PL 100-300 versus PL 100-400 zooms

Looking for insights (well, opinions, preferably based on actual hands-on experience) on these two zooms.  I haven't seen a comparison, which surprises me a bit (pointers to any appreciated).

Sure, the PL 100-400 gets you an extra 100mm, and it comes with the Leica moniker.  It's also over $1000 more expensive (where I live), it's large and heavy (quite a bit more than the 100-300) , and it's a bit slower (f4.0-6.3), relative to the 100-300 (f4-5.6) too.

The 100-300 is less painful to buy, faster, is significantly lighter and more compact.  And yes, has 100mm less reach.

The 100-300 is newer and comes with support for latest stabilization magic; I assume the 100-400 can get that same level of IS support with a firmware update.

On a basic level, it looks to me like the trade-off is, how badly you really want that extra 100mm (and your willingness to pay 2.5X the price for it).

I can imagine that for lots of wildlife shooting - especially when mounted to a tripod - the extra length of the 100-400 is appealing, albeit that comes with some trade-offs.  But otherwise, for hand-held shots, where there's action (eg BIF especially), if you can live without that last 100mm of zoom, the 100-300 sounds more appealing to me.

But I'm probably missing something important (wouldn't be the first time!) - am I?  What?

Image quality? Ability to focus quickly?  How do the two compare there?  Other distinctions I'm missing?

Thanks for your insights.

fft2000 wrote:

Just want to add that the 100-300 is older concerning optics, the MARK II just added faster AF, Power OIS and weather sealing (which MIGHT put it on par with the 100-400 in that regard). From what I saw the 300mm of the 100-300 also look weaker than the 300mm of the 100-400 (and even the 400mm, but that might be personal bias as I own the 100-400 ;))

Yep, the lens design of the 100-300mm MK2 is unchanged (possibly improved coatings) from the 2010 MK1 version.

Having owned the MK1 version and the 100-400mm, here's the advantages of the 100-400mm I experienced when I used both lenses on my G7.

- Instant and accurate AF every time. No hunting for focus (especially is poor contrast conditions) and no near misses.

- Tracking AF is actually useable. I gave up on this with the 100-300mm as once AF was lost, it almost never recovered focus despite the subject bing kept squarely inside the AF area selected. The 100-400mm not only holds tracking focus well, it recovers focus reliably with you having to release the shutter button and re-acquire the subject yourself.

- The 100-400mm is noticeably sharper wide open throughout its range, especially at the long end, where the 100-300mm needed to be stopped down to f7.1 to be acceptably sharp.

Terminal Boy wrote:

Yep, the lens design of the 100-300mm MK2 is unchanged (possibly improved coatings) from the 2010 MK1 version.

Having owned the MK1 version and the 100-400mm, here's the advantages of the 100-400mm I experienced when I used both lenses on my G7.

- Instant and accurate AF every time. No hunting for focus (especially is poor contrast conditions) and no near misses.

- Tracking AF is actually useable. I gave up on this with the 100-300mm as once AF was lost, it almost never recovered focus despite the subject bing kept squarely inside the AF area selected. The 100-400mm not only holds tracking focus well, it recovers focus reliably with you having to release the shutter button and re-acquire the subject yourself.

- The 100-400mm is noticeably sharper wide open throughout its range, especially at the long end, where the 100-300mm needed to be stopped down to f7.1 to be acceptably sharp.

Very interesting.

I wonder to what extent the newer version of the 100-300 (when mated to a newer body supporting all the latest IS mojo) would fare...ie how much of a difference between your experience (which clearly favors the 100-400...which is the opposite of what I would have expected).

Thanks for those insights.

All nice theory but ignores the core diff.

The 100-300 has consumer optics and the 100-400 has premium optics.

The 100-300 gets pretty soft over 200mm. Is it horrible? No. But its definitely felt. At 300 you can clearly see the softness in pics.

The 100-400 is of course noticeably sharper at 300 (in fact it is very sharp) but even at 400mm it is sharper than the 100-300 @ 300mm.

Faster? Don't make me laugh. It is 6.3 cause it reaches 400.

The 100-400 is better built. Has insanely good IS, extremely good AF, and above all has superior optics.

Does it justify 3x price? That's your call. Does the 12-60/2.8-4 justify 3x the price of the 12-50/3.5-5.6? It doesn't even have more each. Just barely a stop better.

Premium optics is expensive. Some fine it justifiable. Some don't. But don't undersell the diff. The 100-300 is a pretty decent consume Tele lens offering good value for money and an incredible range in a small size package, though in practice it is mostly usable to 200-250 range. The 100-400 is the ultimate wildlife lens for m43 with premium options that justify the cost.

