Canisdirus

It's not that sharp compared to other lenses.
The Sony 200-600mm is a sharper lens.
So a zoom is beating the Oly prime...and for around 700 bucks less.

So, it is sharp...but not as sharp as zooms costing less.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Please provide that data, from DXO, DP Review, Image Resource or some other reliable source, that actually supports your point of view. Otherwise, learn to deal with reality.

Canisdirus

All you have to do is look at Tony's side by side comparison.
It's very obvious...and true.
The lens might perform better on a bigger sensor though.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Tony Northrup? So your think Tony Northrup knows more that DXO, DP review, Image Resource, and others and their lab technical test and field tests? What calibrated lab equipment is Tony using that shows that to be the case?

The only thing I will agree with here is that a bigger sensor will function better than a smaller sensor as far as overall light collecting by about one to two stops. A 4/3rds sensor is like having a quarter of a 80 mp full frame sensor. How well does a 80mp full frame sensor hold up in light collecting comparison to a 20 mp full frame sensor? You think there might be differences in ISO due to pixel differences?

And as far as the sharpness between the 300 f4 and new zoom lens; although the 300 is right up there with the likes of the 600 f4 of the Canon and Nikon (not necessarily sensor wise), the 150-400 had to be absolutely as best possible to be able to produce the sharpest images possible at 2000mm which would require it be as good if not better than the 300 f4. It is not because the 300 is less but that the 150-400 is more.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You really need to WATCH the 2 Northrup videos....before you say any more ....Northrup uses his common sense brain and real world testing.....which, in my mind carries more weight than DXO, Image Resource, DP review and any others you come up with. As a side note, I have seen the objective Imatest numbers of a few Oly lenses and they were all below the numbers of the Canon, Nikon and third party comparison lenses.
.

Canisdirus

I believe my own eyes.
Go to DXo yourself.
Look at the lens ranking list. You'll see Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Tam, Sony ... not a single Olympus is on that list.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There is a reason there are no 4/3rd lenses are on that list: They did not compare and include any 4/3rds lenses to any of those Sony, Canon, and Nikon lenses. The three telephoto comparisons that they did make were against older Panasonic designs and one older Olympus design against similar angle of view Nikon lenses. And the older Panasonic lenses surpassed the Nikon lenses in DXO's rating. DXO does not have an Olympus 300mm f4 review. They do not even have a review for the older design of 40 -150 f2.8 Pro lens. DXO has catered mostly to the APS-C and larger formats. So you will not find current reviews of 4/3rds to larger formats. And the comparisons one does find indicates the 4/3rds lenses are competitive.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The reviews of Image Resource are usually based first off a real world usage testing before the in lab testing. Their real world testing usually reflects what they find doing their lab testing. That is why I tend to rely more on their lens testing than I would DXO's. Most of DXO's testing of 4/3rds lenses is not very extensive. And I do not find Tony providing any true comparisons of lab to field findings.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Did you look at his youtube videos ?? Tony's findings are real world field findings compared to other lens/systems of the same fields of view. - he does not need a lab and he is very thorough. Please LOOK/listen at/to his results - BOTH videos. Tony's findings are not the last word - but they do carry a lot of weight ! - especially if you believe your eyes. Otherwise, you can continue living in your fantasy land and spend your money accordingly.

OLY stuff does have some good attributes but ultimate optical acuity and performance results for money spent are not part of them.
.

Canisdirus

He's not going to look at something he disagrees with.
His bubble will burst.
Oly is so good...they sold off their division.

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

Why all the discourse, the gear you use is the gear you think is the best leave it at that.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I am sorry I don't jump to your "beck and call". I work for a living and will watch them as I get the time - not at your "beck and call". The video's that I have viewed of Tony's previously have been less than impressive. He was complaining about how hard it was to locate and follow the subject with an Olympus telephoto prime handheld compared to his full frame zoom, zooming wide to find the subject and zooming back out to capture, on his tripod. He left the impression that made the specific Olympus prime seem less desirable to the full frame zoom. What an ignorant statement! Why is he comparing "apples and oranges"? Yes, the longer the prime, the harder it is to locate and follow the subject no matter what the format. That is hardly a surprise. That is why one buys an EE-1 viewsight. This allows one using the sight to easily find the subject, follow it, and take handheld photos - no zooming needed, no tripod required.

When I get the time, I seriously doubt that Tony will videos will "burst my bubble". If they are anything like his past videos, he has some good information and then there is his slant. The raw data may be be OK but a neutral position is needed.

Canisdirus

Side by side comparisons...and the much cheaper zooms from Nikon and Sony are sharper.
When zooms beat a more expensive prime... save your money.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There are UHHs that insist that some brands are total junk. They can "inform" new members to buy something they don't need, something much bigger, much heavier and much more costly, and advise them not to buy something that would truly meet their needs because it is "a waste of their money", "not sharp", and information not based on field and lab tests. I realize anyone getting on this form must "caveat emptor", but one should always try to point to the data based facts that are backed up by field based facts. I know I am foolish to try and point this out and it will go no where. If you would like to see what I mean, read the following review (see link below) and then re-read this post.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/150-400mm-f4.5-tc1.25x-is-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

Canisdirus

Great review no doubt, but not a side by side comparison to cheaper zooms out there...which beat the Oly.
But you go ahead and blow $7500 bucks on their latest boondoggle of a lens...lol...it's your money.
Nevermind that you could buy a powerful Full frame canon or Sony body AND a sharper lens...for less money.