Good lens, not outstanding

I was looking for a lens that is sealed and does deliver lot of reach. Then lens is fast and silent focussing. Its generally great. Does it match my requirements. Sometimes.

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

The Olympus 100-400 is half of the price of the Canon 100-500 true, but I don‘t want to regret the moment of a missed shot. I am not on budget, so I go for the Canon.

I would recommend the lens for anyone seaking long reang, good image quality and owning an Olympus body.

Hello Martin. I don't have the Olympus 100-400 but do have the Panasonic PL100-400 fitted to my em1-mk2.

I think it's important to remember that at an effective 800mm it's a lot more difficult to get a sharp shot, unless camera is on tripod and the target doesn't move!

It took me a few months to get really sharp shots with my long lens combination and i did lots of testing to develop and improve my technique, plus learn which settings provide the best results.

If you wind the 100-400 lens back to 200mm (equivalent magnification to 400 on FF ) it is so much easier to get sharp shots, as our poor handling detracts less from final result.

Of course it may also be possible that the PL100-400 is a sharper lens at full zoom than the oly 'non-pro 'version.

The Olympus 100-400 is half of the price of the Canon 100-500 true, but I don‘t want to regret the moment of a missed shot. I am not on budget, so I go for the Canon.

Not only half the price, but roughly double the lenght?

Look out for a Canon 200-800 - try shooting at 800mm and see how the results compare

Martin Muehlemann wrote:

I was looking for a lens that is sealed and does deliver lot of reach. Then lens is fast and silent focussing. Its generally great. Does it match my requirements. Sometimes.

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

a 100-400 m43 lens has the same field of view of a  200-800 full frame lens.

a 100-400 full frame lens has the same field of view of a 50-200 m43 lens.

A fair comparison would be the Olympus 100-400, with  the Canon 100-400 plus the 2x Canon Teleconverter attached. Or the Canon 100-500 with the 1.4X teleconverter.

The Olympus 100-400 is half of the price of the Canon 100-500 true, but I don‘t want to regret the moment of a missed shot. I am not on budget, so I go for the Canon.

I would recommend the lens for anyone seaking long reang, good image quality and owning an Olympus body.

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Martin Muehlemann wrote:

I was looking for a lens that is sealed and does deliver lot of reach. Then lens is fast and silent focussing. Its generally great. Does it match my requirements. Sometimes.

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

a 100-400 m43 lens has the same field of view of a 200-800 full frame lens.

a 100-400 full frame lens has the same field of view of a 50-200 m43 lens.

A fair comparison would be the Olympus 100-400, with the Canon 100-400 plus the 2x Canon Teleconverter attached. Or the Canon 100-500 with the 1.4X teleconverter.

The Olympus 100-400 is half of the price of the Canon 100-500 true, but I don‘t want to regret the moment of a missed shot. I am not on budget, so I go for the Canon.

I would recommend the lens for anyone seaking long reang, good image quality and owning an Olympus body.

What  if you mount the Canon lens on an APS-C Canon body like a 90D or EOS M6 II?

Those cameras have sensors with a 1.6x crop factor. But what’s even more interesting is that they have just about the same pixel density as a 20 Megapixel 4/3 sensor so you can crop an image from them to 20 Megapixels and have a very close absolute equivalence to MFT.

Or you can mount the Canon 100-400mm lens on your MFT camera with an adapter.

I own the Canon EF100-400mm IS II lens and it works extremely well on my MFT cameras, so well that my interest in buying the Olympus 100-400mm was brief.

In my opinion there’s no need at all to reference Full Frame equivalence when comparing the Olympus and Canon 100-400mm lenses

Peter

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

No.

He was comparing lenses, not cropping, that's a different subject.

Peter Del

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

No.

He was comparing lenses, not cropping, that's a different subject.

Peter Del

not cropping ?

then compare the lenses for what they are - 100-400mm - and stop talking about needing to apply a 2x CROP factor and to look at a Canon 200-800 for comparison.

