Olympus 150 400mm compared to Nikon & Canon equivalent
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лип 2024
- Daniel takes you through a comparison of the Olympus 150-400mm relative to Nikon's 180-400mm and Canon's to 200-400mm. The price of the Olympus is almost half of what a comparable lens from Nikon and Canon sells for. / naturalexposures
- Домашні улюбленці та дикі тварини
Spot on! The complainants have no idea what this type of lens costs or weighs. “Gee, it costs way more than a nifty 50!”
Finally someone who understands something about money. This lens is truly an affordable lens for its class. I have always dreamed of owning one in the past but other competitors lenses were too far out of reach. this one I could actually afford.
Completely agree on the 'affordability'. I have never been able to even consider purchasing one of the big Nikons and for sure this is a considerable outlay but, after a lot of soul searching and much digging down the back of the sofa, I placed an order for the Olympus. Missed the first wave so it'll be spring before I get my hands on mine but totally looking forward to it even if my bank balance isn't.
It's actually not nowadays because the Nikon 180-400mm f/4E FL 1.4x TC lens can be found used in mint condition for around $5,500-$6,700 used, which means you can also buy a Nikon D500 or similar for the same cost of just this 150-400mm. The Nikon 180-400mm f/4E VR FL is definitely sharper and when you use the DX D500 you'll get extremely sharp image quality from edge to edge. I am just not impressed with the IQ for the cost here, but to each their own.
Thanks for the review Daniel. I am looking forward to a more detailed one once you have tried it in the field. I have a pre order in and waiting for it to arrive in Australia.
Thanks Dan for posting this! What an impressive and versatile lens this is, truly achievement regardless of the format. I look forward to seeing what it can do in good hands!
Thank you for the informations, Daniel! Love your work!
I appreciate that!
Good morning Dan! I am glad to see that you produced this brief UA-cam video about what appears to be a really “breakthrough” lens. Your points are all well taken. The truth is, you never hear a photographer complain about the cost of BIG glass from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. The weight of this new Olympus lens is “light” in comparison to the other above mentioned manufacturers. I’m looking forward for your photos and your opinion of using the lens in the field. Have a great day 👍. Enjoy your holiday as best possible in these crazy times 😷. Please keep your UA-cam videos coming! 📸👌🎥
Glad to see this lens in your capable hands Daniel. Looking forward to seeing what you can do with it. I don't know whether all of the lenses being shipped are delayed or those after the initial pre orders. 100mm 5.6 at under 2kgs.... amazing.
Enjoyed this. Very informative. Hope that Oly/JIP power on into the future with this...
I look forward to your report on the lens. I think MFT is a valuable niche in photography for those who put a higher premium on traveling light. I suspect there are some great photographs that go untaken simply because photographers are put off by the weight of their mega lenses. Thanks for taking MFT seriously.
Thanks for joking the conversation Bruce. More coming soon.
When you cut to your local camera store, even before you mentioned the name, I thought “hey that looks like the old Bozeman Camera lication.”. 😂. I love that store. I’m thinking of a switch to from full frame to micro 4/3 (Oly), and your insights definitely help us non-pros get the info we need to make better choices. Thank you.
Thank you Charles.
Great video, very informative. Thank you and all the best.
Since I am not a pro, and most people watching are probably more like me than not, I love the 100-400. Now, no one should complain about it's price and I just completed a Sony 100-400 GM comparison with my A7R3. Overall, the Oly system has resolution that is equal, for far less cost and weight. People also don't consider the important factor of file size. I can shoot my EM1 at 20 or 60 FPS with or without ProCap in RAW and download and process those images all day long while the 42 Mpx Raw files sludge along. It's that post capture piece that few people really compare when doing such comparisons. I accept the 100-400 is not going to be as good but, for me, for many, for most, it's a wonderful option. EM1 Mark 2 s are also just fine and still available at a bit of a discount compared to the Mark 3 or X1's I'm looking forward to see what you can capture with this "sweet little monster" of a lens.
Something to consider is that Adobe simply do not understand the Olympus and Panasonic "Extended RAW" files and make a botch of converting them. You are better off letting Olympus Workspace do the conversion or using Silkypix for Panasonic, or as the firmware in the camera is so very much better now, let the camera do it. If the sooc jpeg is rubbish, you can bin the raw too.
