Please consider supporting the channel, become a channel member or donate a cup of coffee ☕ ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography

This analysis sets a standard for youtube in general - comprehensive, precise, very helpful and no bs hyperbole that ruins most instructional videos. Thank you.

It is because of your videos that this week i bought myself an OM1mkII and the 150-600mm. Thanks for the effort you put in to this work!

I have the 300/4, and what impresses me the most (apart from sharpness) is that it's almost impossible to get any aberrations, even in extremely backlit situations.

Good analysis. It’s important to note that teleconverters not only affect effective aperture they also affect maximum stops of ibis. When accounting for that properly they still perform quite well on the lenses they are adapted for. I also have the Sony FF latest models and 200-600. My experience is that Olympus is the best existing system for nature and event photography when you can expect the unexpected. Once a person become well acquainted with the capabilities of the system and functions, there is hardly any other system that comes close to the flexibility for quickly adapting to something that requires a very sudden adjustment in several settings to capture properly. I am an extended event (multi-day) shooter who typically uses two bodies. My go to kits in outdoor all day events is one OM-1 and 12-100/4 and another OM-1 with 40-150/2.8 and MC20 2x Teleconverter. For a winter trip to photograph bald eagles and other large wingspan subjects and handholding all day, I will add a third kit with the 300mm and either MC14 1.4x Teleconverter or MC20 2x Teleconverter, based on my experience with the area. If I could add a lens to the graph it would be for OM to create a new lens: 50-200/2.8 with syncIS and designed for the Teleconverters. I think it’s been on the roadmap for a few years now. My 40-150 is ten years old and works as good as new so I would love to update it to a new model with syncIS and if they could take it to 50-200/2.8 I’d be extremely happy.

I think this video will help a lot of people. Excellently presented and organised as usual Thomas. I love the 100-400, including for some macro-ish shooting of insects and so on. It’s a little bit awkward having to stand over a metre away. But also it means you’re not blocking the light, and I’ve got some nice pictures this way. Clearly I was wrong to rule out getting a teleconverter. There’s so much rhetoric to scare you about lack of light on MFT and so on. But really, with such macro shooting, you want more depth of field anyway.

Appreciate your breakdown here. It helps me think through what I need.

As always a great presentation and technically 101% accurate in every respect. I’ve been using the 150-400mm lens for 11 months and 95% of my pro image making including close-up work. Just followed you on IG. 👍🙂

Another well researched and presented video. Thanks for your time and effort.

great video as usual ! you are a gift for us & OM System

Awesome overview of the options. I much appreciate the effort you have recently put into the often overlooked long lenses to the point I have joined. My head and my heart would choose the white lens every time. My checkbook, says differently. If we are putting the 75-300 in the mix, it seems like the 40-150mm with the MC-20 and improving one's field craft should get some consideration. 🤠

Excellent breakdown of these lenses.

Really comprehensive video. Impressive. ❤

The Olympus 75-300 is what makes me enjoy the idea of even taking pictures of birds. I'm not a strong person and I prefer a light setup, and this is really the only solution out here on any camera system.

Just a fabulous comparison video. Enjoy the coffee

Excellent! Congrats!

Amazing amount of information. You are the best.

Spot on as usual, thanks Thomas. 300mm Pro + MC14 works for me, pension doesn't extend to the best lens, especially here in Australia. C'est la vie.

I own the 75-300. Good to have fun and carry during hikes or kayak because its so light. Unfortunately, image quality is weak unless the subject is under the sun. I’ll be looking for an upgrade, still not clear if the 150-600 is light enough to carry on the water, mountain or long walking distance.

