Bokeh quality EM1X + Olympus 300/f4

[ToxicTabasco]

Its the lens. Shame really, my 14 150 lens are silky smooth by comparison.

Don

yep...all garbage images

Not into birds.

me neither.

Don

Nice shots. I want a 14 150 2.8 PF lens the same size as the original

Don

Those are some excellent backgrounds and birds.
As Eric Clapton says "It's in the way that you use it".

 

[ToxicTabasco]

I agree, that image does not have good bokeh quality. But, I think it's more the angle of the shot and composition that's the problem.

A tip that may help, if at all possible get down to ground level and take a shot, that's what the flippy screen and best IBIS on the market is for.


If you want bokeh, you'll need a good background. That's where planning a shot will be most advantagious. Factor in the wind direction and light and have a good smooth background that's not distracting. And you'll have great success with bokeh.

 

[Messier Object]

Those are all beautiful shots with backgrounds which don’t detract from the subject.

However I’ve seen lots of images posted here where that lens renders close-background grass and foliage as a horrible mess.

im sure I own more than a few myself.

I’d like to see the same image -same Av, framing with same background, same distance from subject to background- shot with different lenses( from different manufacturers if you like).

Would those images look different somehow?

We know we can always blame the lens...but we also know there are other factors in play that we should also be considering.

We can’t always choose or arrange the background and often we are stuck with what’s there.

Peter

I don’t own the F4 Pro lens and my comment is based on what I’ve seen posted. I do own the 4/3 F2.8 lens and have rarely been disappointed with its background rendering

 

[Messier Object]

Wow, a beautiful capture of the Robin, a bird I’ve not yet captured to my satisfaction.

Peter

 

[Messier Object]

Those are all beautiful shots with backgrounds which don’t detract from the subject.

However I’ve seen lots of images posted here where that lens renders close-background grass and foliage as a horrible mess.

We can’t always choose or arrange the background and often we are stuck with what’s there.

Peter

I agree with you. However, the OP's background would not have been very attractive with any lens.

Definitely a lower angle on the subject was called for

There was an early review (I don't remember which one) that specifically compared the 300mm f4 to the FTs Olympus 300mm f2.8 with the same close backgrounds. The FTs lens was obviously better at f2.8 and a little better at f4, but the difference was small. There was not a noticeable difference in sharpness.

Looking carefully at the images posted by the ‘accomplished’ birders here I have concluded that the F4 Pro is indeed a bit sharper than the F2.8 at f/4. And FWIW I think my Canon 300/2.8 is sharper than both Zuikos - why a I love using it on the E-M1II

Peter

 

[magnesus3]

The Olympus 300mm f4 is "completely flat across the frame and extremely sharp corner-to-corner - Imaging Resource" which can cause the slightly out of focus areas to be somewhat busy.

I disagree with this statement; the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 and Olympus 150mm f/2 are both extremely sharp across the frame and exhibit none of the bokeh issues seen in the Olympus PRO lenses.

Both are shorter. I find longer lens tend to bring the background more forward making it more likely to have chaos in bokeh.

 

[Bobapingu]

Yes I'm getting similar results. I think the bokeh is bloody beautiful. I don't like the background totally blurred out like you get with some FF bird photos. It needs context but the context must soft and creamy. The 300mm f4 does that beautifully.

 

[Bobapingu]

A Purple-backed Fairy-wren (Malurus assimilis). Shot with an E-M1.1 + 300mm f4, ISO 200, 1/250, f4.

Check out the feather detail and the creamy far bokeh. OK the near bokeh on the twig to the right is a bit messy but can any other 600mm equivalent lens do better? If it can, what's the price?

 

[petreluk]

Those are all beautiful shots with backgrounds which don’t detract from the subject.

However I’ve seen lots of images posted here where that lens renders close-background grass and foliage as a horrible mess.

We can’t always choose or arrange the background and often we are stuck with what’s there.

Peter

It's an issue with the 40-150mm f2.8, too. In some circumstances the OOF parts can look grim and distract from the subject, TBH. The 40-150mm is my favourite lens by far but does require a little shot planning to avoid potentially busy backgrounds. If that's not possible, I sometimes use a Photoshop plugin to further blur and soften the worst bits. Only happens on a minority of images and is very far from a big deal imho, but can spoil things a little when it does.

--
==================
https://www.flickr.com/photos/petreluk/

 

[cangopluto]

im sure I own more than a few myself.

