The best lens I have ever owned bar none

i agree. this is the best, although most expensive lens i've ever used. it's worth every penny though.

the only small downside i feel i have to mention is the focus stiffness. i think it will improve with time but it can be so difficult to turn (yes it's unlocked) that i've accidentally pressed other buttons because it twisted the whole camera in my hand.

i was thinking about turning it in for repair, but maybe it's just made real tight for splashproofing. also, i couldn't part with it for more than a day. maybe during Winter.

I agree 100%, best I've owned, too.

I've enjoyed following your acclimation with this lens, and seeing the great images you have produced with it. The fist image in this series just seems to set the world right again, thanks for sharing.

Gary

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

After a month of ownership, I thought a review might be in order. It's a long time since I have done one of these so bear with me if Its not as professional as some.

History: I have owned the Zuiko 70-300 and the Panny 100-400 and while both were excellent value for money, the 100-400 is in a different class. I am a specialist photographer in that virtually everything I take is related to my interests, so virtually all my pictures are of planes, birds, insects and a few trains, all of which have a habit of moving. I take some holiday snaps mainly with the Panny 14-140 which I really like but to be quite honest a P&S like my other half's TZ would serve me perfectly adequately. The Zuiko 70-300 suffered a bit from hunting and the 100-300 didn't hunt as badly but it did let me down sometimes with not locking the focus. The other noticeable failing of the 100-300 was that if I lost a moving subject, I could say goodbye to the shot. (more of that later).

The 100-400 is magnificent, and carries the price tag to match. I would love to get one at some point, but find it hard to justify for both its outrageous price and its size. On the other hand, I am not a specialist like yourself and so it probably does not have the same appeal for me.

I found your comments regarding the 100-300 interesting though, as I own that lens and the G7 with DFD. My impression so far is that the G7 AF with the 100-300 is night and day better than previous bodies. Lightning quick and pretty much deadly accurate. Again, I am not trying to shoot BIF or anything like that. I have the GX85 coming in tomorrow and so will be comparing the DFD on both bodies to see how they handle that lens as it is a fantastic nature lens.

I did take the G7 and 100-300 to see a Blue Jays game last weekend and shot from the third base side about 21 rows up. Had a fantastic time with the 100-300 and probably would have gone nuts with the 100-400, although my guess is that I would have had it confiscated as there is no way to squeeze that monster into those seats without taking someone's head off every time you swing to a different angle.

http://letkeman.net/SnapShots/index.php?f=Ottawa_Area_Events/Jays_Indians_3July2016

Good shots by the way ... especially the first aircraft shot. The lighting really caught my eye in that one. Superb. The Horse fly is excellent as well. The advantage of shooting with these longer lenses is the excellent working distance.

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

After a month of ownership, I thought a review might be in order. It's a long time since I have done one of these so bear with me if Its not as professional as some.

History: I have owned the Zuiko 70-300 and the Panny 100-400 and while both were excellent value for money, the 100-400 is in a different class. I am a specialist photographer in that virtually everything I take is related to my interests, so virtually all my pictures are of planes, birds, insects and a few trains, all of which have a habit of moving. I take some holiday snaps mainly with the Panny 14-140 which I really like but to be quite honest a P&S like my other half's TZ would serve me perfectly adequately. The Zuiko 70-300 suffered a bit from hunting and the 100-300 didn't hunt as badly but it did let me down sometimes with not locking the focus. The other noticeable failing of the 100-300 was that if I lost a moving subject, I could say goodbye to the shot. (more of that later).

The 100-400 is magnificent, and carries the price tag to match. I would love to get one at some point, but find it hard to justify for both its outrageous price and its size. On the other hand, I am not a specialist like yourself and so it probably does not have the same appeal for me.

I found your comments regarding the 100-300 interesting though, as I own that lens and the G7 with DFD. My impression so far is that the G7 AF with the 100-300 is night and day better than previous bodies. Lightning quick and pretty much deadly accurate. Again, I am not trying to shoot BIF or anything like that. I have the GX85 coming in tomorrow and so will be comparing the DFD on both bodies to see how they handle that lens as it is a fantastic nature lens.

I did take the G7 and 100-300 to see a Blue Jays game last weekend and shot from the third base side about 21 rows up. Had a fantastic time with the 100-300 and probably would have gone nuts with the 100-400, although my guess is that I would have had it confiscated as there is no way to squeeze that monster into those seats without taking someone's head off every time you swing to a different angle.

http://letkeman.net/SnapShots/index.php?f=Ottawa_Area_Events/Jays_Indians_3July2016

Good shots by the way ... especially the first aircraft shot. The lighting really caught my eye in that one. Superb. The Horse fly is excellent as well. The advantage of shooting with these longer lenses is the excellent working distance.

