Zuiko 300mm F/2.8 vs. TL APO 804 480mm F/6 (1 Viewer)

[Tord]

Last weekend I tested the TLAPO 804 480mm F/6 vs. a Zuiko 300/2.8 lens.

• Setup on tripod on a fair day, no wind to speak of.
• Placed the subject on a door in shade (used a first resolution chart printed on A4 paper/600 DPI and then a banknote), paying attention it is square centered on the optical axis.
• Distance to subject about 8 meters.
• ISO 400, high enough to eliminate any possible shake blur and still noise low enough so the results would not be affected.
• Used E-M5 for the scope and E-M1 for the lens. I suppose I would have got the same results the other way around, cameras have almost same sensors.
• Focused the scope accurately using 14X magnification.
• Used AF with the lens, after first verifying it focuses accurately.
• IS off, locked the tripod head.
• Took three shots using 12s timer delay and kept the best of three (all were in principle identical).
• All shots taken wide open (to benchmark the quality at full aperture)

Developed in Lightroom 5, using same settings for all RAWs

• Contrast -25
• Expose +1
• White +40 and black -40 to utilize the dynamic range
• No sharpening
• No noise reducction
• Developed to JPG 1024 wide and quality to comply to the forum file size constraints
  

Attaching 5 samples of the banknote. Taken with:

• 300/2.8
• 300/2.8 + 1.4 Zuiko TC
• 300/2.8 + 2.0 Zuiko TC
• 480/6
• 480/6 + 1.45 telenegative from Zuiko OM 100-200 zoom lens.

Files have been reamed randomly. The EXIF is there if you want to know what lens was used for what, but you may want to assess and guess before that.


I can share the source files and res chart photos if anyone interested.

 

[Musoman]

Just guessing that 3 and 5 maybe the scope ? It seems that 3 and 5 have a different white balance, or maybe a slight colour cast. Because its only on 2 samples, and you only took 2 photos with the scope, i'm guessing the scope for those 2.

But anyways - the pics look lovely and sharp, even with a 1.4x and 2.0x TC

 

[DanC.Licks]

It is a little hard to compare such different lenses, but for my taste, the Oly can't even come close!

 

[Tord]

It is a little hard to compare such different lenses, but for my taste, the Oly can't even come close!

So which ones do you think are from the scope?

 

[Tord]

Just guessing that 3 and 5 maybe the scope ?

Not correct.

 

[cango]

the scope+telenegative is nr 2 right?

 

[Tord]

the scope+telenegative is nr 2 right?

Correct.

 

[DanC.Licks]

2 and 3.

 

[Tord]

2 and 3.

Correct.
Did you check the EXIF, or is it based on visual inspection?

 

[Musoman]

Not correct.

I thought No.3 was right ?

 

[DanC.Licks]

Visual inspection, then confirmed by checking the EXIF. Pretty much coincides with what I found by comparing my 600 triplet with a Canon 500/4. Apo triplets are pretty hard to beat in terms of resolution.
I also found that I couldn't focus manually as accurately with the Canon as its own AF system could.

 

[cango]

is 1 the 300
4 300+2.0
5 300+1.4?

haven't check exif on 4+5
how do you find the 300 otherwise? is it worth it? compared to scope - yes you get af...

 

[Tord]

Which attachment comes from which lens?
Order of appearance / file name / lens
1 / lloat.jpg / Zuiko 300mm + EC20
2 / h5spp.jpg / TLAPO 480mm + TN
3 / yamx8.jpg / TLAPO 480mm
4 / jatrn.jpg / Zuiko 300mm
5 / gaeww.jpg / Zuiko 300mm + EC14

 

[DanC.Licks]

The biggest difference is naturally between 3 and 4. The most fair comparisons are between 3 and 5, and between 1 and 2. I suspect some slight focus differences between the shots (1+2, 3+5) because there are parts of each better than the other.
The 300/2.8 is a brilliant lens, no doubt, and good AF is a pleasure, not that Olympus AF is all that much to write home about. But I have to say, the triplet holds up very well!
Such tests are not easy to do, and they are time consuming. But they teach us a lot about our equipment and how to use it. In order to make comparing the shots easier, it would be best to balance the WB and exposure with something like an 18° grey card as a background, or a neutral white area. Then differences in contrast and resolution are easier to see. Easy enough to do in LR.

