OM M.Zuiko 150-600mm vs 100-400mm - RED35 Review

[@cryptographerchris4856]

Great video and great timing for this video. I've been going between these 2 lenses for the last couple weeks and decided to go with the 150-600 for most of the same reasons you pointed out. Can't wait to put it to use.

[@peterlittle6651]

Hi Jimmy, don't forget if you switch on digital teleconverter in the menu and shoot raw + LSF jpeg the jpeg is a centre crop which gives you (providing it is a centered image) a two times magnification image with no pixel loss.

[@philparker97]

I have both these lenses and have used the 150-600 for 5 months now, mostly shooting birds. I didn't think I would buy it especially as I changed to M43 for a lighter more compact system. However, the extra reach drew me in particularly for shooting from hides where the additional weight isn't quite as restricting. Whilst I agree with most of the observations you have made, there is one downside to the 150-600 and that is chromatic aberration. Not in all conditions, but more noticeable when shooting against the sky or white birds like the Great White Egret etc. I didn't get any discernible CA photographing Kites or Buzzards against a blue sky, but I did with a Marsh Harrier with a cloudy background and a Great White Egret in various settings. This can be greatly improved in post processing. It does not happen with the 300mm F4 Pro with 1.4 TC. The extra reach is a great advantage and I have taken some of my best shots this year with the 150-600.

[@charliegreen1989]

Great video Jimmy just what I was after. Makes me want the 150-600mm even more.

[@Red35Photography]

I absolutely love the 150-600. I may not be a wildlife guy but what I can capture from this lens, whatever I am shooting is simply amazing.

[@trustbattlerat8718]

I've got both and the 300mm f4 pro and my goto lens most often is the 150-600mm. I mostly shoot Wildlife, my camera is the OM-1 MKii and I have also paired it with the power battery grip which I think gives more stability. Another bonus with the 150-600mm which most fail to mention is the telemacro capability, the lens will focus down to 56 cm from the Sensor. I own both teleconverters I occasionally use the 1.4x but find the 2x not needed as it's F/13 at 2400mm and it's usually heat haze that ruins the image.

[@RobertSagan-p9f]

Nice vid Jimmy. I agree with your points. I just got a 160-600. An incredible and unique lens. Pretty much completely upgraded from the base Sigma..improved elements, an additional element, better coatings/weather sealing with new focusing motors plus synch IS and smoother operation. Summary: extremely fun to use. Cheers.

[@alankefauver6187]

Then there is Gandalf, The Great White Wizard. That is the 150-400 f/4.5+1.25TC. Once you have that......well the other two are superfluous.

[@jcphenix1]

Sorry, Gandalf the Grey at that price. 7K. For 2K the Great Wizard is Saruman the White aka 150-600. Now it has dark sides, so the sigma is black

[@alankefauver6187]

@@jcphenix1 Well, we say what happened to Saruman didn't we.

[@jcphenix1]

@@alankefauver6187yes, yes. 7K to be the lord of this ring. Nonetheless, the powerful and dark Saruman kept Gandalf under his yoke for a while. ;)

[@supergeodotca]

I picked up a 100-400 and an om-1 mk2 this past August and was quite pleased, because it replaced my 75-300 and as n em-5 mk2. I have photographed hundreds of birds during my multi kilometer hikes. The size and weight of the 100-400 is a great advantage, but is still quite heavier than the 75-300. I agree that the biggest challenge with the 100-400 is the instability when recording video without a tripod. Many times, I use the stabilization in the software to help out. For photos, I tend to use 1:1000 or faster especially at 400mm. To also increase my number of good shots, I tend to take many more shots using sequential pics.

[@gregfeeler6910]

Excellent review. I have the 100-400 which does what I need, but it seems the 150-600 is pretty amazing in all respects. Thanks!

[@zayacz123]

They’re both wonderful. I mostly use the 150-600, but I’m keeping both. The size of the 100-400 still serves a purpose for casual travel. It has also been useful lately since I recently had foot surgery.

[@micktoulmin4616]

Using the 150-600 with a cotton carrier harness makes it quite portable but it is a heavy beast great video comparison Jimmy 📷👍

[@Red35Photography]

Thanks! I need to have a look at those harnesses.

[@alfredouybomping7642]

150-600 is reasonably priced now at usd 2K at BnH. I will pick up one soon 😊 Excellent video btw Jimmy 👌

[@Red35Photography]

wow that's good in US. RRP is still quite dear in UK

[@angeloplayforone]

That is US, Europe tyhe price is still high.

