This is the sixth of a series discussing bird photography.
For the final post in this series, I wanted to list out the µ4/3 lens options suitable for doing the type of bird photography I have been discussing. To be clear, I don’t claim to be (nor aim to be) a meticulous lens reviewer, nor am I an expert on µ4/3 lenses. Please don’t think of this post as a definitive lens comparison. I can only provide deeper personal insight on the few lenses I have used, and I am only judging them in how they fare in bird photography. For the many lenses that I have not used, I am only writing what I have gleaned from their on-paper specs, and in a few cases what seems to be the prevailing opinion on those lenses. I certainly welcome comments from folks who have used some of these other lenses as a means to fill in those gaps. Although I don’t have sample images for most of the lenses discussed here, all of the images posted (save two, which are marked) are shot with Olympus OM-D E-M1 or E-M5 MK I versions and Olympus lenses.

This wild Kea, a parrot from New Zealand known as one of the smartest animal species on the planet, was curious and fearless of humans, and allowed me to get so close I was able to use my 12-40mm.
(Click to view full-size)
Like all photography specs, there are no hard lines, and that is true of nature as well. So when I say so much reach or light gathering capability is needed, that spec will matter much of the time, but there will also be times when less will still work. (On a couple of bizarre occasions, birds in the wild have allowed me to get close enough to use my 12-40mm, paying me no mind and just carrying on in what they were doing.) Hearkening back to the second and third posts in the series when I discuss the different styles of doing bird photography, it’s more about having the freedom to shoot in all sorts of situations.
Birds in the U.S. alone typically range from 3 inches high for the smallest hummingbirds and warblers to 6 feet tall for the largest waterfowl — 24 times the size, and everything in between. The vast majority of them move around often and unpredictably (although experience helps here), and don’t want to be close to humans. Many stay high in the trees and/or under the cover of leaves and branches. The combination of small size, speed, shadows and distance means that bird photography will require more of your lenses than any other photography genre I know: the longest focal length, widest aperture and best IQ manageable in the smallest package. The longer-ranged, sharper and faster these lenses get, however, the heavier and more expensive they are. No lens comes without some sort of compromise(s). So which lens to buy or bring along is all about determining the conditions you will be shooting in, and what lens compromises would matter the least in that situation. Next, I will list out the lens characteristics to look for, in what I feel is the order of importance.

The 75-300mm comes at a good price and great portability for the reach, but compromises some on sharpness, light-gathering ability and focus speed.
(Click to view full-size)
(1) Focal Length:
Reach is the first priority. In my opinion, a telephoto lens of around 150mm (in µ4/3 terms) is generally needed to scrape by in situations where the birds are willing to get a little closer to humans (zoos, parks or backyard feeders), and I don’t intend to discuss any lenses under that focal length. For most of the types of bird photography I discuss below, however, a better focal length would be more like 300mm or more, and the truth is bird photographers rarely have enough reach. While one can always crop an image down in post, it is advisable to minimize severe cropping as much as possible to avoid pushing the camera’s limits on noise and resolution. I won’t say that there will never be a time where a smaller focal length will do (and I provide plenty of photo examples to prove the exception), but if you are buying a lens with birding in mind, it is better to prepare for the norm rather than the exception. Refer back to the second and third posts of this series on various types of birding excursions, which outlines the situations in which I think smaller focal lengths will work, and was one of the main points of those posts.
The major compromises that generally accompany reach are portability and price. One aspect of reach to add is that there two native Pro lenses as well as some 4/3 lenses that can take a teleconverter, increasing their reach by x1.4 or x2. As everything, though, teleconverters come at a cost. In this case, it is one or two stops of light gathering speed as well as some sharpness, and I believe they have an indirect adverse affect on focusing speed as well. My personal opinion is not to use them for challenging bird photography.
(2) Light Gathering Ability:

In contrast, the 300mm Pro is a very sharp lens, and its f/4 aperture and amazing Sync IS offer steady shots even in low light, as shown with this wild Bellbird from South Island, New Zealand
(Click to view full-size)
While smaller-aperture lenses can be offset by increasing ISO, the noise this induces will become problematic sooner for µ4/3 than it does for APSC or full frame. Setting ISO aside, the common compromises for a high maximum aperture are price and portability. Even one more stop of light gathering ability can make a dramatic difference in both, but its also fair to point out that faster glass is usually accompanied by other features, such as professional build quality and coatings and exotic lens materials that improve image quality. If you only will be shooting on sunny days, and/or if there is not a lot of tree cover in your environment, larger apertures become less important.
(3) Portability:

(From left to right, and lightest to heaviest): Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 Mk I (with hood removed), Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro (with hood collapsed), Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro (with hood collapsed), and Canon EF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS II USM (with camouflage Lens Coat and hood removed). Focal length (and range), maximum aperture, the number of elements (which can effect sharpness) and to some degree build quality are all factors in the size and weight of a lens.
(Click to view full-size)
While the smaller sensor of µ4/3 means that its lenses can be made much smaller than those of its DSLR counterparts, this advantage unfortunately diminishes somewhat with longer-ranged lenses due to the physics of lens design. Nevertheless, I find that the advantage is still very noticeable. The 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 is the size of a soda can. The 300mm Pro f/4 (1.5 stops faster) is the largest µ4/3 lens to date, but still hand-holdable, and lighter than my Canon (which is still hand-holdable). At only 1 stop faster, though, the much larger and heavier legacy 4/3 300mm f/2.8 is too large to be considered a hand-held lens, and is generally used on a tripod. I provide the weights of each of the lenses in grams, to give an idea of how they relate to one another.
(4) Sharpness:

