In considering Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm): comparing 400mm vs 800mm

richj20 · Jan 15, 2016

Several years ago I switched to Panasonic FZ1000, 25-400mm f/2.8-4 for nature photography, mostly wildflowers and scenery. Not having to change lenses is every nice. Wildlife is not my primary pastime, but if interesting critters ask for a portrait, I am willing to oblige:

Domestic Goose

Snowy Egret

Reading about the new Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm) creates a very enticing temptation: providing a doubling of my current focal length. But this morning, I reminded myself that 400mm to 800mm is not that great a change, depending on distance to subject.

Using the i.Zoom and Extra Optical Zoom features of the FZ1000 to get 800mm, I made a few comparisons.

1. An extreme example, photographing across a lake where a Great Egret is perched.

1a. The scene @25mm. The Great Egret is a tiny white speck on the shoreline of the island in the distance, between the two sets of palm trees at the right

1b. 400mm

1c. 800mm

2. A Snowy Egret, a bit closer.

2a. Snowy Egret as seen perched in a tree, from a fishing dock - I'm standing next to the post on the left

2b. 400mm

2c. 800mm

3. Muscovy Duck

3a. Muscovy Duck standing next to a palm tree

3b. 400mm

3c. 800mm

4. Ring-neck Duck

4a. Ring-neck Duck, a white speck in the center near the shoreline

4b. 400mm

4c. 800mm

5. Snowy Egret

5a. 400mm - I was able (surprisingly) to get fairly close to a normally skittish bird

5b. 800mm

In the examples (except for #1), cropping the native 20mpx 400mm image yields a nice file for my printing (8x10) and web site posting.

So, I have to give more consideration to other benefits of the new Panasonic 100-400mm lens, and whether or not I really need 800mm.

- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

Great Bustard · Jan 15, 2016

richj20 said:
Several years ago I switched to Panasonic FZ1000, 25-400mm f/2.8-4 for nature photography, mostly wildflowers and scenery. Not having to change lenses is every nice. Wildlife is not my primary pastime, but if interesting critters ask for a portrait, I am willing to oblige:

Domestic Goose

Snowy Egret

Reading about the new Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm) creates a very enticing temptation: providing a doubling of my current focal length. But this morning, I reminded myself that 400mm to 800mm is not that great a change, depending on distance to subject.

Using the i.Zoom and Extra Optical Zoom features of the FZ1000 to get 800mm, I made a few comparisons.

1. An extreme example, photographing across a lake where a Great Egret is perched.

1a. The scene @25mm. The Great Egret is a tiny white speck on the shoreline of the island in the distance, between the two sets of palm trees at the right

1b. 400mm

1c. 800mm

2. A Snowy Egret, a bit closer.

2a. Snowy Egret as seen perched in a tree, from a fishing dock - I'm standing next to the post on the left

2b. 400mm

2c. 800mm

3. Muscovy Duck

3a. Muscovy Duck standing next to a palm tree

3b. 400mm

3c. 800mm

4. Ring-neck Duck

4a. Ring-neck Duck, a white speck in the center near the shoreline

4b. 400mm

4c. 800mm

5. Snowy Egret

5a. 400mm - I was able (surprisingly) to get fairly close to a normally skittish bird

5b. 800mm

In the examples (except for #1), cropping the native 20mpx 400mm image yields a nice file for my printing (8x10) and web site posting.

So, I have to give more consideration to other benefits of the new Panasonic 100-400mm lens, and whether or not I really need 800mm.

The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 on a 1" body is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent. It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

richj20 · Jan 15, 2016

Great Bustard said:
The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6

What is the 70-300?

Great Bustard said:
on a 1" body is smaller,

What do you mean by a 1" body?

Great Bustard said:
lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent.

I have to decide whether or not I need 800mm!

Great Bustard said:
It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

Who makes it? Does it have Power OIS? Splash resistent?

