Some earlier copies seemed to have the problem. It’s important to fully unlock the zoom lock or it will certainly be stiff.
The 100-400mm needs a bit of practice and experimentation to get better results.Some copies of 100-400 seem to be very good, but it can be the photographer's hands
In my hand the results of 100-400 were consistently worse than of 300/4. Hands are the same ;-)
I swapped my 300/f4 for a week with a friend who uses at 100-400. I must say the IQ difference was marked, the 300/f4 being higher quality, IMHO. I was glad to return her lens after the week; she was very happy to have borrowed my lens.Some earlier copies seemed to have the problem. It’s important to fully unlock the zoom lock or it will certainly be stiff.
My lens is a fairly early Oly and works just fine.
The 100-400mm needs a bit of practice and experimentation to get better results.Some copies of 100-400 seem to be very good, but it can be the photographer's hands
In my hand the results of 100-400 were consistently worse than of 300/4. Hands are the same ;-)
I'm not surprised, I am surprised the IQ comparison ever needs considering. Of course the 300 has better IQ, it costs twice the price, is brighter and weighs twice as much and it's am prime. If it wasn't better Oly would have a real problem.I swapped my 300/f4 for a week with a friend who uses at 100-400. I must say the IQ difference was marked, the 300/f4 being higher quality, IMHO. I was glad to return her lens after the week; she was very happy to have borrowed my lens.Some earlier copies seemed to have the problem. It’s important to fully unlock the zoom lock or it will certainly be stiff.
My lens is a fairly early Oly and works just fine.
The 100-400mm needs a bit of practice and experimentation to get better results.Some copies of 100-400 seem to be very good, but it can be the photographer's hands
In my hand the results of 100-400 were consistently worse than of 300/4. Hands are the same ;-)
I have an adapted Nikon 300mm f4.5 AI-S and a 2x teleconverter, but I really struggle working with a 300mm lens. I prefer primes, but that’s just too much and too limiting for my way of shooting.I swapped my 300/f4 for a week with a friend who uses at 100-400. I must say the IQ difference was marked, the 300/f4 being higher quality, IMHO. I was glad to return her lens after the week; she was very happy to have borrowed my lens.Some earlier copies seemed to have the problem. It’s important to fully unlock the zoom lock or it will certainly be stiff.
My lens is a fairly early Oly and works just fine.
The 100-400mm needs a bit of practice and experimentation to get better results.Some copies of 100-400 seem to be very good, but it can be the photographer's hands
In my hand the results of 100-400 were consistently worse than of 300/4. Hands are the same ;-)
Here are a few images, note not set at the widest aperture for DOF. With the Woodpecker I should have shot at F5.6 or so but that is not second nature and I've not set Custom buttons as I don't need them for landscape.
Here I shot a moss and it shows the extremely shallow DOF with this lens even at F7.1 Cambridge shows that at 30-40' the DOF is about .1m @ F4, .2m @ F5.6 and .3-.4m at F6.3 to F7.1. The sharpness here is comparable to what I would get with 60mm on a tripod, but not Focus Stacked.
The moss is Brachythecium frigidum.Since by pure coincidence I had taken almost the exact same subject on a stroll with the 100-400:
Here I shot a moss and it shows the extremely shallow DOF with this lens even at F7.1 Cambridge shows that at 30-40' the DOF is about .1m @ F4, .2m @ F5.6 and .3-.4m at F6.3 to F7.1. The sharpness here is comparable to what I would get with 60mm on a tripod, but not Focus Stacked.
F8, 400mm, ISO 4.000
Probably, too, shooting most things close-up you wouldn't look that much for detail. The exception might be scales on a butterfly, that is something I will want to try.
Yes, pretty amazing, and I would think almost no sample variation on the fixed lens. The city shot was already at F8, about 12% from maximum sharpness at F5.6 according to Lenstips.
I'm presuming the Oly 100-400 will be for those who want a consumer level 100-400 so will fall below the Panny 100-400 so inline with the Panny 100-300 and Oly 75-300 IQ wise.
Isn't that lens a consumer level non-pro lens? If so, I can't imagine it being that expensive...I will be tempted by the 150-400 f4.5, but unfortunately it will be very expensive and heavier.Those lenses aren’t in the same league. The Oly is much better!
I have the Panasonic 100-400mm and original 100-300mm.
The 100-400mm is relatively small and light and can deliver excellent results, with practice. In my case, a LOT of practice. I use it mainly for nature stuff and travel. It doubles as an almost-macro lens which adds to it’s utility. So, it’s actually quite good for hiking, since I can quickly switch from taking shots of a woodpecker to some mushrooms and moss.
The Oly 300mm can’t do that, but it’s a different sort of lens altogether. I’d love to have BOTH, but that ain’t happening.
the Panny is a consumer level lens. The Olympus will be the same IQ as the Panny.