This Noisy Miner was taken just north of Sydney, Australia with the 300mm Pro, and it really showcases the sharpness of the lens.
(Click to view full-size)
I need to foot-stomp a caveat here. I don’t have any reason to believe that any of the lenses discussed below are not sharp. My 75-300mm is not as sharp in comparison to my Pro lenses, but it is still sharp enough for me to have used it for years. When I say that sharpness can be a tradeoff for other characteristics, or that most of the medium telephoto lenses are not sharp enough to overcome their lack of range, please understand that those are very nuanced statements. I am going off of the premise that these lenses are being used for normal birding applications, oftentimes at ranges their focal length are not really meant for. I am not saying that these lenses are not sharp enough to do what they are designed to do, and I certainly don’t want to be quoted as saying, “lens ‘X’ is not sharp,” especially if it is a lens I have never used before. All I am saying is that to mitigate some of the costs of the heavy cropping that would oftentimes be necessary when birding with a medium telephoto lens (unless we are talking an unusually close encounter), lens sharpness is one of the key factors to how much cropping is available before the resolution becomes unusable. It would take an exceptionally sharp lens to make that exercise worthwhile, and even then, there are limits. For lenses I have used, I make my claims confidently. For lenses I haven’t (the bulk of the lenses here), I am going off of the reputations and online reviews of the lenses, and the observation that some of these lenses have not been lauded as exceptionally sharp. I welcome the feedback of owners of those lenses to fill in the gaps even more.

The 300mm Pro focuses fast enough not to slow down the E-M1 for BIF. My success rate is still not great (and gulls are not the most challenging of BIF subjects), but it is better than it was with other µ4/3 lenses. Against clean backgrounds, the combo works pretty well.
(Click to view full-size)
(5) Focusing Speed:
Birds’ constant movements, particularly when flying, means that a lens also needs a snappy and precise autofocus motor. I put this factor second-to-last because this is not a problem when birds aren’t moving about, and technique can mitigate some of the issue. Moreover, continuous autofocusing speed and accuracy is not a strong point for µ4/3 camera bodies (for the time being, anyway), so the lens can only do so much. That said, this factor can increase the number of BIF hits you get, which makes the activity far more enjoyable. I don’t have any data on how severe it is, but I would say that price and perhaps portability are the only offsets.
Like sharpness, focusing speed is another area where I feel more than a little uncomfortable characterizing many of these lenses, since I have never used so many of them. Also, since we are talking very fast focusing speeds as it is, and the environment the lens is being focused to can have an impact, I won’t be doing any scientific measurements down to split seconds. I will say that my current belief is that for most µ4/3 and 4/3 lenses, focusing speeds range from decent to good, and for most applications will be sufficient. But for catching birds in flight, focusing speed has to be exceptional. Again, I welcome the feedback of others on specific lenses.
(6) Build Quality:
Some lenses, such as the Olympus Pro series, are built to withstand the elements and some amount of banging around. Their all-metal construction and water-resistant designs can be important for photographers who take their hobby into the wild, but such designs also increase price, size and weight. Aside from the Pro lenses, the Pan Leica 100-400mm and some of the 4/3 lenses will also have durable designs, and of course there are all sorts of adapted lenses available. The rest of the lenses I mention in this post will be mostly made of high-quality plastics, and could be vulnerable to some degree to moisture or cold. For the most part, build quality (as I am narrowly defining the term) does not effect image quality; so while for some people this can be a very important factor, for others it either might be considered a small concern or even a detriment, if price and price portability are more important.
Price:
Price is, of course, the ultimate trade-off for everything else. I didn’t want to rank it because of how personal and subjective its importance can be. For some folks it will be the main factor, for others less so. Telephoto lenses are expensive. Good lenses that meet all the criteria I laid out are very expensive. There is no way around this, though it can help a little to wait for a lens to go on sale or show up in used or re-furbished listings. Aside from that, I have provided µ4/3 telephoto lens choices of all price ranges for this post.
In photography (maybe in a lot of things) there a definite diminishing return with the price-to-quality ratio. When comparing more and more expensive gear, their differences in quality and performance start to shrink — to the point where the best and most expensive lenses are only a smidgen better than the next in line. I suppose that could be due to both marketing strategies as well as limitations in physics. Higher-end gear presses up against current limitations in technology. They require more exotic materials and exacting design and craftsmanship. Fewer are made because fewer are expected to be sold, raising the price higher to mitigate the R&D and production costs. There are examples where a company actually takes a financial hit on these types of sales, figuring they can make up the loss in other areas, helped by the interest the high-end gear generates. In any case, what it means is that the adage, “you get what you paid for” can feel less true the higher you spend.

While in pretty unfavorable conditions (shooting through a dirty window and behind a throng of people, with only a split-second to catch a fast pass), I tried to get a good BIF image of a magnificent Royal Albatross zipping by. This was the best I was able to get before we had to make way for the next tour. Shot at New Zealand’s Royal Albatross Center in Fort Taiaroa, using the 300mm Pro.
(Click to view full-size)
The focal length equivalency issue also enters the “right price” debate. To some, a 300mm µ4/3 lens is really a 600mm lens in what it delivers in full frame terms, and 600mm lenses are two to four times more expensive than the 300mm Pro. This camp feels they are getting a bargain. Others point out that in terms of lens design, it is a 300mm lens and the production costs are only that of a 300mm lens. Whether or not this point was considered in Olympus’ pricing strategy, I have no idea (though they do mention it in advertising). While I see both sides of the debate, I weigh on the side of the latter camp. However, as I mentioned above, since I still think the prices are comparable to most DSLR lenses of similar age, specs and quality, it doesn’t matter to me much. To offer yet another perspective, the 300mm f/4 Pro is less than half the price of its legacy ED 300mm f/2.8 predecessor, and by the many criteria I laid out the only advantage the older model has over the 300mm Pro is one stop of light.
The Birding Angle on the Primes Versus Zooms Debate:

Even after spotting a bird in the trees with the naked eye, sometimes finding it again with a telephoto lens through the viewfinder is difficult. Being able to zoom out to re-acquire the target and zoom back in again is very helpful, as with this Catbird taken with the 75-300mm Mk I.
(Click to view full-size)
Yet there are much more important arguments favoring zooms when it comes to birding. Generally, we will spot a bird with our naked eyes and then bring our cameras up to shoot. Finding the bird again amidst the foliage using the viewfinder can be a challenge, especially with a tight focal length. It is helpful to zoom out, re-locate the bird, and zoom back in to get the shot (though this can be less of a problem if the bird is far in the distance). Also, the more focal range you have, the more you can adjust to changing environment as you walk through it. A wide open space may require much longer reach, while being amidst foliage a much lower focal length can help. The adage for primes is “zoom with your feet.” Usually with bird photography, though, this isn’t practical. The time it takes to do so generally isn’t available before the bird starts to move again, and moving closer to birds will spook them nine times out of ten. In some places there are legal and/or moral limits to how close you should get, usually in nesting season. Terrain can sometimes limit space frontwards or backwards, and sometimes the birds are simply high above you, where your feet can’t go.
The flexibility of zoom lenses is extremely valuable for birding. While the prime’s advantages of light gathering, focusing speed and sharpness are always important (particularly for BiF), they won’t matter if you can’t locate your target or get it all in frame. A prime sacrifices the zoom’s ability to quickly scan and hone in on the target, as well as its versatility. This can be compensated for with skill, or with use of the red dot sight.
All that said, the bottom line is a repeat of what I said earlier: most times you won’t have enough reach to fill the frame with a bird. So, in the spirit of cropping as little as possible, its the longer focal length lens that usually wins for most birding situations. If the prime has longer reach than the zoom, it will mean less “zooming in with your feet,” making it the stealthier and more agile option. This won’t always be the case, depending on the environment you’re shooting in. As I said in my second post, parks, zoos and backyards can be shot in shorter focal lengths, but for the majority of wild situations longer is king.

What bird photographers almost always need is more reach. I shot the entire sequence of this amazing scene of two fighting eagles locking talons, but they were so far away I had to crop the image to the very limits of usability, and heavily processed it with Macphun Intensify to make the eagles appear crisper and more detailed against the background (which I blurred a bit). This is one of the two images in this post shot with the Canon 7D Mk II, as opposed to Olympus (for which at the time, I did not have a lens that would have been able to capture even this much). The 100-400mm lens I used here, sharp and with a great zoom range, yet still-hand-holdable, is an excellent birding lens. Because of the difference in crop factor (x1.6 versus x2), the 300mm Pro (at 600mm range, full frame equivalent) comes just shy of my Canon kit’s 640mm range (equivalent). The Pan Leica on an µ4/3 body, however, would beat them both at 800mm (equivalent), which both lenses would need their teleconverters to surpass. For this image, I was using a teleconverter.
(Click to view full-size)
Olympus 40-150mm Pro:
This versatile zoom lens is one of the best in the lineup. For our birding criteria, it has everything going for it except for focal length. In in-close situations, such as an aviary, park or backyard bird feeder, it performs perhaps the best of all. But in wider and wilder spaces, it’s short reach makes it highly limited for all but very large birds, despite its sharpness allowing for more aggressive cropping.

This Brolga (Australian Crane) was so large and close, I had to switch lenses from the 300mm Pro to the 40-150mm Pro to get his body all in frame.
(Click to view full-size)
The dual voice coil focusing motors (whatever those are) allow for blazingly fast AF capable of catching BiF — huge improvement over the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 Mk I we used for years. The constant, much wider aperture increases its shutter speed, low light performance, and ability to control background separation — all improvements to IQ that become even more pronounced at longer focal lengths. The lens is razor sharp, and the focal length is short enough that IBIS works well enough not to require any additional support. However, the max reach is only borderline long enough for a few kinds of bird photography, and too short for some. It can be used for the stalking method of birding, but some shots will be lost to its diminished reach. It is ideal for parks, aviaries and zoos where the birds are much closer (as a zoo lens in general, it is superb). If you like to show more of the environment in your photos, this focal length also becomes more usable. We otherwise generally have been finding that many of the shots we do get need to be cropped to varying degrees, which it is sharp enough to handle. In enclosed spaces or when shooting larger birds like Herons and Egrets, it serves very well — every bit as good as the Canon. There have even been times, such as with the wild Australian Broga on the left, where the 300mm Pro was too long for me to get the shot, and the 40-150mm Pro’s shorter focal range was necessary.

This South Island Kaka (shot in Orokonui, New Zealand) is another example where the 40-150mm Pro focal length allowed Catherine to get the full bird in frame, whereas my shot with the 300mm Pro only got the head (below).
(Click to view full-size)
Olympus 300mm Pro:
This is the most technically impressive lens I have ever owned, and birding was certainly one of the primary applications in mind for its design. While it is the biggest and heaviest native µ4/3 lens to date, it is still an excellent compromise between highest-end performance and portability. In some ways, the lens’ performance would likely pair better with the E-M1 Mk II than with the current generation flagship camera. On the downside, it is very expensive, and the fact that it is a prime lens makes photographing birds a bit more challenging.

This image of the same Kaka previously shown is a close-up comparison to show the focal length differences of the 300mm Pro (here) and the 40-150mm Pro (above). I was standing right next to Catherine when we took both these shots.
(Click to view full-size)
First off, the the Sync IS is incredibly effective. In an earlier post I debated whether it is better to leave IS off, and I speculated that the Sync IS would be such a game-changer that it was worth the processing price to keep it on. I still think this is true. The stability it provides is practically magic (easily the best in the business), and keeping a bird in center frame is a lot easier for it. The IS and size mean that this lens simply does not need a tripod for effective long-distance shooting.
Secondly, it is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. It is so sharp, I find myself being able to crop far more than I ever thought possible with µ4/3. I can crop so much with it, I find there is no advantage to having a teleconverter. I can only imagine what sort of cropping will be possible with the higher mega-pixel E-M1 Mk II, in or out of the rumored hand-holdable Hi Rez mode. To put this lens’ sharpness in perspective, I found that whenever I shot with it, my personal expectations were so (perhaps unrealistically) high, that whenever they weren’t met (due to user error or whatever) the failure was more glaringly painful than it normally would be. I’ve found myself on a few occasions disappointed with this lens performance in shots that, when I sat back and thought about it rationally, were shots my Canon couldn’t do either.

