Any telephoto zoom 4/3 Lenses for E-M1 that are much better than similar m4/3?

Anders W wrote:

...

The 50-200 PDAF seems to be at least as good (accurate) for static subjects as the 100-300 in CDAF. Out of the five shots I took with this lens + EC-14, three were like the best with the 100-300 and two were better. It makes sense to take a few shots if you can because one may be much better. I suspect this variability may have something to do with IBIS. If I focus in S-AF and then view the subject at 14x magnification before taking the shot, there is definitely some variation in clarity/focus. It wavers in and out. It is an effect a little bit like looking at C-AF with my old G3 only not nearly as obviously focus jittering and very minor by comparison.

You mean the clarity varies when you are at sufficient distance from the subject that your own body movements toward/away from the subject won't matter? I've seen what I think might be the kind of "jittering" you are describing too but chalked it up to atmospheric conditions. At a distance with the 100-300, that's a factor to reckon with, I would think.

Yes, I think so. The subject is at about 20 feet and I've got my elbows resting on a table. I think the depth of field should be about 3 or 4 inches at this range (that's a whole bird! Focusing should be easy!). Too close for atmospheric effects I think.

OK. I'll try to check this out for myself when I find the time.

If I get a chance, I'll repeat the test on a tripod with IBIS off to see if it goes away.

Yes, please do.

The PDAF with the 50-200 is very good in C-AF too even when the subject is not moving. There is no hunting once initial focus is acquired and that initial focus seems to be as good as if you put the lens in S-AF. I often use it this way with focus activated by a button other than the shutter button. The subject stays in good focus until you are ready for the shot and then it fires quickly. I think C-AF on moving subjects is better with the 50-200 than with the 100-300.

In what way is C-AF on the 50-200 better? If I understand things correctly, both lenses will use PDAF in AF-C on the E-M1 (although CDAF may be involved for touching-up in either of both cases).

In practice, trying to follow a bird in flight, the 50-200 seems to find focus better and keep locked on better. And the images are better. With the 100-300, it can be hard to track at all if the initial focus movements make the EVF view so out of focus you can't see the subject. My success rate is low.

But is this really with AF-C on the E-M1? In that case, PDAF should be used even with the 100-300 so the lens shouldn't go more out of focus than it initially is.

No, it shouldn't. I probably need to check again now that I have quite a lot of practice with the new lens but my suspicion is that PDAF is not used with m43 lenses to the extent that it is with 43. Maybe it is just that with a bit of CDAF somewhere it gets lost because my tracking is imperfect and the CDAF bit sends it off hunting. PDAF on 43 lenses seems so accurate that I don't understand the need for both PDAF and CDAF on m43 lenses. Unless they are not as good at PDAF for some reason. Olympus don't give a lot of detail on this.

PDAF should be capable of focusing on the nearest subject within the focus box because the distances are known whereas CDAF will just go to best contrast and stop on the first thing that it thinks is good enough. I haven't tested specifically but my feeling is that 43 lens is better because of this. It doesn't jump off to the background so easily.

It's a hard thing to test though...

It is possible that this could be because the 100-300 is rather slow to focus compared to some newer m43 lenses. Maybe it can't keep up. The 45-175 doesn't seem to be much better though. However, the 50-200 isn't fast. It is also possible that my technique has improved since I got the 50-200 and moved the AF to a separate button. I would have to try the 100-300 again to check.

It could of course be that the 100-300 has more difficulties keeping up because it is slower, especially since the PDAF pixels cover only 1/16 of the sensor. Is this comparison with the 50-200 plus TC or the 50-200 alone? With the TC, there is not much of difference in max aperture compared to the 100-300 but without, it's slightly more than a stop.

Both I think. The image below is at 283mm. The bird carried on flying in front of the trees and stayed in focus although I only kept this image. It was about 50 metres away.

Rook. 50-200 + EC-14 @ 283mm

This is about the best I've got with the 100-300 in a similar situation. It was hard to get.

