Showcasing the PL DG 100-400mm f/4-6.3

[BryanHL]

A lot is written on this forum about the oly 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm and also the other two long zooms - 100-400 and 150-600.

Not much is said about how a good copy of the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm can pretty much hold its own against the two top of the range oly's nor that a good one probably bests the 100-400 and 150-600.

Copy variation has to be considered but the oly lenses are reported to suffer from that too. I couldn't say that OMDS has dropped QC since taking over but the odd negative report of the 150-400 is a touch disconcerting given its price.

Given that the PL can be had for around US $1,500 and a 2nd hand one for approx half that, it represents really good value for what it can achieve. The only rider is that it's probably wise to test a copy before purchase to ensure you get a good one.

These are from the Mk1. I don't think there were any changes to the optics of the Mk2, just AF, OIS improvements and TC compatibility. The Mk1 is still supported under Dual IS. I am not sure how many stops but it's pretty good - capable of very sharp moon shots hand held.

Pacific Baza also known as Crested Hawk, Crested Baza and Pacific Cuckoo-Falcon.

I have never seen a bird with such a prominent eye - looking like one of those teddy bear sew on eyes...

 

[gary0319]

I have been using my PL100-400 since it was first available back in 2016. It has been a great lens on every Olympus/OM body since. It seems particularly well matched for both my OM-1 II and my OM-3 (albeit a bit large for the gripless OM-3). The PL 100-400’s fast 240 frame per second focus motors match up very well with the C-AF subject detect of these higher performance OM models, even at top frame rates. On a recent outing to shoot Black Skimmers, these fast-flying shore birds were coming right at me down a long section of beach and the lens and camera had no problem locking and keeping focus for the birds long sweeps including panning as they came close buy. Some sequences resulted in over 200 images.

This image was #152 in a long C-AF bird detect sequence at 20 fps…there were no OOF images out of the 155 total shots.



And sometimes they came in threes.

 

[Jens_ac]

A lot is written on this forum about the oly 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm and also the other two long zooms - 100-400 and 150-600.

Not much is said about how a good copy of the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm can pretty much hold its own against the two top of the range oly's nor that a good one probably bests the 100-400 and 150-600.

Copy variation has to be considered but the oly lenses are reported to suffer from that too. I couldn't say that OMDS has dropped QC since taking over but the odd negative report of the 150-400 is a touch disconcerting given its price.

Given that the PL can be had for around US $1,500 and a 2nd hand one for approx half that, it represents really good value for what it can achieve. The only rider is that it's probably wise to test a copy before purchase to ensure you get a good one.

These are from the Mk1. I don't think there were any changes to the optics of the Mk2, just AF, OIS improvements and TC compatibility. The Mk1 is still supported under Dual IS. I am not sure how many stops but it's pretty good - capable of very sharp moon shots hand held.

Pacific Baza also known as Crested Hawk, Crested Baza and Pacific Cuckoo-Falcon.

I have never seen a bird with such a prominent eye - looking like one of those teddy bear sew on eyes...

Hello Brian, those are very nice images, great and thank you for showing them!

I think the PL100-400 is one of the reasons to enter the MFT-sytem and the best MFT tele zoom next to the expensive OMSy 150-400. It is much smaller than the full frame tele zooms from Sigma-OMSy and more flexible for composing/finding the animal than the great MFT primes (PL200 and OMSy300) at the cost of the bokeh - which is quite OK still.

It is the "always with me" lens for reach in the wild.

 

[BryanHL]

I have been using my PL100-400 since it was first available back in 2016. It has been a great lens on every Olympus/OM body since. It seems particularly well matched for both my OM-1 II and my OM-3 (albeit a bit large for the grip less OM-3). The PL 100-400’s fast 240 frame per second focus motors match up very well with the C-AF subject detect of these higher performance OM models, even at top frame rates. On a recent outing to shoot Black Skimmers, these fast-flying shore birds were coming right at me down a long section of beach and the lens and camera had no problem locking and keeping focus for the birds long sweeps including panning as they came close buy. Some sequences resulted in over 200 images.

