Estimated dimensions for the PanaLeica 100-400

Denjw wrote:

Interesting comparison Martin, but not sure how you can line up the two images. The bodies are not in line or the images taken from the same perspective.

Are these images taken by the same person using the same camera/lens or images taken from websites? I am sure I have seen the panasonic image somewhere else, but may be mistaken.

I took the 40-150 image from camerasize.com and simply rotated it. The 100-400 image comes from the rumor site. And, you're right, the GH4 body is further away from the camera with the 100-400 lens, so if you used the GH4 dimensions to estimate lens size, you'll tend to overestimate the 100-400 size in relation to the 40-150 Pro size. That's why I avoided trying to do exact measurements. But you can get reasonably accurate measurements.

But I think the OP is close, if maybe a slight overestimation of the 100-400 size in relation to the 40-150 size.

I do think the 100-400 is slightly larger than the 40-150 Pro, but maybe a little less than the OP states.

But I will defer to your expertise!

BTW I think this image of the 100-400mm with the GH4 provides a good idea of the size.

http://www.43rumors.com/category/rumor/

It does appear to be similar in size to the Oly 40-150mm based on my handholding the Oly lens. So your comparison maybe right!

Cheers

Dennis

-- hide signature --

http://dwehner.zenfolio.com/

Martin.au wrote:

Someone was kind enough to post two images, both taken with a fairly long focal length, of the GH4 + 100-400 and GH4 + 40-150 f2.8. I took the liberty of applying some dimensions to them.

Looks like it will be about the same size as the 40-150 + TC (sans hood) and a smidgen wider. If they keep the weight down that's a nice manageable size, and should fit inside most bags that can take the 40-150 + TC.

As I mentioned in another post, the 40-150 Pro image came from camerasize.com, and I posted the comparison.

My initial thought was that you might have overestimated the size of the 100-400 slightly, but your comparison is probably as accurate as can be done now. A month or two ago, well before this comparison, we were speculating that the size of the 100-400 would be about 180mm to 185mm by 86mm (or 87mm). So, your calculation is right in line with that. And it makes sense because, if you take the ratio of the max diameter of the 100-300 to the 53.5mm entrance pupil of the 100-300 and do the same thing with the 63.5mm entrance pupil of the 100-400, you end up with about an 86mm max diameter for the 100-400.

I think it's going to end up being pretty similar to these dimensions.

Extended otr not extended?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/5337706458/hands-on-with-the-panasonic-leica-dg-vario-elmar-100-400mm-f4-6-3-lens?slide=6

Martin.au wrote:

Not extended, obviously (as you can see in my picture). Who cares about it when it's extended, and why?

How the lens extends and by how much, for the focal length range, may well be of interest to some people. It's only now that we actually see by how much it extends at 400mm, but we still don't know anything about the in-between. In a sense, you can't say how long the lens is unless you qualify at what focal length.

There can be issues with lenses like this, as I can attest from owning an Olympus 50-200mm lens. For example, will the lens remain firmly in the selected zoom position if you happen to move about or reposition yourself, or if you are pointing the lens up or down. Will it start to loosen up with use? How solid is the barrel alignment when fully extended. Will it start to wobble somewhat with use?

The other question is how quickly does the lens go from f4 to f6.3.

OzRay wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

Not extended, obviously (as you can see in my picture). Who cares about it when it's extended, and why?

How the lens extends and by how much, for the focal length range, may well be of interest to some people.

The only reason for worrying about this would be for hand-held shooting balance. Without knowing how much of the lens' weight moves during zooming, just knowing the length does not help much. This is a question that everyone must answer for themselves after some handling.

It's only now that we actually see by how much it extends at 400mm, but we still don't know anything about the in-between. In a sense, you can't say how long the lens is unless you qualify at what focal length.

You can say something about the storage length, which is the most important when considering bag dimensions etc.

There can be issues with lenses like this, as I can attest from owning an Olympus 50-200mm lens. For example, will the lens remain firmly in the selected zoom position if you happen to move about or reposition yourself, or if you are pointing the lens up or down. Will it start to loosen up with use? How solid is the barrel alignment when fully extended. Will it start to wobble somewhat with use?

This lens is supposedly weather sealed. If it wobbles badly it probably would have been hard to weather seal it.

This lens has an FL lock, which seems to indicate at least some zoom creep. It's unknown if the lock is for stowage only, i.e. only works at the shortest zoom point, or can be used at any FL. If it's the first case, bang goes shooting up or down on a tripod without hand touching. Fancy dynamic zooming shots ahead.

The other question is how quickly does the lens go from f4 to f6.3.

The worst case is F4 for 100 and F6.3 for everywhere else

Martin.au wrote:

Someone was kind enough to post two images, both taken with a fairly long focal length, of the GH4 + 100-400 and GH4 + 40-150 f2.8. I took the liberty of applying some dimensions to them.

Looks like it will be about the same size as the 40-150 + TC (sans hood) and a smidgen wider. If they keep the weight down that's a nice manageable size, and should fit inside most bags that can take the 40-150 + TC.

It would be nice if I could place the TC on this new one !