[@cbfoto86]

I use the 150-600 which I bought for my Canon full format via a Metabones adapter and my Em1X. Works absolutely usable. It should be mentioned that I own a Sport and not a Contemporary. In my experience, the difference between the two lenses is enormous and not just in terms of sealing. Unfortunately, I cannot understand or confirm your statement regarding the sync IS. On the one hand, the shutter speeds at 1200mm have to be chosen very quickly, otherwise blur would result from movement anyway, and on the other hand, especially with Olympus with the sync Is, the priority is on the lens and not on the camera. The sensor can no longer do anything at focal lengths around 600mm anyway. The stabilization will work better with the 150-600 primarily because the stabilization in the lens simply seems to be better. Despite great results with the 150-600, I would and will still buy the 100-400 for travel so that I don't always have to take the heavy and huge 150-600 with me. I would also like to briefly note that the photos you took with the 150-600 seem blurry to me. This is probably due to the reduction in resolution on KZbin, but I would still be very interested in a direct comparison with my adapted sport. Last but not least I would like to say that the combination of 150-600 and Olympus mft is certainly a good one. I have a lot of experience using this combination, but a Canon full format with 2x converter is far superior in every category. As a long-time mft user, I don't want to doubt the system in any way, but the maximum image quality that can be achieved with the 150-600, even with the native mft, is very far away from EOS R, despite the converter. In addition, the atmospheric haze is a problem for every wildlife photographer, which is greatly increased by 2x converters on the Olympus. So I think the combination of 150-600 with the Olympus 2x converter can only be used under perfect conditions. especially because the 2x converter worked absolutely poorly, for example on the 40-150 pro

[@Red35Photography]

My critical reasoning on sync IS isn't just about getting photos. It's more for those who need to photograph stationary subject in less than ideal lighting conditions, which happens a lot. It's also critical for filming or videoing wildlife or anything far. The lack of dual IS or sync IS in either Lumix or OM/Olympus means that filming is almost impossible at the longest focal length. The basic principal in long tele shootings for stills has nothing to do with stabilisation at all, you will still need enough shutter speed to freeze the motion and to avoid camera shake or motion blur. But these sort of stabilisation helps photographer during composition when the projected image is more stable than shaking around. Re photos sharpness, yes it's KZbin compression, nothing I can do about it unfortunately.

[@angeloplayforone]

Good point about the Sync IS. Many people are not aware that at those focal length the IS of the lens is what is more important then IBIS.

[@cbfoto86]

@@Red35Photography short addendum, I don't want to seem like I'm complaining about your great content. I am very happy that people like you regularly offer such valuable content and would like to thank you for this.

[@Red35Photography]

@@cbfoto86 No worry, I do listen :)

[@Lordvader330]

Great comparison. With the current deal I may add the 600mm. I own the 400 and love it for bear photography

[@roopinpatel5147]

Thank you for this video. It confirms my decision of buying 150-600 over a 100-400. I mostly do wildlife and bird photography and I think that the 150-600 and the 40-150 2.8 pro with a TC is all that I will ever need for my OM-1. Compared this with the weight and number of lenses that you’d need to carry to give you this range and flexibility in an FF and you’ll understand what I am saying, not to mention the cost. I still love the 300 pro but these two make it kind of redundant. Am a hobbyist so don’t have the heart to invest in a Gandalf yet. I have one question though. What settings did you use on the 150-600 for those awesome bird shots?

[@Red35Photography]

Thanks for your words. For the bird shots, I mostly shot at 1/500 or faster for the longer focal length and choose an ISO to suit. Max aperture is fine with the 150-600 as it’s a sharp lens.

[@RobertSagan-p9f]

Nice vid Jimmy. I agree with your points. I just got a 160-600. An incredible and unique lens. Pretty much completely upgraded from the base Sigma..improved elements, an additional element, better coatings/weather sealing with new focusing motors plus synch IS and smoother operation. Summary: extremely fun to use. Cheers.

[@roopinpatel5147]

@@RobertSagan-p9f do you have a Om 1 of the Mark II body? Just curious

[@RobertSagan-p9f]

@@roopinpatel5147 I do own OM1.2 😊

[@SN-kk1hd]

I would advise getting 100-400 only if you have OM1 or OM1 II body. I've tried it on my EM1X, and I feel like the 100-400 dragging down the performance of the EM1X. Most great photos using 100-400 I've seen come from pairing it with OM1 or when shot in controlled conditions.