This image was #152 in a long C-AF bird detect sequence at 20 fps…there were no OOF images out of the 155 total shots.

Hi Gary,

you have showcased my dilemma. The G9 doesn't quite do it justice - at least for action shots (great for stills and I love it for closeups). I still get keepers but there are many more that don't come close. So I am waiting to get my budget ready for a G92 or perhaps an OM.

It is good to hear that it plays nicely with OM bodies.

And sometimes they came in threes.

 

[gary0319]

I have been using my PL100-400 since it was first available back in 2016. It has been a great lens on every Olympus/OM body since. It seems particularly well matched for both my OM-1 II and my OM-3 (albeit a bit large for the grip less OM-3). The PL 100-400’s fast 240 frame per second focus motors match up very well with the C-AF subject detect of these higher performance OM models, even at top frame rates. On a recent outing to shoot Black Skimmers, these fast-flying shore birds were coming right at me down a long section of beach and the lens and camera had no problem locking and keeping focus for the birds long sweeps including panning as they came close buy. Some sequences resulted in over 200 images.

This image was #152 in a long C-AF bird detect sequence at 20 fps…there were no OOF images out of the 155 total shots.

Hi Gary,

you have showcased my dilemma. The G9 doesn't quite do it justice - at least for action shots (great for stills and I love it for closeups). I still get keepers but there are many more that don't come close. So I am waiting to get my budget ready for a G92 or perhaps an OM.

It is good to hear that it plays nicely with OM bodies.

The PL100-400 is also pretty capable of decent video. On this day I shot a number of 4K60P clips of these birds and if there were any few frames that were not right on, it was because of my pilot error, not the lens.

And sometimes they came in threes.

 

[BryanHL]

A lot is written on this forum about the oly 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm and also the other two long zooms - 100-400 and 150-600.

Not much is said about how a good copy of the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm can pretty much hold its own against the two top of the range oly's nor that a good one probably bests the 100-400 and 150-600.

Copy variation has to be considered but the oly lenses are reported to suffer from that too. I couldn't say that OMDS has dropped QC since taking over but the odd negative report of the 150-400 is a touch disconcerting given its price.

Given that the PL can be had for around US $1,500 and a 2nd hand one for approx half that, it represents really good value for what it can achieve. The only rider is that it's probably wise to test a copy before purchase to ensure you get a good one.

These are from the Mk1. I don't think there were any changes to the optics of the Mk2, just AF, OIS improvements and TC compatibility. The Mk1 is still supported under Dual IS. I am not sure how many stops but it's pretty good - capable of very sharp moon shots hand held.

Pacific Baza also known as Crested Hawk, Crested Baza and Pacific Cuckoo-Falcon.

I have never seen a bird with such a prominent eye - looking like one of those teddy bear sew on eyes...

Hello Brian, those are very nice images, great and thank you for showing them!

Thanks jens, your welcome.

I think the PL100-400 is one of the reasons to enter the MFT-sytem and the best MFT tele zoom next to the expensive OMSy 150-400. It is much smaller than the full frame tele zooms from Sigma-OMSy and more flexible for composing/finding the animal than the great MFT primes (PL200 and OMSy300) at the cost of the bokeh - which is quite OK still.

It is the "always with me" lens for reach in the wild.

In the FF vs MFT debate, it is at the long end that MFT shows its weight, size and cost advantages. For landscape / street etc the advantages are much less pronounced.

I am a minimalist and I am unlikely to ever have a tele prime alongside a zoom. Mind you > 95% of my shots are at 400mm so the utility of a zoom may be questioned... :-O

I am very happy with the bokeh of my 100-400mm. Maybe the 300 f/4 is a touch better but I haven't noticed it yet.

