Thanks!
As a matter of interest any particular reason in getting both lenses?
Cool! Do you have the teleconverter?
No surprise.
In the pictures I have seen, it is clear that it is. To the point that the oly image looks equal to the pany after downscaling the latter to match sizes, then making the extra 100mm of the Pany irrelevant. To my eye, the difference between the 100-300 and the 100-400 is smaller than the difference between the 100-400 and the oly... But I wanted to know what happened with the teleconverter.
But OP wants to compare Oly with 1.4x TCV, vs Leica. Not sure, but your comment gives more impression you are comparing Oly 'naked', no TCV?
Oh, no... I stand corrected.
Indeed, but the samples pointed out by Denjw seem to show that the TC has very little impact in IQ, much less than the difference in sharpness between the oly and the pany.
Hmm, different camera bodies, different resolutions, one with OLPF and one without? Let's discount that.
Good!
I always shoot in dark rainforests, ISO2500-3200 is not uncommon. That pushes me to the Oly, too.
This is exactly what I expect, too, based on the test images I've seen.
I thought that the TC would be a must for me, but now I don't even know it is that important. Certainly nice, but not a must.
Sure. Yet, I've analyzed the EXIF of all my images with the 100-300, 50-200+TC1.4 and 50-200+TC2.0, and more than 90% of them were taken at full zoom and max aperture. This means I need a faster lens more than a zoom. Sure sometimes I will miss a shot, or, better, I will have to transform it in a close-up.
Vert interesting. Yet, more MP will give you the impression of a softer lens...
Indeed... but I don't think the filter is the only reason. For example, you can even see more CA on the Pany, which also affects resolution. But I understand that there is a delicate compromise in the test by not using the same camera, that's for sure.
There is very little gain stopping down either lens. Anyway, I always need more light and almost never stop down, so this is not relevant to me.
Yes, the graphs are very very close. I know what the graphs mean, but it is hard for me to 'preview' the IQ difference that my eye sees just looking at the graphs. Yet, I understand that the judgment is complicated if the images are taken with different cameras...and incredibly similar (on same camera body, also from slrgear):
As TNArgs pointed out, part of the difference could be related to the AA filter. To really compare the two lenses, you need to compare the output shooting with the same camera, preferable, the EM1 that has no AA filter. And according to SLRgear, both combos appear to be virtually identical in the same GX1. Look (the graph for the lenses wide open is pretty much the same):
