Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm F4-6.3 ASPH Real World Sample Gallery

The lens you are using is off-center.

http://www.systemkamera-forum.de/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-53673-0-74206200-1456315227.jpg

Sharp and contrasty, this lens looks very good at all focal lengths. Good job Leica.

IMHO not really convincing... full range 400mm at ISO 400 missing details already.., downloaded RAW and could not really get better results...so, all-in-all more zoom-reach for 4/3 system but not quite up to DSLRs IQ...?

1. Dull and lacklustre imagery as one is used to from dpreview. dpreview should hire a photographer for their sample images. The inclination to click on an image gets even lower as opening takes nearly half a minute. Nevertheless I've looked at a few...

2. I'm sorry to say (I mean it, I was really hoping to buy this lens) that until now I have not seen just one really sharp image out of the 100-400. What's especially astounding is that I haven't even seen a sharp image at 100mm, let alone at 400mm. And no, the conditions were in no such way as bad as to make sharp images impossible.

3. Everything I've seen until now including the few images I clicked on here would have looked not much worse if shot with my stopgap solution for the focal length range, the ZD 50-200 plus EC-20; better actually for lower focal lenghts. Images I saw which were shot with a cheap Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L plus Metabones smart adapter on the E-M1 did look significantly better.

Will probably save me some money.

From what I saw the lens is just right especially in raw format. What it may perceived as flaw seems to be the limits of m43 system. Files from both cams seem handy. Sharpness and contrast are as anticipated to be. To my opinion, basic image enhancement in our days is hardly a 2 minutes work, except the most kit lenses, and is sine qua non of any serious photog workflow. Pixel peepers opinion is out of the question by any means of course... Slightly overpriced though (a 10-15% cheaper would be just fine)...

I fear for my PIN numbers

It is clear 800@6.3 on a m43 is not going to gather a heck of a lot of light. That's m43 at is absolute usability limit. That being said, if m43 is your camera system, you shoot mostly at noon in sunny conditions and you need the reach this is available to you.

I think I'd rather get a DMC-FZ1000 and end up with a whole second camera plus an extra $1000 in my pocket.

Hmmm . . . a quick look through the 300mm and 400mm shots leads me to believe that this is not going to be a great lens at those focal lengths.
It appears that it has low contrast and not the best of resolving power.
Final judgement when some tripod shots come out, but it's looking like it's just an OK super tele lens.

Maybe the final production copies will be better . . .

Can't wait to see 1600mm-equivalent FullHD video samples from this lens. Either cropped from 4k-video in PP, or using in-built Ex. tele conv.-feature on Panasonics.

Bright sunlight is not needed for video, 1/50s shutter speed is enough, as long as the tripod is good and it's not windy.

Useless lens.

So this is a Leica branded lens, even though, as far as I know, Leica does not make M43 bodies. In a way, this puts Leica in the same market segment as Tamron or Sigma IMO. Nothing wrong with this, just different than what Leica is known for.

Repeating a reply I posted below:

Conditions weren't ideal (as usual), which is why I was driving all over Oregon and Washington states trying to find decent light while working on this gallery. A balcony shootout on a tripod vs comparable lenses is in the works. For now, the gallery demonstrates sharpness that can be expected when depending heavily on IS while shooting handheld.

Looking at the samples I can only think this is a bad copy of the product or poor photographic technique. I couldn't find an image that was sharp especially for a lens at this price and feel I'm getting better results with my 100-300 (not always, of course). Hope to see more samples from another source that shows good sharpness as I would really like to add it to my kit.

This and a GX8 or G7 or GH4 (not sure which) are on my to-rent list for my next nature preserve trip. How fun! I'm looking forward to comparing it and the body to my D7100 + Tamron 150-600.

These are done by Horst from the mFT forum.....In LR 6.4...I think this looks a whole lot better and quite convincing...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/97351775@N02/sets/72157664913385876/

This lens is actually a Panasonic lens, and the lens is called the "Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm F4-6.3 ASPH". The name Leica is used as part of the lens name by license from Leica to Panasonic. Knowledgeable consumers know the branding agreement, and DPR does not hide it in other coverage, but you should refer to it by its whole name rather than cutting the manufacturer's name off the title of this article.

Wrong price!! Should $500.

Funny how owners of analogue-size "FF" equipment feel the need to bash every innovation that 4/3rds manufacturers put out. Come on, 800mm equivalent in that size? Who in their right mind wouldn't find that an intriguing option? Just an advice: If you can't be positive, or at least constructive, keep your mouth shut. Do you see 4/3rds owners flocking to the commentary field with negative comments every time a story is published about Canon/Nikon/Sony? Didn't think so...

