- 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 -
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 -