Micro 4/3 Olympus 100-400 vs 300 Pro

MountainMan79

😎💩➡️📸
Location
Minnesota
Name
Chris
Who here has owned or used both these lenses? I’d love some insight or opinions.

I used to own the e-m1x, and also had the 300mm pro and 1.4x tele. I made some great photos with this combo, and found the lens in particular to be outstanding. However, after CAF frustrations with the x, and also realizing on a trip where I brought multiple cameras that I grabbed this one the least, I decided to part with the x. Shortly thereafter my m4/3 divesting began, replacing my long lens at first with an Oly 75-300 so I would at least have something, then ultimately parting with that and going F mount with a Tamron 150-600.

I’ve since come to recognize a couple things. First, and sadly, I only learned how bad Olympus’ CAF is when “tracking” is turned on. I always had tracking on, so I may have jumped the gun on dumping the x without enough exploration of settings. That said, even though I did find it less than inspiring to pick up and use, I’d be open to giving it another shot and chalking it up to user error. Second, although I don’t mind the larger sized gear I’m using now when I’m out and about, it’s the getting it there part that’s less than desirable. Lugging a 150-600 to Iceland was ridiculous. So I guess I somewhat miss the more compact size. And the bird AI was pretty great, even if it returned blurry crap because I had my settings fudged up. I don’t have any bird AI now, and I kind of miss it.

This brings me to point two. Picking up another 300 is pricey. The x is cheap as dirt nowadays, so no complaints there. However, I wonder if the 100-400 may be good enough? I’d enjoy the zoom aspect after using the 150-600 I imagine. I like that it’s weather sealed and can still take a tele if I’d like, although at 800 vs the 840 I used to shoot, it probably wouldn’t even be needed. My question is, how much does that 100-400 resolve? How much can one crop in compared to the 300? I found the 300 so superb, you could heavily crop and keep all the details, vs for instance on the 75-300 where a mild crop started to degrade the image.

Ultimately, my decision to return is somewhat twofold. The first I mentioned - can the crop hood up on the 100-400? The second is price. When I purchased both the x and the 300mm, I was receiving an Olympus employee discount through my work. It gave me 50% off all pro gear. I paid $1250 for both my x and my 300 (it used to be a $2500 lens). Since the transition to OM, my discount is considerably worse, albeit still something. I would buy an x on the secondhand market, at about $900. I can but the lens new through Olympus at a hair over $1,000 for the 100-400. The 300 now costs me a hair over $2k. That’s a little rich for my blood at the moment, so I’m hoping I’d be happy with the 100-400?

I suppose considering I sold the x for $1600 and the 300 for $2100, I shouldn’t much complain that I made money essentially using the gear for a couple years, but nonetheless those earnings have long since been absorbed, and I’d be starting from scratch. Now I suppose if I decide to go with the combo and like it, I could sell the 150-600 and recoup $900-1000, so about half my investment.

What say you forum? Any experienced users of both these lenses care to weigh in?

Thanks in advance -
 
First, I sold my EM1X shortly after getting the OM1, the OM1 is in another league compared to the EM1X. IMHO, the OM1 does what the EM1X promised but really didn’t live up to. The EM1X is an excellent camera but the OM1 is better. I would stretch the budget for the OM1.

The Olympus 100-400 is very good but the 300/4 is just plain better. When I take an image with my 100-400, it’s good, when I take an image with the 300 I say WOW. I also still have the PL 100-400 and I almost prefer it over the Olympus version because of it’s more compact size and image quality is on par with the Olympus version. I keep both 100-400’s because sometimes both my wife and I both want a 100-400, ie airshows. If I could only have one long lens, it would be the 300/4, unless of course a 150-500/4.5 dropped into my lap 😂
 
Thanks @BruceRH The OM1 is very attractive, and I do believe it’s what the x promised to be but fell short of. But it’s more than 2x the price right now, and no discount available for me yet. For $900 I think the x is a steal however, and if I learn to use it correctly within its limits, it’ll probably be great. Do you think I’d be disappointed in the 150-400 given that I’ve had a 300 before, and am currently working with what I believe is an equivalent piece of glass in the Tamron 150-600? I get that the 300 is better, but if the 100-400 is as good as what I’m using now, I’m totally fine with making the switch back. Maybe then an OM 1 will be in my future.
 
