Micro 4/3 Olympus 100-400 vs 300 Pro

[Sernat]

Hi all,

I just adquired an Oly 100-400 after a good think about this, because I had the 75-300 (light and very sharp for it's price and category) and the 40-150, always excellent at low light, with TCs, stabilization and AF speed. But the 40-150 is so short for birding, almost for me.

Two days ago I received the Oly 100-400. Not surprises because I had read a lot of reviews in the web. I went to a waterland to proof this lens, a locality with diversity on birds and raptors, close to my home. I take about a thousand of pictures... and so sadly for me I don't keep none. All images were blur, noisy, horrible!!!! Just two weeks before I was in the same site with the 40-150 & 75-300 and take very good pictures!

_EMX0515.jpg

Explore S. Montagud's 1511 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

But the ones taking with the 100-400 were horrible. I thought that my lens was damaged, but today I've done proofs with a sharp chart and the 100-400, the 75-300 and the 40-150. The 100-400 was in sharpness very good, between the 40-150 and the 75-300 as expected.

So the problem could be different. I think my SIS configuration is not good (only the body SIS autos in the EM1-x) and the AF click in CF tracking. I have read in this chat that the AF_C tracking could be a problem with this lens. I need to experiment more. Other advices are wellcome!!!

 

[turbodieselvw]

So the problem could be different. I think my SIS configuration is not good (only the body SIS autos in the EM1-x) and the AF click in CF tracking. I have read in this chat that the AF_C tracking could be a problem with this lens. I need to experiment more. Other advices are wellcome!!!

just use C-AF. Do not use C-AF with tracking.

 

[Sernat]

just use C-AF. Do not use C-AF with tracking.

Thanks!
I will try it this week!!!

 

[RAH]

@Sernat You didn't mention whether you are shooting with a tripod, but I think you aren't. If not, isn't one VERY likely reason for your poor results is camera shake? I see that for your earlier shots (with the image link) you were getting fast shutter speeds, but maybe not so much with the 100-400? I agree that AF is also a very likely culprit, but check see what shutter speeds you were getting too. Judging by your earlier images, you seem to be using VERY low ISO values for these wildlife shots. Are you doing that with the 100-400? If so, that's a red flag for me. Perhaps you could post one of these failed shots so we could take a look?

 

[Sernat]

Hi RAH,

No, I don't use a tripod for these images. This is one of the main advantages that I looking for the M4/3 system! The speed that I used with the 100-400 was similar like previous, 1/1000 in flight or 1/500 in birds in the ground. And the ISO is selected as low as possible, similar like thr previous photos with the 40-150. As an example, I crate a folder to include some of these pictures:

BAD_PHOTOS

Explore this photo album by S. Montagud on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

As you can see, speed not seems to be the problem. Is like a thing of soft envolving all birds (and trees). The images are not clean and sharp (and no usable). Maybe could be the IBIS, maybe tha AF tracking, but seems a rare thing. Samples shooting with a tripod and a reference scale paper are as sharp as the 40-150 ones.

Mistery…

 

[RAH]

Hi RAH,

No, I don't use a tripod for these images. This is one of the main advantages that I looking for the M4/3 system! The speed that I used with the 100-400 was similar like previous, 1/1000 in flight or 1/500 in birds in the ground. And the ISO is selected as low as possible, similar like thr previous photos with the 40-150. As an example, I crate a folder to include some of these pictures:

BAD_PHOTOS

Explore this photo album by S. Montagud on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

As you can see, speed not seems to be the problem. Is like a thing of soft envolving all birds (and trees). The images are not clean and sharp (and no usable). Maybe could be the IBIS, maybe tha AF tracking, but seems a rare thing. Samples shooting with a tripod and a reference scale paper are as sharp as the 40-150 ones.

Mistery…

OK, I see what you mean. I guess you are using Shutter Priority (set to 1/1000) and having the camera assign auto iso with certain limitations). That seems like it should work for such shots. Hmmm. I think that f9 is a pretty small aperture to be using, but I understand why you would want to get as much depth-of-field as possible. I wonder if you are hitting diffraction problems? You could try using a larger aperture. Otherwise, yes, the shots look terrible. If results look good under controlled conditions using a tripod, then it MUST be user error, right? Sorry, I cannot think of anything...

 

[John King]

Hi RAH,

No, I don't use a tripod for these images. This is one of the main advantages that I looking for the M4/3 system! The speed that I used with the 100-400 was similar like previous, 1/1000 in flight or 1/500 in birds in the ground. And the ISO is selected as low as possible, similar like thr previous photos with the 40-150. As an example, I crate a folder to include some of these pictures:

BAD_PHOTOS

Explore this photo album by S. Montagud on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

As you can see, speed not seems to be the problem. Is like a thing of soft envolving all birds (and trees). The images are not clean and sharp (and no usable). Maybe could be the IBIS, maybe tha AF tracking, but seems a rare thing. Samples shooting with a tripod and a reference scale paper are as sharp as the 40-150 ones.