 

[Ken Croft]

My PL 100-400 was sharp, though nothing like my Oly 300f4 of course, but the jerky zoom action made the lens unusable for finding birds in flight. I sold it. I recently bought, and promptly returned an Oly 100-400 mk2 because of lack of sharpness. I refuse to pay the price of the Oly 150-400.

 

[BryanHL]

My PL 100-400 was sharp, though nothing like my Oly 300f4 of course,

This was the point of my thread. I can basically see no (or very little) difference between my PL and shots from the 300 f4. Of course copy variation is going to muddy the waters on that.

Another reason is that I wanted to put the record straight. I see a lot of pride in here from owners of the 150-400 - and I would be proud too if I had forked over that kind of money. But quite frankly, some of the (excitable) owners have posted less than stellar examples and I have felt some embarrassment for them... So I would like to see people in the market for a tele zoom to not be swayed by the oly hype - there are other options if you do your research and try before you buy.

I started a comparison thread a few weeks ago and seeded it with some moon shots, hoping there would be at least a few shots from all the different lenses. It never got off the ground. I wont speculate as to why...

but the jerky zoom action made the lens unusable for finding birds in flight. I sold it.

Mine is a little stiff but smooth and not jerky. It would be nice to have a silky smooth action like I see on the reviews of pro lenses.

I recently bought, and promptly returned an Oly 100-400 mk2 because of lack of sharpness. I refuse to pay the price of the Oly 150-400.

I get the feeling that market economics dictate that they can't fail too many units (assuming they aren't recoverable after assembly). So they have to allow some less than optimal copies pass and hope the public don't notice or aren't too fussed.

 

[Jens_ac]

My PL 100-400 was sharp, though nothing like my Oly 300f4 of course,

This was the point of my thread. I can basically see no (or very little) difference between my PL and shots from the 300 f4. Of course copy variation is going to muddy the waters on that.

Another reason is that I wanted to put the record straight. I see a lot of pride in here from owners of the 150-400 - and I would be proud too if I had forked over that kind of money. But quite frankly, some of the (excitable) owners have posted less than stellar examples and I have felt some embarrassment for them... So I would like to see people in the market for a tele zoom to not be swayed by the oly hype - there are other options if you do your research and try before you buy.

I started a comparison thread a few weeks ago and seeded it with some moon shots, hoping there would be at least a few shots from all the different lenses. It never got off the ground. I wont speculate as to why...

I do not like to post any images in this forum anymore.

but the jerky zoom action made the lens unusable for finding birds in flight. I sold it.

Mine is a little stiff but smooth and not jerky. It would be nice to have a silky smooth action like I see on the reviews of pro lenses.

Mine (1st version PL 100-400) has a zoom a little bit not stiff enough: When the camera with the lens is hanging arround my neck after a few steps the zoom is crawled to 400 mm and then the thing is just a bit to long to walk. So I have to use the locking ring to prevent that crawling. Then suddenly a dragon fly comes by and guess what: With the locking ring it is really way to stiff for fast action! Thus: A bit stiffer would be better for fast action. Work arround: I put it in a sling bag while walking and hold the camera at the lens the other time.

I recently bought, and promptly returned an Oly 100-400 mk2 because of lack of sharpness. I refuse to pay the price of the Oly 150-400.

I get the feeling that market economics dictate that they can't fail too many units (assuming they aren't recoverable after assembly). So they have to allow some less than optimal copies pass and hope the public don't notice or aren't too fussed.

I do not know if my copy is optimal. I tested the lens a bit for my typical applications and found it very good and best, when stopped down 1 step (I use a protective filter).

 

[glassoholic]

A lot is written on this forum about the oly 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm and also the other two long zooms - 100-400 and 150-600.

Not much is said about how a good copy of the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm can pretty much hold its own against the two top of the range oly's nor that a good one probably bests the 100-400 and 150-600.