@Barefoot have Sony fixed their little fuzzy AF problem yet?
Thanks for a balanced view on this amazing lens. I will not mention which channel, BIG, that were reviewing a photograph of the lens. The husband is very confused over aperture. Anyway, that video now has 833 likes and 445 dislikes.
Really looking forward to a outdoor review!
Best Seasonal Greetings from Sweden!
Great comparison Dan. I just changed from Canon to Olympus (no I'm not put off by the sale) and am on the front of the learning curve. At 75 years old, I wanted to lighten my load as the saying goes. After years of carrying around Canon 600 and 500mm lenses I won't miss the weight. Not to mention the bulk when transporting to places like Brooks, Churchill, and elsewhere. I could fit the 150-400 and the rest of the kit into my smallest backpack. Thanks again, I'm subscribed. Jim Craner.
Thanks James. I’m very hopeful we can keep this camera system going. I’ll be following up on the comparison fairly soon. Have been getting spectacular results with the 150-400mm. There’s more info on MFT over on the blog at www.naturalexposures.com/corkboard
I think it is a stunning lens. If I did not also have a Sony system with a 400GM plus a 600GM I would have ordered one yesterday. I use the Olympus for airline travel only and the 300f4 is the biggest lens I have that fits that goal. If we can see a true sustained commitment for Olympus to continue, along with new sensors with a push to say 30MP, then I may feel more confident to add to my Olympus.
Agree. I’m shooting my Canon Eos R5 but I find that for travel as a system m43 has its advantages when you bring multiple lens. I got the 300 f4 also which is a brilliant piece of kit. I hope Panasonic or OM digital will continue to produce new cameras so that we can take full advantage of this new lenses
Push to 30Mp? You reduce pixel size and scupper the dynamic range. 20Mp reduced the pixel size but new tech managed to keep the DR up. 16Mp is perfectly adequate for prints of up to 6-ft x 4-ft (and who on earth does that?), or the same resolution (pixel density) as a 64Mp FF sensor. More pixels is not a good thing. Why do you want to cripple the camera with this bleating for more pixels?
@@jeffslade1892 After 7 years of the current 20MP sensor, likely advances in Sony sensor development close that gap. If they don't up the sensor game they will ultimately die.
@@donwhite332 The LMOS is Panasonic design made by Sony. It is significantly quieter than Sony's own CMOS sensor. We've already got more resolution than we can use. What we need is greater dynamic range and less noise - you do not get that with more pixels.
Having a competitor make parts is normal - the Olympus batteries are by Panasonic (they're the best anyway).
Got mine on order - though I reached out to Olympus last week and in their response they acknowledged they had not anticipated the demand and that it would be late summer or fall before many of us get our lenses. Sigh.
Great video!
Great overview Daniel. Looking forward to seeing some image samples soon. I suspect that most Olympus wildlife photographers will opt for the cheaper Oly 100-400 or the Pana/Leica 100-400.
I opted for the Panasonic/Leica. It's smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Whilst the Pro 150-40 is undoubtedly the better lens on an Olympus body, the PL100-400 uses Dual2 on a G9 etc, which is something else in terms of stabilisation. The PL100-400 will also utilise the "Olympus Dual Stabilisation" (part and part OIS and IBIS, not Synch-IS) on an Olympus back. The Oly 100-400 will not go Dual-IS on a Lumix. If you want to use the lens on a Lumix, and I use both breeds, you want the Leica. If you want to hand-hold, you want the Leica. From what I've seen of Dual2, it eats Synch-IS, and most Lumix OIS lenses support Dual-IS which is better than the half-hearted poorly documented "Olympus Dual Stabilisation". From what I've used on the E-M5ii the Oly "Dual" works fine up to 200mm but it is no match for the Lumix Dual-IS nevermind Dual2.
For wildlife I shall have the PL100-400 on the G9, the Lumix 45-200 on the E-M5ii and maybe something wider in the bag. Relatively small and light.