Chris I can't directly answer.
But I've the 40-150 2.8 and it is so so sweet.
It's quality image and construction is excellent IMO.
I was going to buy the 300 when they were dirt cheap by current comparison.
But what turned me off it was the lack of zoom.
I took my 75-300 around fixed on 300. I used it as I would for bird use and quickly found the fixed 300 was limiting my photography.
Birds closer than "300mm zoom" were impossible as they took up all the frame or couldn't fit in the frame.

I bought the 100-400 Panasonic and whilst it is very good I wish it had the quality of the Olympus 40-150 2.8.

Not sure if that helps
 
Right up my alley. I have both lenses and have used them a lot. One or the other of them goes with me on photo adventures. One or the other of them goes paddling with me several times a month in season. One or the other of them goes walking in fields with me and the dog daily. The 300 Pro is a nearly perfect lens. If it could zoom it would be that much closer. The 100-400 has a few more quirks ... but it zooms. Optically, the two lenses are not that far apart. For my uses, I regard the 100-400 as a 300~400mm telephoto that zooms wider, rather than a 100mm medium telephoto that can be persuaded to go long. That's just how I see.

Focusing is snappy on both lenses. The 100-400 is a bit tougher to use, zoom aside. It doesn't have Sync-IS and it takes a while to settle down to a point where the lens and body IS are not at cross purposes. The second press of the focus button usually does the trick. This has been true on the E-M1 II, the E-M1 III and the OM-1 (currently). The 100-400 is a significantly slower lens at full extension - f/6.3. I ran into this tonight shooting a small, twitchy bird feeding on the riverbank in shade during early golden hour. 1/1600 sec, f/6.3 and ISO 25,600 – Topaz Denoise did a pretty creditable job cleaning up the image to something better than simply a record shot. Even so, when conditions are bright, I have no hesitation in using the MC-14 with either lens unless I'm paddling. I did some informal testing of the two lenses when I first acquired the 100-400 and the difference between the two was surprisingly subtle.

As much as I love the 300 Pro, it has become a bit of a shelf queen. The 100-400 went with me on some travel we enjoyed earlier this year. For me, the versatility trumps the largely unnoticeable difference in image quality despite the slightly heavier workload associated with the image stabilization and the slower aperture. If I could know beforehand that I wouldn't need the zoom, I'd use the 300. But the 100-400 is sufficiently better than 'good enough' that I have no problem using it instead when versatility is demanded.
 
Last edited:
I have never used the Tamron so I can’t comment on that lens but and as long as you can’t see the 100-400 and 300 side by side then I think you will be fine. The fact is, and why I mention it, you will be thinking about the 300. The zoom is nice to use and it does produce very nice images. The reality though is all of these lenses produce very nice images, it is only when you have both to compare that you really see the differences. The 100-400 is a very nice optic and combined with the EM1X I think you will be happy - until gas strikes again 😀 There is no perfect lens or body, they all have compromises including the cost factor.
 
Right up my alley. I have both lenses and have used them a lot. One or the other of them goes with me on photo adventures. One or the other of them goes paddling with me several times a month in season. One or the other of them goes walking in fields with me and the dog daily. The 300 Pro is a nearly perfect lens. If it could zoom it would be that much closer. The 100-400 has a few more quirks ... but it zooms. Optically, the two lenses are not that far apart. For my uses, I regard the 100-400 as a 300~400mm telephoto that zooms wider, rather than a 100mm medium telephoto that can be persuaded to go long. That's just how I see.

Focusing is snappy on both lenses. The 100-400 is a bit tougher to use, zoom aside. It doesn't have Sync-IS and it takes a while to settle down to a point where the lens and body IS are not at cross purposes. The second press of the focus button usually does the trick. This has been true true on the E-M1 II, the E-M1 III and the OM-1 (currently). The 100-400 is a significantly slower lens at full extension - f/6.3. I ran into this tonight shooting a small, twitchy bird feeding on the riverbank in shade during early golden hour. 1/1600 sec, f/6.3 and ISO 25,600 – Topaz Denoise did a pretty creditable job cleaning up the image to something better than simply a record shot. Even so, when conditions are bright, I have no hesitation in using the MC-14 with either lens unless I'm paddling. I did some informal testing of the two lenses when I first acquired the 100-400 and the difference between the two was surprisingly subtle.

