Reading mode: Light Dark

300F4 + MC1. 4 vs 100-400 side by side comparisons?

Go to last post
TN Args said:
luisflorit said:
TN Args said:
Arizona Sunset said:
20mp vs 16mp, perhaps? That could explain the size difference.

I have both lenses. I don't have a picture of a wall, sorry. Just general thoughts. After thousands of images over the past couple of weeks, I notice that wide open the PL is softer than the Olympus (or at least my copy is). No surprise here.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.

Look (Pany, Oly, Oly+TC):

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsam...4-63g/zpanasonic100-400f4-63vfa400f63_gx8.jpg

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/olympus300f4m/VFA/zolympus300f40vfa0300f40_em1.jpg

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/olympus300f4m/VFA/zolympus300f40vfa0420f56_em1.jpg

L.
Click to expand...
Hmm, different camera bodies, different resolutions, one with OLPF and one without? Let's discount that.
Click to expand...
Indeed, you are right.

These two pictures were taken with the same great 50mm macro Oly lens, EM1 vs GX8, and the difference is quite substantial:

http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/FULLRES/EM1hSLI00100NR2D.JPG

http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/panasonic-gx8/FULLRES/GX8hSLI00200NR6D.JPG

So, yes, the AA filter seems to be the culprit of the blur more than the lenses...

Unless someone test both lenses with the subject, same light, and same camera (preferably without AA filter) in RAW (of course) with flash and tripod, it will be impossible to judge only from these images.

Thanks again,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 
Last edited:
luisflorit said:
I always shoot in dark rainforests, ISO2500-3200 is not uncommon. That pushes me to the Oly, too.

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. :)

-
Click to expand...
Luis, I went through a similar decision making process between the two lens.

Reviews and charts can only tell you so much.

I was shooting with the 50-200mm + TC2.0 almost always at the full zoom focal length.

In bushland or poor light it was always a balancing act to get sufficent light/shutter speed.

I was reluctant to go above ISO 1600 for shooting birds as the noise impacted feather detail too much.

So I could see that I would be faced with virtually the same situation shooting the Panasonic @ 400mm f6.3 without any real step up in IQ.

Accordingly I opted for the Olympus 300mm F4 eventhough it was the most expensive piece of photography gear I have ever purchased.

It has the edge in speed/sharpness and when combined with the TC (which I already owned) the difference in IQ is difficult to distinquish. I rarely stop down so I can gather the most light and keep the ISO as low as possible.

The 5 Axis Sync IS is very impressive enabling shooting of static birds at very low shutter speeds allowing the ISO to be kept at much lower levels then with the 4/3 combo.

FWIW here is my gallery of 300mm F4 images:


Hope this helps

Dennis
 
Denjw said:
luisflorit said:
I always shoot in dark rainforests, ISO2500-3200 is not uncommon. That pushes me to the Oly, too.

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. :)

-
Click to expand...
Luis, I went through a similar decision making process between the two lens.

Reviews and charts can only tell you so much.

I was shooting with the 50-200mm + TC2.0 almost always at the full zoom focal length.

In bushland or poor light it was always a balancing act to get sufficent light/shutter speed.

I was reluctant to go above ISO 1600 for shooting birds as the noise impacted feather detail too much.

So I could see that I would be faced with virtually the same situation shooting the Panasonic @ 400mm f6.3 without any real step up in IQ.

Accordingly I opted for the Olympus 300mm F4 eventhough it was the most expensive piece of photography gear I have ever purchased.

It has the edge in speed/sharpness and when combined with the TC (which I already owned) the difference in IQ is difficult to distinquish. I rarely stop down so I can gather the most light and keep the ISO as low as possible.

The 5 Axis Sync IS is very impressive enabling shooting of static birds at very low shutter speeds allowing the ISO to be kept at much lower levels then with the 4/3 combo.

FWIW here is my gallery of 300mm F4 images:

http://dwehner.zenfolio.com/p932217077

Hope this helpS
Click to expand...
Thanks for your opinion!! Light is never enough....

Glad you are happy with your toy. :)

Cheers,

L.
 
luisflorit said:
Arizona Sunset said:
20mp vs 16mp, perhaps? That could explain the size difference.

I have both lenses. I don't have a picture of a wall, sorry. Just general thoughts. After thousands of images over the past couple of weeks, I notice that wide open the PL is softer than the Olympus (or at least my copy is). No surprise here. But I wanted to state it, that as good as the PL is, the Olympus reminds me more of the Nocticron in the worst (best) way. That is, I want to shoot it with it more because that extra sharpness and stop are apparent now. They were not before.
Click to expand...
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):
Click to expand...
Could there be a shutter shock issue from the GX1 in the SLRGear test that masks any difference between the lenses at these long focal lengths?
 
Last edited:
whumber said:
luisflorit said:
Arizona Sunset said:
20mp vs 16mp, perhaps? That could explain the size difference.

