Long tele lenses for M4/3 - musing

[Sootchucker]

Having just had an unexpected tax rebate (whoo-hoo) I have been contemplating long lens choices for micro four thirds of which they are currently two front runners. The Olympus 300mm F4 Pro and the Panasonic Leica 100-400 F4-6.3 OIS.

Whilst musing between these two lenses, (and there's a big price difference between them), I was thinking how usable they would be in the typical British light.Having looked back at some images done a couple of years ago with my Panasonic 100-300 on an EM5, I can see that even to get a shutter speed of around 1/125 sec at F5.6, my ISO's were up around 2500-3200, unless the bird was in bright sunlight.Now I am a huge fan of micro four thirds and have a GX8 and an EM1 along with far too many lenses, so I'm not knocking the format, and I absolutely love them for what they are, small light and an ideal camera with enough pixels and quality for 80% of my needs. However currently when the light levels drop, out comes my Nikon D500 or D750 with the Nikon 300mm F4 AFS or the Tamron 150-600 F4-6.3.

My question is, undoubtedly as excellent as the two M4/3 lenses surely are, as they are both aperture limited (i.e not F2.8), which would have no doubt made them incredibly expensive and huge, are long lenses for M4/3 a viable alternative for a APS-C or FF DSLR shooter, or are we a generation or two of M4/3 sensors before that happens. The typical subjects for these lenses tend to be wildlife (although not exclusively), which normally means shade or low light levels with relatively high ISO's.

Whilst purchasing the Panasonic at least, wouldn't be a problem for me financially, (and I do like the idea of having a complete M4/3 system), I'm just wondering how effective they are when the ISO's level's go north ? I know that for ultimate quality the Nikon's would pee all over the M4/3 system, but they do weigh a relative tonne in comparison, so if backpacking for some distance, the M4/3 format does still appeal to be a second wildlife system.

For those that use either these two lenses or DSLR users (go on then, Canon and Sony users are allowed as well ), what are people's thoughts, on quality / effectiveness vs. price and convenience ?

Note this discussion has nothing to do with how much equipment I may or may not own, it's purely for subjective comments about long lens photography on the current M3/4 Olympus and Panasonic bodies.

 

[mikew]

Its a compromise at the moment,i have just started using the 100-400 and i sometimes need high shutter speeds even with the brilliant stabilizing built in,this in turn equals high ISOs its a situation i fully understood and had no real alternative the DX and FX gear became just too heavy,if noise offends then i would say dont even consider it.

 

[mikew]

I didnt think this was bad for 3200 iso on the GX8,strong NR on the water but none on the duck,just wish it would turn out this good more often 100-400.

 

[Nawty]

It is simple, what is more important, size and portability or outright IQ and performance in low light?

That's your decision right there.

I took the PL100-400 to Alaska and it was perfect as all I had was a little backpack with 24-800mm FFE in it with 24-300 being f/2.8. No way in hell is that possible with any other system and for me is well worth the small drop in IQ.

Most of the Alaskan animal shots in my Flickr were taken with the 100-400, except the eagles which were with the 40-150 pro. Really looking forward to the EM1ii as hopefully that will improve the AF which although perfectly workable and better than most give it credit for caused a couple of missed shots.

 

[snerkler]

As above it really comes down to IQ vs weight.

I ran two systems side by side for a while, the D750 and the EM5-II. I had the EM5-II because I didn't want to lug big heavy gear around, but the difference in AF speed and accuracy as well as the difference in IQ left me frustrated with the Olly. Granted I was only using the Panny 100-300 (and I tried the Olly 75-300) and not one of the more pro lenses, but there was too much compromise and I found I'd rather carry around nearly 3kg of gear (D750 and Tamron 150-600) than put up with the hunting and slow focus, as well as noisy images at ISO 3200. When I got a decent shot with the Olly though they were pretty decent in terms of IQ.

 

[magicaxeman]

I'm currently using the 40-150 F2.8 both with and without the 1.4x TC along with the EM5ii and Pen F and have found that the faster aperture really helps to keep the ISO's down but to do so it means sacrificing reach.
When purchasing I looked at the 100-400 penny closely but in the end realised it would mean using higher ISO's than I wanted to use so traded the extra reach for that faster aperture and for me its made a difference, especially in how much further into the evening I can shoot before the lower light levels force the ISO beyond my personal cut off point (ISO 1600 & SS of 1/250th sec for birds).
I've been looking at longer lenses and for M4/3 so far the 300mm is winning things though I'm also in a quandary and thinking about the D750 + 200-500 F5.6 as weight won't be an issue for me because the system will be mounted on a powered remote controlled tripod head and shooting done via tethering whether I go for the Oly rig or the Nikon.
I'm very happy with the 40-150's performance and the extra resolution of the 20mp sensor in the Pen F is noticeable to me so maybe the EM1ii will bring more to the game? For me trading reach for aperture worked for my front garden birds and maybe it would for you if you have good stalking skills?

I just can't see that smaller aperture lenses such as the 100-400 will work that well given our weather and the higher ISO's required to get the needed shutter speeds and as we know though IBIS is handy, its not substitute for a fast shutter speed when shooting subjects that aren't static and a perching bird or what appears to be a stationary mammal are far from stationery in reality, they are constantly moving and twitching about.
Of course the other problem being that even though they have improved markedly M4/3 camera's still lack the noise headroom that larger sensor camera's enjoy.

In an ideal world your best bet would be one of the Nikon big guns, 500 F4/600 F4 but then we are talking megabucks and a massive weight to carry.

I should explain that I'm disabled and bed bound so remote shooting is the only way I can shoot wildlife in my back garden, shooting the wildlife out the front can be done with a bed rig I've come up with and that works well.
I usually shoot manual for birds, single AF, 1/1000th sec or higher, F2.8 or F4, ISO 200-800 or F4 - F5.6 with the TC.

 

[Nawty]

As above it really comes down to IQ vs weight.

I ran two systems side by side for a while, the D750 and the EM5-II. I had the EM5-II because I didn't want to lug big heavy gear around, but the difference in AF speed and accuracy as well as the difference in IQ left me frustrated with the Olly. Granted I was only using the Panny 100-300 (and I tried the Olly 75-300) and not one of the more pro lenses, but there was too much compromise and I found I'd rather carry around nearly 3kg of gear (D750 and Tamron 150-600) than put up with the hunting and slow focus, as well as noisy images at ISO 3200. When I got a decent shot with the Olly though they were pretty decent in terms of IQ.

AF for these long lenses is significantly better with the EM1 compared to the EM5ii. If the EM5ii is your only m43 camera then you will end up frustrated when shooting wildlife and other moving things.