Making the switch to OM

[TeeJay626]

I've been pondering this for a few months now and I think I'm about to make the switch.

I'm an enthusiast wildlife photographer, and 95% of the images I take are wildlife. I've been shooting Canon for over 15 years now, with most of that time being on APS-C DSLR and RF. I currently use the Canon R6 Mark II and R5 with the RF 100-500L and RF 200-800 lenses. It's a heavy kit, and honestly I've been less than enthusiastic with the results I'm getting. Yes, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens. The 200-800 also produces great images, but also has a high failure rate in some situations. So, I'm looking to make the switch to OM for a few reasons - weight, seemingly better IQ in many areas, and a lens lineup that makes sense.

Also, Canon today significantly raised their prices on most of their cameras and lenses, and in many cases substantially. As a result, the trade in value of my gear also rose by several hundred dollars (just checked). I will be trading in at my local camera shop and making the purchase there. Here's what I'm considering my my OM kit:

OM-1 Mark II, 12-100 f4 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, 300 f4 Pro and the MC-14. The shop also has a used copy in like new condition of the MC-20 at a good price, but I've never been a fan of 2x TCs. I was also considering the 150-600, but it weighs about the same as my 200-800 and looks to have the same IQ.

Thoughts? Any changes to my kit? I'll end up with about $7,600 to spend after my trade in. And as much as I'd love the 150-400, it's not an option.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

I've been pondering this for a few months now and I think I'm about to make the switch.

I'm an enthusiast wildlife photographer, and 95% of the images I take are wildlife. I've been shooting Canon for over 15 years now, with most of that time being on APS-C DSLR and RF. I currently use the Canon R6 Mark II and R5 with the RF 100-500L and RF 200-800 lenses. It's a heavy kit, and honestly I've been less than enthusiastic with the results I'm getting. Yes, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens. The 200-800 also produces great images, but also has a high failure rate in some situations. So, I'm looking to make the switch to OM for a few reasons - weight, seemingly better IQ in many areas, and a lens lineup that makes sense.

Also, Canon today significantly raised their prices on most of their cameras and lenses, and in many cases substantially. As a result, the trade in value of my gear also rose by several hundred dollars (just checked). I will be trading in at my local camera shop and making the purchase there. Here's what I'm considering my my OM kit:

OM-1 Mark II, 12-100 f4 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, 300 f4 Pro and the MC-14. The shop also has a used copy in like new condition of the MC-20 at a good price, but I've never been a fan of 2x TCs. I was also considering the 150-600, but it weighs about the same as my 200-800 and looks to have the same IQ.

Thoughts? Any changes to my kit? I'll end up with about $7,600 to spend after my trade in. And as much as I'd love the 150-400, it's not an option.

Hi TeeJay,

Your proposed kit is essentially what I use for sports, going back to the EM-1 series. All those lenses are impeccable and the OM-1ii is a very capable and flexible camera. I like the 300 with both MCs and use the MC14 more often, since 420/5.6 has more applications than 600/8. But at an attractive price the MC20 is still nice to have for special uses.

We have several excellent birders/wildlife folks in the forum using those teles and time spent looking at their work will give a solid introduction to what this gear can deliver. I'm merely an opportunistic birder and not in a position to compare and contrast OM with other systems. But for sports I'll put in a strong recommendation from a capability-cost perspective. I occasionally ponder a 135 format system move, but nobody is offering their 400/2.8 at a price remotely within reach, considering that the system revolving around one quickly tallies into new-car price territory.

Very low light/very high ISOs are where 135 and m4/3 separate. Depending on where/what you shoot, you might need to add a faster lens or two. But as a starting point your proposed trio is hard to beat.

Whispering from the background is the 150-400, a topic all its own.

good luck!

Rick

 

[JamieTux]

I've been pondering this for a few months now and I think I'm about to make the switch.

I'm an enthusiast wildlife photographer, and 95% of the images I take are wildlife. I've been shooting Canon for over 15 years now, with most of that time being on APS-C DSLR and RF. I currently use the Canon R6 Mark II and R5 with the RF 100-500L and RF 200-800 lenses. It's a heavy kit, and honestly I've been less than enthusiastic with the results I'm getting. Yes, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens. The 200-800 also produces great images, but also has a high failure rate in some situations. So, I'm looking to make the switch to OM for a few reasons - weight, seemingly better IQ in many areas, and a lens lineup that makes sense.