Raven. E-M1 + Pany 100-300 @300mm f/7.1 C-AF

There are a couple of situations (at least) where focusing on the 50-200 is not as good as native m43 lenses. One is certain types of detail and another is very low light.

I have a sheet of paper printed all over with very fine hexagons (actually the inside of an envelope) which I have used in the past for shutter shock tests with lots of lenses. The 50-200 refuses to focus on this at all. Like never! Similarly, below a certain light level (e.g. at dusk) it just fails to lock at all. I know that CDAF on the 100-300 works in these conditions.

Worse in low light makes sense for reasons already mentioned above. The thing about the pattern is interesting. Could be something with the spacing of the pattern relative to the spacing of the PDAF pixels. Does the ability to focus on this pattern vary with the distance/magnification?

The hexagon honeycomb pattern is made up of hexagons about 2.5mm across flats. The printed lines are dark and quite fine. I would guess 0.1mm wide. A quick check shows that it will focus at 283mm near to closest focus distance. However, it won't touch it at greater range or shorter focal length so it would appear that it is the size of the detail that matters or confuses it.

As the AF moves back and forth trying to get focus, I can momentarily see the pattern as plain as day through the EVF. Weird!

EDIT: I've just tried focusing on the edge of the pattern, where the border of the envelope is plain white. If I have half of the smallest focus box on the pattern and half on plain white it works! Works at 283mm and 70mm. That might imply that it is the repeating pattern that confuses it.

Yes, or the fact that the lines are very thin and rather sparse. That might mean that the PDAF pixels see only white, not the lines, in nearly all cases unless you go sufficiently close.

Actually, I wish that the E-M1 gave manual control over PDAF/CDAF because I think there are cases where m43 lenses would work better with PDAF (say birds in flight) and 43 lenses would work better with CDAF (like the low light and hexagon detail situations described above). I would be happy to use PDAF most of the time unless m43 lenses have inherent issues with it (maybe m43 focus motors have poor positioning repeatability for example).

I can see the point about more control. And I wouldn't think MFT lenses have issues with PDAF, especially not of the kind you mention. On the contrary, their motors/interface better control over positioning and thus also more repeatability.

Easy firmware update!

Absolutely.

BTW. I bought my 50-200 SWD and MMF-3 second hand as an experiment thinking that I could always sell it on for little or no loss if I was disappointed. It was well worth it. I will probably put the 100-300 up for sale at some point. The 50-200 is a keeper.

Only trouble is, the E-M1 + MMF-3 + EC-14 + 50-200 weighs 4lbs. Could have bought an SLR...

... just kidding.

Here are shots of last year's Kitten & Friends calendar at f/4.9 / f/5.6 along and f/7.1. The 50-200mm is first, followed by the 100-300mm (apologies for the slight shift between the shots of the latter; it's obviously a bit more wobbly without a collar):

Corpy2 wrote:

How is the focusing speed on an e-m1?

Optically, the two versions are similar.  But the SWD is significantly faster on any body that supports phase detect AF (be it 4/3 or Micro 4/3).

Don't have a m3/4 telephoto to compare but I am happy with the IQ that can be achieved with this combo.

I have done a quick test on a tripod with remote release to test the effects of IBIS On and Off on sharpness. I had the impression that sharpness was varying when focused on a subject when viewed in the EVF at 14x. On the tripod, I didn't see any difference. On reflection, I think it is more likely to be an EVF effect. It doesn't seem to show in the images anyway.

For completeness, here are the best images from series of ten for S-AF with IBIS On, S-AF with IBIS Off and C-AF with IBIS On. In all cases, 7 out of 10 were sharp and three were slightly blurred.

E-M1 + 50-200 + EC-14. Tripod, Remote release, S-AF, IBIS On

E-M1 + 50-200 + EC-14. Tripod, Remote release, S-AF, IBIS Off

E-M1 + 50-200 + EC-14. Tripod, Remote release, C-AF, IBIS Off

So, pretty much all equal.