1/12/2022 thank you for sharing this information
Thank you for the overview. While this isn't a lens I'd buy it's certainly a lens I'd rent. I shot the Panasonic 100-400 and 35-100 on safari last year on my GH5. The advantages were portability and usability. I made once in a lifetime images. I felt encumbered by two issues. Autofocus and shooting at edge of day. I understand that the GH5 autofocus is less than, even compared to other MFT offerings. Both the G9 and Em1 offer better solutions but I'm waiting for the next gen Panasonic MFT before I buy a "new" camera. A bigger issue was edge of day shooting. Early morning and late afternoon drives provided huge challenges because I didn't feel comfortable ramping up my ISO to maintain shutter speed to capture action. In most cases if the subject was relatively static the stabilization offset my lack of shutter speed but I wasn't going to freeze the hunt. While this lens is two stops faster at the long end than my 100-400 and I might be able to get an extra stop out of the newer MFT bodies, I'm not sure it's an edge of day solution. It's an amazing all around 95% lens but a lot of those money shots tend to be in that 5% range that MFT can't get to. I think you understand that as well as anyone given your investment in the A9. I picked up a used D4s and the 200-500 5.6. I've given up reach but if I get something in the viewfinder the Nikon will nail it. I can also let the D4s live at 6400 ISO and not even think about image quality. It's all about compromise. I'm going to keep shooting the GH5 for the 95% jobs but I'll grab the D4s if I need that extra firepower. Enjoy the lens. It's in a valuable investment and an important tool for wildlife shooters. It's just not a total replacement for fast exotic primes. At least for me. Happy shooting!
I would have chosen the Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro IS - and did, instead of the variable aperture zooms. In my experience (with FF gear, three trips to Africa) stuff early in the day is typically closer, so I used either f/2.8 zoom or prime. So I invested in the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 Pro for that lower end. The MC-14 was designed to work with either of them, as does the MC-20. This evening I walked around my house and shot the 300 at ISO 6400, mostly in darker rooms, just to see what it looks like and honestly it is pretty clean, and a bit of NR and it's that much better. I am still learning and trying to understand the system (Olympus E M-1 mark III) as I have been in Nikon FF and DX land forever. No substitute for getting light and faster glass is usually key to that.
Not a M43 shooter, but, concur 100% on the benefits of shooting from a distance. Simply put, less stressed subjects.
I agree completely.
Nice Video👍 Thank You. In terms of price you have to compare with e.g. the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 G Master. This lens cost rather 1/2 of the Olympus.
The Sony is not that fast on the long end of course and the Olympus has the in built 1.25 converter. But the production cost should be more or less the same.
If you use the A7R4 body you will still get 26 Mpixel in crop 1,5 modus. On the other hand you get on the short end a 100mm lens with 61 Mpixel....not that bad.
Don’t understand me wrong. The Olympus lens is a master pice of technology and is worth the price but is also not a bargain. Regards Alex
PS Sorry for my bad English. I hope it’s understandable!
I bought this lens in August of 2023 and love what it allows me to do and minimum focus distance of 1.3M is fantastic. Photography is just a hobby and I don't the funds like certain people have. I had to dig deep and make cut backs on other stuff. I have owned Canon 30D to the 7D Mk II camera bodies and a few lenses. The only big boy Canon lens I bought was the 300 f/2.8 (1st version) and it was a heavy lens. The lens coupled with the OM System OM-1 is a great combo. Light weight and I can carry it the whole day without any issues. Sticker shock will be with me for some time to come. No regrets in switching to MFT format in 2019.
anxious to get my hands on this lens. hoping to get it before nxt trip to borneo w/t & d. best regards.
Some RAW files samples to download???
That would be interesting for some post processing...
Thanks for this, and your other reviews; I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of mine. One thing regarding filters: Oly's filter is a clear protection filter, not a UV filter. Modern digicams have a UV filter on the sensor, so don't require external UV filters; they're for film cameras. I use Sigma WR ceramic protection filters which are impressively strong and the 95mm one for the 150-400 is cheaper than Oly's one.
Looking forward to the reviews. I'm expecting that for existing customers reliant on the current two long primes, this thing may offer a very welcome break. Less zooming with ones legs, less faffing around with TCs, lower ISO at the long end, maybe more.
Wildlife is reliant on fast shutter for movement blur. Extra-long lenses have a very shallow DoF so we probably want to stop down to maybe f/8 anyway. Which leaves high ISO and the cameras are getting far better at that. Smaller sensors produce less noise. The bigger the sensor the more heat, the more noise. And LMOS sweeps stray electrons off the sensor, CMOS don't do that. Which makes MFT ideal for wildlife, it's not just the longer equivalent lenses.
