The best wildlife shooting advice that I hear from the best is the "don't skimp on the experience". I did buy the 300mm F4 used, and it works fantastic, albeit not that well-balanced for my EM5 3 even with the grip. Great video.
I’ve found the 300/4 with 1.4 extender to be my most common setup. 300/4 with 2x extender is also used quite frequently. I use the 100-400 when I’m expecting to be too close to the subject. The range is similar to the big white lens, but it’s more than a stop slower than my 300/4 and the IS is slightly less miraculous. That’s why I use the 300/4 and dream about big white lenses. Your mileage may vary. I do more birds than mammals. I live by the coast in Pacific Northwest. I could use the extra stop when shooting in foggy, cloudy weather.
Good thoughts, thank you both. I have found the 300mm F4 is about as big and hefty as it's easy to carry on, in a backpack with your travel kit and stuff to get you through when the airline loses your checked bag. If you're flying with carry-on only, the same issue arises. If you need to hike five miles in and five miles out, the same issue arises. The 40-150 with MC-20 can't quite match it for sharpness, at least not in my hands. For a traveling non-professional wildlife photographer, the 300mm on an EM1 or an OM1 seems like the sweet spot.
Before I changed my system, I was skeptical of IQ of Olympus but I’m glad I made the switch! So far I’ve used my em1 mk2 with 40-150, 300 and 100-400 and they are are fantastic!
@@powermfp1 I had Nikon D500 and Sigma 150-600. I sold them and bought used EM1 MK2 and new 100-400 without loosing any money. No complaints with D500 though, just my needs have changed.
Note though, that lens is not ip53 rated like the pro lenses. Meaning, it's only "splash proof". Might not have fared so well after being rained on. Maybe it would have, but not as assuredly.
uk £6500 for that fantastic lens I got an f4 300 for £1350 and now an om-1 for £2000 its a fantastic set up with tc's that big white lens is just a dream at present .I use my 40-150 for transport but the loss of flexibility in the 300 is balanced by the IQ BUT BY FAR ONE OF THE BEST COMPARISON VIDEOS IVE SEEN THANKS
Thank you for a very well balanced and insightful review. One thing I will note is that I always thought that a teleconverter would hurt my image quality and I'm sure some do. After extensive testing with the 300mm and the 1.4x converter on fine line test patterns, the images with the 1.4 where significantly sharper and higher resolution then without the 1.4x. My son and I both concluded that there was around a 1.3x improvement. That was very surprising to us based on what we had heard and read about teleconverters in general. We did not measure other issues that may degrade image quality such as different types of distortion and color shift, but for purely resolution, the images are significantly sharper. Now I do not hesitate to put on the 1.4x whenever it makes sense. I have yet to obtain the 2x but am very interested to see how it will perform. Thanks again for this video.
Nice work, guys. It's all so amazing now. Great shots and really nice video footage. Thanks for the effort and in my opinion, this was a worthy project and helpful to many. The two of you have a good range of perspectives that gives more than one side to how to approach subjects like these. I like the 150-400 and it is more versatile with equivalent image quality compared to the 300/4. For the money, we wanted more magnification still, such as a 200-600 at $2000 scaled down slightly in weight to our m43 sensor needs, with syncIS, but maybe that will happen in the future. For enthusiasts, the 100-400 is a very decent lens for the money, providing we get close enough. It lacks the SyncIS stabe available on the 150-400 and 300 so video segments really want some added support like monopod or a good fluid video head, if zoomed in much. It's fine for stills, handheld. But if doing much hand held video capture, I think the 40-150, 300, and 150-400 are miles ahead. If and when you do a reprise with the OM-1, that would be a good one to try and compare as well. If $8000 is not a big hurdle, then the big white lens is the way to go for dependable wildlife work, this video seems to show. Bring along the 40-150 for when we can get close in the wee hours before wildlife moves off to its preferred distances or when it's semi-tame and doesn't mind humans nearby, like with mountain goats and some sheep. If money is an object or one might use the savings for travel to an exotic location, the 300/4 is still the best value telephoto prime in the world, perhaps, when matched with the OM system bodies. I would not want to be in a situation where that wasn't available for when I have to run or crawl or climb to get into position or escape to safety vs the 150-400. As I expressed in the beginning, in my personal experience, magnification cannot be easily overcome by cropping, in the world of wildlife where fine details in fur and feathers are hard to come by from the distances we work at, in order to protect the subjects and our own safety. Currently we don't have anything beyond 400mm native, whereas 500mm and 600mm (and even 800mm) have long been the go to focal lengths for small subjects at a distance or large subjects at great distances. Teleconverters are helpful, but they come at a cost in light gathering. And yet, as you demonstrated, all the currently available options are extremely capable and can turn out very satisfying results. Here's to a bright future with the OM System
Great Video and advice for any photographer. After many years my needs have changed to a simple set-up that allow me to shoot without having to change gear. This force one to be creative and not feel limited. I have used prime lenses for a very long time and always needed a second zoom lens for flexibility. Now I use 1 big zoom for flexibility that needs to work most of the time, and a second short zoom for wide images of landscapes and context when on Safari or hiking. I find that I am not restrictive and not concerned about covering every focul length. Spend a lot more time shooting and having fun, my portfolio is more interesting and incorporation more light, environment and strong focus on composition and movement. That is why photography is such an amazing thing. Have fun end create your own style.
The 40-150 is an amazing lens. I've gotten some shots I'm really proud of with that lens. Just not with the teleconverters imo. This video convinced me to get the 300mm. It's as sharp as the big white lens a lot of the time.
Olympus camera bodies have become complex compared to earlier versions EM-1 verses the mark iii version. It takes time, patience and practise to iron out the best gear setups and combos. This video shows that so thank you for the effort to bring these videos to us.
Hey Guys, Mal from North Yorkshire, England here. Great comparison video....your yomp through the mud made me chuckle Brooke! At the beginning of this year I moved from Nikon D7200 and Sigma 150-600C to Olympus OM-D EM-1 MkIII with the 40-150mmf2.8Pro, the 100-400mmf5-6.4, plus a 1.4TC. My main reason for moving over to M43 was 'weight'. I have found that the Olympus gear is great when out stalking wildlife to photograph. No need for tripod/monopod, etc. the in camera and lens stabilization allows me to shoot H/H at 1/25th sec should I need to provide wing blur or show rain within an image. Thanks again for a great comparison video. P.S. Nowt wrong with noise..it give atmosphere! Lol.
I hike around with my 75-300. I'm jealous. Haha. However, I love how small it is and when you understand it's capabilities you can get some cool shots from it. Olympus doesn't make bad glass. They make really good glass on the low end all the way up to unmatched at the high end. :)
@@HH60gPaveHawk Unmatched was the wrong word. However, if there is another lens anywhere with the reach, clarity, and IQ of the 150-400 pro, I don't know of one, especially for $7500.
I enjoyed the video and my favourite lens is my 300 f4 pro ,i also own the MC-20 and its useful for extra reach but compromises image quality for reasons mentioned in the video. The 150-400 is simply bigger than any lens i want to carry around no matter how good it is. Good video and nice location photography.
Great video, I have the little zoom (40-150f2.8) and both converters and find it excellent, the MC14 is best I think. I’m thinking about the 100-400 zoom to pair with my 40-150, should give me great results and comes with flexibility, for the birds that are just out of reach with the MC20 on my current zoom. If I go on safari though I be sure to get the big white. 😎
Fascinating, very animating video! Great performance, best infotainment! What I learned as a Nikon full frame shooter: For Wildlife full frame ist noch necessarily required! My main topics are landscapes, forests, trees, plants and people - ideal motifs for full frame. But when it comes to wildlife the appropriate lenses are quite long, heavy and very expensive. So I imagine that the OM-1 with the 300mm F4.0 Pro could be a very good option for me. Best regards from Switzerland!
