• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Olympus 300mm f4 (1 Viewer)

I was specifically wondering if the AF was set to spot (and if so, which size), grid or some other pattern? In other words, is the problem that the camera chose something else onto which it focused well?

For comparison, I am a control freak, so I use small spot on my GH2, and I do not have a success rate as low as 30%. The text says that those 30% does have a very high quality.

Niels
 
Some people criticize Robin Wong's reviews because he is an Olympus employee and he always praises the equipment. I try to just focus on the images. And of course anybody can get great shots at a zoo, but I am nonetheless still very impressed by the examples, considering they were all hand-held and some of them at 1/10 second... The butterfly shots are also very nice and the near-macro close focusing adds to the appeal. I think the lens would work well for wildflowers and some larger insects. The bokeh really looks fine to me too.

Dave
 
Last edited:
The m.Zuiko 300/F4 looks like a very nice, yet expensive lens.

My guess is that most bird photographers would probably use it with the MC14, unless subjects are close. 300mm is a tad short for many situations.

My personal view is that it should be compared against the Canon EF 400/5.6 + Metabones Smart Adapter (which I have been using with the E-M1 and have achieved great results).

m.Zuiko + MC 14 / Canon EF 400/5.6 + Metabones Smart Adapter

Focal length: 420 / 400
F-number: 5.6 / 5.6
Image quality/sharpness: Top quality / Top quality
Weigth: 1475g + 170g / 1250g + 160g (including tripod collar)
Focus accurracy, S-AF: Excellent / excellent
Focus accuracy, C-AF (BIF): Unknown / not supported
AF performance (speed): High / acceptable(*)
Retractable lens hood: Y / Y
IS, longest handhold shutter time: 1/10s / 1/30s (m.Zuiko has IS that can be used on top of the excellent IBIS, whereas Canon lens has no IS)
Price: 2850 USD / 1650 USD (US, B&H Photo video)

I have also used the Canon/metabones setup a few times on the EM-5 (contrast detect AF) and so far found it performs fine.

Looking at the bottom line/price point I think the decision is easy. If Oly had had a new body today that resolves the issues with CAF then it may have changed my view.



(*) In the order of a second, or less, to acquire focus, depending on the distance needed to travel. No hunting observed.
 
That's strange. I have now updated the link in the previous post and checked that this time it goes to the right thread.

Niels
 
The m.Zuiko 300/F4 looks like a very nice, yet expensive lens.

My guess is that most bird photographers would probably use it with the MC14, unless subjects are close. 300mm is a tad short for many situations.

My personal view is that it should be compared against the Canon EF 400/5.6 + Metabones Smart Adapter (which I have been using with the E-M1 and have achieved great results).

which adapter do you mean?
the 400/5.6 does not seem to be on the compatibility list of this 1.0x adapter:

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_EF-m43-BT2

No CAF seems like big downside for bird photo,
the canon 400mm is made for full-frame sensors so it would be a miracle if it could compete with the olympus lens for resolution.
 
which adapter do you mean?
the 400/5.6 does not seem to be on the compatibility list of this 1.0x adapter:

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_EF-m43-BT2

No CAF seems like big downside for bird photo,
the canon 400mm is made for full-frame sensors so it would be a miracle if it could compete with the olympus lens for resolution.
Hi,

The adapter I mean is this one: http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_EF-m43-BT2
You are right in that the Canon EF 400/5.6 ISM is not listed there, but I can confirm it works, and so can other people on this forum and elase where e.g. on DP review. (I suppose the page is not updated).
Please note that for AF to work you need to update the adapter FW to version 1.8.

You may view CAF as a necessity, I don't.

Regarding the resolution - you may be right however the detail rendering is excellent, lack of visible CA etc. I am not a Canon guy, but what I have read about these lenses are they are fine optics and very sharp. They are not so popular today among Canon users as they don't have IS, but the EM-1 IBIS comes in handy :)
 
Hi,

The adapter I mean is this one: http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_EF-m43-BT2
You are right in that the Canon EF 400/5.6 ISM is not listed there, but I can confirm it works, and so can other people on this forum and elase where e.g. on DP review. (I suppose the page is not updated).
Please note that for AF to work you need to update the adapter FW to version 1.8.

You may view CAF as a necessity, I don't.