I agree that the G7's DFD and added AF drive "oomph" does get the best out of the 100-300mm. The G7 nails focus for static & slow moving targets using the a small centre AF box way, way better than my GM5 does with the 100-300mm.

However, if you try tracking something moving at bit faster with the FL between 200-300mm (AFS or AFC doesn't seem to make a difference), you'll notice it utterly lose focus and not regain it until you zoom out and give it something nearby the tatget to focus on.

I found this particularly troublesome trying to focus on the grey RAF aircraft against an overcast sky for the Trooping The Colour fly past the other week.

In other news, Trevor is making it very difficult for me not to buy myself a 100-400mm even though it will only get occasional use. As I spent 20 years carrying a 10-12 pound shotgun around at clay shooting events, I think I'll cope with the extra weight somehow.

Great review and pics Trevor, unfortunately i'm still waiting for delivery, oh well, shouldn't be much longer

Mwing wrote:

i use g7 too, the iq and focus is night and day between 100-300 and 100-400, i would say it is worth the upgrade even it is 1.2k more expensive

Lol ... of course it is better in every way. The fat wallets don't have much of a decision to make, do they?

The difference for me in Canada is actually 2k+ (or more, depending on the used market for the 100-300) because I already have the 100-300 and Panny charge an arm and a leg here even before sales taxes.

Excellent pictures!

Did you use electronic shutter on any of the still pictures?

Hen3ry wrote:

Excellent review, Trevor, great supporting pix -- and now you have pumped up my GAS again!!!

As Katy and others have said, top, top pix but that first one is just plain lovely! Talk about a picture for the wall -- a picture which is an antidote for modern life. The first of the aircraft taking off pix stands out too -- really captures a feeling of brute force.

Now, a technical question, the horse fly. How did you get that magnification?

I don't remember but probably ex tele 1.4

-- hide signature --

Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://rabaulpng.com/we-are-all-traveling-throug/i-waited-51-years-for-tavur.html

tef68 wrote:

Excellent pictures!

Did you use electronic shutter on any of the still pictures?

sometimes, but I don't think about it much.  I might switch when I'm taking insects at lower shutter speeds but I'm likely to forget and don't really see any difference.

doccy wrote:

klythawk wrote:

Great review and pics Trevor, unfortunately i'm still waiting for delivery, oh well, shouldn't be much longer

Who did you order from? Mine was mathers in the UK. Jan.

I ordered one from Amazon June 26th, expected dispatch July 16th

I have to agree, the Olympus ZD 150mm ƒ2.0 is the best lens I have ever used also.

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

Excellent review, Trevor, great supporting pix -- and now you have pumped up my GAS again!!!

As Katy and others have said, top, top pix but that first one is just plain lovely! Talk about a picture for the wall -- a picture which is an antidote for modern life. The first of the aircraft taking off pix stands out too -- really captures a feeling of brute force.

Now, a technical question, the horse fly. How did you get that magnification?

I don't remember but probably ex tele 1.4

…the lens's natural close focusing plus a little cropping.

THAT'S GREAT (but makes te GAS even worse). <sob!>

Heh, heh.

Photo Pete wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

Summary: This lens puts m4/3s into a completely different ball game. If you shoot the sort of things that I do, sell your grandmothers jewellery to get it. It is heavy but not compared to any competition. It is expensive but again, is it really alongside comparable competition. I love it!

My Galleries are at
my albums are at https://picasaweb.google.com/115423645123114525430
latest birds at https://goo.gl/photos/BTSxVgizqVtVFSDg6

That's just unfair. I thought I'd finally decided to stick with the 75-300 but this post has brought on the 100-400 lust again.... and I've already sold my grandmother's jewellery to buy the 40-150!

I am 100% with you Pete. J-u-s-t---b-l-o-o-d-y---u-n-f-a-i-r! But it is good to see a bloke of Tervor's talent pulling great stuff out of the bag with a lens like this. I’m happy for him and I am happy to see his excellent+++ pix.

AND they are clearly a step up from the excellent pix he used to show from the 100-300.

If only you and I had this lens we could take pictures just like Trevor's! ROFL!

Oh, and a G7.