Deciding against purchasing the 150-400 f4.5

mikero wrote:

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.

I knew I was at risk of seeing things very differently - especially in MFT land. In truth, there is only one modern long lens, though I know there are one or two legacy lenses that fill in some gaps.

It's not that I haven't owned long zooms 200-400mm f/4, 200-500mm f/5.6 - just haven't seen them get that much use, compared to the primes. So, I guess my mileage does vary. (I did hope a MFT to Nikon mount adapter would work out, so I could have my own 200-400mm f/4, but the AF with the adapter was inconsistent - not something I can afford with wildlife. That said, in terms of history, long primes have been the domain of pro shooters - and that's where my training came from - and the zooms are never as sharp or as fast as the primes, so those were/are higher priorities for me. I don't feel I've lost that many shots - the purpose of having two bodies with different lenses AND understanding what I was going to photographing going into it. And better to need to crop a little, than fill the frame - or leave room for a magazine head, framing, etc.

The 150-400 is an unparalleled lens - no doubt about it - but for most it's just a nice idea - even for those that are willing to pony up the bucks. I had my order in - but reading the tea leaves, it seems unlikely I'd see a lens any time this year, if ever. Time to move on and make the most of what I have - which includes some pretty good long FF glass - so I have lots of options these days.

In most scenarios - subject, light, range - where you are currently using the 300mm F4 the new zoom probably won’t give you much better results.

Yes, beyond 600mm it will put more pixels on your subject, but you will still be having to use an external TC to get there

Yes, framing your subject at close range will be easier, however at 150mm it’s quite a slow lens. . . f/4.5 (wildlife photogs don’t seem to talk about that)

The images I’ve seen demonstrate that is has the same ‘busy bokeh’ personality as the 300mm F4 so you will still need to take care with what’s just behind your subject.

At 400mm, which is what I think is a Micro Fourthirds sweet-spot for birding (ie 300mm with a 1.4x Tc) the new lens is a tad faster and won’t be optically encumbered with a TC so your images will probably be a bit sharper, but not dramatically so.

All round a I think the new lens will merely extend the envelope you have with the 300mm F4, but so far I’m yet to see convincing images from anybody (Pro or otherwise) that demonstrate a vast image quality improvement over the 300mm F4. And for the price it is I’d be wanting a vast improvement.

All of the above of course is just my opinion, and I don’t own and am not likely to buy either the 300mm F4 or the new 150-400mm F4.5

But if my Olympus ZD300mm F2.8 was to break or be lost tomorrow however I would probably replace it with the 300mm F4 Pro and both MC-14 and MC-20.

Peter

DL - a bit off topic, but, since you have them all, I am considering purchasing the 100-400 to replace my 75-300.  What is your opinion on the merits of this upgrade?

I do a fair amount of hiking and my use for the long lens is limited to wildlife or bugs I see in the garden.  For example I took these the other day with the 75-300:

I had to severely crop these since I couldn't focus closer with the 75-300.

We're planning a trip to Alaska this summer and I'm thinking the 100-400 would be great for shooting wildlife there.

The big factor against buying this lens for me is that it costs £6,499 and I only have £6,498 to spend!

If I had another few quid I would order it like a shot.

For those who need, want, can afford then enjoy.

In reality, I do not have the talent to use one, even if I had that extra pound.

Cheers.

It has been years (since buying the 300/4.0 that I have used the 75-300.  My wife still uses it.  She likes the size of it and wonder why I would carry a bigger lens.  Then she also wonders why my photos are sharper than hers.  When is upgraded to the 300/4.0 I did notice a very noticeable improvement in image quality.  When I started to use the 100-400/5.0-6.3 I only noticed a slightly less image quality when compared to the 300/4.0 lens.

Anyhow, my feeling about the 75-300/5.6-6.7 compare to the 100-400/5.0.6.3 is that the 100-400/5.0-6.3 is a better lens unless compact size is the most important factor.  The 100-400/5.0.  The advantages of the 100-400/5.0-6.3 are:

1. Longer focal length.  It seems like 400mm is a very useful focal length.

2.  Faster f-stop.

3.  Closer focus distance.

4.  Slight improvement is image quality.

The advantage of the 75-300/5.6-6.7 are:

1.  More compact size.

2.  Lower cost.

Dave

This must be the most fact absent comment I have ever read! Not withstanding the fabulous pictures posted by 150-400mm owners you somehow manage to come up with alternative facts. Or should I say Post Truths?

Sranang Boi wrote:

This must be the most fact absent comment I have ever read! Not withstanding the fabulous pictures posted by 150-400mm owners you somehow manage to come up with alternative facts. Or should I say Post Truths?

I will push back on this observation. Most of the images I have seen posted from owners of the 150-400 are the same meh pictures they were posting with their ____________ (fill in the blank with what they shot with before it). Most that buy it, do so because they can - not because they have the skill or vision to shoot it well. I've seen the same dynamic for nearly two decades, relative to big lenses in FF land.

I have seen some images from a few select people that I think reflect what the lens is capable of. That said, the same people shot the same quality of image and composition with the 300mm f/4 or the Oly 100-400, or whatever they shoot with.

It's not about the lens. This forum attempts to make things about the gear and settings and software, when in fact what was true 100 and 50 and 10 years ago is true to this day - these lenses and cameras are just tools. They can be used well or not - and images will reflect that, regardless of what the gear is capable of.

I agree, it is a very handy lens.

Plus it is weather sealed (maybe only the Mark1 75-300 wasn’t)

and it can use the 1.4x &2x converters....

I like the 100-400 it is not particularly heavy (lighter than the 300f4)

.....

Messier Object wrote:

In most scenarios - subject, light, range - where you are currently using the 300mm F4 the new zoom probably won’t give you much better results.

Yes, beyond 600mm it will put more pixels on your subject, but you will still be having to use an external TC to get there

Yes, framing your subject at close range will be easier, however at 150mm it’s quite a slow lens. . . f/4.5 (wildlife photogs don’t seem to talk about that)

The images I’ve seen demonstrate that is has the same ‘busy bokeh’ personality as the 300mm F4 so you will still need to take care with what’s just behind your subject.

At 400mm, which is what I think is a Micro Fourthirds sweet-spot for birding (ie 300mm with a 1.4x Tc) the new lens is a tad faster and won’t be optically encumbered with a TC so your images will probably be a bit sharper, but not dramatically so.

All round a I think the new lens will merely extend the envelope you have with the 300mm F4, but so far I’m yet to see convincing images from anybody (Pro or otherwise) that demonstrate a vast image quality improvement over the 300mm F4. And for the price it is I’d be wanting a vast improvement.

All of the above of course is just my opinion, and I don’t own and am not likely to buy either the 300mm F4 or the new 150-400mm F4.5

But if my Olympus ZD300mm F2.8 was to break or be lost tomorrow however I would probably replace it with the 300mm F4 Pro and both MC-14 and MC-20.

Peter

I generally agree with your comments and will be sticking with my 300mm f4.  The main reason anyone should be going to the 150-400 is the flexibility of the zoom over a prime while not reducing IQ.

The one feature of the 150-400 that does intrigue me is the built-in TC which would allow me to quickly move between 300-500mm which is where I would be shooting.  I have no interest in switching TCs in an out in the field so this feature alone could be a reason to switch but not enough reason for the price difference.

Sranang Boi wrote:

This must be the most fact absent comment I have ever read! Not withstanding the fabulous pictures posted by 150-400mm owners you somehow manage to come up with alternative facts. Or should I say Post Truths?

The OP isn’t about facts, if it was all about facts he would have his answers from looking at the lens specs and wouldn’t have a need to pose the question he did.

The OP is looking for reasoned opinion based on experience. That’s what I offered.

Peter

Sranang Boi wrote:

This must be the most fact absent comment I have ever read! Not withstanding the fabulous pictures posted by 150-400mm owners you somehow manage to come up with alternative facts. Or should I say Post Truths?

I have seen some fabulous pictures from the 150-400 but I have also seen great pictures from the 300, the Oly 100-400 and the PL100-400.  I haven't yet seen any pictures from the 150-400 which make it a must have.  I do accept that it may just be a great lens for getting the pictures and have other big advantages over the other lenses.

... and it was gratefully received. In fact, this thread has raised a good sensible discussion which was my aim, thank you.

I have one on order and expect to see it in 2022!