On 1/6/2016 1:59 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Wonder how the IQ will compare to the new Panny/Leica 100-400?
From the web page: "It's pretty significant when Olympus, a company with a storied history of innovation in optical
glass, says its new M.Zuiko 300mm f4.0 IS PRO offers the highest resolution in company history."
I'm guessing that it will handily whup the PanaLeica @ 300 mm in tests.
We'll see. Both quite expensive.
But there are so many questions and imponderables that determine whether either lens will actually deliver better
results for any particular photographer and use in practice: :-)
1. Does it exceed the photographers "carry quotient". The finest lens ever made
makes no good images home on the shelf.
I know that the Oly would only go out with me when I was sure of suitable subjects or had a particular use in mind. I
know how I used the OMZ 300/4.5 and this new lens is bigger and heavier than that.
One thing I know to be true for me is that I'm bad at anticipating what may show up that I want to capture. The majority
of my shooting is going out in the world and shooting what shows up. Those who plan ahead, and stick to the plan, will
have different needs.
It's been a joy for me to carry two bodies with lenses that cover 12-300 mm (24-600 eq.) without changing lenses. I get
a lot of shots I like, including some I consider among my finest, that I would miss with primes. Yup, I do have a
selection of primes, but they get far less use than the zooms. Mostly good for pure speed. I'm a little concerned about
the Panny, but think it's within my personal carry quotient. after all, I carried around a 5D with 28-300 for five
years. :-)
2. Does it have the FL needed for the shot? If it's a 500 (1000 eq.) shot/subject, how will crops from the 300 mm prime
compare to the same subject area cropped less from the zoom @ 400 mm? What if it's a 100 mm shot? How does the zoom
image compare to the image from the other lens quickly swapped onto the camera? Or no image at all, if the moment
passes? The 300/4 won't be an easy/quick lens to juggle.
3. What equipment and technique do the photographer have? The P/L on any of the many Panny bodies with shutter shock
will perform poorly, especially at longer FLs. A majority of my early 300 mm shots with the 75-300 were poor, until I
found out about shutter shock. How steady is the shooter? Sure, IS is fabulous, but the less it has to correct, the
better it works. OTOH, a sturdy tripod shooter may not even use the IS, of either/both sorts.
To get the very best out of the Oly, one needs at least an E-M1 or E-M5 II, and I'm thinking the E- M5 II would be best
for best IS. For the Panny, only the GX8 guarantees synced lens and body IS.
P/L longer obviously but much slower.
This is tricky, too. DoF gets mighty thin, at least relative to most subject depths, at long tele distances. I'm much
happier most of the time at f8 or 11. There are those who revel in shallow DoF. IMO, about half such shots I see have
missed the exact focal placement that would make them really work. If that's the keepers, imagine how many useless ones
weren't shown. ;-) I quite often bracket focus if I have the chance, and thus have a lot of 300 mm images that won't
see the light of day, 'cause another had a better focal plane.
"... much slower." And how fast is the 100-400 ... @ 300 mm? It's 1.5 stops slower @ 400 mm than the P/L @ 300 mm. One
stop @ 300? That ain't much, these days.
Questions Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|