EDIT:

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, here is the 100-300 on a Tripod with IBIS and OIS Off.

E-M1 + 100-300. Tripod, Remote release, S-AF, IBIS Off, OIS Off

This seems to show that, in perfect conditions, the 100-300 can do it. In practice, I find it rarely does ;-).

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

...

The 50-200 PDAF seems to be at least as good (accurate) for static subjects as the 100-300 in CDAF. Out of the five shots I took with this lens + EC-14, three were like the best with the 100-300 and two were better. It makes sense to take a few shots if you can because one may be much better. I suspect this variability may have something to do with IBIS. If I focus in S-AF and then view the subject at 14x magnification before taking the shot, there is definitely some variation in clarity/focus. It wavers in and out. It is an effect a little bit like looking at C-AF with my old G3 only not nearly as obviously focus jittering and very minor by comparison.

You mean the clarity varies when you are at sufficient distance from the subject that your own body movements toward/away from the subject won't matter? I've seen what I think might be the kind of "jittering" you are describing too but chalked it up to atmospheric conditions. At a distance with the 100-300, that's a factor to reckon with, I would think.

Yes, I think so. The subject is at about 20 feet and I've got my elbows resting on a table. I think the depth of field should be about 3 or 4 inches at this range (that's a whole bird! Focusing should be easy!). Too close for atmospheric effects I think.

OK. I'll try to check this out for myself when I find the time.

If I get a chance, I'll repeat the test on a tripod with IBIS off to see if it goes away.

Yes, please do.

The PDAF with the 50-200 is very good in C-AF too even when the subject is not moving. There is no hunting once initial focus is acquired and that initial focus seems to be as good as if you put the lens in S-AF. I often use it this way with focus activated by a button other than the shutter button. The subject stays in good focus until you are ready for the shot and then it fires quickly. I think C-AF on moving subjects is better with the 50-200 than with the 100-300.

In what way is C-AF on the 50-200 better? If I understand things correctly, both lenses will use PDAF in AF-C on the E-M1 (although CDAF may be involved for touching-up in either of both cases).

In practice, trying to follow a bird in flight, the 50-200 seems to find focus better and keep locked on better. And the images are better. With the 100-300, it can be hard to track at all if the initial focus movements make the EVF view so out of focus you can't see the subject. My success rate is low.

But is this really with AF-C on the E-M1? In that case, PDAF should be used even with the 100-300 so the lens shouldn't go more out of focus than it initially is.

No, it shouldn't. I probably need to check again now that I have quite a lot of practice with the new lens but my suspicion is that PDAF is not used with m43 lenses to the extent that it is with 43. Maybe it is just that with a bit of CDAF somewhere it gets lost because my tracking is imperfect and the CDAF bit sends it off hunting. PDAF on 43 lenses seems so accurate that I don't understand the need for both PDAF and CDAF on m43 lenses. Unless they are not as good at PDAF for some reason. Olympus don't give a lot of detail on this.

PDAF should be capable of focusing on the nearest subject within the focus box because the distances are known whereas CDAF will just go to best contrast and stop on the first thing that it thinks is good enough. I haven't tested specifically but my feeling is that 43 lens is better because of this. It doesn't jump off to the background so easily.

Would be interesting if you could find a setup (on a tripod) where you can test this under controlled conditions (e.g. the branches of a tree or something like that), i.e., find a case where the camera would go for the background with the 100-300 and then check if it works differently with the 50-200, with everything else as equal as it can be made (and for both AF-S, where we know, or at least think we know, that one will use CDAF and the other PDAF, as well as AF-C, where both should rely at least partly on PDAF).

It's a hard thing to test though...

