Reading mode: Light Dark

OM 100-400mm II vs 150-600

Go to last post
Whenever you ask the sharpness question about the 100-400, you are guaranteed to get "this one or that one is better" responses. I suggest to ignore ALL of them. OM System made no changes whatsoever to the optical design of version II, which has been discussed at length here when the new lens came out. However, both of them suffer from copy-to-copy variance, which they share with almost every other consumer-level tele lens in the market. Whether you buy version i or ii, make sure to thoroughly test it and return that copy if you are not happy with its sharpness.

Also, forget IS when talking about birds. You will rarely use shutter speeds of 1/100s (= 3 stops of IS), and getting a bird shot at 1/25s (=5 stops of IS) is all but impossible. Nobody needs 7 stops or more for bird photography, but companies still pretend it is a differentiator.
 
Last edited:
lokatz said:
Whenever you ask the sharpness question about the 100-400, you are guaranteed to get "this one or that one is better" responses. I suggest to ignore ALL of them. OM System made no changes whatsoever to the optical design of version II, which has been discussed at length here when the new lens came out. However, both of them suffer from copy-to-copy variance, which they share with almost every other consumer-level tele lens in the market. Whether you buy version i or ii, make sure to thoroughly test it and return that copy if you are not happy with its sharpness.

Also, forget IS when talking about birds. You will rarely use shutter speeds of 1/100s (= 3 stops of IS), and getting a bird shot at 1/25s (=5 stops of IS) is all but impossible. Nobody needs 7 stops or more for bird photography, but companies still pretend it is a differentiator.
Click to expand...
So what does the 100-400 II have to offer over the first version - better QC in assembly and less variation perhaps ??

jj
 
It wont work underwater for two reasons. One there aren't any ports available for that lens. The further you get from your subject the worse the image because of the particulates in the water and drop off of light. I use a 8"mm fisheye with a dome port for wide and a 60 or 90mm macro. That's about it.

--
Ken
 
Last edited:
First congratulations on pending retirement Living in Florida light will not be an issue when using 100-400. Have been pleased when using V1 in good light. Often take that lens when I go home to Florida. Personally I would take over the 150-600. May have already been mentioned as have not read all the replies. Would consider a used 300 F4. Stunning lens on OM-II
 
jjbinx said:
lokatz said:
Whenever you ask the sharpness question about the 100-400, you are guaranteed to get "this one or that one is better" responses. I suggest to ignore ALL of them. OM System made no changes whatsoever to the optical design of version II, which has been discussed at length here when the new lens came out. However, both of them suffer from copy-to-copy variance, which they share with almost every other consumer-level tele lens in the market. Whether you buy version i or ii, make sure to thoroughly test it and return that copy if you are not happy with its sharpness.

Also, forget IS when talking about birds. You will rarely use shutter speeds of 1/100s (= 3 stops of IS), and getting a bird shot at 1/25s (=5 stops of IS) is all but impossible. Nobody needs 7 stops or more for bird photography, but companies still pretend it is a differentiator.
Click to expand...
So what does the 100-400 II have to offer over the first version - better QC in assembly and less variation perhaps ??

jj
Click to expand...
According to OM System, Sync IS and better weather sealing.
 
lokatz said:
jjbinx said:
lokatz said:
Whenever you ask the sharpness question about the 100-400, you are guaranteed to get "this one or that one is better" responses. I suggest to ignore ALL of them. OM System made no changes whatsoever to the optical design of version II, which has been discussed at length here when the new lens came out. However, both of them suffer from copy-to-copy variance, which they share with almost every other consumer-level tele lens in the market. Whether you buy version i or ii, make sure to thoroughly test it and return that copy if you are not happy with its sharpness.

