Not sure about my 100-400. Sometimes great, sometimes subpar...

Hi,

I have been using this lens for the last 6 months mainly shooting at 400mm. What bothers me with this lens, is that there are cases where it behaves great (in terms of IQ) and times where it is subpar. I am thinking of other options, but to be honest I am not sure if I am also making some mistakes and not getting the best of it.

Below I am posting some of my best shots and in a 2nd post some of the shots I would like better IQ. Would like to hear your comments and advise.

My best shots:

I feel the same about my Panny 100-400.  I put it down to the fact that it's difficult and although I have had a good few years with it now, I am still liable to a lack of concentration and user ineptitude.  Not that I an accusing you of being inept. 

And here are some of the shots I would expect more. Bear in mind that pp is about the same as the good shots (LR and Topaz).

I mainly see problems:

1) in sunshine days with white objects

2) in birds near the sea

3) in smaller birds where is hard to get much details

the second lot clearly have problems because of the conditions you are shooting in, hazes, bright direct sunlight can all make sharpness and clarity disappear quite easily, the lens can clearly perform but in certain conditions all systems will show similar problems

This is what frustrated me with the 100-400, the lack of consistency. I should note this was when paired with the EM1III. Where I often found I would have to play with settings a lot more, especially when and when not to use the lens OIS or the camera IBIS or both in conjunction with each other.

When I paired it with the OM1 it performed much better. Actually was very impressed with it when pairing it with the OM1. However I had already been using the 200 with and without TCs and it really has been a much more satisfying experience despite not having the ability to zoom. Consistent satisfying results that inspired confidence, be it with the EM1Iii, G9 or the OM1. While the 100-400 could sometimes produce stunning results, other times it would leave me disappointed. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. It is a good lens for the price, certainly better from 300-400mm than the 40-150 Pro with TCs that I had been using previously. Yet there is a reason the primes are priced higher.

I am experimenting similar things sometimes.

It is pretty hard to get good images out of this lens, but if i use burst with c-af then often i get few sharp ones.

Af seems to jump around quite a bit. But yes, it is also half the price of 300 pro.

Mait wrote:

I am experimenting similar things sometimes.

It is pretty hard to get good images out of this lens, but if i use burst with c-af then often i get few sharp ones.

Af seems to jump around quite a bit. But yes, it is also half the price of 300 pro.

Issue is I am comparing this to my Fuji setup (xt3 & 70-300) and the Fuji kit is much more consistent and of better IQ. So now I am bit torn… Should I try again the PL100-400, should I also try the Fuji XF100-400 or go for the more expensive, big and heavy 300/f4? The latter is for sure the safest bet in terms of IQ, but is also quite big and heavy for my likes…

My philosophy when testing a lens is this, the sharpest results reflect of the quality of the glass, any shots that are not as sharp as the sharpest are a result of others factors like technique, settings, motion, light… To that end, you seem to have a sharp copy.

Also, are you using protective filters for some shots? That can be the kiss of death under certain conditions.

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

the second lot clearly have problems because of the conditions you are shooting in, hazes, bright direct sunlight can all make sharpness and clarity disappear quite easily, the lens can clearly perform but in certain conditions all systems will show similar problems

👍 Exactly!

Albert Valentino wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

the second lot clearly have problems because of the conditions you are shooting in, hazes, bright direct sunlight can all make sharpness and clarity disappear quite easily, the lens can clearly perform but in certain conditions all systems will show similar problems

👍 Exactly!

Yes it's easy to see that lighting and atmospheric conditions are causing the problems.

800mm equivalent is a very long lens and this is to be expected. Even within moments of each other. Shoot one direction fine, turn a bit and awful.

Totally agree.

The tech has come so far we easily forget the physics involved. Be amazed you can get tack sharp images @800mm eq handheld, don't be disappointed when you can't: it's not the gear.

I see a variety of problems on most of these images. Those include, miss-focus, the fact that in macro (butterflies) the creatures are very large in the image and even slight movement of the creature results in a change of focus, too high of ISO on a few images (sun), and it looks like missing getting the exposure as close as possible to accurate so that PP adds noise or gives poor whites, and probably some other errors.

In macro of creatures like butterflies and bees expect a low hit rate because of the above mostly. Shoot bursts and expect to throw 2/3 of the shots away.

Yannis1976 wrote:

Mait wrote:

I am experimenting similar things sometimes.

It is pretty hard to get good images out of this lens, but if i use burst with c-af then often i get few sharp ones.

Af seems to jump around quite a bit. But yes, it is also half the price of 300 pro.

Issue is I am comparing this to my Fuji setup (xt3 & 70-300) and the Fuji kit is much more consistent and of better IQ. So now I am bit torn… Should I try again the PL100-400, should I also try the Fuji XF100-400 or go for the more expensive, big and heavy 300/f4? The latter is for sure the safest bet in terms of IQ, but is also quite big and heavy for my likes…

I think your lens is fine. It is just much harder to shoot at 400mm (or even 560mm with 1.4TC as in some of your samples).

Sure, if you can afford it the 300/4 is a much better lens, no question about that. But by just throwing money at the problem without improving your technique, the results may still be worse than a humble 100-400 in expert hands. I would recommend you spend the next year with the lens you have, aiming at getting an expert hand yourself. You just can't buy experience.

Only then reassess if you really still need/want the 300/4. And if the answer is yes, then you will also have the skills to make it really shine. And it will be well spent money, not just GAS.

Yannis1976 wrote:

Mait wrote:

I am experimenting similar things sometimes.

It is pretty hard to get good images out of this lens, but if i use burst with c-af then often i get few sharp ones.

Af seems to jump around quite a bit. But yes, it is also half the price of 300 pro.

Issue is I am comparing this to my Fuji setup (xt3 & 70-300) and the Fuji kit is much more consistent and of better IQ. So now I am bit torn… Should I try again the PL100-400, should I also try the Fuji XF100-400 or go for the more expensive, big and heavy 300/f4? The latter is for sure the safest bet in terms of IQ, but is also quite big and heavy for my likes…

I notice you aren't shooting the same FOV in your existing Fuji kit. I've seen comments plenty of times about inconsistent results with longer lenses and a lot of times it is simply because it is more challenging (you are more likely shooting a far away subject that is subject to haze/atmospheric effects on IQ, it is harder to focus, harder to stabilize).

If you shoot a Fuji with a lens in the 133-533mm range, I think that would more closely represent the same challenges as shooting a 100-400mm in MFT (add more if using a TC).