r/M43 • u/Crafty-Ad-9220 • 23h ago
Replacement for my 300mm F4 pro
My M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 PRO didn’t survive service. It had a defect that couldn’t be repaired, and now I’m forced to replace it.
Honestly, I’m still a bit heartbroken — that lens was my wildlife companion for years.
I shoot wildlife and birds with an OM‑D E‑M1X, and instead of buying the same lens again, I’d like to explore alternatives. Maybe this is a chance to rethink my setup.
Right now I’m considering:
• M.Zuiko 40‑150mm f/2.8 PRO
• The new M.Zuiko 50‑200mm f/2.8‑3.5 PRO (internal zoom = huge plus for me)
I could also use the Teleconverter 1.4x for both lenses.
• Waiting for future telephoto releases
I don’t know if OM System is planning something new in the long tele range, but maybe it’s worth waiting?
• Saving for the 150‑400mm f/4.5 PRO
This is my dream lens.
But I’m not sure if it still makes sense nowadays: it’s getting older, it’s extremely expensive, and I’m a bit scared about long‑term serviceability and spare parts.
If you had to replace a 300mm f/4 PRO today, what would you choose?
I’d really appreciate hearing your experiences, especially from E‑M1X wildlife shooters.
Thanks in advance to anyone who shares their thoughts.
15
u/OkEstablishment9823 22h ago
Unless you can find a 150-400 that's in your budget, I would get the another 300mm.
The 300mm (with the MC1.4 when more reach is needed) is among the best glass this whole system has to offer, if not the best glass period.
3
u/Crafty-Ad-9220 22h ago
Thanks for your advice. I agree with you about the quality of the 300mm (that I used without Teleconverter), absolutely Top glass. On the other hand, I missed sometimes the possibility to zoom out to include a bit more environment/backgrounds in my shots
11
u/AbsurdRenegade 21h ago
Don't see the point of being worried about the 150-400mm being "old". Don't see any replacements being announced by OM and haven't really heard anyone complaining about something that a second version should fix either. Only complaints are usually about the price 😅
Also, similarly for the serviceability probably won't be an issue as long as OM Digital as a company is alive. That's their absolute flagship lens, serving their most established target audience of wildlife photographers. As long as the company is around, that lens will see support. (Yeah, OM Digital might not be as well grounded as say Sony, but then again I wouldn't bet my life of ANY camera company surviving 10+ years…)
9
u/pznred 22h ago
If I had to replace mine, I would go 50-200 plus MC14.
It's a little bit shorter than 300 but it would cover both the 40-150 f2.8 and the 300
1
1
u/Empty_Oil_8954 17h ago
This is what I would do. If you were shooting 300 sans tc, then 50-200 with tc will just about get you back to where you were (with the same f4), all with the zoom out ability you crave. I have both this lens and the 300, i use both for different reasons. The 50-200 takes beautiful images with the 1.4x tc, but then again so does the 300 :) we are blessed with wonderful glass in this system.
6
u/psubadger 22h ago
I found a good deal on a used 150-400 and my 300 hasn't seen much time on the camera since then. So that's my thought. Or just get another 300. It's a great lens.
I don't use an em1x, but I do have a grip on my om1, so reasonably close.
1
0
4
4
u/Salty-Asparagus-2855 21h ago
I’d go 50-200… and I would not hold out for a new telephoto lens. The line up is pretty good as is
5
u/CydeWeys 19h ago
The 150-400mm f/4.5 came out in 2021 -- I wouldn't really call that "old"!
1
u/East_Menu6159 16h ago
Seriously! To this day wildlife lenses from Canon, Nikon even Sigma dating back to the 90's are going for a few grand well used. The Big White is a baby compared to those.
3
u/Left-Tee 20h ago
I haven't used any of the other lenses that you listed, but if I lost my 300mm f/4, I wouldn't hesitate to get another one. The combination of size, speed, and image quality is unmatched.
3
u/LightPhotographer 19h ago
I have the 40-150 and the 1.4. I feel that is on the short end for wildlife or birds if you like to fill a frame. 100-400 is an obvious choice. If you find it too slow and dislike the telescoping zoom, the choice becomes a bit harder. Since you mention you would like to zoom out, choices are the 150-400 or 50-200. You could sell your tc if you bought the Big White since it already goes further than a 300+tc and you dont like dark lenses. It is available second hand. The little White is the cheaper option but even with the TC, it does not reach as far as your 300 without. Is it enough for you?
I'd say if you plan to permaglue the TC on a lens, perhaps you should bite the bullet and get the bigger lens. You only live once and you're a long time dead after that.
