Panasonic Leica 100-400 stabilisation and sharpness

Back in 2016 saw the release of Panasonic much needed 100-400 for it M43 platform. It was Panasonic second attempt of a pro telephoto zoom after the successful 35-100mm 2.8, however very quickly people were noticing problems with the new lens.

There were two main complaints, the first was about the stiffness of the zoom mechanics and the second was regarding sharpness. The Panasonic 100-400 has many characteristics of it cheaper alternative the 100-300. The images from the lenses look similar and the sharpness between the two lenses were also similar. So one can speculate the 100-400 was an evolution of the 100-300 rather than something brand new that would rival the excellent Canon 100-400.

In 2018 saw a new attempt by Panasonic when it comes to pro telephoto lenses. The first was the 200mm 2.8 and the second was the 50-200mm 2.8-4. Both lenses have the Leica badge and I noticed the 50-200 gives a different and most of the time better look than the 100-400.

After my brief introduction to the Panasonic 100-400, I will get onto my main point. There been speculation the 100-400 dual stabilisation was causing soft images and would require a tripod. I noticed with my trips to Africa if the subject were too far away from me it would produce soft images. I put this down to air and heat interference but I felt it was strange. It was odd images start becoming soft after a certain distance and we’re not talking long distance here. However, with this idea the stabilisation is causing soft images and Olympus 100-400 apparently better at making sharper images at the long end, I felt it was a good time to do my own test.

Near where I live are a few nature reserves I weren’t aware of and as a result didn’t visit them. It’s only in this Covid 19 situation I learned about their existence and as a result I’m spending my free time there brushing up on my rusty camera skills.

One of these places I visited has a bird hide. However since I still own the Gh4 I felt I give the camera a go and see if dual stabilisation was the cause of the soft images at 400mm and some distance away. However, since it was cloudy I felt the test would be flawed and I needed a higher shutter speed. It should also be noted it was my time at the nature reserve and I spent my time there walking around exploring the lake rather than staying in the bird hide.

When I returned to the nature reserve I focused on my Gh5 and left the Gh4 at home. I focused on the bird hide and allowed the lens to rest on the bird hide support and turned off dual stabilisation. The results were the same as my shots in Africa. If the subjects were too far away it would create soft images. However, the subjects weren’t filling up the frame and I probably need a 5d, 500mm F4 and a 2x teleconverter to get a more reasonable shot.

One would argue I need to shoot subjects closer and that is true. However, I would also argue a lion or an elephant are bigger than a goose. So while a goose is too far away to make a good shot, a lion or elephant in the same spot isn’t. The results would be soft images.

The only way to continue the test is to purchase a wildlife tripod, see what that does and then take one step further and manual focus instead of relying on autofocus. I think this is taking one step too far. If this works, it means I need to bring a sturdy tripod with me on safari and set it up the tripod inside the vehicle. I know for a fact now a monopod won’t solve the focusing problem and I would probably need to spend thousands extra to go on a photographic safari instead if the tripod works.

In my conclusion I believe there is a flaw in the focusing mechanics and it restricts getting sharp images at a medium distance. For bird photographers this isn’t a huge deal since you need to be closer to the subject for it take up a big portion of the frame. For sport and larger safari this could be a problem.

With the news of Panasonic thinking about introducing new telephoto lenses. One could speculate of either bringing new stuff out or replacing already existing lenses. In the past I made it clear the 100-400 would be fantastic if it had the same IQ as the 50-200. Combined that with longer focusing, you would end up having a nice lens. Would I buy it, probably not. If there a new telephoto prime then maybe but I hate the idea of replacing lenses I already own.

I've only had my 100 - 400 a few months and haven't really given it a robust shake-down yet due primarily to the COVID travel constrictions here in Oregon (and my own self-imposed). In the last week I shot a hummingbird at my outside feeder around 6pm hand-held. I wasn't real happy with the results so a few nights later I repeated the shoot and varied the FL to back off 400mm and to kick up ISO so I could shoot faster. Again hand-held. Again not real happy.

Not ready to become despondent and think I'll try the same shot on a tripod with stabilization off (in various combinations) as well as a shot in the morning while the sun is on the feeder.

I'm wondering if what I want to see is full-frame IQ?

In all cases I was about 10ft from the feeder (which was in sharp focus). The bird's feathers were very soft.

I wonder if you're being too hard on this lens. I upgraded from my 75-300, which was serviceable, but definitely had some disappointments. Overall, very happy with the 100-400. I am not a sharpness geek, just want to capture important moments. So, maybe I'm just not seeing what you see.