Excellent as always. Personally I changed from Canon FF to m4/3 (OM-System) in part because of weight issues - I had the Sigma 150-600 Canon mount which is what the OM-System lens is built on. Optically good but so heavy to haul around all day, I'm not going to start doing that again. Ideally I'd like the pro 150-400 but for now I have the Leica Lumix 100-400 on my OM-1 and that works just fine - it's also a touch faster aperture wise than the equivalent OM-System lens. It might be interesting to see a comparison of non OM-Systems lenses on the OM-1, given one of the benefits of m4/3 is cross manufacturer compatibility by design.

This vídeo it is better then the optics classes i attend 30 yars ago. I went with Lumix gear, but the 300mm for my kid's football is in my dream list. Thank you for such informatve video.

Great awesome overview 👍

Thanks

Excellent review. Cost and weight have been my first considerations as an older gentleman on retirement income. After graduating from the Panasonic fz300 bridge camera, I bought an OMD M1iii and a 75-300. As a budding wildlife photographer, I yearned for extra reach, and I like a Zoom, so I bought the 100-400. As I become more proficient and I predominantly photo seabirds and raptors in flight, I now know that my next investment should be an OM1 for its AF capabilities. I recently bought an OMD M5iii and I will travel with that, a 12-45mm, and my 75-300.

Really clear and helpful overview of the available lenses. I would love the 100 to 400 lens but the price rules it out. Will be looking at the 150 to 400 but a bit concerned about the weight so will probably stick with my 300 plus my 1.4 converter. Your analysis has been a great help so many thanks.

Really appreciate your in depth comparison of these lenses. I own and use the 300/4 with the MC14 teleconverter. The sharpness (with and without the TC) is so impressive, and the weight (with collar removed) is very manageable for me, even on long photo hikes. Hope someday to be able to have the 150-400, but still extremely happy with the 300. Also, I previously owned the 75-300 and loved the portability. I found that to be a surprisingly decent lens.

Thanks for a great video and non-biased analysis. Owning both the 300 F/4 since 2016 and the 150-400 F/4.5 since 2021 and having used both them for thousands of hours in the field, coupled with both EM-1.2, EM-1X amnd OM-1 I can confirm they are fine lenses, delivering superb results. I can also confirm the weather and dust sealing are excellent. I will not hesitate to use my gear in any weather, including torrential rain or very dusty conditions. Which one do I prefer? If the main concern is portability or the subject/s can be expected to be at a distance (e.g. bird photography) with little risk of clipping the subject, then the 300 F/4, potentially coupled with any of the MC14 or MC20. If you cannot anticipate how close or how big the subject is (e.g. mammals) then the zoom is a blessing. Regarding the use of teleconverters: the 300 F/4 accommodates both without any significant degradation of IQ, and the AF performs well with both (although the speed is somewhat impacted). The 150-400 F/4.5 performs fine with the MC14, even with the 1,25 engaged, and the IQ is not significantly impacted. The MC20 however seems to impact the precision of the AF, to be on the safe side and get the correct focus I would recommend fine-tuning the AF manually (using focus aid either peaking or magnification). These findings are in line with what you say in the video; F/8 being the upper limit for reliable AF. In practice, this means that the lenses can be extended to 600mm/700mm (at F/8), still offering fast and reliable AF. You could use the 150-400 F/4.5 at 800mm or even 1000mm with the MC20, which is a huge reach, however the application area is limited -- better try to get closer to the subjects. And lastly, I should mention the dual IS is amazing. Shooting handheld and getting sharp photos at 500mm at 1/25s is feasible.

Truly wonderful overview of why you would choose any of these lenses. It has helped me narrow down my choice (150-600) for my personal use and this was just the type of presentation a technical and logically orientated person like me enjoys. Exceptionally clear and logical breakdown of each lens with clear reasoning as to why you would consider (or not) the choice for each. The only thing I didn't like about this review was that Thomas sat just a little off centre against the background grid - LOL! Summary: This guy really knows his stuff!

Thanks!