I’d like to see the same image -same Av, framing with same background, same distance from subject to background- shot with different lenses( from different manufacturers if you like).

In a few occasions (grass reed many twigs) I've seen this happen. Somehow the sharpness of the lens seems to have a thing to do with it.

I have, besides the f4 300, a 600mm scope, and a 480mm scope. hard to compare different focal lengths. But my 480 is sharper than the 600mm, and it behaves very much like the 300pro in those special conditions (grass reeds etc) where the 600 does not.

9 of 10 shots it's easy remedied,

 

[Messier Object]

A Purple-backed Fairy-wren (Malurus assimilis). Shot with an E-M1.1 + 300mm f4, ISO 200, 1/250, f4.

Check out the feather detail and the creamy far bokeh. OK the near bokeh on the twig to the right is a bit messy but can any other 600mm equivalent lens do better? If it can, what's the price?

Feather details plus good OOF qualities in a ‘budget’ birding lens . . .



Peter

 

[katastrofa]

No autofocus problems?

 

[katastrofa]

Hear hear! What's wrong with a bit of grass or twigs in the background? It's the bird's natural environment. The totally blurred background found in many FF photos often looks artificial to me.

 

[MarkDavo]

A Purple-backed Fairy-wren (Malurus assimilis). Shot with an E-M1.1 + 300mm f4, ISO 200, 1/250, f4.

Check out the feather detail and the creamy far bokeh. OK the near bokeh on the twig to the right is a bit messy but can any other 600mm equivalent lens do better? If it can, what's the price?

Bob, beautiful Purple-backed FW, formerly known as Variegated. Where in Aust did you capture this little beauty?

--
Cheers, Mark
Wouldn't be dead for quids

 

[MarkDavo]

Check out the feather detail and the creamy far bokeh. OK the near bokeh on the twig to the right is a bit messy but can any other 600mm equivalent lens do better? If it can, what's the price?

Feather details plus good OOF qualities in a ‘budget’ birding lens . . .



Peter

Great light on the Crested Pigeon Peter. There are several pairs in bush near home where they keep a very small range.

--
Cheers, Mark
Wouldn't be dead for quids

 

[Bobapingu]

A Purple-backed Fairy-wren (Malurus assimilis). Shot with an E-M1.1 + 300mm f4, ISO 200, 1/250, f4.

Check out the feather detail and the creamy far bokeh. OK the near bokeh on the twig to the right is a bit messy but can any other 600mm equivalent lens do better? If it can, what's the price?

Bob, beautiful Purple-backed FW, formerly known as Variegated. Where in Aust did you capture this little beauty?

--
Cheers, Mark
Wouldn't be dead for quids

At the Macquarie Marshes in northweastern NSW next to Monkeygar Creek. It was in and out of a particular patch of saltbush. It's the first I'd seen one. We don't have them on the east coast. The marshes are a great place for birding but hard to access.

 

[Rich K]

Nice shots, but did you really need 25 pics to prove your point or are you just showing off? Glad my internet connection is high speed, and feeling sorry for those on a satellite connection.

 

[Bobapingu]

It's to show it wasn't just a lucky shot. Out in the wilds the birds decide when and where.

 

[Paul Auclair]

Nice shots, but did you really need 25 pics to prove your point

the overkill on this forum is the ridiculous and incessant banging of the ol’ “Olympus and their products are garbage” drum.

No, I didn’t need any one of them to prove a point. I know full well what the lens in question is capable of.

others obviously do not for reasons I can only assume.

you’ll have to ask the others if the 25 images I posted sufficed to temporarily counter or soften the drumming. I have my doubts.

I rather doubt 1 000 000 poster great images captured with Olympus products would ever stop the Olympus bashing parade.

hey, thanks for caring though.

or are you just showing off?

I never show off, I’m sure I haven’t got the necessary talent to allow it. I post images only to show what the gear, used to capture the images, is capable of.

Glad my internet connection is high speed, and feeling sorry for those on a satellite connection.

--
Rich in Reno

--
as always,
thank you fellow DPR members for your kind words and encouragement.

 

[Gon Rough]

Nice shots, but did you really need 25 pics to prove your point or are you just showing off? Glad my internet connection is high speed, and feeling sorry for those on a satellite connection.

I think it was well worth posing them all.

To be fair though, the frustration is when someone replies but "quotes " the whole set of photos again .... This happened about 2-3 times..some times just to add 6 words to a previous short reply.....

but... No probes here .

Fantastic shots by the way and helps us all evaluate the quality the lens is capable of delivering.