Deciding against purchasing the 150-400 f4.5

This may be a silly question but I am interested in opinions

I am on the cusp of purchasing this lens, I have read many reviews and most highlight many of the very positive points. I have and like the MZ 100-400 but it is a little restrictive in low light.

I know that the cost of the 150-400 is high and possibly the weight is too much, but if you were into wildlife photography and had good access to a good range of wildlife what else might you consider reason's not to purchase? (I am assuming partners/family are happy if you did purchase)

If someone has both the 100-400 (Panasonic or Olympus) and the MZ150-400 I would be very interested in their comments.

I own the Olympus 300/4.0, the Olympus 100-400/5.0-6.3 and the Olympus 150-400/4.5 lenses.  I brought them all at the time of their release by pre-ordering them.  So I have owned the 300/4.0 for several years.   I owned the 100-400/5.0-6.3 since last August.  The 150-400/4.5 for a little over a month.  Size-wise the 300/4.0 and 100-400/5.0-6.3 are about the same size.  At least they could fit in the camera backpack in the same slot without adjusting.   The 150-400/4.5 needed a lot of slot adjusting and not carrying a few lenses to get it to fit.  Still I can fit the following lenses into the Think Tank Street Walker V2: 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, 60%3.8 Macro and the 150-400/4.5 with either the E-M1X or E-M1.3.   The 150-400/4.5 feels lighter weight than the other two lenses.  I know spec-wise it is not lighter, but because of how well balanced it is it feels lighter.

The stabilization of the 150-400/4.5 on either the E-M1X or the E-M1.3 in use is at least equal to if not better than the 300/4.0.  I have been able to handhold down to 1/250 of a second.  With the 100-400/5.0-6.3 I have to keep the shutter speed faster than 1/1,000 and faster us better.

The focus speed of the 150-400/4.5 is very fast.  It is at least equal to the 300/4.0 and maybe even faster. The focus speed of the 100-400/5.0-6.3 might be slightly slower,  but still fast enough to not be an issue.

The image quality of the 150-400/4.5 is at least equal to if not better than the 300/4.0 lens.  The 100-400/5.0-6.3 image quality us less that the 300/4.0, but still good enough.

In use if you can handle the extra bulk and the expense the 150-400/4.5 lens is amazing.  It gives a user the image quality and stabilization of the 300/4.0 with the flexibility of being a zoom.  The 100-400/5.0-6.3 has limitations due to it's less stabilization and being a f6.3 at the long end.  These two limitations makes it a good light lens.

Interesting analysis.

Thank you, that is very useful.

If it were me and money was no object, I'd get the lens. You didn't express interest on going FF, nor that cost was a factor. The extra weight and bulk isn't really going to change handling in any significant way compared to the 100-400 or 300 IMO. My decision would then be on the value to my photography. If I was really seriously doing wildlife (or sport) photography, the 150-400mm is best and arguably worth every penny, but for occasional dibs in taking mostly bad images of wildlife filling my hard drive, it doesn't really matter as the fun mostly lies in the process and challenge rather than the result, so I'd stick to what you already have.

A bit off topic but I think DXO PureRaw has been a bigger game changer for me than any camera, lens or software upgrade that I have previously purchased.  I don't know bit given what I have seen to date I think it's possible that your 100-400 combined with PureRAw may give you just as much of an IQ improvement as the 150-400 and without the weight.

-
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
and 2021 birds here
https://photos.app.goo.gl/61f38oB1EYAAYAqE7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SUW5G55fJDtW89Cq9

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

A bit off topic but I think DXO PureRaw has been a bigger game changer for me than any camera, lens or software upgrade that I have previously purchased. I don't know bit given what I have seen to date I think it's possible that your 100-400 combined with PureRAw may give you just as much of an IQ improvement as the 150-400 and without the weight.