I have both lenses. I don't have a picture of a wall, sorry. Just general thoughts. After thousands of images over the past couple of weeks, I notice that wide open the PL is softer than the Olympus (or at least my copy is). No surprise here. But I wanted to state it, that as good as the PL is, the Olympus reminds me more of the Nocticron in the worst (best) way. That is, I want to shoot it with it more because that extra sharpness and stop are apparent now. They were not before.
Click to expand...
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):
Click to expand...
Could there be a shutter shock issue from the GX1 in the SLRGear test that masks any difference between the lenses at these long focal lengths?
Click to expand...
I think these guys are careful with their tests, since lots of people always point out possible flaws, like we are doing now. They know GX1 SS problem so probably they used flash. Does the GX1 have E-shutter?

L.
 
Pikme said:
Looks like all the main stores are getting shipments of Olympus 300 f4 by Monday. Best Buy says they'll have them for pick up this Friday.

Unless you've just changed your mind about which lens you want anyway.
Click to expand...
The resolution charts taken with the same camera (GX1) seem to show that the IQ difference between the two lenses is much smaller than I thought, probably even null. That suddenly makes the pany much more attractive to me than it was before for several reasons...

Maybe the 100-400 now and a GX9/GH5 + 7-14 later? :)

L.
 
Daniel,

I, for one, appreciate your contributions to this forum. You are one of the posters who does not post theoretical jibberish to promote your viewpoint. You seem like a pretty straightforward guy who puts your 'money where your mouth is' in terms of actual photographic skill.

Your lens comparison is objective and well written.
 
[No message]
 
luisflorit said:
Pikme said:
Looks like all the main stores are getting shipments of Olympus 300 f4 by Monday. Best Buy says they'll have them for pick up this Friday.

Unless you've just changed your mind about which lens you want anyway.
Click to expand...
The resolution charts taken with the same camera (GX1) seem to show that the IQ difference between the two lenses is much smaller than I thought, probably even null. That suddenly makes the pany much more attractive to me than it was before for several reasons...

Maybe the 100-400 now and a GX9/GH5 + 7-14 later? :)
Click to expand...
Personally, I think they are both excellent lenses and I would choose between them on the basis of size, price and whether I'd rather have speed (for me, yes, but can't afford it anyway) or zoom convenience. Not any difference in IQ.

Having said that, those charts defy what we easily see with our own eyes. So I think you are rationalizing your choice - which really doesn't need to be rationalized anyway. 😀

And yes, 100-400 plus GX9 or GH5 and 7-14 sounds terrific.
 
Pikme said:
luisflorit said:
Pikme said:
Looks like all the main stores are getting shipments of Olympus 300 f4 by Monday. Best Buy says they'll have them for pick up this Friday.

Unless you've just changed your mind about which lens you want anyway.
Click to expand...
The resolution charts taken with the same camera (GX1) seem to show that the IQ difference between the two lenses is much smaller than I thought, probably even null. That suddenly makes the pany much more attractive to me than it was before for several reasons...

Maybe the 100-400 now and a GX9/GH5 + 7-14 later? :)
Click to expand...
Personally, I think they are both excellent lenses and I would choose between them on the basis of size, price and whether I'd rather have speed (for me, yes, but can't afford it anyway) or zoom convenience. Not any difference in IQ.
Click to expand...
Weeeelll... I tend to agree, but things like the strong CA of the 100-400 make me doubt. Anyway, for me, size is great, and speed is great. :/
Pikme said:
Having said that, those charts defy what we easily see with our own eyes. So I think you are rationalizing your choice - which really doesn't need to be rationalized anyway. 😀
Click to expand...
The problem is that it is hard to trust what we see in pictures. If you will do a test, do it right or don't post it in the Internet since that confuses people. For example, I have seen "comparisons" of these two lenses that were taken with the same camera but with different ISO values. How much can you trust such a "test"? What other mistakes the tester did? Because of these kind of 'tests' I tend to only consider tests in DPreview, DXO or image-resource. The images in image-resource were taken with different cameras (one with the other without AA filter), but the charts (taken with the same camera, the GX1) look very similar... OTOH, the GX1 has AA filter that may obscure differences in IQ. But of course nothing as serious as different ISO values...

It would be fantastic if some charity soul makes a controlled test between these two lenses in a camera without (or with a weak) AA filter: Static resolution chart, RAW, wide open, base ISO, exact same parameters (except for shutter speed), tripod, flash, and electronic shutter. And, more importantly, to be open to listen the forum and fix the flaws of the tests.

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 
Last edited:
luisflorit said:
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):

Tough...

L.
Click to expand...
 
Nemo0815 said:
luisflorit said:
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):

Tough...

L.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Nemo0815 said:
luisflorit said:
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):

Tough...

L.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
2 second release, OIS and IBIS off, different E-M1's (sorry). I think the focus is a bit further back on the Olympus shot.

The point is that the 300 can hang with the 400 in the center, if you let it.

f1218c57eeca45c288f82164a40c9d97.jpg

52529319d1954e4fb8c87cbe1ecf9c6c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Arizona Sunset said:
2 second release, OIS and IBIS off, different E-M1's (sorry). I think the focus is a bit further back on the Olympus shot.

The point is that the 300 can hang with the 400 in the center, if you let it.
Click to expand...
Sharpness difference seems clear.