It is possible that this could be because the 100-300 is rather slow to focus compared to some newer m43 lenses. Maybe it can't keep up. The 45-175 doesn't seem to be much better though. However, the 50-200 isn't fast. It is also possible that my technique has improved since I got the 50-200 and moved the AF to a separate button. I would have to try the 100-300 again to check.

It could of course be that the 100-300 has more difficulties keeping up because it is slower, especially since the PDAF pixels cover only 1/16 of the sensor. Is this comparison with the 50-200 plus TC or the 50-200 alone? With the TC, there is not much of difference in max aperture compared to the 100-300 but without, it's slightly more than a stop.

Both I think. The image below is at 283mm. The bird carried on flying in front of the trees and stayed in focus although I only kept this image. It was about 50 metres away.

Rook. 50-200 + EC-14 @ 283mm

This is about the best I've got with the 100-300 in a similar situation. It was hard to get.

Raven. E-M1 + Pany 100-300 @300mm f/7.1 C-AF

There are a couple of situations (at least) where focusing on the 50-200 is not as good as native m43 lenses. One is certain types of detail and another is very low light.

I have a sheet of paper printed all over with very fine hexagons (actually the inside of an envelope) which I have used in the past for shutter shock tests with lots of lenses. The 50-200 refuses to focus on this at all. Like never! Similarly, below a certain light level (e.g. at dusk) it just fails to lock at all. I know that CDAF on the 100-300 works in these conditions.

Worse in low light makes sense for reasons already mentioned above. The thing about the pattern is interesting. Could be something with the spacing of the pattern relative to the spacing of the PDAF pixels. Does the ability to focus on this pattern vary with the distance/magnification?

The hexagon honeycomb pattern is made up of hexagons about 2.5mm across flats. The printed lines are dark and quite fine. I would guess 0.1mm wide. A quick check shows that it will focus at 283mm near to closest focus distance. However, it won't touch it at greater range or shorter focal length so it would appear that it is the size of the detail that matters or confuses it.

As the AF moves back and forth trying to get focus, I can momentarily see the pattern as plain as day through the EVF. Weird!

EDIT: I've just tried focusing on the edge of the pattern, where the border of the envelope is plain white. If I have half of the smallest focus box on the pattern and half on plain white it works! Works at 283mm and 70mm. That might imply that it is the repeating pattern that confuses it.

Yes, or the fact that the lines are very thin and rather sparse. That might mean that the PDAF pixels see only white, not the lines, in nearly all cases unless you go sufficiently close.

Actually, I wish that the E-M1 gave manual control over PDAF/CDAF because I think there are cases where m43 lenses would work better with PDAF (say birds in flight) and 43 lenses would work better with CDAF (like the low light and hexagon detail situations described above). I would be happy to use PDAF most of the time unless m43 lenses have inherent issues with it (maybe m43 focus motors have poor positioning repeatability for example).

I can see the point about more control. And I wouldn't think MFT lenses have issues with PDAF, especially not of the kind you mention. On the contrary, their motors/interface better control over positioning and thus also more repeatability.

Easy firmware update!

Absolutely.

BTW. I bought my 50-200 SWD and MMF-3 second hand as an experiment thinking that I could always sell it on for little or no loss if I was disappointed. It was well worth it. I will probably put the 100-300 up for sale at some point. The 50-200 is a keeper.

Glad it worked out as you expected! I am far less of a "birding" specialist than you are so I am less tempted by the 50-200. What I'd love to see, however, is a 100-300 (or even better, a 75-300 for a bit more range at the short end) at the same speed as the 100-300 (f/4 to f/5.6) and about the same size and weight, but optically excellent already wide open. That said, I am looking forward with curiousity to the upcoming 300/4 as well.

Only trouble is, the E-M1 + MMF-3 + EC-14 + 50-200 weighs 4lbs. Could have bought an SLR...

... just kidding.

I can see that all right.