More please , more :)
You seem like such a nice man!
Nice comparison.
How about the extension on all 3 lenses you compare. Who brings the best quality, on the extra 2x extender/converter.
I shot the OMD-EM1 with the 300mm lens for several years with good results. My plan was to switch to the M1X and the 150-400mm lens. However, Canon got there first with the R5 and the 800mm f11 so I took a chance on Canon. What I did not know is that the R5 uses DSLR type phase detection AF with AI, no simple, slow and accurate contrast AF available at all. The R5 and 800mm works OK on birds but does not work att all on deer and other furry animals, especially not in the spring when they are in the middle of shedding their winter coat. I have returned the Canon gear to the dealer and I am now without a wildlife camera and lens. My question is: Where is the Zuiko Pro 150-400mm ?
The thing is, other manufacturers just don't produce equivalent glass, which would be 300-800mm f/9 on FF.
No, it would be a 300-800 f/4.5. You don't double the aperture to get the equivalent light gathering ability. There is a depth of field difference of 2x, but not light gathering. This lens is an f/4.5. If you were in the field with this lens and a full frame lens, the metering would be exactly the same at f/4.5 on both lenses.
Well that didn’t take long... Even if someone really would try your game to have the exposure of F4.5 (or 4 times the iso) and the DOF of F9... there isn’t simple a 35mm Pro Grade lens with the the built and technology’s of a 180-400 F4 in a 300-800 F9 package. Don’t even think this lens is in the ballpark of a simple 100-400 Fr4.5 to whatever or the usual 150-600... we are talking the Top Prograde Canon and Nikon Stuff for $$$$$.
Canon has the new RF 600mm and 800mm F/11. Sadly they nerfed the IBIS on those, but initial IQ reports are good.
@@NatPhoto56 You're confusing exposure with light gathering - they aren't the same thing. My phone's f/1.8 lens meters the same as the f/1.8 prime on my large sensor camera, but the total light gathered, and therefore the performance in low light, is very different.
For valid comparisons between formats you need to multiply both focal length and aperture by the crop factor. After all, this lens is still a 150-400mm - the actual focal length doesn't change any more than the physical aperture does. A 300-800mm f/4.5 would have an aperture diameter twice as wide as this lens.
The interesting thing about this lens, as Marcus pointed out, is that there isn't really anything genuinely equivalent to compare it to on other systems.
More astonish, it's not a 300-800 but a 300-1000mm, thanks to the teleconverter built in.
i was about to get the 100-400 f6.3 which isn't so far off spec-wise
BUT
cost wise its a big gap.
how does these 2 compare ?
On a m43 sensor this lens has a FOV of 300-800mm. On a Sony A7rIV, the Sony 200-600 has FOV of 300-900mm with ~ 26 MP in crop mode. You could buy both the Sony camera and lens for less than the 150-400 Olympus lens alone, and have a better sensor to work with, with more MP. So yes, if you pick the most expensive options to compare the Oly lens to, then it makes sense. But if you look at ALL options, plus consider that the future of the Oly system is uncertain, plus consider the aging sensor that you have to use, I think it makes less sense.
Do you really really think the 200-600 Sony is anywhere near close the 150-400 in optical performance and technology ? If so let’s give you a simple easy hint: Nope its not. The 200-600 is not even prograde. Its a consumer lens. The m4/3 equivalent is the 100-400 f/5.0-6.3 for about 1299,-. That doesn’t mean its bad, but please compare it to it peers if you want to start an equivalence argument
Hey guys I appreciate the dialog. As much as I agree with Tim’s comment I also agree with M Schrag’s comment. I’m confident the Olympus 150-400mm will out perform the Sony optically, but by how much I’m not sure. I’m currently shooting the Sony 200-600mm with a Sony A9 and I’ve been very impressed with the Sony optics. I’ll be shooting some tests in the studio for comparison.
@@danieljcox Thanks! The 200-600 is the best „none-pro“ out there and way to cheap for what it should be worth.(see the new Canon R 100-500 pricing) . Also similar the Olympus 100-400 which at 1299,- is a no brainier bargain.
They both hurt the pro glas sales.
