OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600 f5-6.3 IS vs ED 100-400 f5-6.3 IS
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- Is the big new lens really that much better than the venerable ED 100-400 IS? Will you experience a difference on the OM-1 Mark ii body? Sharper? More stable? Faster focus? Better macro? I try to answer those questions. (For some reason I turned both lenses into f4.5s. They start at f5 of course. :)
- Jak na to + styl
Thanks for creating this video. Just a few minor comments. The lenses are F5-6.3, (not f4.5). I only shoot in RAW to get the best processing power for my images. Using the focus limiter helps a lot to snap onto your subject. The 150-600 is coming on safari with me later in the year. I will also bring 300mm pro, 40-150 pro, and teleconverters. Hubby will likely have one of our 100-400mm as back up. (Other one will be for sale). Suggest that you hold the 150-600 further out and push/pull the lens in and out on the smoothest setting. I had no problem with camera movement when using this technique.
Thank yoy
Most useful comparison I've seen. Thanks so much!
thank you.
That was one exhaustive breakdown and comparison, thanks.
thank you
I appreciate this very insightful and well reasoned review. Having owned and used the 100-400 for a few years with the 1.4x tc, primarily for motorsport and wildlife, I was very curious about this new lens.
The single greatest advantage is that 1200mm effective reach. To offset the inherent IQ and noise disadvantage that the m43 sensor has against FF cameras, I try to achieve perfect composition in-camera every time. Even when shooting fast subjects, the relatively long reach of m43 lenses enables me to keep cropping to a minimum in post-processing. So this new lens is right in line with that thinking.
However, as you correctly noted, the size and weight of the 150-600 goes against the whole point of using a smaller size sensor camera in the first place. It is simply too great for all day carry and international travel, and that 150mm on the short end is too limiting. In fact, my favorite telephoto zoom is the diminutive 40-150 f/4, which pairs up nicely with the 8-25 f/4 for when I'm not using the 12-100 f/4.
I will continue saving up for that 150-400 f/4.5, as I prefer to have a faster lens over greater reach for my nature and wildlife photography.
Thanks for the well reasoned response.
Beautiful pictures . Thank you so much. ^^*
Thank you too
Great comparison. Thanks!
Thanks for watching!
Very detailed comparison. Thanks for sharing. A big LIKE from me.
Thanks a lot!
❤ great video
Glad you liked it!!
Thanks for the comparison Stephen - very helpful as I have neither lens at the moment but do use the 300mm F4.
Towards the end of your review you mention that if you want the reach, the "150 - 600 is the only game in town" I wonder how the 300mm F4 would compare with the 2x converter, from an image quality standpoint. Appreciating of course there is no option to zoom out with that setup?
That would be an interesting comparison.
The 300/4 + 2x is much sharper.
:)
Thanks for the interesting comparison, I have the 100-400.
I hope they one day make a 100-400 MkII with sync IS as the 150-600 is too big and heavy for me. Even more expensive in Australia.
Even a pro series zoom to reach 600mm equivalent would be welcome. 🤗
Two points I would make are:
1. Even though the OM 150-600mm is a heavy lens by m4/3's standards, it is still 'small and light' compared to any FF lens that gives you a 1200mm field of view. The Canon 1200mm f/8 prime weighs 3 lbs more and costs $20,000 -- no hand holding that puppy!
2. While the Synch-IS of the 150-600mm is not doubt an advantage over the 100-400mm, it is a mistake in my opinion to use the Lens IS on the 100-400mm. I have mine turned off, and use only the IBIS in my OM-1 for bird shooting because the Lens IS takes a second to stabilize, whereas the IBIS is instant upon half shutter press.
Good points. I will have to try turning off the lens IS. The weight issue though is real to me.
Than you very much for your insights… Just a question: Which kind of “camuflage” cover are your using with your 100-400?
Chasing Birds
I really enjoyed this review and have wondered about the real differences between the three lenses you mentioned. I own a Lumix G9 and the Lumix 100-400mm lens. Recently I had the opportunity to photograph nesting eagles and their chicks. Keeping a very respectful distance with other photographers I found my 800mm = reach and 20-meg sensor not really up to getting closeup shots of the chicks and decided to employ the 2x converter in the menu of the G9. To my surprise, given good light and low ISO use, the 1,600mm = closeups of the eaglets came out far better than expected, much better than enlarging into my 800mm images. Like you, I shoot JPEGS and, perhaps the 800mm reach, would have given me more cropable images had I been shooting RAW. However, I do value the light weight of my MFT gear and wonder if you've ever tried the 2x digital converter in the menu of your OM-1? I came to Lumix through the Leica V-Lux 114 (based on the Lumix FZ1000) and found its I-Zoom feature very usable, doubling the 400mm reach of that 25-400mm equivalent lens with processor enhanced images. I think this would be a big selling feature for both Lumix and Olympus if they could enhance the performance of this feature in their menus.
I agree on the digital tel converter. I used it occasionally on my Sony RX10iv and have used it on the OM-1 and OM-1 Mkii. It works well, but could be better with some more processing power and AI put behind it. However 100-400 plus digital tel converter does not come close the the 150-600 at 1200mm equivalent. :)
@@StephenIngraham Good to know. Thanks again for the review.
Do you mean Om-System 150-600mm?
As opposed to what? I left out the M.Zuiko?
Your title of the video has 150-400 instead of 150-600. Thanks for your video
Thanks for that…totally missed it and I was trying so hard to get the name right…the one thing OM asked me to do. :)
I'll stick with my more moderately priced 150-400mm F/4.5
I am sure it is a better lens but not moderately priced by any means :)
@@StephenIngraham Why needs two kidneys anyway?