Tony Rogers wrote:

I have done a quick test on a tripod with remote release to test the effects of IBIS On and Off on sharpness. I had the impression that sharpness was varying when focused on a subject when viewed in the EVF at 14x. On the tripod, I didn't see any difference. On reflection, I think it is more likely to be an EVF effect. It doesn't seem to show in the images anyway.

For completeness, here are the best images from series of ten for S-AF with IBIS On, S-AF with IBIS Off and C-AF with IBIS On. In all cases, 7 out of 10 were sharp and three were slightly blurred.

E-M1 + 50-200 + EC-14. Tripod, Remote release, S-AF, IBIS On

E-M1 + 50-200 + EC-14. Tripod, Remote release, S-AF, IBIS Off

E-M1 + 50-200 + EC-14. Tripod, Remote release, C-AF, IBIS Off

So, pretty much all equal.

EDIT:

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, here is the 100-300 on a Tripod with IBIS and OIS Off.

E-M1 + 100-300. Tripod, Remote release, S-AF, IBIS Off, OIS Off

This seems to show that, in perfect conditions, the 100-300 can do it. In practice, I find it rarely does ;-).

Many thanks for redoing the test of the optical performance of the 100-300 versus the 50-200 with TC. Looks more evenly matched now and with the 100-300 up to about the level I think it is capable of. I am perfectly open to the idea that the practical keeper rate may be higher with one lens than the other in spite of that. I am certainly not saying that I am anywhere close to 100 percent with the 100-300 at the long end.

Anders W wrote:

...

Many thanks for redoing the test of the optical performance of the 100-300 versus the 50-200 with TC. Looks more evenly matched now and with the 100-300 up to about the level I think it is capable of. I am perfectly open to the idea that the practical keeper rate may be higher with one lens than the other in spite of that. I am certainly not saying that I am anywhere close to 100 percent with the 100-300 at the long end.

I have never noticed such a difference between tripod and handheld with the 100-300 before. Partly, because I very rarely use a tripod. Perhaps this shows the limit of OIS. Or perhaps the CDAF finds it harder to get a precise focus with handheld and OIS. Or maybe, when the optical elements are moved off centre by OIS to compensate for movement, the lens resolution goes down. The earlier 100-300 sample looked to be lower resolution rather than motion blurred anyway.

Another thing. OIS vs IBIS. When I first got the E-M1 I did some comparisons between OIS and IBIS to see which was best on the 100-300 at 300mm. I found OIS to be more reliable.

Because of this experience, when I got the 50-200, I was a bit concerned that IBIS might not be up to the job. However, I have found it to be excellent at 283mm on the new lens + EC-14.

My tests have shown that the angle of view on the 50-200 + EC-14 is smaller than the 100-300 @ 300mm implying that the Pany has a shorter focal length than the Oly combo. Perhaps the 100-300 is really a 275mm lens or even less given that some of the image is lost due to distortion correction. Maybe this is why IBIS doesn't seem to work very well with it since the camera needs to know the focal length to stabilise properly. But the Pany reports 300mm even though it is probably a lot less.

Anders W wrote:

Would be interesting if you could find a setup (on a tripod) where you can test this under controlled conditions (e.g. the branches of a tree or something like that), i.e., find a case where the camera would go for the background with the 100-300 and then check if it works differently with the 50-200, with everything else as equal as it can be made (and for both AF-S, where we know, or at least think we know, that one will use CDAF and the other PDAF, as well as AF-C, where both should rely at least partly on PDAF).

It is quite easy to demonstrate this effect, hand held. My tree is about 20 feet away and there is a building about 40 feet behind it. Starting with focus on the building, provided the branch is large enough for its blurred image to be visible, the 50-200 will jump to focus on the branch. The 100-300 in S-AF just plain refuses to move and stays focused on the building. To get it to focus on the branch requires the lens to be pre-focused to make the branch much more visible.

However, flip to C-AF and the 100-300 more readily jumps to the closer branch proving that it is indeed using PDAF to some extent. However, the behavior of the 100-300 is less sensitive to the branch than the 50-200 + EC-14.