This New Zealand native, called a Tui, is a quite striking bird. This one tended to stay in shadowy branches, and its dark colors could only be brought to life with good exposure and a bright lens. In this case, the 300mm Pro was sufficient. (Click to view full-size)
An important test that I have yet to do is to try calibrating this lens as well as the 40-150mm Pro and perhaps even my old 75-300mm, any of which I could conceivably be using with the E-M1’s hybrid CDAF/PDAF system. This is a bit of an unusual situation. Lens calibration is not normally something µ4/3 users have to worry about, since we are generally shooting with CDAF. Certainly, the lenses perform as advertised with CDAF. It is much more difficult, however, to tell if mis-calibration is a culprit in the E-M1’s PDAF performance against the uncontrolled and imprecise challenge of birds in flight. (Remember, the E-M1 only engages PDAF with these lenses if using continuous AF, something I personally only do with BIF.) I’ve only tried the calibration process once, and didn’t see any changes necessary, so I can’t even be sure I did it right. I didn’t really feel the need for calibrating the 40-150mm Pro before, perhaps because I am generally shooting with a larger DoF with it, making perfect calibration less important. Since getting the 300mm, however, I feel more compelled to isolate as many variables as possible.

This image of a Chipping Sparrow was taken with the 300mm Pro, at Cromwell Park in north Baltimore, MD.
(Click to view full-size)
The physical aspects of the lens are what should be expected for Pro level gear. It is built like a tank, which makes it heavier than otherwise, but able to withstand considerable rigors. Like the 40-150mm Pro, it is large for a µ4/3 lens but small for what it does. It also takes the MC-14 x1.4 teleconverter to reach 420mm. I love the Arca-Swiss compatible lens foot, and wish all lens feet had that feature. That said, the 300mm Pro’s controls required some getting used to, and this is a bit of a criticism. I agree with some other reviewers in that the designers should have swapped the locations of the focus limiter switch and IS switch. The focus limiter is the control that needs to be accessed most often, but they instead put the IS switch in the prime real estate where my thumb rests. Getting to the focus limiter requires me to stretch my thumb’s reach over the IS switch and higher up the barrel. It’s a small thing, and one that will diminish with practice, but on several occasions it has cost me to miss shots because either I couldn’t switch the focusing range in time, and/or I had accidentally turned IS off instead.

This cute little one, whom we believe to be a female Tomtit, was shot with the 300mm Pro at the amazing Orokonui Ecosanctuary in New Zealand’s South Island.
(Click to view full-size)
Panasonic Leica 100-400mm:
While most people are saying that the Olympus 300mm Pro is sharper and faster (particularly sans teleconverter), I nevertheless suspect the Pan-Leica 100-400mm might very well be the ideal birding lens for µ4/3. Its wide (and natively longer) zoom range and small size are huge benefits, and they come at a lower price point. Its aperture is a bit slow for the genre, and I don’t know about its focusing speed. At the very least, it is an across-the-board upgraded version of the two lenses I will discuss after this one.

I don’t have any sample photos of the Pan Leica, but this bald eagle in flight shot is from a different 100-400mm lens, this one taken with the Canon 7D Mk II. I find the focal range very useful for all applications of birding, from long to short.
(Click to view full-size)
I have seen some reviewers express dissatisfaction with the Pan-Leica 100-400mm’s sharpness, but I suspect there are some explanations for this that don’t have anything to do with lens performance. Most people praise it as very sharp, only slightly less so than the 300mm Pro. In any case, as I mentioned, I have experienced plenty of disappointing pictures with the 300mm Pro as well, which I know from my own tests is ridiculously sharp — and found the explanations elsewhere. The fact that it is a zoom and has an extra 100mm over the next longest focal length are its biggest advantage for birding applications. A few aspects made me choose the Oly instead. First, I have not seen much by way of reviews on how fast the lens focuses. Secondly, while the lens has Panasonic’s version of Sync IS (called Dual IS), the two brands do not use compatible technology here, so using this lens on my E-M1 would only have OIS (the same is true for the 300mm Pro on a Panasonic body). Since I only own Olympus bodies, this was an issue. The final concern was the f/6.3 max aperture at 400mm, which is decidedly on the slow side, though in bright conditions it should be fine. Lastly, with the x1.4 teleconverter, the Olympus 300mm Pro regains the edge in reach at the cost of its one stop of light advantage, though I can’t say which is sharper — the Pan Leica or the 300mm Pro with the teleconverter. I have since found this last point moot, however, as I feel teleconverters (both the Canon and Olympus x1.4 teleconverter I own, anyway) lose too much in sharpness and speed to be worthwhile for birding.
The “Soda Can” Zooms:
After using it for years, I would recommend the Olympus 75-300mm (and perhaps the Panasonic equivalent before that) as a starter bird lens, or one for people who want a telephoto but don’t want to go all out in price and size. They are good in sunny conditions, but performance drops off rapidly in low light.
The most compact super-telephoto offerings for µ4/3 are the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 (520g) (which I have never used) and the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 (423g) (including the Mk I version I started with and used for years). On the positive side, both are only the size and weight of a can of soda, and acceptably decent in terms of sharpness. Many shooters have complained that the image quality does degrade a bit at the longest ranges. While it is true that neither of these are high-end offerings, I know from experience that the Olympus is actually sharper than it gets credit for, and I am willing to bet the same is likely true for the Panasonic. The reason I say this is because while there likely is some technical degradation at longer focal lengths, that generally isn’t the biggest problem. A more common culprit at work is users mistakenly believing these lenses can be shot from the hip at such long ranges, just because their small size makes it feel like they can. For one, both lenses decrease aperture the further they are zoomed out, taking a hit in either shutter speed or ISO, either way impacting image quality. This is made worse by the fact that standard IBIS is strained too much at super-telephoto ranges to reliably hand-hold the camera and get a sharp shot. Lastly, it can be counter-intuitively harder to get good stability with lighter lenses. With all three forces at work, such a small and light package can easily mislead the photographer into expecting to be able to shoot long ranges hand-held without problems, but in reality a more stable platform is needed at around 250mm or more. If used with a monopod or tripod, and not trying to capture motion and so allowing for slower shutter speeds, these lenses can get extended mileage.Even then, their slowness will catch up to them (the Olympus is slower than the Panasonic). In bright daylight they work very well, but when the light begins to drop their performances take dramatic nose dives. This strains their use in shadowy forests, or in the early morning or late evening when birds are most active. Lastly, they are not the fastest of focusing lenses, so shooting flitting birds or BIF is made even more challenging. We used the Olympus 75-300mm Mk I for years and got some great shots with it, but found we were limited in what we could do.
Just based on specs and not really knowing how the Panasonic performs, I would still probably recommend it over the Olympus equivalent if birding is the primary purpose (for more general purposes, its a toss-up). The extra 25mm on the Olympus may make it a more all-around versatile lens, but that short end won’t impact birding at all. Furthermore, while not much different, the extra half-stop of aperture means better light gathering and shutter speed for the Panasonic — important for birding. I can say that for the price and small size, either one makes for an nice starter lens for birding.

