The 150-400mm f/4.5 PRO lense price on Czech store's website.

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
2,933
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
Look forward to the future....

So, you're on your death bed reflecting on life's rich pattern, which of the following thoughts will be crossing your mind?

A) I should have listened to my father and looked at the wife's mother before deciding to marry the wife.
B) I wish I hadn't spent all that money on one lens.
C) Has anyone remembered to put the cat out?
 

dirtdevil

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
958
Olympus thinks that they can sell this lens competing with the Panasonic 50-200 with TCs. Or the Panasonic 100-400. Or the Olympus 300mm. Or the "slightly slower" Olympus 75-300 and Panasonic 100-300 with cropping.

Or they think that the existence of this lens will enhance the brand enough to sell other things.

If you don't want it, don't buy it.

And you keep repeating the same false statements.
  • An FF body with a 400mm at f5.6 does in fact have worse subject separation than the Olympus at 400mm f4.5.
  • If you crop to the same zoom, it doesn't have more megapixels (around 7-10MPix vs 20).
  • If you don't crop it doesn't have anything like the same zoom.
  • If you raise the ISO and crop to lower mega-pixels that you process up to the same size image/print, you won't have better DR or be taking advantage of your full frame sensor.
  • A $2200 budget zoom (comparable to the Panasonic 100-400) certainly has significantly worse optics than a pro lens.
Because of these factors, you won't be able to "replicate or get a better looking image" with your $2500 Canon EOS 5D IV + $2200 lens.

You WILL get better separation, more DR/ISO, and more megapixels with a good quality not-slow 800mm zoom lens on full frame. But that's not what you're talking about. (We can then discuss optical quality and resulting image.)

Why even bring up full frame when you can say the same thing about the Panasonic 100-400?
Meanwhile...+95% pro wildlife (or non-wildlife) careerist photographers are not interested by the Olympus offering, no matter how facts are twisted. Too expensive, or not good/useful enough. It's one or the other.
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,304
Look forward to the future....

So, you're on your death bed reflecting on life's rich pattern, which of the following thoughts will be crossing your mind?
Oddly enough, I had a not too dissimilar thought at the funeral of my mistress. The first thing that came to my mind was, what a waste of money.
 

Giz9

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
25
Olympus thinks that they can sell this lens competing with the Panasonic 50-200 with TCs. Or the Panasonic 100-400. Or the Olympus 300mm. Or the "slightly slower" Olympus 75-300 and Panasonic 100-300 with cropping.

Or they think that the existence of this lens will enhance the brand enough to sell other things.

If you don't want it, don't buy it.

And you keep repeating the same false statements.
  • An FF body with a 400mm at f5.6 does in fact have worse subject separation than the Olympus at 400mm f4.5.
  • If you crop to the same zoom, it doesn't have more megapixels (around 7-10MPix vs 20).
  • If you don't crop it doesn't have anything like the same zoom.
  • If you raise the ISO and crop to lower mega-pixels that you process up to the same size image/print, you won't have better DR or be taking advantage of your full frame sensor.
  • A $2200 budget zoom (comparable to the Panasonic 100-400) certainly has significantly worse optics than a pro lens.
Because of these factors, you won't be able to "replicate or get a better looking image" with your $2500 Canon EOS 5D IV + $2200 lens.

You WILL get better separation, more DR/ISO, and more megapixels with a good quality not-slow 800mm zoom lens on full frame. But that's not what you're talking about. (We can then discuss optical quality and resulting image.)

Why even bring up full frame when you can say the same thing about the Panasonic 100-400?
I think the interesting comparison to this lens is the Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3. It is about the same size and weight (2115g) as the Oly (similar length ~318mm long, 95mm filter thread) but probably gathers more light. I say probably because the entrance pupil on the Sony is 600 / 6.3 = 95mm and the Oly is 400 / 4.5 = 89mm but the focal lengths and f numbers are usually rather approximate. Both lenses are internal zoom and weather sealed.

Given they collect roughly the same amount of light, I suspect image quality may not be that different.

Since I've always felt disappointed by the consistency of Olympus' C-AF, particularly for BIF, I chose to buy an A9II and 200-600mm plus a 1.4 TC. Total cost £5,269. But I have kept my E-M1 III and 300 f/4 for close-up use.