I just changed to OM-1 and the 40-150 f2.8 with 2.0 TC. Vir many yrs I shot Nikon With the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 with 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s. Loved the set-up for flexibility. The OM-1 with the 40-150 reminds me of this set-up. Just lot less money and 25% of the weight and size. The IQ is stunning. At closer distances the sharpness is amazing. I considered the 150-400 but decided to get the 300 f2.8 with 1.4 TC and a second OM-1. So for wildlife here in Africa I always worked two bodies with a 80-400 and a 500 or 600 prime. With the 2 OM-1 bodies I have a 80-300 f2.8 and 600 f4 and adding to 1.4 or the 2.0 to any of the Lense gives me amazing reach if I need it for birds. So this with a 12-40 f2.8 I have a system that covers all basis. Size wise fit in a relative small backpack and no more worries for air travel on small plains or boats. I used the 150-400 and it is a stunning lens but for the price, size and gain in IQ, it is not what I need. Thanks Great video. Fun to look at and objective advice
Hi you two. Great job comparing these lenses. I met Brooke at GTNP last year, briefly demo-ed her 150-400 and ordered 1 last year. B&H just surprised me with a "big white lens" at my door. My initial shots are incredibly sharp!! I am so anxious to get out to capture wildlife in the field with it and my OM-1. You'll be able to tell our lenses apart because mine is covered in Lenscoat camo. Thanks again Alex and hope to make your acquaintance IRL. Cheers, Seth
No question that being somewhere where you have the opportunity to get great shots is more important than the lens. If you can travel you can always rent a lens. As for lenses, the choice seems pretty clear. The 150-400mm doesn't overlap in FL with the 40-150mm and the 40-150 is more than a stop faster. So for things like BIFs or shooting from blinds it's the best choice. At longer FL the 150-400mm is better. It's a one of kind superb lens. Hands down better than the 300mm if for no other reason than a zoom is better than a prime in many situations and the built in TC is more convenient and higher quality than the external TCs. The extra reach doesn't hurt. Personally for years I shot with the 40-150mm and the 300mm and got many great shots, but with the 150-400mm the 300mm is redundant.
Great video guys. Wow. Yeah I made a dumb mistake over the weekend. I put a 2 X tele (during an overcast low light day) on my 300 F4 IS Pro lens on my Om-1 and it was a disaster when I came back at home to look at my photos. They weren’t terrible sharp at all. My Nikon D500 APSC (crop sensor) with a Tamron 150-600 G2 lens blew them out of the water. It wasn’t even close. I was so disappointed I’ve considered getting rid of my new camera and saying the hell with MfT again. But I took the tele off of that too me lens, and wow what a difference. I only did a coupe of test shot but they were sharp are I’m looked much better (it was still overcast) so this excites me again. However I feel ya about the range. I was a good zoom but don’t want to drop 7k on one. Sigh….
thanks so much for this detailed review and the lovely images. looking forward to tell us what you think of the zuiko 100-400mm and Leica/lumix 200 mm f2.8.
Terrific video guys. The BWL is just too big for me. I am perfectly happy with two cameras setup (EM1.3 and EM5.3 to be replaced with OM-1 as soon as they ship my camera) along with 40-150mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8, 300mm F4 lenses. Of course, I always bring along both teleconverters and use them as needed. BTW, I bumped into Brooke around early June last year at Yellowstone NP while she was photographing bisons with her at that time nice shiny new BWL :-) I was with my family so could only say hi and keep on driving. Hope I will bump into you one of these day Alex out in the mountain somewhere... Cheers
I use my Sony A7RIV with a Sony 200-600mm 5.6-6.3, if I need more reach I use APSC mode where I still have 26 megapixels and the Lens becomes equivalent to 300-900mm, very versatile.
Finally got my BWL a couple of weeks ago after a (very small) windfall. I have the 40-150 and 300 which replaced a PL100-400. For birding the 300 was almost welded to my OM1. However, the 150-400 is just stunning and the welder is back in use. I’m regularly getting superb detail at 500. No problem hand-holding, even though I’m 73 with a crumbling spine and other health issues. I use a PD Slide and I am finding the new combo heavy for carrying after a while (could carry the 300 all day).
I have a M1 mkII. The lenses I use are a Lumix 35-100 f2.8 and an Olympus 100-400 f5 with a 2x converter. I went this way because of the light weight when walking long distances. I got decent photos but sad to say, in my experiences MFT is quite different than full frame high resolution gear, especially when cropping or enlarging. My Z7 body is about the same size as my M1, it's the large lenses that are a killer. They are different tools for different jobs.
I used to shoot with an E-M1 mkii and the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4 TC. I appreciate the low noise at high iso I get from my Canon R6, but I miss that lens.
Definitely it was a great idea to compare these three lens but after using both the 1.4 and the 2x extenders for many years I can say the possible mistake was including the 2x in this comparison. It simply isn't great. The 40-150 2.8 by itself is an amazing lens. And also you can put that 1.4 on any of the lens you reviewed and the images will continue to be tack sharp. I keep a 1.4 pretty much married to a 300f4 and this is a ridiculously great setup for the cost and weight factors. I'm actually planning to buy another 1.4 to keep it with my 40-150 as I really love the range and sharpness that zoom offers even with that 1.4 attached with it.
Times have changed this past year so have our choices. FOR ME, it goes to show with MICRO 4/3rd cameras and lenses are MUCH smaller, lighter, and less expensive than FF Cameras and gear. Speaking as a PRO, I need to carry a 2nd body, at least a few quality lenses, and drone. I own the same Olympus lens but use the 1.4 converter instead of the 2x as in your review. It gives me a focal length of 112-420 mm at a constant f4.0., or without, 40-150 @ 2.8 in without the converter. For the weight, size and cost savings of the Olympus lens, with internal focus. at a constant F2.8 at this size in UNPRESIDENTED really! In the back country here on Vancouver Island when I'm on a mountain chasing wildlife... weight becomes THE MOST IMPORTANT THING! For me, even though I'm fortunate to own and have the choices of M4/3, FF, or Med. Format cameras, when I head out for the mountains I'll choose M3/4 cameras every time, Cheers
I switched from Canon to MFT because I was starting to struggle with the weight. I bought the EM1 mkiii and 40-150 with both converters (and a couple of wider lenses). The converters were disappointing (the triumph of hope over experience, because I never got on with Canon converters either) and quickly sold both, putting the money towards a used Panasonic / Leica 200 2.8. The 400 mm equivalent reach can be a bit short sometimes, but one can crop quite heavily with the Olympus set up to compensate, although that does exaggerate any noise of course. Having the f2.8 makes big difference here as light levels can be relatively low, especially in winter (I live in the Isle of Man in the British Isles). The longer but slower lenses have always been a problem to me.
My first micro four thirds wildlife lens was the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6. I still have it and I take it with me when I'm hiking because it's relatively lightweight. However, when I got the MC-20 teleconverter for my 40-150mm F/2.8 Pro, I immediately noticed how much sharper my images were than with the 100-300. It also focuses much closer, so I rarely feel the need to bring a macro lens for general purpose shooting. (I think the full frame equivalent magnification is about 0.84x, so almost macro range with a 600mm equivalent lens!) My biggest frustration with this setup is that it doesn't focus reliably on fast-moving subjects. I thought it was just my camera (E-M1 Mark II), but after seeing this, it might actually be the teleconverter. I know that it misses a lot of shots of running dogs without a teleconverter too, but it seems to be pretty reliable with subjects that are not moving so fast, such as a trotting horse or a swimming beaver or muskrat. There is no question that the E-M1 Mark II really struggles when something is coming toward the camera pretty fast and birds in flight require a LOT of luck, even if there's nothing but sky behind the bird and plenty of light. I just wonder how much of the problem is lens-related and how much is camera-related. It would be interesting to see how the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 compares to these other options in terms of focus speed and accuracy. I've seen videos showing off the sharpness of that lens, but I'm wondering if the teleconverter is slowing down the focus on the 40-150 or if that is simply because the aperture is smaller. The more I think about it, the more it seems like the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 might be a better option than the 40-150mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 for those who don't have $8,000 to spend on a 150-400mm f/4.5 since you would only be losing about 1/3 stop of light compared to the 300mm f/4 with the MC-14 teleconverter or the 40-150mm f/2.8 with the MC-20. The problem, of course, would be if the autofocus was slow or unreliable simply because of the smaller aperture.
come on price gap is so huge, obviously 150-400 is much better. 300 f4 is most likely suitable for sport or bird photography with hides. 40-150 is most likely better used in Zoo instead of in the wild.