- Richard

Great Bustard · Jan 15, 2016

richj20 said:
Great Bustard said:

The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6

Click to expand...

What is the 70-300?

This.

richj20 said:
richj20 said:

on a 1" body is smaller,

Click to expand...

What do you mean by a 1" body?

This, for example. Keep in mind that a J5 + 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 VR is smaller than, weighs less, and costs less than the 100-400 / 4-6.3 all by itself.

richj20 said:
richj20 said:

lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent.

Click to expand...

I have to decide whether or not I need 800mm!

Wasn't your OP about the 100-400 / 4-6.3 on mFT?

richj20 said:
richj20 said:

It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

Click to expand...

Who makes it?

Nikon.

richj20 said:
Does it have Power OIS?

VR.

richj20 said:
Splash resistent?

Don't know.

Trevor Carpenter · Jan 15, 2016

I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Great Bustard · Jan 15, 2016

Trevor Carpenter said:
I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Sure. For example, the 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 for Nikon 1 cameras has an mFT of 1m whereas the 100-400 / 4-6.3 for mFT has an MFD of 1.3m.

nzmacro · Jan 15, 2016

Trevor Carpenter said:
I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Wilu · Jan 15, 2016

richj20 said:
Reading about the new Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm) creates a very enticing temptation: providing a doubling of my current focal length. But this morning, I reminded myself that 400mm to 800mm is not that great a change, depending on distance to subject.

2b. 400mm

2c. 800mm

5a. 400mm - I was able (surprisingly) to get fairly close to a normally skittish bird

5b. 800mm

these two are in my opinion nice examples of a) a picture that "proves" you have seen an egret and b) a picture with the bird big enough to be examined closer and to discover more and more details (both of the main subject and the background).

your test rather makes me want the 100-400 more than it relativises the use of the extra reach.

you didn't ask for comments, but i can't resist... the composition of these two (four) pictures is a bit too central for my taste. that said, they are very fine pictures, i like particularly 2c with the white bird surrounded by those intense and dark colours. congratulations!

richj20 · Jan 15, 2016

Trevor Carpenter said:
I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

I agree!

It wasn't my intention to limit the use of a long lens to what I tested, only to express one frustration, that often interesting subjects are too far away...

Long lenses are also useful for flower photography.

Regards,

- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

kensim · Jan 15, 2016

Great comparison. I have the 100-300 and am thinking about biting the bullet for an Africa trip and getting the 100-400. There are obviously other factors with that decision, but it's nice to see exactly what to expect with that reach.

richj20 · Jan 15, 2016

Wilu said:
richj20 said:

Reading about the new Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm) creates a very enticing temptation: providing a doubling of my current focal length. But this morning, I reminded myself that 400mm to 800mm is not that great a change, depending on distance to subject.

2b. 400mm

2c. 800mm

5a. 400mm - I was able (surprisingly) to get fairly close to a normally skittish bird

5b. 800mm

Click to expand...

these two are in my opinion nice examples of a) a picture that "proves" you have seen an egret and b) a picture with the bird big enough to be examined closer and to discover more and more details (both of the main subject and the background).

your test rather makes me want the 100-400 more than it relativises the use of the extra reach.

Hello Wilu,

That is a very good point, and one that is attempting to urge me across the fence of indecision!

After reading about the lens for several days, and viewing Daniel Cox's 75 wildlife photographs on his blog, I was tempted to pre-order the lens. However, my instinctive "brakes" pulled me back to consider a little more carefully all of the aspects of a $1800 purchase.

I asked Dan his feelings about the f/6.3 aperture, and he responded,

There are a few downsides to a lens with a maximum aperture of F/6.3 at the 400mm (800mm equivalent) setting. However, there are so many upsides that I’m working around the times I could use more aperture speed. This lens is going to change the world of nature photography for the advanced amateur and professionals alike.

