Canisdirus

Tony used the tele and Tony used it without. It doesn't matter.
We all know tele's degrade sharpness...some more than others.
Even without the tele...it's simply not as sharp as other ZOOMS...I can understand if it loses out to primes...but not zooms.
It's WAY overpriced.
You are still attaching it to a 20MP camera that doesn't have anywhere near the AF systems of either Sony or Canon (Canon is probably the best in the world right now).

You can get the Canon R5 ( I use Sony myself so I'm not just waxing my gear) at 45MP...and the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens for LESS money.
It's not even a contest.
But if you want to blow $7500 bucks on a single lens and attach it to a 20MP slow AF Oly body...and stay with a dead-end system...your choice.
But you will regret it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You don't like the DXO or Image Resource and their lab generated reviews? Sorry about that.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

STILL looking for LINKS .... it's not just about the lens - but the RESULTS from the SYSTEM and the cost ....
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Again, which Canon, Nikon, or Sony lens is handholdable at 2000mm angle of view? And full frame will be "dethroned" in favor of APS-C in the not too distant future. Should everyone sell off their full frames nowadays? No. And isn't the best selling mirrorless camera in Japan the Olympus E-M10 mkIV? Even if OMDS collapsed tomorrow, there would still be 4/3rds cameras and lenses being generated to meet just what exist today. I cannot state for a fact that Olympus will still be a player in 10 years. But no one can even say that about Nikon. Like the one industry consultant showed with facts about which way the industry is going, if Nikon doesn't come out with a competitive APS-C soon, there will be no telling what their status will be. But I do think if OMDS does things correctly, they will still be a player in the future.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

"the way everyone should be judging"? And where does the size and weight come into the equation? Cost and performance are the only factors? I can hear you yelling to all of us, "Forget the size and weight, one should spend whatever the cost to get that ultimate performance". No wonder you do not understand what is being said. I am surprised you are not encouraging everyone to buy medium format or view cameras for the best image performance. And don't try to tell me that Hasselblad, Fuji, and Pentax are not used for wildlife. Victor Hasselblad developed the Hasselblad specifically for birding.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

I really prefer micro 4/3's for their small cameras and available tiny lenses when I want to appear as a person rather than a person with a camera. I don't do wildlife or sports so these long lenses don't appeal to me. I'm not ready to write off Olympus yet.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

LOL, .....yes, size matters - more so to some than others - but still, no links ....

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

https://www.dxomark.com/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/

Here are the links you want to see. Go to cameras for cameras and go to lenses for lenses. I know Image Resource gives one a good idea how well things will work together by field tests and lab tests.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sooo, I looked at the Image Resource review of the 300 f4 - There are no objective resolution results in this review - nor are there any comparisons to other comparable systems .....only " Wide open the lens is tack sharp across the entire frame" mmmmm, "tack" sharp - whatever exactly that is and who is saying it ??....Exactly What are they basing these subjective opinions on ?? - and they do mention "extremely sharp", "exceptional sharpness", "fantastically sharp" - ALL quite subjective ! - And, this from a Jan. 2016 review.

DXo is more about sensors than lenses and how they relate as a native system according to certain unique test parameters. Their results carry a quite small weight in the bigger picture as it relates to other systems.
.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

I understand that some are trying to be helpful and understand why spending $7500 on a micro 4/3 lens might not be a good idea. Others, however, are offering snarky, crumby little remarks just to clutter things up.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

LOL is for children. The aduts are trying to have a conversation here

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

EXCUSE me .... LOL

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes, that review was done on one of three "pre" units that were made on the actual production line the way the actual lenses will be produced. Once they can get an actual sold production unit, they will test it. Even though the three units were made on the production line to production specifications, they want an actual production line lens to lab test. Hopefully they will find one to test soon. Until then, we will have the pictures and thoughts from professional bird photographers. There are some other shots from other Olympus related pros. But the two of you have already expressed that these photos, no matter how good they, are merely photos of bias.

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

How can any one be sure that Olympus will still be going next year, it will be sad if they stop manufacture of Olympics products, there was a very well known photographer in England called David Bailey and he used Olympus always.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Nikon is in worse shape that OMDS right now. Since the sales are more or less "bell" curves, at some point the number of independent cameras being sold will level out to a more or less a "steady" number. I do not believe we have reached that point but are getting much closer in years to that point. And the relative limits of what can be put in and done with a smartphone, as far as cameras go, will help slow down the loss of sales. Who will be left manufacturing wise? That will be anybody guess. I use to think that 4/3rds might become the mainstay of the market. After a particularly good article from a market consultant, I was convinced by the article APS-C will be the mainstay and full frame along with 4/3rds will be the step children. The timing on this happening will not be very quick. All independent cameras could become a niche market but that remains to be determined.

Right now the Olympus E-M10 mkIV is the hottest selling mirrorless camera in Japan of all formats. Will it continue to hold that position? Don't know. None of the other camera manufacturers are going to rollover and just let that happen. OMDS and Panasonic's future rest on getting a new 24mp/25mp sensor into their cameras. It is being hinted at by OMDS that the new E-M1X might have that bigger sensor. With the increased resolution, along with their size, weight, and cost advantage, Olympus and Panasonic will hold up fairly well to APS-C. For Nikon to survive, they need to come up with a new very competitive APS-C. Full frame will continue to reduce size, weight, and cost also. But they will be limited by sensor size which will keep the size, weight, and cost of the lenses higher than APS-C and 4/3rds. Future enthusiasts photographers, migrating up from smartphones, will find it harder to justify the larger sizes, weights, and costs versus performance of the full frame versus APS-C. This is why the market will move towards APS-C as the "standard". Japan is just the "tip of the iceberg" in the start of that movement.

As far as being concerned about buying Olympus: Olympus being the best seller in Japan and underestimating their $7500 new lens sales by 300% cannot be totally negative indicators. The jury is still out but they are not going down without a fight.