Olympus 100-400 vs (found faulty) Panasonic/Leica 100-400

E-M10II IBIS is darn good with 100-400mm after 2 cups of coffee

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64526654

About 800mm-efl, 1/30 second, standing with no support, no special care to be extra steady and after 2 cups of coffee:

IBIS turned ON, ILIS turned OFF with 100-400mm after 2 cups of coffee

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64537034

vigna wrote:

It is so ridiculous that this thread is based on a comparison of a photo of a button to conclude as a bad lens.

Have you read the follow up? LensRentals tested it and found it was, indeed, a bad lens.....

And the photo of the stuffed animal (I guess the eye is the button you are referring to), has the mushiest fur detail, which I suspect is what most people were looking at. And, the OP described unusual AF behavior in his post...so...

xaprb wrote:

Thanks Roger, I appreciate you taking the time to respond directly on this. I rent from LensRentals because of the stellar customer service, and my confidence in your equipment and your technicians' testing. In fact, that's literally the reason it didn't occur to me to check first with LensRentals before writing my results on this forum. I'd seen mixed reviews on the Panasonic and my experience seemed to back that up, and it didn't stick out to me as "this lens is SO bad that it might be a bad copy." It just seemed like "yep, people have said the Olympus is sharper, it looks like that's what I found too."

I just heard from your team a few minutes ago confirming that the lens I rented was not meeting expectations.

I appreciate the people who responded to this thread suggesting that I contact LensRentals!

Good outcome! Now to be fair, you should ask the forum moderator to add the following to your OP title "bad copy" or something similar, so that potential purchasers don't have to read all the way down to this post before getting an inaccurate opinion.

xaprb wrote:

As a followup to this thread, I have purchased the Panasonic 100-400. I'm also shopping for a newer, more capable Olympus body. In the end, the size and weight was really compelling to me.

I assume the performance of the one you have now is better than the one you rented
How are you liking it?

Some photos?

One thing I'm curious about: I keep pretty detailed notes, and I'd noted that the copy I rented was stamped as made in Japan next to the serial number on the mount. The copy I bought is stamped China. I checked the Q&A on this lens's page on B&H, and people have reported both China and Japan in the past, and not only recently, but going back quite a few years. So apparently they have multiple suppliers, and have for years. To be clear I have no prejudice against things made in China, however, I do wonder about having multiple suppliers and what that might reveal about people's reported positive or negative experiences with the lens. My experience is the "same" lens built to spec by different suppliers is never truly consistent. Thus far, my new copy seems to be fine.

When I went through my most recent acquisition of this lens, I had two from China, one from Japan. (And I think my original was from Japan, from several years ago). This round, one from China and one from Japan were each bad. The first one, from China, focused fine but had a defective AF motor with a loud whine, unfortunately. (I prefer my lenses not to sing to me as I use them, so I sent it back. It's too bad, as optically it was stellar). The one from Japan had a bad AF module, so that one went back too (I think it might have been shipping damage as the lens box was bouncing around a large box on the way to me, without proper cushioning). Third time was the charm, and this one was from China also.

Enjoy your new lens!

-J

(A couple from it from the other day:)

jalywol wrote:

xaprb wrote:

As a followup to this thread, I have purchased the Panasonic 100-400. I'm also shopping for a newer, more capable Olympus body. In the end, the size and weight was really compelling to me.

I assume the performance of the one you have now is better than the one you rented
How are you liking it?

Some photos?

One thing I'm curious about: I keep pretty detailed notes, and I'd noted that the copy I rented was stamped as made in Japan next to the serial number on the mount. The copy I bought is stamped China. I checked the Q&A on this lens's page on B&H, and people have reported both China and Japan in the past, and not only recently, but going back quite a few years. So apparently they have multiple suppliers, and have for years. To be clear I have no prejudice against things made in China, however, I do wonder about having multiple suppliers and what that might reveal about people's reported positive or negative experiences with the lens. My experience is the "same" lens built to spec by different suppliers is never truly consistent. Thus far, my new copy seems to be fine.

When I went through my most recent acquisition of this lens, I had two from China, one from Japan. (And I think my original was from Japan, from several years ago). This round, one from China and one from Japan were each bad. The first one, from China, focused fine but had a defective AF motor with a loud whine, unfortunately. (I prefer my lenses not to sing to me as I use them, so I sent it back. It's too bad, as optically it was stellar). The one from Japan had a bad AF module, so that one went back too (I think it might have been shipping damage as the lens box was bouncing around a large box on the way to me, without proper cushioning). Third time was the charm, and this one was from China also.

Enjoy your new lens!

-J

(A couple from it from the other day:)

My PL 100-400 has travelled thousands of kilometres in a motorcycle pannier (inside a Lowepro shoulder bag)... many dirt roads with the motorcycle bouncing around. I would expect a premium lens to survive some bouncing around, but who knows, maybe I have just been lucky.

Bassaidai wrote:

Thanks for opening this thread and following up all messages and paths this thread has come. I really appreciate the way you handled all suggestions and even some accusations.

I'm relieved your PL copy turned out to be faulty, and thumbs up for someone from LensRental even taking care of this issue within this very thread. You called that a "stellar service" and I see why.

I'm a very (very!) happy user of the PL100-400 myself. Not one single zoom lens comparable to that focal length has given me as good results wide open at the long end of the focal range as this lens has. This includes well respected lenses like the Canon L 70-200/2.8, Canon L 100-400/f5.6, the Sigma EX 120-300/2.8 or the newer Sigma 150-600/...f6.7.
(The only overall sharper zoom lens I have seen so far is the Oly 40-150/2.8, witch amazes me every time I use it. Sure, 150mm is no 400mm, but f2.8 is no f6.3 either... It is my understanding that the PL 50-200 is similarly impressive, but I don't own one so I can't personally comment on that)

So, in the end you have become confident enough to purchase the PL100-400 instead of the Oly 100-400, which is a statement in itself.

Have plenty of fun with the new lens!

the other day at the zoo: G9, PL100-400, 400mm, f6.3, ISO1600, 1/200s

G9, PL100-400, 400mm, f6.3, ISO1600, 1/400th

I would never swop my PL for the Oly 100-400 as my PL performs as well as I could expect and is noticably smaller and lighter.

xaprb wrote:

Followup: I'm quite satisfied with the Panasonic 100-400 copy I bought. I do believe the stabilization on the Olympus I rented was smoother and handled panning etc better, though the stabilization on this one is definitely better than the one I rented.

Image quality is more than satisfactory on this copy. This is just an offhand shot at 400mm, handheld, just after dawn (not full light).

Thanks for the follow up.

My Panasonic pl100-400 is soft when fitted to a Panasonic dual IS gx8, even with electronic shutter.

But when the pl100-400 is fitted to my Olympus em1-mk2 camera it's very sharp. So I always use it wide open unless I need more DoF. Mine doesn't get sharper when stopped down.

Was it bad copy, user error, or poor comparability?

If you read through the entire thread, it was a bad copy (LensRentals tested it and verified it was not performing properly)

The OP has since purchased another copy of this lens and is very pleased with it (see posts down further in the thread).

-J

The picture sample you have posted for the Lumix lens is back-focused. The Lumix Leica lens is focused on the hair not the eye. It would be better if you could have manually focused both lenses on the eye for the comparison.