-
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
and 2021 birds here
https://photos.app.goo.gl/61f38oB1EYAAYAqE7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SUW5G55fJDtW89Cq9

DxO PL4 or Pure Raw is a real game changer.  It really helps a lot with the 100-400/5.0-6.3 when I have to up the ISO above what I really want to keep the shutter speed up above 1/1,000 sec at f6.3.  Still it doesn't give me the image quality improvement of the 150-400/f4.5, but it does help.

J4Hug wrote:

Thank you, that is very useful.

Hopefully in the next month I will make myself carry all three lenses and shoot all three on an wildlife (birding) outing.  The Ohio River is just now reaching the water levels where the Egrets, Great Blue Herons and Night Herons will be out catching fish at the Falls of the Ohio.  Usually a few hundred so a lot of choices.  They usually stay in the same location long enough that I should be able to shoot the same bird at the same location with all three lenses.  It just might be interesting.

Dave

DLBlack wrote:

J4Hug wrote:

Thank you, that is very useful.

Hopefully in the next month I will make myself carry all three lenses and shoot all three on an wildlife (birding) outing. The Ohio River is just now reaching the water levels where the Egrets, Great Blue Herons and Night Herons will be out catching fish at the Falls of the Ohio. Usually a few hundred so a lot of choices. They usually stay in the same location long enough that I should be able to shoot the same bird at the same location with all three lenses. It just might be interesting.

Dave

Don't forget to get some BIFs to show us.

DLBlack wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

A bit off topic but I think DXO PureRaw has been a bigger game changer for me than any camera, lens or software upgrade that I have previously purchased. I don't know bit given what I have seen to date I think it's possible that your 100-400 combined with PureRAw may give you just as much of an IQ improvement as the 150-400 and without the weight.

-
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
and 2021 birds here
https://photos.app.goo.gl/61f38oB1EYAAYAqE7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SUW5G55fJDtW89Cq9

DxO PL4 or Pure Raw is a real game changer. It really helps a lot with the 100-400/5.0-6.3 when I have to up the ISO above what I really want to keep the shutter speed up above 1/1,000 sec at f6.3. Still it doesn't give me the image quality improvement of the 150-400/f4.5, but it does help.

I, too have found DxO PureRAW to be a great asset, but there is no substitute for a well created capture - no creating detail from softer pixels, etc.

I had the 150-400 on order - and cancelled the order this week. I was late to learn about the lens and there are people who knew about it and ordered the first day that still have no lens. I'm not convinced that people later to the party, like myself, will ever see their order filled. I've decided to master and make the most of the 40-150 f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4 with and without teleconverters. Practically speaking, these four elements can provide more than enough magnification for wildlife at reasonable distances. I've been shooting long enough to know that trying to capture wildlife at unreasonable distances is just a fools errand - at least for the IQ standard I was trained to maintain.

And - at f/4.5 it is a slower lens at best - sure its a bit better at the long end than the 300 with a TC and has the convenience of a zoom, and it seems sharp all through the range - but a lens that isn't available does nothing for the images I'm trying to capture now or in the next year - better to focus on mastering the use of what I have.

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

J4Hug wrote:

Thank you, that is very useful.

Hopefully in the next month I will make myself carry all three lenses and shoot all three on an wildlife (birding) outing. The Ohio River is just now reaching the water levels where the Egrets, Great Blue Herons and Night Herons will be out catching fish at the Falls of the Ohio. Usually a few hundred so a lot of choices. They usually stay in the same location long enough that I should be able to shoot the same bird at the same location with all three lenses. It just might be interesting.

Dave

Don't forget to get some BIFs to show us.

It wouldn't be a lens comparison since the birds will be different and not same exact location. Here are couple of my SOOC photos from the Falls of the Ohio from the past few weeks using the Olympus 100-400/f4.5 lens and mostly with the E-M1X.

These photos were SOOC and were in my Flickr album at:

SOOC - May 2021 | Flickr

Where I have been attempting to share on a more timely fashion

Dave

WileEC_ID wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

A bit off topic but I think DXO PureRaw has been a bigger game changer for me than any camera, lens or software upgrade that I have previously purchased. I don't know bit given what I have seen to date I think it's possible that your 100-400 combined with PureRAw may give you just as much of an IQ improvement as the 150-400 and without the weight.