Great review guys - the Big white lens is the rolls royce in this arena, most of us just cant afford that. Also give the 1.4x converter a go as it apparently functions far better with these lens combos.
I like my BWL.... but I still carry my 300 f4 when I'm not "on safari" (I.e. tourist ).... Thanks for the comparison video though, it was really nice to hear you two bantering... 🙂 But, I should mention that I do sometimes use MY MC14 (and even my MC20) with my BWL .. (Since you gave the 300mm some help with the MC's it might only be fair to also test the MC's on the BWL) Given the IS of lenses and bodies, I find I can even do video with the extenders on either lens if I can brace myself well (in a car, on the ground, etc.)
I was in Africa with a bunch of Canon Shooters. They had RF 600 f/4 and RF 400 f/2.8. I had the OM-1 and the MZ 150-400+1.25. Several folks and even the guide said they had "lens envy" after trying my setup.
I have used all the excellent lenses and the 2x TC in this video report. I am surprised that the 1.4x TC wasn’t included as it is a superb way tho add flexibility to the 40-150 and the 300mm lenses without loss of image quality or a big boost in ISO. Fow myself even at 82, I carry the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 150-400mm when photographing/videoing wildlife.
Thank you for that nice comparison. This was really an enojoyable trip. Would be interesting to see, how the Olympus 100-400 compares to the 40-150 2.8 with mc-20, because they have a quite similar aperture at the long end (6.3 vs 5.6), but the 100-400 has more reach and the stabilization. Do you have any experience with the 100-400?
@@stephaneder996 My experience is different than yours, or at least my optics are. My 100-400 is every bit as good optically as the 40-150 + MC20 (and it gives smoother bokeh) and I can zoom out to 400 mm without losing IQ. In addition, my 100-400 gives excellent results with both the MC14 and MC20, as long as the light is good. On the other hand, the 40-150 f/2.8 is outstanding by itself and nearly as good with the MC14.
Thanks for all your answers. The different opinions sum up what confuses me about the choice between 40-150 mc 20 and 100-400. Some people say, the 40-150 + mc20 is excellent, some hate it. Some people say, the 100-400 is kind of pro level in image quality, others hate it. The 40-150 with mc20 is definitly the more versatile choice. But I guess I have to do my own testing, to find out, what I really need for my photography. It would all be so easy if I had an unlimited budget ... :D
@@felixbartsch7115 i dont have the 40-150mm instead i use the old Four Thirds 50-200 (also with 2x). AF speed is not great but usable on an EM1 body if the subjects is not moving fast. Optical performance is great and the 50mm extra reach are also very helpful and it can be found for 200€
I kind of tend to agree. This was a very helpful video. A most excellent review of lens options , and to a certain extent, personal styles. If you want to document what you are seeing when you get outside, this is the range of options that you want to consider….
Great video. Love your enthusiasm and your honesty. we can't all for the the big white, but we can learn to get the best out the 40-150, 300/4, and 100-400. Its all fantastic glass. Keep up the great work.
Great video/comparison, thanks. I have 40-150mm, 300mm, 1.4tc and 2.0tc. Thinking about selling some of this to fund a 150-400mm. Now I am confused, ha. Advice? Shooting sports and wildlife.
Great vid..... Fun thing is you both are carrying that rig by holding the body...... Swiveling that camera and lens......... Any idea how long it is going to last before trouble hits paradise? ? The torque on that 'whatchamacallit ' bayonet?
That was really helpful and entertaining! I have the Olympus 40-150 and the 1.4 Teleconverter, which gives me a little bit less reach but a little bit more light. I also use the PanaLeica 100-400 which I love but in low light the shutter speeds are just too low to get sharp images of moving subjects. Going to Antarctica in January I haven't decided yet if I should bring both lenses or just the 40-150 with the 1.4 TC... shooting penguins and seals on land should be no problem, but I wonder if I need the longer lens when shooting from the ship. Need to take my gear on the plane which is a weight issue, otherwise I wouldn't worry and take both...
Defs think the best bet is to bring both if you have room, but if the space is limited I'd go with the 40-150 w/ the 1.4TC. Even at low light that setup is super fast and sharp!
@@brookebartleson9911 I'm back and I brought the 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4.0. But I mainly used the 40-150 with the 1.4TC. It was perfect for almost any wildlife situation, and it was super flexible.
Very good and needed comparison! I work with adapted vintage lenses on my Lumix. Maybe you can do a comparisosn between the 150-400 vs the Sigma 60-600 with Metabones XL focal reducer, so a 40-400mm f/4 constant?
I have the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 and have been trying to decide if I should get the MC-20 or the MC-14. I heard many suggestions to get the MC-20 over the MC-14 if you don't already own one. But, I am hoping to use it for both wildlife and sports photography. Will the MC-20 cause significant issues sports photography in regarding the increased default aperture (2.8 -> 5.6)? For example, usually, I have a faster shutter speed to freeze the action but with the MC-20, it will make the aperture become f/5.6. I am wondering if that is not wide enough to get enough light. Say baseball, for example, the game might start while there is still sunlight outside but eventually bleeds over to night time where they turn on the stadium lights. Wouldnt f/5.6 be insufficient? I wouldn’t want to decrease the shutter speed cause it would create motion blur and at this point, it would leave me to increase the ISO. I wonder if I could remove the amount of noise it would create in post. But if I went with MC-14 (2.8->4.0)??? Would this be the better choice? I guess the better answer is to get both and then I can choose during any situation, or get the BWL :D What would you recommend in this type of situation? I know the video focuses strictly on wildlife, but I am hoping to fit in both worlds.
What body are you using? If you have the om1 go rough the mc20. The om1 handles high iso like a champ. So the 5.6 won't be as much of an issue. With the em1x or em1 3 the Mc 14 could be smarter
@@chasingluminance I got a GH5 M2. At the time, OM-1 was not released and I was not aware of any rumors about it. I should have waited a bit longer... Since it is the same mount and I've been liking the Olympus glass, there is a chance I could switch.
Very fine video! This is my first find of Chasing Luminance. I will keep my eye out for more. Y'all gave me an opportunity to view the differences between the pro-line level of Olympus lenses. One puzzlement stands out: why did y'all not go into the field with either 1) two cameras each (for quick photo change), or 2) some kind of harness (as opposed to the slow-change backpack) that held more than one lens? Cheers!
Well, I got the white lens and it lasted 3 days with me before returning it. I had already been spoiled by the 300/f4 in my kayak. The bird detection AF while bobbing in water at 400 or 500mm just wan’t good enough to be anything but frustrating. It was magnificent in the 150-320mm range. But $8k (w/tax) for a 150-320 zoom wasn’t in my playbook. Hopefully OM System upgrades bird detection AF to compete with the big boys. So sticking with my 300/f4 despite the downsides of not having a zoom.
I´m going on a trip to South Africa next week. Shall I take the 14-150II or the 12-100? I own both, but the 14-150 is more lighter than the 12-100. Will it be a mistake to take the 14-150 with me? Can I get your opinion please? I will take with me: OM-1, EM10/2 , 100-400 and 12-100 OR 14-150II.
We think it would be a good idea to carry both the 100-400 and the 40-150, but no teleconverter. The 40-150 is perfect for some of the super close encounters africa may provide, and the 100-400 will be perfect for anything else
Just got news my OM1 is on its way - so i will be able to put one lens on the EM1-3 and one on the OM1 while in the safari Jeep - hopefully ready for anything. 17 mm and 12-100 for other stuff - ready to go!
Great video you two. You guys should plan a trip to isle Royal with me Alex. Moose, , fox, chance of wolves, rabbits and......... awesome location for astrophotography :) I have the same set up as you Alex. I have been using the 40-150 2.8 with the mc-20. Just picked up the 300. I was told best results with the 40-150 is keep your focal length at 280 or less. Noticeable difference for sure.
