• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Olympus 100-400 (1 Viewer)

A

alanrharris53

Well-known member
Not seen any direct comparisons yet, but the lack of synch IS looks to be a downer for Oly owners hoping for an upgrade over the PL 100-400 on IS.

Haven’t seen anything yet to suggest it is a big improvement over the PL optically, so my wallet can stand down in all likelihood - think they may have scaled it back a bit so as to not take sales away from the forthcoming 150-400.

Ability to take a TC looks nice though, but needs to be very good optically. I would like Panasonic to bring one out for the PL to bring parity.
 
Despite being slower at low zoom than the PL100-400, it is larger and heavier. So again there is the trend: Olympus makes the heavy lenses but the light bodies, and Panasonic does the reverse. That alone makes me favor the Panasonic lens. And, as I favor Olympus bodies, the fact that it bizarrely does not support dual image stabilization on Olympus bodies decides the issue as far as I'm concerned.

Some initial reviews suggest slightly better lens-only IS for the Olympus, and slightly better sharpness when wide open. But I think there is a fair amount of simple variation in terms of quality of the Panasonic lens, so I think any test only proves the superiority of a particular sample.

The only thing that the Olympus has going for it for me is the ability to use teleconverters. If those don't increase minimum focusing distance, that could make the lens plus teleconverter an interesting macro option, since it would likely double the image size vs the Panasonic. But a teleconverter would add even more weight and the effect on image quality is unknown at this point.
 
Last edited:
just out of curiosity i will wait to see how much the 150-400mm f4.5 pro costs, and if it is not worth a kidney (which i am sure it will) then i think this 100-400 mm f6.3 will be with me by the end of the year.

but still i think Olympus and m4/3 line of lenses needs a 50-200 mm at f2.8. or better if like the 4/3 90-250 mm f2.8.
 
ammadoux said:
just out of curiosity i will wait to see how much the 150-400mm f4.5 pro costs, and if it is not worth a kidney (which i am sure it will) then i think this 100-400 mm f6.3 will be with me by the end of the year.

but still i think Olympus and m4/3 line of lenses needs a 50-200 mm at f2.8. or better if like the 4/3 90-250 mm f2.8.
Click to expand...

Do you think this 100-400 is better than the PanaLeica 100-400?

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
Do you think this 100-400 is better than the PanaLeica 100-400?

Niels
Click to expand...

i live in always sunny Jeddah, so i don't care about the brighter f on the lower end, and i think its compatibility with the 1.4 TC is on the plus side.

never thought of the panaleica before since i got the 300 mm f4 prime and the TC.
 
If you want stability, especially when hand holding, weight matters. I use an Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 hand held quite often (with my E-M1 MkII) and I get better results than with my Nikon 300mm f4, even if i use a 1.4x converter with the 90-250mm.
 
Australian Image said:
If you want stability, especially when hand holding, weight matters. I use an Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 hand held quite often (with my E-M1 MkII) and I get better results than with my Nikon 300mm f4, even if i use a 1.4x converter with the 90-250mm.
Click to expand...

While your premise is correct, I also believe the weight can be too high. It is likely that the optimal weight depends to some extent on the person doing the photography. I am using the PanaLeica 100-400 on a panasonic body, and I do not think I would like anything heavier, personal preference.

Niels
 
I think the premise is dubious--would need to be convinced by tests, and expect it holds true, if at all, in only limited circumstances. For example, I know I get greater hand shake from the fatigue of holding heavier lenses.

In any event, if you prefer to haul around more dead weight, go full frame. Or tie weights around your lens. ;-) M4/3 is for people who want a lightweight system.
 
Jim M. said:
I think the premise is dubious--would need to be convinced by tests, and expect it holds true, if at all, in only limited circumstances. For example, I know I get greater hand shake from the fatigue of holding heavier lenses.

In any event, if you prefer to haul around more dead weight, go full frame. Or tie weights around your lens. ;-) M4/3 is for people who want a lightweight system.
Click to expand...


agree, and that what was all about the concept of mirrorless systems, until "you know who" decided to make there heavy and ugly systems mirrorless.
 
Jim M. said:
I think the premise is dubious--would need to be convinced by tests, and expect it holds true, if at all, in only limited circumstances. For example, I know I get greater hand shake from the fatigue of holding heavier lenses.

In any event, if you prefer to haul around more dead weight, go full frame. Or tie weights around your lens. ;-) M4/3 is for people who want a lightweight system.
Click to expand...


agree, and that what was all about the concept of mirrorless systems, until "you know who" decided to join
with there heavy and bulky bodies and lenses.
 
The m4/3 system was never intended to be a featherweight system, it caters to all types; but if you want fast lenses, then they are not going to be small and lightweight. They will of course be smaller and of lighter weight than FF lenses, but it's all relative.

People consider the 12-100mm f4 heavy and the 40-150mm f2.8 extremely heavy (I have both) and to me they are featherweight lenses compared to my other lenses. My lightweight cinema rig with the Olympus 14-35mm f2 lens weighs 4.3kg and I can carry that around all day without breaking a sweat (except when it's over 30C).

And with the rumoured direction that the new owners of Olympus are heading, there won't be any of these 'lightweight' cameras and lenses about as they focus on the pro end. Panasonic may also decide to ditch the m4/3 if sales don't grow (they ditched 4/3 without any hesitation).

And if you don't believe me, here's a job I did some years back using my 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2 lenses with an E-M1 MkI from the back seat of a helicopter: https://australianimage.com.au/a-matter-of-balance/. I could provide many other examples of much easier situations on the ground.
 
Last edited:
you are likely both younger and stronger than I am. It sounds like you would be better served with the 150-400 rather than its smaller brother.

To repeat, i would not care for a setup heavier than my current setup.

Niels
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

wolfbirder
Morocco Marvels and Meanderings 21 - 28 March 2023
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder
John Cantelo
Olympus Stylus SP 100 superzoom
Replies
19
Views
16K
Stephen Prower
S
Troubador
Zeiss New Product Development and How SF Binoculars Were Created
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
13K
eronald
E
Troubador
Interviews with Retailers: George Dobre of Astro-Sweden
2
Replies
22
Views
8K
temmie
temmie
G
Birds of Paradise
2
Replies
38
Views
11K
Richard Klim
Richard Klim

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top