I tend to really value the professionals opinion, especially ones who are standing in front of publications of their work. Most of us don't have that pedigree. I've seen several folks comparing the Sony to the Olympus. One thing I noticed is the Sony is listed as "Weather and Dust Resistant" and the Olympus is listed as "Weather Sealed Construction". To the weekend warrior shooting wildlife this is not a big deal, but to the Daniel Cox's, Andy Rouses , Peter Bombusek (spelling), this can be a huge factor. All of these photographers and many others have had the opportunity to chose the Sony system but for one reason or another have chosen MFT. Anxious to hear Daniel's analysis of the Sony once he's done and see if he switches.
@@timafken2297 Those are your OPINIONS. Don't treat them as facts.
ATG & I say unfortunately that no camera companies, for decades, make white body to match the white lenses.
And to this lenses, no one came up with 50M sensor for m3/2 format instead of m4/3 format.
Thank you for the review. What can you say about a comparison with the Sony 200-600 mm lens?
I’m working on that comparison Craig. Thanks for your patience.
@@danieljcox I am looking forward to it, because for the Sony 200-600 the price advantage goes to the Sony...
One small quibble - the smaller sensor does NOT increase a lens magnification (angle of view isn't the same as magnification), so despite what people often claim - a 400mm lens on an MFT camera is not really equivalent in all respects to an 800mm lens on a FF camera. Similar, but not equal. That's the only reason I can see for getting an actual 600mm f/4 for instance - it will actually magnify the background more than this lens would at 300. Not worth the trade IMHO - I'd love to get this, but out of my reach. Maybe we'll get some non-pro long primes. I'd go for a 400 or even 500 f/5.6 built on the same standard as their new 100-400. Like you said - not so many pros, maybe concentrate more on enthusiasts - lots of bird photographers out there.
While you are technically correct - I have been doing a bunch of testing with FF camera with the 600 f/4 alongside a MFT camera with the 300mm f/4 and I think if I made prints you could not tell the difference. The DOF "issue" is more of a red herring people that have never shot the gear cite. DOF and bokeh are the function of several things, not just sensor size.
I was hoping to get this lens but once the price comes out, I am quite disappointed but I understand your explanations behind its cost and think this is a great lens. I instead brought the 300 f4 with the MC 1.4 teleconverter which still gives me 840mm at f5.6. Still not quite f4.5 but it is so much cheaper and here in Macau and Hong Kong the 300mm f4 is only around 1700 usd which is quite good. To be honest I got the canon R5 and 100-500 lens. The high resolution of the Canon does have an advantage. I hope Olympus or Panasonic will eventually come out with a 30 megapixel camera hopefully which will have more resolution to crop in in post
What is the lead time?
Surprised you didn't talk about the built in 1.25x converter.
I plan to discuss specifics in the future. This video was simply to try to explain to people that the price for a lens of this caliber is not out of line.
How it compares to the pana Leica???...
Different lenses. The 100 - 400 is not as bright, the 200mm is a prime and brighter. I own the 200mm f2.8. Great for lower light and stunningly sharp with included 1.4tc. I also use it with 2x tc and have not noticed a loss in quality and focus is still fast and accurate.
@@fsi2210 ok thanks! I meant the 100-400mm. I guess you prefer the 200mm 😊
More bright, more sharp, 8stop stabilisation, just a different world.
@@jeremymaitre8146 ok, ‚unfortunately‘ I have an Olympus body.
@@stehlealexander I was talking about the Oly 100-400mm f4.5, the super expensive.
Thank you for this video. I was quite surprised when I heard the price, as I was expecting the lens to cost at most $5000 but I think this is because I always compared it with the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II or the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS lenses, which cost less than $2500 and both of which have similar weight to the new Olympus lens. Also, on the MFT side of things, Panasonic is selling the Leica-branded 100-400 f/4-6.3 which is around $1500 and, as one of your commenters wrote, you could buy two G9s and equip one with the 100-400 and the other one with the 200 f/2.8 and you'd still have $1000 to spare instead of buying just this lens.
It will be quite interesting to see what your thoughts are on this lens as part of the MFT ecosystem as I know you've used the Sony A9 with the 100-400 and a lot of people talk about using a full-frame camera and cropping in post instead of using a MFT camera with the Oly lens.
Yes, but should you travel or walk with two G9 and two heavy lens? With a maximal focale of 400mm when you could have only one with a 1000mm max range? (With TC) and a 8stop stabilisation (this is crazy) people take shot at 1/60s handheld and it's sharp!!!