While it isn’t at the top of our µ4/3 list, we’ve had so many fond memories with the 75-300mm Mk I, it only shows that the moment matters more than the gear. This Osprey eating its catch was taken out of our car window the first time we ever went to Blackwater NWR, in eastern Maryland. While I’d have loved to fill the frame with a close-up, this image is cropped about as much as I could get away with. If we had tried to get out of the car and move closer, the Osprey would have flown away for sure.
(Click to view full-size)
Other Native Hand-Held Options:

This is another exception to my “reach is king” argument, taken with the Olympus 75mm f/1.8. The image was shot unusually close up, and the 75mm has fantastic speed and sharpness, which allowed more cropping than otherwise (but still not as much as I would have liked). The shot also is an example of the E-M1 catching a songbird in flight, which is not easy for any system.
(Click to view full-size)
4/3 Lenses:
After renting it for a week, I can say the 300mm f/2.8 is truly a great lens. It is, however, still the most expensive in the lineup by far, and the extra stop is has over the 300mm f/4 Pro is not enough to justify the huge price difference. Some of the other adapted 4/3 telephoto lenses are also very good for birding, offer bright apertures, and are cheaper than some of the other competition. On the downside, they are heavier, and don’t focus quite as quickly on the E-M1 as some of their native µ4/3 counterparts.

These two shots were taken side by side at the same time, the one on the left with the ED 300mm f/2.8 on the E-M1 and a tripod, and the one on the right hand-held with the E-M5 and 75-300mm Mk I. While many points can be gleaned from this comparison, the depth of field difference stands out the most.
(Click to view full-size)
The best lens of all for this application is the stellar ED 300mm f/2.8 (3290g). By far the largest and most expensive lens in the Olympus line-up, it is the only lens so heavy that it would truly require a full tripod and gimbal head setup to really handle well. I rented it in 2013 (along with a gimbal head) and was very impressed with its marvelous IQ and amazing background separation. That said, with the appearance of the 300mm Pro, I simply don’t see the logic in paying so much for the 300mm f/2.8 — as its only advantage over the 300mm Pro is one stop of light. Perhaps if the E-M1 Mk II had dual-cross focus points only usable with f/2.8 lenses (as my Canon does), that extra stop of light would become more significant, but I highly doubt Olympus would go that route.
My one-week experience with the ED 300mm f/2.8 was hindered in two important ways: The first was that this occurred before firmware upgrade 4.0, so BIF performance was more limited then that it would be today. The second problem was that I was ignorant at the time of the need to calibrate PDAF lenses, and in retrospect I believe this copy was in sore need of it. I recall relying on manual focus a lot. When I was able to get a nice shot, however, the lens was absolutely stunning. The comparison images on the right are interesting for several reasons. Hopefully, not too much image quality was lost in processing these images for the blog. Obviously, the ED 300mm f/2.8 image on the left is superior in sharpness and has a much more pleasing depth of field. But the cost of getting that shot compared to the one on the right — requiring a tripod because the lens was so heavy and cost ten times the price — is a good case study for the diminishing returns point I made when discussing price.
The other 4/3 lens for tripod-mounted bird photography would be the ED 90-250mm f/2.8 (3270g). The 4/3 lineup also has a compact 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 (615g). This 4/3 version is a little larger than its µ4/3 “soda can” cousins I mentioned in the above section, but at least on paper I would assume it functions similarly. There are also several medium telephoto 4/3 lenses that could be used, at effectiveness I would think very comparable to the 40-150mm Pro. The 150mm f/2 (1465g) would be interesting for close work, and the 50-200mm f/2.8-f/3.5 (995g) could also work well for more general birding, given its decently long zoom range. The EC-14 and EX-20 x1.4 and x2 teleconverters are not compatible with most of these lenses mentioned here, only for the 300mm f/2.8 and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.

