Best value Micro 4/3 lens for wildlife?

[gangzoom]

We've being spending more time in the garden and though Google AI is good, I'm not a massive fun of the watercolor imagining of wildlife .

Dug out my trusty old 'Real' camera, 150mm max reach is 300mm. Looks much better but clearly not enough reach.

With an up and coming cruise, SWMBO has OKed a new lens for the EM5 II. Budget is...... negotiable.....

The sensible options appears to 75-300mm, so
https://www.amazon.co.uk/OM-SYSTEM-Olympus-75-300m...

There is also a 100-400mm option
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/olympus-m-zuiko-...

I'm also tempted by the 300m prime.....f4 is mad fast even with a Tele converter that's still a quick lens.
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/olympus-m-zuiko-...

Use case really is occasional, wildlife in the garden one holiday trips etc. 300mm on Micro 4/3 is 600mm which I think is enough reach? I do see there are 600mm options now which would be totally overkill but the reach seems mad though helps to justify the budget creep.
https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/...

Anyone got any suggestions/recommendations? Processing will sending the photos from the EM5 to the phone via WiFi and than Google photos - I really cannot be bothered with faffing around in Lightroom etc workflows.

Edited by gangzoom on Sunday 9th August 11:46

[DibblyDobbler]

I've had the 300f4 and the 100-400 (Mk1) - the 300 was great but just too restrictive for me, the 100-400 I had was not super sharp (unless you were close to the subject) but I do believe the Mk2 is better and some people swear by it.

It really depends how keen you are, generally speaking: high cost/low convenience = great results, lower cost/higher convenience = decent results... 100-400 is probably a good compromise but it's still a pretty big lens

[Derek Smith]

For garden work, weight is not the prime consideration unless you have a rather big garden. You're not going to carry it anywhere. You can also use a solid tripod.

If you are going on a hike, perhaps through a nature reserve, a large lens can be a bit of a handful. You might want to take a 25mm (nifty-fifty equiv), or a macro. Changing a big lens out in a field can be a problem.

I've got the 100-300 Panasonic lens and I can use it, have used it, hand-held at near full zoom and returned images that impressed me. And everyone else I showed them to, of which there are many, the in-body stabilisation being class-leader in my G9ii. The 100-300 comes in at 520gms, the 100-400 at 985. That's quite a difference, although the max aperture is the main contributing factor.

Price difference for one in top condition seems to be getting on for 2x.

I find my 14-140 and 100-300 covers most of my needs, with a couple of macros and my 1.4 25mm.

[bcr5784]

gangzoom said:

Anyone got any suggestions/recommendations? Processing will sending the photos from the EM5 to the phone via WiFi and than Google photos - I really cannot be bothered with faffing around in Lightroom etc workflows.

I understand your reluctance to get in post image processing - certainly not at lightroom prices! However post processing of RAW files can make a much bigger effect on an image's perceived sharpness, contrast and colour than a change of lens. There is free software - like Affinity that you can use. If you are only going to show your images on your phone then it probably isn't worth the "faff" - and you can do a useful amount of adjustment in Google Photos.

[Simpo Two]

bcr5784 said:

gangzoom said:

Anyone got any suggestions/recommendations? Processing will sending the photos from the EM5 to the phone via WiFi and than Google photos - I really cannot be bothered with faffing around in Lightroom etc workflows.

I understand your reluctance to get in post image processing - certainly not at lightroom prices! However post processing of RAW files can make a much bigger effect on an image's perceived sharpness, contrast and colour than a change of lens.

Yes, but there's more to the subject of image processing than the RAW debate. I don't shoot RAW anymore because (1) I no longer take photos for money - notably weddings (2) the software I liked and used for years is no longer supported and I don't like anything else. But most of my photos still go through Photoshop for attention to the horizon, Levels, Curves and colour correction by eye. It's not as perfect as RAW but fine for what I do. The huge benefit of RAW, for me at least, is the ability to adjust WB - and if you haven't heard of WB or it doesn't bother you then you don't need RAW (yet!).

[bcr5784]

Simpo Two said:

Yes, but there's more to the subject of image processing than the RAW debate. I don't shoot RAW anymore because (1) I no longer take photos for money - notably weddings (2) the software I liked and used for years is no longer supported and I don't like anything else. But most of my photos still go through Photoshop for attention to the horizon, Levels, Curves and colour correction by eye. It's not as perfect as RAW but fine for what I do. The huge benefit of RAW, for me at least, is the ability to adjust WB - and if you haven't heard of WB or it doesn't bother you then you don't need RAW (yet!).

If you are shooting wildlife and birds in particular, the huge value of RAW is noise reduction, sharpening and colour correction/enhancement. You are frequently having to compromise between ISO and shutter speed and having to crop heavily because you can't get as close to your subject as you would like. In those circumstances you need all the help you can get. Granted that other types of images might not need as much "help", but the OP is considering using 600mm (equivalent) lenses so must have birds or distant wildlife in mind.