@@jeremymaitre8146 I'm not saying people should. It's just that Nikon sells a stabilized F-mount 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens for $2300, Canon sells a stabilized EF-mount 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens for $2400 and a stabilized RF-mount 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L lens for $2700 and Sony sells a stabilized 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens for $2500. Now Olympus sells a 150-400mm f/4.5 lens so a lot of people, myself included, compared this lens with the previous three lenses that I mentioned and the pricing didn't make sense at all. I mean, even Olympus makes a stabilized 100-400mm f/5-6.3 , Panasonic has a Leica-branded 100-400mm f/4-6.3 and Fuji has a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and they all sell for around $1500.
Luckily, there are professionals like Mr. Cox who actually take those cameras in the field and can capture photos that appear on the cover of National Geographic that correctly point out that Nikon sells a 180-400mm f/4.0 lens for over $12.000 Canon has a 200-400mm f/4 lens that's priced around $10.000 and the new Olympus lens should be compared to these two. Also, I've seen this new Olympus lens on a E-M1X body compared with a Canon R6 with a 800mm f/5.6 lens and the only significant difference seems to be the actual hit rate, which is higher on the newer Canon body.
Now, after watching some videos from people who actually used this lens to shoot wildlife, this 150-400mm f/4.5 lens seems to be the kind of lens a company would launch right before a summer Olympics, maybe together with a new body, say an EM-1X mark II which has an improved EVF, slightly better autofocus, deeper buffer, two CFExpress cards and slightly cleaner sensor when it comes to ISO noise... It's just too bad that Olympus sold their camera division because products like this lens are really exciting.
I'm really looking forward to future reviews and, who knows, maybe the new OM-D Digital Solutions company will be able to push forward with some interesting bodies and, with Panasonic, help keep the MFT system alive.
Good points Andrei. As a retired hobbyist photographer, I will never be able to afford this lens. And even if I could, is it worth the additional $6K and extra size over the PL 100-400? I, personally am absolutely thrilled with my 100-400!
@@FourKnown That 100-400 is a fine lens for the money !
@@rockatanescu As a person who shoots wildlife with the best gear in Nikon land, I can tell you that the 80-400 is not a very good lens. The newest version is better. Since then they released the 200-500mm f/5.6 and that is a much better lens, especially on the D500 (FOV of 300-750mm). That said, in noise comparisons I did this week of Nikon D5 (with 600mm f/4), Nikon D500 with 200-500mm at 400mm = FOV of 600mm), and the Olympus E M-1 mark III (with 300mm f/4 Pro IS), in normal to great light I saw no difference; in lower light D5 was slightly better than M-1, which was slightly better than the D500 - at least for the stuffed critters I was using as test subjects. The big difference is the fixed aperture - that is a BIG deal and the main reason the 150-400 is the price it is.
The lens is nice and priced accordingly, the cameras sensor that you attach it to is another story.
I shoot the D850 and D500 paired to the Sigma 500mm f4 sport. The Sigma 500mm f4 sport is a great lens and not cheap, quality glass costs, what you are paying for is R&D, materials used, which includes top of the shelf optics/glass.
This len is one of the best and cheap for what you get ps. donot forget no tripot Great
If you really want to show the real difference, factor in what an equivalent focal length would be, if it's even available. Something 300-800 in Nikon or Canon. How much would that cost?
This is the perfect lens, I hope I can afford it one day, I feel so sad a lot people are trying to photograph wild animals using short focal length lenses like David Yarrow who was captured feeding a fox that later ended up being euthanized... even worst, tourists trying to take photos of wild animals with their phones.
Could not agree with you more Tania. I'm working on a video right now to explain the benefits of using a longer lens. I predicted years ago that we would eventually have newer lenses and cameras that would allow us to be even further back from our subjects, to make sure the subject and ourselves are safe. The sad thing about being to close to the animals is that when they respond in a negative manner to our presence, it's the animal that pays the price. Like the poor fox you referred to. Thanks for adding your voice.
@@danieljcox looking forward to the next video 😊
Don't tell Tony Northrup you said this!!!
Said what Don?
