150mm f/2.8+2x vs 75-300

[fotofundi]

I'm just starting to have a mild interest in photographing migrating birds and have been relying on my 4/3 Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-4 + 2x converter, but this combo is a bit unwieldy and so I have been thinking of either adding the 75-300mm or selling the 4/3 kit and replacing it with the 40-150mm f/2.8 + 2x converter. Has anyone ever compared the results from the 150mm f/2.8 fitted with 2x converter and the 75-300?
David
PS - I have considered the 100-400 as a replacement, but feel the cost vs general usability is too restrictive.

[blu-by-u]

It all depends on the amount of available light.

75-300 does not have any convertors. So it's maxed out at 300
40-150/2.8 have the use of a convertor x2 to 300 but you get f5.6 (think I could be wrong)
Lumix 100-300 another good and light but no convertor f4.0-f5.6 small ( my holiday pack)
There is also that lumix 50-200 and it has the Panasonic convertors of x1.4 and x2.0
Then those gems, 300/4, 100-400.

Lots of choices.
Also a note, those convertors are not shareable. So if you want lumix, then get lumix. it won't work with your olys.

P.S. I am looking for a preloved lumix 50-200/2.8-4.0

[fotofundi]

There may be one for sale, along with 1.4x and 2x converters if you are visiting Cyprus!
Otherwise they will have to wait until our next trip to Blighty - probably not until next year. There is no interest in M4/3 here, and now Brexit has bitten, sending stuff to the UK is less than straightforward.
I'm a bit wary of long focal length Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies - too many adverse comments on the web, and once purchased any problems can become a nightmare from here.

[mapleleaf56]

I tried the 2x converter with the 40-150 f2.8 and was very disappointed with the results.. I’ve never had the 75-300..
I ultimately ended up buying a new 100-400 Olympus and its worth every penny..

[blu-by-u]

Agree. the 40-150 with EC20 don't work. But it's acceptable with the EC14

[Ian]

I think 'acceptable' with the MC14 is a disservice to the combo - it's incredibly sharp. I haven't tried the MC20 with the 40-150 Pro but I've seen other reports saying it's very good, so these comments are a bit odd to me.

[timboo]

I agree re the mc14 it’s amazing i honestly cannot tell any difference to when not using it image quality wise, it’s just a fantastic combination simple.
I was so excited when the mc20 was released as it saved me buying a different lens but was totally underwhelmed by it’s performance the images seemed noticeably softer than the mc14.

[blackfox]

Out of your choices I would go for the zuiko 100-400 it performs well above its price/apeture range ,can be used all day wide open at 400mm and still be sharp . The 75-300 tends to lose sharpness at max zoom . Plus the 100-400 is a fair bit lighter than your current rig

[fotofundi]

Thanks for your comment on the 75-300mm at max zoom. The 100-400 would be nice but is too restrictive, being only useful for birding (there is no 'wildlife' left - it's all been shot by the so called 'hunters').
I have been getting quite good results from the 50-200 f/2.8-4 with the converters after zeroing the PDF. The birds tend to be centre frame with the b/gound way out-of-focus, so any fall-off is not noticeable, but it has to be done from a tripod/monopod as I cannot hand-hold that weight at 3-400mm. Tried shoulder braces and other ideas, but at the end of the day the best solution has been physical support from the ground.
As my interest in the subject is only mild at this point, an alternative might be the old 300mm OM lens, used wide open on a converter with manual focus. As far as I can recall, it was quite a good performer at max aperture, but maybe that is wishful thinking - it was a long time ago!

[blackfox]

Your initial comment mentioned migrating birds . So I based my reply on that ..don’t forget that that Olympus 100-400 will also take a 1.4 tc and still work well .. there are numerous shots from lens and lens plus t.c on here or my Flickr stream . You also gain lens i.s and pitch and yaw with that combo . And I can’t really see why you call it restrictive as it’s a zoom ..
As for light I can’t see that as a problem in Cyprus I did extremely well with mine in north wales .
You also have a super close focus on the lens which also works with the t.c making it ideal for insects and bugs etc .. I have owned and used your current rig so my advice comes from a working knowledge of both rigs .
The only thing we don’t know is what body you’re using it on ?

[Phill D]

Sorry to disagree but I felt that the x2 worked pretty well with the 40-150. Yes it does give you f5.6. IQ wise it's worse with the converter but not by very much and it's going to give you an f2.8 capability for lower light use closer up. Overall the 300mm beats it for resolution with the converter but you loose the versatility. I've never had the 100-400 but from Jeff's images it seems pretty good when you have got the light. I did have the 75-300 for a while and really liked it till it got pinched. But that was before I got the other lenses so was never able to do a direct comparison. I suspect it will be slightly worse than the 40-150 plus mc20 especially at 300mm but it's very light weight compared to all the other options.

[MJ224]

Agere with Phill here. The MC-2.0 works very well with the 40-150mm f2.8. I don't have another telephoto zoom, so when subjects are likely going to be too close for the 300mm +1.4 MC, then the setup works well. The IS in the camera really does a great job. And the weight of the camera and lens is significantly lighter than the 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 MC...............

[gazza95]

Firstly I would suggest you continue with monopod as I always found it the best way of supporting an old 4/3 90-250 lens. It provides enough support and it also allows simple carrying setup on shoulder.

As you start to photograph birds so does the desire for longer lenses with associated price/weight. It's interesting having watched several e-group members go down this route and the gear they have purchased and sold. Eventually folks end up with 300mm f4+1.4 converter or 150-400 simply as these have the reach and focusing speed to handle birds at a distance and birds in flight. Other lens combinations simply seem to be stepping stones to get there. I went from 50-200 to 90-250 to 150-400 because other lenses did not offer enough benefit over the old 4/3's 90-250.

If you photograph birds you need as long a lens as you can afford, other points like weight and focusing performance need to be compromised. Target needs to be to get to 500mm somehow, so any 300mm lens will need a converter added.

As you are using 4/3 lenses why not continue down the legacy lens route and see what 300mm or longer olympus. nikon, canon, etc you can find locally. Yes they will be manual focus so you will not be doing birds in flight but you will be able to get close enough. If you see 1 4/3 300m F2.8 at reasonable price snap it up .

The other thing to remember if you stick with 50-200 is field craft to get you closer to the elusive Cypriot wildlife.

Have fun searching out something different.

Gary

[Dave in Wales]

https://www.e-group.uk.net/forum/forum/cameras-lenses-and-system-accessories/lens-focus/telephoto/919878-don-t-knock-the-75-300-f4-8-6-7-ll

[Ian]

I use my old 75-300 a lot. It's super light and compact so it's easy to bring anywhere. I know the performance gets some stick at 300mm but considering the other benefits I think this criticism is a bit over-blown. AI sharpening helps a lot now.

Ian

[antpitta]

Personally - and assuming the superb 300mm PRO is out of the question - I'd look first at the 100-400. The one thing you find trying to photograph birds is their is no substitute for reach. Yes, it's a bit slow but with modern PP software you can push the ISO to make up for that - I pretty much stick to ISO 3200 on the OM-1 using DxO PL5 or ON1 and am very happy with the results. You would also have the option to use either the 1.4x or 2x TC's with the 100-400 for more reach! Obviously we don't always have enough light for that in the UK but I'm thinking you might have just a bit more ...

[AMc]

I have the 75-300mm - not enough interest in anything wildlife to go for a more expensive lens.
It is decent quality and as Ian says, portable enough to carry around without much trouble al day.

Looking at usedlens.co.uk the 75-150mm starts at £284
The 40-150mm f2.8 Pro starts at £699 before you add a teleconvertor.
I would hope that all that money would result in a much better image but I don't have any experience of the 40-150 Pro
My experience of the 12-40 Pro would steer me that way if money were limitless or this was my main interest.

If your interest is only casual then I would think the 75-300mm would be the choice.

You might find this article/site interesting

https://smallsensorphotography.com/m-zuiko-75-300-assessment

[fotofundi]

Thanks for all the comments and particularly for the links. It is no surprise that there is a difference of opinion on the 75-300 as QC is probably minimal or non-existent so there will be individual lens variations - and photographer expectations, but I'm reassured that finding a 'good' one will do the job - as demonstrated by Thomas Stirr in his assessment.
So that's the way I shall go as it is a relatively minor outlay for a subject that I may or may not pursue and it is a lens that can live in the camera bag until needed, unlike the 50-200. It also fits in nicely with my standard 2 lens kit of the 12-45 f/4 and 75mm f/1.8
I'm constantly grateful to Ian and his helpers for keeping this site going and the great benefit of being able to obtain helpful independent assessments from people who have used equipment extensively and have made a small donation in recognition.
Thanks to everyone.
David