I haven't gone straight from one to the other but I have had that lens and both those cameras. I currently use the OM1.2 and 40-150mm f2.8 with and without a 1.4 TC. I am more sports focussed than wildlife so it's not 100% relevant. I would say that the AF is different but close to your R5 which is to say a bit behind the R6II. The high speed modes are way better on OM - and using the electronic shutter give an experience closer to the R3 than the R6II or R5 in my experience.

Although the Canon image quality might be a bit superior at the same ISO the f2.8 lens is a huge difference maker as it's around 2 stops faster for most of the range. It's also WAY lighter and smaller, I always take the tripod feet off mine and only put them back on when I think I might use them.

The close up capabilities on the 40-150mm are something else too - I was blown away by the ability to track bees in flight when shooting close ups.

Also, Canon today significantly raised their prices on most of their cameras and lenses, and in many cases substantially. As a result, the trade in value of my gear also rose by several hundred dollars (just checked). I will be trading in at my local camera shop and making the purchase there. Here's what I'm considering my my OM kit:

OM-1 Mark II, 12-100 f4 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, 300 f4 Pro and the MC-14. The shop also has a used copy in like new condition of the MC-20 at a good price, but I've never been a fan of 2x TCs. I was also considering the 150-600, but it weighs about the same as my 200-800 and looks to have the same IQ.

I got the 12-40 f2.8 and it's a great lens - couldn't comment on the 12-100 but the 300f4 Pro sounds like it's fantastic (although from what I've read, it's not as good or as versatile as your exclusion below!)

Thoughts? Any changes to my kit? I'll end up with about $7,600 to spend after my trade in. And as much as I'd love the 150-400, it's not an option.

 

[daddyo]

The three lenses you're planning to get are really superior lenses. The Synch IBIS with the 12-100mm is beyond crazy good.

If you do any close up shooting, like insects, flowers, etc., you would do well to add the wonderful 60mm f/2.8 Macro -- it is small, lightweight, and razor sharp.

This image is from a few weeks ago:



--
Blessings,
Greg
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

 

[No Time To Lose]

You might find this and some of his other posts on BIF of interest…

Best Olympus Pro Telephoto - Surprising Test Results | Home

The Olympus pro 150-400mm F4.5 zoom is described by some as the best telephoto lens ever made for wildlife photography. I have been contemplating getting it for several years. To decide, I did some extensive testing, comparing it to the other two pro telephoto lenses, the 300mm f4 prime, and the...

mcaughtry.photo

TeeJay626, post: 68327949, member: 375870"]
I've been pondering this for a few months now and I think I'm about to make the switch.

I'm an enthusiast wildlife photographer, and 95% of the images I take are wildlife. I've been shooting Canon for over 15 years now, with most of that time being on APS-C DSLR and RF. I currently use the Canon R6 Mark II and R5 with the RF 100-500L and RF 200-800 lenses. It's a heavy kit, and honestly I've been less than enthusiastic with the results I'm getting. Yes, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens. The 200-800 also produces great images, but also has a high failure rate in some situations. So, I'm looking to make the switch to OM for a few reasons - weight, seemingly better IQ in many areas, and a lens lineup that makes sense.

Also, Canon today significantly raised their prices on most of their cameras and lenses, and in many cases substantially. As a result, the trade in value of my gear also rose by several hundred dollars (just checked). I will be trading in at my local camera shop and making the purchase there. Here's what I'm considering my my OM kit:

OM-1 Mark II, 12-100 f4 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, 300 f4 Pro and the MC-14. The shop also has a used copy in like new condition of the MC-20 at a good price, but I've never been a fan of 2x TCs.

[/QUOTE]
People here have had very good results either the 2x TC on your lenses. I believe the sensor size helps. Bear in mind that manufacturing tolerances can have a compounding effect and you may need to try a few to get one that works better with your individual lenses. The guy in the link above tried a few

I was also considering the 150-600, but it weighs about the same as my 200-800 and looks to have the same IQ.

Thoughts? Any changes to my kit? I'll end up with about $7,600 to spend after my trade in. And as much as I'd love the 150-400, it's not an option.

40-150 & 300 are no-brainers for your use case - without doubt among the best lenses in the system.

The 12-100 is also stellar. I love it - glued to my camera unless doing wildlife. It does have a lot of overlap with the 40-150 and neither are light. If you don’t really plan on using/carrying these two together, happy days.