With both lenses, the ability of the camera to pick out the foreground object seems to depend on the size of the focus box and to what extent the foreground object fills it. If I use a large focus box (5x zoom AF for example), it is possible to find situations with small, out of focus branches where the camera will maintain focus on the background building. As the foreground branches get bigger or less out of focus, or the focus box gets smaller, the camera more readily focuses on the branch. I can find examples with small branches where the 100-300 stays focused on the building where the 50-200 + EC-14 jumps to the branch.

This doesn't prove that the PDAF focusing with the 100-300 is different from a 43 lens because the image projected on the sensor could be different. The branch could be more blurred for example. But at least it shows a difference.

Tony Rogers wrote:

Only trouble is, the E-M1 + MMF-3 + EC-14 + 50-200 weighs 4lbs. Could have bought an SLR...

... just kidding.

I finally made my way through this incredibly informative thread. I am left with a few questions.

I continue to find the auto focus problems of the 50-200 will cost me shots.

My strongest interest is in landscape photography and I find myself spending more and more time shooting at the golden hour (i.e. low light). Therefore the faster 50-200 seems to make sense, however, it is during these times that the auto-focus problems are most prevalent.

I really enjoy going to parks and, as said, seem to limit my landscape photography to golden hours so I spend a fair amount of the daylight hours photographing wildlife.

As a result, I remained confused if I would be better served by a native m43 70ish-300 zoom or if I made the right choice all along with the 50-200 1.4 TC.

Finally, I find myself not being inclined to change lenses often and am wondering if my default walk around with the 50-200 should include the 1.4 TC. I tend to leave the 12-40 on for landscape and the 50-200 on for wildlife.

Florida Nature Photographer wrote:

Tony Rogers wrote:

Only trouble is, the E-M1 + MMF-3 + EC-14 + 50-200 weighs 4lbs. Could have bought an SLR...

... just kidding.

I finally made my way through this incredibly informative thread. I am left with a few questions.

I continue to find the auto focus problems of the 50-200 will cost me shots.

My strongest interest is in landscape photography and I find myself spending more and more time shooting at the golden hour (i.e. low light). Therefore the faster 50-200 seems to make sense, however, it is during these times that the auto-focus problems are most prevalent.

That is a problem. The AF is poor in low light. i.e. doesn't focus lock at all.

I really enjoy going to parks and, as said, seem to limit my landscape photography to golden hours so I spend a fair amount of the daylight hours photographing wildlife.

As a result, I remained confused if I would be better served by a native m43 70ish-300 zoom or if I made the right choice all along with the 50-200 1.4 TC.

Finally, I find myself not being inclined to change lenses often and am wondering if my default walk around with the 50-200 should include the 1.4 TC. I tend to leave the 12-40 on for landscape and the 50-200 on for wildlife.

I was wondering the same thing myself when I went out on Sunday so I tried a bit of both (with and without the EC-14). When I put the EC-14 on and tried to photograph some butterflies it was immediately apparent that the AF was much slower. However, the results were still good with a bit of patience. I think I will generally walk around with the 50-200 without the EC-14 unless I am specifically going on a birding trip. I will carry it with me in case a particular situation needs it.

I am not quite sure yet what to do about smaller subjects; EC-14, Canon 500D close-up lens or extension tubes. However, I already know that, at closest focus, the 50-200 provides more magnification that my Pany 100-300.

Here are a few shots from Sunday.

E-M1 with 50-200 @ 200mm. Could have done with the EC-14 on!

E-M1 with 50-200 @ 200mm.

E-M1 with 50-200 + EC-14 @ 283mm

E-M1 with 50-200 + EC-14 @ 283mm

Still lots to learn!

Tony Rogers wrote:

Anders W wrote:

...