[@pioltcanary]

Great information, thank you. I am in the market for the 100-400mm. Following your links to OM System the selling price is reduced to £1119. If I then apply for £400 cashback that effectively gives me a purchase price of £719. Unless I'm reading this wrong?

[@samson40a]

Why the Cashback and not just immediate reduction at source? Am sure the OM1 II was this price in their last offer so nothing new.

[@AguilaDeOnix85]

I have a dilemma now because I wanted yhe 300 f4 to compliment my Panasonic 200 2.8. But now, that choice is harder for that 150-600 zoom advantage vs the pure sharpness of the 300

[@BrentODell]

The lack of sync-IS on the 100-400 is frustrating, but I'm not missing it as much as I feared. Most of the time, shooting wildlife, my shutter speed is high enough I don't see any softness from camera shake, but framing up the subject is more challenging. I came from a G9 and the Pana/Leica 100-400 which has 'Dual-IS' and it was rock-solid. I thought about the 150-600, but it's just too large for me to carry to work(day job in an office) for shooting at lunch or after work. I don't think I'd end up using it nearly as much as the 100-400. In addition, although the teleconverters do limit my aperture, I've found the MC-14 on the 100-400 to produce shots indistinguishable from the bare lens, and the MC-20 gives great results in the right conditions.

[@mondujar279]

Do you feel the Olympus 100-400 is sharper than the LUMIX 100-400? I am thinking of getting the LUMIX and I already have the Olympus

[@BrentODell]

​@mondujar279 they seem about the same, to my eyes. I think if you have a Lumix body, the stability is worth getting the P/L lens, and it's also a little smaller and lighter.

[@mondujar279]

@@BrentODell Thanks very much, I am planning to get the G9 mark 2 and would prefer a native lens

[@kimginnerup5819]

I have the 100-400 mm. I like it. But if the 150-600 mm. had been available. I would have bought that instead. Primarily for the sync IS.

[@evenhandedcommentor6102]

So, I have the 100-400mm and no surprise, it's not as sharp at the 300mm f/4. I also have both teleconverters. The 300mm works great with both the 1.4x and 2x TC's. The 100-400mm works well with the 1.4x, but the 2x does not improve the image compared to cropping the 1.4x. And you lose a stop of light. In addition, I have the 40-150mm f/2.8 and it works great with both teleconverters. I'm guessing the issue with the 100-400mm and the 2x is the aperture jumping to f/13. So...I question the value of using the 2x with the 150-600mm. Ideal atmospheric conditions won't help with diffraction. I also own Sony full frame. I have the 200-600mm lens and both teleconverters. The 1.4x works fine with the big zoom, but the 2x doesn't add much for the cost of a stop of light. So, I use the 2x with the 70-200mm f/2.8.

[@ElMundoDuro]

I believe both of these lenses are made from the Sigma lenses. But the 100-400 came out first and is based on the older DSLR version. I believe the design was tweaked a little for their mirror-less versions and so the 150-600 has benefited from that slight overhaul of the original design giving it slightly better sharpness, focusing, and IS over the older DSLR design of the 100-400. This is just my guess as the full frame mirror-less versions seem to be slightly improved over their DSLR counterparts.

[@reittila]

You said in the video that the 150-600 is optically clearly better than the 100-400. You must have a defect sample of 100-400 because I own both 100-400(for easy travelling) and 150-400Pro(for serious shooting) and the optical difference between those two is actually quite marginal. If the 100-400 was not defect that means that 150-600 woul'd be better than 150-400Pro, right? I have tested the 150-600 and found it optically clearly worse than both of my zooms. Rises questions doesn't it?

[@vinceklein4168]

Most have found the 150 600 optically better, especially at the long end 600 vs 400 on the 100 400. Marginal, maybe.

[@reittila]

@@vinceklein4168 So then the 150-600 must/might be optically better or at least equal with the 150-400Pro because it's common knowledge that the difference between 100-400 and 150-400Pro is quite narrow? Could that really be the case? I doubt. As I said I have tested the 150-600 and found it offering significantly less microcontrast compared with 150-400Pro. The difference was bigger than with 100-400. May be I had a bad sample in my test...