Copy variation has to be considered but the oly lenses are reported to suffer from that too. I couldn't say that OMDS has dropped QC since taking over but the odd negative report of the 150-400 is a touch disconcerting given its price.

Given that the PL can be had for around US $1,500 and a 2nd hand one for approx half that, it represents really good value for what it can achieve. The only rider is that it's probably wise to test a copy before purchase to ensure you get a good one.

These are from the Mk1. I don't think there were any changes to the optics of the Mk2, just AF, OIS improvements and TC compatibility. The Mk1 is still supported under Dual IS. I am not sure how many stops but it's pretty good - capable of very sharp moon shots hand held.

Pacific Baza also known as Crested Hawk, Crested Baza and Pacific Cuckoo-Falcon.

I have never seen a bird with such a prominent eye - looking like one of those teddy bear sew on eyes...

Absolutely seconded... I have to go pixel peeping in the corners to find better sharpness from using my Oly 300 f4... the f4 speed for BIF is its greatest advantage. I had a good 1st copy Panaleica but my second is simply superb.

--
Addicted To Glass
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me... Make the best you can of every day!

 

[vcxz]

I've been testing mine out at a few visits to zoos. The 800mm equivalent means you can often zoom in super close to the faces.

I think the main thing is to not do a super heavy crop. Imagine if someone took the 42.5 and took portraits from 100 feet away and did an 80% crop. Why is this okay for animals but not humans?

It got more challenging indoors with bad lighting. I kept the iso limit at 3200. I shot burst with the hope of getting some sharp photos at slow shutter speeds. Even at 3200 with denoising, the feather detail gets a little lost.

If you have bad lighting, you'll probably need the PL 200mm and deal with TCs. It doesn't have a huge advantage at 400mm with the 2x, but it has more bare and at 280.

The PL is also better at dealing with out-of-focus grass. Sometimes the OM Pro lenses get very busy bokeh. I wouldn't say it's a huge strength with creamy bokeh, but being average means it's not a weakness.





































--

vcxz

vcxz.myportfolio.com

 

[C Sean]

One thing that really bugs me is when people boasting about the OM 100-400 and the 150-600, is while both lenses are good, they're still Full Frame lenses. There was no attempt to downsize the lenses and this goes against the original idea about M43. Having the system compact rather than Full Frame bodies and Full frame lenses but with smaller sensors. Kinda like what happened with the original Four Thirds.

While the PL100-400 is an excellent size, it still need to be mentioned about the IQ. It came out in 2016 and the Canon 100-400mm mkii just trumps the lenses. It felt like Panasonic put the optics of the 100-300 in a new lens casing, gave it extra contrast, better motor etc.

It still not a bad lens and it's example how to do M43 right but it really needs a proper update with at least the PL50-200 image quality.

 

[BryanHL]

A lot is written on this forum about the oly 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm and also the other two long zooms - 100-400 and 150-600.

Not much is said about how a good copy of the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm can pretty much hold its own against the two top of the range oly's nor that a good one probably bests the 100-400 and 150-600.

Copy variation has to be considered but the oly lenses are reported to suffer from that too. I couldn't say that OMDS has dropped QC since taking over but the odd negative report of the 150-400 is a touch disconcerting given its price.

Given that the PL can be had for around US $1,500 and a 2nd hand one for approx half that, it represents really good value for what it can achieve. The only rider is that it's probably wise to test a copy before purchase to ensure you get a good one.

These are from the Mk1. I don't think there were any changes to the optics of the Mk2, just AF, OIS improvements and TC compatibility. The Mk1 is still supported under Dual IS. I am not sure how many stops but it's pretty good - capable of very sharp moon shots hand held.

Pacific Baza also known as Crested Hawk, Crested Baza and Pacific Cuckoo-Falcon.

I have never seen a bird with such a prominent eye - looking like one of those teddy bear sew on eyes...