-
Recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
and 2021 birds here
https://photos.app.goo.gl/61f38oB1EYAAYAqE7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SUW5G55fJDtW89Cq9

DxO PL4 or Pure Raw is a real game changer. It really helps a lot with the 100-400/5.0-6.3 when I have to up the ISO above what I really want to keep the shutter speed up above 1/1,000 sec at f6.3. Still it doesn't give me the image quality improvement of the 150-400/f4.5, but it does help.

I, too have found DxO PureRAW to be a great asset, but there is no substitute for a well created capture - no creating detail from softer pixels, etc.

I had the 150-400 on order - and cancelled the order this week. I was late to learn about the lens and there are people who knew about it and ordered the first day that still have no lens. I'm not convinced that people later to the party, like myself, will ever see their order filled. I've decided to master and make the most of the 40-150 f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4 with and without teleconverters. Practically speaking, these four elements can provide more than enough magnification for wildlife at reasonable distances. I've been shooting long enough to know that trying to capture wildlife at unreasonable distances is just a fools errand - at least for the IQ standard I was trained to maintain.

And - at f/4.5 it is a slower lens at best - sure its a bit better at the long end than the 300 with a TC and has the convenience of a zoom, and it seems sharp all through the range - but a lens that isn't available does nothing for the images I'm trying to capture now or in the next year - better to focus on mastering the use of what I have.

All so true.  The 300/4.0 is a great lens.  I usually had MC14 attached to it to give me a 420/f5.6.   II have used this combo for several years.  It is really good.

I didn't think I would ever get my pre-ordered 150-400/4.5 lens.  The local camera shop lost its Olympus Rep and have to order Olympus gear through a secondary company.  So between this and Olympus being spun off to become OMDS, then the pandemic I just didn't think I would ever get the lens.  I did get the 100-400/5.0-6.3 lens back in August.  I like the flexibility of the zoom.  I also had a plan that I will give the 100-400/5.0-6.3 lens to my wife when we go out where a long lens is needed.  It will be a upgrade to her (my old) 75-300.

One of my photographer friends I go out shooting with uses the 300/4.0 and mostly with the MC1.4 attached.

After using mine 150-400/4.5 for maybe over a month I am very pleased with it.

Dave

Yeah - the truth for me is that I am used to using primes, typically a FF 600mm f/4 or the 400 f/2.8 or the 300mm f/2.8 - with or without one of three teleconverters. In my experience things with wildlife just don't change so quickly that a zoom is all that big of a deal to me. That said, I totally get being able to take ONE lens and have a wide range covered - that would be a great asset - but only if you could get one.

The other key thing for me is that most wildlife that I have shot are used to us when we are on those concrete or asphalt ribbons (or dirt ones in Africa, South America, etc.) in those metal blocks on wheels. So, it's easy to have a couple different cameras with different lenses and I have typically done my homework, so know what I am most likely to use. A prime over a zoom is just not that big of a deal.

Perhaps it is just so much rationalization - but in the end, it's about using what is in our hands to take the best frame we can, and we add what we feel will be an asset as we are able.

DLBlack wrote:

I own the Olympus 300/4.0, the Olympus 100-400/5.0-6.3 and the Olympus 150-400/4.5 lenses.

Quite amazed that you have both the 100-400 and the 150-400. From the specs I'd assume there is so much overlap in focal range and better aperture - why keep the 100-400?
It's an honest question. Can you ever see yourself in the field unmounting the 150-400 and switching to the 100-400?

Same question for the 300mm. If you have the 150-400 mounted, would you take it off and mount the 300mm. for a 0.5 increase in aperture?

I will never be able to afford the 150-400 (Hi future self! What happened? Did you win the lottery? Did the new restaurant work out?).