Mistery…

to this friendly forum, Sernat.

Any photo taken with any teleconverter is going to be less than good, with some very rare exceptions.

I own three TCs, and only one of them is excellent, a 1980s Teleplus focussing TC (macro type of thing). My Olympus FTs EC-14 is barely acceptable. An older Teleplus was only good for donating its lens caps ... rubbish!

The first Teleplus was very expensive new in the mid 1980s, around $850 AUD. It was worth it.

Other than that, there is no magic bullet for birding. An excellent birder may have a success rate of 30%, after many years of practice. And practice is the key. NO gear will do it for you, and you also require a natural talent - which I certainly haven't got!

 

[Holoholo33]

Hi RAH,

No, I don't use a tripod for these images. This is one of the main advantages that I looking for the M4/3 system! The speed that I used with the 100-400 was similar like previous, 1/1000 in flight or 1/500 in birds in the ground. And the ISO is selected as low as possible, similar like thr previous photos with the 40-150. As an example, I crate a folder to include some of these pictures:

BAD_PHOTOS

Explore this photo album by S. Montagud on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

As you can see, speed not seems to be the problem. Is like a thing of soft envolving all birds (and trees). The images are not clean and sharp (and no usable). Maybe could be the IBIS, maybe tha AF tracking, but seems a rare thing. Samples shooting with a tripod and a reference scale paper are as sharp as the 40-150 ones.

Mistery…

Actually, I think that 1/1000 is too slow for birds in flight. Try 1/1250 or higher. Even 1/500 on the ground is too slow. If you're using the lens at 400, it's really 800 eFOV and the old guide of 1/focal length means you should actually be at 1/800 minimum or higher. Birds on the ground can still move quickly, so I would keep the shutter speed up. I use Shutter priority and Auto-ISO. I use the OM-1 which gives me better results on noise and I prefer to get the shutter speed up high enough and not worry about the ISO so much. It takes lots of practice and the right settings to get the best out of any long telephoto, and the 100-400 is no exception. More so because it doesn't have the Sync-IS of the 300 f4 Pro or 150-400 f4.5 Pro. I haven't mastered this yet, and don't go bird shooting often enough to feel that I've had enough practice. I use an OM-1 and I think the Bird AI AF is better than the EM1X, which I had earlier. Bird AI AF is not compatible with C-AF. You can use one or the other, but not both. If you use C-AF, try Cluster AF. That seems to work pretty well. I also use a Wimberley Monogimbal on a sturdy monopod to support the lens and to take some of the weight off my arms. (building upper body strength is a good idea) I also use the lens and camera handheld, but either way it takes considerable practice for framing, focus, and stability. Don't expect too much for your first few outings with it. You have to keep working it and refining your settings. I've used the MC-14 with the 100-400 and thought it was acceptable. I don't like using the MC-20 with it.

 

[RAH]

Actually, I think that 1/1000 is too slow for birds in flight. Try 1/1250 or higher. Even 1/500 on the ground is too slow. If you're using the lens at 400, it's really 800 eFOV and the old guide of 1/focal length means you should actually be at 1/800 minimum or higher.

Yes, I agree with you now that I thought about it some more. I was mainly just trying to be nice to someone using shutter Priority and Auto-ISO (not my style). But yeah, use a faster shutter, for sure. I also agree that using a 2x TC is asking for trouble with the 100-400. As far as "practice," what exactly is that?

 

[turbodieselvw]

I seldom go below 1/2500 s for birds in flight and often shoot faster than 1/3200 s.

 

[Holoholo33]

Chris that is very valid
Somehow I feel more confident with the Olympus sealing than the Panasonic.
Plus the age old connection issue attributed to Panasonic 100-400 on EM1 bodies.
Metal filings etc.
No idea if it's still an issue but I never take mine off so it's not something I bother with.

But another matter is the zoom ring.
Panasonic , mine, is stiff as in STIFF.
Don't know what Olympus is like but the 40-150 2.8 is silky smooth and light.
Just now I was photographing a small wren when it's mate popped onto the branch next to it.
By the time I'd wrestled with the zoom it had gone.
My 40-150 2.8 would have killed that shot!

What's the lightness of zoom like on Olympus 100-400?

