The Olympus 100-400mm f5.0-6.3 IS is a light and compact telephoto zoom for the Micro Four Thirds system. It gets the same weather sealing as Olympus's Pro lenses, but does it stand up optically? We put it to the test to find out.
Chris was talking about diffraction kicking in with smaller aperture. That is generally true but on a long lens even a small aperture is big enough to not cause visible diffraction. At F22 and 400mm the aperture is still 18.2mm. When the wavelength is much smaller than the aperture width diffraction is not an issue, and 18mm is way beyond visible light. I guess Chris just wanted to show off and pretend he knows what he is talking about. That's a shame since I want reviewers to present real fact. I have to look elsewhere for a review I can trust.
Thanks for that insight, it makes sense from a physics standpoint, and also explains why I don't find diffraction to be particularly limiting when I stop my 300mm F4 down when doing insect closeups.
Macanon I am afraid that is not how it works , though I appreciate there are a few Olympus users who work under the premise that physics does not apply to them
7mm vs 300mm "pro" you will observe the expected result when stopped down to F/16 or F/22
I think that is the first time an Oly product had so strong presence in terms of promotion and publicity throughout the web and so soon after its launching.
Just a comparison: Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 'Contemporary' (for Full Frame) 20 elements/16 groups 4 stops IS min. focus 1.12m Weight 1.1 kg Length 197 mm Diam. 86 mm Public price 950 $ Product date Jul 20
Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS 21 elements/15 groups 3 stops IS min. focus 1.3m Weight 1.1 kg Length 205 mm Diam. 86 mm Public price 1500 $ Product date Sep 20
These lens seem quite similar (except for the size of sensors they aim). But the cost of the Oly is 1.5x What can explain such a difference ?!
@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.
Judging IQ at 800mm FF equivalent without a tripod has no value IMO, and shooting wildlife at 1/320sec if you are using a tripod isn't an issue. Even using a monopod, at any speed slower than 1/1000sec forget it. Shooting M43 at ISO 400-800 has minimal (if any) impact on IQ. I understand the desire to stick to base ISO, but an f5.6 lens would only give one stop advantage. Then show me a FF 800/6.3 lens in comparison and shoot that one hand held too and see how it compares!
an 800/6,3 lens will give you very different images. honestly I would rather buy a rx10iv than the olympus. A 100-400mm Lens on a A7riv is very similar in reach and look if you crop them to the same size.
In general, I found this review to be relatively uninformative compared to other reviews I have READ on this lens. Dpreview--you know you can do better than this. Also, the image samples are horrible. Soft and almost mushy--and I know this is not the lens' fault. I have seen other samples on other websites that are far superior. Really, I find this review is a disservice to users.
wouldn't the Panasonic (leica) 100-400mm be a better option for M43. furthermore, the Pana M43 looks like a better investment for M43 for now and DFD works well with Pana lens?
For me as a Olympus MFT user it wouldn't. The Oly seems opticly better throughout the range and is €100 cheaper. If I would be a Panasonic MFT user I would go for the Panasonic.
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.
I’m going on ePhotozine’s MTF charts, where have you seen measurements that contradict those? I’m not saying they’re right, but publishing faulty data seems a risky thing to do.
I'm considering myself quite an Olympus fan. I would be OK with Olympus selling the Sigma 100-400 FF lens with weather sealing for quite a lot more $$$ than the original Sigma offering. But not bothering to include Sync-IS with Oly bodies is a no-buy.
In minute 1:50, he complains about the narrow aperture ("my main struggle with this lens was really the relatively slow apertures"), and then at 3:10, he complains about how he can't stop down past 6.3 (which is factually wrong). "With this lens I'm pretty much getting a fixed depth of field which I have to be happy with."
In summary - it's a whiny review for a lens without a focus or purpose. Lazy. Sorry to type this. I've liked their work in the past. Maybe they should stick to camera body user experience and video implications.
Maybe you should have watched it a 3rd time as he clearly states (multiple times) that the reason he doesn't want to stop down further is that image quality degrades due to diffraction. He never said the lens had a fixed aperture. Sheesh.
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.
You' re given a product for a couple of days, some guys for a few days more, and you have to deliver some kind of review. You have to be very very experienced to deliver a well balanced, targeted at client and audience -and organization if u r an employee- output not just making all of them happy, but yourself too, the last being the most important if you really know what you' re doing and for what reason.
Was thinking that myself! For first impressions and especially image results, reading is preferable to a video. Video is better at handling questions and shooter experience.
