PL 100-300 versus PL 100-400 zooms

jeffharris wrote:

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!

At the risk of hijacking, one of my fellow shooters *added* the 12-100 to his 12-40. The 12-100 is pretty much always on his camera until he needs the 2.8, which is why he added vs replaced (plus he never sells off gear. He speaks of it in glowing terms...

bradevans wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

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!

At the risk of hijacking, one of my fellow shooters *added* the 12-100 to his 12-40. The 12-100 is pretty much always on his camera until he needs the 2.8, which is why he added vs replaced (plus he never sells off gear. He speaks of it in glowing terms...

There are too many very good, yet overlapping zooms!

Impulses wrote:

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...

My thoughts exactly. Still waiting for a competitor to the O75/1.8 or any >50mm stabilized prime really. All their primes are excellent and reasonably priced, yet they keep making zoom after zoom, after zzz...

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.

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?

Short answer. 100-300mm must be stopped down to f7.1 or f8 to yield acceptable results that are comparable to 100-400.

With Leica you can shoot wide open at f4 (at 100mm) or f6.3 (at 400mm) and get perfect results.

Leica can outperform Pana, if you know what you are doing.

But Pana can come very close to Leica, if you can shoot it at f7.1 or f8.

jeffharris wrote:

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.

The 50-200 does indeed seem VERY interesting. Generally - the whole 2.8-4 lineup is very very interesting. The 50-200, if small enough, could replace my 35-100/2.8 entirely, although I suspect it might not be small enough for that. Nonetheless, for most traveling needs, I suspect the 50-200 could replace taking both 35-100 and 100-400 and that would be huge. In any case - we still need to wait.

I'm still on the fence on the 8-18 and 12-60...

Stejo wrote:

Impulses wrote:

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...

My thoughts exactly. Still waiting for a competitor to the O75/1.8 or any >50mm stabilized prime really. All their primes are excellent and reasonably priced, yet they keep making zoom after zoom, after zzz...

That's why adapting lenses is a big part of M4/3. Rather than waiting and bemoaning a dearth of native lenses, ADAPT!

My 75mm is a Voigtländer 75mm f2.5, M39 screwmount. I've been considering a Jupiter 9 (85mm f1.8). Adapted Leica mount rangefinder lenses are much smaller than Nikon and other typical SLR or DSLR lenses.

jeffharris wrote:

Stejo wrote:

Impulses wrote:

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...

My thoughts exactly. Still waiting for a competitor to the O75/1.8 or any >50mm stabilized prime really. All their primes are excellent and reasonably priced, yet they keep making zoom after zoom, after zzz...

That's why adapting lenses is a big part of M4/3. Rather than waiting and bemoaning a dearth of native lenses, ADAPT!

My 75mm is a Voigtländer 75mm f2.5, M39 screwmount. I've been considering a Jupiter 9 (85mm f1.8). Adapted Leica mount rangefinder lenses are much smaller than Nikon and other typical SLR or DSLR lenses.

Yea well, there's the excellent Samyang 85/1.4 if you wanna go down that road, but I'd be willing to pay for a native stabilized and hopefully weather sealed prime. No AF is a serious problem for these longer focals and so is stabilization. And I don't plan on upgrading to a stabilized body just yet.

Good as the O75/1.8 might be, I just can't justify its price for sharpness alone. $900 for no OIS and no WS is way south of good value in my book. But anyway, that's way off subject for this thread, apologies.

I use the first version of the Lumix 100-300mm. For anything longer than 600mm (35mm) I use my Nikon P-900 which zooms to 2000mm optical. It is  a point and shoot but it works for me.

I just sold my Canon 100-400mm after almost 15 years of ownership. My days with long, huge, expensive, heavy lenses are over.

I get shots I could never get before because they are just too far away.

Lumix 100-300 on E-M1

P-900 at 2000mm (35mm)

Another at zoom end on P-900.

KwhyChang wrote:

I use the first version of the Lumix 100-300mm. For anything longer than 600mm (35mm) I use my Nikon P-900 which zooms to 2000mm optical. It is a point and shoot but it works for me.

For each his own. But the samples you posted here are noticeably soft and missing details even when viewing them just in the post (and much more so if viewing increased). For some this is fine, but I prefer my shots to have more POP to them, and the 100-400 gives that in comparison to the Pana 100-300 or Olly 75-300.

I just sold my Canon 100-400mm after almost 15 years of ownership. My days with long, huge, expensive, heavy lenses are over.

That's legit, though the PanaLeica 100-400 is noticeably smaller and lighter than the Canon 100-400, and the EM1+100-400 is for sure noticeably lighter than lets say a 7D+100-400, let alone you get 800mm FoV vs 640mm FoV.

I get shots I could never get before because they are just too far away.

Well - that depends what is your goal. If you want to document birds at great distance, then yes, the coolpix with its 2000mm zoom would do. But if you want to create amazing shots - then it's not. the IQ is just not there and the images look flat.

For comparison - a shot @400mm with the 100-400:

I have the 100-300 II and it's plenty sharp at 300mm f/5.6 for my use.  Just my opinion.

The 'shortcoming' of MFT is the sensor size comparing to FF, so lower aperture capability is more important to get 'equivalent IQ' of FF.  200mm f4  will hopefully close to my 400mm f5.6 on Canon FF as I can use lower ISO for the same  speed for birding.

PW M43 wrote:

Having taken my 45-200 to a cricket match last week and being happy with the 200-end performance but not the reach, might somebody post some full-size shots with the 100-300 at 300 (preferably for me at f/6.3 to take the edge off the open-aperture softness) so we can see if it's as bad as people say.