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

No.

He was comparing lenses, not cropping, that's a different subject.

Peter Del

not cropping ?

then compare the lenses for what they are - 100-400mm - and stop talking about needing to apply a 2x CROP factor and to look at a Canon 200-800 for comparison.

Peter

Surely it's the native field of view of each lens that matters and the field of view of an Olympus 100-400 is the same as a Canon 200-800, no?

Peter Del

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

No.

He was comparing lenses, not cropping, that's a different subject.

Peter Del

not cropping ?

then compare the lenses for what they are - 100-400mm - and stop talking about needing to apply a 2x CROP factor and to look at a Canon 200-800 for comparison.

Peter

Surely it's the native field of view of each lens that matters and the field of view of an Olympus 100-400 is the same as a Canon 200-800, no?

Fields of view . . . You’re still talking about crop factor and cropping

So this means that the Canon lens is actually better because it can project a larger image circle for larger sensors, or you can mount it on a D90 or M6II you can crop out a 20 Megapixel 4/3 image, or just enjoy the larger 32 Megapixel image. Pretty good, no?

Peter Del

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

Martin,

If your looking at how well the Olympus 100-400mm performs compared with a Canon lens then you should really be looking at more than just sharpness and price.

You could use a Viltrox or Metabones adaptor with the Canon EF100-400 and do a direct comparison with an Olympus 100-400mm on your m.43 camera.

If you did that then your findings would likely be:

> the Metabones adapter is expensive

> the Canon lens is a lot heavier

> you get good S-AF with the Canon but C-AF is useless

> the Canon is sharper at 400mm - very sharp in fact

> the Canon remains sharp even if you use 1.4x and 2x adapters

> the Canon S-AF is painfully slow with a 2x adapter

> the Canon’s 0.8 of a stop of extra speed at 400mm may not be worth its extra size and weight

> the Canon IS is better, but doesn’t work in Synch with the camera IBIS, so overall stabilisation is better with the Olympus lens

And your conclusions would likely be:

If S-AF is what you need and sharpness is your main criteria then, if you can afford the adapter plus the lens, the Canon is better than the Olympus.

Otherwise you’re better off with the Olympus lens.

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

No.

He was comparing lenses, not cropping, that's a different subject.

Peter Del

not cropping ?

then compare the lenses for what they are - 100-400mm - and stop talking about needing to apply a 2x CROP factor and to look at a Canon 200-800 for comparison.

Peter

Surely it's the native field of view of each lens that matters and the field of view of an Olympus 100-400 is the same as a Canon 200-800, no?

Fields of view . . . You’re still talking about crop factor and cropping

So this means that the Canon lens is actually better because it can project a larger image circle for larger sensors, or you can mount it on a D90 or M6II you can crop out a 20 Megapixel 4/3 image, or just enjoy the larger 32 Megapixel image. Pretty good, no?

Peter Del

no

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Peter Del wrote:

Poor test.

If you want to compare the Olympus 100-400 to a Canon lens, you would need to look at a Canon 200-800, if there is such a lens.

No. Put the Canon lens on an EOS M6 II and crop to 20 Megapixels and you have a very close approximation m.43

Peter

No.

He was comparing lenses, not cropping, that's a different subject.

Peter Del

not cropping ?

then compare the lenses for what they are - 100-400mm - and stop talking about needing to apply a 2x CROP factor and to look at a Canon 200-800 for comparison.

Peter

Surely it's the native field of view of each lens that matters and the field of view of an Olympus 100-400 is the same as a Canon 200-800, no?

Fields of view . . . You’re still talking about crop factor and cropping

So this means that the Canon lens is actually better because it can project a larger image circle for larger sensors, or you can mount it on a D90 or M6II you can crop out a 20 Megapixel 4/3 image, or just enjoy the larger 32 Megapixel image. Pretty good, no?

