At what price would you buy the Olympus 150-400 PRO?

[Phocal]

Note, the 150-400mm f/4.5 lens will include a built-in tele-converter that might make it somewhat more expensive than a simple 150-400mm lens.

so does the Canon 200-400 f4 and the Nikon 180-400 f4

 

[ijm5012]

Note, the 150-400mm f/4.5 lens will include a built-in tele-converter that might make it somewhat more expensive than a simple 150-400mm lens.

Note, the Canon 200-400 and Nikon 180-400 also include built-in TC’s just like the Olympus lens will.

 

[fader]

I actually have no interest in this lens. If I was still shooting a lot of sports I would be standing in line for this lens. But I have pretty much stopped shooting sports except for the occasional assignment so what I have works fine.

At 800mm equiv it seems way too long for indoor sports, no? Maybe football action from the opposite endzone. Or shooting golfers while sipping a cold one back at the clubhouse.

A lot of the photographers here in Brittany are using massive bazooka lenses and doublers to capture waves breaking on the lighthouses. It's probably a great tool for that, actually.

 

[masayoshi]

I thought we can see iris patterns of baby gators with this lens, but....oh well.

 

[panamike]

Well i am a confirmed zoom user but would not buy this lens, i use the 100-400 and on m4/3 i find the short end too long a lot of the time, just stuck with it though for the other benefits.

 

[Phocal]

I thought we can see iris patterns of baby gators with this lens, but....oh well.

I am more interested in a longer prime...…………..like in the 500mm range. I much prefer primes for wildlife photography, faster/lighter/better IQ.

 

[Phocal]

At 800mm equiv it seems way too long for indoor sports, no? Maybe football action from the opposite endzone. Or shooting golfers while sipping a cold one back at the clubhouse.

A lot of the photographers here in Brittany are using massive bazooka lenses and doublers to capture waves breaking on the lighthouses. It's probably a great tool for that, actually.

First...……….

Who said anything about indoor sports? But any of the field sports played inside would be perfect for this lens.

Second...………………….

The lens goes from an equivalent 300mm to 800mm, it's a zoom after all.

Third...……………………..

I am guessing you have never photographed sports or people with a telephoto lens. From the end zone you could maybe shoot out to the 30 or 40 yard line. Lets use the 40 yard line + the distance of the end zone plus a little extra behind that where a photographer would be allowed to setup. That would be lets say 50 yards + another 5 (being generous here), so 55 yards or 165 feet. Here is an image I shot of cricket using 600mm effective at a distance of about 170 feet that I have cropped the most I am comfortable with, down to 4000px on the long side. Jumping up to 800mm would provide that extra bit where I would have to crop very little.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Cricket 003 by Phocal Art, on Flickr

Now, image take from the same location but this time at 300mm effective focal length but has way more crop than I am comfortable with......down to 3200 on the long side.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Cricket 026 by Phocal Art, on Flickr

With the additional reach (especially with the TC) this lens would be perfect for any field sport, indoors or outdoors.

Forth...………………………..

With this lens added to the roster a sports shooter would be perfectly set up. If I was still shooting sports I would be using 3 bodies with some combo of the Pro zooms on the 3 bodies. For football or soccer it would be the 150-400, 40-150, and the third camera would alternate between the 7-14 and 12-40. It would be nice to run 4 bodies but I found more than 3 to just be to much.

 

[fader]

I am guessing you have never photographed sports or people with a telephoto lens.

Nope - that's why I asked.

 

[Retief]

When we look at the 150-400 f/4.5 in the same manner, the closest competition are the 200-400 f/4 from Canon, and the 180-400 f/4 from Nikon. The Canon is $11k, and the Nikon is $12.4k. While the Olympus lens provides more reach thanks to the m43 sensor, it's still a 150-400mm lens, and thus should be priced accordingly, and will likely be of a similar size and weight as well. If anything will help reduce the price relative to the competition, it'll be that the Olympus lens is an f/4.5, whereas the CaNikon lenses are f/4 (the slower aperture should help reduce some of the weight as well).

Exactly why I include the Nikon 180-400 above. As others have noted, it also has the built-in TC.

My very first "long lens" was the Sigma 500mm f4.5 HSM. I bought mine just prior to a big price increase, it was $2600, which gives you an idea of how long ago this was. The current model I think is 5k, f4 version I think is 6k. Still significantly less than the equivalent Nikon/Canon. I had been renting the Nikon 500mm f4 at the time and figured I could pay for the Sigma in a year for my rental cost. At the time for AF and quality I figured it was 90-95% as good as the Nikon. The only real issue with f4.5 vs f4 was the ability to utilize TC's. Of course back then getting a camera to consistently AF at f5.6 with these lenses was problematic, let alone f8 as we have now.