Also, forget IS when talking about birds. You will rarely use shutter speeds of 1/100s (= 3 stops of IS), and getting a bird shot at 1/25s (=5 stops of IS) is all but impossible. Nobody needs 7 stops or more for bird photography, but companies still pretend it is a differentiator.
Click to expand...
So what does the 100-400 II have to offer over the first version - better QC in assembly and less variation perhaps ??

jj
Click to expand...
According to OM System, Sync IS and better weather sealing.
Click to expand...
But optically and AF-wise it’s the same lens ?

jj
 
jjbinx said:
lokatz said:
jjbinx said:
lokatz said:
Whenever you ask the sharpness question about the 100-400, you are guaranteed to get "this one or that one is better" responses. I suggest to ignore ALL of them. OM System made no changes whatsoever to the optical design of version II, which has been discussed at length here when the new lens came out. However, both of them suffer from copy-to-copy variance, which they share with almost every other consumer-level tele lens in the market. Whether you buy version i or ii, make sure to thoroughly test it and return that copy if you are not happy with its sharpness.

Also, forget IS when talking about birds. You will rarely use shutter speeds of 1/100s (= 3 stops of IS), and getting a bird shot at 1/25s (=5 stops of IS) is all but impossible. Nobody needs 7 stops or more for bird photography, but companies still pretend it is a differentiator.
Click to expand...
So what does the 100-400 II have to offer over the first version - better QC in assembly and less variation perhaps ??

jj
Click to expand...
According to OM System, Sync IS and better weather sealing.
Click to expand...
But optically and AF-wise it’s the same lens ?

jj
Click to expand...
Correct. OM System made no other claims. They would have ridden it hard if there was any optical improvement.

But they certainly don't mind people believing otherwise... :-)
 
Last edited:
I have had both the 100-400mm mk1 and the 150-600mm. The 100-400mm was a good lens but I found it was not critically sharp like the rest of my PRO spec lenses. This can be fixed with post processing. I'm sure most of the lack of sharp focus on the 100-400mm was due to limited IS. I did achieve some amazingly sharp images from this lens when I was using a tripod and the subject was no more than 100-200 feet away.

The 150-600mm is what I replaced the 100-400mm with. I just simply don't have room for multiple LARGE lenses... because I already have several.

I went for the 150-600mm because of the improved optics and especially the Sync-IS. The IS on the 150-600mm is absolutely exceptional. I suppose the mk2 version of the 100-400mm has similar IS performance.

I would say the main comparison points between 100-400mm mk2 and 150-600mm are:

100-400 is lighter and smaller

150-600 has better optics

150-600 has more range (and still excepts multipliers)
 
Last edited:
HicHic said:
David5833 said:
Often times my 300 f/4 plus 1.4TC isn't long enough to get a decent shot of that bird. For example, there was a kingfisher at Corkscrew whose behavior I really wanted to get good images of, but it was just a little too far away for the kind of detail I like. I'm sure 600mm would have been better. OTOH, 300 + 1.4 is plenty long enough for a lot of shots, the IQ is excellent, I was willing to accept the cost, and on my OM-1 it's about as much bulk as I want to be burdened with for everyday stalking. I can live with the compromise.

Of course greater reach will be an advantage in some situations while lighter weight could be more important in others. Only you can decide the relative importance of mass vs cost vs features vs IQ vs reach vs build quality compared to what you already have. This is not rocket science, it's apples and oranges. If you want another lens and can't decide on the basis of the obvious differences, then get your hands on each one and see which works best for you. Or just do like a lot of members here and buy both of them.
Click to expand...
If it's so far away that you can't get a decent shot with 420mm on a pixel dense crop sensor, then you're probably not missing much. Photo is going to be mediocre even with 2x TC.
Click to expand...
Marko_Finland is working proof of the opposite.
 
Skeeterbytes said:
HicHic said:
David5833 said:
Often times my 300 f/4 plus 1.4TC isn't long enough to get a decent shot of that bird. For example, there was a kingfisher at Corkscrew whose behavior I really wanted to get good images of, but it was just a little too far away for the kind of detail I like. I'm sure 600mm would have been better. OTOH, 300 + 1.4 is plenty long enough for a lot of shots, the IQ is excellent, I was willing to accept the cost, and on my OM-1 it's about as much bulk as I want to be burdened with for everyday stalking. I can live with the compromise.