Pick what suits you.

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Christof

I haven't seen a really good test, review, or comparison either (tho I haven't been looking very hard). It's hard to quantify how much the 100-300 II improved without some hard data, still this thread full of subjective impressions might be of use:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59442466

Seems like the mechanics of it were really brought up to par... I'd been dreaming of the PL100-400 but for the use I'll give it (handheld in good light by the beach or on a solid tripod at other times) I've started looking at the 100-300 II again.

I've no doubt the PL's optics are better, but I've used a 100-300 and I was satisfied with it's IQ, it's AF speed was another matter entirely. If I end up with version II I'll definitely borrow the original for a comparison, but with the PL 8-18 on order that'll be a while.

CrisPhoto wrote:

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Thanks for the link - very helpful!

fft2000 wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Old video, old 100-300 lens OIS was one important fix in the MARK II (Got Power OIS instead of MEGA OIS, enables Dual IS 2), besides having faster AF an weather resistance.

Yeah, just noted how long ago that was posted.

Would love to see an updated comparison...

take a look here:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4128957638/albums/pana-lumix-100-300-ii

or look for other galleries of the 100-300

Here's a pretty good comparison of the 100-300 vs 100-400 among other things. It's the mk1 though, but it should be irrelevant for this test which happens on tripod and manually focused.

Yes, the 100-300 seems noticeably softer at 300. But the 100-400 seems noticeably heavier and pricier throughout the range. Tough call.

lowflyerguy wrote:

Looking for insights (well, opinions, preferably based on actual hands-on experience) on these two zooms. I haven't seen a comparison, which surprises me a bit (pointers to any appreciated).

Sure, the PL 100-400 gets you an extra 100mm, and it comes with the Leica moniker. It's also over $1000 more expensive (where I live), it's large and heavy (quite a bit more than the 100-300) , and it's a bit slower (f4.0-6.3), relative to the 100-300 (f4-5.6) too.

100-400 is f4 to f5.6 over the 100-300 range. So it is not slower.

The 100-300 is less painful to buy, faster, is significantly lighter and more compact. And yes, has 100mm less reach.

It has less good IQ most of all...You forgot that it seems. From what I read the AF is still not as good, zoomring hasn't changed and that is seriously bad.

The 100-300 is newer and comes with support for latest stabilization magic; I assume the 100-400 can get that same level of IS support with a firmware update.

The 100-400 has stabilisation in the lens that is beyond belief so good. I have and EM1.2 so no DualIS there...It is rock steady, lens only. And it support DualIS on Panny bodies.

On a basic level, it looks to me like the trade-off is, how badly you really want that extra 100mm (and your willingness to pay 2.5X the price for it).

How bad do you want better IQ (sharper, better colours etcetc).

I can imagine that for lots of wildlife shooting - especially when mounted to a tripod - the extra length of the 100-400 is appealing, albeit that comes with some trade-offs. But otherwise, for hand-held shots, where there's action (eg BIF especially), if you can live without that last 100mm of zoom, the 100-300 sounds more appealing to me.

But I'm probably missing something important (wouldn't be the first time!) - am I? What?

Image quality? Ability to focus quickly? How do the two compare there? Other distinctions I'm missing?

Thanks for your insights.

In short in both cases you get what you pay for if you ask me. So it is every bit more expensive as it delivers more performance wise.

fft2000 wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Old video, old 100-300 lens OIS was one important fix in the MARK II (Got Power OIS instead of MEGA OIS, enables Dual IS 2), besides having faster AF an weather resistance.

Yes, but do you have a reference at hand how good it is in reality?

My 14-140 II lens has "PowerOIS" too. But it is newhere as good as my camera's IBIS.

Unless we have a reasonable review, we only know that the new 100-300 is somewhere between the old 100-300 and the expensive 100-400. Sure it is not better, I doubt that Pana makes the consumer lens is better than the PanaLeica lens.

Christof

CrisPhoto wrote:

fft2000 wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Old video, old 100-300 lens OIS was one important fix in the MARK II (Got Power OIS instead of MEGA OIS, enables Dual IS 2), besides having faster AF an weather resistance.

Yes, but do you have a reference at hand how good it is in reality?

My 14-140 II lens has "PowerOIS" too. But it is newhere as good as my camera's IBIS.

Unless we have a reasonable review, we only know that the new 100-300 is somewhere between the old 100-300 and the expensive 100-400. Sure it is not better, I doubt that Pana makes the consumer lens is better than the PanaLeica lens.

