How much of an upgrade is 100-400 over panasonic 100-300 or olympus 75-300 ii ? Is it worth it?

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? Going further it becomes soft

Has anyone made any comparison yet with 2-3 of these lenses?

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? Going further it becomes soft

Has anyone made any comparison yet with 2-3 of these lenses?

That is a €1699 question!

I saw a comparison recently in which the old 100-300mm was producing better results than the new 100-400mm!

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/pana-leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-first-impressions.83425/page-9

Robiro wrote:

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? Going further it becomes soft

Has anyone made any comparison yet with 2-3 of these lenses?

That is a €1699 question!

I saw a comparison recently in which the old 100-300mm was producing better results than the new 100-400mm!

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/pana-leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-first-impressions.83425/page-9

You may want to read the whole thread....

It would seem that he ended up returning the lens as it didn't produce results that others were getting.

Here is test between the two http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

It's still very early days bit it's clear that it's not as sharp as the much more expensive oly prim 300mm.  Others on this forum are producing images of good quality from the lens.  But have a squiz at the above and have a flick through the forums and you will see some images from it.  Best to wait till more than a half dozen people own it to form a solid opinion as the long super tele is harder to use.

djbrom wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? Going further it becomes soft

Has anyone made any comparison yet with 2-3 of these lenses?

That is a €1699 question!

I saw a comparison recently in which the old 100-300mm was producing better results than the new 100-400mm!

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/pana-leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-first-impressions.83425/page-9

You may want to read the whole thread....

It would seem that he ended up returning the lens as it didn't produce results that others were getting.

Here is test between the two http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

It's still very early days bit it's clear that it's not as sharp as the much more expensive oly prim 300mm. Others on this forum are producing images of good quality from the lens. But have a squiz at the above and have a flick through the forums and you will see some images from it. Best to wait till more than a half dozen people own it to form a solid opinion as the long super tele is harder to use.

Even in his test, at 100mm the old 100-300mm is better than 100-400mm.

Robiro wrote:

djbrom wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? Going further it becomes soft

Has anyone made any comparison yet with 2-3 of these lenses?

That is a €1699 question!

I saw a comparison recently in which the old 100-300mm was producing better results than the new 100-400mm!

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/pana-leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-first-impressions.83425/page-9

You may want to read the whole thread....

It would seem that he ended up returning the lens as it didn't produce results that others were getting.

Here is test between the two http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

It's still very early days bit it's clear that it's not as sharp as the much more expensive oly prim 300mm. Others on this forum are producing images of good quality from the lens. But have a squiz at the above and have a flick through the forums and you will see some images from it. Best to wait till more than a half dozen people own it to form a solid opinion as the long super tele is harder to use.

Even in his test, at 100mm the old 100-300mm is better than 100-400mm.

What a waist of words again and again! Watch out for trolls!

Be patient and look at real test and look at the better photographs not photo snappers!

Success with the 100-300 is a matter of handling and knowing what ff to set.  It can produce some very sharp images.  Those images can be printed at large sizes and still look good.  No doubt, the new lens is also a case of 'knowing how' and as more people get and use the lens, it will become 'better and better'.  It is pretty easy to produce a sharp image with a single focal length prime, but not always as simple with a long zoom.  If Panasonic ever gets around to supplying the sellers with the procduct (200-400), I will let you know what I think of the performance at 400.

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? .....

I have the same question especially for the mzuiko 75-300 II , I have a very good copy and up to 200-230mm is very good (close enough to my Zuiko 50-200 SWD +1.4X) and good at 300mm, no complains according to the buying price (500€) but I want a better m43 performer to the extreme tele 250-300mm and even further on 350-400mm focal length.

I'm not asking for the IQ of the new mzuiko 300mm/4, I will be happy if it performs as my Zuiko 50-200 SWD +1.4X (or my old Panaleica 4/3 14-150mm),  I think it's wrong to make comparisons with a prime pro lens much more expensive.

On walks with my wife, she carries a compact Nikon S9700 with 25-750mm FL equivalent re. 35mm, while I have an Olympus E-M1 usually with the 75-300mm II. I also have the Panasonic 100-300mm which I use when the bigger aperture is helpful, but I usually prefer the Oly because I get much better autofocus performance from it.

The difference in quality between the S9700 and the E-M1 is obvious, especially when the daylight fades. But there are numerous occasions when we're snapping a distant bird and my wife gets some surprisingly decent pictures, while I get precious few pixels of the subject after cropping. So I'm convinced that 800mm FL equivalent will be very useful to me.

I'm also pretty sure that there's lots of room for improvement over the optics of the 75-300 and 100-300 lenses. It will be interesting to see what DXOmark says about the 100-400.

josbiker wrote:

Robiro wrote:

djbrom wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious if it's worth upgrading to. The olympus is good only 75-200mm ? Going further it becomes soft

Has anyone made any comparison yet with 2-3 of these lenses?

That is a €1699 question!

I saw a comparison recently in which the old 100-300mm was producing better results than the new 100-400mm!

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/pana-leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-first-impressions.83425/page-9

You may want to read the whole thread....

It would seem that he ended up returning the lens as it didn't produce results that others were getting.

Here is test between the two http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

It's still very early days bit it's clear that it's not as sharp as the much more expensive oly prim 300mm. Others on this forum are producing images of good quality from the lens. But have a squiz at the above and have a flick through the forums and you will see some images from it. Best to wait till more than a half dozen people own it to form a solid opinion as the long super tele is harder to use.

Even in his test, at 100mm the old 100-300mm is better than 100-400mm.

What a waist of words again and again! Watch out for trolls!

Be patient and look at real test and look at the better photographs not photo snappers!

That was a real controlled test done by a better photographer.

Plus, I want to buy this lens.

These are from pre production copy and I would expect even better from this guy (Chris pepper) in the coming weeks based on a production version

no exif given but the bird looks pretty sharp (imo)

http://northof49photography.com/blog/2016/3/2/hands-on-review-with-the-new-lumixleica-100-400-lens