For not much more $$ the Canon 100-400MkII on 7DMkII looks like a steal at respective focal lengths (in the APS-C format) if one is concerned with image quality based on this gallery. Most likely the Canon lens would do better with 2X extender on FF in exact FL equivalence.

Not sure if the M4/3 efforts trying to compete with larger formats for reach is the best way to spend money, smaller primes and zooms, sure, but this?.
Even with relatively compact size, I have difficult time trying to imagine this lens on GM1/GM5 as far as shooting experience is concerned.

This lens seems like a competition with better mega-zoom compacts and cameras like Nikon1 than with APS-C or FF formats.

Pls just put up a few images involving the simpler things: such as put a piece of newspaper on a wall in a parking lot under good outdoor light, shoot it at intervals between 5-30 yards, on a tripod w delay (to avoid SS), to help potential buyers to assess the optical quality. As it stands, one netter on the M43 forum cancelled the pre-order AFTER seeing this set of samples. Enough said.

Isn't this a wildlife lens? Why do I never see examples done with it of birds in flight or anything moving fast?

Wow very nice lens! Have you tried on Panasonic camera yet instead of Olympus to see how good is it to compare to Olympus? Olympus seems to struggle with colours when full zoom in with some noise. So unsure of that.

My congratulation to designers of such the significant optical achievement! Very representative images posted for very first introducing of the one of the best zooms ever! Actually, I am very critical, ah... hmmm... sometimes, but not today! Nice job, guys, well done! I looked carefully at the all, but special attention to worker alone with ropes on the front. Wide open at 400mm, hand-held, the combo shows unthinkable before for any zoom detailing and sharpness! It is the ZOOM, Ladies and Gentlemen, ZOOM, not the prime, and almost of the same, if not the same quality, as the any 800mm prime is. What should I say? It cost every penny you gonna pay for it!

Looking at the picture of the doe, at 400mm: the lens seems pretty good to me. Also the stabilization (shutter 1/80) worked well.
The camera used was the E M-1: what was used, the camera is, or the lens ois?

It's a bargain people. You save $700 compared to the Olympus which is only slightly sharper 😉

I would expect a variable f4-f6.3 zoom from Tamron but from Leica? I am sure the quality is great but still, I would prefer a constant 5.6 throughout the range. Canon was able to make a really good one.

I thought that M43 lenses were supposed to be small and cheap? What's the problem here? Leica licensing fees? For less money, you can buy either a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm, both of would offer a longer equivalent field of view on APS-C bodies. For only about $100 more, you could have a Nikon 200-500mm AND a 1.4x teleconverter?

It look to me that somebody tried to shoot at 800mm eq FL hand-held. Pretty brave.

I really look forward to seeing some test shots from someone who uses this lens properly. The bulk of these samples are worthless. Why would you do shot after shot of some distant landscape, buildings, etc., I assume hand held, at 400mm. The atmospheric distortion in those situations says absolutely nothing about the optical quality of this lens.

Maybe it´s the lens, maybe the atmospheric influence (haze), but the pics do not look good. Contrast, colours, sharpness, everything is mediocre. I had a telezoom once that gave pictures like this and therefore I sold it. But that was a 300 EUR zoom, not expensive Leica lens like this. But it´s maybe too early to write the lens of; let´s wait for nicer weather and full review.

A lot of pessimism already, but I see it as misjudged.

It's pretty clear from a few of the shots at 400mm that the lens can be very sharp when the focus is nailed and there's no motion blur. Look at the two photos of the construction workers grinding, or the man selling newspapers. The photos of the red winged blackbird are also pretty good, though the focal plane appears to be on their legs or the cattail their standing on, not their feathered bodies.

2nd, not 1 image is shot at 1/800s or faster.

Many of the images that hold up best at the pixel level are also the ones taken at 20MP on the GX8, which is all the more impressive.

Remember when you're comparing these that in order to get a comparable FoV that you're seeing, you need to compare it to a 500mm lens on APS-C, or an 800mm lens on FF. Almost no one has no lenses, so direct points of comparison are not as straightforward.

How does the Nikon 200-500 hold up at 500mm when pixel peeping it on a D7200?

Agree that more info is needed. I'd like to see some shot tripod mounted, for example, to a test target. Some of the long shot, like the mountain shots, look awful. But was it atmospheric conditions? Hand shake? This group of shots is not a good ad for this lens.

Very nice results, IMO. Some images are obviously affected by atmospheric turbulence, but that's to be expected for the kinds of uses this lens invites.

Are these all hand-held? Of the 22 images taken at 400mm, only two are with a shutter speed faster than 1/400.

Is it just me or is the standard of test images on this review site dropping. A lot of the recent test images seem underexposed plus a few of the pictures seem to be not very will focused. I might be imagining it or does anyone else feel the same, just wondering.