I am getting interested in a Panasonic 100-400, but where I live it cannot be rented, so any m43 purchase I do is a step in the dark. On-line reviews look impressive. I would just like to ask if someone who owns it and perhaps a Nikon 200-400 or 200-500 could give me their impressions on how they compare optically: would you place a Pana 100-400 more equal to the sharpness of a Nikon 70-300, 80-400, or 200-500/200-400? I am asking about sharpness, as I understand the differences in field of view, bokeh and DOF between m43 and FF.
I find my Nikon 200-400 usually stays at home due to it's size and weight, and the Panasonic might be a good walkabout lens. I am not interested in the Oly 40-150 as I already have the 35-100, and I like the extra reach of the pana-leica for birding.
Ignore the GX1 in my profile. I hope to upgrade the body once I have sorted out my lenses.
It is in between the two Sigma 150-600 lenses in terms of sharpness and it will not compare to your 200-400, not even close. You also have to stop down to f8 to reach the sharpest point of the lens. Honestly, it's a decent consumer lens that happens to be weather sealed............nothing to write home about.
No, if you read the reviews, the improvement at f8 over wide open is primarily in the corners (which aren't bad wide open anyway). You do not have to stop down to f8 to use this lens with excellent results.
I wonder if anyone who has replied here has actually used this lens in the field. Two minutes in a store, and review surfing do not give you a good perspective on how it behaves in real life.
I've owned this lens for almost a year, and can tell you a lot about its strengths and weaknesses.
Is it sharp? Yes. Is it fussy about things at the long end? Yes. Have I gotten very sharp images at the long end? You betcha. Have I gotten terrible, soft, images at the long end? Yup. Were both the former and the latter due to my technique? Yes.
Is it tempting to forego good technique because, in most circumstances, the OIS is so good? Yes. It's easy to forget this is a very long tele because the OIS is so good most of the time. However, in critical situations, you need to remember what it is and treat it accordingly, or you will not get the results you desire.
Now, here we come to the second part of the equation:
I find my Nikon 200-400 usually stays at home due to it's size and weight, and the Panasonic might be a good walkabout lens. I am not interested in the Oly 40-150 as I already have the 35-100, and I like the extra reach of the pana-leica for birding.
The Nikon 200-400mm is a 4.6 lb lens. The Panasonic is a 2.2 lb lens. If the OP is not taking the 200-400mm with him because of weight, it could be the finest lens on the planet, but it would do him no good whatsoever in real use, since it would be home and in the closet. The 100-400mm is an excellent lens that will give you excellent results at a weight that means it goes with you, and does not stay in the bag at home.
Is that good enough? I don't know. I personally would never have gotten any of the larger FF zooms because I knew I'd never use them due to not wanting to carry them when I am walking around the woods. The 100-400mm is worlds better than the (even lighter) 100-300mm, which I had for years. It's sharp, it's got beautiful color and wonderful bokeh (even though that's not one of the criteria here), great OIS, very good close focusing abilities, and is small enough to let me take it when walking around, without incurring back, neck or wrist pain. When used with a monopod, it's fabulous. When used without, it can also be, but requires care and technique.
A little story.... when this lens was first released, I was very interested in it, as my 100-300mm was my most used M43 lens. The 100-300mm had numerous flaws, for sure, but I had learned how to work with the lens and its idiosyncracies over time. Since the 100-400mm seemed like it addressed most of the IQ complaints with the 100-300mm, I thought it would be a great choice for me. However, the first few people who posted shots from it put up the most awful, blurry, messes that put me off it totally. It wasn't until the lens made its way into the hands of people who were used to working with long lenses that images that showed what it was really capable of started being posted, and at that point I decided to get one. Interestingly enough, my shots have been pretty uniformly more like those of the experienced tele shooters', and not those first awful ones....
So, that being said, here are some shots from it. You decide if these are up to your standards, and go from there:
