Nikon 200-500 vs. Olympus 100-400 - 2 system dilemma

[Sarawoot]

I am using 2 systems, i.e., Olympus EM1Mk2 for Macro only and Nikon Z (Z6ii and Z7) for hiking and everything else.

I'd like to get the long tele-zoom--lens and come to dilemma

1. Olympus 100-400mm
   • Pro
     • Light and compact
     • More reach (400mm is equivalent to 800mm subject in Full frame)
     • Many users said IQ is better
     • I heard the AF is better than Nikon (I am not sure)
     • New technology (? - just release)
   • Con
     • Slightly more expensive
     • TC is also more expensive
2. Nikon 200-500mm
   • Pro
     • 500mm Full Frame can be cropped to have subject size same as 1,000 mm 2X factor of MTF
     • Constant aperture at f/5.6. More light
     • Less expensive with with TC1.7 is nearly same price as Olympus 100-400 without TC
     • Proven technology (launch more than 4 years)
   • Con
     • 2 times heavier and bigger
     • Need to use FTZ adapter (but I already have the adapter)

I posted similar message to Olympus SLR forum too. Let's see how it goes Thank you very much.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

400mm on Olympus 4:3 yields a narrower angle of view than a 500mm on FX.

500mm on FX yields an equivalent angle of view to about 250mm on 4:3.

 

[Diswantsho]

I kept my Pen F for casual photos and my Nikon for 'serious' work.

I recently got a Olympus 300 and 40-150 second hand with the argument that this will be more compact in the field than full frame lenses of 400mm and up. I still have a Nikon 200-400 that works fine on the Z7, but I dislike the lens for its size and weight, and given FF lenses of that size, I will prefer Olympus.

I also own the Z mount 70-200 and 2x TC. This combination is according to reports, very good, and gives me essentially a 100-400, making the choice to use the oly 40-150 a bit more difficult.

Due to Covid and other personal challenges, I was unable to test and compare the lenses yet but I think in my own case, my choice for which system will perhaps boil down to the 'seriousness' distinction. If I am on a photographic mission where every possible bit of quality counts, I will probably choose the Nikon. If I am on a family outing watching wildlife, or where aeroplane weight and convenience counts, the smaller system will be my preference.

However, do not take my word 'serious' too seriously. The Olympus system is capable of making seriously good images. If I have only one system to choose, it is a large part sentiment that keeps me with Nikon. I have been a Nikon shooter since the 1970's. If I can get myself to use only logic, the m43 system has a lot in it's favour, despite the recent change of ownership at Olympus.

 

[LASR]

The Nikon is f5.6 and the Olympus is f5-6.3 which for the same pixel count is equivalent to 200-800 f10-12.6, so 800 instead of 500 but f10 or a bit more at 500 instead of f5.6, not a direct comparison, an equivalent lens would be a 100-250 f2.8 that doesn't exist in the Olympus lineup.

The Olympus is more compact but if you require higher speed to stop action you will be more constrained by light conditions. Also, on a bright sunny day heat haze is more probable and there isn't much gain in very long focal lengths.

It may not be worth buying a TC for the 200-500, the IQ of the 200-500 is good but it's about the same at 500 as the 300 f2.8 + 1.7TC, a TC on the 200-500 will degrade the image even further. Also TC + FTZ works well but is too cumbersome. Cropping on the Z7 might be enough. My guess is that the TC on the Olympus will degrade the image below the acceptable point as well, they are usually made for prime teles.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

The Nikon is f5.6 and the Olympus is f5-6.3 which for the same pixel count is equivalent to 200-800 f10-12.6,

This relates only to depth of field - when maintaining the same angle of view.

 

[rgs_45]

I am using 2 systems, i.e., Olympus EM1Mk2 for Macro only and Nikon Z (Z6ii and Z7) for hiking and everything else.

