I'm thinking about getting an OM-1. For my purposes I'd want a lens roughly equivalent to 70-300mm or 100-400mm, but I find the assortment of lenses out there confusing. What do Olympus users recommend in those focal length ranges?
Is anyone exploring the Olympus OM-1 for birds and wildlife?
- Thread starter Mitch56
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
eaj101
Well-known member
The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 (80-300 equivalent) may be my favorite m43 lens. It's *really* sharp, and takes both 1.4x and 2x PCs very well. (which gets you to 600mm equivalent, though at f/5.6). I some times are carry just it and a wide zoom and feel covered.
There's a Panasonic/Leica 50-200 (100-400 equiv) that gets good reviews but I haven't shot it.
eaj101
Well-known member
You should try it in your copious spare time
Rent an OM-1 and the 150-400 and let us know. I for one would be fascinated by your feedback.
faunagraphy
Active member
Second the 40-150 f2.8 Pro. It stays at f2.8 so it's versatile in low light and for events, landscapes etc. It also takes the same TCs that are used by a few other Olympus telephotos, if you ever decide to upgrade in the future. On the flip side, 300mm FOV might be too short for some wildlife so you'll always have TCs on.
So it might make more sense to get the Olympus 100-400. A slower lens that performs very well and remains affordable. 200-800 equivalent FOV.
I own the PanaLeica 50-200 and I love it. At the center, it's slightly sharper than my Nikon 300 PF at f4 and f5.6. In m43 terms, the 300 PF on a DX sensor would yield a 225mm FOV so they're roughly equal at the long end. However, corners are quite bad at 200mm until you get to f8. Corners on my 300 PF stay sharp, at least on my DX sensor.
However, at shorter focal lengths like 150mm, if shot with the same framing as my 300 PF, the 50-200 is indisputably sharper. Just to give Barbara a frame of reference.
The advantage of the 50-200 f2.8-4 vs the 40-150 f2.8 Pro is weight and size (only 650 gm!), plus the ability to get to 400mm FOV without needing TCs. Panasonic lenses also take TCs but NOT Olympus TCs, and Pany TCs are expensive and hard to find used.
A sharp and super lightweight lens available now is the Olympus 40-150 f4 Pro - much smaller and half the weight of even the Panasonic 50-200! And relatively cheap. It hasn't hit stores yet but initial reviews are encouraging. However it does not take TCs, is an f4 lens and can only work at max 25 fps on the OM-1 (which might be all you need).
Budget options include the Olympus 75-300 and the Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6, but the usual caveats for budget lenses apply.
Super helpful, faunagraphy! Thanks!
StefanSC
Well-known member
TLDR: get the 40-150mm f2.8 and the TC1.4x for it if you plan on using the OM-1
. The long version:
70-300mm equivalent would be the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 and f4 lenses. The f2.8 takes TCs, the f4 doesn't.
Also, if you want to shoot the OM-1 at 50fps, you'll need the f2.8 lens as the f4 doesn't support 50fps with AF shooting.
For 100-400mm equivalency, you have the PanaLeica 50-200 f2.8-f4. It's more expensive than the 40-150mm f2.8, lighter than it, has less bells and whistles (no fn button, no pull-back focus ring, no collapsable lens hood, no tripod mount - though it doesn't need it).
In my limited experience, the 50-200mm is sharper than the 40-150mm f2.8 at f4 across the common range (including the Oly with TC1.4x). Also, with the 1.4x TC attached it is much sharper than the 40-150mm f2.8 with the 2x TC.
Contrary to what faunagraphy said, the Panasonic TC is actually fairly easy to get hold of on the used market. It pops up every couple of months on MPB.com (us, uk, eu sites) for 3 to 500$. I got mine from them last month for about 350$, it was rated excellent, it was actually brand new. Or you can grab a 200mm f2.8 and sell the lens off while keeping the TC
. Keep in mind that with the 50-200mm you won't have 50fps with AF on the OM-1, you won't have in-camera focus stacking and ProCapture will be limited to certain modes.
