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

tammons wrote:

Not really true as a blanket statement. It depends on the copy variation, and that is fairly wide.

in these conditions , as these two shots in a rainy day , It’s very difficult to see fringing and aberrations

I mention it only because I saw it happen on older OP’s thread where the harsh light (and not so much the focus) ruin some of his photos.

I had the same issues (focus faults and a lot of CA) with my copy. I try to calibrate the lens with no luck. I had to to send it two times to service , they fix focus (from 200-400mm) the second time but unfortunately not the fringing.

I try another copy from a friend , no issues there.

So I totally agree with you it depends on copy variation

If you find that the manual corrections with CAF is about the same for all your photos maybe you can control it with a calibration inside menu Lens Data setting.

But unfortunately you can’t correct lens aberrations and fringing when you have difficult light in scene

Geia sou Kosta!

So what did you end up using for as a tele-zoom lens in m43? As you said it, the lens is more difficult to use in harsh light. I know the 300/f4 is great, but I don't think I will get used its weight and fixed focal length. Furthermore, I don't do birds or wildlife so often anyway...

Yannis1976 wrote:

If you find that the manual corrections with CAF is about the same for all your photos maybe you can control it with a calibration inside menu Lens Data setting.

But unfortunately you can’t correct lens aberrations and fringing when you have difficult light in scene

Geia sou Kosta!

So what did you end up using for as a tele-zoom lens in m43? As you said it, the lens is more difficult to use in harsh light. I know the 300/f4 is great, but I don't think I will get used its weight and fixed focal length. Furthermore, I don't do birds or wildlife so often anyway...

Unfortunately for very long zoom nothing at all right know (I use to own 50-200SWD with both TC’s, Lumix 100-300II , Lumix 200/2.8 with 1.4X and last the mZD 100-400). I’m not a prime guy with telephoto lenses , that’s why I didn’t keep the stellar PL 200/2.8 and I will not buy the excellent 300/4.

I keep an eye for a sharp copy of another Olympus or LEICA 100-400mm and I’m waiting also for the two feature zooms to cover the basic focal length up to 250mm. My last buy was the excellent 40-150/4 pro.

Yannis1976 wrote:

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

Is that gull carrying a fishing line in the first picture?

most probably yes!

Yannis1976 wrote:

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.

When I had a 100-400mm I found the same thing. Some pix great, others not.

I experimented with shutting off OIS with shutter speeds above 1/640.
That was hit or miss, too.

I had to remind myself that it’s important to remember that an 800mm equivalent lens is an awful LOT of lens to use handheld. IBIS and OIS and DUAL IS are NOT magic.

So, I used a monopod, stuck in a front pocket (for ease of mobility) or an UltraPod II resting against my chest, which seemed to help improve image quality the most, or at least get more predictable results. It’s quicker and easier to use, and more stable than a monopod.

This might not work with a fixed EVF.

There are “chest pods” available. Novoflex makes a nice looking one.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/240748-REG/Novoflex_PISTOCK_C_Chest_Shoulder_Pod_Reduces.html

I know I’ve posted this shot a zillion times, sorry.

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

Yes, I agree and at the same I must disagree. I had for a few years, Canon and Olympus together. I bought the Panny 100-400 when it came out and was never 100% satified, while the Canon 100-400 ii did certainly perform stellar.

High hopes i had when Oly cam with its 100-400. There, on my EM1.3 is saw exactly the same things. Looked like haze. But what I was always wondering, shoorting at the exact same moment, the R6 + 100-400ii did not have the haze and unsharpness.

For me, the lens is just not top notch and cannot compete with the Canon counterparts. 100-400ii and 100-500

I am seeing similar thing, i call it halo effect, on my OM-1 when using the 2.0x TC attached to the 40-150 f2.8 pro.

The combo does stellar, usually, but some shots are just to ditch

In the past, I would have dropped the gear. I can clearly see the advantage of the OM-1 and will not go for an R6 again

For me, the summary of the issue -> sometimes I have to expect garbage shots, more than on R6/R5.

Martin Muehlemann 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

Yes, I agree and at the same I must disagree. I had for a few years, Canon and Olympus together. I bought the Panny 100-400 when it came out and was never 100% satified, while the Canon 100-400 ii did certainly perform stellar.

High hopes i had when Oly cam with its 100-400. There, on my EM1.3 is saw exactly the same things. Looked like haze. But what I was always wondering, shoorting at the exact same moment, the R6 + 100-400ii did not have the haze and unsharpness.

For me, the lens is just not top notch and cannot compete with the Canon counterparts. 100-400ii and 100-500

For me, the summary of the issue -> sometimes I have to expect garbage shots, more than on R6/R5.