Monopod would have been nice to have. The 100-400 tempts me ($900 used in usa), but looks huge for such a slow lens. I havent looked at specs compared to 300 F4 (1700+ used). F4 plus 1.4 teleconverter is still faster than the 100-400 and probably similar optically?
I am old enough to have developed a tremor. Image stabilization is critical for me. I have tried the 40-150 f/2.8, which I can handhold until I put my 1.4 teleconverter on it. Then I need at least a unipod. My son's 300 mm. has IS that works with the in-body IS. That I can hand-hold. I have had no experience with the 100-400 or the 150-400. I have read that the 150-400 has the better image stabilization. I have been a birder off and on, with several 8 to 10 power binoculars which I use most, and a 20 to 40 power telescope, useless in the woods but nice for a stationary bird far off on the shore or in the water. To understand the MFT lenses, consider a 200 mm lens as 8 power, and a 500 mm lens as 20 power (25 mm is one power). In this video, the moose in the willows did not require the longest lenses, but the goats and deer far up on the mountain side did.
Can’t believe that she’s holding the 150-400mm by the camera and not the lens. I broke the Camera/lens mount on my 300mm and Em1x doing that. Now all my lens- 40-150 and up are support by either a lens strap or harness (Blackwater), never by the ca,mera
As a hobbyist with a modest budget, I'm wondering how much of an upgrade the 40-150 plus 2x would be over my Panasonic 100-300 II at 300/5.6. I've used one without the TC, but 150 often isn't enough reach.
Did anyone else cringe every time she was swinging that Big White Lens being held from that little camera body? I was getting anxiety waiting for it to bend or snap off. Anyways, Great video and comparisons.
It totally would, I got my OM1 a few weeks ago and I am officially feeling like a bird-in-flight aficionado with the help of the OM1's AI detection AF for birds!
The most obvious advantage of the 40-150mm f/2.8 over the 150-400mm f/4.5 is that the 40-150mm f/2.8 + MC-20 weights less than half what the 150-400 does! That means that when you're going for a bit of a hike, you're going to be leaving the 150-400 at home! In fact, I wish OM System would make a 200mm f/4 Pro that's super sharp, lightweight, and compatible with teleconverters because the 40-150 is too heavy for me to justify carrying around if I'm not going somewhere specifically to photograph wildlife. If I'm just going for a hike and I know that there's a possibility I might see some wildlife, I'll take the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, but I'll probably be a little disappointed with the image quality.
So, in the instructions, iirc, it says you need to dry all the equipment before pressing any buttons, using the zoom, etc, when it's wet. despite being rated ip53. yet you were using it in the rain... ever experience any issues with water getting in while operating the zoom, buttons, etc, while the devices are actively wet?
@@brookebartleson9911 If you do a new video reprogram one of the front buttons on the OM1 to x2 digital TC too and test with the physical TC's separately and combined. It is really versatile to be able to switch it in a split second. 40-150 with TC20 and Digital TC =160-600 or 120-1200 in 35mm terms. 150-400 with TC20 + Digital TC + built in 1.2 TC becomes 720-2000 lens (Crazy numbers ). Note the x2 digital tc does not just crop the image there's other magic in there and it doesn't affect the light. It is my preferred choice over a physical TC.
I have e m10 mark2 . And i have 70 300 lens and adapter. But they are very slow motion. I wonder 100 400. 1. How useful 100 400 and e m10 mark2 2. I like video capture. How focus speed 100 400 at video records
Olympus should come out with a 400 F4, or create a 300 F4 with a built in 1.4 teleconverter, like the 150-400 pro. It gives just that little bit of extra range you're missing at the 600mm equivalent focal length of the 300. Because a 150-600 on an apsc will let in more light than the 300 F4 even with just a 1.4x teleconverter, and it gives you a reach of close to 1000mm. Currently, MFT is not worth the money compared to APS-C. I bought my sigma 150-600 for under €600, and my camera body, the canon 800d, only cost me around €350. If I wanted something similar from olympus, I'd probably buy an em-5 with a 70-300 f4-f6.3, with a 1.4 teleconverter. I'd get less light and worse noise. And even with the 300 F4 pro, I'd still need the teleconverter, which would bump up my aperture another stop to F5.6.
The 150-400mm f/4.5 doesn't make much sense; it's about €2000 overpriced for what it offers. The 150-600mm is a better value, and if not, Sony full-frame might be the way to go. You could get the A7R V, Sony 150-600mm, and a 2x teleconverter for less than the 150-400mm f/4.5. It’s significantly overpriced. However, the OM-1 MK II’s performance is closer to that of the Sony A9 III, which is also overpriced, making the MFT system more cost-effective- if you skip the 150-400mm f/4.5.
your playful and professional perspectives are highly appreciated! thank you so much!
Thank you!!
The best wildlife shooting advice that I hear from the best is the "don't skimp on the experience". I did buy the 300mm F4 used, and it works fantastic, albeit not that well-balanced for my EM5 3 even with the grip. Great video.
I’ve found the 300/4 with 1.4 extender to be my most common setup. 300/4 with 2x extender is also used quite frequently. I use the 100-400 when I’m expecting to be too close to the subject. The range is similar to the big white lens, but it’s more than a stop slower than my 300/4 and the IS is slightly less miraculous. That’s why I use the 300/4 and dream about big white lenses.
Your mileage may vary. I do more birds than mammals. I live by the coast in Pacific Northwest. I could use the extra stop when shooting in foggy, cloudy weather.
Good thoughts, thank you both. I have found the 300mm F4 is about as big and hefty as it's easy to carry on, in a backpack with your travel kit and stuff to get you through when the airline loses your checked bag. If you're flying with carry-on only, the same issue arises. If you need to hike five miles in and five miles out, the same issue arises. The 40-150 with MC-20 can't quite match it for sharpness, at least not in my hands. For a traveling non-professional wildlife photographer, the 300mm on an EM1 or an OM1 seems like the sweet spot.
Before I changed my system, I was skeptical of IQ of Olympus but I’m glad I made the switch! So far I’ve used my em1 mk2 with 40-150, 300 and 100-400 and they are are fantastic!
What system did you have? I am contemplating changing completely to OM
@@powermfp1 I had Nikon D500 and Sigma 150-600. I sold them and bought used EM1 MK2 and new 100-400 without loosing any money. No complaints with D500 though, just my needs have changed.
Super comparison and video ! I would have liked to see the Olympus 100-400 5.0-6.3 lens in this comparison ! Thank you !
I got the om-1 and 100-400mm setup 😊 absolutely love it 😊
+1
Note though, that lens is not ip53 rated like the pro lenses. Meaning, it's only "splash proof". Might not have fared so well after being rained on. Maybe it would have, but not as assuredly.
uk £6500 for that fantastic lens I got an f4 300 for £1350 and now an om-1 for £2000 its a fantastic set up with tc's that big white lens is just a dream at present .I use my 40-150 for transport but the loss of flexibility in the 300 is balanced by the IQ BUT BY FAR ONE OF THE BEST COMPARISON VIDEOS IVE SEEN THANKS
😁😁
Thank you for a very well balanced and insightful review. One thing I will note is that I always thought that a teleconverter would hurt my image quality and I'm sure some do. After extensive testing with the 300mm and the 1.4x converter on fine line test patterns, the images with the 1.4 where significantly sharper and higher resolution then without the 1.4x. My son and I both concluded that there was around a 1.3x improvement. That was very surprising to us based on what we had heard and read about teleconverters in general. We did not measure other issues that may degrade image quality such as different types of distortion and color shift, but for purely resolution, the images are significantly sharper. Now I do not hesitate to put on the 1.4x whenever it makes sense. I have yet to obtain the 2x but am very interested to see how it will perform. Thanks again for this video.
So how about x2.0 now? any interesting opinion?? :)
Nice work, guys. It's all so amazing now. Great shots and really nice video footage. Thanks for the effort and in my opinion, this was a worthy project and helpful to many. The two of you have a good range of perspectives that gives more than one side to how to approach subjects like these.
