Trevor Carpenter

Forum Pro
Messages
20,282
Solutions
6
Reaction score
22,531
Location
Fareham, UK
After a month of ownership, I thought a review might be in order. It's a long time since I have done one of these so bear with me if Its not as professional as some.

History: I have owned the Zuiko 70-300 and the Panny 100-400 and while both were excellent value for money, the 100-400 is in a different class. I am a specialist photographer in that virtually everything I take is related to my interests, so virtually all my pictures are of planes, birds, insects and a few trains, all of which have a habit of moving. I take some holiday snaps mainly with the Panny 14-140 which I really like but to be quite honest a P&S like my other half's TZ would serve me perfectly adequately. The Zuiko 70-300 suffered a bit from hunting and the 100-300 didn't hunt as badly but it did let me down sometimes with not locking the focus. The other noticeable failing of the 100-300 was that if I lost a moving subject, I could say goodbye to the shot. (more of that later).

Ergonomics and handling: It is not lightweight and people who think m4/3s is about low weight should stop reading now. After a month I have adjusted to the extra weight. I am using an Optech sling strap which definitely helps a lot. Much has been said about the stiffness of the zoom ring but I think mine straddles that too stiff/too loose thing just about right. I do find that it is very easy to move the lock ring and even a little movement is enough to add noticeable stiffness. There are 3 switches on the lens, I have Power OIS on all the time, even for fast moving subjects. I won't comment on it's effectiveness because IS isn't a big thing for me but I do see that stability in the viewfinder s very good. AF/MF is on AF all of the time. If I want MF I use the switch on the camera. I have accidentally switched the MF on a few times, creating panic while I work out why the camera isn't focusing. The full/5m limiter switch sounds like it would be good for someone like me but in fact because the focusing is just so damn good I have it on full all of the time. I have a GX7 and a G7 but the G7 was already getting most of the attention and bringing this lens on board has just added to that. The G7 and 100-400 are a dream team.

Performance: Well focusing with the G7 is just brilliant. A huge improvement over my previous lenses. I'm just about coming into my main BIF season but I have high hopes for it. Yesterday I was shooting fast jets. I would focus quickly but by far the best thing about this lens is I would lose the subject, defocus and if the subject remained in the viewfinder, I was refocusing in an instant. If you haven't experienced the downside of shooting like that it's hard to describe just how bloody fantabulous this is. Both my previous long lenses produced good results when they nailed the shot so what's different about this one? Well basic IQ is an obvious step up but it's what you can do after that matters. I am cropping and post processing with much greater confidence than before. I don't pixel peep but it is very clear once you start to play with the pictures that you have a huge amount more flexibility to fiddle and still be left with something worthwhile at the end.

I have experienced some back focusing issues. Initially with close ups such as flowers which I have largely overcome by changing the way I use focus boxes. I am still experiencing some back focus issues with BIFs especially against typically green backgrounds. It's probably reasonable to say that my previous lenses never showed this problem but that might well have been because they never nailed a difficult focus in the first place. I shall see how this goes over the next few months but at the moment it is no more than a slight niggle.

The 300f4 may still have the edge in IQ but I have to say it must be marvellous to better some of the results I have been getting. A fixed lens is very impractical for my shooting habits so it's not really a competitor for me at any price. In the last few days I have been shooting alongside 99% Canikon shooters and based upon what has been posted on line, I can hold my head up high alongside them

Summary: This lens puts m4/3s into a completely different ball game. If you shoot the sort of things that I do, sell your grandmothers jewellery to get it. It is heavy but not compared to any competition. It is expensive but again, is it really alongside comparable competition. I love it!

'll post a few shots but be warned , I am not interested in OOC results, these have all been processed and it's what I can do with a picture that matters much more to me than what the camera produces.



hand held 1/125 second
hand held 1/125 second



a very difficult bird to capture the texture
a very difficult bird to capture the texture



close up
close up



and not so close up
and not so close up



Horse Fly, I'd have been pleased with that with a macro lens
Horse Fly, I'd have been pleased with that with a macro lens



nice light, good detail
nice light, good detail



What long lenses do best
What long lenses do best



Typhoon with full weapons load and you can see them all
Typhoon with full weapons load and you can see them all



F35, very fast and you can read Marines, very easily
F35, very fast and you can read Marines, very easily



Another oomphy shot
Another oomphy shot





--
My Galleries are at
my albums are at https://picasaweb.google.com/115423645123114525430
latest birds at https://goo.gl/photos/BTSxVgizqVtVFSDg6
 
Thanks for this useful review Trevor (you already know my thoughts on how great your photography is :) )

I've just about worked out my future lens strategy and it looks like this will be joining my collection (haven't told Pam yet mind you ;) )
 
I really like the plane against the dark sky, very nice contrast.