I asked about his using higher ISO to compensate for slower shutter speeds (when hand holding the lens). His comment:

Without a doubt, MFT cameras are currently at a slight disadvantage when it comes to ISO settings above 2000. However, I’m confident that will improve in the next year or so. Just one more sensor development period and that issue will most likely be gone or considerably reduced.

A lot depends on the subject matter, of course, but in photographing wildlife, the concern is blurring feather and fur detail.

Wilu said:
you didn't ask for comments, but i can't resist... the composition of these two (four) pictures is a bit too central for my taste.

Yes, I understand, but for quick changing of framing in the testing, it was easier for me to keep the bird in the center of the photograph.

Wilu said:
that said, they are very fine pictures, i like particularly 2c with the white bird surrounded by those intense and dark colours. congratulations!

Thanks for your compliment!

regards,

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

Quentin Crisp · Jan 15, 2016

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

In the examples (except for #1), cropping the native 20mpx 400mm image yields a nice file for my printing (8x10) and web site posting.

So, I have to give more consideration to other benefits of the new Panasonic 100-400mm lens, and whether or not I really need 800mm.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 on a 1" body is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent. It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

He does not have a camera with a 1" sensor or, as far as we know, a Nikon camera of any kind. He is considering whether the Panasonic 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 on his m4/3 camera would be a worthwhile improvement over his FZ1000. So what is the point of suggesting that he invests in an entirely new system?

Personally, I would stick with the FZ1000 unless money was no object.

Quentin Crisp · Jan 15, 2016

Great Bustard said:
Trevor Carpenter said:

I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Click to expand...

Sure. For example, the 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 for Nikon 1 cameras has an mFT of 1m whereas the 100-400 / 4-6.3 for mFT has an MFD of 1.3m.

Are you being serious?

Quentin Crisp · Jan 15, 2016

richj20 said:
Trevor Carpenter said:

I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Click to expand...

I agree!

It wasn't my intention to limit the use of a long lens to what I tested, only to express one frustration, that often interesting subjects are too far away...

Long lenses are also useful for flower photography.

Regards,

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

Very nice indeed. And why I would stick with the FZ1000 unless money was no object - and then I would probably take the FZ1000 with me more often than my G7 with the 100-400mm lens fitted (plus a short zoom, etc).

Great Bustard · Jan 15, 2016

Quentin Crisp said:
Great Bustard said:

Trevor Carpenter said:

I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Click to expand...

Sure. For example, the 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 for Nikon 1 cameras has an mFT of 1m whereas the 100-400 / 4-6.3 for mFT has an MFD of 1.3m.

Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

I am. Did I miss something? Trevor said that it's not merely about reach, but about how tightly you can frame. They both have the same reach, but the 70-300 can frame tighter.

nzmacro · Jan 15, 2016

Quentin Crisp said:
Great Bustard said:

Trevor Carpenter said:

I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

Click to expand...

Sure. For example, the 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 for Nikon 1 cameras has an mFT of 1m whereas the 100-400 / 4-6.3 for mFT has an MFD of 1.3m.

Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

I think it got lost in the meaning of what Trev was saying ;-)

Not a long tele user I'm thinking.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

Great Bustard · Jan 15, 2016

Quentin Crisp said:
Quentin Crisp said:

Quentin Crisp said:

In the examples (except for #1), cropping the native 20mpx 400mm image yields a nice file for my printing (8x10) and web site posting.

So, I have to give more consideration to other benefits of the new Panasonic 100-400mm lens, and whether or not I really need 800mm.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 on a 1" body is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent. It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

Click to expand...

He does not have a camera with a 1" sensor or, as far as we know, a Nikon camera of any kind.

Sure. But as I noted, he could get the 1" system (J5 + 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 VR) and it would be smaller, lighter, and less expensive than just the lens in question (100-400 / 4-6.3). For example, he could pull out the 1" system from his bag just like he would pull out a lens, with the bonus of not having to take change the lens on the camera he was using.