I like the 150-400 and it is more versatile with equivalent image quality compared to the 300/4. For the money, we wanted more magnification still, such as a 200-600 at $2000 scaled down slightly in weight to our m43 sensor needs, with syncIS, but maybe that will happen in the future. For enthusiasts, the 100-400 is a very decent lens for the money, providing we get close enough. It lacks the SyncIS stabe available on the 150-400 and 300 so video segments really want some added support like monopod or a good fluid video head, if zoomed in much. It's fine for stills, handheld. But if doing much hand held video capture, I think the 40-150, 300, and 150-400 are miles ahead. If and when you do a reprise with the OM-1, that would be a good one to try and compare as well.
If $8000 is not a big hurdle, then the big white lens is the way to go for dependable wildlife work, this video seems to show. Bring along the 40-150 for when we can get close in the wee hours before wildlife moves off to its preferred distances or when it's semi-tame and doesn't mind humans nearby, like with mountain goats and some sheep. If money is an object or one might use the savings for travel to an exotic location, the 300/4 is still the best value telephoto prime in the world, perhaps, when matched with the OM system bodies. I would not want to be in a situation where that wasn't available for when I have to run or crawl or climb to get into position or escape to safety vs the 150-400.
As I expressed in the beginning, in my personal experience, magnification cannot be easily overcome by cropping, in the world of wildlife where fine details in fur and feathers are hard to come by from the distances we work at, in order to protect the subjects and our own safety. Currently we don't have anything beyond 400mm native, whereas 500mm and 600mm (and even 800mm) have long been the go to focal lengths for small subjects at a distance or large subjects at great distances. Teleconverters are helpful, but they come at a cost in light gathering. And yet, as you demonstrated, all the currently available options are extremely capable and can turn out very satisfying results. Here's to a bright future with the OM System
Great Video and advice for any photographer. After many years my needs have changed to a simple set-up that allow me to shoot without having to change gear. This force one to be creative and not feel limited. I have used prime lenses for a very long time and always needed a second zoom lens for flexibility. Now I use 1 big zoom for flexibility that needs to work most of the time, and a second short zoom for wide images of landscapes and context when on Safari or hiking. I find that I am not restrictive and not concerned about covering every focul length. Spend a lot more time shooting and having fun, my portfolio is more interesting and incorporation more light, environment and strong focus on composition and movement. That is why photography is such an amazing thing. Have fun end create your own style.
Hi,I own the 100 - 400 olympus lens and sometimes use the 1.4 convertor ,very happy with it,,give it a go.👍📸
Nice vid mate. Good to see Brooke too. Nice pics of the moose.
The 40-150 is an amazing lens. I've gotten some shots I'm really proud of with that lens. Just not with the teleconverters imo. This video convinced me to get the 300mm. It's as sharp as the big white lens a lot of the time.
I'm still rockin the 300 very happily
I am happy with teleconverter X2 MC-20. But you need to set your camera right to got focus with small objects
Olympus camera bodies have become complex compared to earlier versions EM-1 verses the mark iii version. It takes time, patience and practise to iron out the best gear setups and combos. This video shows that so thank you for the effort to bring these videos to us.
Hey Guys, Mal from North Yorkshire, England here. Great comparison video....your yomp through the mud made me chuckle Brooke!
At the beginning of this year I moved from Nikon D7200 and Sigma 150-600C to Olympus OM-D EM-1 MkIII with the 40-150mmf2.8Pro, the 100-400mmf5-6.4, plus a 1.4TC. My main reason for moving over to M43 was 'weight'. I have found that the Olympus gear is great when out stalking wildlife to photograph. No need for tripod/monopod, etc. the in camera and lens stabilization allows me to shoot H/H at 1/25th sec should I need to provide wing blur or show rain within an image.
Thanks again for a great comparison video. P.S. Nowt wrong with noise..it give atmosphere! Lol.
So glad you enjoyed!
I hike around with my 75-300. I'm jealous. Haha. However, I love how small it is and when you understand it's capabilities you can get some cool shots from it. Olympus doesn't make bad glass. They make really good glass on the low end all the way up to unmatched at the high end. :)
Totally agree
Full disclosure, on super long hikes I carry the 75-300 too!! Its such a small and simple lens, can't beat it in my opinion
They do make some excellent glass! Unmatched is absolutely hyperbole, but their glass has an excellent balance of iq and size
@@HH60gPaveHawk Unmatched was the wrong word. However, if there is another lens anywhere with the reach, clarity, and IQ of the 150-400 pro, I don't know of one, especially for $7500.
I enjoyed the video and my favourite lens is my 300 f4 pro ,i also own the MC-20 and its useful for extra reach but compromises image quality for reasons mentioned in the video.
The 150-400 is simply bigger than any lens i want to carry around no matter how good it is.
Good video and nice location photography.
Thank you ! I do love the size of the 300
Great video, I have the little zoom (40-150f2.8) and both converters and find it excellent, the MC14 is best I think. I’m thinking about the 100-400 zoom to pair with my 40-150, should give me great results and comes with flexibility, for the birds that are just out of reach with the MC20 on my current zoom. If I go on safari though I be sure to get the big white. 😎
Fascinating, very animating video! Great performance, best infotainment! What I learned as a Nikon full frame shooter: For Wildlife full frame ist noch necessarily required! My main topics are landscapes, forests, trees, plants and people - ideal motifs for full frame. But when it comes to wildlife the appropriate lenses are quite long, heavy and very expensive. So I imagine that the OM-1 with the 300mm F4.0 Pro could be a very good option for me. Best regards from Switzerland!
I just changed to OM-1 and the 40-150 f2.8 with 2.0 TC. Vir many yrs I shot Nikon With the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 with 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s. Loved the set-up for flexibility. The OM-1 with the 40-150 reminds me of this set-up. Just lot less money and 25% of the weight and size. The IQ is stunning. At closer distances the sharpness is amazing. I considered the 150-400 but decided to get the 300 f2.8 with 1.4 TC and a second OM-1. So for wildlife here in Africa I always worked two bodies with a 80-400 and a 500 or 600 prime. With the 2 OM-1 bodies I have a 80-300 f2.8 and 600 f4 and adding to 1.4 or the 2.0 to any of the Lense gives me amazing reach if I need it for birds. So this with a 12-40 f2.8 I have a system that covers all basis. Size wise fit in a relative small backpack and no more worries for air travel on small plains or boats. I used the 150-400 and it is a stunning lens but for the price, size and gain in IQ, it is not what I need. Thanks Great video. Fun to look at and objective advice
Hi you two. Great job comparing these lenses. I met Brooke at GTNP last year, briefly demo-ed her 150-400 and ordered 1 last year. B&H just surprised me with a "big white lens" at my door. My initial shots are incredibly sharp!! I am so anxious to get out to capture wildlife in the field with it and my OM-1. You'll be able to tell our lenses apart because mine is covered in Lenscoat camo. Thanks again Alex and hope to make your acquaintance IRL. Cheers, Seth
Thank you, so glad you enjoyed. That lens is absolutely nuts
HI SETH!!!!!!!!!!! I am so glad you finally god your lens, now please hurry up and come to Tetons again so we can eat avocados and look at bears!!
I can’t believe a professional would take pictures in those harsh light conditions. It would be a complete waste of their time.
Well I’ve never watched pictures of those goats there a couple of jokers. There not doing the equipment justice in any way shape or form
No question that being somewhere where you have the opportunity to get great shots is more important than the lens. If you can travel you can always rent a lens.
As for lenses, the choice seems pretty clear. The 150-400mm doesn't overlap in FL with the 40-150mm and the 40-150 is more than a stop faster. So for things like BIFs or shooting from blinds it's the best choice. At longer FL the 150-400mm is better. It's a one of kind superb lens. Hands down better than the 300mm if for no other reason than a zoom is better than a prime in many situations and the built in TC is more convenient and higher quality than the external TCs. The extra reach doesn't hurt. Personally for years I shot with the 40-150mm and the 300mm and got many great shots, but with the 150-400mm the 300mm is redundant.
Great video! Thanks for the real life comparison.