I really looked at Olympus in 2018 before I upgraded some Nikon gear. Frankly there is a lot to like. I was also worried about the subject separation and in the end I did not buy Olympus. I will say unless you are going to invest into the full frame systems big 400-600 primes I doubt you would see a difference when using full frame with the new super tele zooms. When you are at f6.3 for example or even possibly f5.6 vs a similar or more powerful focal length in m4/3 with a faster f stop I would bet they are awfully close. You can also use a tele and not have as big of an ISO impact as when shooting FF with a super zoom. You will get smaller and less expensive gear so it starts to make a lot of sense.
If I get to a point that I don't want to lug around heavier gear anymore I could sure see a switch or a second system.
If I get to a point that I don't want to lug around heavier gear anymore I could sure see a switch or a second system.
faunagraphy
Active member
I agree. The m43 system has no equivalent for a full frame 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4. In terms of FOV, yes. In terms of DOF, no. The older Four Thirds system tried to compete and released some optically stellar lenses: Zuiko 150mm f2, 90-250 f2.8, 35-100 f2 etc. They were overengineered and could not compete with full frame. The 150mm f2, for instance, weighs 3 times as much as a Canon 135mm f2L. Sure, the Canon is a softer lens (which makes it great for portraits) whereas the Olympus is clinically sharp. The Olympus was meant for wildlife, not portraits. Still, how can you justify spending thousands on a 150mm f2 lens when Canon and Nikon were selling their 135mm f2 lenses for a few hundred? Even today, the 150mm f2, which is out of production and difficult to repair, costs more used than a new Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art, even though the Sigma is about as sharp as the Olympus.
So I am glad that Olympus (and Micro Four Thirds) now play to their strengths. The older Zuiko 35-100mm f2 weighed 1800g. The modern Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 has faster AF but weighs just 360g! 80% less than the older lens! It's so popular that Panasonic released a second version with minor updates.
Thanks to this new approach, some Micro Four Thirds lenses have no equal in other systems. Like the 8mm f1.8 Pro fisheye, or the 8-25mm Pro (UWA - normal FOV) or the incredible 12-100mm f4 Pro lens (you can shoot 10 sec or even 20 sec handheld exposures with it!) or the tiny 12-200mm (24-400mm FOV). Or even the 300mm f4 Pro which competes with the world's best telephotos but costs a fraction. Clearly, Nikon sees the benefits of this philosophy, as evidenced by their investment in PF lens development.
IMO it makes sense to invest in more than one system if you choose lenses / body that play to that system's strengths. Pair a full frame 400mm f2.8 + TC with an Olympus 12-100 f4 and you have a 2-lens system that can do pretty much everything. Maybe toss in your favorite portrait or UWA / fisheye lens and call it good. You won't need more than 3 lenses if you mix systems with care. It's too much headache for some but perhaps headache is better than backache.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Some of the factors to consider when comparing the M4/3 and DX systems
photographylife.com
and photographers comparing the options, in depth, should find this article on equivalence not only interesting but insightful. Recently updated but much of the original content dates back to the era of the Nikon D4s and D7000, when Nikon's 1 System was still vibrant (in its realm)
Be sure to scroll down to the cartoon!
Micro Four Thirds vs APS-C As Someone Who Uses Both
photographylife.com
and photographers comparing the options, in depth, should find this article on equivalence not only interesting but insightful. Recently updated but much of the original content dates back to the era of the Nikon D4s and D7000, when Nikon's 1 System was still vibrant (in its realm)
Be sure to scroll down to the cartoon!
Last edited:
faunagraphy
Active member
Some of the factors to consider when comparing the M4/3 and DX systems
Micro Four Thirds vs APS-C As Someone Who Uses Both
and photographers seriously comparing the options should find this article on equivalence not only interesting but insightful. Recently updated bug tye original dates back to the era of the Nikon D4s and D7000, when Nikon's 1 System was still vibrant
Be sure to scroll down to the cartoon!
This is a seriously great article - much more thorough and informative than I expected it to be. I too shoot a mix of m43 and APS-C (D500) so this article resonated. With the reported capabilities of the OM-1, I am cautiously optimistic about the prospect of consolidating my gear into one system.