The 24mp sensor in the A9II has a 16% greater linear resolution than the 20mp Olympus' so if use the TC and I crop to match the Oly I get a FF eq. field of view of 600 x 1.4 x 1.16 = 975 at about f/10.5 vs the Oly zoom FF eq. of 1000mm at f/11. Not too different. Although it is less convenient to add the Sony teleconverter than the Oly and the TC adds a few more ounces.

The main disadvantage of the Sony is a poor minimum focus distance of 2.4m vs 1.3m for the Oly.

However, the Sony setup gives me excellent image quality, the best C-AF available, no rolling shutter, no viewfinder blackout and excellent tracking, all for a price that may turn out to be less than the cost of the Oly lens by itself and at a similar size and weight. I thought spending thousands on a lens to add to a body (E-M1 III) where I wasn't entirely happy with the C-AF was silly. Lens quality doesn't matter when the image is not in perfect focus.

Anyone wondering about the quality of a "budget zoom" (£1,590 in my case) should check out what it can do. For example here - https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608204/111.

I think the Oly will be an excellent lens but probably at a very silly price. Oly is listing the 300mm f/4 at £2,199 at the moment so it's likely to be a lot more than that. If it ever arrives that is.
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
2,933
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
Meanwhile...+95% pro wildlife (or non-wildlife) careerist photographers are not interested by the Olympus offering, no matter how facts are twisted. Too expensive, or not good/useful enough. It's one or the other.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Size and weight is a huge consideration for wildlife photographers.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,092
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
But.....but....

m43 was supposed to be the lower cost format.

The idea of FF being budget and m43 being “pro” is the end of reason and the universe as we know it.
m4/3 is suppose to be the smaller and lighter format. There are many options that in fact make it a lower cost option. But I'm not sure "lower cost" is a requirement.

And that may be one of the issues, quality cost and often making something smaller costs more.
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
217
Location
CZE
Seeing as companies tend to price things differently for different markets....

The Oly 300 f/4 with VAT is 75,990 which is $3231US

Same lens in the US market is $2900 full list.

Soooo, maaaaybeeee it's about 10% higher in the Czech Republic?
There is 21% VAT as a base rate in the Czech republic for the majority of goods and services. 250 000 CZK without VAT would be 206 612 CZK. The offical price should be below 200K CZK (VAT included) according to one of our ambassador. It looks like they are testing a price field nad user reactions with the given price.
 
Last edited:

Lcrunyon

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
2,082
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
m4/3 is suppose to be the smaller and lighter format. There are many options that in fact make it a lower cost option. But I'm not sure "lower cost" is a requirement.
Agreed. Olympus has never really been cheaper in either price or quality, Also, there is more than one way to utilize the sensor size as an advantage for lens design. You can go with equivalent aperture lenses in a smaller form factor, such as the 75-300, or you can get wider apertures in a similar form factor, such as the f/1.2 primes or the 150-400.
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,658
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Tell me how someone using let's say a $2,200 Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 with a FF body cannot replicate or even get better looking image (dr, subject separation, megapixels) than the m43 lens at +$3,000 (dare I say +$8,000).

Raise a bit the ISO one notch, and crop the image in post to imitate and cheat a "telephoto effect".

Oh so cropping a FF image lowers the resolution...compared to shooting directly a cropped image on a cropped sensor...so the difference of this pixel-peeping experiment is worth $6k ? I just want to have the justifications of such a hefty price.

if you had the Canon R5 ($3900) and the 100-500 ($2800) and you used it in 17MP 1.6x crop mode, you'd end up with 800mm f11 equivalent at 17MP. Cropping it further to 900mm gives you 13MP and f14 equivalent. You could use the new 800mm f11 and you'd still have 35MP left when cropping to 900mm.

If you use the 150-450 on a 20MP Olympus, you end up with 900mm f9 equivalent at 20MP for (insert final large price here).

If you took a Canon 5DS (highest rest FF at 50MP) and used a 100-400mm f5.6 L and cropped it to 900mm, you'd be left with 10MP and 900mm f12.6 equivalent. Sensor area used would be approaching 1" territory.

Cropping a little is no big deal, but the impact to resolution grows exponentially. It doesn't make any sense to crop FF that far.