Re: zoom rings. I tried my friend's PL 100-400 and was surprised to find it kinda rough and uneven. It also made noises that concerned me and although the lens seemed fine, I wasn't impressed. The 40-150 f2.8 Pro thanks to its internal zoom is smooth and relatively light. A real pleasure. The O100-400 I own is significantly stiffer than the 40-150 f2.8 Pro, but it's also fairly smooth and even. I can't compare directly between the PL 100-400 and the O 100-400, but I was more satisfied with the latter. Plus, it turns in the same direction as my 12-100 and 40-150! That makes a difference. My friend decided the same thing and sold his PL. Then he replaced it with a 150-400!

 

[Holoholo33]

Yes, I agree with you now that I thought about it some more. I was mainly just trying to be nice to someone using shutter Priority and Auto-ISO (not my style). But yeah, use a faster shutter, for sure. I also agree that using a 2x TC is asking for trouble with the 100-400. As far as "practice," what exactly is that?

Practice? The more you shoot, the better you'll get. Theory gets you part way there. Practice makes better.

 

[Hendrik]

Hi RAH,

No, I don't use a tripod for these images. This is one of the main advantages that I looking for the M4/3 system! The speed that I used with the 100-400 was similar like previous, 1/1000 in flight or 1/500 in birds in the ground. And the ISO is selected as low as possible, similar like thr previous photos with the 40-150. As an example, I crate a folder to include some of these pictures:

BAD_PHOTOS

Explore this photo album by S. Montagud on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

As you can see, speed not seems to be the problem. Is like a thing of soft envolving all birds (and trees). The images are not clean and sharp (and no usable). Maybe could be the IBIS, maybe tha AF tracking, but seems a rare thing. Samples shooting with a tripod and a reference scale paper are as sharp as the 40-150 ones.

Mistery…

I can understand your disappointment with the images in your Flickr folder. Been there, done that. As you have proved by mounting it on a tripod, the lens is quite capable of producing sharp images. If it doesn't do that when hand holding, suspect your technique first. The longer the focal length and the smaller the bird in the frame, the faster the shutter speed needs to be. Even at my BIF standard minimum shutter speed of 1/1600 I get caught short often enough. Compared to a closer subject, at great distance the amount of blur from either camera or subject motion that would still allow capture of details is greatly diminished. Not only that but atmospheric effects can diminish the apparent sharpness and available details, as well. For me, images of birds shot at distance rank as photos with birds in them rather than as photos of birds. They conform to the old dictum that says if you want to make your photo more interesting, put a bird in it.

Every other little bit helps, too. Things like evaluative metering, +2/3 EV (birds' undersides are typically darker than the surrounding sky - and if the bird is the point of the photo why stress about the background?), Silent Low (allows focusing between shots - often the focus will settle after the second or third frame), AF on shutter press, shooting RAW (I reliably get far better results from the raw files than the SOOC LSF jpegs), Auto-ISO, C-AF (cluster focus on the E-M1.3, Bird AI on the OM-1).

Judging from the EXIF, you seem to share my appreciation of manual mode. Manual is my preferred way to shoot just about everything except action. BIF is hard enough even when using what can be configured as one of the world's best point-and-shoots as one of the world's best point-and-shoots. Keep in mind that, even with secure technique and appropriate set-up, keeper rates reliably track the size of the subject in the frame (small size = low keeper rate, etc.) - up to the point it's impossible to keep all of the bird in the frame or to frame it comfortably (and even then there might be some very effective shots to be had).

 

[Bax]

Hi RAH,

No, I don't use a tripod for these images. This is one of the main advantages that I looking for the M4/3 system! The speed that I used with the 100-400 was similar like previous, 1/1000 in flight or 1/500 in birds in the ground. And the ISO is selected as low as possible, similar like thr previous photos with the 40-150. As an example, I crate a folder to include some of these pictures:

BAD_PHOTOS

Explore this photo album by S. Montagud on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

As you can see, speed not seems to be the problem. Is like a thing of soft envolving all birds (and trees). The images are not clean and sharp (and no usable). Maybe could be the IBIS, maybe tha AF tracking, but seems a rare thing. Samples shooting with a tripod and a reference scale paper are as sharp as the 40-150 ones.

Mistery…

I’m not sure that this is the problem, but when buying my O100-400 a few years ago, I encountered sample variance, and the first 2 lenses had to go back, the third one tack sharp and focused correctly. If I’d buy again I would test with a right of return if not happy.

