. It will cost more, but if you cry once, that is pay up for better than you think you need in the moment, you will save in the long run, versus dipping your toe, then realizing it's not doing what you need and buying another and another.
The IS of the 300 is very good, though I have only ever used it on a camera that would sync IS, so I'm spoiled in that regard. I can't tell you how it compares to the Oly zooms - never used them. Plenty here that have. My experience with other systems, though, seems born out - consumer zooms never compete with a prime, if IQ is a high priority. Most will say they are good enough, but need to say so because that is the choice they made. (We all tend to rationalize our choice as the right choice.) If "best IQ" is your priority, then I think the 300mm f/4 is your best option - used on a monopod or tripod, so the weight doesn't give your wrist issues. I use it regularly by itself and with the TCs. Depending on what I am shooting and if with a TC and which TC, I will shoot hand held, on a monopod, or more commonly on a tripod.
With a monopod or tripod, you can shoot with lower ISO and lower shutter speeds and get razor sharp images. Lower ISO tends to lead to "best IQ". One example of what I'm talking about, shot with the EM1X with the 300mm f/4 and the 2.0x TC, so EFV of 1200mm:
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Not sure if the EXIF will show or not, this was shot at ISO 400 and a shutter speed of 1/320. This is an extremely active and twitchy bird, and tiny. This could not be shot handheld anywhere close to these numbers and still be as sharp - but perhaps I am wrong, and should just say I could not do it. So, I accept my lack of skill and use a tripod, because "best IQ" is important to me.
Good luck as you consider your options. Lots of options these days, and that is a good thing.
It can be a personal thing as well and a great picture doesn't have to be pin sharp - if it has something special about it. But sharpness and IQ does it for me. It's almost to the point that if I can't get the IQ I don't want to take the picture. I got quite OCD about it!
So I've always used prime lenses mostly and the first thing that appealed was the 300 f4 - despite the cost. For that reason. However I do think, with it being shorter and heavier than the zooms, it could be an issue for me to use (although all the tips about carbon fibre monopods are making me think twice about that!).
So yes I'd love to get that lens. But think I need to find a balance of being able to reach to 400mm and still have good IQ.
Thinking I should maybe try and hire the 300 and Olympus 100-400 and try them out.
Also if getting the 100-400 I could easily afford a new Olympus body as well.
Speaking of which. Would the Em5 be balanced enough?
thats a beautiful image, in fact its better than all the 300 pro images ive seen.I had the 300mm f4 Pro for a few months and tested it against the 50-200 SWD + EC14 and the Sigma APO 300mm f4 Tele Macro in Canon EF Mount.
Price differences:
Olympus 300mm f4 Pro - $2500
Olympus 50-200 SWD + EC14 - $600
Sigma APO 300mm F4 + Metabones Smart Adapter = $500
The 300mm F4 focuses the fastest, followed by the 50-200 SWD, and the Sigma.
The IQ differences were minor in most cases. The Sigma has the best bokeh, but at f4.5 for the two 300mm lenses and f4.9 for the SWD, sharpness differences and color are so close you really won't notice. What I did notice the most is the focus speed, but since my EM1.2 could never reliably capture BIF, and most of my work is stationary, I sold the 300mm f4 Pro and kept the other two.
Later, I found a newer version of the Sigma APO 300mm f4 with an HSM engine that focuses faster than the SWD. It cost $250 and that's what I use now with the Metabones adapter. No C-AF, but S-AF is fast and accurate. An example from yesterday.
There are a huge number of Canon EF lenses that work with Metabones Smart Adapters that are far cheaper on the used market than Olympus pro lenses. They produce stunning images with Olympus cameras for prices not much more than the 75-300 new.
The OP wrotethats a beautiful image, in fact its better than all the 300 pro images ive seen.I had the 300mm f4 Pro for a few months and tested it against the 50-200 SWD + EC14 and the Sigma APO 300mm f4 Tele Macro in Canon EF Mount.
