wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I am sorry but my original reply to this was directed at the 150-400 f4.5 lens, not the 300f4. Yes, there are objective resolution results given for the 300 f4 and it is for the full sensor at every aperture, from the center to the corners and sides for the whole sensor. And for zooms, it is for every aperture and for every focal length across the full sensor. Just use the sliders to see how any tested lens is for any aperture and any focal length. You should try it on your best and worst full frame lenses and see if it matches your own finding for your own full frame lenses.

I used this tool for choosing to take a rented 12-100 f4 Pro IS instead of my own 14-54 f2.8/3.5 and 50-200 f2.8/3.5. It was the right decision and the 12-100 mirrored the total review put forth by Image Resource. I also have the fun 15mm body cap lens. It is a simple triplet and not very good in the corners. It is also reviewed by Image Resource and matches the review perfect. It is noted and shown in the resolution info that it is not terrific in the corners, not a serious lens, but a lens designed to make the camera fit a larger pocket and pulled out for fun social times. What else would one expect from a fixed f8, zone focus, simple $50 triplet lens body cap. And the review reflected that.

If you use Image Resource's resolution tool, you will probably use DXO very little except to confirm what was in Image Resource's info. You will also see that when their lens test finds a lens to be "tack sharp across the frame", it is tack sharp across the frame and not a subjective determination.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If they do not show some kind of testing number based on resolution then it is SUBJECTIVE ! The way I see it, there subjectivity is relative to other OLYMPUS lenses ONLY ! I, others, and Tony want to see how it compares to ALL other systems - especially ones that cost LESS.

I already use DXO very little if at all.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have seen no objective testing of the 150-400 .....or the 300 f4 for that matter - but you seem so very high on both .....and, without question I am sure they are the BEST Olympus has to offer - but that is NOT what I and others are questioning !
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You need to go back and look again. They do provide lab generated resolution results for the full lens coverage. It is not a single number but total representation of the coverage of the sensor. How does one show exactly how the corners are compared to the relative acceptable center of the 15mm f8 lens body cap with just a single number of resolution? They can't. Image Resource devised a realistic view of what a lens will actually do in resolution, aberration, and diffraction across the full view of the sensor generated by the lens. Tell me what good is a single resolution number if the resolution is altered by aberration and/or diffraction? And Image Resource's graghs reflect that. This why I knew taking the rented 12-100 f4 to Germany that it has slight corner problems wide open at 12mm and gets better as one stops down and diffraction starts affecting image quality at about f11 (much earlier than full frame and APS-C). And the testing of my other lenses mirrors what is found at Image Resource if it has been tested. The image quality of the 15mm lens body cap is not the same or as good as the 12-100 or 14-54. And my older 14-54, although a good lens, is not as good as the 12-100 Pro lens as expected. All their lab work is followed by lab studio shots that demonstrates the vignetting, sharpness, aberration, etc. found by the actual lab testing. And the graphs and information can be used for some comparison across formats if one wants to do so.

Is the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro IS lens the sharpest lens in the world? No. Does the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro IS lens reach the level required to produce professional level images. Yes. I have no doubts that this is part of the reason that the likes of Jay Dickman, Scott Bourne, and some other pros have switched to 4/3rds. For me, these are all key pieces of information even though I am no longer a small time professional photographer. Based mainly on Image Resource's reviews I pick and choose which way I want or need to go for my system. And I do not just rely on Image Resource for those decisions. DXO and other reliable sites that I can find are used in the decision making too. Even Tony Northrup is a source for me but with certain reservations.

I still want to have the ability to shoot pro level photographs equipment wise. And I am not willing to pay the price size, weight, and cost wise for full frame to get that professional level quality when I do not have to. When people like William Brawley (Outdoor Photographer article), who is holding a big "G" lens on his Linkin site, tests the new 150-400 f4.5 Pro IS X1.25 lens and indicates it is at pro quality level and worthwhile purchasing for bird and wildlife photography, with pictures to support that view, I have reason to believe him. He is determining lens quality level and not systems.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, you see, THAT is one of the problems ! How does it compare with possibly better performing cheaper systems ??? - that are, maybe, a little heavier ? Those of us not currently shooting Olympus NEED to know ....
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The gentleman, William Brawley, that did the field test for the Olympus 150-400 f4.5 Pro IS X1.25 also did the field test for the 300 f4 Pro IS after the lab test for Image Resource. The lab technician's name involved in the testing was a person only identified as Rob. Basically Mr. Brawley's positive comments matched the findings of the lab for the 300 F4.

Mr. Brawley's positive comments are very similar for the new 150-400 f4.5. He indicates that is harder to handhold this lens at 2000mm angle of view, and the use of the distance limiter switches would be helpful to most photographers (it focuses down to 51"), and basically quality costs money. His suggestion was that if you wanted a quality lens for birding and wildlife, and could afford the price tag, this was a good lens to purchase. Mr. Brawley made many similar statements, like "tack sharp" and some others, of both lenses although there is no lab review to show that for the 150-400 yet (only similar photos at much different focal lengths).

I cannot tell from any information whether the 300% over sell of the original release was actually caused by this, but someone somewhere put the "bug" in a lot of ears of a lot of 4/3rds owners. I am sure that some of these lenses are going to go to Panasonic camera owners too.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Like I said, only lip service .....

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

He did not provide lip service for the 300 f4. That was backed up by lab results. And if he didn't provide "only lip service" for the 300 f4, why would he be doing that now for the 150-400 f4.5?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Show me the lab resolution numbers !! Give me a link !

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You do realize that when knowledgeable people pick up a pro quality lens they don't always need lab results to prove to them it is a pro quality lens? They can look at the photographs and tell that it is a pro quality lens. That is what Mr. Brawley did by comparing what he saw from the 300 f4 Pro IS lens to what he saw from the 150-400 f4.5 Pro IS lens. Although it is not for you, seeing is believing at least for Mr. Brawley.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I did. Just because you do not like the information doesn't mean that the information is not valid. Go back to the lab information and show us why it is not valid.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Since you are have trouble finding the links, I will list them individually for you.
This is the link for the Olympus 300 f4:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/300mm-f4.0-is-pro-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/
This is the link for the Canon 600 f4:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-600mm-f4l-is-iii-usm/review/
This is the link for the Nikon 600 f4:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/600mm-f4g-if-ed-af-s-vr-nikkor/review/
This is the link for the Olympus 12-100 f4:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-100mm-f4-is-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/
This is the link for the Olympus 14-54 f2.8/3.5:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/14-54mm-f2.8-3.5-ii-zuiko-digital/review/
This is the link for the Olympus 50-200 f2.8/3.5:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/50-200mm-f2.8-3.5-ed-swd-zuiko-digital/review/
This is the link for the Olympus 15 f8:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/15mm-f8-bcl-1580-body-cap-lens/review/
This is the link to the Outdoor Photographer's article:
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/blog/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-150-400mm-f4-5-tc1-25x-is-pro/

I will add the link for the 150-400 f4.5 once it is tested.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I only want the ones with OBJECTIVE resolution results ! - of the 300mm f4 and the 150-400 - are we CLEAR ?? - and NOT from Olympus fanboys ...

Just show me ONE that does this.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The lab data doesn't exist yet for the 150-400 F4.5. But the same professional photographer did the field testing of the two lenses. The professional photographer's observation was that these are professional level lenses. I provided you the link to the lab data for the 300 f4 with the first link. You refuse to look at and acknowledge the data provided. Why? I can only assume that you believe full frame cameras are the only source of professional level cameras and just trolling the rest of us. c'est la vie

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

These references may not be what Imagemeister had in mind but I found them to be interesting.