[@evenhandedcommentor6102]

@@reittila I have the 100-400mm and the 300mm f/4 and the 300mm is clearly sharper. I'm guessing that my 300mm is not unusually sharp, but my 100-400mm is nothing special...and probably considerably less sharp than your copy! Copy variation exists!!! i just returned a Sigma lens (Sony e-mount) that I bought on eBay. Supposedly open box, but it looked used more than just opening the box. When I tested it, it was obvious why the original buyer had returned it. Bad copy with poor image quality. I called it defective and got my money back and they paid return postage. They've already sold it again!

[@paulmuadibatreid]

Or just get the 150-400 f4,5 ) Thanks for the video.

[@Red35Photography]

I would love to but can't justify getting one haha

[@paulmuadibatreid]

@@Red35Photography this is indeed difficult. Fortunately they have such zoom from cheap to very expensive.

[@slam_down]

So Jimmy when can we see Saori chan again? 😄

[@zeroken]

100-400 is not aimed for mirrorless cameras. Optical structures are also older. If the budget allows. 150600 is the best option.

[@W_T.F]

You do realize the 100-400 I'd fairly new and heavily modified from the Sigma original, right? It's also half the cost and half the weight.

[@zeroken]

@@W_T.F I use this lens(100-400) for bird about 3 years, I'm going to upgrade to 150-600 when good price available.

[@vermis8344]

Aw shoot, I should have waited a month or two before buying the big one. 🤦‍♂️😂

[@Red35Photography]

Yeah, it's definitely more tempting now with the discount.

[@luancarlos3792]

*Por favor, mais vídeos sobre Alice Camera 🤳🏻* Quais as melhores lentes para vídeo na sua opinião para Alice Camera? 📸 (fazer vídeos cinematográficos) puro cinema 🎥 Manaus, Brasil 📍

[@Undertaker-wz9dk]

150-600 is probably the most misunderstood lens of the m43 system. Wrong Price and common roots with the sigma made a perfect storm against it

[@cbfoto86]

Similarities? It's a Sigma built lens, just like the 100-400

[@angeloplayforone]

Both are FF lenses designed and build by Sigma originally.

[@maxgustav1]

Winner is Sigma

[@angeloplayforone]

Yes, no mentioning that both lenses are originaly Sigma FF lenses negating the adventage of m43 for small and affordable.

[@TheNaught1]

No SyncIS on 100-400 makes it a no-go for me. Sorry, I'm just not going to 'pod up to overcome this limitation. It's a long, not bright, pricey lens, whose direct competitor offers dual stab, and performs well for video and stills.

[@saernikke]

I owned the 100-400mm lens and I really did not like it, Sold it and got the 300mm f4 pro and a teleconverter instead. The zoom ring is so sticky and not very nice at alla and the lens feels very plasticy

[@Telewest792]

Big is always better .

[@WMedl]

A real wild life shooter is somebody knowing the species he (or she) is trying catch, knowing hteir habitat, their customs and is ready for at least partially share their wild life - unless relying on a big, capable team like David Yarrow... I am not such a trapper nor am I invited to sceneries where anamals are "guided" before my lens. So I stay humbly with my Panasonic 100-300 gettings ome beautiful shots from time to time....

[@ravineelakantan6417]

the panasonic 100-300mm is an excellent lens...as also the panasonic 100-400mm Lens...both lenses when paired with a Lumix Body provide Dual IS which far exceeds that of the Olympus 100-400mm Lens...and why on earth will someone need the monstrous and heavy 150-600mm which is rehash of the FF Sigma lens?...the very reason to stay with micro-four thirds is to stay light and be able to handhold without a monopod.

[@jcphenix1]

The 100-300 isn't "excellent" at 300mm like many consumer zoom. (100-200, yes)

[@ravineelakantan6417]

@@jcphenix1 I have got sharp shots of birds at 300mm Lens...it depends on how far we are from the birds...the closer we are the better the results.

[@jcphenix1]

@@ravineelakantan6417 absolutely, the lens is OK @300mm at short distance stopped down to f8 for birds (with good light). It's also a great lens for travel, I recommend it strongly (But excellent, no ;)

[@mk1photography62]

I hired the 150-600 and by god it was so heavy I doubt I would buy one

[@jcphenix1]

Big, heavy, cumbersome, yes. (I tried an adapted one). Seems to have an exceptional optic. My money went on the 300 pro, zero regrets.