 

[Retief]

Forth...………………………..

With this lens added to the roster a sports shooter would be perfectly set up. If I was still shooting sports I would be using 3 bodies with some combo of the Pro zooms on the 3 bodies. For football or soccer it would be the 150-400, 40-150, and the third camera would alternate between the 7-14 and 12-40. It would be nice to run 4 bodies but I found more than 3 to just be to much.

I may be on the "other side of the pond" and photograph a different type of "football", but let me say that I find this post of yours to be "spot on". The ability, with two bodies, to have that kind of range would be super. The third body, for those shots "close in", with the size and weight would be really helpful. The downside here is that often our stadiums are not well lit for photography.

 

[Phocal]

I may be on the "other side of the pond" and photograph a different type of "football", but let me say that I find this post of yours to be "spot on". The ability, with two bodies, to have that kind of range would be super. The third body, for those shots "close in", with the size and weight would be really helpful. The downside here is that often our stadiums are not well lit for photography.

When I was shooting sports I would have loved to have the setup available now. So much lighter and easier to use than my old full frame stuff. The crap lighting can be a pain with m4/3, that's the only downside...…...thankfully for most stuff the images are still usable.

 

[Retief]

When I was shooting sports I would have loved to have the setup available now. So much lighter and easier to use than my old full frame stuff. The crap lighting can be a pain with m4/3, that's the only downside...…...thankfully for most stuff the images are still usable.

Not sure what it is like on your side, here I often got laughed at for shooting Nikon. Those White Lenses were quite dominant. m43 folks would be outnumbered by everybody!

 

[ac12]

Not sure what it is like on your side, here I often got laughed at for shooting Nikon. Those White Lenses were quite dominant. m43 folks would be outnumbered by everybody!

Same here.
A LOT of Canon users.
The school where I am yearbook photo advisor, both the yearbook and journalism groups use Canons.

This makes it a bit difficult (and sometimes frustrating) for me, as controls and menus are different from my Nikon.​

Most of the pros that come to shoot the games shoot Canon.
The parents seem to be split Canon/Nikon.
You are right, when a white L lens comes out, you can see it easily.

I have not seen one m4/3.

 

[ac12]

A cost accountant would have field day with some of these long fast lenses used by amateurs....................totally non cost effective. How much use will they get at the long end? How many keeper shots taken/cost per shot. Could those shots be covered by a similar length but slower lens? blah blah blah

The only "need for speed" that I have is in the rainforest, my state being as sunny as it is all year round, and I reckon I take less than 200 shots a yr in there so my panny 100-400 has me covered most of the time and even that was bought due to GAS as my 75-300 did a bloody good job and I reckon I could well manage without the panny...............it's a luxury so something more expensive would be even more so.

No doubt some pros would think it worth the splash and even some cashed up amateurs may well splash out also, but for myself, being the tight arse that I am, even if I was cashed up, I'd give it a miss if over 2K but I reckon you'd be looking at >4k and more likely nearer to8k

Me too.

I was looking for a long lens for my Nikon, but the 200-500 was $1,400. As little as I shoot a long lens, I decided that I could not justify a $1,400 lens. So I opted for a $140 manual focus Nikon 500 mirror lens. It was "good enough."
Neat thing is, I can use that lens on my Olympus with a $10 Nikon to m4/3 adapter. And since the Olympus has IBIS, it is stabilized

Similarly, I have the Olympus 75-300, which I got on a clearance sale. And as little as I use it, again, it is "good enough."
I primarily shoot baseball/softball with it, so rather specialized use for me, right now.

There have been times where I boxed myself into getting a GOOD/expensive lens, because there was no lower cost option. But then I really USED that lens, so I got my money's worth out of it.

 

[Danny.]

Started to change my mind on this lens lately. If I want to, or need to go AF, then this would be the one. For power boat racing I use the old FD 500 F/4.5L at the moment and have done for years, it simply works well. Same for BIFs.

So with the 1.25x TC in the path, this lens at the long end becomes a 500 F/5.6. Very usable and dare I say, more versatile as a zoom.

The thing is, with all this AF stuff going on in posts with the E-M1x with missed focus points, tracking issues, etc, it sort of puts you off a lens like this. It won't be cheap put it that way. Under $8,000 US would be a bargain IMO.

Need plenty of convincing with AF reliability, reviews and seeing shots from people that know what they are doing first and also consistently. Without all that in combination for success, it's a bit of a brick at that cost. A very expensive brick. AF would have to be fast and reliable for sure and with no tracking issues. Becoming a fan of this lens as long as it works well.