If you want to avoid ISO400 and shoot at ISO200 to extract more information, you can lit the scene.

A way to correct for focus problems is not to shoot perpendicularly to the surface. Indeed, in your test the oly looks (much) sharper than the pany at the left and bottom, while the pany looks (a bit) sharper at the right and top. Probably a focus issue. But the center looks to be in focus and representative of both lenses.

Hence I did something that I wanted to do since a long time:

I took your two images, and resized the Oly one to match the Pany image. The result: the Oly is still much sharper. So, it seems from this test that, if you really like/need those extra 100mm of reach of the Pany, you can simply upsize the Oly image and still get a better image. Maybe the 1.4 TC is not such a good idea after all...

Look:


Oly crop upsized to 400mm


Pany at 400mm

I bet the Oly would win even wide open.

Kudos to Oly!

And to you for the time you spent with this. HIGHLY appreciated!!

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
 

Attachments

  • 3530894.jpg
    3530894.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 3530893.jpg
    3530893.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
luisflorit said:
Arizona Sunset said:
2 second release, OIS and IBIS off, different E-M1's (sorry). I think the focus is a bit further back on the Olympus shot.

The point is that the 300 can hang with the 400 in the center, if you let it.
Click to expand...
Sharpness difference seems clear.

If you want to avoid ISO400 and shoot at ISO200 to extract more information, you can lit the scene.
Click to expand...
Good point - I got a little lazy there. Thanks for the tip.
luisflorit said:
A way to correct for focus problems is not to shoot perpendicularly to the surface. Indeed, in your test the oly looks (much) sharper than the pany at the left and bottom, while the pany looks (a bit) sharper at the right and top. Probably a focus issue. But the center looks to be in focus and representative of both lenses.
Click to expand...
The focus plane is off a little, I agree. I will try an angular approach next time.
luisflorit said:
Hence I did something that I wanted to do since a long time. I took your two images, and resized the Oly one to match the Pany image. The result: the Oly is still much sharper. So, it seems from this test that, if you really like/need those extra 100mm of reach of the Pany, you can simply upsize the Oly image and still get a better image.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I did the 10x pixel peep on the E-M1 about a dozen times for this shot, and same result every time.
luisflorit said:
I bet the Oly would win even wide open.

Kudos to Oly!
Click to expand...
Yes they did a great job on the lens.

Creatively, I tend to think of the Oly sans TC as a sharp 400 at f6.3, 350 at f5.6, and 300 f4. I am going to leave the TC in the bag for a few weeks after this test, and see how it works. The 300 at f6.3 and the TC at f5.6 are not a lot different, either. It only takes a little bit to sharpen the bare bones lens up.
 
Last edited:
How about comparing Olympus 300mm + 1.4x converter and Olympus 300 mm, cropped to match 420mm?
 
Last edited:
Arizona Sunset said:
luisflorit said:
Arizona Sunset said:
2 second release, OIS and IBIS off, different E-M1's (sorry). I think the focus is a bit further back on the Olympus shot.

The point is that the 300 can hang with the 400 in the center, if you let it.
Click to expand...
Sharpness difference seems clear.

If you want to avoid ISO400 and shoot at ISO200 to extract more information, you can lit the scene.
Click to expand...
Good point - I got a little lazy there. Thanks for the tip.
Click to expand...
It is not easy to make a good test, because there are many variables involved. E-shutter is a must with the oly.
Arizona Sunset said:
Arizona Sunset said:
A way to correct for focus problems is not to shoot perpendicularly to the surface. Indeed, in your test the oly looks (much) sharper than the pany at the left and bottom, while the pany looks (a bit) sharper at the right and top. Probably a focus issue. But the center looks to be in focus and representative of both lenses.
Click to expand...
The focus plane is off a little, I agree. I will try an angular approach next time.
Click to expand...
You can also try manual focus.
Arizona Sunset said:
Arizona Sunset said:
Hence I did something that I wanted to do since a long time. I took your two images, and resized the Oly one to match the Pany image. The result: the Oly is still much sharper. So, it seems from this test that, if you really like/need those extra 100mm of reach of the Pany, you can simply upsize the Oly image and still get a better image.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I did the 10x pixel peep on the E-M1 about a dozen times for this shot, and same result every time.
Arizona Sunset said:
I bet the Oly would win even wide open.

Kudos to Oly!
Click to expand...
Yes they did a great job on the lens.

Creatively, I tend to think of the Oly sans TC as a sharp 400 at f6.3, 350 at f5.6, and 300 f4. I am going to leave the TC in the bag for a few weeks after this test, and see how it works. The 300 at f6.3 and the TC at f5.6 are not a lot different, either. It only takes a little bit to sharpen the bare bones lens up.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that sharpening is simply no longer a necessary tool with the oly (if you get everything right of course). I bet that the oly wide open at 300mm upsized to 400mm outperforms the Pany. This would be a great test to do since almost always we shoot wide open at these focal lengths. Stopping down is a luxury for me.

Also adding the TC wide open would be great. I am strongly suspecting that the TC is (essentially) not needed!

Thanks a GAZILLION!

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top