A wild ostrich taken outside of Canberra, Australia, shot with the 300mm Pro. Catherine was able to take several good images of this massive bird with the 40-150mm Pro, as well.
(Click to view full-size)
Non-Native Lenses:

For images like this one of a large pelican resting calmly on a bright day in Australia, any telephoto lens will work well. This one was taken with the 300mm Pro.
(Click to view full-size)
That all said, there are certainly people who use legacy glass with great success by virtue of their high level of skill, and of course, before autofocus was invented everyone had to shoot that way. In fact, there are times AF can get in the way of bird photography — particularly when attempting to lock onto a bird perched deep amidst tree branches. Even with the tightest focus points and accuracy, the AF will oftentimes lock onto the surrounding foliage, requiring manual adjustments to zero in on the bird. Also, adapters are getting better and more complex, so in a few cases maybe some of these obstacles are surmountable. But I would not expect adapted lenses to ever provide top-end performance.
Another point to consider with adapting lenses is that they are the exact definition of a crop system (as is my Canon kit). This will invariably involve a lens that was designed for a larger sensor to be put on a smaller-sensor body. The result is that some of the image the glass captures will fall off the sides of the sensor, unused. It is a minor quibble of mine that native µ4/3 glass used on µ4/3 bodies they were designed for involves no such image cropping whatsoever, which is why I feel the term is a misnomer for systems like µ4/3 (I have other posts that go into this in more detail). The problem is not a hit on image quality (there is none, and in fact the lost sides are the least sharp parts of the glass), but it does mean the user is carrying around more weight than they need to.
Conclusion:
That sums up the various types of lenses available for birding with µ4/3. I do not know of any plans to introduce more super-telephoto lenses for µ4/3 at this time. While how large and close the subject of course can change the calculus, unless you have something very specific in mind, I recommend preparing for more challenging birding scenarios, in which case some of the above-mentioned lenses might be pushed beyond the capabilities they were designed for. If you can afford it, I think the Olympus 300mm Pro or the Pan-Leica 100-400mm are excellent choices. The several 4/3 lenses I mentioned are probably the next best for general bird photography, along with the 40-150mm Pro, though I think the 300mm f/4 Pro has made the ED 300mm f/2.8 practically obsolete, considering the price difference. The Olympus 75-300mm and the Panasonic 100-300mm make for acceptable beginner level options, but they are limited by their focusing speed and aperture, and are not as sharp as my higher picks. I would only recommend some of the medium telephoto lenses for very limited circumstances, such as close-up encounters in good lighting. I do not recommend adapted lenses for birding, unless you are exceptionally accomplished (or looking to be) with old-school manual focusing, price is a major obstacle, or you are just looking to get some extended mileage out of lenses you already own.
Very enjoyable series of articles, thank you. I have a couple of EM1 bodies, a 40 – 150 f2.8 PRO, a 300mm f4 PRO and a PanaLeica 100 – 400mm and a 1.4TC. Like you, I started off with the 40 -150 + 1.4 TC for BIF, but soon discovered I was unable to replicate the success I had with my Canon 7D mark 11/Canon 100 – 400 L mark 11/Canon 300mm f2.8L IS. I had hoped that the PanaLeica and the 300mm PRO would solve the problem but, alas, I was still useless at trying to bag BIF: and dragonflies in flight were out of the question. I tried every combination to no avail. I have now complimented my EM1’s with a Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikkor 1.4 TC and for me, this is the perfect wildlife combination. I reckoned my 7D mark 11 was a bit good but the D500 is superlative for BIF and dragonflies in flight and I have even managed to capture butterflies in flight – wild ones in the bondu, not the tame farmed jobs. If you get the chance to use one go for it. I hope that the EM1 mark 11 is significantly better for BIF, as the 300mm PRO and the PanaLeica will give me the reach my Nikon stuff can’t. Other than that, the 300mm PRO and PanaLeica are brilliant for stationary and close focus stuff – so much so that I don’t bother with my 60mm macro any longer. No more getting stabbed by bum piercing thistles for me with these two lenses.
Thanks Pete! That D500 must be something really special.
I wonder whether there’s any real advantage in going for a Panasonic body to get in-camera distortion correction with the 100-400 as well as the 4K photo modes.
Hi Ern. I don’t have any experience with the Panasonic bodies, and haven’t heard much about how they fare as birding cameras. I would imagine that the PL 100-400 would be more effective on a high-end Panasonic body, even if just for the dual IS alone. I have heard that the E-M1 Mk II will have 4K video, and I assume we will be able to draw stills from it if that is true.
Thanks.
I guess we’ll soon know about the EM-1 II.
Nice article !
Something to be mentioned – the most used Olympus combo ever was 50-200mm SWD + EC-14. Very good IQ, very fast AF good enough even for swallows in flight.
50-200mm SWD + EC-20 was a good combination too: a bit slow for BIFs, but decent IQ.
Those 2 combos are working very fine with E-M1. I tested it.
I currently 50-200mm SWD + EC-20 for wildlife, and even if is not the ideal combo because of the slow AF, I still get very nice results. Here is a set from my photostream, pictures made with this combo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/27603562@N04/albums/72157674487986505
The new mft lenses are very interesting. I would buy the 300mm F/4.0 but it is expensive, so probably I will end buying Panasonic 100-400mm in a day to replace my current combo.
Splendid series thank you. I am a relatively new and inexpert bird photographer who uses v heavy Nikon gear. I have played a bit with an E-M10 and am much drawn to micro 43 format for its compactness. I note the limitations of the present EM-1 especially with regard to focussing. Do you expect to discuss the suitability of the new mark II for wild life photography when it comes out? The advance advertising promises much from it in respect of autofocusing on wildlife.
Hi Greg. Yes. I can’t wait to get my hands on an E-M1 Mk II and try it out for birding. While I am still curious (and cautiously hopeful) as to just how much it has improved in each area, I feel pretty confident that with so many deficiencies from the original being addressed, the overall package is definitely going to deliver a significantly higher quality user-experience for wildlife photography.
