better sharpness on p100-400mm over 100-300mm mk2?

Stejo wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, I don't find the PL100-400 a significant optical improvement over the P100-300ii. It's a tiny bit more contrasty at 250-300mm but that's about it. It's also not faster. Basically you're getting an extra 100mm worth of reach for twice the weight. Which is a reasonable tradeoff in the telephoto world, don't get me wrong. Better build quality too.

AF and stabilization I think are identical between it and the second version of the 100-300. I don't own the 100-400 but I've used it on numerous ocassions and couldn't find any observable difference in their electronics.

I think in your case a body upgrade would be more beneficial. The 20MP no-AA sensor on the G9 is a pretty big improvement and the AF performance is much, much better. It can't perform miracles but it improves on the G7 in every aspect for a moderate weight increase.

The PL100-400 is so much bigger and heavier and will only yield measurable improvements if you're regularly shooting at 300mm wishing for more zoom range.

I am surprised no one has looked at the new PL 50-200 with a 1.4 TC. I read a review side by side with the 100-400 and it looked pretty good. The 2.0 TC didn’t result in sharper images but that combo might be also not a bad alternative? I am on the fence at the moment to which combo I take to Kenya. Apart from the extra cost I am really torn overall.

Great pictures from the 100-400 I have seen online especially with the G9 which I have. The 50-200 would compliment the 12-60 and 8-18 nicely but I might need more reach on safari hence torn about it.