Do you ever need something wider? I have the Panasonic 8-18 and there’s now the OMS 8-25 and several other choices.

Finally there’s the 60mm macro - another outstanding lens if you would use it and can be very cheap on offers.

You don’t have to get them all at once!

 

[mikero]

I swapped from Canon full frame to Olympus/OM about seven years ago. No regrets, especially of you use DxO PureRAW to tame any high ISO noise. It really is a game changer.

The lenses you propose are all excellent and you'll be pleased with the results I'm sure. I've used the 2x on the 300mm F4 and been pretty happy with the images. A 2x won't work well on a mediocre lens, but on one as sharp as the 300mm, it's fine IMHO. So don't discount the 2x. The 1.4x is definitely worthwhile and I used it most of the time.

Mike

 

[ahaslett]

I shoot MFT for most stuff and Sony FE for landscape, with some crossover.

I have the 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 and MC14 used on an OM1 mk i. At this point, I'd get a mk ii for the human subject detection, deeper buffer, wider choice of Precapture frame rates etc.

I'm not a fan of the 12-100/4 because it seems too heavy, too slow and not quite their in terms of IQ (picky I know). But it does have Dual IS and saves changing lenses. I prefer the 12-40/2.8 or 12-45/4.

I could have bought a Sony 200-600mm G and put it on either of my 61Mpix bodies. It would have been a lot cheaper new than the used 300/4 but just too damn heavy.

Lenstip have the MC14 being noticeably better than cropping on the 300/4 and a wash on the 40-150/2.8. Mine are the other way around, an example of co-variation in fit between lenses and TCs.






Landscape with birds!



The EXIFS are intact and subject detect was critical for all but the 2nd shot.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Owlsfan]

Look for Marko Finland's posts. He posts more bird photos than most and I think more often than not uses the 2x tc.

 

[drj3]

I have the OM1s (both versions), the 12-100 and the 300mm with both TCs. You can look at my gallery for older images using the 300mm with TCs.

Both TCs are better than the crops of the bare lens. Of the two, the MC20 makes a much larger difference (not unexpected since it is a difference of a 5MP image and a 20MP image of the target).

Which TC better depends on what you photograph and where you photograph. My goal is to always fill the frame, so with small birds in trees and at my wildlife refuge where I cannot get closer, I use the MC20 far more than the MC14.

Either gives a better image of the target when shot at the same distance with the MC14 one stop higher ISO and the MC20 two stops higher ISO. If you can drop the shutter speed to have the same ISO as the bare lens, then the TCs are far better than the cropped image. With the OM1.2 I can shoot the MC20+300mm down to 1/10 second with relatively stationary targets.

As the illumination decreases the focus accuracy with the TCs drops somewhat but they still do very well. One issue may be important depending on the user, a prime lens of 600mm on a 2X crop (1200mm FF equivalent field of view) is more challenging for the user to find the target and keep the target in the frame with fast moving birds like swallows.

If you switch to the mFTs system, I would definitely recommend a good AI image processor like DXO PL8 which can make very high ISO images better with the smaller sensor.

--
drj3

 

[No Time To Lose]

I have the OM1s (both versions), the 12-100 and the 300mm with both TCs. You can look at my gallery for older images using the 300mm with TCs.

Both TCs are better than the crops of the bare lens. Of the two, the MC20 makes a much larger difference (not unexpected since it is a difference of a 5MP image and a 20MP image of the target).

Which TC better depends on what you photograph and where you photograph. My goal is to always fill the frame, so with small birds in trees and at my wildlife refuge where I cannot get closer, I use the MC20 far more than the MC14.

Either gives a better image of the target when shot at the same distance with the MC14 one stop higher ISO and the MC20 two stops higher ISO. If you can drop the shutter speed to have the same ISO as the bare lens, then the TCs are far better than the cropped image. With the OM1.2 I can shoot the MC20+300mm down to 1/10 second with relatively stationary targets.

As the illumination decreases the focus accuracy with the TCs drops somewhat but they still do very well. One issue may be important depending on the user, a prime lens of 600mm on a 2X crop (1200mm FF equivalent field of view) is more challenging for the user to find the target and keep the target in the frame with fast moving birds like swallows.

This is a great point. I haven’t used mine yet but many say that the answer is a dot sight. I know at least one person who has managed some great shots of BIF with one and said he couldn’t have got them any other way.

If you switch to the mFTs system, I would definitely recommend a good AI image processor like DXO PL8 which can make very high ISO images better with the smaller sensor.

 

[hedleyw]

I've been pondering this for a few months now and I think I'm about to make the switch.

I'm an enthusiast wildlife photographer, and 95% of the images I take are wildlife. I've been shooting Canon for over 15 years now, with most of that time being on APS-C DSLR and RF. I currently use the Canon R6 Mark II and R5 with the RF 100-500L and RF 200-800 lenses. It's a heavy kit, and honestly I've been less than enthusiastic with the results I'm getting. Yes, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens. The 200-800 also produces great images, but also has a high failure rate in some situations. So, I'm looking to make the switch to OM for a few reasons - weight, seemingly better IQ in many areas, and a lens lineup that makes sense.

Also, Canon today significantly raised their prices on most of their cameras and lenses, and in many cases substantially. As a result, the trade in value of my gear also rose by several hundred dollars (just checked). I will be trading in at my local camera shop and making the purchase there. Here's what I'm considering my my OM kit:

OM-1 Mark II, 12-100 f4 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, 300 f4 Pro and the MC-14. The shop also has a used copy in like new condition of the MC-20 at a good price, but I've never been a fan of 2x TCs. I was also considering the 150-600, but it weighs about the same as my 200-800 and looks to have the same IQ.

Thoughts? Any changes to my kit? I'll end up with about $7,600 to spend after my trade in. And as much as I'd love the 150-400, it's not an option.

Sounds like a good choice for your intended use I wouldn’t shy away from the MC-20, with the 300 f/4 it is plenty sharp enough providing you don’t fall into the trap of excessive subject distance with atmospheric degradation. Handy also for close to macro with the 300 f4 and 40-150 f2.8 though the latter lens isn’t stabilised so you’re reliant on IBIS.

i went from m43 to Canon when the R5 was launched and they had an autofocus advantage but returned to m43 last year and have no regrets.

--
Hedley

 

[TeeJay626]

Thanks everyone for all the replies so far. You now have me rethinking the MC-20, as it sounds like it may be a good piece of kit to have. I also do understand the effects of atmospheric distortion so I won't have crazy expectations with very far away objects. I learned that lesson early on lol.

Does anyone have an opinion or first hand experience with the 150-600? I know it's heavy and kind of defeats the purpose a bit for a lighter kit, but if the IQ is solid, I may consider that as well. Honestly I just think the 300 f4 Pro is a beast of a lens and should be happy with that.

 

[James Stirling]

Thanks everyone for all the replies so far. You now have me rethinking the MC-20, as it sounds like it may be a good piece of kit to have. I also do understand the effects of atmospheric distortion so I won't have crazy expectations with very far away objects. I learned that lesson early on lol.

The way that most here seem to compare the performance of the 2x is if you cropped the lens without it to the give the same FOV . Which given you will have a 20mp vs 5mp images is not a surprise

The reality just as with every other 2x TC ever made it has a very significant impact on resolution. As you mention at such long focal lengths and potential subject distances atmosphere can be a major factor especially near water etc

Example with the 90mm macro without and with



--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[lokatz]

I have owned an R5 and R5ii with the 100-500 and 200-800. I also own the OM-1, OM-1ii, 40-150 f/4 and 150-400, and used to own the 40-150 f/2.8 and 300 f/4. I also own two Nikon Z8s with the 100-400, 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3, but that is a separate discussion.

Quite honestly, I was fairly disappointed with both Canon lenses. They are fairly sharp (not perfectly so, but pretty decent) but perform rather poorly in low light. The MFT lenses do a lot better in that department.

The 300mm is as sharp as the 150-400, which is to say, EXTREMELY sharp, though the zoom is still the more flexible lens. That is why I eventually sold the 300mm.

In my opinion, the 40-150 f/ 4 is a better choice than the f/2.8, as it is much lighter and smaller, yet it performs almost the same unless you really care about that wider aperture. I would not rely on a 2x TC, though, as you will inevitably lose some resolution / sharpness.

You cannot go wrong with the 12-100. It is amazingly good for a zoom this wide.

 

[ahaslett]

Thanks everyone for all the replies so far. You now have me rethinking the MC-20, as it sounds like it may be a good piece of kit to have. I also do understand the effects of atmospheric distortion so I won't have crazy expectations with very far away objects. I learned that lesson early on lol.

