Too popular a lens
Feb 19, 2021 18:52:29 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
imagemeister wrote:
After you get one - and the honeymoon is over - give us a report along with images ! BIG images ....
.
.
The best that I can offer right now is for you to look at the Outdoor Photographer's hands-on review (January / February 2021, page 60; article starts at page 56) and the newest photo magazine from OMDS.
https://www.paperturn-view.com/om-digital-solutions/om-magazine-jan-mar-2021?pid=MTM139348&p=6&v=2.63&bgcolor=%234a4a4a&embed=iframe&shadow=1&flipSound=&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=magazine_promo&utm_term=om_magazine&utm_content=Coverpage&fbclid=IwAR2XyATLK7h3UeViHlyXqdTtRnImvhedofEwLFRIojGxiLj4ffhoklnKgqc
moonhawk will be one of the first of us to get a chance to really see what this lens will do. Hopefully moonhawk will not have to wait a year to find out.
Feb 19, 2021 18:54:53 #
wdross wrote:
Actually, until then, one can can shoot with the 300 f4 along with using the X1.4 and X2 teleconverters. Although fix focal lengths instead of a zoom, this offers 420 f5.6 and 600 f8 (600 f4, 840 f5.6, and 1200 f8 in 35mm angle of view terms). Not quite as easy as the super sharp super zoom in use, but very sharp images for their focal lengths.
Or either the Panny or Oly 100-400.
Feb 19, 2021 18:56:00 #
Feb 19, 2021 19:04:47 #
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tf9NYyDMtM .......I hope the new zoom is better than the 300 f4 ......
.
.
Feb 19, 2021 19:08:36 #
One minute in--that's all I watched--he says this is as good as it gets.
So yeah, I hope the new zoom is even better.
So yeah, I hope the new zoom is even better.
Feb 19, 2021 19:51:12 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Urnst wrote:
How about using an adapted lens. I use a Nikkor 200mm F4 lens on my micro fourr third cameras.
I will have to keep that in mind if I find a good Sony, Canon, or Nikon at good price. A good choice on your part; the 400 f4 (in 35mm terms) is as near perfect as a first telephoto prime in my opinion. I am assuming that the adapter provides the interconnection of basic functions between the camera and lens. Although useful if does, it isn't absolutely necessary. I use my film Zuiko 90mm macro lens in aperture mode and manual focus.
Feb 19, 2021 20:12:48 #
moonhawk wrote:
One minute in--that's all I watched--he says this is as good as it gets.
So yeah, I hope the new zoom is even better.
So yeah, I hope the new zoom is even better.
Well, that's one way to stay in denial.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
Feb 19, 2021 20:18:05 #
imagemeister wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tf9NYyDMtM .......I hope the new zoom is better than the 300 f4 ......
.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsJI35bxif4 .....the latest from Northrup
Feb 19, 2021 20:26:17 #
Canisdirus wrote:
Well, that's one way to stay in denial.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
Have you used one?
Feb 19, 2021 20:48:15 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Canisdirus wrote:
2000mm ...lol. Yeah, big demand for that.
Buy a telescope. For $7500, you can buy a doosey! f/8 too!!! lol.
Buy a new system before you buy this boondoggle.
Buy a telescope. For $7500, you can buy a doosey! f/8 too!!! lol.
Buy a new system before you buy this boondoggle.
Does it zoom 300 to 2000? And can it be used without a tripod? Is it less than 12.5" and just under 4" in diameter? And why would I want f8 when I can shoot f4.5? That telescope cannot meet those requirements? Then I guess it not very much of a "doosey", is it?
And 2000mm allows one to stay further away from timid subjects and still get the shot. Just take a look at the shot in the Outdoor Photographer's article. And, yes, there is a "big demand for that". That why it is sold out until next year. Which other competitor's lenses in that zoom range are sold out until next year? I know that they didn't just make 100 lenses and they were gone.
Feb 19, 2021 20:55:28 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Canisdirus wrote:
Well, that's one way to stay in denial.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
Have you told that to the test lab at Image Resource? Your magical testing instruments prove their testing instruments are in error?
Feb 19, 2021 21:31:28 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
imagemeister wrote:
Shooting at 2000mm - lots of atmospheric impediments ! - ISO 3200 on M4/3 ?? ?
.
.
As can be seen in the Outdoor Photographer's article and the OMDS link, handheld shots at 1000mm and 2000mm are not impossible. And, yes, the end shot was done handheld at 2000mm, f11, 1/250 second, and ISO 3200. Handheld is handheld; no tripod. I am sure that the pro's technical handholding skills are very good, but not good enough to handhold at 2000mm, f11, 1/250, and ISO 3200. That requires a major image stabilization system which Olympus has. And I agree with the photographer's choice to keep the ISO under 6400. Noise, although easily processable at ISO 6400, can start to be seen at ISO 6400.
Feb 19, 2021 22:27:02 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
moonhawk wrote:
Or either the Panny or Oly 100-400.
Both, a little slower at the long end, but still sharp lenses. I still think you are still making the right decision purchasing the 150-400 f4.5. And that lens is still a step sharper than either of the 100-400s. Even without an external teleconverter, you still will be shooting 300mm to 1000mm in 35mm angle of view and no slower than f4.5 (or f5.6 with X1.25 teleconverter on). We will be waiting for your report once you get yours.
Feb 19, 2021 22:31:29 #
wdross wrote:
Both, a little slower at the long end, but still sharp lenses. I still think you are still making the right decision purchasing the 150-400 f4.5. And that lens is still a step sharper than either of the 100-400s. Even without an external teleconverter, you still will be shooting 300mm to 1000mm in 35mm angle of view and no slower than f4.5 (or f5.6 with X1.25 teleconverter on). We will be waiting for your report once you get yours.
Yes, will do. I'll be in Carolina low country all spring--sure hope to have it for that. It's one of my big motivations for buying this lens.
Feb 19, 2021 23:56:35 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Canisdirus wrote:
Well, that's one way to stay in denial.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
The Oly 300 f/4 simply isn't a sharp lens.
Just so you don't have to look up Image Resource's review:
"Sharpness
Given our experience with Olympus' previous Zuiko Pro lenses, we expected great results from this 300mm lens…but we weren't expecting them to be this good. Wide open, the lens is tack sharp across the entire frame. Looking at our blur charts, the blur characteristics are practically completely flat across the frame and extremely sharp corner-to-corner."
You may want to get your testing equipment checked and recalibrated.
And the 150-400 is supposedly better.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.