I am actually thinking of moving the other way and going back to Nikon. Secondhand prices for lens are good in comparison to m43 lenses. Especially with sigma / tamron lenses being available. I’ve owned Panasonic/Olympus and also Fuji, loving the size and results for landscaping and street work. But when out and birds are about invariably it’s the background in focus or nothing at all. For stationary birds/wildlife it’s great. Looking through old photos I do like how the D90 I had nailed focus so much better overall.
So moving back to Nikon and some secondhand lenses would leave me with spare cash and better picture results overall. Ideally a Fuji XT-2 and the Fuji 100-400 would be pretty good for Birding but is cost prohibitive.
I’ve just gotten the E-M1 Mk II, and I can say that the days of Olympus C-AF woes are over. I am very impressed with its speed and accuracy, and the tracking works very well. Going from the original E-M1, which I love but was still behind in this area, I never expected such gains. I have no way to compare it to the D500 or XT2 (both of which are great), but my early impression is that it has surpassed my 7D Mk II. M4/3 now has a camera that is extremely usable for birding, and is still such an amazing camera in other genres. I honestly believe it is the most versatile camera system available right now, and while there are other cameras stronger in one area or another, the E-M1 Mk II has no real weaknesses and several areas where it is unmatched.
I also bought the Pan-Leica 100-400mm for my wife, and both it and the 300mm Pro are such excellent birding lenses. I can now sell my Canon without reservation.
Whatever you choose, I hope it works out for you.
Hi Loren, yes the EM1 mark II is so much better for BIF than the EM1. On my first day (17/12/16) I was able to capture crows, magpies, seaguls and pigeons in flight, with image after image in focus. A few days ago I even had three straight shots of a magpie coming in to land – this was a real point and shoot job as I had not seen it until it was really close. Is it as good as my Nikon D500? No, but had my EM1’s been this good I would not have bought my D500. The mark II, coupled with the Oly 300mm f4 PRO is really very good and I am thoroughly impressed. I also bought the 12 – 100mm f4 PRO and it is a great lens. I sold my 12 – 40mm f2.8, 40 – 150mm f2.8, 60mm f2.8 macro and PanaLeica 100 – 400 f4/6.3; but the two lenses I have now + my 1.4 TC, together with my D500, Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC III and Sigma 180mm f2.8 macro mean that I need nothing more.
Thank you Peter for initial results of your experience.
For beginners like me, I assume you were using C-AF+TR to focus and track. But were you using “spot metering” or some other mode for exposure? And were you using “single target” for the AF target mode, or using the “5 target group” mode?
Any advice appreciated. Thanks
Hi Greg, my normal set up for BIF is as follows: 1/2000th, f8, auto ISO, 5 target group, average metering, C-AF/C-AF TR. The C-AF TR seems to work better on my EM1 mark II than it does on my D500, so I am currently trying both settings out. I also use + or – .03 – 1 exposure compensation depending on the colour of the bird. I tend not to use spot metering. I generally shoot at f8 to capture the entire bird in focus and 1/2000th generally freezes all movement, but some smaller, faster birds require 1/2500th.
Much thanks. Gives me great starting point and will save much time running up blind alleys.
Just read parts 1-6. I too have had frustration with birds in flight using EM1 and 300/F4. My EM1 mk2 is due anyday now, slower to get to NZ, but should be a great combination. Appreciate the depth of your blog Loren and positive comments from your readers.
Thank you for your kind words, Denis! Welcome to Mirrorless Planet. I think you will like the E-M1 Mk II. It’s C-AF and tracking are much improved over the original.
Denis Friar: Hope your mark II arrives soon. Prepare to be amazed by just how much better the EM1 mark II is for BIF. I also believe that the new sensor produces greater IQ for longer range shots than the EM1. I have a really detailed shot of goldfinches, which were so far away I was unable to distinguish what they were until I processed them in LR6.8. Like others,I feel the new camera should have been given a new designation, EM2, perhaps. By the way, if you are not aware, there is a Face Book public group named Olympus E-M1II where new users are posting images/questions/answers.
Thanks Pete. No, I was unaware of the Facebook page.
Thanks for such an in-depth, informative and unbiased blog! I’ve been shooting m4/3 for a while and am looking (Since buying an old camper van), to step up my photography a notch or 2. I’ve had a GF1, EM5 and just got a GM5 2nd hand, with the intention of using that with small primes as a “Go anywhere” kit, and selling the rest of my stuff to fund an EM2, probably the 2 pro lens (12-40/40-150) kit to start, probably followed by a 100-400PL for bird photography. I was waiting to see reviews on the G9, but it’s method of AF, whilst it still seems as fast and accurate as the Em1 ii, seems like it would be very distracting and difficult to use in some cases (As it simply “Flutters” the focus rapidly whilst focusing, which I think would drive me mad whilst trying to track a bird or other fast moving creature!). The wildlife article on mirrorless lessons, DP Review’s shooting basketball with the G9, your excellent blog plus non-DFD lenses seemingly suffering a slight penalty on Panasonic bodies, have just about made my mind up (Plus the EM1 is a bit more compact than the G9). No all I have to do is finish a few small jobs and the van and gather the funds for my new kit!
The E-M1 Mkii’s CAF is much-improved over the original version I was writing about in this blog. It’s just shy of excellence, though. failing to consistently get critically sharp results. The problem has been difficult to isolate and mitigate because there are so many variables. We have been told a firmware update is in the works to make further improvements, but I have no idea when or even if that will happen.
That said, as a”go anywhere” (and I’ll add “do anything”) system, the E-M1 Mkii is one the best options available. For travel and wildlife lenses, I would recommend one of two kits with the E-M1 Mkii:
1) The 12-40mm, 40-150mm Pro, 300mm Pro and MC-14 TC: This kit will give you the most speed and IQ, and access to Olympus proprietary features. Pro Capture and the dual sync IS of the 300 Pro are incredible. However, this option is heavier and very expensive.