Confirmed all my thoughts since I have the 75-300, the 300 f/4 and the 150-400 f/4.5 but generally though, the OM-1 Mk II gets the 150-400 and the OM-1 gets the 300 f/4. The 75-300 is usually relegated to my old E-M5 Mk II as a compact walk-about combo

Great review as usual! Personally I have the 75-300 and I adapt to make it work for me. I am not a "birder" or wildlife photographer and use mine for some landscape photos. However, having used the Canon 100-400L and Sigma 120-400 on full frame, I was presently surprised by the quality considering it's price and size. Considering I have the 12-40 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8, so I only use this lens on rare occasions and when I do I try to look at it as a 75-250 and of course step it down. For me and my needs it works.

I have the 75-300 witch gives me a lot of fun. And I recently bought the 40-150 f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. And that gives me the same range. And honestly I believe that the 40-150 with a 2x teleconverter is in the same class as the 300 f4.

Great comparison. I currently have the 100-400, I'd love the 150-400 but the price is prohibitive! I'm saving my pennies for the 300mm

Thanks what a fantastic explanation , thanks.lll

i have 75-300mm and 300mm f4, both are great lens, 300mm f4 is great for birding, the 75-300mm is great for portability and great value, thought the 300mm end is a bit soft but not a big issue to me

Hello Thomas, Very excellent video - thank you. Have you seen the Viltrox adapter that allows Nikon AF lenses to mount onto MFT cameras ? It is difficult to see if it is a good product - some good reviews and some bad. I could mount Nikon 300 or 500 PF VR lenses to OM-D and G9 body which would be really nice.

I wish they implement 300 mm f2.8 as Sony one.. that would be so good, and lightweight, and if they addapt x1.4 TC that would be nr 1 lens to wildlife.

Hello, thanks for your good comparison. I'm currently have EM1 Mk3 + 40-150mm f2.8. I also have MC-20 teleconverter. I found a very dissapointing result when I use MC-20 with my lense. It become too soft. I'm planing to buy a new lense from Japan. Which one you recommend for bird shooting between 300 mm F4.0 or 150-600 mm f5.0-6.3. Many thanks for you advice.

Thank you for this. Here is a my question: Various Talking Heads on different KZfaq channels mention that diffraction starts to limit sharpness of M43 lenses around F11. How do teleconverters affect this rule of thumb? For example, suppose we use the M20 tele converter. Does defraction set in at the effective F11 or the effective F32?

Interesting that no one mentions apo or achro in photography. In the telescope world its a core consideration.

There's no fast aperture long lenses from OM/Olympus (or Panasonic either). They should bring back the old 250mm f/2.0 or make it a 100-250/2.0 zoom just to match up with the upcoming Canon 200-500/4.0.

Thanks you, Thomas. I found this to be a very useful and interesting summary of what OMS has to offer (and not one needs its own porter to carry it). I notice that when the 150-600 was first released, there was a fair amount of scorn directed at it, but now that the hysteria has died-down, its versatility and IQ seems to be better-appreciated. I'd still like the 150-400 - but it's divorce-level expensive - and I'm only an amateur. I like my 100-400 very much: it is compact and not too heavy. I'm in my high 60's this year and am mindful that I have to carry any lens out and back, though I want to allow for every eventuality. (I'm primarily into landscapes and macro, but there's a couple of wedge-tailed eagles that cruise through the nearby Molonglo Gorge and I'd love to get one of them on pixels.😊) That said, if I'm visiting a waterfall, I will usually take out the longer telephoto lens and a few other bits and pieces.

good

If I want to upgrade the Olympus 300mm prime to 150-600mm,, then will it be a good decision? Pls tell me as you are a user of this lens.