The 100-400 is not a pro-level lens, in my view. Wait for the Oly 150-400. Careful reviews of PL 100-400 compared to Oly 100-400 put them more-or-less equal, though you might average out with the 3-year newer Oly winning by a hair. So, it's doing what it should be doing in this price range.

I never had any problems with the zoom (maybe luck), and lens stabilization worked nicely for me, including shots from a small boat on the Nile.

Here are some pix I'm pretty happy with. I hope DPR gallery is good enough. These are all from a trip to Uganda, early 2018. The are all hand-held. (I used to use a monopod with my E-M5 and 75-300. Not needed with E-M1 II and 100-400.) Maybe you could show us what you find lacking, in comparison to upper mid-level lenses, not true pro-level stuff like the 300 f/4.

From a moving small boat

Also moving small boat.

In the shade; moving small boat.

I'm sorry but after almost daily use on G9 with dual IS on I have never encountered this problem. I do handheld and monopod. thousands of sharp images.

This is not to say you don't have issue with your settings, I'm not there.

My issues (other than sitff zoom) are: acquiring and Tracking birds against the grey sky. Focus hunting very close subject's against busy backgrounds such as bees in field of flowers.

Am trying the Oly 100 - 400 but am not expecting better results

grsnovi wrote:

I've only had my 100 - 400 a few months and haven't really given it a robust shake-down yet due primarily to the COVID travel constrictions here in Oregon (and my own self-imposed). In the last week I shot a hummingbird at my outside feeder around 6pm hand-held. I wasn't real happy with the results so a few nights later I repeated the shoot and varied the FL to back off 400mm and to kick up ISO so I could shoot faster. Again hand-held. Again not real happy.

Not ready to become despondent and think I'll try the same shot on a tripod with stabilization off (in various combinations) as well as a shot in the morning while the sun is on the feeder.

I'm wondering if what I want to see is full-frame IQ?

In all cases I was about 10ft from the feeder (which was in sharp focus). The bird's feathers were very soft.

I wonder if you might too close to your subject.  According to my DOF calculator a MFT 400mm lens at f6.3 and 10 feet from the subject would allow for only .38" DOF.  20' distance would give you 1.63 inches DOF and a better chance to get much of your bird in focus.  Just a thought...

Certainly possible. I'll continue to experiment.

above cropped from this:

Shot from same vantage point with bird on different feeder cup.

Not excited about these - lighting wasn't great but I sort of expected more resolution of the feathers in the above shot of the back of the bird. Focus and DOF isn't terrible but certainly the bird's tail is not in focus as the yellow portion of the feeder cup.

Opposite side of the house (better light):

Both also hand-held...

Distance to subject approximately 8ft.

Well, I have had some stunning hand held shots with the 100-400, there are some that are not so good but I put it down to the atmosphere. I normally use it hand held and I have had shots of Jupiter and it`s moons really sharp hand held. I shot an image at the coast of a bait digger, he must have been at least 200ft away and I could see the time on his  digital wrist watch. I`m convinced that when the images are not spot on then it is user error or conditions. Having said that there is no doubt ( as has been said) backing the zoom off a touch does make a better image which you can crop back to the size you want. I judge most of my lenses against the Oly pro 40-150 and the 100-400 is pretty dam close, if I put the 1.4ex on the oly it is a pretty good match for the 100-400 at the oly`s focal range. Even with the G9`s superb IS 800mm equi is quite a long lens to hand hold so I don`t expect miracles and am mostly happy with the results.

When I was shooting Fuji I purchased the 100-400 Fuji lens and this PL lens is so much better (maybe I had a bad copy but I returned it)

Dave

I have had this lens since it came out in 2016. I bought it because the Panny 100-300 (original version) had focus motors that were too slow to keep up with the 11 frames per second C-AF of my E-M1.

I have compared the sharpness against my Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 with and without teleconverters and my friends Olympus 300 f/4. Both the 300 f/4 and the 40-150 f/2.8 are a bit sharper..... until you add a teleconverter, than the 100-400 Pulls ahead on sharpness.

My copy of the PL100-400 is sharpest at 350mm and f/7.1. This a a compromise, but for me, one without a consequence since both the 350mm and f/7.1 are fine (in fact desirable) for what I shoot.

When I used the PL100-400 with my Olympus E-M1 I always found the Lens OIS to be better than the IBIS. With the E-M1 II It was a toss up, but with my E-M1 III I leave the OIS off because the IBIS gives me better results.

I find this lens extremely versatile and I use it for everything from BiF’s, to bugs, to broncs, and more. Like any lens it takes some time to find the right mix of lens settings, and camera settings, and technique.