Maybe he thinks we like looking at him. I read faster than he talks, and often go back to a previous section to re-read or check something. Which, in a time-wasting video, wastes even more time. This is just lazy, and becoming far too common on the web. No, I didn't watch the video, but came straight to the comments. They'll probably tell me what I want to know, faster and more concisely. Now when do we get a full written review on the 12-40mm PRO?
Sorry Chris and Jordan, I have watched all of your videos. Even for products I have no interest in purchasing. But the quality of your videos has dropped. This by far is the worst video review you have conducted. The jokes fell flat. The information was wrong. I fear your falling into dpreview world and loosing your edge. The reviews here have also dropped in quality information. I typically need to go to other sites to find out information.
I cannot hit "like" button because I really DON'T like it. But you said the truth. The quality of reviews and video reviews IS dropping... It is very sad...
It may have been a rubbish review - as far as accurate facts, etc, - but at least it was over with quickly. Glad he speaks quickly. Now where can I find a sensible review anyone?
Answering myself. As a Panny PL100-400 user I am well aware that if used wide open at f6.3, these super long telephotos provide a depth of focus that is normally to small to capture many subjects, so we all have to stop down. Talking of which, I would be surprised if anyone can SEE diffraction at f11 on m43. Yes I know the theory, but in practice life is very different. So by the time you remove the intro waffle and the misguided statements, well there really wasn't a lot left.
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.
@rumpelstinzen: I agree with Bambousek's review being excellent, but he doesn't really get what that 400mm being "different" for two lenses is about.
For one, he's wrong in saying (if I remember correctly) that 400mm for a zoom generally is less than for a prime. 400mm should be the same for both (and will be with manufacturers who don't deliberately cheat) – but that's just for infinity. At infinity, he says the two lenses indeed don't differ. It is a rule, though, that a lens with internal focusing loses focal length by focusing closer. And this effect is different for different optical designs. (And while there actually may be a tendency for the effect to be more pronounced in zoom lenses than in primes, I wouldn't spell it out as a rule, either.)
Yeah the Mirrorless Comparison article with a direct test against the PL100-400 is a good read, tho keep sample variation and all that in mind... Just a fact of life, specially with zooms.
I've been considering picking up an Olympus system just for wildlife photography - I could pick up this and a used E-M1X up for not much more than a 100-400 from Canon or Nikon. It would also provide more reach and be less bulky and heavy with the body and lens than those other lenses.
I'm going to wait to decide till fall/winter though because I want to see how much the 150-400 F4.0 with the built in 1.25x Teleconverter ends up costing. Even if it's double the price of the 100-400 it might be worth it for such a powerful setup.
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.
@kolyy - I currently us a Canon 80D, which has phase detect AF, for sports and birding. It works very good with AF-S and all the focus options including AI Servo as long as I use the center AF point(which I do most of the time). There was talk on the DPR forum that contrast detect AF is less accurate than phase detect. I do not know if that is true. I do not use anything greater than 3 fps. I would by the E-M5 III if the price difference was not too create and the camera size was about the same, because I think the M5 is a much better camera. i am looking for a smaller size camera than my 80D.
@MyReality I also use the Canon 80D for birding - that camera with the Sigma 150-600 C is pretty competent. I really like the autofocus system in the 80D. My big complaint though is the size of the setup is pretty unwieldy, and I'm a bit jealous of the hybrid stabilization that Olympus has.
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.
@NacMacFeegle - I use Canon's 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 II for birding with my 80D. It is fast enough at acquiring focus for most birds except the fastest ones. The limiting shutter speed is around 1/1650 for the lens for BIF, that assumes no operator error. I would like to have a slightly faster focusing lens. I use Auto ISO w/shutter speed priority until about 6:30 pm this time of the year and then I go home.
@kolyy - If it is between those two cameras, I would choose the G9 because of size and weight balance with telephotos. But it does not give me enough advantage in those two areas over my Canon 80D. I am looking at the two Olympus's and the Canon M50, because of size and weight for travel.
MyReality: ok, I might have misunderstood you, I thought you were trying to downsize both the body and the lens. I assumed you were also using something like the Sigma 150-600. If you are happy with the Canon 70-300mm, then sure, just adapt it to an EOS M body, given you are ok with the lens selection.
As for the Olympus E-M10 IV vs E-M5 III, they are very close in size.