Edit:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nnhbojc034wsr81/AAAE0JoUFGq7eHrHPxMEvKkQa

All balanced and cropped in LR. WB taken from upper edge of the paper. Maybe not the proper color, but that doesn't matter.
For my taste, the TN adds little, in fact, it cuts the contrast. I have found that also to be true with my Canon TN, but not always. Depends a lot on the light. Sometimes it is a real help, and sometimes it ruins the shot. I have been using it less and less lately***. To my eye, #3 is the best, followed by #5. #4 by far the worst.

*** In fact, mostly I have been using my Canon 400/5.6 on my E-M1 lately.



Through double glass, hand held.
Haven't been out much. My wife has just been fit with a new pair of lenses in her eyes, so we have restricted out bird watching to looking out our window.

 

[Tord]

how do you find the 300 otherwise? is it worth it? compared to scope - yes you get af...

The 300/2.8 is really, really nice. I found a demo/exhibit copy (boxed, complete, hardly used) at a very attractive price point. Planning for a trip next winter.

For most bird photography I believe the scopes are better tools as long as subjects are static or predictable. However for skittish subjects or when response time is critical then AF is a valuable asset. The form factor means it's much easier to operate when space around you is tight. And hand-held shooting is so much easier than with the "three hand grip" you use for the scope.

Still in process learning how to take advantage of CAF, I still achieve sharper results on BIF with the scopes than with the lens.

SAF performs well even with EC20, as I expected.

Lastly, F/2.8 is a great asset. I have a feeling the lens will fill a gap in my lens range.

 

[Tord]

The biggest difference is naturally between 3 and 4. The most fair comparisons are between 3 and 5, and between 1 and 2. I suspect some slight focus differences between the shots (1+2, 3+5) because there are parts of each better than the other.
The 300/2.8 is a brilliant lens, no doubt, and good AF is a pleasure, not that Olympus AF is all that much to write home about. But I have to say, the triplet holds up very well!
Such tests are not easy to do, and they are time consuming. But they teach us a lot about our equipment and how to use it. In order to make comparing the shots easier, it would be best to balance the WB and exposure with something like an 18° grey card as a background, or a neutral white area. Then differences in contrast and resolution are easier to see. Easy enough to do in LR.

Edit:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nnhbojc034wsr81/AAAE0JoUFGq7eHrHPxMEvKkQa

All balanced and cropped in LR. WB taken from upper edge of the paper. Maybe not the proper color, but that doesn't matter.
For my taste, the TN adds little, in fact, it cuts the contrast. I have found that also to be true with my Canon TN, but not always. Depends a lot on the light. Sometimes it is a real help, and sometimes it ruins the shot. I have been using it less and less lately***. To my eye, #3 is the best, followed by #5. #4 by far the worst.

*** In fact, mostly I have been using my Canon 400/5.6 on my E-M1 lately.
View attachment 507630

View attachment 507631
Through double glass, hand held.
Haven't been out much. My wife has just been fit with a new pair of lenses in her eyes, so we have restricted out bird watching to looking out our window.

Thanks Dan,
I agreee with you at large. The 300/2.8 shot is the worst, result of cropping that has visible negative impact on rendering of detail. It is sharp, but lacking the fine detail. 300 mm for a small bird at ~10 meters is not enough.

I will redo the test, setting the WB to be same for all frames and taking all under same light conditions.

I should maybe have more carefully checked that optical axis is square to the centre and checked focus on the whole subject - I was content with adjusting focus in centre and the tripod could very well have been offset a few cm, which may explain sharpness differs within one and same picture.

Stay tuned...

 

[DanC.Licks]

Tord,
I would also suggest trying to focus using MF in live view with the 300. MF on "focus by wire" lenses can be tricky, and three shots is not enough. Take more, and re-focus a few times. Then see if there is a difference with AF, and if the AF needs to be fine tuned. I have seen a lot of knockout pictures taken with the 300/2.8 with both ECs. I suspect some flaw in the testing (easy to have happen!) because normally the naked 300 should be better. Many consider it to be one of the best lenses Oly ever made.
Don't put too much hope in CAF with it on the E-M5. Did you also get an E-M1? The newest firmware update (v1.4) for the E-M1 has made AF with FT lenses significantly better, at least in good light. I notice much better AF with the 50-200, but it still lags far behind the 75-300 II, especially with the EC-14 on. But at least much more usable, and the 50-200 is a great lens!

300 vs 480 mm is a bit unfair, but still, worth comparing. Do keep us posted.

I am very curious what the rumored Canon 7D Mark II looks like. If it is up to the 400/5.6 it could be interesting. The older I get, the less I like to focus!

 

[Tord]

Tord,
I would also suggest trying to focus using MF in live view with the 300. MF on "focus by wire" lenses can be tricky, and three shots is not enough. Take more, and re-focus a few times. Then see if there is a difference with AF, and if the AF needs to be fine tuned. I have seen a lot of knockout pictures taken with the 300/2.8 with both ECs. I suspect some flaw in the testing (easy to have happen!) because normally the naked 300 should be better. Many consider it to be one of the best lenses Oly ever made.
Don't put too much hope in CAF with it on the E-M5. Did you also get an E-M1? The newest firmware update (v1.4) for the E-M1 has made AF with FT lenses significantly better, at least in good light. I notice much better AF with the 50-200, but it still lags far behind the 75-300 II, especially with the EC-14 on. But at least much more usable, and the 50-200 is a great lens!

300 vs 480 mm is a bit unfair, but still, worth comparing. Do keep us posted.

I am very curious what the rumored Canon 7D Mark II looks like. If it is up to the 400/5.6 it could be interesting. The older I get, the less I like to focus!

I did check S-AF by engaging 14X magnification in LCD and the AF seemed to focus correctly, it looked as sharp as could get. But yes, I should perhaps do the tests in MF mode...

I also got an E-M1 (mint condition at very attractive price point, less than 1k actuations). The previous owner had used it for aerial footage from drone so the EVF has been heavily exposed to sun and showed no signs of burns.

It is not yet updated to 1.4, thanks for pointing this out. Will update and test the AF again. The E-M5 will probably remain my camera of choice for the scope, I have got used to it and also because I think the "blackout" experience when shooting sequences is less pronounced/less unpleasant on the E-M5 than on the E-M1, and also the E-M5 is more silent. The E-M1 will probably be used by Catherine as main camera, and I also was planning a backup body to my E5.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Be interesting to know if the former owner had the diopter setting up high. I have still gotten no response from Olympus other than the usual "our technicians are looking into this problem" etc. They don't seem to want to admit that they have goofed big time.
Last time I wrote Olympus I said that if it is a global problem when using a high diopter setting, they should admit it and find a fix. If it is NOT global, and only affects certain bodies, then they should either exchange mine or completely replace the whole EVF mechanism and not just replace the display for the third time. I don't want to send it in now. I will wait until the fall to give them more time to find a fix, if they ever will. By then I will know what the 7D II looks like, and if Oly keeps dragging their feet I'm bailing out.

 

[Tord]

Be interesting to know if the former owner had the diopter setting up high. I have still gotten no response from Olympus other than the usual "our technicians are looking into this problem" etc. They don't seem to want to admit that they have goofed big time.
Last time I wrote Olympus I said that if it is a global problem when using a high diopter setting, they should admit it and find a fix. If it is NOT global, and only affects certain bodies, then they should either exchange mine or completely replace the whole EVF mechanism and not just replace the display for the third time. I don't want to send it in now. I will wait until the fall to give them more time to find a fix, if they ever will. By then I will know what the 7D II looks like, and if Oly keeps dragging their feet I'm bailing out.

The former owner was/is nearsighted so the diopter setting must have been either neutral (if he took pictures with glasses on) or negative.