Lettermanian: Put the 100-400 sigma on a7 r4 and you're good to go.

You now have a full frame 100mm-400mm (61MP) as well as a m43 so called "200mm-800mm" (17.1MP) with you in one body and lens combo. Cheers!

@Lettermanian I don't talk about equivalence.
Maybe I'm wrong, but, to me, 100-400 mm is 100-400mm whatever the sensor and the equivalent depth of field are.
But I can understand that a 200-800 in the FF world would be much more expensive, and as a result Oly or Pany can ask for this kind of price.
But this reveals that the margins are much larger for Oly or Pany than Sigma in this case.

At those focal legths there is barely any size/weight difference between the formats for 400mm lenses. For those asking for equivalent FF setp - slap a TC on or crop from higher resolution sensors. There is no free lunch.

The price difference is a typical first-party vs third-party thing.

@djimjm I'm no apologist for Olympus or m43; I also believe their gear is quite expensive when comparing similar products from other brands and sensor formats. The truth though is that lens specs alone are basically useless until they're associated with a sensor format. The point of my initial reply was that while the focal length specs are the same, the fields of view produced by the lenses on their native mounts are drastically different. Perhaps this is one reason why the Oly is priced higher - the lens will give twice the amount of reach compared to the Sigma. How much money would have to be spent to get 800mm natively on ff? To me, it makes more sense if lens price comparisons begin with equivalent fields of view because that's what the photographer is actually interested in. The Canon 16-35 f4L is cheaper than the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 and a bit more expensive than the Fuji 16-80 f4, but it's a useless comparison because the fields of view are vastly different.

Actually the mtf data I’ve seen shows the Panasonic is appreciably sharper wide open - you might expect that at the wider end where the Panny starts at f4, but actually the longer it zooms, the further ahead it gets. The Panasonic lens’ IQ does seem to fall off more rapidly as it’s stopped down, but who’s going to do that with this sort of lens on an mft body? Olympus is late to the party with this and although it is very slightly cheaper (in the UK) than the Panaleica, it represents poorer value for money. Slow long zooms just aren’t that exciting given the sensor limitations mean you’re losing two stops of light to start with.

Chris...real world testing shows the oly to be appreciably sharper at the long end wide open.

And at most other focal lengths for that matter...all wide open.

I commented on this below (if you scroll down further). Yes, he said it's unusable at f/8 and smaller, which is a crock. A number of other reviews show it's quite useable at f/8 and f11. Starting at around 2:50 he says "I can't shoot at f/8 or f/11 without a maaajor sacrifice to my image quality." and then concludes "With this lens I'm pretty much getting a fixed depth of field which I have to be happy with." His words, not mine.

This is just a lazy review. They should (and can) do better.

Have to concur with WT21's comments. One of the most inadequate reviews I have read on dpreview. And generally, I am a big fan of the reviews on this site.

Ok, that's a fair point. I honestly did not look so closely at the example of the diffraction as it went by pretty quickly and I kinda just assumed they new what they were talking about when the said the image quality degraded past f8. My bad.

There are a couple of other reviews up already. I don't know if we can put in URLs. Gordon Lang has one. Also Petr Bambousek at sulasula dot com and then /en and then look for the lens review. I am not affiliated with either of these folks, but someone else pointed me to these reviews, and I found them more informative, TBH.

This is not Donald Trump giving a review. Are you saying that his facts are wrong or that he is lying. F5-6.3 is what it is in low light with m4/3. One thing that he did not mention is the Olympus says it has magnification of 0.57x for near macro.

Peter Bambousek's review (SulaSula) is one of the best I've seen. He also compares with the PanaLeica 100-400 and he says that 400 mm mean something different for Oly than for Panny. It's interesting.

youtube? no doubt every Olympus visionary youtuber has a review up

MyReality: The AF in the E-M10 is contrast detect only and moreover, 15fps is available only in AFS. The burst rate with autofocus is 4.5fps. The E-M5 III, with phase detect AF and 10fps in AFC, seems like a much better choice to me.

MyReality: I just wanted to warn you that the E-M10 IV seems like one the weakest current cameras on the market, when continuous autofocus and burst shooting is needed. If it works for you then great. In the M43 system, I'd rather go for the E-M5 III or the Panasonic G9. Or consider something like the Sony A6400 with its great AF system, E-mount has some good and affordable telephoto lenses as well.

They do. f/22 will be mush. But you most likely can push to f/8 and even f/11 without many noticeable issues. f/8 should be very clear territory. DPR overstates it in this video and offers no proof for their claims. Other third party reviews actually took the time to post examples, and if you view the non-DPR reviews, you can judge for yourself.

I often find that diffraction is an over-rated negative in sites like DPR then I remember that people are magnifying images to 100%. At normal viewing distances in real world presentation of images, I rarely find it seriously detracting from a good image. A lot of published and printed landscape pictures for example are in diffraction territory because large DOF is more important to the over-all quality and appeal of the image.

I hear what you are saying, but Mr Nicholls clearly states you can't shoot this lens past f/6.3 and you are stuck with the DOF at that aperture. (min 2:50 in the video). He even says "I can't shoot at f/8 or f/11 without a maaajor sacrifice to my image quality." @@

On DPR people talk about diffraction like it is falling off of a cliff. It doesn’t work that way. The effect is gradual. That said my experience with the PanaLeica 100-400 shows that diffraction starts to become noticeable at f11.

