Zuiko 100 - 400 vs 300 (2 Viewers)

[Steve Babbs]

Dear all

I bought the 100 - 400 lens as when I got the OM1 I was about to go on a trip to Uganda and so needed a wide telephoto range for larger mammals that were fairly close. I am now considering changing to the 300 mm as most users find the AF considerably better, the images sharper and the fact that it is f4 would be an advantage in low light.

It is a bit of a hit to the wallet so have people on this forum who have made the change found the 300 a big improvement?

Steve

 

[PeterBird]

I have had the 300 F/4 for a number of years and, like you, needed a zoom for a South African safari trip. It performed well in that respect and I won’t hesitate to take it on such a trip again. However, when I don’t need the zoom I always choose the 300 ( sometimes coupled with the MC14 converter), for precisely the reasons you mentioned. Both the quality and the AF speed are superior and on my recent trip to Thailand, which involved a lot of shooting in forests, the F4 certainly was an advantage.it is in those darker conditions that the difference with the 100-400 is most apparent. Not only because it is faster, but also the stabilisation is more effective, allowing for slower shutter speeds when handholding. Whether all that is worth the considerable price difference is, of course, a personal matter.

 

[Stet]

Hi Steve,

I recently just got the 300 f/4 and it is well worth the money, in my opinion!! I've only had it for about a month now, but I noticed a big difference in my keeper rate and the quality of photos from day one. Even with the 1.4 teleconverter on it still outperforms the 100-400. Part of the keeper rate is due to the synch IS in my opinion. I am consistently amazed at the quality of the photos I have been getting. Whereas with the 100-400 I was consistently disappointed and occasionally amazed. Living in Pennsylvania there is not a lot to shoot now, so it will get the true test in a month or so when migration starts. Without a doubt, I will be putting my 100-400 up for sale. BTW I got my 300 used for $1800 us dollars and it was like new. MPB also has them for a good price. I have used them several times and have been very happy with their service.

John

 

[Elkhornsun]

My wife uses both lens and they are equally good lenses in terms of autofocus. Having twice as much light at f/4 helps the autofocus sensors but they are so good on current cameras to be much less of an issue than with older cameras with far fewer AF sensors.

I have always taken a zoom lens and a prime lens. The prime lens I used provided a 50% gain in image magnification. The zoom allowed for adjusting to the size and distance of subjects. I hate images that are overly cropped as a result of using two long a focal length lens and which become ID shots that may as well have been taken at a zoo.

Autofocus is a concern only with birds in flight. Otherwise you can prefocus on a spot where wildlife are going to be and have little difficulty nailing the shot.

I will say that the internal optical stabilization of the Olympus cameras is amazing. When my wife first received the 300mm f/4 lens I put it on a EM-1 camera and took photos of a lizard on a wall at a distance of about 6 feet. I used a shutter speed of only 1/10s and thanks to the image stabilization the image was very sharp and showed no motion blur at all. With my DSLR and a comparable lens I would have needed at least 1/500s for such a shot.

 

[Jim M.]

Dear all

I bought the 100 - 400 lens as when I got the OM1 I was about to go on a trip to Uganda and so needed a wide telephoto range for larger mammals that were fairly close. I am now considering changing to the 300 mm as most users find the AF considerably better, the images sharper and the fact that it is f4 would be an advantage in low light.

It is a bit of a hit to the wallet so have people on this forum who have made the change found the 300 a big improvement?

Steve

I have had the 300 mm f4 prime and the Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm since they first came out, and I still go back and forth on them (use them both on Oly bodies). I think for bird photography 400 mm is a big difference over 300 mm, so for me the f4 only becomes competitive with the 100-400mm if you add the 1.4 teleconverter. But then the advantage in low light is minimal (f5.6 vs. f6.3 at the long end). I haven't noticed a big difference in autofocus acquisition. And, for me, the ability to zoom out is often critical for getting a bird in flight in the field of view. So, given the lighter weight of the PL 100-400, I tend to favor it. But on the other hand, I think with the 300 f4 you are more likely to produce a shot that, when conditions are just right, you will think of as among the best you've ever taken--because of the quality of the optics.

 

[Steve Babbs]

It does sound like having both is the best option. Whether I can justify the cost of having both, with finite money to spend on wildlife watching and foreign trips always being my priority, is something I will have to ponder.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

It does sound like having both is the best option. Whether I can justify the cost of having both, with finite money to spend on wildlife watching and foreign trips always being my priority, is something I will have to ponder.

If you only shoot birds, the 300 f/4 would be fine 95% of the time. For larger animals, maybe pair it with a 40-150, 12-200 or even the 75-300. It would be a more versatile combo than retaining the 100-400.

 

[Steve Babbs]

If you only shoot birds, the 300 f/4 would be fine 95% of the time. For larger animals, maybe pair it with a 40-150, 12-200 or even the 75-300. It would be a more versatile combo than retaining the 100-400.

I would agree about the 300 clearly being better for birds but I am very much an all round naturalist and in the last twenty or so years mammals have taken over from birds as my priority group on foreign trips.

 

[Jim M.]

It does sound like having both is the best option. Whether I can justify the cost of having both, with finite money to spend on wildlife watching and foreign trips always being my priority, is something I will have to ponder.

In my experience, the slightly better optics of the 300 f4 only make a difference in ideal conditions. Most of the time I can't tell much difference between the shots of the two. (Though I think I have one of the better samples of the PL 100-400 (mine was made in Japan)). Personally, I'd save your money for trips unless you spend a lot of time shooting birds in non-travel situations. And there aren't many trips where you won't want the flexibility of a zoom on occasion. The only reason I bought the 300mm f4 was because it was the first quality m4/3 super telephoto to come out (it preceded both the 100-400s).

But if you do want to try the 300mm f4, one upside is that it should be pretty easy to re-sell if you decide you need the money.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I think that the fact that I will be on a trip with a lot of dawn/dusk/after dark mammal watching is making me ponder changing but it is a rather small difference in maximum aperture. I suspect mammals will be far enough away that they fit in the frame at 300mm but they could be closer when I would feel a bit silly. I am quite keen not to spend the 2+ grand unless I'm sure it's the right decision.