The way that most here seem to compare the performance of the 2x is if you cropped the lens without it to the give the same FOV . Which given you will have a 20mp vs 5mp images is not a surprise

The reality just as with every other 2x TC ever made it has a very significant impact on resolution. As you mention at such long focal lengths and potential subject distances atmosphere can be a major factor especially near water etc

Example with the 90mm macro

It is better than cropping, but even a poor 600mm lens ought to beat it easily.

The IQ loss with the MC14 on a 300/4 or 40-150/2.8 is obvious, but it’s better than cropping. Actually the 300/4 is so good that it’s nearly as good as the 100-400mm zooms. On my copies, I’d describe the 40-150/2.8 at 210mm as acceptable.

With the 150-600mm, there are a lot of poor sample images from people without the right technique. Petr Bambousek’s shots with a teddy bear are quite illuminating. Having spent time looking at samples, I’d say copy variation is also at play.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[john isaacs]

I've been pondering this for a few months now and I think I'm about to make the switch.

I'm an enthusiast wildlife photographer, and 95% of the images I take are wildlife. I've been shooting Canon for over 15 years now, with most of that time being on APS-C DSLR and RF. I currently use the Canon R6 Mark II and R5 with the RF 100-500L and RF 200-800 lenses. It's a heavy kit, and honestly I've been less than enthusiastic with the results I'm getting. Yes, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens. The 200-800 also produces great images, but also has a high failure rate in some situations. So, I'm looking to make the switch to OM for a few reasons - weight, seemingly better IQ in many areas, and a lens lineup that makes sense.

Also, Canon today significantly raised their prices on most of their cameras and lenses, and in many cases substantially. As a result, the trade in value of my gear also rose by several hundred dollars (just checked). I will be trading in at my local camera shop and making the purchase there. Here's what I'm considering my my OM kit:

OM-1 Mark II, 12-100 f4 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, 300 f4 Pro and the MC-14. The shop also has a used copy in like new condition of the MC-20 at a good price, but I've never been a fan of 2x TCs. I was also considering the 150-600, but it weighs about the same as my 200-800 and looks to have the same IQ.

Thoughts? Any changes to my kit? I'll end up with about $7,600 to spend after my trade in. And as much as I'd love the 150-400, it's not an option.

That's a really good kit for outdoor shooting. You can cut weight and expense by considering the 12-40/2.8 or 12-45/4 with the option for the 40-150/4 later. But I do like the 12-100 as a general purpose lens and I usually take it out when walking about.

I recommend getting the MC-20 as well, if the price is good. There are times when you just can't get close and with small animals you need as much reach as you can get. It does bring the aperture to f/8, but I lower the shutter speed and shoot high speed bursts to try to capture moments when the animal isn't moving (for sharpness).

I used to use two bodies with the 100-400 on one and the 300/1.4xTC on the other, that way I was covered if a large bird got close. In your case, the 40-150/2xTC provides 80-300 coverage for a 300/1.4xTC (420mm). If you get tired of lens swapping, a used OM-1 would be a great second camera / backup camera.

I travel a lot for wildlife photography, and that's why I kept my OM-1 when I bought the OM-1ii. They are equally capable cameras for most situations.

 

[James Stirling]

Thanks everyone for all the replies so far. You now have me rethinking the MC-20, as it sounds like it may be a good piece of kit to have. I also do understand the effects of atmospheric distortion so I won't have crazy expectations with very far away objects. I learned that lesson early on lol.

The way that most here seem to compare the performance of the 2x is if you cropped the lens without it to the give the same FOV . Which given you will have a 20mp vs 5mp images is not a surprise

The reality just as with every other 2x TC ever made it has a very significant impact on resolution. As you mention at such long focal lengths and potential subject distances atmosphere can be a major factor especially near water etc

Example with the 90mm macro

It is better than cropping, but even a poor 600mm lens ought to beat it easily.

I agree there is an element of wishful thinking with some in the forum who think that there is some magic in m43 lenses that means the same physics that applies to every other lens . Is somehow not applicable to m43 , every 2X TC made has a significant impact on resolution. If you cannot get closer to the subject then you have to just bite the bullet if you want the shot. And when you are shooting distant subjects at 1200mm equiv focal length atmospherics will play a big part as well

The IQ loss with the MC14 on a 300/4 or 40-150/2.8 is obvious, but it’s better than cropping. Actually the 300/4 is so good that it’s nearly as good as the 100-400mm zooms. On my copies, I’d describe the 40-150/2.8 at 210mm as acceptable.

1.4X TC's certainly have less impact than their 2x cousins . Though still clearly noticeable

300mm without and with 1.4x

With the 150-600mm, there are a lot of poor sample images from people without the right technique. Petr Bambousek’s shots with a teddy bear are quite illuminating.

I would just move closer to the teddy bear and use a sharper short lens

Having spent time looking at samples, I’d say copy variation is also at play.

A

I think it does not help that a lot of sample galleries from such long tele lenses are often disappointing at least in part due to the skills of the tester and the often "zoo" type shots

Not that I am interested in such a long lens , but I do like a tinker I downloaded some of the 150-600mm raw samples . Given the lighting and their use of a relativity slow shutter speed they are not to bad. Having looked at quite a few tele lens samples despite being a 10x zoom the Sigma 60-600mm is a better lens than the 150-600mm

OM 150-600mm edited to taste



Looking at the lenstip testing the 300mm does not do as well as I would have thought



--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[ahaslett]

Thanks everyone for all the replies so far. You now have me rethinking the MC-20, as it sounds like it may be a good piece of kit to have. I also do understand the effects of atmospheric distortion so I won't have crazy expectations with very far away objects. I learned that lesson early on lol.

The way that most here seem to compare the performance of the 2x is if you cropped the lens without it to the give the same FOV . Which given you will have a 20mp vs 5mp images is not a surprise

The reality just as with every other 2x TC ever made it has a very significant impact on resolution. As you mention at such long focal lengths and potential subject distances atmosphere can be a major factor especially near water etc

Example with the 90mm macro

It is better than cropping, but even a poor 600mm lens ought to beat it easily.

I agree there is an element of wishful thinking with some in the forum who think that there is some magic in m43 lenses that means the same physics that applies to every other lens . Is somehow not applicable to m43 , every 2X TC made has a significant impact on resolution. If you cannot get closer to the subject then you have to just bite the bullet if you want the shot. And when you are shooting distant subjects at 1200mm equiv focal length atmospherics will play a big part as well

The IQ loss with the MC14 on a 300/4 or 40-150/2.8 is obvious, but it’s better than cropping. Actually the 300/4 is so good that it’s nearly as good as the 100-400mm zooms. On my copies, I’d describe the 40-150/2.8 at 210mm as acceptable.

1.4X TC's certainly have less impact than their 2x cousins . Though still clearly noticeable

300mm without and with 1.4x

With the 150-600mm, there are a lot of poor sample images from people without the right technique. Petr Bambousek’s shots with a teddy bear are quite illuminating.

I would just move closer to the teddy bear and use a sharper short lens

Having spent time looking at samples, I’d say copy variation is also at play.

A

I think it does not help that a lot of sample galleries from such long tele lenses are often disappointing at least in part due to the skills of the tester and the often "zoo" type shots

Not that I am interested in such a long lens , but I do like a tinker I downloaded some of the 150-600mm raw samples . Given the lighting and their use of a relativity slow shutter speed they are not to bad. Having looked at quite a few tele lens samples despite being a 10x zoom the Sigma 60-600mm is a better lens than the 150-600mm

OM 150-600mm edited to taste



Looking at the lenstip testing the 300mm does not do as well as I would have thought

That’s a good copy, better than the review one Petr had, and surely better than a 300/4 with MC20.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Have not shot with it but the 150-600 is big, bigger still zoomed long. The 300 is petite by comparison. Seems able to give good results, e.g., occasional poster JuhaV has sharesd fetching images.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4801918#forum-post-68241619

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4805326#forum-post-68287437

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4797209#forum-post-68181151

After the big price drop it's now a bargain for a super tele and it's hard to overstate just how much reach 600mm/27X is.

Rick

 

[AGWoodard]

Unless you want an all around travel lens, I'd ditch the 12-100 f4 for the 12-40 f2.8, or the 8-25 f4.0. The 2.0 TC has never been favorite of mine but the 1.4 is normally acceptable. My birding kit is a pair of EM1 MkIII's, one with the 300 f4 and one with the 40-150 f2.8 . I carry a 1.4TC as well. Sometimes I'll take my Panasonic 100-400 matched to a Panasonic body for the dual IS, and leave the other EM1MkIII with the 40-150 at home. Anyway, your kit looks good with the exception of the 12-100 f4.0.