Old Timer63 wrote:

Well, I have had some stunning hand held shots with the 100-400, there are some that are not so good but I put it down to the atmosphere. I normally use it hand held and I have had shots of Jupiter and it`s moons really sharp hand held. I shot an image at the coast of a bait digger, he must have been at least 200ft away and I could see the time on his digital wrist watch. I`m convinced that when the images are not spot on then it is user error or conditions. Having said that there is no doubt ( as has been said) backing the zoom off a touch does make a better image which you can crop back to the size you want. I judge most of my lenses against the Oly pro 40-150 and the 100-400 is pretty dam close, if I put the 1.4ex on the oly it is a pretty good match for the 100-400 at the oly`s focal range. Even with the G9`s superb IS 800mm equi is quite a long lens to hand hold so I don`t expect miracles and am mostly happy with the results.

When I was shooting Fuji I purchased the 100-400 Fuji lens and this PL lens is so much better (maybe I had a bad copy but I returned it)

Dave

You can't underestimate the degradation on long shots due to the atmosphere.  You have  heat waves, particles, all kinds of  stuff, worse with certain types of weather.  Plus you are magnifying everything greatly with the 800mm equivalent.     You never notice this with a wide angle or moderate tele.

grsnovi wrote:

Certainly possible. I'll continue to experiment.

above cropped from this:

Shot from same vantage point with bird on different feeder cup.

Not excited about these - lighting wasn't great but I sort of expected more resolution of the feathers in the above shot of the back of the bird. Focus and DOF isn't terrible but certainly the bird's tail is not in focus as the yellow portion of the feeder cup.

I had two copies of this lens. Both were not very good wide open at 400mm for mid distance subjects, I always used f7.1 or f8 to get sharp pictures. I now use the 50-200mm, colors, contrast, and rendering are better. I use the TC when I need more reach.

richj20 wrote:

C Sean wrote:

One would argue I need to shoot subjects closer and that is true. However, I would also argue a lion or an elephant are bigger than a goose. So while a goose is too far away to make a good shot, a lion or elephant in the same spot isn’t. The results would be soft images.

Hello C Sean,

I have not found my copy of the lens to produce soft images at 400mm if I don't crop much.

Too much cropping here; detail in the ends of his hair is not so sharp.

- Richard

This is an extremely good example of why I feel out of step with the detail geeks.  I think this is really nice.  I couldn't care less if the hair is not so sharp.  Lovely picture.

grsnovi wrote:

Certainly possible. I'll continue to experiment.

above cropped from this:

Shot from same vantage point with bird on different feeder cup.

Not excited about these - lighting wasn't great but I sort of expected more resolution of the feathers in the above shot of the back of the bird. Focus and DOF isn't terrible but certainly the bird's tail is not in focus as the yellow portion of the feeder cup.

I like your flower shots but I agree these hummingbird shots aren't so good.  In both cases you are shooting at an ISO I wouldn't even consider, especially in poor lighting.  Trying to maintain a super high shutter speed is usually unnecessary for a perched bird.  In your first image if you had used ISO1600 for example you still would have 1/500 shutter speed which should yield a good number of keepers if you take numerous shots.  I no longer have my 100-400 but have shot as low as 1/50th of a second with it - hand held - for a stationary subject.  Not often, and not a hummingbird but there you go.  I do have shots of a hummingbird in flight, in bright light at 1/4000th and still not froze the wing action.

Your second shot, also at a higher ISO than I would shoot, appears to be focused behind the bird and on the feeder (as you commented) with only the very top of the birds head and eye coming into focus.  Which leads me to wonder about your focus settings.  My own preference is to use AFS and the smallest single focusing box which I try to place on the birds eye or head.  I rarely shoot bursts but do take as many single shots as I can while the bird is cooperating allowing refocus between each shot.  I do stress taking a lot of shots if you can because in the best of your efforts many will still not be acceptable.

So, for a perched bird in less than ideal light I would probably keep the shutter speed in the 1/500 range or even slower if necessary and keep the ISO below 1600, maybe 3200 in a rare pinch.  Obviously this won't work in all situations but give it a try and perhaps refine or revamp your focusing technique.  Personally, I would not fault your lens for either of these images.  Good luck.

Thanks! I'm not faulting the lens, I'm just not there with it yet. I wasn't targeting parched shots and assumed that I'd get the BIF on approach and wanted to stop the wings. So, yes, the flowers are in better light and a better ISO. As I mentioned, I haven't been out and about with this lens much yet and I remain optimistic.

I have been impressed by the 100-400. The attached was taken hand held from a moving cruise ship, so across water on a hot day. The target for my photo was small enough that I used 2x Ex Tele Conv, thus making the lens 800mm. It was taken using my G3, so stabilisation was purely that of the lens.

I wanted to see what was on the plaque attached to the memorial. I thought the 100-400 did very well.