OM System M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 IS Pro

I have owned the OM System M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 IS Pro for around eighteen months, and this was the first lens I bought for the OM system. It is the lens I would recommend to anyone who goes out to photograph wildlife — it is sharp, it is one of the best optical lenses I own, and it tracks small and large birds with equal ease. Minimum focus is 1.4m, which makes it a remarkably versatile prime. It is as comfortable taking close-up frames of dragonflies and a robin on a fence as it is tracking swans in burst mode at 60 frames per second without missing focus across the sequence. Compared with my other wildlife lenses, this beats the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 on the Sony for close focus and beats it hands down on hit rate. Against the Sony 200-600mm it is sharper — as you would expect from a prime — and the biggest differences are size and weight.

The main reason I bought this lens was that I had been researching the best option for fast-moving birds, and the minimum focus distance kept coming up time and time again. I bought it used from MPB for around £1,200 with a twelve-month warranty, and I took out additional insurance to extend that warranty period. I did compare it against the 100-400mm, which offers zoom flexibility, but the reviews were mixed on optical quality so I decided the 300mm was the better choice. The 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25 IS Pro was the other option — considerably more money, and maybe a purchase for the future. I bought the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro at the same time. The 600mm-equivalent reach and the reviews that continually praised the lens's quality were what tipped me over. From the first day I used it, this was the right call. It did everything the reviews said it would, and after eighteen months I still take it out every time.

I never use a tripod or monopod with this lens. It is small and light enough to carry around all day, and I do not feel the need. Compared with the Sony 200-600mm, I would much rather walk around with the 300mm for half a day; the difference in weight is the difference between coming home tired and coming home wrecked. The OM-1 II's IBIS combined with the lens's optical IS — the Sync IS system — works brilliantly, particularly when shooting video handheld. The lens and the OM-1 are both fully weather sealed, so I have no issues in any conditions; I do not even bother covering either of them in heavy downpours.

The autofocus on this lens is second to none. It can track large and small birds in flight, and it is exceptional at focusing on birds through branches — much better than the Sigma 500mm or the Sony 200-600mm. Once you are locked on, if the focus is slightly out you can make minor adjustments with the focus ring; pulling the ring back or pushing it forward switches between autofocus and manual focus. That is one of the OM system's best features. Pro Capture would be handy when a kingfisher turns up, but I have never used it in that situation — the adults do not stay long, and I would rather maximise time and frames than sit with the AF half-pressed waiting for a take-off and risk missing the perched shot entirely. The camera at 60 frames per second in continuous focus mode is more than enough for most situations. Pro Capture earns its keep later in the year, when juveniles leave the nest and there are far more flight opportunities to anticipate. On autofocus, I have never felt this lens fall short. It just works — that is true of the original OM-1 and the OM-1 II that I use. The 300mm f/4 is exceptional at tracking and locking on to almost any subject; I would say it is better than the Sigma 500mm on the Sony, and comparable to the Sony 200-600mm.

I almost always shoot this lens wide open at f/4. With Micro Four Thirds the sensor is smaller, so keeping the aperture wide helps me hold a faster shutter speed without pushing the ISO. With the MC-14 1.4× teleconverter fitted I do not see any real-world drop in sharpness or image quality. I have the MC-20 2× as well, but I have used it only a handful of times — the distances I am usually shooting at do not call for 1200mm equivalent. The bokeh and background separation are at their best when I am photographing reed buntings on top of the reeds — the bird and the very tip of the reed in sharp focus, the rest of the reed bed melting away into a creamy backdrop. Colour straight out of the camera never seems quite as good as it does on the Sony, but I shoot RAW only, so that is easily handled in post.

The lens is excellent for frame-filling subjects, but if you get too close the dragonflies will move away. This is where the 300mm f/4 comes into its own — enough working distance to keep them on the perch, enough reach to fill the frame at 600mm equivalent, and Sync IS to hold it all steady handheld. The camera and lens were made for this situation, and the lightning speed of the OM-1 II finishes the job. This lens really can do it all. I rarely take the 40-150mm f/2.8 out any more. The 60mm and 90mm macros have a more specific job; the 8-25mm I keep for landscape and video. In the Bunting Hide at Pennington Flash the 300mm works whether you want a frame-filling robin or reed bunting at close range, or the same bird at the farthest perch — it is always the lens in use in there.