Peter Del

no

Then we should stop talking about crop factors and we should compare the lenses for what they actually are optically, 100-400mm.

Drop the 200-800mm comparison as it’s a nonsense when we can readily get a 20 Megapixel image with the same image framing from the same subject distance with the Canon 100-400mm as we can with the Olympus 100-400 on a m.43 camera.

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Martin Muehlemann wrote:

I was looking for a lens that is sealed and does deliver lot of reach. Then lens is fast and silent focussing. Its generally great. Does it match my requirements. Sometimes.

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

a 100-400 m43 lens has the same field of view of a 200-800 full frame lens.

a 100-400 full frame lens has the same field of view of a 50-200 m43 lens.

A fair comparison would be the Olympus 100-400, with the Canon 100-400 plus the 2x Canon Teleconverter attached. Or the Canon 100-500 with the 1.4X teleconverter.

The Olympus 100-400 is half of the price of the Canon 100-500 true, but I don‘t want to regret the moment of a missed shot. I am not on budget, so I go for the Canon.

I would recommend the lens for anyone seaking long reang, good image quality and owning an Olympus body.

What if you mount the Canon lens on an APS-C Canon body like a 90D or EOS M6 II?

Those cameras have sensors with a 1.6x crop factor. But what’s even more interesting is that they have just about the same pixel density as a 20 Megapixel 4/3 sensor so you can crop an image from them to 20 Megapixels and have a very close absolute equivalence to MFT.

Or you can mount the Canon 100-400mm lens on your MFT camera with an adapter.

Very good points Peter. Were there not a couple flies in the ointment.

- Canon 100-400 is 1.640kg, Olympus 100-400 is 1.120kg, 520g difference, and that is before putting an adapter onto the Canon lens.

- Prices at B&H, Canon 100-400 is US$2,399. Olympus 100-400 is US$1,499. That is US$ 900 difference, again before pricing an adapter for the Canon lens.

I own the Canon EF100-400mm IS II lens and it works extremely well on my MFT cameras, so well that my interest in buying the Olympus 100-400mm was brief.

In my opinion there’s no need at all to reference Full Frame equivalence when comparing the Olympus and Canon 100-400mm lenses

Peter

I can understand that if you already own the Canon 100-400, there is no need to also buy the Olympus 100-400 (provided the weight is not an issue, it very often is). But for people owning only the m43 system, the Canon lens does not make much sense at all.

It is also a very much country dependent choice. In Australia the PL100-400 comes currently with AU$400 cashback, making it 1/3 cheaper than the Olympus 100-400, or 2/3 cheaper than the Canon 100-400. And there is an even bigger weight difference.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Martin Muehlemann wrote:

I was looking for a lens that is sealed and does deliver lot of reach. Then lens is fast and silent focussing. Its generally great. Does it match my requirements. Sometimes.

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

a 100-400 m43 lens has the same field of view of a 200-800 full frame lens.

a 100-400 full frame lens has the same field of view of a 50-200 m43 lens.

A fair comparison would be the Olympus 100-400, with the Canon 100-400 plus the 2x Canon Teleconverter attached. Or the Canon 100-500 with the 1.4X teleconverter.

The Olympus 100-400 is half of the price of the Canon 100-500 true, but I don‘t want to regret the moment of a missed shot. I am not on budget, so I go for the Canon.

I would recommend the lens for anyone seaking long reang, good image quality and owning an Olympus body.

What if you mount the Canon lens on an APS-C Canon body like a 90D or EOS M6 II?

Those cameras have sensors with a 1.6x crop factor. But what’s even more interesting is that they have just about the same pixel density as a 20 Megapixel 4/3 sensor so you can crop an image from them to 20 Megapixels and have a very close absolute equivalence to MFT.

Or you can mount the Canon 100-400mm lens on your MFT camera with an adapter.