[Bill]

gangzoom said:

The sensible options appears to 75-300mm, so
https://www.amazon.co.uk/OM-SYSTEM-Olympus-75-300m...

I have one, bought for a decent saving from Cotswold Cameras, but I think it's grey market if that matters to you. Very pleased with it. Any shortcomings in the photos are on me!!



(Full zoom, hand held on a RIB in chop. No processing, transferred by WiFi to my phone. )

ETA body is a Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Edited by Bill on Tuesday 11th August 17:25

[Simpo Two]

bcr5784 said:

If you are shooting wildlife and birds in particular, the huge value of RAW is noise reduction, sharpening and colour correction/enhancement. You are frequently having to compromise between ISO and shutter speed and having to crop heavily because you can't get as close to your subject as you would like. In those circumstances you need all the help you can get. Granted that other types of images might not need as much "help", but the OP is considering using 600mm (equivalent) lenses so must have birds or distant wildlife in mind.

He'll still need the hardware to get the 'as shot' image in the ballpark before any post-processing happens, and this thread is about lenses. For now, talk of RAW is a distraction; it can come later when he's ready.

[bcr5784]

Simpo Two said:

He'll still need the hardware to get the 'as shot' image in the ballpark before any post-processing happens, and this thread is about lenses. For now, talk of RAW is a distraction; it can come later when he's ready.

Not convinced. If you are considering the cost of an expensive 600 (equivalent) lens for wildlife and AREN'T prepared for RAW processing then I think you need to consider your priorities. Unless your are a professional nothing wrong with taking the view that your would prefer to expend your energies elsewhere.No point in spending a lot of money on a lens unless you are going to exploit the added (if not the ultimate) value of the lens.

[gangzoom]

Thanks for the comments, I think 75-300 or 100-400 is the decision. Absolutely ZERO interest in RAW, being there, done that, have no wishes to go back there or pixel peeping. Workflow will be camera, WiFi to phone, Google photos.

The EM5 II body isn't big so I hadn't factored in the lens size, might try and see if any shops still have physical lens in stock around me to handle, but I suspect everything is online now.

Edited by gangzoom on Wednesday 12th August 06:46

[Simpo Two]

bcr5784 said:

Not convinced. If you are considering the cost of an expensive 600 (equivalent) lens for wildlife and AREN'T prepared for RAW processing then I think you need to consider your priorities. Unless your are a professional nothing wrong with taking the view that your would prefer to expend your energies elsewhere.No point in spending a lot of money on a lens unless you are going to exploit the added (if not the ultimate) value of the lens.

We're actually on the same page. You have the advantage of being a pro (I presume) as I was, and looking back with what you know now. Yes, RAW is better than JPG. There are threads on here going back 20+ years about it. But I remember when I was where the OP is now, and I know that at that stage of 'visual development' you either can't tell the difference, or don't grasp what 'RAW' is and don't know/don't need its benefits, or you're perfectly happy with your results without it so why bother. Eventually the OP, when he has better kit, will look closely at the new plateau he's reached and think 'Actually that bit's not quite right, how can I make it better?'. For him, that time is evidently not now. You're right, but IMHO stages are best tackled one at a time. Pencil him in for 2027

[gangzoom]

Simpo Two said:

Eventually the OP, when he has better kit, will look closely at the new plateau he's reached and think 'Actually that bit's not quite right, how can I make it better?'. For him, that time is evidently not now. You're right, but IMHO stages are best tackled one at a time. Pencil him in for 2027

I think your being overly optimistic, I never quite got to the point of getting an L lens but I spend a lot of time with pixel peeping, playing with RAW images and having a RAID0 setup for photo backups. That however was a long time ago and I sold all my Cannon gear apart from keeping a couple of 'Pro' lens with the EM5 II I pickup just before selling the Cannon stuff.

I've got no intentions of going down that route again, I wouldn't however like a camera with more reach than what I have now - Noting I've used my EM5 only once in the last 12 months.

[craig1912]

/\ both of those are out of focus or posting them has done something to them

[gangzoom]

craig1912 said:

/\ both of those are out of focus or posting them has done something to them

Hence why I gave up on the hobby

[Derek Smith]

I have a back problem. I have to limit the time I spend carrying my M43 Panasonic on shoots and such. It's great for studio work.

I've been limited to using my mobile phone, a Pixel 8 Pro, hardly class of the field, but pretty good for what I need - online images and prints up to A4, and maybe A3.

There are better mobile phone cameras out there. Have you considered one?

[Simpo Two]

gangzoom said:

craig1912 said:

/\ both of those are out of focus or posting them has done something to them

Hence why I gave up on the hobby

And hence why RAW isn't of use to you yet - basics like focus and exposure first (though to be fair motorsport is difficult and needs a certain level of kit)