Absolutely seconded... I have to go pixel peeping in the corners to find better sharpness from using my Oly 300 f4... the f4 speed for BIF is its greatest advantage. I had a good 1st copy Panaleica but my second is simply superb.

Yes, I forget the speed is a big advantage - although I do experience it regularly enough. There doesn't have to be too much cloud to drop shutter speed below usable for action...

 

[BryanHL]

One thing that really bugs me is when people boasting about the OM 100-400 and the 150-600, is while both lenses are good, they're still Full Frame lenses. There was no attempt to downsize the lenses and this goes against the original idea about M43. Having the system compact rather than Full Frame bodies and Full frame lenses but with smaller sensors. Kinda like what happened with the original Four Thirds.

While the PL100-400 is an excellent size, it still need to be mentioned about the IQ. It came out in 2016 and the Canon 100-400mm mkii just trumps the lenses. It felt like Panasonic put the optics of the 100-300 in a new lens casing, gave it extra contrast, better motor etc.

From what I have seen of the 100-300 I think it's fair to say the 100-400 is a long way ahead.

It still not a bad lens and it's example how to do M43 right but it really needs a proper update with at least the PL50-200 image quality.

I think that would add quite a bit to the cost. And if going down that path a lower aperture would be an advantage but add to the size. But I would be interested...

 

[TheRealYeats]

While the PL100-400 is an excellent size, it still need to be mentioned about the IQ. It came out in 2016 and the Canon 100-400mm mkii just trumps the lenses.

Sure, but that Canon is currently nearly twice the price (B&H), so I would hope it's a better performer!

 

[TheRealYeats]

It's not perfect, but IMO the 100-400 is pretty, pretty good. My copy has a stiff zoom (though not mount-bendingly so as some folks have reportedly experienced) and when coupled with the OG G9 there are some AF inconsistencies, but as someone who has spent the last decade photographing the local wildlife with film-era, manual focus primes the diminutive PL 100-400 is almost a little miracle...


Warning


Greater than a 100% crop, up-rezzed by about 25%


100mm was *just* wide enough


Thanks to Dual IS, I can contrast the violence of the river with the stillness of the GBH


Good focus, decently sharp capture of Flowernose


I'm a C-AF n00b & somehow OG G9 + PL100-400 captured this w/o my intentional input - no crop

 

[Bast Hotep]

This all sounds and looks great, but as a generally happy MZ 100-400 Mark 1 and OM-1 owner, I'm very conflicted about upgrading to the PL 100-400 (sounds sharp IF you get a good copy but I don't think any IS will work) or the newer MZ 100-400 Mark 2 (superior IS over the first one and possibly sharper but again sounds like you have to pick a good one).

 

[TheRealYeats]

This all sounds and looks great, but as a generally happy MZ 100-400 Mark 1 and OM-1 owner, I'm very conflicted about upgrading to the PL 100-400 (sounds sharp IF you get a good copy but I don't think any IS will work) or the newer MZ 100-400 Mark 2 (superior IS over the first one and possibly sharper but again sounds like you have to pick a good one).

Unless you are dissatisfied with the performance of your current MZ 100-400 I see no reason to move to another lens, unless you think the Sync IS capability of the Mark II would be useful.

 

[Bast Hotep]

This all sounds and looks great, but as a generally happy MZ 100-400 Mark 1 and OM-1 owner, I'm very conflicted about upgrading to the PL 100-400 (sounds sharp IF you get a good copy but I don't think any IS will work) or the newer MZ 100-400 Mark 2 (superior IS over the first one and possibly sharper but again sounds like you have to pick a good one).

Unless you are dissatisfied with the performance of your current MZ 100-400 I see no reason to move to another lens, unless you think the Sync IS capability of the Mark II would be useful.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I figure I'm not getting any younger and I can tell I already need a bit of extra shutter speed to keep things steady. I shoot video only occasionally because the lens seems to wander all over the place.