Who Chose the 300 f4 over the 100-400 for Birding and Why?

Currently, my wife and I shoot handheld with an EM5 II and a 40-150 F2.8 with MC-14; and with or without the EE-1 dot sight (eyes both open when without).

We use high shutter speeds, center to left histogram, ISO usually not beyond 1600 (3200 in a pinch), silent high / low burst mode, S-AF, and multi or single spot focus areas.

We've been practicing (and have a long way to go before posting anything decent) and our problem is not so much framing a bird in flight - or getting a few keepers - but telephoto reach.

I see on the forum that more people seem to have chosen the 100-400 over the 300 for cost and flexibility, etc., including Oly shooters.  But what about those who chose the 300?

We will be buying one of these lenses in the future.

So, if you chose the 300 over the 100-400, why did you do it?

Would you be willing to share your decision making process?

Any "real world use" thoughts from users of the 300 F4 on either Pany or Oly bodies would be much appreciated.

Tough - but welcome - choice to make... ...both lenses seem very good.

Maybe we need both?  Ha!

Doc

I have friends shooting with the 300 f4 and with the 100-400 f6.3 on their E-M1s and their E-M5s. They are both very fine lenses for what i have seen and really come down to do you want fast fixed focal length lens or are you will to use a slower zoom to get the convenience of a zoom lens.

Personally I don't use either. I use the 75-300 Olympus M43 for my handheld images and my old 350 mm f2.8 manual focus OMD lens for tripod use. I also have the matched 1.4x and 2x converters for the 350 lens to cover the range from an equivalent 700 mm to 980 mm to 1400 mm to 1960 mm. If I didn't have the old film lens and teleconverters I would probably eventually get the 300 f4.

Clearly manual focus is not for many of our younger crowd but can give excellent results with a little bit (perhaps a lot) of practice as Danny and several others have demonstrated.

It's hard to go wrong with any of these choices.

Dick

I chose the 300mm f4 because of the f4 aperture and because I expected the Olympus as a prime to be sharper.  I often use the lens with the MC14, but I often find that this requires too high an ISO and I remove the MC14 to lower the ISO, even in midday.  I rarely find that I want anything less than 300mm for birding and often want more than the 420mm (MC14+300mm), so the zoom was not that important.  I do have the 50-200 SWD + EC14 for situations when I need a zoom, however, I haven't actually used that combination for wildlife since I got the 300mm in February.

Thanks Dick.

We sold a 75-300 II to help cover the cost of a 300 or 100-400, and are saving up and "making do" with the 40-150 and MC for now - but I do miss the reach of the 75-300.

Since I was using the 75-300 mostly at the long end - 275mm+ - I thought I might not miss the zoom of the 100-400 since I had the 40-150 to cover some of that range.  The speed of the 300 appeals.  I just need more experience and may end up renting to give the 300 or 100-400 a try.

Lens use and buying are moving targets to me.

Doc

Digital Dick wrote:

I have friends shooting with the 300 f4 and with the 100-400 f6.3 on their E-M1s and their E-M5s. They are both very fine lenses for what i have seen and really come down to do you want fast fixed focal length lens or are you will to use a slower zoom to get the convenience of a zoom lens.

Personally I don't use either. I use the 75-300 Olympus M43 for my handheld images and my old 350 mm f2.8 manual focus OMD lens for tripod use. I also have the matched 1.4x and 2x converters for the 350 lens to cover the range from an equivalent 700 mm to 980 mm to 1400 mm to 1960 mm. If I didn't have the old film lens and teleconverters I would probably eventually get the 300 f4.

Clearly manual focus is not for many of our younger crowd but can give excellent results with a little bit (perhaps a lot) of practice as Danny and several others have demonstrated.

It's hard to go wrong with any of these choices.

Dick

I know this is not what you've asked but I would second the 75-300 over the 100-400. It's been my experience that the cost/size are not worth the image quality if that extra 100mm.

I don't own the 300.

I have not purchased yet, but after some reviews of the EM1mk2 (if they are to my liking) I will buy the 300 ƒ4.0.

I recently created a post over at MU-43 about my experience using my 50-200 SWD with the EC-20 (which at 400mm is only 1/3 stop slower then the Panny).  The third post down I compare the 50-200 w/ EC-20 to my 150mm ƒ2.0 w/ EC-20 in relation to the Panny 100-400 and Oly 400.

