Reading mode: Light Dark

OM System 100-400 F5.0-6.3 II...... what do you think

Go to last post
C

CR1975

Well-known member
Messages
155
Reaction score
118
Location
Vancouver, CA
Rather than create another OM-3 thread, of which there is lots of good chatter about, how about the OM System 100-400 II?

My Thoughts:

-still looks like a rebadged Sigma design, with necessary adjustments for use on M4/3 and OMDS/Olympus Bodies.

-Mucho Bux. Being at $2099 CAD which is a fair bit of coin.

-Sync-IS: jeesh, this should have been on the V1. but have to say 7.0 Stops will be amazing!

-IPX1 sealing , officially. Cannot recall if the V1 was rated officially.

If you do not have one, and on an OM body, if you can tolerate the weight and size, it looks like a good match for an acceptable price point. True Pany 100-400 II is smaller but sync-IS with Oly.Lens+Body.

Now if they could update the V1 with some sort of firmware update that gives even 5-6 stops of IS, that would be awesome.(i say this because I have the V1) BUT, do not expect this to be possible via firmware update as there must be a bit more tech involved to make it work.

Now that OM-3... wait....all stop, will let others keep talking about that!

--


===
Shooting an Olympus in Vancouver, BC!
 
My sentiments exactly!
 
I have been in a huge quandary about whether to get the 100-400 or the 300 Pro, and now the decision is easy. I rented the 300 Pro, and loved everything about it except the weight was a little more than I liked, but mostly I wanted the flexibility of a zoom. Then I got the 100-400 and found it to be a great, sharp lens except the image stabilization was very disappointing, forcing me to run significantly higher shutter speeds, plus I couldn’t hand-hold video effectively. I suspect image tracking and auto-focus will also improve with the better image stabilization as well. And even the more minor changes are meaningful to me: less weight, better waterproofing, and no more taking the lens off the camera to remove the collar. I’ve already preordered mine :-)
 
Electronic Alchemist said:
And even the more minor changes are meaningful to me: less weight, better waterproofing, and no more taking the lens off the camera to remove the collar. I’ve already preordered mine :-)
Click to expand...
Weight and size seem to be exactly the same.

The Sync IS huge though. Better coatings and removable collar are added bonus. Really a great option now.
 
Will be interesting to see how the new lens pans out If optics better than current 100-400 will be tempted to trade in my current 100-400 and 300 f4 for the new zoom Love the 300 but do prefer a zoom
 
I will wait to get some user reports then place my order, that improved IS plus removable tripod mount make it a worthwhile purchase (I'm shooting with the PL100-400 at present)
 
I have the old version of this. Bokeh is sometimes busy on this lens, and I've always wondered if that is the result of some vibrations that the lens IS doesn't dampen enough. I think that is why longer telelenses often have this busy bokeh.

If true, I'm hoping the new version will have improved IS enough to eliminate that effect (more often).

Will be hard to see that in a test shot in a store though, so hopefully someone who buys it can enlighten me. :)
 
I was watching Gordon Laing's review of the OM-3 and he tested the new OM 100-400mm II with the OM-1.2 and sadly SH2 is still only 25fps and not 50fps.

 
Last edited:
Bought the PL 100-400 to use on my OM-1 II without any knowledge about a new version of the M.Zuiko 100-400 II. I would still buy the PL again as it suits me better:

- The PL is 30mm shorter and over 300g lighter (!), while close to a stop brighter at the wide end
- Integral hood on the PL so even more compact
- While this combo won't benefit from Sync/Dual IS, I'm still amazed by the number of keepers I'm able to get
 
As an owner of v.1, my first thought was to dismiss it.

OTOH, those extra stops of IS would come in very handy for low-light situations where I would have the option to significantly drop SS to reduce ISO.

Yes, I know that software helps with noise, but I prefer to avoid it in the first place.
 
The recent news item about Canon's equivalent of Sync IS showed decreasing effectiveness at longer focal lengths because IBIS becomes less effective. It doesn't show what the focal lengths are, however. When Canon first announced their sync IS system a few years ago, my recollection was that they published a table showing the number of stops at different focal lengths, and it dropped off very rapidly over 100mm focal length. It might have improved since then and it is clearly different to the OMDS system because it work with any image stabilized lens.

Has anybody seen any equivalent data for OMDS Sync IS? I assume that the quoted 7 stops is at 100mm. I wonder what it is at 400mm?
 
AznJunkie said:
I was watching Gordon Laing's review of the OM-3 and he tested the new OM 100-400mm II with the OM-1.2 and sadly SH2 is still only 25fps and not 50fps.

Click to expand...
Good to know, thanks for sharing. Minor thing for me tbh, I think 25 fps is plenty.
 
Evo_ said:
Bought the PL 100-400 to use on my OM-1 II without any knowledge about a new version of the M.Zuiko 100-400 II. I would still buy the PL again as it suits me better:

- The PL is 30mm shorter and over 300g lighter (!), while close to a stop brighter at the wide end
- Integral hood on the PL so even more compact
- While this combo won't benefit from Sync/Dual IS, I'm still amazed by the number of keepers I'm able to get
Click to expand...
I switched from the OM-1 + Oly 100-400 to the G9ii plus PL100-400. Main reason was Dual IS. Well, and I like Pana and it was easier for my brain to switch between that and the S1.

But I have to admit that I quite like the handling of the Oly/OM lens. Much muuuuuch smoother zoom and I loved resting the tripod collar on my palm and being able to zoom. Impossible with the PL (mark I or II).

Also, huge advantage: the Oly TC1.4 is available and affordable.

So I am curious to see what others will report!
 
CR1975 said:
Rather than create another OM-3 thread, of which there is lots of good chatter about, how about the OM System 100-400 II?

My Thoughts:

-still looks like a rebadged Sigma design, with necessary adjustments for use on M4/3 and OMDS/Olympus Bodies.
Click to expand...
So what? I have the Mark I, shooting with the OM-1 is great. It also work with 2X and 1.4X TC.
CR1975 said:
-Mucho Bux. Being at $2099 CAD which is a fair bit of coin.

-Sync-IS: jeesh, this should have been on the V1. but have to say 7.0 Stops will be amazing!
Click to expand...
3X with the Mark I never posed any issue.
CR1975 said:
-IPX1 sealing , officially. Cannot recall if the V1 was rated officially.
Click to expand...
Yes, Mark I is IPX1
CR1975 said:
If you do not have one, and on an OM body, if you can tolerate the weight and size, it looks like a good match for an acceptable price point. True Pany 100-400 II is smaller but sync-IS with Oly.Lens+Body.
Click to expand...
Pany 100-400 never sync with OM body. Why on earth Pany would do that? Their TC still doesn't truly work.
CR1975 said:
Now if they could update the V1 with some sort of firmware update that gives even 5-6 stops of IS, that would be awesome.(i say this because I have the V1) BUT, do not expect this to be possible via firmware update as there must be a bit more tech involved to make it work.

Now that OM-3... wait....all stop, will let others keep talking about that!

--

===
Shooting an Olympus in Vancouver, BC!
Click to expand...
 
Chris R-UK said:
The recent news item about Canon's equivalent of Sync IS showed decreasing effectiveness at longer focal lengths because IBIS becomes less effective. It doesn't show what the focal lengths are, however. When Canon first announced their sync IS system a few years ago, my recollection was that they published a table showing the number of stops at different focal lengths, and it dropped off very rapidly over 100mm focal length. It might have improved since then and it is clearly different to the OMDS system because it work with any image stabilized lens.

Has anybody seen any equivalent data for OMDS Sync IS? I assume that the quoted 7 stops is at 100mm. I wonder what it is at 400mm?
Click to expand...
7 stops at 100mm and 5.5 at 400mm, but this is just in theory. The same principal applies to this lens as with Canons Sync IS. At +300mm the Sync IS is not helping much, most of the stabilization is coming from the lens only. Most of the difference comes at 100mm, not much real world difference at 400mm. People don't think clearly when they are suffering from GAS. People should not upgrade from MK1 to MK2, but the MK2 is better if you are buying a totally new lens.
 
Tuuchen said:
Chris R-UK said:
The recent news item about Canon's equivalent of Sync IS showed decreasing effectiveness at longer focal lengths because IBIS becomes less effective. It doesn't show what the focal lengths are, however. When Canon first announced their sync IS system a few years ago, my recollection was that they published a table showing the number of stops at different focal lengths, and it dropped off very rapidly over 100mm focal length. It might have improved since then and it is clearly different to the OMDS system because it work with any image stabilized lens.

Has anybody seen any equivalent data for OMDS Sync IS? I assume that the quoted 7 stops is at 100mm. I wonder what it is at 400mm?
Click to expand...
7 stops at 100mm and 5.5 at 400mm, but this is just in theory. The same principal applies to this lens as with Canons Sync IS. At +300mm the Sync IS is not helping much, most of the stabilization is coming from the lens only. Most of the difference comes at 100mm, not much real world difference at 400mm. People don't think clearly when they are suffering from GAS. People should not upgrade from MK1 to MK2, but the MK2 is better if you are buying a totally new lens.
Click to expand...
OM Systems indicates the 300mm f4 lens stabilization at 4 stops and 6 stops with sync stabilization or 2 extra stops with sync stabilization on the E-M1.1 where it was originally tested, so comparison with the Canon sync stabilization may not mean very much.

The 150-400 only gives the stabilization at 150 mm as 4.5 with for the lens and 8 stops with sync stabilization on the E-M1X where it was originally tested.

--
drj3
 
Last edited:
I hope they put some software update. If not will just sell the 100-400V1 and get V2.

150-400 is to expensive

150-600 is to heavy.

So only long zoom telephoto alternative is 75-300 and 100-400.

Yes 300 are most probably better but its not zoom and its also lot more expensive.

So there is no real alternative for
 
I have the Mark I 100-400. If the new lens is optically better it will be in my bag.

It's a sooner or later thing.
 
Tuuchen said:
Chris R-UK said:
The recent news item about Canon's equivalent of Sync IS showed decreasing effectiveness at longer focal lengths because IBIS becomes less effective. It doesn't show what the focal lengths are, however. When Canon first announced their sync IS system a few years ago, my recollection was that they published a table showing the number of stops at different focal lengths, and it dropped off very rapidly over 100mm focal length. It might have improved since then and it is clearly different to the OMDS system because it work with any image stabilized lens.

Has anybody seen any equivalent data for OMDS Sync IS? I assume that the quoted 7 stops is at 100mm. I wonder what it is at 400mm?
Click to expand...
7 stops at 100mm and 5.5 at 400mm, but this is just in theory. The same principal applies to this lens as with Canons Sync IS. At +300mm the Sync IS is not helping much, most of the stabilization is coming from the lens only. Most of the difference comes at 100mm, not much real world difference at 400mm. People don't think clearly when they are suffering from GAS. People should not upgrade from MK1 to MK2, but the MK2 is better if you are buying a totally new lens.
Click to expand...
Here's the way I see it: Stabilization on the 300 Pro is amazing. You press the shutter halfway and the image just locks in place - no visible motion. Stabilization on 100-400 V1 is marginal. It stays still for a moment, but then jerks to a new location soon after. Whether you make your exposure while its steady is just statistics. This means lower keeper rates, which many people have complained about (sometimes claiming the lens is soft, which it most certainly isn't). And forget it for handheld video.

So anyone who wants a higher percentage of keepers, or shoots video, or just wants the enjoyable experience of having the frame really lock in should consider upgrading to the V2. I know I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Just checking: Camera bodies compatible with the 100-400 MkII's 5-axis Sync IS
Replies
2
Views
11K
Snapsh0t
Snapsh0t
B
Olympus 100-400 F5.0-6.3 IS Discontinued?
2
Replies
21
Views
9K
PlumShots
P
A
Filters for OM System ED 150-600mm F5.0‑6.3 IS
Replies
7
Views
2K
Chris R-UK
C
Humansvillian
How far back will OM update for the new 100-400 lens?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Skeeterbytes
S
Jeroen1969
Olympus OM-1, OM System OM-1.2 and the Sony A7R IV A, a nice threesome!
2
Replies
31
Views
31K
NowHearThis
NowHearThis

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