2) The 12-100mm Pro and 100-400mm Pan-Leica: 12-400mm coverage in two lenses with fantastic IQ. You lose some speed with this option, but its much lighter, cheaper, and more convenient. The 12-100 on the E-M1 Mkii is nothing short of mind-blowing in its versatility and consistently strong IQ, particularly with the dual sync IS. It counterintuitively makes the 12-100 a stronger performer in low light than the 12-40, but only for still subjects. The PL’s IQ is also very good, and its zoom range make it very usable for wildlife. However, it can’t use the aforementioned proprietary features of the E-M1 MKii.
I’m afraid I don’t have any experience with Panasonic bodies, so I can’t help you much there. If you do go with the G9, I would choose the Panny 12-35, 35-100, and 100-400 lenses.
I cannot vouch for this, but I have read that the C-AF in the mark !! is improved by activating +2 in the C-AF lock setting in the cogs menu.
The optimal CAF lock setting depends on the situation. In the E-M1 Mkii’s menu for adjusting C-AF Lock, it allows you to go from -2 (‘tight’) to +2 (‘loose’). The idea is to make the tracking more or less likely to stay on a subject if there is erratic movement or if other objects cross in front of the subject.
The way I understand ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ is to make the analogy of an athlete’s or fighter’s body. If he tenses/tightens his muscles, he’s committed to a single course of action, and it’s going to take a lot to push him off of it. That’s the camera’s way of saying ‘Tight’ means it won’t deviate from its direction, so if something else crosses in front, the focus won’t switch to the new object; but if the subject changes direction erratically, the tracking will more likely lose it. On the ‘Loose’ end, the muscles are relaxed and ready for anything, like an athlete equally ready to move left or right. A loose body is easily pushed into a new direction, though. The camera’s tracking will be more agile in following an erratically moving subject, but also more likely to lock onto another moving object that passes through. Of course, leaving the setting at zero means the system isn’t biased one way or the other.
So, the trick is to figure out which setting best suits the shooting scenario. For BIF of large birds and open skies, you want to go tight. They generally fly fairly straight with little likelihood of obstruction. For kids or puppies, loose is probably better, because they move so erratically. For small birds flittering in the branches, it might be best to leave it at zero. On the one hand, small birds move erratically, but on the other, branches will distract the tracking, so going in either direction can be problematic.
Hi Loran
Great articles, I am using the four thirds 300mm f2.8 and 90 – 250mm f2.8 with x 1.4 and x2 teleconverters with my EM1 set to CA-F +TR and getting reasonable results.
Regards
Peter
Hi, I can confirm that the Panasonic G9 together with the PanLeica 100-400mm is a birding dream. The IQ of the PanLeica 100-400 is excellent. The G9 has lots of tuning options for the AF.
The following configuration works fine for me:
G9 AF mode AFF, with the option “Quick AF” on. Drive mode 20sec/min, EVF refresh rate 120.
On the PanLeica the focus limiter to 5-infinity, Dual IS on.
Crank up the ISO speed to keep the shutter speed faster than 1/1000 sec.
See for yourself:
https://flic.kr/p/25hwYZa
Wish you all good light
Karl
Yes, the PL100-400 is a compact and versatile lens and I’ve used it a lot.
But the IQ isn’t the best at the long end and the pricing is savage for what you get.
If I were pulling the trigger again I’d seriously consider the Oly 300 and TC.
When I owned 2 x Olympus EM1 bodies I fitted a PanaLeica 100 – 400 f4.5/6.3 to one and an Olympus 300mm f4 (with and without a 1.4 TC) to the other. When I part exchanged the EM1’s for a single EM1 mark II I decided to sell one of the lenses (I also own a Nikon D500 with a Nikkor 200 – 500mm f5.6 and Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR). Much as I enjoyed the light weight and versatility of the 100 – 400mm, when I tested it against the two 300mm lenses it came third for quality. I therefore sold my 100 – 400mm. It is a great lens, but for me the quality of the image trumped the veratility of the 100 – 400mm.
Yes Peter. Coincidentally I’ve just acquired that Nikon rig as the G9 (and G85) systematically fails to lock on a distant bird against a busy background. It gives you leaves, or grass or rippled water. It does do well though picking a bird out of a busy foreground.
I am inclined to agree with Ziggy that Oly 300 plus teleconverter has an edge in image quality, having used that combo as well as the PanLeica.
But of course it is not a zoom lens and I have been caught with a perched bird moving suddenly in my direction, too close for the Oly 300, whereas I could have been in with a chance with zoom.
Can’t have it all ways I suppose.
Indeed.
Fully extended the 100-400 has a horizontal FOV of around 3 degrees, and it takes a lot of practice to swing the camera to the eye and have the bird in the frame. Here the zoom allows you to compose more easily and novices can get some keepers.
Hi Loren keep up the good work,I’m having trouble focusing on birds in trees with my 75-300 Olympus lense is it something I’m doing wrong would love your advise thankyou .
Hi Andrew, thank you for the kind words. Focusing on birds within thick foliage can be tough on AF systems. The best things to do are: 1) use the smallest focusing point available in order to zero in on the bird and not the leaves. Sometimes, this alone is enough, even with S-AF. 2) Use either manual focus (MF) or S-AF+MF. The latter is my favorite. It takes some getting used to, but does work well, so if you have any questions about how it works, let me know. Regardless of which you choose, having manual control gives you the ability to hone in on the bird, even if S-AF hones in on leaves instead. 3) Turn on focus peaking. This will help highlight what is in focus while you are making manual adjustments, so that you know when you have the bird sharp.
I hope that helps. If you have more questions about it, let me know what camera body you use as well. The features that come with the body are more important than the lens for this particular question.
And aim at the eye.
I use a slightly different approach. I find it hard tho hold a small focus point on a bird’s eye with a long lens. So I use C-AF, sometimes C-AF+TR, and shoot in bursts of 3 or 4 shots. If one wobbles a bit as I do it gives some insurance, and as a bonus you sometimes get a shot of the bird taking off or more often of the branch whereon it had perched. In addition I use the “info” option which shows one immediately by a green square the spot on which the last shot actually was focused. If it is not spot on you may have the chance of taking another burst at once, depending whether the bird has flown. I am pretty slow with manual focus even with peaking and use it only in desperation.