To make things even easier, someone posted these comparison photographs between the 50-200 w/ EC-20, Panny 100-400, and a Nikon 80-400.  The Panny is better at 400mm but not by much compared to the 50-200.  I was really shocked that it was not a lot sharper.

Now I am seeing a lot of threads with photographs from the 100-400 and I am seeing a lot of photographs in that higher ISO range then I really like to use.  There are a few threads here where someone posting photos mentions the struggle to keep ISO low when also needing fast shutter speeds.  For birds catching fish I need 1/1000 to freeze the action, for some birds you need even faster.

For me it comes down to the stop difference in ISO between the two lenses at 300mm and 400mm.  Anything under 300mm I already have covered at apertures faster then the Panny.

Thanks drj3.

Thats what I've noticed from many birders; that when after reach beyond, say, 300mm (600mm FF) a prime seems fine.  And, that kind of fits with my limited experience so far - as most of the places we have shot so far need longer focal lengths.

You are the first one I've seen who thought the 300 and MC-14 made the 300 too slow in midday.  I have never considered that - so thanks for that input.

Maybe I need a 4WD Boat to get closer?

Doc

sdw1 wrote:

Thanks drj3.

Thats what I've noticed from many birders; that when after reach beyond, say, 300mm (600mm FF) a prime seems fine. And, that kind of fits with my limited experience so far - as most of the places we have shot so far need longer focal lengths.

You are the first one I've seen who thought the 300 and MC-14 made the 300 too slow in midday. I have never considered that - so thanks for that input.

Maybe I need a 4WD Boat to get closer?

Doc

If you read the thread I linked in my post above you will see I often find ƒ5.6 to slow.  I will get the MC-14 but will only use it when I really really need the extra reach, otherwise I will just try to get closer as I do now.

Look into a kayak, great for shooting from.  Been doing it for 10 years now and love using it for photography.

Thanks deep7.

I'm on a budget too... ...and I've seen the 100-400 on Amazon for about $1597 used in new condition.  Time will tell what will happen to the new/used prices of both lenses and where I'll be experience and money-wise at that time.

And yes, I've actually been impressed with Trevor Carpenter's work with the 100-400 but like the 300 results maybe a little better... ...but not a LOT better.

Doc

deep7 wrote:

I had just assumed I would save up the pennies and get the 300/4 when it all worked out, simply because of the quality. However, I recently tried the 100-400 and realised I'd be more likely to get that. Why?

1) I'm on a budget and the price difference is substantial

2) Greater reach means something (though the teleconverter nullifies that but see point one above)

3) Image quality of the 100-400 is actually pretty good at 400

4) There may be some value in having a zoom.

I guess those points would apply to a lot of people. However, if point one didn't exist, I'd surely have the 300 plus teleconverter by now!

Good response Phocal.

I'm waiting to see what the EM1 II will be like also.  And thanks for the discussion about the f-stop being so important.  Some seem to think 1 stop, or a half stop is not a big deal - but it may be in iffy conditions.  I felt the 75-300 II was slower than I wanted - but it did seem  to do well in bright conditions.

Doc

HRC2016 wrote:

Digital Dick wrote:

I have friends shooting with the 300 f4 and with the 100-400 f6.3 on their E-M1s and their E-M5s. They are both very fine lenses for what i have seen and really come down to do you want fast fixed focal length lens or are you will to use a slower zoom to get the convenience of a zoom lens.

Personally I don't use either. I use the 75-300 Olympus M43 for my handheld images and my old 350 mm f2.8 manual focus OMD lens for tripod use. I also have the matched 1.4x and 2x converters for the 350 lens to cover the range from an equivalent 700 mm to 980 mm to 1400 mm to 1960 mm. If I didn't have the old film lens and teleconverters I would probably eventually get the 300 f4.

Clearly manual focus is not for many of our younger crowd but can give excellent results with a little bit (perhaps a lot) of practice as Danny and several others have demonstrated.

It's hard to go wrong with any of these choices.

Dick

I know this is not what you've asked but I would second the 75-300 over the 100-400. It's been my experience that the cost/size are not worth the image quality if that extra 100mm.

I don't own the 300.

This nags at me HRC2016 - in a good way - as I actually mostly liked the 75-300 II - and wonder if it was the right move to get on with just the 40-150 and MC... ...but then, I want more reach, speed, and weather sealing... ...but the money is a hurdle...

Doc

sdw1 wrote:

Good response Phocal.