Very good points Peter. Were there not a couple flies in the ointment.

- Canon 100-400 is 1.640kg, Olympus 100-400 is 1.120kg, 520g difference, and that is before putting an adapter onto the Canon lens.

- Prices at B&H, Canon 100-400 is US$2,399. Olympus 100-400 is US$1,499. That is US$ 900 difference, again before pricing an adapter for the Canon lens.

I own the Canon EF100-400mm IS II lens and it works extremely well on my MFT cameras, so well that my interest in buying the Olympus 100-400mm was brief.

In my opinion there’s no need at all to reference Full Frame equivalence when comparing the Olympus and Canon 100-400mm lenses

Peter

I can understand that if you already own the Canon 100-400, there is no need to also buy the Olympus 100-400 (provided the weight is not an issue, it very often is). But for people owning only the m43 system, the Canon lens does not make much sense at all.

It is also a very much country dependent choice. In Australia the PL100-400 comes currently with AU$400 cashback, making it 1/3 cheaper than the Olympus 100-400, or 2/3 cheaper than the Canon 100-400. And there is an even bigger weight difference.

Yes, but you didn’t mention any of that in your response to the OP. You only mentioned FoV and teleconverters, and I responded to that.

As for the flies in the ointment see my response to the OP https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65060005

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

The issue is that on longer focal lenght for me it is becoming soft. Not a lot. But it does not match the sharpness of the Canon 100-400L II IS USM nor the Canon 100-500 L IS USM. These lenses are sharp throughout the range.

Martin,

If your looking at how well the Olympus 100-400mm performs compared with a Canon lens then you should really be looking at more than just sharpness and price.

You could use a Viltrox or Metabones adaptor with the Canon EF100-400 and do a direct comparison with an Olympus 100-400mm on your m.43 camera.

If you did that then your findings would likely be:

> the Metabones adapter is expensive

> the Canon lens is a lot heavier

> you get good S-AF with the Canon but C-AF is useless

> the Canon is sharper at 400mm - very sharp in fact

> the Canon remains sharp even if you use 1.4x and 2x adapters

> the Canon S-AF is painfully slow with a 2x adapter

> the Canon’s 0.8 of a stop of extra speed at 400mm may not be worth its extra size and weight

> the Canon IS is better, but doesn’t work in Synch with the camera IBIS, so overall stabilisation is better with the Olympus lens

And your conclusions would likely be:

If S-AF is what you need and sharpness is your main criteria then, if you can afford the adapter plus the lens, the Canon is better than the Olympus.

Otherwise you’re better off with the Olympus lens.

Peter

Beautifully and clearly put.  Also if subject moving, being able to use C-AF with the m43 lens will also help aquire shots that s-af will most frequently miss.

Unfortunately you haven't understood. He was comparing an Olympus m43 lens to a Canon FF lens. Therefore 100 = 200, 400 = 800. They give the same field of view. It is possible to crop a wide-angle on a 5 x 4 camera to produce the same field of view, but the OP wasn't talking about that. It isn't rocket science.

Peter Del

@all

No need to explain to me the equivalence, fov or FF/m43. I am long enough having Oly and Canon gear to understand the differences.

If I test a lens for my needs, I know exactly what I need to look at.

Even when compairing the Oly 300F4, at the same FL, the 100-400 does not deliver the same way.

Unfortunately you haven't understood. He was comparing an Olympus m43 lens to a Canon FF lens.

But Canon also makes APS_C cameras - Messier is right . pixel for pixel, the canon covers the same field of view on an M6-II or 90D at the same resolution (800mm effective at 20Mp)  . it`s irrelevant to APS_C users that its a FF lens apart from that its Future Proofed so an even better buy

In all fairness. the whole argument is irrelevant as few will have both a 32Mp APS_C Canon and M43 cameras - they will buy the lens for the system they own . It`s whether its as sharp or sharper than the panasonic which is more meaningful