As much as I love the 300 Pro, it has become a bit of a shelf queen. The 100-400 went with me on some travel we enjoyed earlier this year. For me, the versatility trumps the largely unnoticeable difference in image quality despite the slightly heavier workload associated with the image stabilization and the slower aperture. If I could know beforehand that I wouldn't need the zoom, I'd use the 300. But the 100-400 is sufficiently better than 'good enough' that I have no problem using it instead when versatility is demanded.
Thanks Hendrik. I think this is EXACTLY what I was hoping to hear. I think this will be the direction I go. As I don’t need to sell my 150-600 to fund this, if it works sufficiently close enough to the 300mm as you described, I can always sell my Tamron and essentially recoup the cost if it does the job, if not, no loss. And at some point, when gas strikes, I could either step up to an OM1 or a 300mm.
 
I was in a similar place a few months back and had the opportunity to try each lens in a similar setting. I went for the 300 for a few reasons.

Better image quality. Admittedly to discern this requires sharp eyes and, in some instances, some pixel peeping. For me, if the details aren’t there in the first place they can’t be added later. I’m a quality junkie.

Light. This was the big plus point for me. I shoot a lot inside so there’s no (less) worrying about reduced light at full stretch. It’s always f4, reducing the need for / time spent in PP.

It helped that I scored one second hand in near mint condition at a good price. Also it’s compatible with my 1.4 convertor, if needed.

However….

I’m acutely aware I’ve made a very big sacrifice in versatility especially when out and about rather than on a planned shoot. I have no regrets getting the 300 over the 100-400 but, in an ideal world, I’d have both.
 
I was in a similar place a few months back and had the opportunity to try each lens in a similar setting. I went for the 300 for a few reasons.

Better image quality. Admittedly to discern this requires sharp eyes and, in some instances, some pixel peeping. For me, if the details aren’t there in the first place they can’t be added later. I’m a quality junkie.

Light. This was the big plus point for me. I shoot a lot inside so there’s no (less) worrying about reduced light at full stretch. It’s always f4, reducing the need for / time spent in PP.

It helped that I scored one second hand in near mint condition at a good price. Also it’s compatible with my 1.4 convertor, if needed.

However….

I’m acutely aware I’ve made a very big sacrifice in versatility especially when out and about rather than on a planned shoot. I have no regrets getting the 300 over the 100-400 but, in an ideal world, I’d have both.
Thanks for the feedback. I’m not a pixel peeper, but quality is a concern as even at the 400 end I’m sure I’d be cropping images.

Light is less of a concern. I did appreciate having the f4 aperture when I owned the 300, but currently my 150-600 is an f/5-6.3 and I shoot exclusively outdoors with this type of lens…I’ve had no issues with my current aperture, so that’s pretty much apples to apples.

I think the thing I’d miss the most by not ponying up for the 300 is the sync IS. That made shooting at 840mm with the 1.4 tele a breeze, and I remember not being thrilled shooting with the 75-300 at 300 without the sync IS. But to be fair, I don’t have any of that fancy pants sync IS on my F mount system and I somehow have gotten by without it, the the in-body IS of the x is vastly superior to my Z6ii and compared to my Df, well it exists.

I think I’ve talked myself into this combo again. I’ll probably just keep an eye out on the used market for the right x to pop up, and since I live in Minnesota and winter is scheduled to start any week now, I’ll probably just wait till spring to buy the 100-400. We’ll see.

Thanks again!
 
