100 400 or 200 plus 2.0 teleconverter (1 Viewer)

[z-ben]

Could anyone tell me if there would be much difference in results by comparison of a Panasonic 100 to 400 and a leica panny 200 prime with teleconverter please.

 

[Essex Tern]

There is a good comparison Here

and another Here

 

[z-ben]

There is a good comparison Here

and another Here

Thanks I am not much wiser I find these pro reviews very biased but I will work out what to do.

 

[Essex Tern]

Thanks I am not much wiser I find these pro reviews very biased but I will work out what to do.

I think it depends a lot on budget - money no object then I think the 200 is likely a little better from the tests, but personally I would like to try both to see what kind of difference I would get myself in real use.

The 200 is quite a lot more money, especially with the 2x tc which you will want, and my 100-400 gives me results I am happy with, so possibly I’d find it hard to justify for a tiny bit more sharpness, especially when the majority of my photos I am cropping the life out of them because I want more reach, so I think the gains would be watered down in those situations, albeit a slight advantage With the 200 which I wouldn’t say no to if someone offered me one 😉

The 100-400 is I think the most compact way to get 400mm (I think the lens hood on the 200 is longer which is important to me as my current 100-400 is likely more compact).

As I say I actually hope for more reach so may not go beyond my trusty 100-400 until there is a native longer reach option available - I think the 100-400 is a relatively good value proposition whereas the 200 plus tc is getting into the price range where I’d be questioning myself whether the money was better spent on a bigger sensor system. Money no object then 200 all the way, although I do like the versatility of the zoom so would likely have that too, and or the PL 50-200.

 

[Jim M.]

I have the 100-400 and am quite happy with it. The second review indicates the 50-200 w/ 2x TC is almost 50% heavier than the 100-400, which is a big negative for me. I believe it can focus a bit closer though if you do macro.

 

[njlarsen]

Have you considered the sacrilege of the oly 150-400 if you want something better (and more expensive) than the 100-400?

For my money, the PL100-400 hits a pretty sweet spot
Niels

 

[Singlereed]

Don’t underestimate the difficulty of framing and tracking a distant bird at long focal length. The 100-400 has the advantage of being able to find a bird on a lower magnification and then zoom in. I use the 400mm end a lot and wouldn’t want to go out with much less. I’ve been very happy with this lens. Mind you, a hood friend of mine uses the Olympus 300 prime + TC and he gets incredible results so that’s also worth looking at it you can afford it.