@@danieljcox That you praised the OLY Lens. I just watched a review where he trashed the whole idea of that lens compared to the Nikon or Canon "wildlife lenses." Of course he did that based solely on "physics" and price, while never actually having tried the lens. But he does that often. He's a Micro four-thirds hater. It was a bit nutty if you ask me, but a lot of people buy into it. Personally I'll take your advice, although I have not seen your actual review yet either on the lens in use. Hope to soon though!
@@donmeyers3090 ok.... got it. Thanks for the clarification Don. That makes sense. I don’t know Tony but did visit his channel once or twice in years past. Part of my reason for not going back is due to what seemed like a serious prejudice against MFT. I just didn’t want to support that view since I don’t agree with it. Unfortunately he has a very large megaphone and I’m convinced that power has seriously effected both Olympus and LUMIX. I just don’t feel it’s fair to be so negative to a product you might not care for but isn’t harming you in the least. My feeling is let the public decide and please just stay out of the way. There’s just no justification for continually bashing a product just because it doesn’t fit your needs. I’m still working on the comparison of the 150-400mm to the Sony 200-600mm. It won’t be too much longer. Thanks for having in their with me.
@@danieljcox Yes would love to see the comparison of the Oly
against the Sony a9 200-600 maybe even a Nikon d850 and 500pf,
D850+200-500/5.6 = 4500$
E-M1x+150-400/4.5 = 9500$
With its cropped mode the D850 will give you the same eq focal length and aperture.
When not cropped it will give you a double resolution.
Sorry to say your price comparison is pretty bias.
Same can be said with any 50Mpix 24x36 camera body from Canon or Sony
True and the 500 pf Nikon is even smaller and lighter.
Apples and oranges. The Olympus is a professional level lens in build, more like Nikon's 500 f4 or 600 f4. That level of build may not be what you need, but it makes for a lot of the cost. And in truth, the optical quality of the Olympus lens is higher than the Nikon 200-500. Not night and day better, but better. And it includes a built in teleconverter, is a half stop faster, and has internal focusing and zooming.
Nikon lens is a turd. Not even in the same ballpark optically and build
Notice you didn't try a weight comparison ... let alone the years of technology difference
there's benefits to m43 for sure, however there is no "the equivalent lens from olympus". there's no bloody equivalent lens from olympus unless its called 300 f2 for example to be compared to 600 f4. you know how much would that 300 f2 weight and cost? yep. There's more to lens equivalency that the focal length on its own, that's why you don't shoot with 50 bucks binoculars in front of your camera's mount to give you the reach. I keep seeing this over and over from olympus ambassadors, they like to forget the f-number. my old panasonic here is 600mm f2.8, right. right? it weights 500grams as a full kit including batteries strap . right. or not.
Sorry Martin I disagree. And just to clear up your other misinformation, I'm not an Olympus ambassador. For my work, the Olympus 150-400mm is the EQUIVALENT of an 800mm F/4.5. I like it that way.
You are completely wrong on both accounts. ATG & Daniel J. Cox are not ambassadors.
If Olympus made a 300/2.0 then it's behaves as like 600/2.0, which is 1 stop faster than F4.0.
ATG & I agreed (I assumed Mr. Cox too), using a Canon/Nikon 1/1 body with 600/4.0 and cropping it 50% in the center will get the equivalent of 1200/4.0.
But the drawback, you lost 50% of the mega pixel from the sensor.
1. Canon EOS-5DSR nows has 25.3M (50.6M) at 1200/4.0
2. Nikon D850 now has 22.85M (45.7M) at 1200/4.0
As on can see, you do get the reaching power more than from Olympus.
But, the massive weights you have to carry around. It get worst when carrying and using 400/2.8.
You've eaten too much 'Equivalence' hype. Speed is almost always more important in sports and wildlife photography than shallow Depth of Field. In fact, at 600mm and greater fields of view, the DOF afforded by Micro Four Thirds is usually a benefit, not a short coming. In terms of shutter speed, f/4 at any given ISO will produce the exact same shutter speed on any format size. That is why your light meter has absolutely no input for format size to determine correct exposures. It's called Photography 101.
