Olympus 100-400mm/5.0-6.3 IS - my review

DeathArrow wrote:

Petr Bambousek wrote:

DeathArrow wrote:

IQ is poor. Either the lens lacks sharpness or it's because of denoising. Can you share a full size image?

LOL I love m43 haters Feel free to open my article, you will find package of full res images. Based on your anti-m43 feeling I don't expect will find anything interesting on those pictures either. But enjoy

I don't see any hate. I've just seen two low quality low res pictures posted here.

It's hard to take you seriously, though. When you so blatantly ignore the contents of the article just so you could bash Olympus one more time (seems to be your pastime).

You're not fooling anyone here.

Petr Bambousek wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

Amazing shots as always, Petr.

Do I understand it correctly that you are saying that this lens is not offering Sync-IS with Olympus bodies? Or that the Sync-IS did not work as well as other lenses? Could that have to do with this being pre-production?

It is not IS synchro lens at all. I thought it was just sample lens "feature" but it is not officially synchronized (don't ask me why 😂).

I wish Olympus was better at communicating important details on their products

So this lens does not have Sync-IS. But it turns out that its optical IS works together with camera IBIS if both are enabled. It's just that IBIS will stabilize two axes while OIS will stabilize one. In comparison, Sync-IS is 5-axis.

Alas, requires firmware update (this is how I learned about this)

Probably makes no difference to E-M1 series users. When I used Panasonic 100-400 on my E-M1 II, I preferred using IBIS and I was able to get crazy long exposures with it (like 1/20s at 400mm). On my Panasonic 100-300 II, I never use OIS as I find IBIS to be more reliable. I guess video will be the area where lack of Sync-IS will be felt the most. Videos shot with 300 PRO using Sync-IS are crazy stable.

Very informative. Thank you for uploading full res samples, it's great to see them in full glory. nice demonstration of what this lens can do in capable hands.

Petr Bambousek wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Not up to your usual standard I'd say.

I processed the image in the same way as usual, I struggled with e.g. Laughtingthrush as there are lot of structures and it is hard to keep them all on this reduced sized images. This is also reason why I attached 27 full res pictures free to download.

I've just got around to looking at the full rez jpgs, I'd love to see the .orf files, the jpgs are already more than acceptable - thanks for taking the time to review and share

Raist3d wrote:

Of course under a camera with more minimum closer distance it will appear bigger Duh That’s not what I am talking about

Minimum focus distance is the same for both.

talking about this

”But what surprised me was the difference between the two zooms. If you compared the size of the photographed object to a focal length of 400 mm with the mentioned lenses, then each is different from the same distance. With the Panasonic 100-400, the object is smaller and corresponds roughly to what the 342mm focal length looks like on the Olympus 100-400.”

This is exactly what mirrorlesscomparisons found and illustrated in their article:

Both brands mention 1.3m as the minimum focus distance for these lenses but the magnification is higher on the Olympus

Might this be down to non-linear zoom progression leading to misleading/inaccurate focal length scales on the lens barrel?

windmillgolfer wrote:

Might this be down to non-linear zoom progression leading to misleading/inaccurate focal length scales on the lens barrel?

No. Both were set to 400mm and there's no difference in field of view at "infinity" focus.

I think the word is ‘troller’ but we get your drift

Quite.

Don't waste your time feeding them, Petr.
99% people here are bored to death with their pathetic drivel. Let’s just get back to enjoying our photography (and especially yours).

Weegee wrote:

.........and only a few people like Petr will use it correctly. The up-coming 150-400mm will be a Formula 1 car and this 100-400mm is a Corvette. How many of you could get decent lap times on a track with the Corvette? Buy it and enjoy it!

Your car analogy is false because these are not cars. Nor is decent lap time an equivalent of enjoying photography.

I have preordered this lens and am looking forward to using it. Hopefully it won't have the QC problems of the Panny 100-400 and be an improvement over that lens. Even if a person owns the PL they may consider upgrading. Or not.

Choices are good for consumers. No need to be hysterical about it, or take a lens-release announcement personally.

Raist3d wrote:

Hi Petr- it seems mirrorless comparisons doesn’t find the difference in magnification you pointed out in your comparisons both lenses seem to deliver 400m (800m FF equivalent )

mirrorlesscomprisons- can’t paste link at the moment, look for their article)

I wonder what’s going on in your finding maybe you left a tele converter on camera by accident?

I can’t imagine this would be due to lens copy variance

Hi, I am pretty sure no TC was attached You can really see the difference at short focusing distance and than it diappears on infinity. As I noticed several replies to your comment already confirm that as well as MC web site, so just let you know I am confident with that observation

Read your review article, fantastic write up with stellar images to boot!

Cheers

Doxa750 wrote:

Read your review article, fantastic write up with stellar images to boot!

Cheers

Thank you 😉👍

I love your article and enjoy viewing the full resolution photos.