But if I did I would consider the prices of the 300 and 100-400 as money saved.  Since you own all three, can you tell me where my reasoning fails?

techie takes pics wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

I own the Olympus 300/4.0, the Olympus 100-400/5.0-6.3 and the Olympus 150-400/4.5 lenses.

Quite amazed that you have both the 100-400 and the 150-400. From the specs I'd assume there is so much overlap in focal range and better aperture - why keep the 100-400?
It's an honest question. Can you ever see yourself in the field unmounting the 150-400 and switching to the 100-400?

Same question for the 300mm. If you have the 150-400 mounted, would you take it off and mount the 300mm. for a 0.5 increase in aperture?

I will never be able to afford the 150-400 (Hi future self! What happened? Did you win the lottery? Did the new restaurant work out?).

But if I did I would consider the prices of the 300 and 100-400 as money saved. Since you own all three, can you tell me where my reasoning fails?

Your reasoning fails in one key area - reading to understand - this has been answered already. Each lens was purchased - as "the best" option at the time. He has a wife that shoots with him - she is able to use what he isn't - and only within the last month has there been real overlap. A relative superzoom never competes with a quality prime, no real overlap there.

Respectfully - go back and read the comments already posted.

techie takes pics wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

I own the Olympus 300/4.0, the Olympus 100-400/5.0-6.3 and the Olympus 150-400/4.5 lenses.

Quite amazed that you have both the 100-400 and the 150-400. From the specs I'd assume there is so much overlap in focal range and better aperture - why keep the 100-400?
It's an honest question. Can you ever see yourself in the field unmounting the 150-400 and switching to the 100-400?

I am also amazed.  I brought the 100-400/5.0-6.3 when it was released last year because I really didn't think Olympus would ever released the 150-400/4.5 lens.  I might keep the 100-400/5.0-6.3 for when I want to go with a smaller kit.  The 100-400/5.0-6.3 pairs up nicely with the 12-100/4.0 lens.  I most likely give the 100-400/5.0-6.3 lens to my wife.  It will be an upgrade from her (my old) 75-300 lens.

The 300/4.0 will serve as my backup to the 150-400/4.5 lens.  When I travel I do like to have a prime lens backup even if it stayed packed in the car.

Even though the 100-400/5.0-6.3 and the 150-400/4.5 lenses have a lot of overlap in focal length and f-stop the two lenses are totally different in use.  The 100-400/5.0-6.3 along with the 12-100/4.0 makes a nice smaller kit for a hike where a long lens might be needed. There is nothing small about the 150-400/4.5 lens.  The f4.5 and the better stabilization along with better image quality is a big plus for the 150-400/4.5 lens.

Same question for the 300mm. If you have the 150-400 mounted, would you take it off and mount the 300mm. for a 0.5 increase in aperture?

I can see the 300/4.0 being back in the car or hot room incase something happens to the 150-400/4.5 lens.

WileEC_ID wrote:

Yeah - the truth for me is that I am used to using primes, typically a FF 600mm f/4 or the 400 f/2.8 or the 300mm f/2.8 - with or without one of three teleconverters. In my experience things with wildlife just don't change so quickly that a zoom is all that big of a deal to me. That said, I totally get being able to take ONE lens and have a wide range covered - that would be a great asset - but only if you could get one.

I used to be of that opinion but now, with respect, I think it's wrong.  I know for a fact I've lost shots while faffing around with TCs. Either I have the wrong TC fitted so the shot is too closely framed or the image needs more cropping than I'd like. Or worse still, I don't get anything because the kit is in pieces while I change set-up. For me the 150-400 will significantly avoid lost opportunities.  YMMV.

I eagerly await it's arrival.

Mike

PS I used to shoot FF Canon and had 500mm F4, 400mm F4 and 300mm F2.8.

Thats one block of real life first hand user experience. Well done, and: thanks!

Just to add to what I have noticed from the 150-400mm, the images are vibrant with more colour depth than on any other m43 lens over 300mm that I have seen. Sharpness is also noticeably better. If you are into printing, especially large prints, you'll be bowled over.