This guy reminds me of the School Teacher who's end of term report condemns the pupil with feint praise. No mention of the fact that the lens, unlike the Panasonic offering, accepts both the 1.4 and the 2.0 TC. Also, the weather sealing is supposed to be superior. The comments about diffraction were not substantiated and in my experience with Olympus Pro Lenses will not be an issue at anything like f8-f9. Also, to finish, experienced Olympus telephoto shooters would have no real issue shooting this lens at relatively slow shutter speeds and the sensor is able to compete and produce good images at up to iso 3200. 1600 for those who are more critical. Please, let's get real. Life is about compromises and not absolutes and for its target market, this lens's is well worth a look, particularly as mentioned if matched with the 12-100mm f4.
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.
Yeah, the idea that a consumer grade f/6.3 zoom should not be stopped down even to f/8 because of diffraction is laughable.
This lens, like most zooms of this type, will reach peak sharpness at f/8, so not making use of that fact "because diffraction" is just plain silly, to put it mildly.
And if you actually need larger DoF, which is very common with extreme telephoto lenses at close distances, then going to f/11 is a no brainer.
Not to mention this is almost a macro lens. You will want to stop down quite a lot to get things like butterflies in proper focus.
From a practical point of view, all is good right up to f/11, when the softening due to diffraction starts to be visible.
I saw other reviews, with actual examples, showing diffraction was not evident until f/16, and certainly not at f/8, but Chris Nicholls here, without showing examples, says you can't stop down to f/8.
Showing proof is helpful, especially in a site that is know for taking every single opportunity to bash m43. I am open to the facts, but please show that you can't stop down to f/8 or f/11. (oh, and while we're at it, why don't you add to pretty much every APS-C camera review that the sensor doesn't perform as well as FF, as you do with all m43 camera reviews. Thanks).
The video shows one example of diffraction, but it's a huge building shot from a half a mile away so I wonder how much of the issue is really diffraction and how much is atmospheric disturbances from the heat coming off all that concrete in the sun.
WRT the sensor performance, they do periodically note it in APS-C camera reviews too. But yeah.. the 3200 ISO images looked just fine to me, noise-wise, since I'm not printing out six foot wide museum wall hangers from them.
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.
@Hubertus Bigend - excellent point. Not sure why that went by me, lol. You'd have to stop the FF way down and still be approach diffraction, so what's his point? (other than someone sketched down an ignorant talking point without reflection).
I guess the stabilisation issue is less problematic than it may seem, if mirrorlessons.com is right in saying that the Oly 100-400 on the E-M1 III is as well stabilised as the Panasonic 100-400 with full dual IS on a G9, and better stabilised than the Panasonic 100-400 on the E-M1 III.
Looking at the sample images, I am struck by the shallow DOF at long FL even though the lens is not fast, which suggests a faster lens would not be all that useful and of course would be more expensive and unwieldy.
DOF has multiple variables. Focal length, aperture and distance to subject for a certain framing. So for a portrait to have a nice out of focus blur with this lens you have to fill the frame at 400mm from say 15 metres/50ft at f5.6. Compared to say 85mm f1.4 at 2 meters. (overdoing it to make the point). So the subject to sensor distance for the same image filling frame is the main difference between different size sensors. Also, using a long focal lengths creates a lot of depth compression, bringing a distant subject on top of the primary subject. Which sometimes gives dramatic results. I actually prefer a full frame 180mm f2.8 over 85 mm f1.2 for a lot of my pictures because of this effect. (I have both types of lenses). But for wildlife, I would be happy with f5.6 on m43 at 400mm. Even though it may be equivalent to f11. It is still fairly shallow at that focal length at medium distances but you are more likely to have something in focus :)
Although being Olympus, it seems that the Achilles' heel of the lens is the image stabilization. Weak optical stabilization (3 stops) and no full Sync IS support could mean 2 stops deficit compared to PanaLeica 100-400mm lens on a Panasonic body. This is enough to kill the fun of getting the latest and greatest.
Motion blur can negate weak stabilization in some cases, but my experience is that most of the time animals are not moving, meaning that they are still.
The following review shows that the lens stabilization by itself is more effective with the Olympus lens. Dual stabilization with the Panasonic does improve over the Olympus lens.
But there is a new firmware that was made available today that will need to be tested with the lens. It is basically a dual 3-Axis stabilization instead of 5-axis. I am sure we will see more comparisons.
"Roll compensation is available with the image stabilization function of the body, along with the pitch and yaw image stabilization function of the lens.
The "M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS" is not compatible with 5-axis Sync IS."
@SHood, Yes. Actually I was just on my way of mentioning the mirrorlesscomparison test results myself.