I use the MC-14 1.4× teleconverter often, especially if I am only going out with one camera. It works well for capturing swans in flight over the water, and it still lets me capture images at close range — although it has to come off in the Bunting Hide at Pennington Flash, where the working distance is too tight. There are no issues with autofocus when the 1.4× is fitted. It still locks on to subjects in flight; I have not noticed any slowing of the AF with it on. If I fit the teleconverter I normally leave it on for the day. I decide before I leave the house whether the TC is going on; I generally do not change lenses when I am out — that is why I normally carry two cameras.

At Pennington Flash, I use the 300mm f/4 for small birds, video work, and any time I need to focus through branches. Leighton Moss is trickier — the distances are substantial at points, where the 2× teleconverter might earn its keep, but I have not really tested image quality with it on. If it were the difference between no image and a reasonable image, I would take the reasonable image. More likely I would carry the Sony A1 and the 200-600mm with the 1.4× as well — the A1's 50MP gives more cropping headroom for distant subjects. It is also worth saying that beyond a certain distance, wind and atmospheric conditions start to limit image quality regardless of focal length, so more reach does not always bring the image you are hoping for. At Martin Mere I would use the 300mm f/4 most often, usually with the 1.4× fitted; it works well around the reed beds for reed buntings on the tops of the reeds. At Dunham Massey I would more than likely use the 300mm without the teleconverter — the deer generally get reasonably close and I want to keep some of the parkland landscape in the background to make the frame feel more natural.

Low light can be an issue, but in fairness light is an issue with all photography at the very earliest points of dawn. In those first few minutes I would most likely reach for the Sony, but as the light comes up that window is often only ten minutes or so. The denoise tools in modern editing software have improved no end recently, and I am getting usable images in lower light than would have been possible a year ago. I regularly push the OM-1 II to ISO 6400 — I always say a slightly noisy image with the correct shutter speed beats a low-noise image with a blurry subject. When I am out with the A1 and the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 alongside the OM-1 II and the 300mm f/4, by the time the keepers are processed in Lightroom and Photoshop and dropped into the same folder, you would be hard pressed to pick out which camera took which images. The only real reason to reach for the Sony over the OM rig is the 50MP file when I need cropping headroom on a distant subject. Background blur on a full-frame body will always be technically better at the same focal length, but I would say the 300mm f/4 still gives a pleasing, non-fussy background — and at 600mm equivalent the long focal length does plenty of the separation work on its own.

I have been photographing the herons and their juveniles at Pennington Flash on the nests. It is a tricky situation — the location forces you to focus through branches — and it is exactly where the OM-1 II and the 300mm f/4 earn their keep. I tried to use the Sony A1 and the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 and the AF kept locking on to the branches; the manual focus on the Sigma is not as precise as the OM lens. The OM-1 II and the 300mm f/4 nailed every shot, locking on to the eye in most situations, with any minor adjustments handled by a small turn of the focus ring — or, when I needed to take over completely, by pulling the ring back into manual mode and dialling in the eye precisely. The other manufacturers could learn a lot from the mechanics and the precision of the OM Pro lenses.

If you are moving into Micro Four Thirds and the OM system specifically for wildlife, this is the lens I would recommend — skip everything else. Look for a clean used copy with a warranty if you can, the way I did. This is the most-used lens in my kit, and if I could keep only one lens and one body, this would be the setup. I own other cameras and lenses that cost substantially more, but in the real world — away from charts, graphs and pixel-peep tests — this is an excellent wildlife combination. The other reason to buy into this system is weight and size; not carrying the weight that normally comes with wildlife photography is genuinely compelling. And the third reason is the weather sealing. Nothing else on the market comes close.

I love using the OM system for its speed, and the 300mm f/4 gives me the setup I use daily for wildlife photography. The OM kit was the fourth camera system I have bought across the years, and I am about to trim my collection. I own three OM-1 bodies and an OM-D E-M1 III; none of those are on the chopping block, and the 300mm f/4 is going nowhere. Tested at Pennington Flash, Leighton Moss, Martin Mere, and Dunham Massey.