Price differences:
Olympus 300mm f4 Pro - $2500
Olympus 50-200 SWD + EC14 - $600
Sigma APO 300mm F4 + Metabones Smart Adapter = $500
The 300mm F4 focuses the fastest, followed by the 50-200 SWD, and the Sigma.
The IQ differences were minor in most cases. The Sigma has the best bokeh, but at f4.5 for the two 300mm lenses and f4.9 for the SWD, sharpness differences and color are so close you really won't notice. What I did notice the most is the focus speed, but since my EM1.2 could never reliably capture BIF, and most of my work is stationary, I sold the 300mm f4 Pro and kept the other two.
Later, I found a newer version of the Sigma APO 300mm f4 with an HSM engine that focuses faster than the SWD. It cost $250 and that's what I use now with the Metabones adapter. No C-AF, but S-AF is fast and accurate. An example from yesterday.
There are a huge number of Canon EF lenses that work with Metabones Smart Adapters that are far cheaper on the used market than Olympus pro lenses. They produce stunning images with Olympus cameras for prices not much more than the 75-300 new.
Ds
--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F
The IQ you need is very dependent on what you do with your images. I seldom print my photos and never more than 11x14 and have had a number of images printed in magazines but they're usually used on-line either in my blog or on non-profits' sites. Unless you're making large prints the IQ from the 75-300 is certainly more than adequate. The 75-300 ii is apparently much better than the first version and there's individual variation between examples, if you get one be sure to test it well and return it if the IQ isn't what you'd like.
My prime lens days ended when I quit shooting film. Back then zoom lenses were pretty poor, but newer zooms are almost as good as primes; and their versatility more than makes up for a somewhat lesser IQ.
My M10 ii and 75-300mm are a nice combination which is often mounted on a monopod with a tilt-head. I use a medium length ARCA-Swiss plate to balance the combination on the monopod or tripod with an inexpensive gimbal. The photos from the supported combination are significantly sharper than hand-held photos, but those are usually fine for my purposes. I do wish that the lens took a 1.4 teleconverter, but it doesn't.
I would look for a used EM1 MKiii, there are a lot of them available right now and it is a fantastic body, especially for what they are going for these days. The extra size and grip will me much more comfortable compared to the EM5 series IMHO for long lenses.
It makes some sense....because if you already own mft body you wont be buying FF body + lens to get that reach of 400mm mft. It is pretty cheap to just buy the 100-400 and use the body you already have i think.
He also wrote an article saying that the 40-150mm f2.8 is his favourite lens whether used on its own or with the MC20 & MC14
That's a great image and thanks for those tips. I do actually have a 28mm Contax Slr lens (which would presumably be 56mm on EM10) - is there an adapter for that? Not for reach obviously but might be nice to use,I had the 300mm f4 Pro for a few months and tested it against the 50-200 SWD + EC14 and the Sigma APO 300mm f4 Tele Macro in Canon EF Mount.
Price differences:
Olympus 300mm f4 Pro - $2500
Olympus 50-200 SWD + EC14 - $600
Sigma APO 300mm F4 + Metabones Smart Adapter = $500
The 300mm F4 focuses the fastest, followed by the 50-200 SWD, and the Sigma.
The IQ differences were minor in most cases. The Sigma has the best bokeh, but at f4.5 for the two 300mm lenses and f4.9 for the SWD, sharpness differences and color are so close you really won't notice. What I did notice the most is the focus speed, but since my EM1.2 could never reliably capture BIF, and most of my work is stationary, I sold the 300mm f4 Pro and kept the other two.
Later, I found a newer version of the Sigma APO 300mm f4 with an HSM engine that focuses faster than the SWD. It cost $250 and that's what I use now with the Metabones adapter. No C-AF, but S-AF is fast and accurate. An example from yesterday.
There are a huge number of Canon EF lenses that work with Metabones Smart Adapters that are far cheaper on the used market than Olympus pro lenses. They produce stunning images with Olympus cameras for prices not much more than the 75-300 new.
Fantastic pictures. That is quite a difference in lens size.