Edit.: If the stabilization is as good as with PL 100-400mm (with Dual IS 2), then there is no much reason to shoot higher than ISO 200 in normal conditions, unless the subject is in constant movement.
Traditionally high built Zuiko quality, weather sealed, popular filter thread, aberration not an issue, bokeh not an issue too in real wildlife scenery in a competitive price. Very very nice results from RAW files, from what I saw after downloading a couple of pics from the gallery...
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!
You've been around long enough to know that if this were a camera the answer would likely be yes, but the US DPR staff barely ever posts lens reviews, and Jordan & Chris just seem to go thru a lot more gear... :/ Luckily there's a few decent sites dedicated to M4/3 lens reviews and comparisons (Lenstip, Mirrorless Comparison, Cameralabs, Imaging Resource, Optional Limits, etc.).
I think the last M4/3 lens review I remember seeing here was a comparison of the Sigma 30/1.4 vs the PL25...
I've had the Panasonic f4 - 6.3 100-400 for the last 4 years - it's a great lens so if this one is anything like it, it may be useful for Olympus users who haven't already got the Panasonic 100-400.
@HRC2016 - Fully understand the Panasonic 100-4-- is one of your soapboxes but I guess I've been really lucky - mine has made 6 return trips to the USA, been used in Arizona deserts, Californian / Oregon coasts; it's been in Arctic conditions, extreme humidity / rain forest and even survived the 4 season type days we get in the UK and I'm happy to say it continues to give of its' best. Others' mileage may vary, but as someone who takes it everywhere, I've no complaints.
I've read in another review (Mirrorless Comparisons) that the stabilization can be either IBIS or in-lens but not both. Has there been a definite claim by Olympus that this lens is part of the Sync system?
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.
Yeah just read it as well. Seriously brutal. He makes a point concerning the fact that Olympus didn't really leverage their previous ultra fast lens designs. It's a shame. Had they produced a 100-400 that was significantly faster than their competitors, it would have been very appealing and a very good argument for the m4/3 philosophy.
@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.
@Jon555: That's a good deal but I got one even better at the Photography Show last year. After a huge cash back it was £1199. A no brainer. A really superb lens with my Canon 7Dii but no desire to use it with my Pana G9.
@Panther fan Maybe it would have flopped, but it would have been an interesting product nonetheless and in line with the m4/3 philosophy. Lenses such as the 35-100 f/2, which were able to combine fast apertures and excellent I.Q. are gems. Stuff like that was innovative and exciting. As with the Fuji 200 f/2, I think Fuji didn't really think it trough. A 300mm equivalent focal length still lacks some range even when paired with the x1,4 extender (+/- 430mm). More importantly it seems they failed to assure their commitment to develop more telephoto solutions such as 400mm or 500mm primes. I don't think this "toe dipping" approach really cuts it in this market.
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
First: As a m43 user, a comparision with higher resolution cameras + lenses from other manufactors are no options for me.
Second: If lenstip.com is already making a comparison with the existing Pana 100-400, they should also add a reference to their own test conclusion from 2016:
"Unacceptable image quality on the edge of the frame in the 300-400 mm focal range"
In this context, a new 100-400 from olympus should make a lot of sense. And from the sample-pictures I have seen, they look a lot better wide open @400mm than the panasonic samples from lenstip. I don't have any problems if the lens is a bit bigger, as long as the optical quality is right.
I've never been a fan of these videos and this is no exception. There was no comparison to how this performs against the PL 100-400, which I think a lot of people would want to know. Nor any hint of the problems that have plagued the PL and if they were addressed by Olympus. I do not know any more about this lens after watching this video.
You can head over to the accompanying gallery. There you can see that the eagerly awaited Oly 100-400 isn't really better optically than the PL100-400 you hate SOOOOOO much. Comments suggest this is identical to the sigma DSLR 100-400.
Looks like a nice option for m43 users. M43 has several 75-300, 100-300 and 100-400mm options, even 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 and these lenses are very small and light.
Olympus's new M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5-6.3 IS has arrived and it adds a versatile piece of kit to the brand's vast arsenal of lenses. We've just started shooting with it and already we're impressed with the sharpness throughout the zoom range.
Olympus is expanding its lens offerings to include a new tele-zoom: the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS. With an equivalent reach of 800mm it offers three stops of stabilization along with a dust- and splash-proof design.
The Panasonic GH6 is the latest in the company's line of video-focused Micro Four Thirds cameras. It brings a new, 25MP sensor and 10-bit 4K capture at up to 120p. We've put it to the test, both in the studio and out in the field.
