Panasonic 100-300mm vs Panasonic 100-400mm vs Olympus 300mm. Central sharpness comparison with GX7

Okay, so my local store has finally got these new lenses, so I was very tempted to see how they will perform on my GX7. So I took my existing 100-300mm, and shot with all those lenses at variable focal lengths and ISO's. All shots were taken handheld at aperture priority mode, so shutter speeds varied. I didn't bother to keep the angle and focus the same, so overall this is far from being a comprehensive test. However, I hope it may help others, who like me can't decide on which lens to buy (or buy one at all).

To avoid jpeg compression on dpreview, I posted the images on my personal website (which is used just as a private storage, so no advertisement here). All images are 100% crops of a central area, developped in lightroom from raw and exported at the best quality.

http://www.blot.am/telephoto_test/review.html

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus. Another important thing is that it gives me a big step forward in IQ at shorter focal lengths (comparing to 100-300). And last but not least, the price difference, which is even more pronounced in Australia (AUD 1875 vs AUD 3387). And while not being f/4 at 300mm is a huge disadvantage for Panny, it hardly outweighs the advantages.

Davatuk wrote:

Okay, so my local store has finally got these new lenses, so I was very tempted to see how they will perform on my GX7. So I took my existing 100-300mm, and shot with all those lenses at variable focal lengths and ISO's. All shots were taken handheld at aperture priority mode, so shutter speeds varied. I didn't bother to keep the angle and focus the same, so overall this is far from being a comprehensive test. However, I hope it may help others, who like me can't decide on which lens to buy (or buy one at all).

To avoid jpeg compression on dpreview, I posted the images on my personal website (which is used just as a private storage, so no advertisement here). All images are 100% crops of a central area, developped in lightroom from raw and exported at the best quality.

http://www.blot.am/telephoto_test/review.html

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus. Another important thing is that it gives me a big step forward in IQ at shorter focal lengths (comparing to 100-300). And last but not least, the price difference, which is even more pronounced in Australia (AUD 1875 vs AUD 3387). And while not being f/4 at 300mm is a huge disadvantage for Panny, it hardly outweighs the advantages.

Thanks for posting these!

Indeed the difference between the oly 300 and the pany 100-400 seems small (although I think the oly has an edge). But both much better than the old pany 100-300. Good!!

Yet, your ISO200 300mm shot of the 100-400 looks considerably worse than the ISO200 one. Maybe the OIS is not really good? The oly looks much better. My experience with the 100-300 is that, at least in my hands and with my gear, the OIS is substantially worse than the EM1 IBIS. I have it perpetually off.

Thanks again,

L.

Davatuk wrote:

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus.

I would love to see an ISO200 shot taken with Pana Leica at 400mm, f8 downsampled to match an ISO200 shot taken with Oly 300mm PRO at f5.6. That would be an ultimate deathmatch between the two...

All your Pana Leica shots were taken wide open. There could be an image improvement at f8 at the long end, especially with your type of a shot (white letters on a black background).

Davatuk wrote:

luisflorit wrote:

Yet, your ISO200 300mm shot of the 100-400 looks considerably worse than the ISO200 one. Maybe the OIS is not really good? The oly looks much better. My experience with the 100-300 is that, at least in my hands and with my gear, the OIS is substantially worse than the EM1 IBIS. I have it perpetually off.

You've probably mistyped something here: what is worse than what?

Sorry, you are right, awfully said.

I meant that the 300mm shot of the 100-400 at ISO200 looks considerably more blurred than the ISO400 one of the same lens:

ISO200

ISO400

The speed was 2x faster in the ISO400, so I guess the OIS is not working so well?

L.

Robiro wrote:

Davatuk wrote:

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus.

I would love to see an ISO200 shot taken with Pana Leica at 400mm, f8 downsampled to match an ISO200 shot taken with Oly 300mm PRO at f5.6. That would be an ultimate deathmatch between the two...

All your Pana Leica shots were taken wide open. There could be an image improvement at f8 at the long end, especially with your type of a shot (white letters on a black background).

I've read a review with charts claiming that the 100-400 does not improve if you close it: its best is shown wide open (according to their charts, that is).

L.

luisflorit wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Davatuk wrote:

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus.

I would love to see an ISO200 shot taken with Pana Leica at 400mm, f8 downsampled to match an ISO200 shot taken with Oly 300mm PRO at f5.6. That would be an ultimate deathmatch between the two...

