Olympus 100-400mm F5-6.3 vs Olympus PRO 40-150mm F2.8 + teleconverter

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

Honestly I would stay away from the 100-400, it has an outdated IS unit and is too big. But I highly recommend the 40-150 f/2.8 pro because it's cheaper, brighter, has better built quality and can also do telemacro. If you want more reach you can buy an extender, 1,4X or 2,0X, or buy an additional 75-300 for the supertelephoto. I always recommend the 75-300 because it's cheap, gives very good sharpness at close distance even at 300mm. It falls apart at 300mm when shooting distant subjects, but this also holds true for the 100-400.

valerio18 wrote:

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

150 + x2 TC only gives you 300mm, and you lose 2 stops or more in the TC.

Plus - changing lenses from 14-150 to 40-150 + TC needs removing one lens, and attaching two lenses. That is alright if you don't really take photographs, but enjoy making an exhibition of yourself changing lenses. I have seen tourists changing lenses and never taking a photo.

If the 100-400 is just outside your budget, consider the 75-300 II. It has good reviews here.

When I do get my tax return, I may go for the 75-300 , and put off the new E-M10 IV for later. The lens is about US$ 500.-.

Henry

Unless you really need the 400mm reach, I'd be wary.  The 100-400mm is slightly lighter than the 300mm f4 PRO which I have.  I can tell you, first of all, finding a small bird at a distance, then holding the lens steady long enough for a good shot as it hops around is quite a feat despite dual IS.  Perhaps I should join a gym.  At 400mm it would be harder.  Then there is the issue of light.  Despite having 4f, there is never enough light and at 400mm you have only f6.3.  I would find it quite difficult to get keepers.  On the other hand the 75-300mm weighs less than half.

I've shot extensively with the Canon 100-400mm and Sigma 150-600mm on my EM1 and I can tell you that there just is no replacement for a true long telephoto, and the 400-600mm range is exactly where Olympus has been short...and exactly what you often want.  The new Olympus 100-400 is a bit smaller, but importantly quite a bit lighter than the Canon so it will handle just fine for anyone who's shot with the larger Zuiko telephoto zooms.  I'm hopeful that with native autofocus (vs. the adapted autofocus I've been using) it will be both faster and more reliable.

The 40-150 is such a good lens it's hard not to recommend it, and on the 1.4x TC it will still be really good.  If that's enough reach for you then this is a very good option.  Quite a bit less reach though.

Oly

valerio18 wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions/comments!

Additional questions about the oly 75-300, I know that it can be a good alternative.. can it produce a good enough image? (at least on the level of oly 14-150 is sufficient for me)

I tried to find some reviews online but I can't find a lot about it😅

I have been considering adding the 75-300 for a lighter telephoto than my Pan Leica 100-400, particularly for my E-M5 III.

I have a friend that recently added Ike 75-300 an he also has the 14-150 (as do I). I asked the same question, “is it as good as the 14-150?”.... his answer, “exactly”. He also shoots with the 300 f/4 so he knows what good image quality is.

valerio18 wrote:

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

Hi,

I do have the 14-150mm which I take as a light "travel lens" for occasional shots and flexibility.

I do otherwise use my 12-40mm F2.8 and the 40-150mm F2.8 + MC-14. The 40-150mm F2.8+ converter is my "wildlife lens" so far, and I did consider the MC-20 for longer reach (300mm instead of 210mm )  or I was waiting for the 100-400mm lens.

The 2.8 40-150mm is a PRO lens and is considerately bigger and heavier than the 14-150mm F4.0-5.6. They are 2 completely different leagues !

When you want to go seriously into wildlife or (motor) sports, then the 100-400mm will be the route I think. For anything else the 40-150mm F2.8 is a very good and versatile beast, which I love, and my E-M1MkII is glued with it.

For me, the 14-150mm F4.0-5.6 and the 40-150mm F2.8 with or without MC-xx are so different, that it will not be the question the one or the other, but rather if you want or need to go for the additional serious super tele , either the 40-150mm F2.8 or the 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 ..

