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

DLBlack wrote:

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

Thank you 😉✌

Jan Chelminski wrote:

This looks like an excellent ('for what it is') one to consider!

I've been working a 300mm f/6.3 Tokina mirror for years and have been waiting for an appropriate 'upgrade'.

Early shot w E-M1.2

recently on 1X

I could see going out on hikes/kayaking, etc, with just this lens, mounted on the 1X, the 200-800mm EFL range is just about perfect.

Thanks for sharing, as you can, a quite excellent representation of some possible results from it, and also your data and some thoughts on the new lens, I find it all very helpful.

Rgds,

Jan

Thank you, for your words 😉 Hope new lens meet your expectations ✌😉

Thank you Petr for a thoroughly detailed and informative review.

Thank goodness you are doing proper testing for us to learn from.

I have spent the day looking at reviews and full resolution photos from this lens.  Your review was one of the best reviews.  It does look to be a good lens for a consumer level lens. I already own the 40-150/2.8, the 300/4.0, and the MC14 and MC20. So I got the long end covered. I like that I could pair the 100-400/5.0-6.3 with the 12-100/4.0 to have a great range of focal lengths in two lenses for casual hikes where serious photography is not the objective. Currently I am doing this with the 12-100/4.0 and the MC20 on the 40-150/2.8. With this combo I am always wishing for a little bit more focal length.

Anyhow, it looks to be a good lens and it is great to have so many good choices. Maybe I will pre-order it in the next few days.

Petr Bambousek wrote:

Jan Chelminski wrote:

This looks like an excellent ('for what it is') one to consider!

I've been working a 300mm f/6.3 Tokina mirror for years and have been waiting for an appropriate 'upgrade'.

I could see going out on hikes/kayaking, etc, with just this lens, mounted on the 1X, the 200-800mm EFL range is just about perfect.

Thanks for sharing, as you can, a quite excellent representation of some possible results from it, and also your data and some thoughts on the new lens, I find it all very helpful.

Rgds,

Jan

Thank you, for your words 😉 Hope new lens meet your expectations ✌😉

I also enjoyed the review. Very informative and I also thought the pictures were nice as well. The critical comments above by some are downright ridiculous and base-less!

Great job. I’m very interested in this lens and your review has been one of the best thus far.

thank you!

i found your review to be interesting, informative and to the point - thanks Petr !

I use the Zuiko 300mm F2.8 for bird photography (E-M1 II and III) and neither the 300mm F4 Pro or the announced 150-400mm F4.5 hold much interest for me. But this new 100-400mm may end up being my second m.43 lens. Combined with the 12-100mm F4 it might make a nice compact set for general photography when I'm not specifically looking for birds or when I'm constrained by size/weight.

I'll wait until the JIP takeover is complete and see how the future is panning out before making a decision.

Hopefully Olympus can give you some more time with the lens and we can get to see what you can do with it in the 'wild'

thanks again

Peter

acfo wrote:

Petr Bambousek wrote:

acfo wrote:

Petr Bambousek wrote:

Joe Lynch wrote:

Thanks for the review, Petr. I'm spoiled with the 300f4 so I will probably hold out for the 150-400 Pro lens, but this one looks much better for the current market than I could have hoped for. Very encouraging to see Olympus release new hardware. Maybe a substantial 1X firmware update is coming after all. Best to you, and keep up the good work.

Joe

Thank you, Joe. I fully understand your point of view. This lens is all-around midrange lens but very promising for upcoming 150-400 which I believe will be absolutely TOP in terms of sharpness and microdetail. And based on preproduction pictures it will also focus from 1.3m. In combination with announced Bird tracking I expect to be really interesting lens Just few corona more waves and it will be here

If it is an all-around midrange lens how would you say the Oly 75-300mm compares to it?

I don't know, never even hold in my hands

Pity.

So do I get the Pana Leica 100 to 400 because it is smaller and lighter, the Oly 100-400 because it has a blue ring or do I get the 300f4 because of the IQ?

All this choice is making me crazy... maybe I should wait an see what the Oly 150-400 is like.

I'd get the 300f4. Optically stellar. The 150-400 too expensive for most.