I'm waiting to see what the EM1 II will be like also. And thanks for the discussion about the f-stop being so important. Some seem to think 1 stop, or a half stop is not a big deal - but it may be in iffy conditions. I felt the 75-300 II was slower than I wanted - but it did seem to do well in bright conditions.

Doc

For me 1 stop is a lot.  It can mean the difference between ISO 800 and ISO 1600 and may never process the ISO 1600 after looking at it.  Sometimes a shot is fine at ISO 1600 and then other shots it is not, depends on the animal I am photographing and distance to subject.  When close (Little Blue Heron filling the frame close or closer) ISO 1600 tends to be ok, add some distance and I typically throw them away after looking at them.

If you found the 75-300 slow you fill the same about the 100-400, it is less then 1/3 stop faster.

Pikme wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

And yes, I've actually been impressed with Trevor Carpenter's work with the 100-400 but like the 300 results maybe a little better... ...but not a LOT better.

I think it would be silly to choose one or the other on the basis of IQ, especially using someone else's internet posted photos.

Better to decide whether you want zoom or prime, aperture speed, af, price, handling, size, etc. For me, after 4 years of using 75-300, what I really want is a 300f2.8, but I'll take the f4 if that is what there is. Not interested in a slower zoom again (I like my 75-300 otherwise). Also, for atmospheric conditions and my own ability, I don't think I'd get much use at 400mm. I already get heat currents galore at 300mm. But that's my concern, not necessarily yours.

I'm curious about your histogram left comment - I thought we all exposed to the right?

Roberto M.

Histogram "slightly" to the left of center to avoid blown highlights on lighter colored birds...

Informative link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58G-ttOw6PM

And yes, IQ alone is not enough to completely sway me either...

Doc

sdw1 wrote:

This nags at me HRC2016 - in a good way - as I actually mostly liked the 75-300 II - and wonder if it was the right move to get on with just the 40-150 and MC... ...but then, I want more reach, speed, and weather sealing... ...but the money is a hurdle...

Doc

If you shot an EM1 I would recommend the 50-200 SWD with both EC-14 and EC-20.  For someone on a budget that is one of the best values in any system.  With the EC-14 you have 280mm and the EC-20 can take you to 400mm and the IQ goes from amazing to good (depending on TC used).  You could get a 50-200, MMF-3, EC-14, and EC-20 for about the price of the Panny 100-400.

Phocal wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

This nags at me HRC2016 - in a good way - as I actually mostly liked the 75-300 II - and wonder if it was the right move to get on with just the 40-150 and MC... ...but then, I want more reach, speed, and weather sealing... ...but the money is a hurdle...

Doc

If you shot an EM1 I would recommend the 50-200 SWD with both EC-14 and EC-20. For someone on a budget that is one of the best values in any system. With the EC-14 you have 280mm and the EC-20 can take you to 400mm and the IQ goes from amazing to good (depending on TC used). You could get a 50-200, MMF-3, EC-14, and EC-20 for about the price of the Panny 100-400.

Thanks for the advice Phocal.

I'm aware of that combination but need to get more familiar with it - and will look into it.

Doc

I've considered both before settling down for the 100-400mm

I have the 75-300mm also and it may be for sale if I stop using it (not touched since I had the 100-400mm)

1) If money is no issue , I'd have gotten the 300mm too

2) The 100-400mm is already a hefty lens, the 300mm even more, so that's something to consider if you have to lug it around on long treks; I do so weight saving is a must for me

3) Love to have the f4 on the 300mm but for birding reach at 300mm may (will) not be enough based on my experience ; adding a tele converter would reduce light to almost the same as the 100-400mm; not to mention adding weight and size; the extra 100mm is sorely needed if you 're serious about birding

4) I use the shorter end of the 100-400m to shoot landscapes; much less so with the 300mm

5) I'd think both have good enough IQ for everyday's use; should not be the deciding factor for selecting one over the other; the 4 points above are more compelling IMHO

Cheers,

Another cheaper option is the Canon 400mm f5.6 and a metabones adapter.  The lens and adapter focuses every bit as good as when using my Canon 70D.

Tom Gross wrote:

Another cheaper option is the Canon 400mm f5.6 and a metabones adapter. The lens and adapter focuses every bit as good as when using my Canon 70D.

But it is not weather sealed.  May not matter to some, for me that is a no go because I love shooting in the rain to much.