Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 300 mm F4.0 PRO Lens, Telephoto Zoom, Suitable for All MFT Cameras (Olympus OM-D & PEN Models, Panasonic G Series), Black

Product Information

I think it’s pretty clear what Nicholas is saying here. It’s not just the DOF that is changed, but also total light gathering capacity. In other words, if all else is equal (i.e. exactly the same subject and distance, light, etc.), a 600 f/4 lens on full-frame will gather much more light than a 300 f/4 on micro four thirds. This matters especially in the case of wildlife: in low-light scenarios, a 600 f/4 shot on full-frame will be much less noisy than a 300 f/4 shot on micro four thirds, where both shots have been equalized to the same viewing size. When Olympus first announced the M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f/4 IS PRO telephoto lens for the micro-four thirds format there was understandably much enthusiasm for its arrival. After all, it would give users the equivalent field of view of 600mm at F/4 in a far more compact and lighter lens than a DSLR equivalent. I wasn’t personally that aroused by the prospect but curiosity prompted me to ask Olympus if I could borrow the lens to write up a user experience and they very kindly lent me a copy. Jessops kindly replaced the lens three times and eventually got it nearly right. I am not 100% happy with it yet. Now before the haters start spewing into the comments section I realise these images are nothing special. Their only purpose was to serve the experience of using this lens.

I have both a Nikon D810 & Olympus OMD EM1.2 & looking at getting a wildlife lens. The Olympus 300mm f4 is certainly a useful option, but looking at the images in this article, I’m concerned about the quality. Another option for me would be the Nikon 300mm f4 PF with a 2x t/c. This option would be about the same size, weight & price of the Olympus offering, albeit without the excellent Olympus stabilization & without the further option of a 1.4 t/c on top. Thus, it makes sense to say that a 300 f/4 on micro four thirds is like a 600 f/8 on full-frame, when you are talking about equalized viewing size in terms of both DOF and noise/total light gathering! (Not light gathering per unit area) The stabilisation on the lens combined with the camera body stabilisation continues to amaze me to the point where I rarely take a tripod out with me now.For good measure, I did a simple autofocus test with the OM-1 to see how long it took to focus from the minimum focusing distance to a distant wall. I did the same with the Olympus 100-400 f/5-6.3 and the Olympus 100-300 f/4-5.6. These are my results. Theres obviously a lot more to think about with this combination. Im interested to see how its close focusing (down to 1.4 metres would you believe) works for dragonflies and other small subjects like lizards, and theres also still the question of how well the auto focus performs over time compared to equivalent DSLR combos. If 300mm is simply not enough reach, the Olympus MC-14 and Olympus MC-20 are both compatible with the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO. These teleconverters multiply the focal length by a factor of 1.4 and 2 respectively. There is a minute improvement in sharpness between f/4.0 and f/5.6 which is really only noticeable in lab-like conditions. I was able to take full advantage of the f/4.0 maximum aperture without worrying about paying a price in sharpness.

Our primary interest in this lens is from the perspective of shooting birds, so the lens first real test was a Treecreeper close to our local canal. Many of these were shot with the MC-14 teleconverter attached to the lens and this certainly enabled me to keep a good distance away from my subjects, especially the deer (although they can spot you a mile off). The teleconverter seems to slow the autofocus down a tad but not to the detriment of acquiring these images. I would like to thank Olympus for loaning the lens to me to try out and write up. I hope I have honoured their generosity with some decent images. I wanted to keep the aperture wide to keep the ISO low and depth of field shallow, and thus if the shutter speed wasn’t fast enough I would have to rest the lens onto a surface or crouch down and hold it tight. On some occasions where the subject was moving or there was not enough light under the forest canopy I had to ramp up the shutter speed and swallow the increase in noise. This is one area where larger sensor cameras and their equivalent lens would have an advantage with better performance at higher ISOs allowing a faster shutter speed to be used if so required.Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it. This first shot of a swift in flight I'm particularly pleased with and for me confirms that the Olympus MFT set up can now compete with Canon and Nikon for shooting wildlife. Additionally, when this lens is paired with the newer Olympus bodies like the OM-1, the lens and camera work superbly together with excellent image stabilization and autofocus. The stabilization is most effective when paired with Olympus bodies, where synchronized image stabilization will give you up to 6 stops stabilization. Wildlife photography simply became much easier with a modern lens/camera combo like this. Close Focusing Ability No, that’s not true. The aperture will be THE SAME. If you measure the exposure trough this lens wide open on any M4/3 camera, and then the same scene with any FF 300 or 600mm lens open to f/4 and mounted on any FF camera – with same ISO you’ll get the same exposure time as on Olympus. Aperture is a physical property of lens, not a sensor. F/4 lens will be always f/4, no matter how big is the sensor inside the camera you’ll mount it on: for example, if I mount my full frame 70-200/2.8 Pentax lens on K-1 II or my APS-C K-3 III – it always will be f/2.8 maximum aperture lens.

On average it took the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO 0.52 seconds to acquire focus. Interestingly, both the Olympus 100-400mm f/5-6.3 and the Olympus 100-300mm (a relatively old copy, though) took 0.80 seconds on average to acquire focus. In other words, the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 is about 50% faster than my copies of these other lenses. DC-G9 + OLYMPUS M.300mm f/4 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/160, f/4.0 Use with Teleconverters I've now had the 300mm F4 Pro for a little over 3 months. The main development has been that I've upgraded to the Olympus E-M1 MKII as the auto focus capability of the E-M5 MKII just wasn't up to birds in flight, which was something I was keen to have a go at.Even with the teleconverter attached I was pleasantly surprised by how much detail could be captured with this lens. Useful review. I am thinking of pairing it to my recently acquired GH5. I am using a PL100-400 with some good results (better now with the GH5). I just prefer primes - as they will (obviously) always be sharper - and the f4 wide aperture is also a big, big bonus. The only handling flaw I noticed in my time with this lens involves the focus ring. The ring rotates very smoothly, but the lens easily switches from autofocus to manual-only by sliding the focus ring into the manual position. I should add that uploading the lower image to my blog seemed to soften it a bit, the image is actually even sharper than this. That was an interesting article, and I was particularly interested in your size comparisons. This lens isn’t on my wish-list since i don’t usually need that focal length, but I thought that your photographs were very good. In fact, it inspired me run around the house taking pictures of all of our cushions. Just kidding – I really did enjoy seeing your photos.