Originally posted by ivanvernon I see you have the M*300, and I have just picked up a mint-like copy of that lens as well. I tried it at the zoo, and found it too long for use unless you just wanted to capture heads, tails, tusks, etc., but the photos that came up were very good. This morning I am trying it again for ducks and turtles at a nearby lake. Do you use it very much? I would be quite interested in your experience and thoughts on this lens.
I haven't used this lens as much as I should have. For a while I thought it was faulty but the problem turned out to be a deteriorating UV filter on the lens. Once I took the filter off, the lens was fine. In fact the detail it can capture from a distance is quite impressive. Like all M lenses, it needs a little more work in post processing to bring out the best in the images captured.
I've used it only on APS-C so far. On APS-C, the M300/4 equates to 450mm which I agree puts it in the specialty use category.
I bought a K-1 late last year but really haven't had the time to run through the M family much at all on the K-1. Only used so far the M20/4 and a second copy of the M200/4 I picked up cheaply last Christmas. The second M200/4 has pleasantly surprised on FF. I think the APS-C crop pushes the M200/4 a little too hard on resolution - on FF it seems a lot happier. On either format it renders images nicely (provided focus is spot on). If focus is a little out, then fringing quickly kicks in. The M300/4 with its ED element is much better behaved in this respect.
I've been thinking of taking out a one year membership to the Adelaide Zoo. They have in addition to the city zoo, an open range zoo about 45 minutes out of the city - I suspect this is where longer lenses like the M300/4 will come into their own - provided animals stay still long enough to get focus sorted! I found swimming ducks with the M300 thoroughly frustrating. They seem to either be swimming towards me or away - neither is good for manual focussing of long telephotos!