Honestly, I used to use the 1.4 teleconverter a lot more, but I find my 300 is so sharp, the teleconverter only rarely is an improvement over cropping, and once I am out of bright light situations the 300 without any additional magnification will tend to have noticeably more detail, though we are talking pixel peeping differences in both cases. I have been curious to try the 2x converter, but not enough to blow money on it unless a used copy throws itself at me. If I was getting into birding with M4/3 now, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 300 even if I never could afford any teleconverter, it is that good. With other OM-D and Pen cameras, you can choose to prioritise the Lens IS (Custom Menu C) or use the sensor stabilisation instead. They won’t work together.

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

The performance increases slightly at f/5.6 and remains constant up to f/8. From f/11 there is the usual decrease in sharpness due to diffraction (a common thing with Micro Four Thirds lenses) but I must say the quality remains acceptable up to f/16. Of course it is unlikely that you will need to close your aperture that much unless you want to do some panning. E-M1, 1/400, f/5.6, ISO 640 E-M1, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 640 E-M1, 1/320, f/5.6, ISO 640 GX8, 1/500, f/8, ISO 200 either you favor S/N with the same lens. The FOV is 4x smaller. Stitching 4 views restores the FOV (4x light !) . It is the first professional extreme telephoto prime lens available. It is clear that it is designed for professional and advanced photographers and for very specific genres. After months of chasing perfection with my 300 Pro, a holiday with my PL 100-400 is really refreshingly enjoyable. With Panasonic cameras, only the optical stabilisation will be effective. It is true that the GX8 has a similar system to the Olympus Sync IS called Dual IS. Unfortunately it only works with select Panasonic lenses so in this case, I could only benefit from the lens IS. That could seem like a limitation somehow but the truth is that the internal stabilisation of the 300mm is quite stunning. I managed to get sharp results down to 1/6s. GX8, 1/6, f/5.6, ISO 200 – Hand held

If a lens with a built-in image stabilizing function is in use, turn On the image stabilization of either the camera or the lens. Full disclosure, I have used the 300 Pro as my main bird and wildlife lens for years, and have generally been very happy with it.

The Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO is a prime lens fixed at 300mm. There are longer options available for Micro Four Thirds that reach up to 400mm. However, the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO is so sharp and high performing it feels like it is over 300mm, simply because the increased sharpness allows more cropping compared to the Olympus 100-300mm f/4-5.6 that I previously used. At the time these shots were taken, I was still waiting for the teleconverter to arrive, so the shots were with just the 300mm lens, mounted on an Olympus EM-5 MKII. Bokeh is a word used for the out-of-focus areas of a photograph, and is usually described in qualitative terms, such as smooth / creamy / harsh etc. In the Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 300mm f/4 IS Pro, Olympus employed a nine circular-bladed diaphragm, which produces some very nice bokeh, at least in our opinion. However, recognising that bokeh evaluation is subjective, we have provided a few examples for your perusal. For wildlife videographers, this lens can be a great option because of its focal length and its excellent optical stabilisation. I recorded some 4K footage with the Panasonic GX8. Continuous AF is often unreliable because the camera is too slow in reacting and changing the focus properly. It works slightly better with long distant subjects. Note that while the IS works well overall, you can occasionally experience sudden shifts in movement. 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

There is only a minimum of light fall-off in the corners at f/4, which you will probably not even notice in your real-world photos, and distortion is commendably kept well under control too. The Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO is admittedly an expensive lens. Does it’s performance make up for the high price tag? SharpnessThe optical performance is excellent from f/4 and you could end up using this aperture a lot for various reasons. Pair it with the Olympus OM-D E-M1X and you also get the benefit of Sync IS (which employs the in-body and in-lens stabilization in tandem) that gives you 5 stops of image stabilization – meaning that you can shoot without a tripod.A 1200mm lens you can use handheld? That alone is worth the price of admission. I use my PL200 when I have a set objective in mind. I know that is all I am going to do and on that day this is all I will be able to do. If I am limited I will take another camera with a different lens generally for wide The image stabilization in the camera and the lens can be used separately. To turn off image stabilization completely, make sure to turn off image stabilization in both the lens and the camera body.

I had the 100-400, and after several walkabouts with it, I just sold it. I knew it was not going to be a lens I would use much. Sure, the zoom is flexible, and the IQ isn't bad for what it is, but the less effective stabilization, lower microcontrast/resolution, slower speed all conspire to create a noticeably narrower shooting envelope for me. Maybe if I had the newest OM1, I would think harder, but my Mk II E-M1 is no slouch. For settings, I tend to use aperture mode the vast majority of the time. With my primary focus on landscapes, I am accustomed to having the artistic control of the depth of field. In wildlife and birding there are times when full manual or shutter priority are more appropriate and helpful, specifically in dim lighting or to capture fast action (i.e. hummingbirds). I personally struggle to remember to increase my ISO when the light is dim or indirect, but I am learning! I still prefer to open the aperture over increasing ISO, to avoid increasing the noise in the final image. However, with a wide open aperture and narrower depth of field it is easier to miss the focus on our zippy little subjects. 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. I know the differences in the zoom lens vs prime lens discussion. I’m more interested in the IQ differences and if they are substantial enough with or without the TC’s to justify spending the money on the 300 prime lens. On a final note, the 300mm Pro becomes the second lens to be compatible with the Olympus MC-14 1.4X Teleconverter. You lose one stop of light (f/5.6 becomes the fastest) but you gain 120mm (240mm full frame equivalent).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. For those of you who have done tests with/own both the Oly 100-400 and the Oly 300 PRO, can I expect noticeable differences in image quality with the 300 PRO? (I know there will be differences...but how much did you notice in real-world scenarios? Still, I’m finding it surprisingly difficult to get a perfect picture with the 100–400. It’s hard to be scientific about this but my impression agrees with an earlier posting that the time to focus seems a bit slower and the image stabilization not as good as the 300. The solution seems to be to use shutter priority and never use the speed slower than 1/1000 and preferably, especially for BIF, use 1/3000 or even faster if the light permits. The speed of focus acquisition seems adequate however, just a bit slower than the 300. The resolution test of the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 300 mm f/4.0 ED IS PRO was based on RAW files from the Olympus E-PL1 camera. In the case of that body the highest results reached by the best fixed focal length lenses amount to about 80 lpmm (the record value belongs to the Sigma C 1.4/30 with the Voigtlander 0.95/25 and the Olympus 1.8/75 close behind). The decency level is set near 44-45 lpmm. I believe the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO is an excellent telephoto lens for wildlife. Aside from the Olympus 100-400 f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO, this lens is likely the best lens for wildlife photography for Micro Four Thirds.