Is the MSI Creator Z17 the MacBook Pro competitor Windows users were hoping for? In our tests it delivers big performance and offers a few good reasons why you might choose a 12th-Gen Intel laptop over a Mac.
The Autel EVO Nano+ drone weighs less than 250g, includes advanced features, and gets extra points for privacy. But is it enough to outclass the competition? We dive deep to find out where it excels and what it's like to fly.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Midwest Photo was burgled late last week after a stolen truck broke through the store's front entrance. The store is in the progress of recovering from the damage and stolen goods. Photographers should be on the lookout for any suspicious product listings online.
OM System Ambassador Peter Baumgarten visits the wetlands of central Florida to photograph birds with the OM-1. Travel with Peter to see how he shoots, and view some of the spectacular photos he captures along the way. (Includes sample gallery)
We go hands-on with Sigma's latest 'Digital Native' wide-angle lenses for L-mount and Sony E-mount cameras to see what features they have and what sets them apart from the rather limited competition.
Sony has announced in-camera forgery-proof photo technology for its a7 IV mirrorless camera. The technology, aimed at corporate users, cryptographically signs images in-camera to detect future pixel modification and tampering.
CRDBAG's CRDWALL is a thin, space-efficient storage solution that you mount on your wall. It uses tracks, cords and hooks to store your gear flat against the wall without hiding it from view.
The new Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG DN Art has a brand new optical formula designed for mirrorless cameras. Check out our sample gallery to see how sharp it is, as well as how it handles flare, chromatic aberrations and sunstars.
Sigma’s new 24mm F1.4 DG DN lens for L-mount and E-mount features a physical aperture ring that can be de-clicked, stepping motors with full support for Sony MF assist modes, a rear filter holder and more.
Sigma's new 20mm F1.4 DG DN lens for L-mount and E-mount offers a unique set of features for Astro and landscape photographers, including a rear filter holder, a Manual Focus Lock switch and a Lens Heater Retainer.
This behemoth uses the same 8K full-frame Vista Vision CMOS sensor found inside the standard V-RAPTOR, but adds an impressive I/O array, integrated ND filter and more to make it a production-ready rig.
Alfie Cameras is launching its Alfie TYCH next month on Kickstarter, but before then it needs beta testers to see how its triple lens half-frame camera performs.
NASA is preparing for a simulated Mars mission that will house four crew members in a module on Earth. The crew will remotely control drones and rovers to collect rock samples on a simulated Mars. Skypersonic, a remote control drone company, is supplying mission-critical technology as part of the mission.
Scientists using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed a neutron star merger in millimeter-wavelength light for the first time. The explosion created one of the most energetic short-duration gamma-ray bursts ever observed.
The Panasonic GH6 is the latest in the company's line of video-focused Micro Four Thirds cameras. It brings a new, 25MP sensor and 10-bit 4K capture at up to 120p. We've put it to the test, both in the studio and out in the field.
The Tamron Lens Utility Mobile app is set to launch later this year. The app will let you use your compatible Android device to control, customize and update compatible Tamron lenses without the need for a computer.
NASA has released a new image from the James Webb Space Telescope, focusing on the Cartwheel Galaxy. The rare galaxy has been imaged using Webb's NIRCam and MIRI, with the composite showing incredible detail.
In a recent Q&A session with stakeholders, Canon said it believes 'the camera market has largely bottomed out at its current size' and noted it 'expect[s] the professional and advanced amateur segment to expand further.'
The Peter McKinnon camera tool features a patent-pending design that features integrated Phillips and flathead drivers, as well as extendable arms capable of holding four other bits that can be swapped out to fit your needs.
Nikon has updated the firmware for its Nikkor Z 50mm F1.2 S, Nikkor Z MC 105mm F2.8 VR S and Nikkor Z 24-70mm F2.8 S to add new linear focus ring modes and more.
The United States court of appeals has upheld the FAA's Remote ID rule for drones, declaring it constitutional. Is this good or bad for the industry, and what are the long-term implications?
Is the MSI Creator Z17 the MacBook Pro competitor Windows users were hoping for? In our tests it delivers big performance and offers a few good reasons why you might choose a 12th-Gen Intel laptop over a Mac.
The PGM0.5 card reader is designed for photographers on-the-go with its compact form factor and integrated USB-C connection, making it perfect for pairing with Android and iOS mobile devices with USB-C ports.
The Canon EOS R7 boasts a number of impressive features, but how does its 32 megapixel APS-C sensor perform? Check out some summer vacation photos from beautiful British Columbia to see for yourself.
Comments