The big issue here though is when shooting wildlife do you turn your E nose up at a subject because you are diffraction limited. Content is everything and if you have a shot of a rare animal and/or unusual behaviour you take it .

I’m beginning to wonder if any of these so called reviewers actually take photos because they all want every technical detail to be absolutely perfect.

@WT21 "Mr Nicholls clearly states you can't shoot this lens past f/6.3 and you are stuck with the DOF at that aperture" – right, and even if it was true he seems to forget that he would have to stop down to f/12.6 for the same DoF on full frame and would be stuck there then, too, if he would need that much or more DoF. So there's no disadvantage in this aspect for the smaller format. The only disadvantage is it being a slow lens in equivalent terms, but we know that already, and it is what's necessary to keep an 800mm-equivalent lens portable and hand-holdable.

Do not use medieval metrics and you are fine

Ok, got it... I'm not used to Candian metric humour :-)

Missed it by a mile..

Is he picking on the one country in the world that doesn't use metric?

Text is ideal for detailed information. Video is good for demo, showing practical effects etc. Text is searchable, easy copied/printed, useful for reference. Can be screenshoted and shared etc. There is a trend to go with video reviews mostly for youtube counts even though text is by far the better medium for this type of stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I also hate video "reviews" that show the host talking all the time besides for the couple of sample images when it all could've been a written article. However, DPR's videos are using video to its advantage besides being just entertaining.

I really enjoy how they get a review done in six to seven minutes when other reviewers spend 18 minutes, most of it talking-yet they fail to get in as much real world shooting experience or sample pics as Chris and Jordan. You're kilometers ahead, guys!

Petr Bambousek's is great for me, with a comparison to the PanaLeica.

https://www.sulasula.com/en/olympus-100-400-is/

Imaging Resource's is good too, plenty of images in raw and jpg:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/100-400mm-f5-6.3-is-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/#fieldtest

I can only confirm that the Panasonic 100-400 is a great lens

haylebob: He means 'quality control problems'. In other words, he's saying that some 100-400 lenses are good and some aren't.

thank you get it...i hate apprevs ;-)

According to Robin Wong‘s latest video this combo is new in that the lens does Pitch and Yaw, while the sensor does Roll. So they combine methods but not in the same way as the Oly 12-100 - which is a bit more effective.

@Albert Valentino
Well, it is the exact way most manufacturers like Sony, Nikon etc.. are doing it. Hardly more effective than lens IS alone. Not having sync IS is a serious downside

@Panther That's not correct, most of the other manufacturers have the lens correction for pitch and yaw while the IBIS corrects for X/Y-translation and roll. Here the IBIS is only correcting for roll. That said, we don't really know what they're doing as the marketing copy is almost certainly an overly gross explanation.

I think he exaggerates the negative points quite a bit. That Canon 100-400mm lens is excellent but also is about 700 USD more expensive and the overall size and weight is still a lot more than m43 kit (body+lens).
Yes there are certain advantages at Canon side but m43 side has also serious advantages.

@yayatosorus
No, it would not. Watch in a few months Olympus delivering the 150-400 F4.5 and watch it fail.
It will be priced at 6000-7000$, offer near-zero advantage over common 600mm zooms in other systems and will sell slower than the Fuji 200mm F2 (which also flopped for them)

You guys speak for yourselves. I value portability over fast maximum apertures. This is a midrange consumer lens. If you are looking for faster glass, either go for the 300 f/4 or wait for the 150-400.

Canon list prices are often quite theoretical. Plus the 100-400 II has been around long enough to often get cashbacks. (Also wide availability used.)

For example I considered getting the Panny 100-400, but went with the Canon as I could use it on my DSLR and adapt it to m43, plus the optical quality is amazing wide open.

I paid £1334 after cashback (new and not grey, from a camera shop in London), IIRC about £135 more the then price for the Panny (£1199).

Oh and you can (and I have) attach the Canon to m43 via a focal reducer to get 71-284mm f/3.2-4 (say 70-300, or 140-568mm FoV). Alas the AF is a bit lacking using the Viltrox, but the sharpness is amazing.

Note I would NOT suggest getting one of the Canon's to adapt to m43, unless the Metabones Smart Adaptor is a lot better than the Viltrox, or you have a Canon camera as well.

Oh and to save people time, although LensTip haven't done a full review yet:
https://www.lenstip.com/144.1-article-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_100-400_mm_f_5.0-6.3_IS__%E2%80%93_first_impressions_Introduction.html

Strangely they hate the flare a LOT, but DPReview TV seemed to be happier?

Why do you guys always compare all lenses with other systems' lenses? If I invested in m43 system, why would I think about a Nikon or Sony lens? Not all lenses are sold to attract other system users, some are sold for that system's users.

@NexUser
I can't speak for others but in my specific case I already have the Canon 100-400 Lii with a DSLR but also have an MFT system including a G9. I would dearly love to have just one system but so far it seems I would be giving up too much getting rid of the DSLR and just using the MFT for events when I need the long reach.
HTH