Great video guys. Wow. Yeah I made a dumb mistake over the weekend. I put a 2 X tele (during an overcast low light day) on my 300 F4 IS Pro lens on my Om-1 and it was a disaster when I came back at home to look at my photos. They weren’t terrible sharp at all. My Nikon D500 APSC (crop sensor) with a Tamron 150-600 G2 lens blew them out of the water. It wasn’t even close. I was so disappointed I’ve considered getting rid of my new camera and saying the hell with MfT again. But I took the tele off of that too me lens, and wow what a difference. I only did a coupe of test shot but they were sharp are I’m looked much better (it was still overcast) so this excites me again. However I feel ya about the range. I was a good zoom but don’t want to drop 7k on one. Sigh….
thanks so much for this detailed review and the lovely images. looking forward to tell us what you think of the zuiko 100-400mm and Leica/lumix 200 mm f2.8.
Terrific video guys. The BWL is just too big for me. I am perfectly happy with two cameras setup (EM1.3 and EM5.3 to be replaced with OM-1 as soon as they ship my camera) along with 40-150mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8, 300mm F4 lenses. Of course, I always bring along both teleconverters and use them as needed. BTW, I bumped into Brooke around early June last year at Yellowstone NP while she was photographing bisons with her at that time nice shiny new BWL :-) I was with my family so could only say hi and keep on driving. Hope I will bump into you one of these day Alex out in the mountain somewhere... Cheers
I use my Sony A7RIV with a Sony 200-600mm 5.6-6.3, if I need more reach I use APSC mode where I still have 26 megapixels and the Lens becomes equivalent to 300-900mm, very versatile.
That is a really great lens
Finally got my BWL a couple of weeks ago after a (very small) windfall. I have the 40-150 and 300 which replaced a PL100-400. For birding the 300 was almost welded to my OM1. However, the 150-400 is just stunning and the welder is back in use. I’m regularly getting superb detail at 500. No problem hand-holding, even though I’m 73 with a crumbling spine and other health issues. I use a PD Slide and I am finding the new combo heavy for carrying after a while (could carry the 300 all day).
Meant to add that I loved your vid!
I have a M1 mkII. The lenses I use are a Lumix 35-100 f2.8 and an Olympus 100-400 f5 with a 2x converter. I went this way because of the light weight when walking long distances. I got decent photos but sad to say, in my experiences MFT is quite different than full frame high resolution gear, especially when cropping or enlarging. My Z7 body is about the same size as my M1, it's the large lenses that are a killer. They are different tools for different jobs.
I used to shoot with an E-M1 mkii and the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4 TC. I appreciate the low noise at high iso I get from my Canon R6, but I miss that lens.
It is a great lens
Definitely it was a great idea to compare these three lens but after using both the 1.4 and the 2x extenders for many years I can say the possible mistake was including the 2x in this comparison. It simply isn't great. The 40-150 2.8 by itself is an amazing lens. And also you can put that 1.4 on any of the lens you reviewed and the images will continue to be tack sharp. I keep a 1.4 pretty much married to a 300f4 and this is a ridiculously great setup for the cost and weight factors. I'm actually planning to buy another 1.4 to keep it with my 40-150 as I really love the range and sharpness that zoom offers even with that 1.4 attached with it.
Thanks for this! Appreciate the real use scenarios. Super informative.
Times have changed this past year so have our choices. FOR ME, it goes to show with MICRO 4/3rd cameras and lenses are MUCH smaller, lighter, and less expensive than FF Cameras and gear. Speaking as a PRO, I need to carry a 2nd body, at least a few quality lenses, and drone. I own the same Olympus lens but use the 1.4 converter instead of the 2x as in your review. It gives me a focal length of 112-420 mm at a constant f4.0., or without, 40-150 @ 2.8 in without the converter. For the weight, size and cost savings of the Olympus lens, with internal focus. at a constant F2.8 at this size in UNPRESIDENTED really! In the back country here on Vancouver Island when I'm on a mountain chasing wildlife... weight becomes THE MOST IMPORTANT THING! For me, even though I'm fortunate to own and have the choices of M4/3, FF, or Med. Format cameras, when I head out for the mountains I'll choose M3/4 cameras every time, Cheers
You guys should test and compare the 100-400 one.
I switched from Canon to MFT because I was starting to struggle with the weight. I bought the EM1 mkiii and 40-150 with both converters (and a couple of wider lenses). The converters were disappointing (the triumph of hope over experience, because I never got on with Canon converters either) and quickly sold both, putting the money towards a used Panasonic / Leica 200 2.8. The 400 mm equivalent reach can be a bit short sometimes, but one can crop quite heavily with the Olympus set up to compensate, although that does exaggerate any noise of course. Having the f2.8 makes big difference here as light levels can be relatively low, especially in winter (I live in the Isle of Man in the British Isles). The longer but slower lenses have always been a problem to me.
I wish I could finally get the big white badge lens! Never available. Your video is lovely guys! Keep it up!
I'm honestly still trying to get mine.
@@chasingluminance just by chance , did you ever wrote to OM ? They didn't answer to me, but I live in Uruguay. Might be you have more luck?
My first micro four thirds wildlife lens was the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6. I still have it and I take it with me when I'm hiking because it's relatively lightweight. However, when I got the MC-20 teleconverter for my 40-150mm F/2.8 Pro, I immediately noticed how much sharper my images were than with the 100-300. It also focuses much closer, so I rarely feel the need to bring a macro lens for general purpose shooting. (I think the full frame equivalent magnification is about 0.84x, so almost macro range with a 600mm equivalent lens!) My biggest frustration with this setup is that it doesn't focus reliably on fast-moving subjects. I thought it was just my camera (E-M1 Mark II), but after seeing this, it might actually be the teleconverter. I know that it misses a lot of shots of running dogs without a teleconverter too, but it seems to be pretty reliable with subjects that are not moving so fast, such as a trotting horse or a swimming beaver or muskrat. There is no question that the E-M1 Mark II really struggles when something is coming toward the camera pretty fast and birds in flight require a LOT of luck, even if there's nothing but sky behind the bird and plenty of light. I just wonder how much of the problem is lens-related and how much is camera-related.
It would be interesting to see how the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 compares to these other options in terms of focus speed and accuracy. I've seen videos showing off the sharpness of that lens, but I'm wondering if the teleconverter is slowing down the focus on the 40-150 or if that is simply because the aperture is smaller. The more I think about it, the more it seems like the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 might be a better option than the 40-150mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 for those who don't have $8,000 to spend on a 150-400mm f/4.5 since you would only be losing about 1/3 stop of light compared to the 300mm f/4 with the MC-14 teleconverter or the 40-150mm f/2.8 with the MC-20. The problem, of course, would be if the autofocus was slow or unreliable simply because of the smaller aperture.
come on price gap is so huge, obviously 150-400 is much better. 300 f4 is most likely suitable for sport or bird photography with hides. 40-150 is most likely better used in Zoo instead of in the wild.
Great review guys - the Big white lens is the rolls royce in this arena, most of us just cant afford that. Also give the 1.4x converter a go as it apparently functions far better with these lens combos.
I love it.. Stinking Brooke took it with her
I am wondering where the 100 to 400 fits in. f5-f6.3 still provides good exposures looking at the shots from this video.
I like my BWL.... but I still carry my 300 f4 when I'm not "on safari" (I.e. tourist ).... Thanks for the comparison video though, it was really nice to hear you two bantering... 🙂 But, I should mention that I do sometimes use MY MC14 (and even my MC20) with my BWL .. (Since you gave the 300mm some help with the MC's it might only be fair to also test the MC's on the BWL) Given the IS of lenses and bodies, I find I can even do video with the extenders on either lens if I can brace myself well (in a car, on the ground, etc.)
Best use for the 2x converter is a paper weight...the 1.4 offers far superior quality
L-O-V-E this! Cheers from the French Atlantic coastline, Simon
thank you Simon! You're awesome!
Thank you friend!
I was in Africa with a bunch of Canon Shooters. They had RF 600 f/4 and RF 400 f/2.8. I had the OM-1 and the MZ 150-400+1.25. Several folks and even the guide said they had "lens envy" after trying my setup.
It is such a fantastic lens
I have used all the excellent lenses and the 2x TC in this video report. I am surprised that the 1.4x TC wasn’t included as it is a superb way tho add flexibility to the 40-150 and the 300mm lenses without loss of image quality or a big boost in ISO. Fow myself even at 82, I carry the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 150-400mm when photographing/videoing wildlife.
