PanaLaica 100-400 mk ii (1 Viewer)

[Jim M.]

After listening to a brief discussion on a Lumix video, it appears the new on/off switch limits the zoom range to the range where the teleconverters will work. If it is not enabled, then there might be a disconcerting clunking sound when zooming too far out with the teleconverter; won't damage the lens though.

So I don't believe there are any new focus limiting capabilities. I don't think there are any new macro capabilities either; the .5x figure being thrown out is just some sort of an equivalence number for 35mm. But if the minimum focusing distance remains the same with the 2x teleconverter, then you should be able to double the image size when using the teleconverter vs. what the original lens offered.

So I think what this all boils down to is the only real functional change is the ability to use teleconverters. The video says the weight remains the same. Though perhaps there are optical/image quality improvements – will have to wait for reviews to see if that is the case.

 

[Essex Tern]

Same optical structure, so I think it depends on if you own the mk1 lens or not, in which case if not, the mk2 is a no brainer, but if you own a mk1 it depends on if you want to add a TC without hacking your mk1 to do this.

Unless the glass or coatings are upgraded enough to make a difference, I think I will stick with my mk1, unless Panasonic offer a compelling trade up scheme.

mk1…..



Mk2…..

 

[Essex Tern]

Treated my 100-400 to a new filter today, think I’ll skip the mk2 lens unless I need to replace my old one for some reason, although of course I would love the mk2, but I’m not sure the upgrade is justified unless reviews prove otherwise.

 

[njlarsen]

Treated my 100-400 to a new filter today, think I’ll skip the mk2 lens unless I need to replace my old one for some reason, although of course I would love the mk2, but I’m not sure the upgrade is justified unless reviews prove otherwise.

Have you tested the sharpness of the lens with and without filter? I have seen some video at one time discouraging use of filters.

Otherwise I am like you, I usually like to have the current range available and rarely miss the use of a TC. Use of TC would be the strongest argument for a change I think.

Niels

 

[Essex Tern]

Have you tested the sharpness of the lens with and without filter? I have seen some video at one time discouraging use of filters.

Otherwise I am like you, I usually like to have the current range available and rarely miss the use of a TC. Use of TC would be the strongest argument for a change I think.

Niels

Haven’t tested the new one yet, but I had no issues with the old one - I am in the camp of preferring to clean a filter than the front element, so unless I struggle to get shots, I shall probably not worry about testing with and without. It is an 18 layer coated anti-reflective filter, so I don’t expect any issues, but I’ll report back if there are.

Yes the TC would be nice, but I’ll stick to cropping and hoping to get close to my subjects, which always beats cropping and TC’s.

 

[njlarsen]

A preliminary review of the lens:

Panasonic 100-400mm f4.0-6.3 II Preview: Impressive Reach!

The Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 II brings a long reach, close focusing capabilities and teleconverter support to Micro Four Thirds.

www.thephoblographer.com

My favorite quote (bolding is mine)

The Panasonic 100-400mm f4.0-6.3 could be placed on a pedestal above a plaque saying: This is why you buy Micro Four Thirds. Yes, full-frame cameras have their advantages. But the ability to shoot at an 800mm equivalent without raising your own pack mule to carry your gear shouldn’t be underestimated. Using such a small lens and still getting an 800mm-equivalent reach is liberating.

Niels