I'd like to get the long tele-zoom--lens and come to dilemma

1. Olympus 100-400mm
   • Pro
     • Light and compact
     • More reach (400mm is equivalent to 800mm subject in Full frame)
     • Many users said IQ is better
     • I heard the AF is better than Nikon (I am not sure)
     • New technology (? - just release)
   • Con
     • Slightly more expensive
     • TC is also more expensive
2. Nikon 200-500mm
   • Pro
     • 500mm Full Frame can be cropped to have subject size same as 1,000 mm 2X factor of MTF
     • Constant aperture at f/5.6. More light
     • Less expensive with with TC1.7 is nearly same price as Olympus 100-400 without TC
     • Proven technology (launch more than 4 years)
   • Con
     • 2 times heavier and bigger
     • Need to use FTZ adapter (but I already have the adapter)

I posted similar message to Olympus SLR forum too. Let's see how it goes Thank you very much.

I'm in kinda similar situation as you. I got the Nikon Z6 + kit lens awhile back then the 200-500/5.6 a month later while I'm shooting a Oly EM1 mk 1 and Em5 mk ii. I recently got the EM1X and now comtemplating if I should get the Oly 100-400. I do have the 40-150/2.8 Pro + MC20 which gives me up to 600mm FF equivalent.

 

[LASR]

The Nikon is f5.6 and the Olympus is f5-6.3 which for the same pixel count is equivalent to 200-800 f10-12.6,

This relates only to depth of field - when maintaining the same angle of view.

No, to the amount of light per pixel as well, if pixel count is the same. E.g. f5.6 has the same light intensity independently of the sensor size but intensity is a quantity per unit area, if the MFT sensor were 6 MP and the FF 24 MP the amount of light per pixel would be the same, but if they both have the same pixel count the pixel area is much smaller in MFT.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

No, to the amount of light per pixel as well, if pixel count is the same.

This is a current internet myth :-(

While there is perhaps 10% logic 10% of the time - whether you accept it or not - there are plenty of professional photographers regularly taking first class images with the Olympus 4:3 system.

If what you imply had even reasonable credibility in real world photography there would not be successful professional photographers making a living using the 4:3 system!

Medium format digital photographers using your logic could argue professional results are not possible with the Nikon system.

Each format has plusses and minuses - with good photographers able to get excellent results using 4:3, or Fuji DX, Nikon/Canon/Sony 24x36, or Fuji etc medium format or a smartphone.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

 

[LASR]

No, to the amount of light per pixel as well, if pixel count is the same.

This is a current internet myth :-(

While there is perhaps 10% logic 10% of the time - whether you accept it or not - there are plenty of professional photographers regularly taking first class images with the Olympus 4:3 system.

If what you imply had even reasonable credibility in real world photography there would not be successful professional photographers making a living using the 4:3 system!

Medium format digital photographers using your logic could argue professional results are not possible with the Nikon system.

Each format has plusses and minuses - with good photographers able to get excellent results using 4:3, or Fuji DX, Nikon/Canon/Sony 24x36, or Fuji etc medium format or a smartphone.

What is the myth, that the f-number represents the light intensity independently from focal length or sensor size? That intensity is a quantity per unit area? There is a reason why a higher pixel count is usually associated with a larger sensor. You are probably reading what you want to read and not what is there, I never said the MTF system doesn't produce first class images and I'm not implying anything. This is a good read but you can do the calculations and experiment by yourself:

Loading…

clarkvision.com

 

[JasonTheBirder]

I would not get either and instead wait for the Nikon 200-600.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

What is the myth, that the f-number represents the light intensity independently from focal length or sensor size? That intensity is a quantity per unit area?

No - the f stop does not represent the intensity of light relative to any particular area on the sensor.

The intensity of light is what is in front of the camera/lens.

You control the amount of light passing through the lens by a combination of f stop and shutter speed - presuming no light stopping filter is used.

 

[j_photo]

The Nikon is f5.6 and the Olympus is f5-6.3 which for the same pixel count is equivalent to 200-800 f10-12.6, so 800 instead of 500 but f10 or a bit more at 500 instead of f5.6, not a direct comparison, an equivalent lens would be a 100-250 f2.8 that doesn't exist in the Olympus lineup.

The Olympus is more compact but if you require higher speed to stop action you will be more constrained by light conditions.