I need to get a1.4
Thank you for that nice comparison. This was really an enojoyable trip.
Would be interesting to see, how the Olympus 100-400 compares to the 40-150 2.8 with mc-20, because they have a quite similar aperture at the long end (6.3 vs 5.6), but the 100-400 has more reach and the stabilization. Do you have any experience with the 100-400?
my 40-150 2,8 + MC20 performance perfect! my 100-400 is from 280mm-400mm far away from the Pro! :(
@@stephaneder996 My experience is different than yours, or at least my optics are. My 100-400 is every bit as good optically as the 40-150 + MC20 (and it gives smoother bokeh) and I can zoom out to 400 mm without losing IQ. In addition, my 100-400 gives excellent results with both the MC14 and MC20, as long as the light is good. On the other hand, the 40-150 f/2.8 is outstanding by itself and nearly as good with the MC14.
mine is very sharp but i treat it basically as an f8 lens
Thanks for all your answers. The different opinions sum up what confuses me about the choice between 40-150 mc 20 and 100-400.
Some people say, the 40-150 + mc20 is excellent, some hate it. Some people say, the 100-400 is kind of pro level in image quality, others hate it.
The 40-150 with mc20 is definitly the more versatile choice. But I guess I have to do my own testing, to find out, what I really need for my photography. It would all be so easy if I had an unlimited budget ... :D
@@felixbartsch7115 i dont have the 40-150mm instead i use the old Four Thirds 50-200 (also with 2x). AF speed is not great but usable on an EM1 body if the subjects is not moving fast. Optical performance is great and the 50mm extra reach are also very helpful and it can be found for 200€
This is the best video ever made. But I am Biased.
Yay! Jordan let you comment
YES IT IS
I kind of tend to agree. This was a very helpful video. A most excellent review of lens options , and to a certain extent, personal styles. If you want to document what you are seeing when you get outside, this is the range of options that you want to consider….
Great video. Love your enthusiasm and your honesty. we can't all for the the big white, but we can learn to get the best out the 40-150, 300/4, and 100-400. Its all fantastic glass. Keep up the great work.
Great video/comparison, thanks. I have 40-150mm, 300mm, 1.4tc and 2.0tc. Thinking about selling some of this to fund a 150-400mm. Now I am confused, ha. Advice? Shooting sports and wildlife.
Great vid.....
Fun thing is you both are carrying that rig by holding the body...... Swiveling that camera and lens.........
Any idea how long it is going to last before trouble hits paradise? ? The torque on that 'whatchamacallit ' bayonet?
Great video! At my age, weight is an issue for me and one of the reasons I use Olympus. Any thoughts in that respect?
I'd say you're in the right spot with the Olympus. The 300f4 is probably your best friends
That was really helpful and entertaining!
I have the Olympus 40-150 and the 1.4 Teleconverter, which gives me a little bit less reach but a little bit more light. I also use the PanaLeica 100-400 which I love but in low light the shutter speeds are just too low to get sharp images of moving subjects. Going to Antarctica in January I haven't decided yet if I should bring both lenses or just the 40-150 with the 1.4 TC... shooting penguins and seals on land should be no problem, but I wonder if I need the longer lens when shooting from the ship. Need to take my gear on the plane which is a weight issue, otherwise I wouldn't worry and take both...
It's so hard to say. ... Brooke?
Defs think the best bet is to bring both if you have room, but if the space is limited I'd go with the 40-150 w/ the 1.4TC. Even at low light that setup is super fast and sharp!
@@brookebartleson9911 I'm back and I brought the 40-150/2.8 and the 300/4.0. But I mainly used the 40-150 with the 1.4TC. It was perfect for almost any wildlife situation, and it was super flexible.
Very good and needed comparison! I work with adapted vintage lenses on my Lumix. Maybe you can do a comparisosn between the 150-400 vs the Sigma 60-600 with Metabones XL focal reducer, so a 40-400mm f/4 constant?
I have the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 and have been trying to decide if I should get the MC-20 or the MC-14.
I heard many suggestions to get the MC-20 over the MC-14 if you don't already own one.
But, I am hoping to use it for both wildlife and sports photography. Will the MC-20 cause significant issues sports photography in regarding the increased default aperture (2.8 -> 5.6)?
For example, usually, I have a faster shutter speed to freeze the action but with the MC-20, it will make the aperture become f/5.6. I am wondering if that is not wide enough to get enough light.
Say baseball, for example, the game might start while there is still sunlight outside but eventually bleeds over to night time where they turn on the stadium lights. Wouldnt f/5.6 be insufficient? I wouldn’t want to decrease the shutter speed cause it would create motion blur and at this point, it would leave me to increase the ISO. I wonder if I could remove the amount of noise it would create in post.
But if I went with MC-14 (2.8->4.0)??? Would this be the better choice?
I guess the better answer is to get both and then I can choose during any situation, or get the BWL :D
What would you recommend in this type of situation? I know the video focuses strictly on wildlife, but I am hoping to fit in both worlds.
What body are you using? If you have the om1 go rough the mc20. The om1 handles high iso like a champ. So the 5.6 won't be as much of an issue. With the em1x or em1 3 the Mc 14 could be smarter
@@chasingluminance I got a GH5 M2.
At the time, OM-1 was not released and I was not aware of any rumors about it. I should have waited a bit longer...
Since it is the same mount and I've been liking the Olympus glass, there is a chance I could switch.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that body. If it's a dual gain sensor it could probably handle the 20
QUALITY MC 14 REACH MC20 thats your choice
Any experience or thoughts on the Oly 100-400 mm lens in comparison to these lenses?
Wonderful video! Although I don’t shoot Olympus I still found this helpful and interesting. Thanks guys!
Oh man, thank you!
Thank you for watching!!
Very fine video! This is my first find of Chasing Luminance. I will keep my eye out for more. Y'all gave me an opportunity to view the differences between the pro-line level of Olympus lenses. One puzzlement stands out: why did y'all not go into the field with either 1) two cameras each (for quick photo change), or 2) some kind of harness (as opposed to the slow-change backpack) that held more than one lens? Cheers!
We weren't really channing lenses much. Tried to keep one on for most encounters to really test them out.
Perhaps the 1.4 teleconverter to get lower ISO would have been better/wiser and more apples to apples. About as long and as fast as the 150-400?
yeah, for the 300 comparison. I was really hoping the 40-150 would perform as good as the 300
Well . . . I make do with my 75-300mm cheap zoom. It does have great contrast even if it isn't tack sharp.
As pros you would surely carry 2 camera bodies and easily switch between lenses?
Killer video. Really cemented my desire to get the white lens. Currently using the 40-150.
It is fantastic
Well, I got the white lens and it lasted 3 days with me before returning it. I had already been spoiled by the 300/f4 in my kayak. The bird detection AF while bobbing in water at 400 or 500mm just wan’t good enough to be anything but frustrating.
It was magnificent in the 150-320mm range. But $8k (w/tax) for a 150-320 zoom wasn’t in my playbook. Hopefully OM System upgrades bird detection AF to compete with the big boys. So sticking with my 300/f4 despite the downsides of not having a zoom.
I´m going on a trip to South Africa next week. Shall I take the 14-150II or the 12-100? I own both, but the 14-150 is more lighter than the 12-100. Will it be a mistake to take the 14-150 with me? Can I get your opinion please? I will take with me: OM-1, EM10/2 , 100-400 and 12-100 OR 14-150II.
How does the 100-400 compare - going to Africa in Jun-July, should i carry both 100-400 and 40-150 with 2x ? Would that be redundant?
We think it would be a good idea to carry both the 100-400 and the 40-150, but no teleconverter. The 40-150 is perfect for some of the super close encounters africa may provide, and the 100-400 will be perfect for anything else
Just got news my OM1 is on its way - so i will be able to put one lens on the EM1-3 and one on the OM1 while in the safari Jeep - hopefully ready for anything. 17 mm and 12-100 for other stuff - ready to go!