Mike

I've the 300 f4 and the Pany 100-400 which I carry more than the 300. Versatility is more important to me than out and out IQ, but for me the Pany is great.
For someone who stays with Olympus gear, this new lens may be a very sensible purchase.

mikero wrote:

acfo wrote:

Petr Bambousek wrote:

acfo wrote:

Petr Bambousek wrote:

Joe Lynch wrote:

Thanks for the review, Petr. I'm spoiled with the 300f4 so I will probably hold out for the 150-400 Pro lens, but this one looks much better for the current market than I could have hoped for. Very encouraging to see Olympus release new hardware. Maybe a substantial 1X firmware update is coming after all. Best to you, and keep up the good work.

Joe

Thank you, Joe. I fully understand your point of view. This lens is all-around midrange lens but very promising for upcoming 150-400 which I believe will be absolutely TOP in terms of sharpness and microdetail. And based on preproduction pictures it will also focus from 1.3m. In combination with announced Bird tracking I expect to be really interesting lens Just few corona more waves and it will be here

If it is an all-around midrange lens how would you say the Oly 75-300mm compares to it?

I don't know, never even hold in my hands

Pity.

So do I get the Pana Leica 100 to 400 because it is smaller and lighter, the Oly 100-400 because it has a blue ring or do I get the 300f4 because of the IQ?

All this choice is making me crazy... maybe I should wait an see what the Oly 150-400 is like.

I'd get the 300f4. Optically stellar. The 150-400 too expensive for most.

Mike

If I get the 300f4 I will probably have to get a grip for my Pen-F. It then may be more sensible to get an em1.

Raist3d wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

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

You conveniently left out: ", most likely because focus breathing is more pronounced."

On the Panasonic. About focus breathing, see my response above: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64225930

Keep in mind, that's not quite I was talking about- at least as described by Petr, but could be the same reason / finding. Seems like an Olympus Len defect here (or "defect").

I really do not see the difference between both described situations apart from the fact that MirrorlessComparison erroneously states which lens has more breathing.

Raist3d wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

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

You conveniently left out: ", most likely because focus breathing is more pronounced."

On the Panasonic. About focus breathing, see my response above: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64225930

So at 400 the Panny Leica sure performs with a similar FOV then.

No idea what you're referring to here.

Keep in mind, that's not quite I was talking about- at least as described by Petr, but could be the same reason / finding. Seems like an Olympus Len defect here (or "defect").

I really do not see the difference between both described situations apart from the fact that MirrorlessComparison erroneously states which lens has more breathing.

Why were they wrong? How do we know?

Because they provide a description of the test and the resulting photos. There really is no room for any argument here. This is as clear as things can be.

At long end of the zoom and minimum focus distance of 1.3 meters, Panasonic has a shorter focal length than Olympus.

That's it. No more, no less.

twitterdonald wrote:

DLBlack wrote:

I have spent the day looking at reviews and full resolution photos from this lens. Your review was one of the best reviews. It does look to be a good lens for a consumer level lens. I already own the 40-150/2.8, the 300/4.0, and the MC14 and MC20. So I got the long end covered. I like that I could pair the 100-400/5.0-6.3 with the 12-100/4.0 to have a great range of focal lengths in two lenses for casual hikes where serious photography is not the objective. Currently I am doing this with the 12-100/4.0 and the MC20 on the 40-150/2.8. With this combo I am always wishing for a little bit more focal length.

Anyhow, it looks to be a good lens and it is great to have so many good choices. Maybe I will pre-order it in the next few days.

Hello,

do you think the 40-150 combined with the MC-20 is a better option between 100-300mm than the 100-400m Oly lens? I currently use the MC-14 and really like the fantastic qualiy.

Now am asking myself to invest in the MC-20 or buying the 100-400 for longer apertures as a travel companion of the 12-100.

Thanks in advance!

The image quality for the 40-150/2.8 + MC20 is very good.  At 300mm is is close to the 300/4.0 prime.  Only thing is I find 300mm to be a little short for the wildlife I shot.  How it compare to the new 100-400/5.0-6.3 is a big question.  I am assuming both are good enough that it will take pixel peeping to tell a difference.  Still just a guess.