[wim]

I went over the 1000 shutter count this week, really enjoying the camera. Starting to feel comfortable with the menu system and adjusted to the shutter release (it's a lot lighter than my last camera). I think those are two things a lot of reviewers can make a lot of both things but I think adjusting to how a camera handles and the menu system is just a part of changing and you soon adjust and get used to it.
I haven't bought a long tele lens yet, I was wondering if you might have advice. A friend suggested that I would be better off with the 40-150 F2.8 as much of my photography would fall within the 150mm length and to go longer get the MC14 which apparently still offers a reasonable constant F4 aperture and would cover the great majority of my needs. The MC20 is also an option. Do you have experience of these teleconverters please? The friend in question tells me that the impact on optical performance is acceptable and that overall the lens remains excellent and worth the hit for the excellent performance of the 40-150 without the converter. Others tell me to avoid as the hit to optical performance is too much and to go for either the Zuiko or Lumix Leica 100-400 or Lumix Leica 50-200.

Since you did go with the OM-1, I'd suggest you go with any Oly option, because of the additional IS-benefits you get. Whether that is the 40-150, 100-400, 150-400, or the new 150-600 doesn't really matter apart from you specific needs. If you are into birding, I'd suggest the longer lenses, for game the 40-150 with teleconverter may be enough indeed. In that case I would certainly also consider the Lumix Leica 50-200, because its longer reach, equivalent to 100-400 on FF.

As to teleconverters, you always get a little drop in resolution etc., when using them, which is why I personally would not recommend going beyond a 1.4x version, apart from the loss of light. A 2x converter really only serves as a last means to get a shot, IMO. Of course, built-in converters, as with the Oly 150-400, which has a 1.25x built-in which is always available without having to mount it, is generally the better option, as they are specifically designed for the optical design of such a lens. However, that is one expensive piece of equipment, even though it is considered t be excellent.

The 40-150 is available as a package including the 1.4x teleconverter, BTW, well, it was in the past anyway, and that could be a cheaper option to acquire such a setup.

Personally, I like slightly longer teles, so I would go for a 100-400 or thereabouts, to be very honest. That is exactly what I currently use my Canon 100-400 for, with adapter and/or speedbooster. I find that for landscapes which make use of the "compression" that telezooms provide, 300 mm equivalent often isn't enough, and the same holds true for getting any close-up shots of animals, birds or otherwise. In the latter case, I must admit I am not very good at sneaking up to animals either, or maybe I do not have the patience (or both).

And yes, the Canon 100-400L is heavy, but since I also use it on my FF Canon system, it is just one of those things, as in, decisions on budgetary restraints etc. Personally, if I had the money available, I would likely get the 150-400 or the new 150-600.