The 300 f4 is an awesome lens, and has withstood the test of time and all the new tech. I believe that the 40-150mm f2.8 has even more resolution, sharper than the 300 f4. One of the reasons I would like to see a side by side comparison with the 50-200mm f2.8
I tested again, I got better results with the 500PF this time. I was getting slightly soft results from shutter shock. The 500PF is definitely sharper than the 150-400 @ 500mm. I'm back to the original ranking.
. And it took the 1.4x TC much better.The 40-150 f2.8 is an extremely sharp lens at 150mm and possibly has somewhat more resolution than the 300mm at twice the distance. However if you shoot the 40-150 where you need 300mm to fill the frame, it will have far detail. Even at 210mm with the MC14 is has far less resolution.
I am not sure what point you are making. At the same distance, the 300mm f4 has a shallower DOF than the 200mm f2.8. At the same image size in the frame, the 50-200 f2.8 will have a shallower DOF than the 300mm f4 (as would the 40-150 f2.8 at 150mm), but the target would not fit in the frame with the 300mm f4.
I just did a new test and I could see some difference. The 500/4ii is better.
Well, that is to be expected if only because of the larger aperture giving it more resolving power. But I'm happy to accept that they are close.I just did a new test and I could see some difference. The 500/4ii is better.
I sold mine to part-fund a 600/4L IS Mk III - just before lockdown
. .
If I had to part ways with the 150-400 or 500/4ii, it wouldn't be an easy decision. 150-400 is much nicer to carry, but it can't reproduce what the 500/4ii can do in terms of image quality. I guess that's why I still have both haha!I sold mine to part-fund a 600/4L IS Mk III - just before lockdown
The image-taking advantage over the 500 is quite small, and while the weight of the Mark III is not too bad, the bulk is a real pain. On balance I should have kept the 500
On the other hand it may have been a subconscious factor in steering me towards the 150-400 and an OM-1 to hang off the back of it, so maybe it wasn't such a bad thing...
Yes it is, but it's not just that for me. Time and time again I've been glad I have a zoom - I don't think I'd want to go back.If I had to part ways with the 150-400 or 500/4ii, it wouldn't be an easy decision. 150-400 is much nicer to carry,I sold mine to part-fund a 600/4L IS Mk III - just before lockdown
The image-taking advantage over the 500 is quite small, and while the weight of the Mark III is not too bad, the bulk is a real pain. On balance I should have kept the 500
On the other hand it may have been a subconscious factor in steering me towards the 150-400 and an OM-1 to hang off the back of it, so maybe it wasn't such a bad thing...
--
A zoom is nice for sure, but I don't remember the last time I'm using less than 250mm on the 150-400. I shoot birds, not so much mammals, so that's probably why. The fact that it's a slow F4.5 at the lower zoom ranges really makes the bokeh unappetizing and makes me reluctant to zoom out much.Yes it is, but it's not just that for me. Time and time again I've been glad I have a zoom - I don't think I'd want to go back.If I had to part ways with the 150-400 or 500/4ii, it wouldn't be an easy decision. 150-400 is much nicer to carry,I sold mine to part-fund a 600/4L IS Mk III - just before lockdown
The image-taking advantage over the 500 is quite small, and while the weight of the Mark III is not too bad, the bulk is a real pain. On balance I should have kept the 500
On the other hand it may have been a subconscious factor in steering me towards the 150-400 and an OM-1 to hang off the back of it, so maybe it wasn't such a bad thing...