Many thanks for redoing the test of the optical performance of the 100-300 versus the 50-200 with TC. Looks more evenly matched now and with the 100-300 up to about the level I think it is capable of. I am perfectly open to the idea that the practical keeper rate may be higher with one lens than the other in spite of that. I am certainly not saying that I am anywhere close to 100 percent with the 100-300 at the long end.

I have never noticed such a difference between tripod and handheld with the 100-300 before. Partly, because I very rarely use a tripod. Perhaps this shows the limit of OIS. Or perhaps the CDAF finds it harder to get a precise focus with handheld and OIS. Or maybe, when the optical elements are moved off centre by OIS to compensate for movement, the lens resolution goes down. The earlier 100-300 sample looked to be lower resolution rather than motion blurred anyway.

I wouldn't think it's the OIS or motion blur in this case (although this is sometimes hard to tell). Looks more like a focus problem to me. One possibility is that you swayed very slightly out of focus before taking the shot. I often use the 100-300 for close-ups, sometimes with extension tubes, and have noticed that this is a problem. Usually, I like to prefocus and only then release the shutter, but at close distance, there is a clear risk of swaying slightly out of focus if you do that. I have even experimented, with some success, with using AF-C instead of AF-S to get around this problem. Going back to the old MF strategy of just setting approximately right and then rocking to the right focus point with your body is of course another option.

Another thing. OIS vs IBIS. When I first got the E-M1 I did some comparisons between OIS and IBIS to see which was best on the 100-300 at 300mm. I found OIS to be more reliable.

I too found the (firmware-updated) OIS of the 100-300 to have a very slight edge over the E-M5 IBIS. But I haven't tested this extensively enough to be sure and the difference is slight anyway. The main problem here is that shutter shock spoils the fun if I try anything slower than 1/250. I can get passable sharpness below 1/250 but not tack-sharp ones.

This is a concern not only in hand-held shooting but on a tripod as well. With the 100-300 at the long end on a fairly sturdy tripod (Sirui T-1205X with Sirui G-10 head), I get blur due to shutter shock if I go below 1/250 even with long anti-shock delay. The only solution is to stay at 1/250 or higher or go down to really slow speeds (1/25, preferably even slower).

Because of this experience, when I got the 50-200, I was a bit concerned that IBIS might not be up to the job. However, I have found it to be excellent at 283mm on the new lens + EC-14.

How would you say the 50-200 with TC and IBIS compares to the 100-300 with OIS with regard to stabilization/shutter shock? Adding weight in the proper place helps against shutter shock and the 50-200 with TC beats the 100-300 in that regard. On the other hand, the proper place to add the weight is below the shutter, not in front of the body. Weight in front of the body moves the center of gravity outwards and increases the likelihood that the shutter forms part of a moment arm. This in turn increases the likelihood of significant blur.

My tests have shown that the angle of view on the 50-200 + EC-14 is smaller than the 100-300 @ 300mm implying that the Pany has a shorter focal length than the Oly combo. Perhaps the 100-300 is really a 275mm lens or even less given that some of the image is lost due to distortion correction.

It may well be that the 100-300 is not really 300 at the long end. But if so, it has nothing to do with distortion correction. It's only at non-tele FLs that this is a factor to reckon with.

Maybe this is why IBIS doesn't seem to work very well with it since the camera needs to know the focal length to stabilise properly. But the Pany reports 300mm even though it is probably a lot less.

I wouldn't think this is a factor for IBIS functionality either. In all likelihood, IBIS does get information about the real FL rather than the nominal one in case the two differ. And even if it doesn't, the difference in AoV between 275 and 300 wouldn't matter much.

Tony Rogers wrote:

Florida Nature Photographer wrote:

Tony Rogers wrote:

Only trouble is, the E-M1 + MMF-3 + EC-14 + 50-200 weighs 4lbs. Could have bought an SLR...

... just kidding.

I finally made my way through this incredibly informative thread. I am left with a few questions.

I continue to find the auto focus problems of the 50-200 will cost me shots.