Quentin Crisp said:
He is considering whether the Panasonic 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 on his m4/3 camera would be a worthwhile improvement over his FZ1000. So what is the point of suggesting that he invests in an entirely new system?

Well, the J5 + 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 is an improvement over his FZ1000 for telephoto, does not require an investment in an entire system, and is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the mFT lens he is considering.

Quentin Crisp said:
Personally, I would stick with the FZ1000 unless money was no object.

Except the 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 VR on the J5 has twice the reach of the lens on the FZ1000, which is a pretty big difference, really.

bobn2 · Jan 16, 2016

Quentin Crisp said:
Quentin Crisp said:

Quentin Crisp said:

In the examples (except for #1), cropping the native 20mpx 400mm image yields a nice file for my printing (8x10) and web site posting.

So, I have to give more consideration to other benefits of the new Panasonic 100-400mm lens, and whether or not I really need 800mm.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 on a 1" body is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent. It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

Click to expand...

He does not have a camera with a 1" sensor or, as far as we know,

The FZ1000 has a 1" sensor. It has a f/2.8-4 lens, and a BSI sensor.

Quentin Crisp said:
a Nikon camera of any kind. He is considering whether the Panasonic 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 on his m4/3 camera would be a worthwhile improvement over his FZ1000. So what is the point of suggesting that he invests in an entirely new system?

Personally, I would stick with the FZ1000 unless money was no object.

Probably good advice, if he went mFT, he'd need a f/3.8-5.4 lens to match it, the Panasonic 100-400 is slower, but not a lot. It's probably sharper than the FZ1000's 16x zoom, though.

bobn2 · Jan 16, 2016

Great Bustard said:
Quentin Crisp said:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

In the examples (except for #1), cropping the native 20mpx 400mm image yields a nice file for my printing (8x10) and web site posting.

So, I have to give more consideration to other benefits of the new Panasonic 100-400mm lens, and whether or not I really need 800mm.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 on a 1" body is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the Panasonic option and gives you 810mm FF equivalent. It's even a "faster" lens than the Panasonic! ;-)

Click to expand...

He does not have a camera with a 1" sensor or, as far as we know, a Nikon camera of any kind.

Click to expand...

Sure. But as I noted, he could get the 1" system (J5 + 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 VR) and it would be smaller, lighter, and less expensive than just the lens in question (100-400 / 4-6.3). For example, he could pull out the 1" system from his bag just like he would pull out a lens, with the bonus of not having to take change the lens on the camera he was using.

He has a 1" system, it's just all in one camera.

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

He is considering whether the Panasonic 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 on his m4/3 camera would be a worthwhile improvement over his FZ1000. So what is the point of suggesting that he invests in an entirely new system?

Click to expand...

Well, the J5 + 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 is an improvement over his FZ1000 for telephoto, does not require an investment in an entire system, and is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the mFT lens he is considering.

Great Bustard said:

Personally, I would stick with the FZ1000 unless money was no object.

Click to expand...

Except the 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 VR on the J5 has twice the reach of the lens on the FZ1000, which is a pretty big difference, really.

It's probably a little sharper too. !6x lenses sharp at the long end makes quite a design challenge, though the FZ1000 has been optimised for the long end (it's a bit soft wide).

timmer350 · Jan 16, 2016

Trevor Carpenter said:
I think it's a mistake to judge any long lens only on how it brings distant subjects closer. I'd like it to bring close subjects closer.

--
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter

As a big user of the 100-300, you need to also consider other things - mostly how fast and accurately the lens focusses (time matters when taking photos of tricky things - birds, butterflies, etc); and how sharp the lens is at 400 (the 100-300 is ok at 300) - if it sharp, it allows some cropping - getting you even closer.

And yes, I think there is a big difference between 400 and 800...

Tim

--
Gone birding... http://picasaweb.google.com/timothyboucherbirder

In considering Panasonic 100-400mm (200-800mm): comparing 400mm vs 800mm

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Active member

Active member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts