Hampshire Binocular & Telescope Fair near Southampton this weekend.

[KennyC]

I visited the Hampshire Binocular & Telescope Fair today, primarily to see and handle the Olympus 150-600mm lens. I was not overwhelmed by the size nor the weight of the thing, though it is a fat heavy lump and I would not like to use it hand held for very long. I found that the stabilisation at full zoom did not seem as steady as I am used to with the 300+1.4x on my OM1 even though it was all turned on. The view through the lens did seem to lack contrast which also was a bit odd and I did not like it. [This was at close range, not an atmospheric haze thing.] And finally I realised that I have no need at all for a zoom that goes to 600mm; I can get there with my 300 and extenders and have a nicer experience. All in all there is no way I would consider lugging that lump around. If I was happy with a lump that size I would spend the same cash on the Sigma/Canon 150-600mm and buy a Canon R7, all grey market, for the same money. I am unlikely to do that either. But I was impressed with a couple of items. The dot sight, which was a craze some years ago, would be magic when using the 300f4 +2x convertor; it would make life so much easier and I may investigate further. And I really did fall in love with the 40-150mm f2.8, a sweet little lens with internal focus, and I certainly will be buying one of those. I am so glad that I made the almost 2 hour journey; I learned a lot and potentially saved some dosh.

[MJ224]

The 40-150mm f2.8 is a great lens. I use it for going abroad, and up its game with the 2.0TC. 1/2 kg lighter than the 300mm, and has that flexibility. I think it's a close match to the f4 300mm...

[wornish]

+1 for the 40-150mm f2.8. It's a great lens.

[Phill D]

I agree too it is a great lens but one caveat, I rarely end up using it. I just always go for the 300 f4. Didn't expect to but that's the way it seems to be turning out for me.

[blackfox]

yeah recently bought one and sold it on fairly quickly I prefer the 300 f4 ,and the 40-150 plastic fantastic does the same job for £500 less

[Mdb2]

I did read the 150-600 is a sigma, with m4/3 fitting??

[blu-by-u]

You are not far wrong.

[Bikie John]

I did read the 150-600 is a sigma, with m4/3 fitting??

I don't think it is quite as simple as that. A few Sigma lenses are appearing as re-badged versions - the 100-400 for example. As far as I can make out, these are Sigma optical designs but re-worked for whichever system they are fitting in with. System specifics could include things like weather sealing, co-operative image stabilization and so on. And a certain amount of aesthetic styling.

This strikes me as a good thing all round - Sigma get revenue to support lens design, OMDS or whoever get good lenses that fit properly into their systems. I have used the 100-400 quite a bit (in its Olympus guise) and am very pleased with it.

John

[BDennis]

It’s good to get somewhere to try out the gear. I think the 40-150 f2.8 should pair well with the 300mm f4 setup you have, it would be a good lens add. I’ve used the 300mm f4 + MC-14 for a long time now and on trips I like to also take the 40-150 f2.8. On summer trips to Scotland the f2.8 has been great for Pine Marten shots through the holiday cottage window around 8 to 9pm of an evening. Also it’s a good lightweight walkabout option. With the MC-14 mounted you can quickly swap between the 300mm and the zoom if needed out in the field and not worry about muck getting on the sensor. The 40-150 + MC-14 gives you something like the old 4/3 50-200mm lens but with constant f4 aperture wide open - a nice lightweight option.

Interesting about the lack of contrast on the150-600mm. I thought I noticed that on some sample images I found online. I have the 100-400mm which is also thought to be a Sigma design and noticed less contrast with that compared to the 300mm f4. I think it is just different optical qualities of the glass compared to the pro lenses.

Bill

[KennyC]

Yes, for general birding the 300f4 is generally a better bet, but I wanted a quality zoom with a shorter range. I do have the cheapo plastic 40-150 of course and although OK, it of course does not take a teleconvertor. I find that when using procapture to grab a bird landing or taking off, the field of view with the 300f4 is just too narrow. I believe the 40-150 f2.8 handles both convertors very well. If it fails to be a good idea, then at Cotswold price I could sell it with minimum loss, but I doubt it will come to that.

[Mdb2]

Blu-by-u. I believe I saw a review as well from dpreview if memory serves me well. I have no beef with sigma, I used their 500f4.5 back in the day while shooting canon that was a good lens and used it on my EM1 with an adapter. Whilst I jumped ship from canon. I think if OM did the job the lens would have been even better and maybe a tad lighter.

[blu-by-u]

Yes, read it when it was launched. I think Sigma do make a lot of lenses for everyone. You mentioned it right too. If it's an OM system design, it may have been a lot lighter. Sigma is not that well known for light weight stuff. I did have several fourthird lenses made by sigma. Which includes that really heavy 50-500 (which I still have)

[KennyC]

There is no easy to say why I didn't like the 150-600 but suffice to say that I simply did not enjoy handling it. There was something about the general bulk of it, the multi-turn zoom action etc, but I just didn't gell with it no matter how sharp it might be. I am very glad I handled it because I had been almost on the point of ordering one.

[blackfox]

that saves me a few bob Kenny . heavy gear is no longer on the cards these days

[MJ224]

Yes it is a bit heavy, but I was impressed on its IQ...