Regards John
 
If only you and I had this lens we could take pictures just like Trevor's! ROFL!

Oh, and a G7.
I am so agreed - part of it's the gear, most of it's the talent holding the gear. Or anybody who used the same brand of paintbrush as Rembrandt did could paint like that (or play the same brand of guitar like Segovia/Hendrix/Clapton .....)

Trevor, I seem to be following in many of your gear footsteps for over a decade (remember our fond discussions on FZ50 with Nikon TC17ED ??), so I guess I better budget a G7 + 100-400 for 2017!!!! Or GX80???? What comes after GX7 ?!?!?! I actually bolted the TC17ED in front of the 100-300, weight of the contraption pulled the zoom out until I locked it into a Manfrotto tele bracket. After all that, just using the ext tele is about the same effort.
 
If only you and I had this lens we could take pictures just like Trevor's! ROFL!

Oh, and a G7.
I am so agreed - part of it's the gear, most of it's the talent holding the gear. Or anybody who used the same brand of paintbrush as Rembrandt did could paint like that (or play the same brand of guitar like Segovia/Hendrix/Clapton .....)

Trevor, I seem to be following in many of your gear footsteps for over a decade (remember our fond discussions on FZ50 with Nikon TC17ED ??), so I guess I better budget a G7 + 100-400 for 2017!!!! Or GX80???? What comes after GX7 ?!?!?! I actually bolted the TC17ED in front of the 100-300, weight of the contraption pulled the zoom out until I locked it into a Manfrotto tele bracket. After all that, just using the ext tele is about the same effort.
 
I don't remember but probably ex tele 1.4
Does that mean you customarily shoot JPG, as ext tele wouldn't be available in RAW??

--
Rich
Take many pictures - a few are keepers, the rest are are lessons.
I shoot in RAW by default but frequently switch to Ex tele conv, sometimes with some very good results.

--
my albums are at https://picasaweb.google.com/115423645123114525430
latest birds at https://goo.gl/photos/BTSxVgizqVtVFSDg6
 
Last edited:
There is one part of your review which confusing to me. You mentioned that the lens is not low weight and I agree , so my confusion is: Why would you or anyone buy such a lens for a MLC camera when a Nikon or Canon or Pentax (just to mention a few) would be much better choice for the type of photography that you do? I am referring to the AFC, which is known to be somewhat of a touch and go. Just curious as I own both formats.

When these lenses (the Olympus and the Panasonic) came on the market, I was looking for a lens with a longer reach, and I opted for the Tamron 150-600mm. I could have purchased the Panasonic as there was not too much difference in price , but having been very frustrated too many times with the Panasonic 100-300mm where it would not even focus, it was easy to make the choice. I own both formats, so don't go thinking that I am bias. Just an opinion.

 
There is one part of your review which confusing to me. You mentioned that the lens is not low weight and I agree , so my confusion is: Why would you or anyone buy such a lens for a MLC camera when a Nikon or Canon or Pentax (just to mention a few) would be much better choice for the type of photography that you do? I am referring to the AFC, which is known to be somewhat of a touch and go. Just curious as I own both formats.

When these lenses (the Olympus and the Panasonic) came on the market, I was looking for a lens with a longer reach, and I opted for the Tamron 150-600mm. I could have purchased the Panasonic as there was not too much difference in price , but having been very frustrated too many times with the Panasonic 100-300mm where it would not even focus, it was easy to make the choice. I own both formats, so don't go thinking that I am bias. Just an opinion.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pontiacar/
I'm well and truly entrenched in m4/3s now so the lens is for the system that I have bought into. If I wanted the best possible IQ etc, I could scrap it all and buy a FF DSLR and a good long lens but it wouldn't give me the flexibility that my m4/3s system does. In my bag is a GX7 and when I go sightseeing on goes the 14-40 and gives me great flexibility. If I wanted to go even lighter I could buy a GM1 and all of my lenses could be used on that or I could buy a pancake for ultra light/small portability. In the same situation my FF body would of course be sitting in my bag.