Regarding the resolution - you may be right however the detail rendering is excellent, lack of visible CA etc. I am not a Canon guy, but what I have read about these lenses are they are fine optics and very sharp. They are not so popular today among Canon users as they don't have IS, but the EM-1 IBIS comes in handy :)


Hi I have copied my thread from e-users forum that might be of interest to you?


I do a lot of nature photography so On Tuesday of this week I decided I must find out more about the above adapter. Therefore a drive out to park camera was a must, not before ringing them to establish they had some in stock. Park cameras are based in burgess hill about 12 miles inland from Brighton. I therefore went with SWMBO With the plan to just have a stroll along the seafront and get home before the rush hour. Also not forgetting to get a bag of fish and chips this was then accomplished.
Now the adapter. Tom at park cameras allowed me free reins to try some of my longer canon fit lenses with an EM1 and of course the adapter.
My mission was mainly to see if my EM1 would AF with my Sigma 500f4.5 prime
My Sigma 150-500 and lastly my EF 300L is usm.
I can confirm that the Metabones works well on the 300 and and 150-500 on the Sigma 500 it also works a treat with the following caviots. I have noticed it a little heavier on batteries and occasionally the lens can hunt. But considering I have an equivalent 1000 angle of view it's a price worth paying. The adapter does work better with shorter lenses. The adapter works well with my 100mm canon is usm which now gives me an equivalent 200mm 2.8 macro. My sigma 10-20 3.5 - canon 24-105 -canon 50mm 1.8 and a few other less used lenses .
I am 90% happy with the adapter.
Park cameras also did a price promise for me jessops had them £74 cheaper so they matched this price.
You can get it cheaper online but the service provided by park cameras is worth the extra so 10 out of 10 for park cameras.
It's obviously early days with the adapter and any problems I get I will report on. I went down this avenue rather than use converters with the lenses thus losing light and some IQ the adapter does not contain any glass.
I hope this short piece is of interest.
Kind regards Mike
 
Just wanted to follow up on what Tord says with his nice personal summary.
I came to a different conclusion because I have different priorities so I thought I'd share them here, but this is not to say that Tord was wrong. Oh, and I am posting this based on his comments and my use without the MC-14 (I get mine in a couple of weeks).

Anyway, for me the speedy autofocus is crucial for photographing smaller birds as they zip around in the trees or bushes. The thought of 1s seek time is an immediate no-go. It's certainly an expensive luxury to get the speed, but if you can afford it then it is nice. I hope that the speed remains with the MC-14, but if not at least I can remove it. Also, the ability to get f4 is really, really nice in the jungle, as is weather sealing.

There's also been lots of talk about the ability to handhold at 1/10s or so, and my immediate reaction is 'so what?', since birds move too much for that anyway. This could be handy sometimes (I still remember handholding the Canon 400 f5.6 for a 0.6s photo of kingfisher in the dark. Keeper rate was atrocious but I got a couple!), but what I have noticed is that after walking in the heat for a while, I have been able to get sharper photos at 1/100s etc without having to pause to catch my breath or steady myself. I've therefore been more confident to keep my ISO down a bit at 800.

Bottom line is that there has never been a better camera and lens line-up for amateur birders I reckon. With great value offerings from Canon and the new 200-500mm from Nikon, and this 300mm from Olympus there is a range of truly hand-holdable camera set-ups.

I'm very happy with my EM-1 and 300 f4 Pro, and I am looking forward to the MC-14. A portable, comfortable, hand-holdable magnification equivalent to 840mm that I don't have to worry about if it rains. It's my dream lens.

Attached pics are a couple in good light and one in the dark

Common Myna (1).jpg

Zebra dove.jpg

This piculet was shot at ISO 800, f4 1/400s. It was underexposed so the background didn't blow out and then selectively increased the exposure of the bird. Not perfect, but I doubt it would have been this good with my previous equipment.

White-browed Piculet (1).jpg
 
Graeme,
I am very happy for you that you have found something that really works for you!

I am waiting for comparable statements from people using the yet to ship Pana 100-400, simply because I like to have a zoom lens.

Niels
 
Niels,
I know what you mean - that looks like an amazing option with early reports suggesting the only significant negative is the f number. Forgot to mention it in my list. But wow, what a range of options we have these days, and no one can say any of the main ones are bad! Just different trade-offs.
For instance I kept my 75-300mm zoom in case I want ultra-compact. It takes nice photos, let's not forget!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top