Here's about 63 pages worth:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-100-300mm-f-4-5-6.7871/

Look for posts by "klythawk." He is a master at getting sharp images from the 100-300, even at 300mm and f/5.6.

I have the 100-300 and have been very pleased with it. I'd love to upgrade to the 100-400, but none of the images I've seen from it so far have impressed me $1,800 worth.

Cimarron wrote:

Here's about 63 pages worth:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-100-300mm-f-4-5-6.7871/

Look for posts by "klythawk." He is a master at getting sharp images from the 100-300, even at 300mm and f/5.6.

I have the 100-300 and have been very pleased with it. I'd love to upgrade to the 100-400, but none of the images I've seen from it so far have impressed me $1,800 worth.

Cool - thanks for the link!

A lot of the important trade-offs have been covered well in other posts. However, here's an eye-opener to me. If you NEED to shoot long (wildlife, birding, ...) just count the pixels on target.

I just upgraded to an E-M1 II (20 mpx) from E-M5 (16 mpx), and to the 100-400 from my 75-300. I get now 2.2 times the pixels on target with distant objects. If you are just upgrading from a 300 mm lens to a 400 mm lens, you are still betting about 1.8 times the pixels on target. 300 to 400 sounds minimal. It is not.

The other thing that is most obvious to me from my first-days of shooting is the image stabilization. For the first time, it seems plausible to me (though I haven't decided) that I will be able to shoot hand-held in critical out-in-the-field situations (think safari). For non-critical shooting (walk-about), I've already changed to hand-held.

If you don't need to shoot significantly distant targets, you don't have to think about these issues. For me, it is life changing.

Cimarron wrote:

PW M43 wrote:

Having taken my 45-200 to a cricket match last week and being happy with the 200-end performance but not the reach, might somebody post some full-size shots with the 100-300 at 300 (preferably for me at f/6.3 to take the edge off the open-aperture softness) so we can see if it's as bad as people say.

Here's about 63 pages worth:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-100-300mm-f-4-5-6.7871/

Look for posts by "klythawk." He is a master at getting sharp images from the 100-300, even at 300mm and f/5.6.

I have the 100-300 and have been very pleased with it. I'd love to upgrade to the 100-400, but none of the images I've seen from it so far have impressed me $1,800 worth.

I can't say that images (alone) from the 100-400 can justify the ~$1200 upgrade. If i had the 100-300 II first I don't know if i would have bought the 1000-4000.

A lot of jump is in the *performance* as opposed to image quality.  But first you have to get the shot. (all comments refer to 100-300 Version 1, one of the oldest m43 lenses)

the 100-300 can make you nuts with its focus hunting, 100-400 AF is soooo fast

the 100-300 needs to be stopped down to 6.3 or 7.1 to be sharp. Not so on 100-400

100-300 many people bought a tripod collar. 100-400 comes with mount on lens

100-300 has some stabilization.  100-400 has a better version

burst rate on 100-300 not even close to that on 100-400

I suspect the 100-300 II improves many of the faults of the first version.

boxerman wrote:

The other thing that is most obvious to me from my first-days of shooting is the image stabilization. For the first time, it seems plausible to me (though I haven't decided) that I will be able to shoot hand-held in critical out-in-the-field situations (think safari). For non-critical shooting (walk-about), I've already changed to hand-held.

Yeah - the IS on this is mindblowing. A friend of mine (with pretty stable hands) came over and we were checking out my lens indoors. He was able to get completley acceptably sharp images handheld @ 400mm at 1/4 sec.... I was able to get similar results at 1/8sec. Insane.

I shot this through an entire safari in Africa without ever taking out my tripod. I've only used my tripod with my 9-18 for long exposure landscape shots.

I did try to lean on the car's window for extra stability, and generally shot 1/50 or shorter, but still - amazingly impressive results.

slartz wrote:

Yeah - the IS on this is mindblowing. A friend of mine (with pretty stable hands) came over and we were checking out my lens indoors. He was able to get completley acceptably sharp images handheld @ 400mm at 1/4 sec.... I was able to get similar results at 1/8sec. Insane.

I shot this through an entire safari in Africa without ever taking out my tripod. I've only used my tripod with my 9-18 for long exposure landscape shots.

I did try to lean on the car's window for extra stability, and generally shot 1/50 or shorter, but still - amazingly impressive results.

Thanks for your testimonial. It gives me courage that things will change in a very important part of my photography. I used to be pretty practiced and attentive to stabilizing myself with long lenses. I seem to be a little less capable and less careful now, even if setting my feet carefully and holding my breath on shutter release are still habitual. I haven't tested my limits, but neither have I seen a single shot that has been noticeably damaged by motion. Focusing is different. It's enough more critical than the 75-300 that some more practice and attention will be required. I need to do some depth-of-field calculations to help figure out what's what, here. I do think the "small" focus point is a bit too large on the E-M1 II. It's larger than my old E-M5. I hope something can be done with that in firmware upgrades, but I realize the new sensor technology may limit how much it can be shrunk.

PW M43 wrote:

bradevans wrote:

I can't say that images (alone) from the 100-400 can justify the ~$1200 upgrade. If i had the 100-300 II first I don't know if i would have bought the 1000-4000.

Now that'swhat I call a long lens!

(Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

Hah, and he did it twice... I'd settle for a 1,000 prime.

No but seriously, what are the chances we'll ever get a tele prime between 75 & 300... Seems like kind of an odd gap, except I'm guessing anything past 150mm would end up being f2.8 or slower to keep size down, and there's all kinds of overlap with existing and upcoming zooms at those focal lengths and apertures.

At least there's the 50-200 f2.8-4 to look forward to... Might be an interesting alternative to the 100-300 II with a lower price than the 100-400, granted with a range sacrifice.