I'm never clear on the AFC advantage either. I understand when an Osprey is flying/lumbering towards me I might be more capable of keeping it in focus but with burst speeds being what they are getting an in focus shot isn't that difficult with a m4/3s system. On the other hand take a small bird like a Redshank, travelling horizontally through my field of view at 30 mph and I would be deceiving myself if I thought that I had the capability to stay on the bird while panning. Instead it goes all over the VF, out of shot and behind AFC would be lost. With my G7 and 100-400 however, providing I stay roughly with the bird I will regain focus. I may well have wasted a few burst shots in the meantime but objective was met.

I am still having some back focusing issues where there is a green background although I think lower light is for once beneficial. If the picture below had been in bright sunlight I may have struggled.

This shot isn't posted as an example of a great BIF picture but it is a random selection from shooting I was doing this afternoon and illustrates what I like to shoot.



6fa30a24ccd346f5be6a930c2d6d4477.jpg



--
my albums are at https://picasaweb.google.com/115423645123114525430
latest birds at https://goo.gl/photos/BTSxVgizqVtVFSDg6
 
You mentioned that the lens is not low weight and I agree
I don't know why, but the lens seems relatively light to use. It's lighter than bigger FF 150-180mm macro lenses, 400mm 5.6, or the 80-400 / 100-400 zooms. Reading it in internet, I initially thought the lens would be actually bigger, but it's smaller than I expected, fits quite easily in my shoulder bag. I can't have the camera attached on it vertically in the bag, but horizontally I can have it rest over the foams (or whatever there's called), and suddenly it fits in my bag even when attached to a camera!

I guess I'm a little disappointed by the zoom stiffness too , but other than that it seems to be very good lens.
 
Last edited:
yes the m43 poor af-c compared to the best aps-c? full frame is still a big gap when ever I shoot something of interest and compare images with the likes of people who use sophisticated systems and big lenses there results are always better than mine ,even though sometimes I have more reach ,but I am talking about 2-5k maybe more invested systems ,you know Nikon d4 d810 and d500 also canon 5d mk and 7d combined with either big f4 f2.8 lenses 200-500mm 5.6 and the sigmas and tamrons 150-600mm

I would say it is around 50% -80% consistent on a Panasonic with clear background ie sky with certain birds obviously the smaller and faster they become the more difficult , it is but when the 3d focusing is required against confusing back ground it drops to around 20%-40% sometimes fails completely .

the Olympus em1 does better with confusing backgrounds but the images are not as good as gx8 for me although the higher frame rate is plus 9-10fps c-af although lots of blackouts in viewfinder when following subject ,but at least we are getting the lenses that will take advantage of the new tech that m43 will be receiving in future hoping the Olympus will have a more sophisticated focus for moving subjects .more pdaf cross points and on the vertical plane as well not just horizontal

s-af well the system is there in this regard super accurate and fast .
 
Good recipe against GAS Trevor ! ;-)

Be glad with the things that you have ......not the things you realy want ! :-D

Well done ...I I owe you that one :-O

Beautifull pictures !
 
Lol ... of course it is better in every way. The fat wallets don't have much of a decision to make, do they?
The thin wallets have even less of a decision to make.... ;-)
 
I know you're preaching to the converted here but I see nothing special about your images to make me want to sell my pinhead sensor FZ200 + teleconverter and buy into your expensive lens and system.
 
Let's see some of your best examples so we can compare.
 
Let's see some of your best examples so we can compare.
He has a link in his signature to his Flickr photographs.

I used an FZ200 for a while. It's a remarkable photographic tool, especially with a Tele Converter, (which I did not have). I later moved on to an FZ1000, and then to the Panasonic 100-400mm.

He sees "nothing special about your [Trevor's] images to make me want to sell my pinhead sensor FZ200 + teleconverter and buy into your expensive lens and system."

That's fine, and I wouldn't attempt to change his mind.

Just out of curiosity, though, I decided to look through his photographs, and those of another FZ200 user, also on Flickr, and find a few similar to what I've photographed with the 100-400, for comparison.

I'll start another thread with these comparisons.

- Richard
 
I think some of the flicker pics look heavily PP'd, while the 100-400 photos seem have less artifacts from sharpening.
 
Without meaning to you have encouraged me to do the deed and I have reserved my copy of this lens (waiting on confirmation of a rather nice part-ex deal, which sorts out the question of how to get it past "the boss" :) )

Hope to have it before my 75th birthday on Friday as I don't get many presents at my age ;)
 
Without meaning to you have encouraged me to do the deed and I have reserved my copy of this lens (waiting on confirmation of a rather nice part-ex deal, which sorts out the question of how to get it past "the boss" :) )

Hope to have it before my 75th birthday on Friday as I don't get many presents at my age ;)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top