StefanSC
Well-known member
Some of the factors to consider when comparing the M4/3 and DX systems
Micro Four Thirds vs APS-C As Someone Who Uses Both
I stopped reading when he pigeon-holed Panasonic as the "video option" and Olympus as the "photo option". Panasonic has most of the computational photography modes that Olympus has (and some of them they do better, like Hi-Res). Olympus on the other hand, has made great strides in video and is quite capable in that area (and their video AF doesn't pulsate like Panasonic's
).Personally, I don't see many reasons to shoot APS-C and m43 as the IQ difference between them isn't that great and with careful choice in lenses you can cover most of you bases (UWA situation is a bit iffy, and you don't have many small f2.8 primes that can match for APS-C the affordable and rather good optically f1.7/f1.8/f2.0 primes that m43 has).
Maybe if you shoot action/wildlife where I for one feel that until now m43 hasn't had a body that could do AF-C as reliable as a D500...
Perhaps the OM-1 will beat the D500 for AF-C and prove to be an affordable option for those who want blackout free EVF and subject detect AF without breaking the bank. I might also drop my D500 and get an OM-1 and 300mm f4 if that is the case ... but I am still keeping my D810 and Samyang 135mm f2.0 as m43 doesn't have anything that can do what that combo can when shot with good technique
.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I consider these systems as complimentary, especially comparing DX DSLR to M4/3 MILC - silent shutter, AF coverage, eye-tracking etc vs very robust AFC, wider choice in optics, ISO ceilings, DoF (more correctly, practicable bokeh) and IQ of TCs etc. In this respect, at least one Japanese camera company is pushing ahead with a stacked-sensor M4/3. It will be interesting if Nikon responds with something like a Z90...
Ergonomics and cost are two major +ves for Olympus: notably when comparing 860g D500 to 600g OM-1, and only the Nikkor PF primes compete with the excellent Olympus 300 f4 Pro (not hard to find Used). Sure the new 1.8kg 150-400 f4.5 TC125X costs much more but it has many advantages, including covering a suite of expensive Nikkor primes of equivalent 'reach'
Ergonomics and cost are two major +ves for Olympus: notably when comparing 860g D500 to 600g OM-1, and only the Nikkor PF primes compete with the excellent Olympus 300 f4 Pro (not hard to find Used). Sure the new 1.8kg 150-400 f4.5 TC125X costs much more but it has many advantages, including covering a suite of expensive Nikkor primes of equivalent 'reach'
Another DPReview TV video, this time putting the OM-1 against the Canon R3. There is a teaser too. Towards the end of the video there is mention of another comparison between the OM-1 and the............ Z9.
www.dpreview.com
DPReview TV: OM System OM-1 vs. Canon EOS R3 Indoor Sports Shootout
We stress test the OM System OM-1 and Canon EOS R3 at an indoor hockey game. Does the Micro Four Thirds camera stand a chance?
www.dpreview.com
Chad Huff
Well-known member
I think I read in an article somewhere that the Olympus files didn't play well with Adobe LR/Photoshop. I find that hard to believe, and I was waiting for an appointment at the time and can't find where I read that to confirm. Has anyone here experienced this? Do the files download and edit fine in Adobe editing software? What about Topaz, Luminar, or DXO?
fsi22
Member
Adobe should update LR for the OM-1. It works but I find it better to run through OM Workspace with Noise Ai first for high iso images ( from 3200 ), then export as a 16bit Tiff and finish off my editing in LR.
Chad Huff
Well-known member
Thank you for the reply... I'm not familiar with OM workspace (the last time I shot Olympus was film days, lol) Do you use that for cataloging your library of images also, or do you still do that in LR?... Could you be specific as to why you prefer to go through OM workspace first? Is it just personal preference or are there functionality concerns?... I ask because I have a work flow I like to follow and hate the idea of changing things up all at once...
For quite a while there was a problem getting Olympus RAW (.orf) thumbnails to show up in the Adobe Bridge downloader. As a workaround I would sometimes shoot RAW plus small JPEG so I could quickly see which files I wanted to download, if need be. This problem seems to have disappeared, and overall, Olympus files behave quite normally within Adobe software, and also with DxO and Topaz Ai. It wouldn't surprise me if the OM-1 files have not been included yet in Camera Raw, but if not, they will be included soon, I'll bet.
eaj101
Well-known member
Can't speak to the OM-1, but LR, Photoshop, Topaz, etc have all worked fine on OM-D M1 files. But I import raw files into LR (which is using Camera Raw in the background) and go from there, and LR generates tifs or psds as intermediates. No problems. I prefer Adobe's Nikon profiles, but it's easy enough to change.
fsi22
Member
I use it for it’s Noise Ai. LR can get close but it needs more masking and effort.