All your Pana Leica shots were taken wide open. There could be an image improvement at f8 at the long end, especially with your type of a shot (white letters on a black background).

I've read a review with charts claiming that the 100-400 does not improve if you close it: its best is shown wide open (according to their charts, that is).

I agree. But the reality could be different. I always thought f7.1 was the best setting for my 100-300mm at the long end.

But now I see I was wrong. There is definitely an image improvedment at f8.

So, my best guess is that at 400mm, Pana Leica could be a little better at f8 (or f7.1) than wide open at f6.3. The contrasty edges between white letters and black background could be better defined with less haze.

amazing to see the little difference between oly and Panasonic at 300mm using same shutter speeds ?

these lens really need the dual is though that both pana /oly  make at anything below 1 over focal length s/s

If your test was about image quality rather than image stabilisation would tripod mounted accurately manually focussed shots not have been far more informative as to the possible quality of the lenses. I appreciate that many will use the lenses handheld with image stabilisation being used, it is just for these type of tests handholding opens up potential issues as does using AF and variable shutter speeds , also with such long focal lengths small differences in angle of view can show very noticeable weaknesses in the final image.

Though given the £369 price of the 100-300mm , compared to the £1349 100-400mm and the £2200 of the 300mm , I would certainly hope that there is a very marked improvement with the pricier options.

samtheman2014 wrote:

If your test was about image quality rather than image stabilisation would tripod mounted accurately manually focussed shots not have been far more informative as to the possible quality of the lenses. I appreciate that many will use the lenses handheld with image stabilisation being used, it is just for these type of tests handholding opens up potential issues as does using AF and variable shutter speeds , also with such long focal lengths small differences in angle of view can show very noticeable weaknesses in the final image.

Though given the £369 price of the 100-300mm , compared to the £1349 100-400mm and the £2200 of the 300mm , I would certainly hope that there is a very marked improvement with the pricier options.

The effectiveness of the IS trumps all other considerations with a lens this long IMO. Both Oly and Pana were very wise to focus on this.

nt

According to the resolution charts in THIS review, The lens central sharpness is best wide open up to 300mm , and then very slightly better at F8 at 350 and 400mm.

. Another important thing is that it gives me a big step forward in IQ at shorter focal lengths (comparing to 100-300).

As these are 100% crops, in my opinion the IQ difference is probably not visible at normal viewing distances, and therefore the only advantage of the 100-400 is greater length and possible better image stabilization (at the expense of size, weight, and price).

Looks like a 'you get what you pay for' sort of answer - the Oly comes out on top, the 100-300 on the bottom, and the 100-400 in the middle. Considering the price differential, I think the 100-300 does remarkably well, and while I'd agree that the Oly is the sharpest of the three, I remain quite happy with my decision to get the 100-400.

bgalb wrote:

According to the resolution charts in THIS review, The lens central sharpness is best wide open up to 300mm , and then very slightly better at F8 at 350 and 400mm.

Thanks! As predicted.

Would love to see downsampled Pana Leica 100-400mm f8 shot compared to Oly 300mm f5.6.

Davatuk wrote:

Okay, so my local store has finally got these new lenses, so I was very tempted to see how they will perform on my GX7. So I took my existing 100-300mm, and shot with all those lenses at variable focal lengths and ISO's. All shots were taken handheld at aperture priority mode, so shutter speeds varied. I didn't bother to keep the angle and focus the same, so overall this is far from being a comprehensive test. However, I hope it may help others, who like me can't decide on which lens to buy (or buy one at all).

To avoid jpeg compression on dpreview, I posted the images on my personal website (which is used just as a private storage, so no advertisement here). All images are 100% crops of a central area, developped in lightroom from raw and exported at the best quality.

http://www.blot.am/telephoto_test/review.html

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus. Another important thing is that it gives me a big step forward in IQ at shorter focal lengths (comparing to 100-300). And last but not least, the price difference, which is even more pronounced in Australia (AUD 1875 vs AUD 3387). And while not being f/4 at 300mm is a huge disadvantage for Panny, it hardly outweighs the advantages.

Please forgive me if it would have already been discussed/mentioned along this long hot topic before.

IICR, the sweet spot of 100-300 should be around f/7.1. As your testing had been shot mostly wide open (not sure on 100-400 but would likely affect the IQ from 100-300), your sample on 100-300 might not be its best (sharpness) to compare.... And had you use e-shutter?