Olympus 150-400 - Big White + 1.4 TC

I have been using the 150-400 for a few months now and i am very pleased with the image quality. Before the purchase of the 150-400 the 300mm with the 1.4 TC was was my go to lens for bird photography. I did not find any loss of image quality with this pairing. Today, I tried the 1.4 TC with the BW. Obviously, I now have a 6.3 instead of 4.5 and the ISO rises. I am not sure this combination works as well as the 300/1.4 pairing. i think i would only use the the BW with the longer reach in limited circumstances and then hope that i could improve the image in processing.

Having only fiddled with the MCs on the giant thing, I'm not yet convinced the MC14 has a role by itself but rather, paired with the internal TC.

What I mean is 188-500/5.6 isn't meaningfully different from 210-560/6.3 and that extra 60mm comes at the cost of less aperture. 263-700/8 is a much bigger jump in reach.

Related, handholding that much reach for me is a problem and I'm probably adding support above 600mm. The ultimate task of wrangling 1000mm is quite something. Whee!

Perhaps some static tests to see how much detail you can wring out of the various options. Budget time, because it's labor intensive to do well.

Happy experimenting,

Rick

Skeeterbytes said:

Having only fiddled with the MCs on the giant thing, I'm not yet convinced the MC14 has a role by itself but rather, paired with the internal TC.

What I mean is 188-500/5.6 isn't meaningfully different from 210-560/6.3 and that extra 60mm comes at the cost of less aperture. 263-700/8 is a much bigger jump in reach.

Related, handholding that much reach for me is a problem and I'm probably adding support above 600mm. The ultimate task of wrangling 1000mm is quite something. Whee!

Perhaps some static tests to see how much detail you can wring out of the various options. Budget time, because it's labor intensive to do well.

Happy experimenting,

Rick

Click to expand...

Thanks for responding Rick. After my first attempt at using the 150-400+1.4TC with birds which I was not entirely satisfied with I took some I images of inanimate objects and found the IQ to be very good. I must admit that the bird images were taken in very bright sunlight and the 300+1.4 may have given me the same results. However, I think using the 1.4TC may be a step too far with the BW. I have not seen any images displayed here with that combination. Likewise, I have been unable to find an advocate for this pairing on YouTube. Also, I did not enjoy handholding this pairing. I will experiment further in the next few days with more bird shots in different lighting conditions but will probably find myself with very high ISOs. Regards, Colin

Hard to define "as well" given these are different focal lengths in the end. If you are standing in the same spot, the 150-400 + MC14 will put more pixels on subject than the 300 + MC14. The biggest variable is probably how good your MC14 is.

I’m very happy with my 300f4 pro and the TCs. I sometimes consider the 150-400 f4 pro, not for any increase in image quality, but for the flexibility in reach, and better ability to spot then zoom in to fleeting targets, eg briefly surfacing dolphins. Have you found this makes a big difference compared to the 300mm prime?

Kevin Stephens said:

I’m very happy with my 300f4 pro and the TCs. I sometimes consider the 150-400 f4 pro, not for any increase in image quality, but for the flexibility in reach, and better ability to spot then zoom in to fleeting targets, eg briefly surfacing dolphins. Have you found this makes a big difference compared to the 300mm prime?

Click to expand...

Yes, having a zoom helps a lot because of the flexibility.

Postywood said:

I have been using the 150-400 for a few months now and i am very pleased with the image quality. Before the purchase of the 150-400 the 300mm with the 1.4 TC was was my go to lens for bird photography. I did not find any loss of image quality with this pairing. Today, I tried the 1.4 TC with the BW. Obviously, I now have a 6.3 instead of 4.5 and the ISO rises. I am not sure this combination works as well as the 300/1.4 pairing. i think i would only use the the BW with the longer reach in limited circumstances and then hope that i could improve the image in processing.

Click to expand...

It's easy to forget that at those FLs atmospheric refraction becomes a real thing. The same shot taken in the early morning and again at midday, could be chalk and cheese. I would not be surprised if those claiming great results, are early risers.

Bobapingu said:

Postywood said:

I have been using the 150-400 for a few months now and i am very pleased with the image quality. Before the purchase of the 150-400 the 300mm with the 1.4 TC was was my go to lens for bird photography. I did not find any loss of image quality with this pairing. Today, I tried the 1.4 TC with the BW. Obviously, I now have a 6.3 instead of 4.5 and the ISO rises. I am not sure this combination works as well as the 300/1.4 pairing. i think i would only use the the BW with the longer reach in limited circumstances and then hope that i could improve the image in processing.

Click to expand...

It's easy to forget that at those FLs atmospheric refraction becomes a real thing. The same shot taken in the early morning and again at midday, could be chalk and cheese. I would not be surprised if those claiming great results, are early risers.

Click to expand...

This video on YouTube a is worth a look. Mike Lane uses the 1.4 TC on the 150-400 with great success.

A bald eagle. I took this whilst seated in a kayak on the Columbia River




The moon is red because of the smoke of forrest fires in British Columbia, hand held




Not fully 700mm, but darn close to it. Hand held

I have my MC14 pretty much glued on my Big White by now. Because I hardly see a downgrade when I don't have it on my Big White but see so many occasions where I can use that extra bit of react.



--
Never too old to learn.