Thanks @BruceRH The OM1 is very attractive, and I do believe it’s what the x promised to be but fell short of. But it’s more than 2x the price right now, and no discount available for me yet. For $900 I think the x is a steal however, and if I learn to use it correctly within its limits, it’ll probably be great. Do you think I’d be disappointed in the 150-400 given that I’ve had a 300 before, and am currently working with what I believe is an equivalent piece of glass in the Tamron 150-600? I get that the 300 is better, but if the 100-400 is as good as what I’m using now, I’m totally fine with making the switch back. Maybe then an OM 1 will be in my future.
I have both the 300mm f4 and 150-400mm f4.5. The 300mm is very sharp, flare resistant and has excellent contrast. The 150-400mm matches or beats the 300mm in every aspect. Much as I like the compact and lighter 300mm, it's been reduced to 'hangar queen' status since acquiring the 150-400mm. The zoom range, built-in teleconverter and handling sealed the deal for me. As you already know, the zoom out to find the moving target is so useful even compared to the fixed focal length/dot sight combination.
It's expensive but worth it for anyone with deep enough pockets. Combined with the OM-1 it's the best BIF and aircraft setup in m43, and probably matches any other camera brand in a price/performance ratio.
 
I have both the 300mm f4 and 150-400mm f4.5. The 300mm is very sharp, flare resistant and has excellent contrast. The 150-400mm matches or beats the 300mm in every aspect. Much as I like the compact and lighter 300mm, it's been reduced to 'hangar queen' status since acquiring the 150-400mm. The zoom range, built-in teleconverter and handling sealed the deal for me. As you already know, the zoom out to find the moving target is so useful even compared to the fixed focal length/dot sight combination.
It's expensive but worth it for anyone with deep enough pockets. Combined with the OM-1 it's the best BIF and aircraft setup in m43, and probably matches any other camera brand in a price/performance ratio.
Woah! When did the 150-400 enter the room? 😂 If I don’t feel like springing for the 300, I’m definitely not jumping up to the 150-400. They don’t offer me a discount on that lens either. I’m sure she’s a beauty though, and I’m certainly envious, but alas not in my future at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I have both the 300 and 100-400. The 300 is stupid sharp but it has been collecting dust ever since I got the 100-400. I find a zoom essential for the shooting that I do (mainly wildlife) so even though the 300 is a little slower and not quite as sharp, the zoom on the 100-400 won it over for me. I also had the Panny 100-400 but sold it after I got the Olympus 100-400. That being said, I have not touched my 100-400 since I received the 150-400 last September. The 150-400 is amazing compared to all the other telephoto lenses I have had.

A friend of mine did this video on the 100-400. She was a full frame shooter and switched to Olympus during the pandemic when all her professional gigs dried out. She has since gone back to shooting full frame as that pays for all her toys.
 
Alright, enough already! I’ll buy the 100-400. Sheesh 😂
I'd doubt you'd regret it. I've seen photos of both and mostly it's in the hands of the beholder as to the outcome.
Some 300 photos don't cut it, just as 100-400 don't either.

Just give us your bank details and I'm sure there will be a flood of contributions to make that sale painless :p
 
The PL100-400 is a fantastic lens that shoots fine on Olympus bodies. You don't get dual IS, but heck, I think just using the OIS on the lens was good enough. I could get just as sharp an image at 400mm on an E-M1iii as I could on the G9, which offered dual-IS! And I'm talking about trying to shoot down near 1/20s exposures. The PL100-400 is lighter, too, I believe.
 
The PL100-400 is a fantastic lens that shoots fine on Olympus bodies. You don't get dual IS, but heck, I think just using the OIS on the lens was good enough. I could get just as sharp an image at 400mm on an E-M1iii as I could on the G9, which offered dual-IS! And I'm talking about trying to shoot down near 1/20s exposures. The PL100-400 is lighter, too, I believe.
Well that’s a somewhat interesting option. It can be had used for about what I can buy a new Olympus for, however it’s faster than the Olympus at f4 - 6.3 and the Leica badging means it’s no slouch. Hmmm…

Anyone with thoughts on the two 100-400 options given the Olympus body I’d be using it on?
 
Here are some samples of the PL100-400+E-M1iii combo. Some with some really low shutter speeds.
P1080876.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
PC050214.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
PC050223.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
PC220503.jpeg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Attachments

  • PC050223.jpeg
    PC050223.jpeg
    331.2 KB · Views: 67
Back
Top