The only improvements in the updated 100-300mm are modern mechanics (focus speed and accuracy, better images stabilization and weather sealing). Optically it's unchanged.

I used a 100-300mm for about 5 years and it's a fine lens for the price. I also added a $100 Rösch Feinmechanik tripod collar from Germany. There were quite a few tricks to learn to squeeze the best out of it, like shooting at f7.1 at all times. The 100-400mm is a markedly better lens, but also has a learning curve. Whether it's worth the extra $$$ for better overall optical performance and more reach, is the big question.

I could see having both. The 100-300mm requires less of a commitment to carry. For some travel where weight and bag size is a big issue, the 100-300mm is very appealing. The 100-400mm is a lot heavier and requires more precious pack space!

jeffharris wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

fft2000 wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Old video, old 100-300 lens OIS was one important fix in the MARK II (Got Power OIS instead of MEGA OIS, enables Dual IS 2), besides having faster AF an weather resistance.

Yes, but do you have a reference at hand how good it is in reality?

My 14-140 II lens has "PowerOIS" too. But it is newhere as good as my camera's IBIS.

Unless we have a reasonable review, we only know that the new 100-300 is somewhere between the old 100-300 and the expensive 100-400. Sure it is not better, I doubt that Pana makes the consumer lens is better than the PanaLeica lens.

The only improvements in the updated 100-300mm are modern mechanics (focus speed and accuracy, better images stabilization and weather sealing). Optically it's unchanged.

I used a 100-300mm for about 5 years and it's a fine lens for the price. I also added a $100 Rösch Feinmechanik tripod collar from Germany. There were quite a few tricks to learn to squeeze the best out of it, like shooting at f7.1 at all times. The 100-400mm is a markedly better lens, but also has a learning curve. Whether it's worth the extra $$$ for better overall optical performance and more reach, is the big question.

I could see having both. The 100-300mm requires less of a commitment to carry. For some travel where weight and bag size is a big issue, the 100-300mm is very appealing. The 100-400mm is a lot heavier and requires more precious pack space!

Then there's the upcoming 50-200... Seems like Panasonic won't rest until they've exhausted every possible tele zoom permutation. Maybe they'll actually do a prime at some point...

Impulses wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

fft2000 wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Besides the better sharpness and contrast, 100-400 offers a much improved OIS implementation. With a lens in this focal range, you will for sure need an excellent IS mechanism unless you are ALWAYS shooting in bright sunlight.

This OIS is much better then my OMD's IBIS, which is hard to beat. Don't know how the 100-300 mark II behaves, but when I tried mark I, the old OIS was a joke compared to any OMD IBIS (even first EM5 was better) ...

Mathieu from mirrorlessons made a very god review, and a youtube video too:

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

Old video, old 100-300 lens OIS was one important fix in the MARK II (Got Power OIS instead of MEGA OIS, enables Dual IS 2), besides having faster AF an weather resistance.

Yes, but do you have a reference at hand how good it is in reality?

My 14-140 II lens has "PowerOIS" too. But it is newhere as good as my camera's IBIS.

Unless we have a reasonable review, we only know that the new 100-300 is somewhere between the old 100-300 and the expensive 100-400. Sure it is not better, I doubt that Pana makes the consumer lens is better than the PanaLeica lens.

The only improvements in the updated 100-300mm are modern mechanics (focus speed and accuracy, better images stabilization and weather sealing). Optically it's unchanged.

I used a 100-300mm for about 5 years and it's a fine lens for the price. I also added a $100 Rösch Feinmechanik tripod collar from Germany. There were quite a few tricks to learn to squeeze the best out of it, like shooting at f7.1 at all times. The 100-400mm is a markedly better lens, but also has a learning curve. Whether it's worth the extra $$$ for better overall optical performance and more reach, is the big question.

I could see having both. The 100-300mm requires less of a commitment to carry. For some travel where weight and bag size is a big issue, the 100-300mm is very appealing. The 100-400mm is a lot heavier and requires more precious pack space!

Then there's the upcoming 50-200... Seems like Panasonic won't rest until they've exhausted every possible tele zoom permutation. Maybe they'll actually do a prime at some point...

The 50-200mm looks VERY intriguing! I was batting around the idea of swapping the 12-40mm for a 12-100mm. I mostly use the 12-40mm during the day at f5.6, but there have been a few times where I've been forced to use it at night, in bad weather instead of my fast primes. The wider aperture, over f4, was MUCH appreciated!

The 50-200mm would give more range, slightly better aperture and OIS with DUAL-IS support.