My strongest interest is in landscape photography and I find myself spending more and more time shooting at the golden hour (i.e. low light). Therefore the faster 50-200 seems to make sense, however, it is during these times that the auto-focus problems are most prevalent.

That is a problem. The AF is poor in low light. i.e. doesn't focus lock at all.

I really enjoy going to parks and, as said, seem to limit my landscape photography to golden hours so I spend a fair amount of the daylight hours photographing wildlife.

As a result, I remained confused if I would be better served by a native m43 70ish-300 zoom or if I made the right choice all along with the 50-200 1.4 TC.

Finally, I find myself not being inclined to change lenses often and am wondering if my default walk around with the 50-200 should include the 1.4 TC. I tend to leave the 12-40 on for landscape and the 50-200 on for wildlife.

I was wondering the same thing myself when I went out on Sunday so I tried a bit of both (with and without the EC-14). When I put the EC-14 on and tried to photograph some butterflies it was immediately apparent that the AF was much slower. However, the results were still good with a bit of patience. I think I will generally walk around with the 50-200 without the EC-14 unless I am specifically going on a birding trip. I will carry it with me in case a particular situation needs it.

I am not quite sure yet what to do about smaller subjects; EC-14, Canon 500D close-up lens or extension tubes. However, I already know that, at closest focus, the 50-200 provides more magnification that my Pany 100-300.

As a matter of fact, the max native magnification of the 50-200 and the 100-300 is exactly the same (0.21x) according to the data on the official FT/MFT page. Don't know for sure whether a close-up lens or extension tubes would work best with the 50-200. The standard rule is to use close-up lenses with longer lenses and extension tubes with shorter due to the effect difference, close-up lenses changing the magnification a lot at longer FLs but little at shorter, and vice versa for extension tubes.

But rules are sometimes to be broken and as far as the 100-300 is concerned, this is one of them. I have tried both solutions and extension tubes are clearly preferable to my 500D from an optical-quality point of view. The downside is that I don't get a whole lot more magnification (I get from about 1:5 to about 1:3) but what I get is usually enough. See here for more information about how the 100-300 works (or rather not) with the 500D:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51866366

In case you haven't bought any tubes yet, I can recommend the ones made by Fotga. The build quality is certainly nothing to write home about but they are inexpensive and get the job done. One advantage compared to others is that they have a shape and structure (ridged) on the inside to minimize reflections. See here for further information:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51894532

Here's an example of what the 100-300 can do with the tubes:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

..

Here's an example of what the 100-300 can do with the tubes:

f/7.1 and with long (relatively) FL. See, I told you so .

Told me what and what does the FL have to do with it?

Tony Rogers wrote:

My strongest interest is in landscape photography and I find myself spending more and more time shooting at the golden hour (i.e. low light). Therefore the faster 50-200 seems to make sense, however, it is during these times that the auto-focus problems are most prevalent.

That is a problem. The AF is poor in low light. i.e. doesn't focus lock at all.

Saturday night I was trying to take some blue hour landscapes of distant scenes with the 50-200 and ended up just using manual focus... Which I still don't feel confident with and found focus peaking worked on some scenes but not others.

I was wondering the same thing myself when I went out on Sunday so I tried a bit of both (with and without the EC-14). When I put the EC-14 on and tried to photograph some butterflies it was immediately apparent that the AF was much slower. However, the results were still good with a bit of patience.

Good thought. I hadn't really paid attention to the AF speed with/without TC. I will now that you pointed it out.

I think I will generally walk around with the 50-200 without the EC-14 unless I am specifically going on a birding trip. I will carry it with me in case a particular situation needs it.

Up until now my decision was based I would need a longer shot (283mm) [such as your deer] or if I might encounter more of a landscape type of shot (50mm). I'm learning there are other considerations, however.

E-M1 with 50-200 + EC-14 @ 283mm

Still lots to learn!

One thing I struggle on with these type of bird in flight shots is how to make them different from everyone else's.