Phocal. Good info. Thanks.Guess that really depends on your bank account balance. Personally I have slowly progressed in my lens use for wildlife photography (which is what I mostly do) over the last year (just switched to Olympus a year ago, Canon prior to that).
I started with a 34 year old Canon FD 400mm ƒ4.5 that I originally picked up to use with my Fuji XE1 (spent a brief time using Fuji after Canon and before Olympus). It is a great lens that has gotten me some amazing photographs and I still use it today when I need that little bit of extra reach. Was also a super good deal, spent months stalking eBay and got it for $150 with the case and all the drop in filters. It enabled me to get photographs like the following.
View attachment 409715
Looking for some autofocus lenses so I could try and capture smaller birds (they move around way to much, making manual focus tough) I picked up the Olympus 75-300mm, it really is a great little lens (just try to stay at a maximum of 250-280mm). I was able to get images like the following with this lens.
View attachment 409716
After getting my EM1 I had some more options. After doing a lot of debating I resisted the urge to get the new 40-150mm Pro because it really is a little short for my needs. So, I picked up the 50-200mm SWD and really could not be happier. This is an amazing lens for the price you can pick it up for. I also got the 1.4x TC and plan to get the 2.0x TC here shortly. I will eventually get the 40-150m Pro but that will be after I get my hands on the 300mm Pro. Here is the first real photo I took with the 50-200mm SWD.
View attachment 409717
The 50-200 SWD is a 4/3 lens and needs an adapter. I mention this because if you have deep pockets there are some amazing 4/3 lenses out there like the 90-250 and 300 ƒ2.8.
There are a few native options available, and a few more, if you use an E-M1. Legacy manual focus glass can be a great option to push further than native lenses allow.Greetings.
I am new to this forum, so bear with me if this topic has been covered before. What long lenses are people using for shooting birds?
and I'll toss in that an FD300mm f4 appears more commonly and may be a good option too ... as well as really any of the 300mmf4 primes from the MF days. I liked the FD more than (say) my OM because the tripod mount was nicer as was the focus feel.I have had really good success with the Canon FD 400mm ƒ4.5, can be found pretty cheap if you take your time to find one.
I have not used the FD 300mm ƒ4.0 but from my research you are much better off with the "L" version of this lens. The L version is super sharp wide open where as the non L has to be stopped down a bit. But, the L version is a bit more.to the OP I'll add to this post
and I'll toss in that an FD300mm f4 appears more commonly and may be a good option too ... as well as really any of the 300mmf4 primes from the MF days. I liked the FD more than (say) my OM because the tripod mount was nicer as was the focus feel.
For the pricepoint its hard to go past these lenses as a "dip in the toe"
I agree with (and thus can't add much more) to all the above.
back a while ago now I was a moderator on a flickr group for adapted lenses on m43 ... I saw a few different examples and came to the feeling that it was more about minor aspects and some amount of some Chomatic AB (aka fringing) at f4 ... to me I saw little to make a case for the L being significantly sharper as it could easily have been higher lighting contrast in the shots. I never really felt the urge to upgrade to the 300L ... I've never seen a side by side for those two lenses (which has in itself been a reason in my mind to try one...).I have not used the FD 300mm ƒ4.0 but from my research you are much better off with the "L" version of this lens. The L version is super sharp wide open where as the non L has to be stopped down a bit. But, the L version is a bit more..