Jeroen1969 said:

A bald eagle. I took this whilst seated in a kayak on the Columbia River


The moon is red because of the smoke of forrest fires in British Columbia, hand held


Not fully 700mm, but darn close to it. Hand held

I have my MC14 pretty much glued on my Big White by now. Because I hardly see a downgrade when I don't have it on my Big White but see so many occasions where I can use that extra bit of react.

Click to expand...

Great shots - agree with your assessment of the MC14.

I have used the 300 f4 with and without the 1.4 TC, and been very pleased with the sharpness and detail. I also have the 150-600mm if I need to shoot distant subjects. If I put the 150-600mm on a tripod and keep the f stop around f8 I'm able to get sharp images.

A few months ago I was seriously thinking about getting the Big White 150-400mm +1.4 TC. I liked everything about that lens except the price. It just seemed way too expensive. I then began to look at what else I could buy for the same $7500 price, and found lots of really nice Full Frame kits for Much less money.

At about the same time the OM1.2 AF was not "sticking" to the fast moving birds. The OM1.2 acquired focus ok, but wouldn't hold the focus as I panned the image. I realized that several camera dealers had a 30 day return feature, so I decided to find if the FF cameras AF was any better. The Nikon was Much better!

The Nikon Z8 + Z100-400mm was selling for about $1,000 less than Just the OM 150-400mm lens. Once I tried the Z8 I have not used my OM gear, which I still have.

So I guess the Om 150-400mm is responsible for me switching to Nikon. Yea, I know that the reach of the 150- 400mm is Much greater, but for the cost of adding a TC and the ability to crop Nikon's 45MP sensor, I'm good. I still have the OM 300 f4 + 1.4 TC +150-600mm If I have a need to for distant subjects. :>)

daveomd said:

so I decided to find if the FF cameras AF was any better. The Nikon was Much better!

The Nikon Z8 + Z100-400mm was selling for about $1,000 less than Just the OM 150-400mm lens. Once I tried the Z8 I have not used my OM gear

Click to expand...

The value proposition is way better with your new setup. Congrats on the upgrade!

daveomd said:

I have used the 300 f4 with and without the 1.4 TC, and been very pleased with the sharpness and detail. I also have the 150-600mm if I need to shoot distant subjects. If I put the 150-600mm on a tripod and keep the f stop around f8 I'm able to get sharp images.

A few months ago I was seriously thinking about getting the Big White 150-400mm +1.4 TC. I liked everything about that lens except the price. It just seemed way too expensive. I then began to look at what else I could buy for the same $7500 price, and found lots of really nice Full Frame kits for Much less money.

At about the same time the OM1.2 AF was not "sticking" to the fast moving birds. The OM1.2 acquired focus ok, but wouldn't hold the focus as I panned the image. I realized that several camera dealers had a 30 day return feature, so I decided to find if the FF cameras AF was any better. The Nikon was Much better!

The Nikon Z8 + Z100-400mm was selling for about $1,000 less than Just the OM 150-400mm lens. Once I tried the Z8 I have not used my OM gear, which I still have.

So I guess the Om 150-400mm is responsible for me switching to Nikon. Yea, I know that the reach of the 150- 400mm is Much greater, but for the cost of adding a TC and the ability to crop Nikon's 45MP sensor, I'm good. I still have the OM 300 f4 + 1.4 TC +150-600mm If I have a need to for distant subjects. :>)

Click to expand...

I went exactly the other way around: I sold my 300mm f/4.0 IS Pro, my 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro and my 12-100mm f/4.0 IS Pro. I brought the 12-100mm with the Big White on a Safari to Murchison Falls National Park in a two body set-up, I got very nice shots but did bump in to the gap between the 100mm and the 210mm of the Big White with the MC14 on it (I have that thing pretty much glued on it, only nuisance is that one of the screws of that thing get loose after a few days and needs tightening). I got myself a used Sony A7R IV with the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II, so I made the move to a 3 body set-up, using a harnas. And kept the 150-400mm. I will confess: I did look in to Sony, Sigma and Tamron alternatives for Big White. I have come to the conclusion that, at this time, even when I'm taking the massive crop option that I have with my 60MP Sony A7R IV in to account, I can't find an alternative that is just as portable as my Big White AND has such an incredible short Minimum Focus Distance. Yes, the sum I paid for this lens remains absurd. But so is my satisfaction that I get using this massively versatile lens. (May I put the internal focussing under attention? That contributes soo much to hand-held shooting at absurd focal lengths, such as 700mm MFT, 1400mm FF equivalent, even when I recalculate the crop option of my Sony, it is still close to 1200mm Sony A7R IV equivalent).

And yet, I'm also one of those suckers that stepped in to that Full Frame Fairy Tale. Now that I own one (and I'm inclined to think that the Sony A7R IV is one of the high end Full Frame System Cameras out there) I can say that it does out-perform the OM-1.2 on noise and resolution, but at the same time I must add that, in good light conditions, both areas of out-performance are pretty much non-visible when printed on a maximum size of A3+ (13x19 inches).

The OM-1.2 however outperforms the Sony with things like ProCapture in RAW, in-body focus stacking, Sync IS (IBIS and OIS, for example with Big White).

In conclusion: for me the best set-up is the set-up that I currently have: 1 FF body aimed to do the "standard" shooting, 2 MFT bodies for the tele range and super tele range. Thanks to the minimum focus distance, I can even shoot macro type shots using focus stacking with either tele zoom lens that I have in my kit. I won't part from my Big White (I call it "Alma", after my late mother and father) as long as there is no portable Full Frame alternative ticking all the boxes that Big White ticks.