To me the real budget competition is from something like a high spec APS-C with a Tamron 150-600mm. Use that on a Canon 90D and get 960mm f10 equivalent at 32MP. Could crop it to 1200mm equiv and still be at the 20MP from m4/3.
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,304
if you had the Canon R5 ($3900) and the 100-500 ($2800) and you used it in 17MP 1.6x crop mode, you'd end up with 800mm f11 equivalent at 17MP. Cropping it further to 900mm gives you 13MP and f14 equivalent. You could use the new 800mm f11 and you'd still have 35MP left when cropping to 900mm.

If you use the 150-450 on a 20MP Olympus, you end up with 900mm f9 equivalent at 20MP for (insert final large price here).

If you took a Canon 5DS (highest rest FF at 50MP) and used a 100-400mm f5.6 L and cropped it to 900mm, you'd be left with 10MP and 900mm f12.6 equivalent. Sensor area used would be approaching 1" territory.

Cropping a little is no big deal, but the impact to resolution grows exponentially. It doesn't make any sense to crop FF that far.

To me the real budget competition is from something like a high spec APS-C with a Tamron 150-600mm. Use that on a Canon 90D and get 960mm f10 equivalent at 32MP. Could crop it to 1200mm equiv and still be at the 20MP from m4/3.
Using your logic, it would be better to buy a mini bus instead of a car.
 

Gy Rob

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
24
I think the interesting comparison to this lens is the Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3. It is about the same size and weight (2115g) as the Oly (similar length ~318mm long, 95mm filter thread) but probably gathers more light. I say probably because the entrance pupil on the Sony is 600 / 6.3 = 95mm and the Oly is 400 / 4.5 = 89mm but the focal lengths and f numbers are usually rather approximate. Both lenses are internal zoom and weather sealed.

Given they collect roughly the same amount of light, I suspect image quality may not be that different.

Since I've always felt disappointed by the consistency of Olympus' C-AF, particularly for BIF, I chose to buy an A9II and 200-600mm plus a 1.4 TC. Total cost £5,269. But I have kept my E-M1 III and 300 f/4 for close-up use.

The 24mp sensor in the A9II has a 16% greater linear resolution than the 20mp Olympus' so if use the TC and I crop to match the Oly I get a FF eq. field of view of 600 x 1.4 x 1.16 = 975 at about f/10.5 vs the Oly zoom FF eq. of 1000mm at f/11. Not too different. Although it is less convenient to add the Sony teleconverter than the Oly and the TC adds a few more ounces.

The main disadvantage of the Sony is a poor minimum focus distance of 2.4m vs 1.3m for the Oly.

However, the Sony setup gives me excellent image quality, the best C-AF available, no rolling shutter, no viewfinder blackout and excellent tracking, all for a price that may turn out to be less than the cost of the Oly lens by itself and at a similar size and weight. I thought spending thousands on a lens to add to a body (E-M1 III) where I wasn't entirely happy with the C-AF was silly. Lens quality doesn't matter when the image is not in perfect focus.

Anyone wondering about the quality of a "budget zoom" (£1,590 in my case) should check out what it can do. For example here - https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608204/111.

I think the Oly will be an excellent lens but probably at a very silly price. Oly is listing the 300mm f/4 at £2,199 at the moment so it's likely to be a lot more than that. If it ever arrives that is.
I agree with all of this ,I really loved my EM1x 300 f4 pro and it often got the shot but so often it would miss then hit then miss I think Olympus must match the a9mkII and new canons R5 / R6 AF to make the 150/400 a hit these cameras have aprox 1000 af points to track the subject the EM1x has 121 I'm guessing it would need 250 to match the AF of the above and extra processing power too.

The new firmware for birds may help but I think it will need a new camera EM1x mkII if there going to catch up I hope i'm wrong as lots have put money into there system .
I still like Olympus but have sold all my kit and now use an a9mkII but will keep an eye what Olympus do but it will sure have to match and beat what I have now.
Just my thoughts .

Rob.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,194
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
You think the 150-450 f4.5 is going to be compact? I sure don't.
Add in the 2xTC and for a lens with 2km reach that is abnormally compact.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,658
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Add in the 2xTC and for a lens with 2km reach that is abnormally compact.
View attachment 835866
I don't disagree. But compared to the 150-600 I suggested it is not really any smaller. So I just wasn't sure where the reference to needing a minibus came from.

1595013273220.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I'm sure the Olympus will be higher grade and better built, and probably a bit sharper. But I pitched this as a cheap alternative. It's a $1200 lens and you could mount it on a $1000 Canon APS-C DSLR for 960mm reach.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom