Evolving thoughts on the 150-600

[Ian]

I think the new 150-600 makes a lot more sense the more you think about it. It's quite a misunderstood offering from OM System. Here's my analysis:

https://magazine.e-group.uk.net/pages/in-defence-of-the-new-150-600mm-zoom-from-om-system/

Let me know what you think!

Ian

[blackfox]

Yes Ian in reality you’re 100% on the mark with that appraisal … ask any proper bird photographer what the most important thing and the reply will be reach is everything ?. ? And as I have often tried to point out in the forum a lot of new age birders buy a long reach lens then take shots from further away , that’s totally the wrong approach get as close as you can and fill the frame is the only way to get good results

[Ross the fiddler]

Yes, but sometimes I have to remember to take some wider angle shots too, to show context.

[huwnothugh]

In all the reviews that I've seen, the lens has been mounted on the OM-1 Mk2. Do we know how it performs on the Mk1? Any compromises?

[Ian]

In all the reviews that I've seen, the lens has been mounted on the OM-1 Mk2. Do we know how it performs on the Mk1? Any compromises?

Not really, apart from improvements to the Mark II, which are incremental.

Ian

[blackfox]

saw one on u tube by a unknown to me reviewer and he was quite impressed ,sample images were good to

[huwnothugh]

Hmm, I'm wondering if the lens needs the extra RAM and/or algorithms of the Mark 2 to get the best out of it (e.g. fast A/F).

[BDennis]

I think you're right that it's been engineered to OM System specifications. It would be interesting to see a teardown of the lens or a more detailed article on the construction like we've seen for some other lenses (Imaging Resource did one for the BWL, it needed cooperation from OMS though. Get yourself on a plane to Japan Ian!).

If I had this lens I'd likely use it with a monopod especially with TCs added. With the trombone zoom it will wave about in the wind a fair bit, I find it bad enough with the BWL!

As Jeff said a lot of people will be disappointed not to get fantastic shots of wildlife at long distance. I've been there, made the mistakes. You really need the field craft to get close. With 600mm to play with you'd get some great detail on close birds or butterflies for head shots, feathers etc. I don't think the closest focus distance is the fixed 1.4 metres over the whole range like other lenses though?

I think possibly some people will use this for video on a tripod maybe with the G9 Mk2, I've seen some YouTubers using the BWL for this and getting good results. This is a cheaper option. It's not really about IQ for some at long distance but getting records of birds they're watching - a bit like digiscoping.

I wouldn't mind this lens to try out for curiosity sake and for the bonkers zoom. I'd add the MC-20, sit in a garden lounger with a beer and try for high res shots of moon craters. Also to see what the IQ and rendering is like compared to the pro lenses. I have the 100-400mm and although it gets some sharp shots I find the colour rendering slightly flat compared to the 300mm f4. It might just be down to higher ISOs.

The Red35 / Jimmy Cheng video is worth a watch, it looked like he had some fun with it. I'll be interested to see the independent reviews by the likes of Mike Lane - they should have sent him one.

I don't think I could justify adding this to my growing stable of telephoto lenses, given what I recently spent on one. I've kept the 100-400mm because I sometimes don't want to be out with the expensive lens - in case I get attacked by badgers or dogs on the regular butterfly survey transects or something 🤣

Bill

[MJ224]

Have two beers Bill, and you will see anything you want, and hopefully be able to fight back those butterflies...

[BDennis]

Hah yes, two beers is enough these days!

[Ross the fiddler]

No, a couple Scotch on the rocks does it for me.
Actually, it was wine tonight, to celebrate a long marriage.

[blackfox]

I’m totally with bill on this .. the weight alone makes it unusable for me BUT I would like to try one ,time for dax to go visit some shops … and like mark the sheer I.q I get with the 300 mm + 1.4 is more than good enough . Plus with digital tc I can stretch that to a incredible 1680mm @ f5.6 FF equiv. handholdable

[KennyC]

I am interested in Ian's comments comparing the 300f4 to the 150-400, saying the 300f4 is not comparable. Is the BWL sharper at 300 than the 300f4, or at 400 than the 300 # 1.4x. I would would be very surprised if the 150-400 was sharpest.

[rustyarrow]

Having had a 300 and now had a 150-400 for 2 years I could not tell the difference between the two in sharpness and I am at 400mm 99% of the time

[KennyC]

Apologies to Ian. I have read Ian's piece again and I must have mis-read something because I cannot find a reference to the 300f4 comparison with the BWL.

[Ian]

No Problem, Kenny. I mainly focused on size and weight comparisons with other lenses and I don't think I mentioned the 300 f/4.

[Ian]

Someone has done my article a favour - the number of hits it received increased almost a 1000% overnight! It's now been read three timers as many times as my OM-1 Mark II news article.

Ian

[c12402]

Hi Ian,

I fully agree with your view on this lens, a 150-600mm is what it is regardless the mount or sensor size. To reduce its weight and size (open), it would be necessary to go to the same technology than the 150-400mm: magnesium body, exotic glasses and a fixed length optical architecture, all that resulting in a high price tag.

In another aspect, I liked that OM Systems seems to have retained its software engineering and systems integration capabilities that, in my view, are part of their core competencies. Olympus has synergies with their other divisions in manufacturing optics that the new company doesn’t.

Regarding the weight issue, my solution with the 150-400mm has been to return to the gym. I’m 68 and it’s surprising how well the body can recover with a bit of perseverance and dedication.

Regards

[Ross the fiddler]

I'm ahead of you with a couple of years & feel myself slowing up. Part of my incentive to keep active (apart from walking the dogs) is buying & using battery outdoor gear, mowers, line trimmers, brushcutters (need that on our bush block), hedge trimmers, pole hedge trimmers/loppers & chainsaws etc. It is all fun & makes me extend my physical activity in doing so. I recently bought more & updated with more batteries to help keep everything ticking along. Another reason I've already spent some of my 'spending budget' leaving less for anymore camera gear.

[gazza95]

To me the 150-600 makes a lot of sense in that with the 300, 100-400 and 150-400 people can choose the lens that suits their needs and budgets.

Having got the OM-1 and then gradually retired I was looking for subject to photograph during week and wildlife seemed interesting. So the search for public bird hides in Oxfordshire started. You quickly realise that to photograph birds at an RSPB site you will need silly length lenses. While other organisations put out feeders and birds come much closer.

As Blackfox says the real skill is getting close enough to fill frame. This is the playground for the 300mm lens. This means fieldcraft and lots of time.....

I went down the 150-400 route as I knew 300mm did not have reach I needed with my lack of fieldcraft skills and also as I need flexibility of a zoom for weekend motorsport. If I went for 100-400 I would always wonder how good the 150-400 was and also it is relatively slow for early morning pics. What I've found is that I walk around with 150-400+1.4 most of the time. Is has good reach and image quality is good enough to crop heavily. It's also light enough to be comfortable to walk long distances. Don't imagine the 150-400 is a perfect lens, it's not. The zoom moves as you walk around, the lens foot is uncomfortable and too short to reach the focus ring and the buttons override the camera so you can't switch IS on off from camera...

If I was just visiting RSPB site then the 150-600 with 1.4 converter will give you plenty of reach, just expect to be disappointed with images due to atmospheric effects. Taking pics at 100+ metres is a bit of a lottery. The use of a support of some sort while sitting in an RSPB hide is not really an issue.

No one will buy all three lenses but there is now a great choice to suit most peoples reach and budget needs and minimise the cons.

Gary

[KennyC]

Re atmospheric effects. I don't use a long lens for making distant objects nearer, I want to make nearer things bigger. Those might seem the same, but they are not.

[MJ224]

Yes, a very good point Kenny. Fill the frame is the ideal object of the game..

[blackfox]

Just seen your report on faceberk Ian that’s why your hit rate shot up rapidly BUT there’s also another blog/ report on there that rips into it for using the wrong type of focus motor and saying the results from it are mundane at best . Caveat emptor

[Ian]

Just seen your report on faceberk Ian that’s why your hit rate shot up rapidly BUT there’s also another blog/ report on there that rips into it for using the wrong type of focus motor and saying the results from it are mundane at best . Caveat emptor

Can you provide a link?

Ian

[blackfox]

Will see if I can find it again ian

[blackfox]

can't find it spotted on my I pad earlier this morning but faceberk is the worlds worst for re-finding a post ,will post if if comes up again

[blackfox]

here ya go found it

https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/150702/om-system-mzuiko-digital-ed-150-600mm-f50-63-is

[Ross the fiddler]

Ah, you beat me to it!

[Ian]

So, whose opinion would you value most, a PC Magazine journalist who does a lot of lab testing (I have to be careful here, I used to write for PC Magazine, and I have done lots of lab testing in my time ) or Petr Bambousek?

https://www.sulasula.com/en/om-system-150-600mm-first-impressions/

[timboo]

Thanks for that. Other reviews praise it v the 100-400 the 100-400 on that basis it suggests the 100-400 is bad ignoring price.

[Ian]

here ya go found it
https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/150702/o...00mm-f50-63-is

Ah OK, thanks.

Is this the reference to the type of focus motor?

One thing to bear in mind with his test results is that he stopped the lens down a bit or used a converter (which also knocks the aperture down) and noted a loss sharpness and blamed the optics. It's actually diffraction. If I was using this lens I would always use it wide-open unless I had to stop down for some overriding reason.

Another thing, he does point out that the 150-400 is cheaper than a 300 Pro and substantially less than a 150-400 Pro. But the 150-600 is cheaper and can do some things that the other lenses can't. The 150-600 is also stretching the envelope. I am not surprised that IQ fades towards 600.

The question I would like to see answered is, what are results like at 600mm, where a distant subject occupies more sensor pixels, compared to being shot at 400mm and cropped more aggressively.

Ultimate technical quality out of the camera, these days, isn't quite as critical as it used to be, thanks to image enhancement tools we enjoy today.

He's very critical of the price, but in the end it depends on how many lenses OM System can sell and if they can maintain a profit.

Ian