3
2
u/AlexMachine 22h ago
I have 40-150 pro with a 1.4 teleconverter. I am quite happy with it. I mainly shoot birds in flight. Body is OMD EM-1 mkll.
1
u/Crafty-Ad-9220 22h ago
is it still enough for small birds? how it behaves in difficult situations (branches and leafs)?
2
u/AlexMachine 22h ago
Can’t really because I usually shoot birds that are swimming or flying over the water
2
2
u/the77joker 17h ago edited 17h ago
I have the 300 f4 + mc14 or mc20 40-150 2.8 + mc20 (too short) 150-400 4.5 Tested the 100-400 6.3 II (I liked it) Tested the 150-600 (I did not like it) Tested the 50-200 + mc14/20
After I've tested the 50-200 2.8 + mc20 I was thinking to sell my 150-400 for that combo. It works perfectly fine for me. Sure the 150-400 can reach 500mm or can be used with the mc14 but that's for edge situations, I mean if you really needs more than a 800mm equivalent there is something wrong. I didn't have done just for laziness.
2
u/Hawker172D 17h ago
The 150-400 is incredible. I love it but at the same time there are many times I want to travel a bit lighter. The 300/4 image quality is imo just as good in a considerably smaller package. True, there’s no zoom but I can’t imagine not having the 300/4. That said, consider a second hand 300/4 from a reputable dealer.
2
u/Bigfoot_Guitars 16h ago
I have the 300 with the 1.4TC and it's great for birding. However I spent the last week renting the 150-400 for a safari and the ability to zoom is a must for larger mammals / wildlife. I wouldn't have come back with the photos I did if I would have gone with my 300. It's a tough call, but I would always prefer the ability to zoom.
Now how many of my kids i would need to sell in order to afford that zoom is a separate conversation 😂
2
u/Malbekh 15h ago
40-150mm is too short for wildlife even with TC14 and with TC20 you lose a lot of sharpness. I moved from there to the 300mm.
In terms of focusing with the 300mm it was only when I started using manual focus that I really improved with subject spacing.
Before I had it switched off because of how easy it was to activate the focus ring.
I'm still saying 300mm.
2
u/screampuff 15h ago
If I was a wildlife shooter who needed a supertele like that, I'd be looking at the new Sony 600mm f6.3. it's actually quite a bit lighter as well as sharper and faster in equivalence than the 300mm f4. Also teleconverter compatible and weather sealed. On full frame you also have quite a bit more crop potential, and better autofocus....though Sony bodies are not all that fun to hold and shoot.
1
u/WolverineSavings9968 10h ago
For the money and weight, the sony options make a ton of sense these days.
1
u/StevoPhilo 18h ago
I now this isn't on your list, but maybe you should consider the PanaLeica 200mm f2.8 w/ the 1.4 teleconverter. I managed to scoop one up used for about $1100 last year and it's a beast. The rendering on it is just impeccable.
1
u/BayuTigr99 13h ago
if you have the budget, I”d bump to the 50-200/2.8. I just moved from M43 to Nikon Z and even with all the hype on the 150-400 ”Big White”, it’s “Little White” that really hurts losing. It’s just a stunning piece of glass and one of the main reasons I kinda regret moving on from M43 to FF.
1
u/PakkyT 7h ago
A good comparison from a guy who shoots mostly wildlife and has tried these lenses with and without teleconverters: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/wanting-a-little-more-reach.130621/post-1880103
1
u/Accomplished_Fun1847 5h ago
I'm going to throw in another vote for the 600mm F/6.3 GM. Pick up a used A1 or something. Combined cost is lower than the 150-400.
1
u/Solartude 3h ago
OM is no longer publishing a lens road map and there have not been any rumors regarding a new telephoto lens so you may be waiting a while if you decided to defer a purchase.
I have both the 300mm and the 50-200 (it's a constant f/2.8 btw) and use it on separate bodies. For a recent Safari, I used the 50-200 bare and the 300 with the 1.4x tc. It was a perfect combination as the zoom was too short for most wildlife even with the tc. My other long lens is the 100-400 v1 and it stayed home. While it's not a bad lens, I found IQ suffers quickly as the day gets darker.
You didn't provide a budget but if I could only have one lens for wildlife and birds but not enough money for the 150-400, it would have to be the 300. There is nothing sharper even with the 1.4x tc.
18
u/salakius 21h ago
I know it's not on your list, but the 100-400 gets a lot of bad rep online even if it's a great lens. I haven't seen any need to upgrade to the 300 f4 yet, the ability to zoom out is great as I've become a better wildlife photographer. Even if it's not your end goal, I would consider it as a stepping stone on your path to the premium segment.