 

[RAH]

Re: zoom rings. I tried my friend's PL 100-400 and was surprised to find it kinda rough and uneven. It also made noises that concerned me and although the lens seemed fine, I wasn't impressed. The 40-150 f2.8 Pro thanks to its internal zoom is smooth and relatively light. A real pleasure. The O100-400 I own is significantly stiffer than the 40-150 f2.8 Pro, but it's also fairly smooth and even. I can't compare directly between the PL 100-400 and the O 100-400, but I was more satisfied with the latter. Plus, it turns in the same direction as my 12-100 and 40-150! That makes a difference. My friend decided the same thing and sold his PL. Then he replaced it with a 150-400!

Camera Conspiracies YouTube channel has a video savaging (as only he can!) the stiffness of the PL 100-400 (I've watched other reviews by him and he likes the Oly 100-400). See it here (queued at the place he talks about the lens):

 

[Sernat]

I carry on with the proofs with my Oly 100-400. Not so happy with it. Maybe could be my technique to shoot, but I have no problems with the same technique in the 40-150 2.8 (with and without the 1.4X) and even with my little 75-300. This last lens is as sharper as the 100-400, lighter and only 100 mm less than this. The most important lack that I detect is the C-AF, not consistent with the C-AF that I see in the Oly 100-400 or40-150.

I 'm consider all the subjects, mainly the IBIS and the IS combination in the lens. I need to know the IS setting in the metadata of the pictures, but I don't see it in the exif of the Lightroom. Anyone knows it?

 

[John King]

I carry on with the proofs with my Oly 100-400. Not so happy with it. Maybe could be my technique to shoot, but I have no problems with the same technique in the 40-150 2.8 (with and without the 1.4X) and even with my little 75-300. This last lens is as sharper as the 100-400, lighter and only 100 mm less than this. The most important lack that I detect is the C-AF, not consistent with the C-AF that I see in the Oly 100-400 or40-150.

I 'm consider all the subjects, mainly the IBIS and the IS combination in the lens. I need to know the IS setting in the metadata of the pictures, but I don't see it in the exif of the Lightroom. Anyone knows it?

EXIFtool will show all recorded metadata.

I use PIE Studio as a GUI to EXIFTool, as I haven't seriously used command line programs for a couple of decades. I can highly recommend PIE Studio, and it allows both reading and writing all metadata, including batch operations, and a swag of printing options. It costs about $50 ± , and is a perpetual licence.

 

[JensM]

All images were blur, noisy, horrible!!!! Just two weeks before I was in the same site with the 40-150 & 75-300 and take very good pictures!

Other advices are wellcome!!!

Have you tried it with the Lens IS off? It is, according to Olys site not Sync IS compatible, which in my book could be a possible source for unsharpness, with the OIS and IBIS working against each other.

Also it could be worth trying to up the shutter speeds, the old (FF) adage of doubling the shutter speed over the mms of the lens could be worth trying, in M43 terms, that would be twice as much again, shooting at 400 mm equals 800 mm equals a minimum shutter speed of 1600th sec. You will get some help of the IBIS, but not to the max of it, if I understand it correctly.

Please report back on your findings, the Oly is somewhat on my horizon.

 

[Holoholo33]

Have you tried it with the Lens IS off? It is, according to Olys site not Sync IS compatible, which in my book could be a possible source for unsharpness, with the OIS and IBIS working against each other.

Also it could be worth trying to up the shutter speeds, the old (FF) adage of doubling the shutter speed over the mms of the lens could be worth trying, in M43 terms, that would be twice as much again, shooting at 400 mm equals 800 mm equals a minimum shutter speed of 1600th sec. You will get some help of the IBIS, but not to the max of it, if I understand it correctly.

Please report back on your findings, the Oly is somewhat on my horizon.

The lens IS is recognized by the camera and used in conjunction with IBIS. It's not Sync IS, but they are compatible.

Olympus 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS M.Zuiko Digital ED Review

Find out if the Olympus 100-400mm lens is right for you.

www.imaging-resource.com

"With IS enabled on both the lens and the body, you'll see stabilization benefits from both components: yaw and pitch stabilization from the lens and roll stabilization from the IBIS (as far as we know and according to the specs, X- and Y-shift correction from the IBIS doesn't seem enabled or available with the 100-400mm). Should you want, you can also enable or disable IBIS or Lens IS separately, and to turn IS off entirely, you need to switch it off on the lens and in the camera."

If the OP is not happy with the performance of the lens, maybe he should just try to exchange it for a different copy and see if it's any better?

 

[RAH]

If the OP is not happy with the performance of the lens, maybe he should just try to exchange it for a different copy and see if it's any better?

But he already mentioned that he has tested the lens using a tripod and it works fine. As I said above, "If results look good under controlled conditions using a tripod, then it MUST be user error, right?" I would think that must be the case and just exchanging lenses won't make any difference.