Were you shooting the 100-400mm at 200mm to “match” the Canon 100-400mm. 400mm with an M4/3 is a lot of lens to handhold, especially in lower light, like in a forest.

As an alternative, the PL 50-200mm has better image quality than the PL 100-400mm. It’s also smaller, lighter and easier to carry and handle than the PL 100-400mm. Adding the 1.4x teleconverter doesn’t seem to affect image quality. I’m not seeing, but maybe I’m not as picky as some people. 😜

jeffharris wrote:

Martin Muehlemann 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

Yes, I agree and at the same I must disagree. I had for a few years, Canon and Olympus together. I bought the Panny 100-400 when it came out and was never 100% satified, while the Canon 100-400 ii did certainly perform stellar.

High hopes i had when Oly cam with its 100-400. There, on my EM1.3 is saw exactly the same things. Looked like haze. But what I was always wondering, shoorting at the exact same moment, the R6 + 100-400ii did not have the haze and unsharpness.

For me, the lens is just not top notch and cannot compete with the Canon counterparts. 100-400ii and 100-500

For me, the summary of the issue -> sometimes I have to expect garbage shots, more than on R6/R5.

Were you shooting the 100-400mm at 200mm to “match” the Canon 100-400mm. 400mm with an M4/3 is a lot of lens to handhold, especially in lower light, like in a forest.

Generally, I shoot at the same focal length for my very own comparison. I don't do controlled test shots

On m43 200mm and on FF 400mm. While I had the 400DOii, adding the TC 2x still gave more keepers on the Canon than the Oly 100-400.

I would not say its a bad lens, but its no pro and this is what you notice. Maybe sample variations too

As an alternative, the PL 50-200mm has better image quality than the PL 100-400mm. It’s also smaller, lighter and easier to carry and handle than the PL 100-400mm. Adding the 1.4x teleconverter doesn’t seem to affect image quality. I’m not seeing, but maybe I’m not as picky as some people. 😜

I never tested the PL50-200

SteB wrote:

What I'm about to say is purely constructive and positive i.e. about how to get better image quality. Having a look through your images, it is immediately obvious that you could get better image quality with better post-processing. Not sure if you are using RAW or OOC JPEGs. Firstly, in some images, the fringing is not caused by the lens, but by the use of the highlight slider in a programme such as Lightroom. The masking in this process can sometimes cause fringes or haloes around bright white objects (it's very hit and miss when this happens). If this happens, instead of using the highlight slider, leave that close to 0, and instead just use the white slider or the tone curve, to bring the highlights down. All this depends on the specific editor you use.

The there are ways to get much better image quality without looking so over-sharpened, with more subtle processing. I tend to use Topaz AI software now, but not on automatic settings as you can get much better results by playing around with manual settings. A lot of this is just experience, finding what works, and I don't find a lot of video tutorials helpful as they tend to use overcomplicated methods.

All I'm trying to do, is to reassure you that it is possible to get much better results, especially if these are RAW images, and you can reprocess them.

On top of this, there is an additional problem with very long effective focal lengths and distances. You can get atmospheric effects, subject movement, camera/lens movement. With careful technique, trying out different approaches, taking more images, you can get around this.

One method I would try if you are mainly handholding, which can massively increase your keeper rate, is to use a stick. I tend to use bamboo canes I leave lying around on sites I use. But you can use walking poles, monopods, used as a stick, not as a monopod. What you do is you put your left hand around the stick. Then you rest the end of the lens or the hood, on your hand grasping the stick (the end of the lens gives much better balance than close to the lens mount). You brace the rubber surround of the eyecup onto your brow ridge, therefore creating 3 points of support (including your hand holing the camera). You simply slide your hand up or down the stick to suit the angle. Then you can tilt the stick fore and aft for fine adjustment. It is far faster than using a monopod conventionally and gives you massive extra stability. Of course, you can still get subject movement. So you need the right shutter speed.

Overall, this will greatly increase your keeper rate and the amount of usable images you can get. But it is all about practising with these methods until you get them right.

Hello! Thank you for the advise. Happy to share some of the "bad" RAW files if you want to play with them in post-processing. Just tell me from this link which ones you believe could pp better: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66531745

Yesterday i was surprised what i could get in bad light situation with this lens and em5

It was so "dark" that the lens had hard time to focus, i just saw this bird and tried to take some shots of him (handheld).

No extra sharpening done, only dxo pureraw, lens corrections off.

What you seeing here is due to the atmospheric conditions and not the lens, try looking through a high power telescope in the day and you’ll see the problem.