Of course greater reach will be an advantage in some situations while lighter weight could be more important in others. Only you can decide the relative importance of mass vs cost vs features vs IQ vs reach vs build quality compared to what you already have. This is not rocket science, it's apples and oranges. If you want another lens and can't decide on the basis of the obvious differences, then get your hands on each one and see which works best for you. Or just do like a lot of members here and buy both of them.
Click to expand...
If it's so far away that you can't get a decent shot with 420mm on a pixel dense crop sensor, then you're probably not missing much. Photo is going to be mediocre even with 2x TC.
Click to expand...
Marko_Finland is working proof of the opposite.
Click to expand...
Are you accusing him of taking photos much too far away for good image quality?
 
jjbinx said:
lokatz said:
jjbinx said:
So what does the 100-400 II have to offer over the first version - better QC in assembly and less variation perhaps ??

jj
Click to expand...
According to OM System, Sync IS and better weather sealing.
Click to expand...
But optically and AF-wise it’s the same lens ?

jj
Click to expand...
Design is the same; the one different item in the optical chain is fluorine coating of the front element.

Functional sync-IS will give more keepers simply by improving subject acquisition and retention. The longer the FL the more important that becomes. Dragging shutter in deep shade/twilight will yield a stop or two more.

Rick
 
HicHic said:
Skeeterbytes said:
HicHic said:
David5833 said:
Often times my 300 f/4 plus 1.4TC isn't long enough to get a decent shot of that bird. For example, there was a kingfisher at Corkscrew whose behavior I really wanted to get good images of, but it was just a little too far away for the kind of detail I like. I'm sure 600mm would have been better. OTOH, 300 + 1.4 is plenty long enough for a lot of shots, the IQ is excellent, I was willing to accept the cost, and on my OM-1 it's about as much bulk as I want to be burdened with for everyday stalking. I can live with the compromise.

Of course greater reach will be an advantage in some situations while lighter weight could be more important in others. Only you can decide the relative importance of mass vs cost vs features vs IQ vs reach vs build quality compared to what you already have. This is not rocket science, it's apples and oranges. If you want another lens and can't decide on the basis of the obvious differences, then get your hands on each one and see which works best for you. Or just do like a lot of members here and buy both of them.
Click to expand...
If it's so far away that you can't get a decent shot with 420mm on a pixel dense crop sensor, then you're probably not missing much. Photo is going to be mediocre even with 2x TC.
Click to expand...
Marko_Finland is working proof of the opposite.
Click to expand...
Are you accusing him of taking photos much too far away for good image quality?
Click to expand...
To the contrary, I'm pointing out you don't know what you're claiming to know.
 
Skeeterbytes said:
jjbinx said:
lokatz said:
jjbinx said:
So what does the 100-400 II have to offer over the first version - better QC in assembly and less variation perhaps ??

jj
Click to expand...
According to OM System, Sync IS and better weather sealing.
Click to expand...
But optically and AF-wise it’s the same lens ?

jj
Click to expand...
Design is the same; the one different item in the optical chain is fluorine coating of the front element.

Functional sync-IS will give more keepers simply by improving subject acquisition and retention. The longer the FL the more important that becomes. Dragging shutter in deep shade/twilight will yield a stop or two more.

Rick
Click to expand...
SyncIS relates to neither subject acquisition nor to subject retention. It plays no role in either of them.
 
Ken Rosen said:
Hello,

I'm two months away from being 100% retired. In the last 15 years I have been flying around the world pursuing underwater photography with my OMD-EM1(original). I also have the EM1 iii and the OM1 ii but keep the em1 because the housing is twice the cost of the camera. I want to get a little more serious in bird photography as my wife is an avid birder. Close to where we live is the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Naples so I have a lot of birds right in my backyard.

My longest lens in my arsenal is the 40-150 f2.8 with the 1.4x and 2x tcs,. I love the lens but it is frequently too short for birds. I've narrowed my choices down to the 100-400ii or the 150-600. Is that what most of us are thinking. There are a few articles comparing the older 100-400 to the 150-600 and the 150-600 usually wins, but none with the 400ii.