I agree with Leonard. This is a misuse of equivalency. The Olympus shooter can shoot at f/5 to f/6.3, pretty much the same aperture as the Nikon. There doesn't need to be any practical difference in what shutter speeds can be used with either setup.

 

[ReedW]

If you are thinking about hiking with a long lens, the 200-500 is pretty darn large and heavy. Even when I was young I don't think I would have considered hiking very far with a lens of that nature, plus all the other assorted gear. At this point in my life, it's a backyard or shooting by the car lens. If you are younger and spunkier you may be willing to haul it around.

Your E-M1 MK II is an excellent all-around camera. There are a number of fairly lightweight and reasonably-priced long zoom options, including the Panasonic 100-300mm and the Olympus and Panasonic 100-400mm lenses.

I shoot the Panasonic 100-400mm on the E-M1 MK II and E-M1X bodies. Couldn't be much happier with the combos. Light weight, portable, fast handling, great ergonomics, excellent image stabilization (IBIS) and very good image quality. Very pleased with the results.

I'm very happy with the Panasonic 100-400mm lens. I don't have any experience with the Olympus 100-400mm lens. If it was available when I purchased the Panasonic 100-400mm I'm not sure which one I would have purchased. I probably would have leaned towards the Olympus.

There's always the Olympus 300mm Pro and the 150-400mm Pro lens. If the government decides to send stimulus checks to photographers with GAS I'd be motivated to get one of them.

Some of the standout Olympus features include in-camera focus stacking, Pro Capture, Live Composite and user-configurable focus limiters.

The latter has 3 separate ranges; for example, I photograph hummingbirds at a feeder about 12 feet away. I set the focus limiter from 2 to 6 meters and that prevents the camera from jumping to the bushes in the background that are about 40 feet away. It's made a huge difference for birds in flight.

I'm not knocking Nikon by any stretch. I have several full-frame Nikons and the 200-500. Great gear, but I rarely use it. I pull it out for things like shooting performers in low light, but otherwise it sits while I'm using the Olympus gear for everything else.

 

[da7329]

I have the oly em1m2 and use it mostly with the 60mm 2.8 for 2 x macro. I also have the oly 75-300 which is very light for 600 mm reach IQ is ok. I don’t like the 100-400 because it is heavy around 1000gr. I like the D500 with a tam/ sigma 100-400 for 600mm reach. The tam/sigma 100-400’s are FF lens and around 1100gr. So m4/3 100-400’s are just to heavy for a small sensor cam. The emx with the 100-400 is more heavy than a D500 with the 100-400. I don’t see the oly system as being light at least with Kong’s lens.

DA

 

[john isaacs]

I am using 2 systems, i.e., Olympus EM1Mk2 for Macro only and Nikon Z (Z6ii and Z7) for hiking and everything else.

I'd like to get the long tele-zoom--lens and come to dilemma

1. Olympus 100-400mm
   • Pro
     • Light and compact
     • More reach (400mm is equivalent to 800mm subject in Full frame)
     • Many users said IQ is better
     • I heard the AF is better than Nikon (I am not sure)
     • New technology (? - just release)
   • Con
     • Slightly more expensive
     • TC is also more expensive
2. Nikon 200-500mm
   • Pro
     • 500mm Full Frame can be cropped to have subject size same as 1,000 mm 2X factor of MTF
     • Constant aperture at f/5.6. More light
     • Less expensive with with TC1.7 is nearly same price as Olympus 100-400 without TC
     • Proven technology (launch more than 4 years)
   • Con
     • 2 times heavier and bigger
     • Need to use FTZ adapter (but I already have the adapter)

I posted similar message to Olympus SLR forum too. Let's see how it goes Thank you very much.

If you plan to hike with it, then the Olympus solution is better. But in my opinion, the Nikon 200-500 is a better lens. The reason I got the 100-400 was for Pro Capture L support. It's not that sharp, however, and I much prefer the 300mm f4 with/without TC.

I put the 200-500 on the Z7 and shoot in DXmode. But the Z7 doesn't have good burst rate, so what I usually do is use a D500. Which has much better AF than anything else.

The Olympus SLR forum is probably not the right forum; the general micro-four thirds forum would be better.