Hmmm, don't mind me, just thinking out loud.

Danny.

 

[ac12]

Started to change my mind on this lens lately. If I want to, or need to go AF, then this would be the one. For power boat racing I use the old FD 500 F/4.5L at the moment and have done for years, it simply works well. Same for BIFs.

So with the 1.25x TC in the path, this lens at the long end becomes a 500 F/5.6. Very usable and dare I say, more versatile as a zoom.

The thing is, with all this AF stuff going on in posts with the E-M1x with missed focus points, tracking issues, etc, it sort of puts you off a lens like this. It won't be cheap put it that way. Under $8,000 US would be a bargain IMO.

Need plenty of convincing with AF reliability, reviews and seeing shots from people that know what they are doing first and also consistently. Without all that in combination for success, it's a bit of a brick at that cost. A very expensive brick. AF would have to be fast and reliable for sure and with no tracking issues. Becoming a fan of this lens as long as it works well.

Hmmm, don't mind me, just thinking out loud.

Danny.

I think the AF tracking issues is primarily with the camera and the photographer, not the lens.

 

[Danny.]

I think the AF tracking issues is primarily with the camera and the photographer, not the lens.

They would have to have the right camera body to AF and track correctly then. With posts I'm seeing on different forums and from people that actually know what they are doing, its not too convincing at the moment, especially regarding tracking and continuous shooting at that.

You are right, it comes down to the photographer and the camera body, but without that capable camera body, then there is no point to an AF lens like this.

No one is blaming the lens at all, well I'm not, but without the capability of the body, the lens becomes a brick. A photographer needs tools that work, not just sometimes. This is supposed to be pro gear, it needs to act like it surely.

All the best.

Danny.

 

[speedy]

I think that's where Olympus is bumping up against it a little bit. It doesn't just have to match CaNikon, to get people to move, & drop their existing investments that are already more than likely paid for, they have to better them. And they're already one strike down, in most peoples minds, with the smaller format sensor. It's a pretty tough ask I think.

 

[Retief]

I think that's where Olympus is bumping up against it a little bit. It doesn't just have to match CaNikon, to get people to move, & drop their existing investments that are already more than likely paid for, they have to better them. And they're already one strike down, in most peoples minds, with the smaller format sensor. It's a pretty tough ask I think.

In my case I am comparing the AF of the M1X to the Nikon D500, which is right up there with the best when it comes to tracking. So far I am finding my "keepers" about the same, especially when I keep the frame rate the same, 10fps. And understand, I am still very new to the M1X and have little clue yet as to the optimal AF points and settings. In making my decision AF Tracking was #1, weight being #2. As I have noted in other posts, there are many ways with the Olympus tech to mitigate the ISO.

This weekend will be interesting. My wife has a 2 day Dog Agility meet. The venue is an indoor converted horse arena, to even use the word "lighting" is being overly kind. To say the lighting "sucks" gets close to how bad it is. I will take the 40-150 f2.8 with me, to see how this compared to other meets where I was using the D500/70-200 f4 combination. Dogs running straight at you in bad light where shutter speed has to be down to even see anything is one heck of a test.

You are very correct that the "itty-bitty-sensor" bias is tough for some. I chose to look at the overall end result, which is probably the reason that I never felt I "had" to use Full Frame.

On balance, for my needs, I have not found a compelling reason to believe that I have made a mistake in my choice.

 

[Hypilein]

Started to change my mind on this lens lately. If I want to, or need to go AF, then this would be the one. For power boat racing I use the old FD 500 F/4.5L at the moment and have done for years, it simply works well. Same for BIFs.

So with the 1.25x TC in the path, this lens at the long end becomes a 500 F/5.6. Very usable and dare I say, more versatile as a zoom.

The thing is, with all this AF stuff going on in posts with the E-M1x with missed focus points, tracking issues, etc, it sort of puts you off a lens like this. It won't be cheap put it that way. Under $8,000 US would be a bargain IMO.

Need plenty of convincing with AF reliability, reviews and seeing shots from people that know what they are doing first and also consistently. Without all that in combination for success, it's a bit of a brick at that cost. A very expensive brick. AF would have to be fast and reliable for sure and with no tracking issues. Becoming a fan of this lens as long as it works well.

Hmmm, don't mind me, just thinking out loud.

Danny.

If most people were as good as you are with manual focus we probably wouldn't constantly have this discussion. If you are good enough with MF and have enough practice to do it reliably than it just works. No fuss and cheap lenses. But most people are not at that point. I certainly am not. Although, if I was into birding and had little money I think there is a good argument for just biting the bullet, getting out there and working on your skills to save a boat load of money.