@@JosephHawkins that sounds perfect! Super jealous
@@JosephHawkins Perfect choices, you're gonna get some amazing shots!
When they come to close you can still walk back. Next time keep this up in mind😁
You learned the tracking did not work a swell as you would like - do you think the OM-1 tracking will be better ?
I'm sure it is, and Brooke agrees. We made this video a few months before that camera
Great video you two. You guys should plan a trip to isle Royal with me Alex. Moose, , fox, chance of wolves, rabbits and......... awesome location for astrophotography :) I have the same set up as you Alex. I have been using the 40-150 2.8 with the mc-20. Just picked up the 300. I was told best results with the 40-150 is keep your focal length at 280 or less. Noticeable difference for sure.
Interesting... I'll see what zooming out just a bit does
Ohh this is interesting about the 40-150, I'll have to try it.
The Amazing $white lens...LOL. It better be! :) Of course if she came with the lens then the price is perfect 😁
Monopod would have been nice to have.
The 100-400 tempts me ($900 used in usa), but looks huge for such a slow lens. I havent looked at specs compared to 300 F4 (1700+ used). F4 plus 1.4 teleconverter is still faster than the 100-400 and probably similar optically?
yeah i love the pro line of lenses. better weather sealing and usually image quallity. i'm not a huge fan of the 1-400
I am old enough to have developed a tremor. Image stabilization is critical for me. I have tried the 40-150 f/2.8, which I can handhold until I put my 1.4 teleconverter on it. Then I need at least a unipod. My son's 300 mm. has IS that works with the in-body IS. That I can hand-hold. I have had no experience with the 100-400 or the 150-400. I have read that the 150-400 has the better image stabilization. I have been a birder off and on, with several 8 to 10 power binoculars which I use most, and a 20 to 40 power telescope, useless in the woods but nice for a stationary bird far off on the shore or in the water. To understand the MFT lenses, consider a 200 mm lens as 8 power, and a 500 mm lens as 20 power (25 mm is one power). In this video, the moose in the willows did not require the longest lenses, but the goats and deer far up on the mountain side did.
What filters do you use to protect your front lenses? Great video!
I never use filters other than nd. Those front elements are pretty tough... and thank you! This was a fun one too make
So the answer is that you need both. 80-1125 focal range coverage.
Thank you, great video. Can you actually shoot that huge white lens hand held?
For sure, we didn't use a monopod at all
@@chasingluminance Wow! Thank you. Amazing 👍👍👍
Can’t believe that she’s holding the 150-400mm by the camera and not the lens. I broke the Camera/lens mount on my 300mm and Em1x doing that. Now all my lens- 40-150 and up are support by either a lens strap or harness (Blackwater), never by the ca,mera
Brooke is a wild child
As a hobbyist with a modest budget, I'm wondering how much of an upgrade the 40-150 plus 2x would be over my Panasonic 100-300 II at 300/5.6. I've used one without the TC, but 150 often isn't enough reach.
Yeah I've never played with that lens. I do like the versatility of the 40-150
It’s funny how your 150 400 looks like a kitchen towel, just like mine!
Nothing but the best
Did anyone else cringe every time she was swinging that Big White Lens being held from that little camera body? I was getting anxiety waiting for it to bend or snap off.
Anyways, Great video and comparisons.
Good job guys. Watching this is I was wondering whether there was space for a baby version of the 150-400, say a 100-300 f4.5 pro with built in tc?
I would love a weather sealed and TC capable 75-300mm III f5.6.
Will the tracking with the new OM1 perhaps work better?
I'm sure it will. We were both rockin the em1 3. All the reviews of the om1 af have been very good.
It totally would, I got my OM1 a few weeks ago and I am officially feeling like a bird-in-flight aficionado with the help of the OM1's AI detection AF for birds!
The most obvious advantage of the 40-150mm f/2.8 over the 150-400mm f/4.5 is that the 40-150mm f/2.8 + MC-20 weights less than half what the 150-400 does! That means that when you're going for a bit of a hike, you're going to be leaving the 150-400 at home! In fact, I wish OM System would make a 200mm f/4 Pro that's super sharp, lightweight, and compatible with teleconverters because the 40-150 is too heavy for me to justify carrying around if I'm not going somewhere specifically to photograph wildlife. If I'm just going for a hike and I know that there's a possibility I might see some wildlife, I'll take the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, but I'll probably be a little disappointed with the image quality.
So, in the instructions, iirc, it says you need to dry all the equipment before pressing any buttons, using the zoom, etc, when it's wet. despite being rated ip53. yet you were using it in the rain... ever experience any issues with water getting in while operating the zoom, buttons, etc, while the devices are actively wet?
I haven't had any issues after getting the Olympus wet... I bet the instructions are just playing it safe
Both lenses are awesome inclusive tele converters give an excellent team . Never sell the 300mm !
Had not seen the all eco @29:00 BWL before, a very interesting lens 😆🤣😂
It's a secret model
I had wanted a review of the adaptors and tele-converter from Olympus
Oooo this is a great idea for future videos!
may be it is better off with the 1.4X converter.
Could be
Top tip! bring two camera bodies with you so you can have different reach .....
That also is really nice
Yeah if you have these lenses, you need the OM-1 to know the capabilities of the lenses... not really fair to not test the latest and greatest.
We made this video a few months ago, before the OM1 came out. I think a comparison with the OM1 is an excellent idea for the next video!
@@brookebartleson9911 If you do a new video reprogram one of the front buttons on the OM1 to x2 digital TC too and test with the physical TC's separately and combined. It is really versatile to be able to switch it in a split second. 40-150 with TC20 and Digital TC =160-600 or 120-1200 in 35mm terms. 150-400 with TC20 + Digital TC + built in 1.2 TC becomes 720-2000 lens (Crazy numbers ). Note the x2 digital tc does not just crop the image there's other magic in there and it doesn't affect the light. It is my preferred choice over a physical TC.
lol her vibe is cool.
would be better if the lens used for each photo were written on them
A prime lens will always be optically better than the best zoom, it's always been this way.
I dunno... that 150-400 is pretty gorgeous
I can only afford one and i have the 12-100mm
That lens makes her look small
I have e m10 mark2 . And i have 70 300 lens and adapter. But they are very slow motion. I wonder 100 400. 1. How useful 100 400 and e m10 mark2
2. I like video capture. How focus speed 100 400 at video records
The 100-400 would be an upgrade for sure
Olympus should come out with a 400 F4, or create a 300 F4 with a built in 1.4 teleconverter, like the 150-400 pro. It gives just that little bit of extra range you're missing at the 600mm equivalent focal length of the 300. Because a 150-600 on an apsc will let in more light than the 300 F4 even with just a 1.4x teleconverter, and it gives you a reach of close to 1000mm. Currently, MFT is not worth the money compared to APS-C. I bought my sigma 150-600 for under €600, and my camera body, the canon 800d, only cost me around €350. If I wanted something similar from olympus, I'd probably buy an em-5 with a 70-300 f4-f6.3, with a 1.4 teleconverter. I'd get less light and worse noise. And even with the 300 F4 pro, I'd still need the teleconverter, which would bump up my aperture another stop to F5.6.
A 400f4 would be really cool
noise is not longer a thing thanks to topaz denoise or others
I can't think of a better way to get stomped to death than to chase a momma moose with two newborns in heavy cover
How do so many people afford a $7500 lens??
selling a kidney
The 150-400mm f/4.5 doesn't make much sense; it's about €2000 overpriced for what it offers. The 150-600mm is a better value, and if not, Sony full-frame might be the way to go. You could get the A7R V, Sony 150-600mm, and a 2x teleconverter for less than the 150-400mm f/4.5. It’s significantly overpriced. However, the OM-1 MK II’s performance is closer to that of the Sony A9 III, which is also overpriced, making the MFT system more cost-effective- if you skip the 150-400mm f/4.5.
Do you find a big difference when using the 40-150/2.8 with the 1.4x vs the 2x?
The 1.4 works nearly perfectly
Why would you stalk wildlife with a white lens..
If is 500mm. Must be 5.6
Rare! They're carrying iMac around in their Jeep!🤣🤣🤣