I want definitively  the 100-400mm F5.0-6.3  for birding and wildlife, but I also will keep the 40-150mm F2.8 for shots with less light and for normal walks I also will keep the 14-150mm F4.0-5.6.

Jan

gary0319 wrote:

valerio18 wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions/comments!

Additional questions about the oly 75-300, I know that it can be a good alternative.. can it produce a good enough image? (at least on the level of oly 14-150 is sufficient for me)

I tried to find some reviews online but I can't find a lot about it😅

I have been considering adding the 75-300 for a lighter telephoto than my Pan Leica 100-400, particularly for my E-M5 III.

I have a friend that recently added Ike 75-300 an he also has the 14-150 (as do I). I asked the same question, “is it as good as the 14-150?”.... his answer, “exactly”. He also shoots with the 300 f/4 so he knows what good image quality is.

I personally find the quality of the olmypus 75-300 II at 300mm to be really good; here some example of shots at 300mm that I shot since I bought this lens.

full moon at 300mm.

frog at 300mm, acceptable detail and sharpness.

270mm at ISO 3200, feather detail is still acceptable in my option.

valerio18 wrote:

Hi,

I am Olympus casual shooter that would like to have telephoto lens with more reach (the longest lens I have now is 14-150 F4-F5.6). I am considering between the 2 lenses (100-400 vs 40-150+TC). Do you think which option can deliver "better" image/AF/etc.?

Cheers!

I just looked at the same.  I had hoped the 100-400 would be a designed-for-MFT lens, but am disappointed in what Olympus brought to market.  So, I picked up an MC20 for my 40-150.  The way I see it is, I now have a 40-150 F2.8, and a 150-300 F5.6.

Of course the 40-150 is not stabilized, and I have been struggling to get a good focus lock with MC20 on.  However, I think this is just a learning curve.

If by chance you live close to Munich, you are welcome to try my combo out.  If not, try borrow before you buy.

Would suggest you also take a look at the 50-200 from Panasonic.

I own the 40-150/2.8 and the MC20. I use to own the original version of the 75-300/5.6-6.7. The image quality is better with the 40-150/2.8 + MC20. Plus it is f5.6 so better in lower light. Plus without the MC20 the straight 40-150/2.8 is maybe the best zoom lens image quality that Olympus makes.

The 75-300 is lighter and more compact if this is important thing.

I got the new 100-400/5.0-6.3 on order. I hope it will pair up with the 12-100/4.0 to give me a good general kit. I do find only going to 300mm to be a limitation for what I like to photograph.

Olympus has added the 75-300 to their US Outlet for $359. I applied the $50 end of rewards one time coupon for a net price of $309.... hard to pass up.

This will be an adjunct to my E-M5 III/12-45 f/4 for a lightweight 2 lens travel kit (if we ever get to travel again).

gary0319 wrote:

Olympus has added the 75-300 to their US Outlet for $359. I applied the $50 end of rewards one time coupon for a net price of $309.... hard to pass up.

This will be an adjunct to my E-M5 III/12-45 f/4 for a lightweight 2 lens travel kit (if we ever get to travel again).

Great price for the lens and should pair up nicely with the 12-45/4.0.  I am looking forward to the 40-150/4.0 that is shown on the lens road map to pair up with the 12-45/4.0 for my small kit with Pen F.  I did order the new 100-400/5.0-6.3 to pair up with the 12-100/4.0 and the E-M1.3 for my general/casual kit.

the 75-300 mk2 is a superb value for money lens which I have produced many excellent images from but for my use its shortcoming are

- no IS

- too short

-not water sealed

Which is why I went to the PL100-400 (after experimenting with the sigma 150-600C via metabones)

The zoom problems + hood failure + poor / non-existent customer service (I believe it is now better?) resulted in that being ditched

So, for me the 100-400 meets my specific need, whoever designed it and the fact it is "plastic on metal" construction is irrelevant (my judgements should in no way influence anyone else) each to there own choice