It's hard to compare this lens to anything. Sure the canon 200-400mm and the Nikkor 180-400mm are similar optical in zoom range and f stop but the use is completely different. This is a lens that gives a much more zoomed in but much noisier image with the exact same exposure. So it's much better in one way but much better in one way. How do you compare that to anything? There is no 300-800mm f9 full frame lens available for anything. The closest is actually something like a sony 200-600mm with a 1.4x teleconverter- and compared to that the Olympus loses very badly in terms of price. Reach and f stop will be similar, Olympus will win out in build quality, stabilisation and close focusing and for including a teleconverter, but will likely still lose in the amount of keeper photos and probably even image quality. And you pay for the close focusing and stabilisation with 4x the price of the sony lens. In an ideal world where we'd have an olympus camera with 99% autofocus keeper rate like the sony a9 or a1 a blackout free EVF and better video features I'd probably invest in this lens. Currently it's unfortunately a very expensive alternative to the sony that you have to use with a limited camera.
Just stand farther away if you’re too close to the animals.
Sigma 150-600mm contemporary $939.00. Zuiko 150-450mm $7,500.00 what a JOKE! LOL
Someone should make a video comparing a $7500 lens to other things you could be for that price.
I really don't care about comparisons to other expensive gear in formats that I don't use.
Will a pro photographer be able to make money with this lens that s/he can't make any other way?
For a hobbyist, I think spending this much on one lens is ridiculous.
And the fact that people will, means the prices of other gear will go up, too.
Pricing isn't about the cost to produce the product. It's about charging as much as the market will bear.
A comparison with no shooting out in the field makes for a pretty lame comparison.
I wonder why do some manufacturers make these kind of lenses in WHITE color??? Yes, sure, they are beautyful, attractive to the eye. But they are suposed to be professional tools, and though they look good on sports events they destroy the wildlife photographer profile. Why don´t they make a black version??? The lens is not to pose on videos and take people attention. What a huge mistake.
I've wondered that myself. I've done some research in the past to find out why. What I've found is that the white lenses do not attract as much heat as black lenses. This is beneficial due to the characteristics of super high-quality optics that are known to expand and contract based on the temperature they're used in. I'm not sure if this is exactly why many of the most expensive lenses are white but it does seem to make sense.
I personally think you would be batshit crazy to pick up the Olympus when you could pick up the Panasonic Leica 100-400 or Sony 100-400. Surely you would be mental? Surely? That's easily two G9's and a 100-400 and a 200 2.8. You would really need to be a retired dentist or really have a need for this lens.
I am a retired dentist, but still holding off. In part due to the unsure nature of the future of Olympus.
@@donwhite332 😂
Those are not of constant aperture.
@@doomelements4679 They are also not 7500 usd!
Are you dumb ? The G9 sucks at tracking things with that crappy dfd thing lol. The fake leica 100-400(with very bad Quality controls) is even worst than the cheap olympus 100-400.. No serious wildlife photogs would consider your g9
'Olympus 150 400mm compared to Nikon & Canon equivalent' - brings out a Nikon lens - 'it's bigger, heavier and more expensive - end of comparison. A really great, professional and reasonable comparison.
What's this obsession that Olympus users have with comparing (poorly) with full frame? An inferiority complex? Olympus is a great system and stands on it's own without a need to make silly comparisons like this. Nobody is going to look at this and get anything useful from it. A full frame user could equally make a comparison showing better subject isolation, noise control and general image quality. It's down to personal preference weighing up the pros and cons of each system and picking what's right for you.
It's also suggested that without this kind of lens, you will be disturbing the wildlife. Also false. A conscientious wildlife photographer would rather not take a picture than disturb the subject. A good and experience naturalists/photographer will have the skills and knowledge needed to get close to wildlife without causing disturbance. I don't go wondering around looking for wildlife, I know my subject, its habits and where it will likely to be at any particular time so wait for it to come to me (so no real issue of carrying around a 'heavier' lens).
If you're going to do a comparison, at least do an honest one and don't throw in cheap remarks. If this system works for you then great. Just remember, other systems work for others better, otherwise we would all be using Olympus cameras.
300-800 f9, not revolutionary well except maybe in charging 7500 for it lol
Laugh all you want Sede. I’ve been using this lens for over a year now and getting photos that were never possible in the past. Making a living for 40+ years in the world of natural history photography has given me the ability to think outside the box. You should give it a try Rather than sitting on the sidelines and laughing. Your photography might improve.
200-400 is not a sought after lens anymore. more people buy the 600mm version and now nikon's pf line of lenses which are much better priced.