I import with LR, open with OM Workspace, click Noise Ai and choose the lowest setting ( OFF )
I then export as a Tiff and finish off in LR.
LR works great with the E-M1 cameras.Adobe will probably release official OM-1 support soon.
dwschmidt
New member
(Been lurking for a while, finally joined…)
I am also considering the OM-1. Currently using Nikon D500, primarily with the 200-500 for a birding lens. I hike and hand-hold and the weight of that Nikon combo is too much for my shoulders these days. MFT looks like a good way to significantly reduce weight (and still retain a zoom).
This thread has been helpful to me already. But I’m trying to understand the viewfinder specs, especially the size. Specs say 1.65x (0.82x 35 mm). Does that translate to a viewfinder size of 28.5 by 21.5 mm (1.65 times (17.3 by 13 mm sensor))? Anyone have experience with the OM-1 viewfinder compared to D500 (my local stores do not have OM-1 in stock)? I have never used an EVF, so a little apprehensive, but guessing current ones are fairly nice.
Thanks for any input.
I am also considering the OM-1. Currently using Nikon D500, primarily with the 200-500 for a birding lens. I hike and hand-hold and the weight of that Nikon combo is too much for my shoulders these days. MFT looks like a good way to significantly reduce weight (and still retain a zoom).
This thread has been helpful to me already. But I’m trying to understand the viewfinder specs, especially the size. Specs say 1.65x (0.82x 35 mm). Does that translate to a viewfinder size of 28.5 by 21.5 mm (1.65 times (17.3 by 13 mm sensor))? Anyone have experience with the OM-1 viewfinder compared to D500 (my local stores do not have OM-1 in stock)? I have never used an EVF, so a little apprehensive, but guessing current ones are fairly nice.
Thanks for any input.
I had thought about it but the AUD$12k for the 150-400 put an end to that. The D500/D850 + 500 PF & 1.4 tc lives a bit longer.
faunagraphy
Active member
You must halve that. The EVF magnification is 0.83x, as opposed to the (nearly) 1x on the D500. Same goes for max magnification figures you see for minimum focusing distance. The 12-40mm kit lens has a top magnification of 0.21x which translates to 0.42x in full frame terms.
faunagraphy
Active member
Mirrorless Comparisons has just updated their BIF rankings to include the OM-1. It scored 89% for perfectly sharp photos, comparable to the Canon R5. Sony AF remains superior but thanks to its insane 50 fps burst rate, you get significantly more keepers with the OM-1 than with the A1, for a burst. That isn't considering scenarios like ones that Fsi22 has tested, requiring instant focus acquisition against cluttered backgrounds, where the A1 failed to acquire focus lock altogether. Not bad at all for a $2200 camera!
santiago
Active member
As you have and use both, I would be interested if you can expand on what are the scenarios for BIF where you would clearly use one vs the other? Many thanks!
fsi22
Member
Close up the OM-1
Tracking from a distance A1
I can get the shot with either by using work arounds but if I had to simply point and shoot, that would be the choice.
The A1 has 50MP which I don’t care about as I don’t crop as much, but that could be a dealbreaker for some.
It has better high ISO performance but I use a PL200 f2.8 which wipes out that advantage out until I go to a 400 f2,8. Which is much more expensive and isn’t anywhere near as handholdable ( I don’t use tripods, but that again ) ISO 12800 is completely usable on the OM where with a 100-400GM, I’ll be using ISO 51200 in the same situation, which for my personal is unusable.
Can’t go wrong with either at the end of the day. They both have their place, but if I was buying new today, with the experience I’ve had with both cameras. OM-1 would be my choice.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
ISO 12800 on an OM-1
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
PL200 f2.8 next to my Nikkor 500 f4, which it replaced