Interesting video and a good overview IMO. Not sure if you're an OMDS ambassador now and have to stick with OMDS lenses, but it would have been interesting to see hear your opinion on the Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400. Personally, I chose the Panasonic 100-300 over Olympus 75-300 (slightly faster, lens IS and slightly better reviews, but bigger) and later the Panasonic 100-400. Mainly because it was available first, but it's also smaller and lighter.

always a high quality well articulate video. reg 300 f4 - I can only second what Thomas says - it is one of the sharpest lenses ever for any format. It delivers sharpness better than most of fullframe portrait lenses wide open, you never have to stop it down. With TC - same story - do NOT stop it down, best results wide open. In fact, I did some comparisons and the 300f4 beats all the standard consumer fullframe lenses - on the bench and in the field, out of camera shots, it is sharper than the likes of 150-600s, nikons 200-500, it beats sigma 60-600 (which is known to be a) sharpest consumer telephoto b) sharp at its long end included). All that while being super light, well built and amazingly stabilized. I must say however, that the quality of its output towers over the 100-400. That one is just average imho (= quite decent). It's a shame there aren't more comparisons of the best m43 lenses to their fullframe counterparts - many people would be surprised what m43 can deliver and how hard, sometimes impossible it is to match the results.

Thanks Thomas, great analysis as always. Is the 75-300mm able to have a tripod collar? It may seem to defeat its purpose in getting the lens if it does not have the ability to accept a tripod collar. It would also be useless to rely on mounting my camera on the tripod while using this lens as the whole set up may be lopsided and hard to secure properly.

Another factor to consider is AF performance, since these longs lense will often be used for BIF. I found the 100-400 w/1.4 TC the AF was too slow.

Dear Thomas I'd love to see your shots on the 75-300. It requires proper techniques to get the most out of it. Many posted their photos on various sites (flickr, forums, etc) but there's only very few who managed to truly make it work

Hi! I'm not interested for these focal lengths. But I'm interested for smaller ones like 40-150 etc. Are you going to make a similar video for them?

If the day is really bright and there are no clouds, I can get amazing shots with the 100-400 mm with the TC14. That said, as soon as the lighting conditions are not ideal, even fully open with f9.0 is too slow for many wild-life applications or I will drown in a sea of noise. Going to f10 for more sharpness makes it even worse of course.

Thomas - how does the 40-150 pro 2.8 stack up (with the teleconverters)?? I have the 40-150 2.8 and was thinking of buying the teleconverters instead of a whole other super tele lens.

I just received my most expensive lens I ever bought the 150-400 tc and I am so impressed with everything about this lens. Thanks Tomas your one of the best teachers on you tube. What do you think the best portrait lens for the 4/3 system is? Thanks

Yes yes yes, but where is the new 50-200 lens (to mimic the old four thirds lens)? I sold the bloody 200 f2.8 prime expecting this new lens last month!

Hi Thomas, I sent you an email on Saturday 4 May, to the contact@ email address found on your channel details. Just wondered if it was received? Thanks.

ich habe das 35-300 & das 300/f4. Auf Japan nehme ich nun das 75-300 mit wegen der Kompaktheit. Dank IBIS & TOPAZ AI ist es nun (fas) perfekt!!!!

I had both300and 150-400 enjoy Ed them😂

Great comparison, thanks so much. One thing not covered was the cooperation of IBIS and lens stabilisation: the Zuiko m lenses that cooperate are limited to the PRO series, and this has influence on hand-holdability vs needing a tripod. I use the Leica 100-400 (version 1) as it was the only such lens available when I bought it: if I were to use a G9 or G9.2, then that lens would cooperate to reach the best possible stabilisation, but not with any Olympus body. I am strongly tempted to sell that lens and get the 150-600, but given that I travel a fair amount, the portability is a concern: my magic travel kit is the Olympus 7-14, Olympus 12-100 and Leica 100-400. The gap of 50mm for the 150-600 is not so much a concern as the cooperation between the OM1.1 and EM1-x IBIS with the lens stabilisation (the dual stabilisation with the 12-100 is magical!).

Brilliant - cropping destroys IQ more than a mid-tier lens (used well)

You get what you pay for

This is a weak offering in the middle price range.

Thanks