If you want compact, the Panasonic 100-400 is much better. If you get a good copy that doesn't have sticky zoom.

 

[Virtual Photon]

You don't explicitly say, but is the long lens that you want to get for hiking?

 

[Sarawoot]

The Nikon is f5.6 and the Olympus is f5-6.3 which for the same pixel count is equivalent to 200-800 f10-12.6,

This relates only to depth of field - when maintaining the same angle of view.

No, to the amount of light per pixel as well, if pixel count is the same. E.g. f5.6 has the same light intensity independently of the sensor size but intensity is a quantity per unit area, if the MFT sensor were 6 MP and the FF 24 MP the amount of light per pixel would be the same, but if they both have the same pixel count the pixel area is much smaller in MFT.

Thanks. That's what I think too.

While Olympus 100-400 can have better reach (bigger image on 24 MP). But the quality in each pixel will be different. Although we don't do pixel peeping, it will be obvious when we print even at 8x10.

 

[Sarawoot]

I would not get either and instead wait for the Nikon 200-600.

Did you mean the z-mount? Never heard of the timeline yet

 

[Sarawoot]

I have the oly em1m2 and use it mostly with the 60mm 2.8 for 2 x macro. I also have the oly 75-300 which is very light for 600 mm reach IQ is ok. I don’t like the 100-400 because it is heavy around 1000gr. I like the D500 with a tam/ sigma 100-400 for 600mm reach. The tam/sigma 100-400’s are FF lens and around 1100gr. So m4/3 100-400’s are just to heavy for a small sensor cam. The emx with the 100-400 is more heavy than a D500 with the 100-400. I don’t see the oly system as being light at least with Kong’s lens.

DA

I used to have Fuji-X series for hiking due to IQ, weight, size, and UI for hiking. I found Nikon Z system has the same weight, size and better IQ (for landscape and low light) - but I still like UI of Fuji system more.

With travel restriction, I do mostly macro in backyard and studio selfies at home. Nikon Z 105/2.8 is not available in Indonesia yet so I got EM1mk2 and 60/2.8 just for macro purpose too. I miss the long-tele-zoom in fuji and unfortunately, Nikon Z don't have the native lens yet.

Thanks for the insight keep hunting.

 

[Sarawoot]

I am using 2 systems, i.e., Olympus EM1Mk2 for Macro only and Nikon Z (Z6ii and Z7) for hiking and everything else.

I'd like to get the long tele-zoom--lens and come to dilemma

1. Olympus 100-400mm
   • Pro
     • Light and compact
     • More reach (400mm is equivalent to 800mm subject in Full frame)
     • Many users said IQ is better
     • I heard the AF is better than Nikon (I am not sure)
     • New technology (? - just release)
   • Con
     • Slightly more expensive
     • TC is also more expensive
2. Nikon 200-500mm
   • Pro
     • 500mm Full Frame can be cropped to have subject size same as 1,000 mm 2X factor of MTF
     • Constant aperture at f/5.6. More light
     • Less expensive with with TC1.7 is nearly same price as Olympus 100-400 without TC
     • Proven technology (launch more than 4 years)
   • Con
     • 2 times heavier and bigger
     • Need to use FTZ adapter (but I already have the adapter)

I posted similar message to Olympus SLR forum too. Let's see how it goes Thank you very much.

If you plan to hike with it, then the Olympus solution is better. But in my opinion, the Nikon 200-500 is a better lens. The reason I got the 100-400 was for Pro Capture L support. It's not that sharp, however, and I much prefer the 300mm f4 with/without TC.

I put the 200-500 on the Z7 and shoot in DXmode. But the Z7 doesn't have good burst rate, so what I usually do is use a D500. Which has much better AF than anything else.

The Olympus SLR forum is probably not the right forum; the general micro-four thirds forum would be better.

If you want compact, the Panasonic 100-400 is much better. If you get a good copy that doesn't have sticky zoom.

Good suggestion for posting in MFT forum. I received nearly 20 responses in Nikon Z while I have only one from Olympus SLR. I will repost then. Thanks again.