Now that the 100-400II is out and has 7 stops of IS, a big improvement over the older version, I am wondering what advantage does the 150-600 have over the 100-400ii other than reach. I am in the camp with most that the 150-600 is massive.
Click to expand...
Congrats with your imminent retirement, first of all! If the choices are just those two, I would pick 150-600mm If the weight is no issue to you! I think they should be close in term of optical quality. I don't own either ones but have seen enough samples.

Keeping price within similar ballpark, if you don't mind fixed lens, my advice would be 300mm F4 lens. Given your area, I am sure you will work your way to get close to the birds w/wo 1.4X.

Good luck with your decision. Love to see your underwater images BTW :-). I dive but have yet got myself into that photography genre.
 
lokatz said:
Whenever you ask the sharpness question about the 100-400, you are guaranteed to get "this one or that one is better" responses. I suggest to ignore ALL of them. OM System made no changes whatsoever to the optical design of version II, which has been discussed at length here when the new lens came out. However, both of them suffer from copy-to-copy variance, which they share with almost every other consumer-level tele lens in the market. Whether you buy version i or ii, make sure to thoroughly test it and return that copy if you are not happy with its sharpness.
Click to expand...
although I cannot find a direct link, the google ai search says: "optical elements: Mark I has 17 elements in 14 groups vs Mark II has 21 elements in 16 groups."
lokatz said:
Also, forget IS when talking about birds. You will rarely use shutter speeds of 1/100s (= 3 stops of IS), and getting a bird shot at 1/25s (=5 stops of IS) is all but impossible. Nobody needs 7 stops or more for bird photography, but companies still pretend it is a differentiator.
Click to expand...
Rarely? But not never. If you are going after jungle birds (low light) then formerly I used a tripod, and got a Giant Antpitta at 1/10 second that is sharp as a tack. Without a tripod I expect my OM-1 will make a 1/10 second shot hand held. I will certainly try.
 
Doxa750 said:
Doxa750 said:
Good luck with your decision. Love to see your underwater images BTW :-). I dive but have yet got myself into that photography genre.

f5d724f3e2f841a5a74c5d7b18d0c34a.jpg

Pipefish in a sea anemone.

5b36fe8cb729404f9810e61b42b52ad1.jpg
Click to expand...
Orange Frog fish
Click to expand...
These were probably shot with an OMD-EM1 with a 60mm macro and the second with an LX5. If you want to learn I have a couple of friends that do workshop in the Philippines and other places. I strongly recommend going on a dedicated photo group trip. Diving with non photographers and photographers doesn't work. Message me if you want more information.

--
Ken
 
Last edited:
I know that the 300mm Pro is better optically than the 100-400 mk 1, but I need a zoom. I'll be using it for lions as well. I I think that the mk2 is better optically than the mk 1 but (1) there are conflicting reports, and (2) the Ibis is fine with me and the mk 1 and (3) I'm not ready to upgrade for the money. If I were going from scratch I would go for the mk 2.

Regarding reach. You will never, repeat never, have 'enough' reach. Damn birds are tiny. But as a thought experiment, look at the kingfisher taken with your 40-150 and the 2c converter (300mm), and double the size of the bird. That gives you the size from the 150-600 zoom. Is it enough? If it's not, then my suggestion is that the choice between the 100-400 and 150-600 will be on size, weight and price. In the end, you just gotta get closer. A rental rowboat and an electric trolling motor are a better idea.

History tells me that teleconvertors degrade the image too much, but maybe Olympus has done a better job and of course post-processing can clean up lots of trouble. Also, handling a 1200mm (equivalent 2400mm) lens has a new set of problems for anybody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
birds in flight using om1 mk2 with sigma 150-600 os c ( viltrox ef-m1)
Replies
5
Views
3K
phenix jc
P
BryanHL
Showcasing the PL DG 100-400mm f/4-6.3
Replies
18
Views
3K
Bast Hotep
Bast Hotep
SteveNunez
OM System 150-600: Love It or Regret It? Share Your Thoughts!
Replies
14
Views
6K
SteveNunez
SteveNunez
B
OM 100-400 mark ii
Replies
16
Views
8K
StevenAdler
StevenAdler
T
Making the switch to OM
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
bluevellet
bluevellet

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top