The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

PANALEICA DG 100-400mm / F4.0-6.3

Knorp

Well-known member
Not a great sample perhaps, but to my eye the PL100-400's output at 132mm is pretty good, certainly good enough for me ... :grin:

 

anGy

Member
I find the sharpness very good from wide open between 100 and 200mm. Then good until 400mm.
IMO the bokeh also looks better in the short focal lengths.







 

anGy

Member
From the 5min comparison I could make, the Oly 300mm PRO IQ looks clearly in another league (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) but I'm not sure the m4/3 sensors deserve such IQ level.
Personally I'm more happy with a smaller, lighter, cheaper, more flexible lens like the 100-400mm Pana (I would choose a Nikon D750 or D810 and a 300mm f4,0 in second hand + crop or teleconverter if more reach is needed).
Don't shoot me for saying this, it's just my personal view and I've never been a sport photographer :roll eyes:







 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
From the 5min comparison I could make, the Oly 300mm PRO IQ looks clearly in another league (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) but I'm not sure the m4/3 sensors deserve such IQ level.
Personally I'm more happy with a smaller, lighter, cheaper, more flexible lens like the 100-400mm Pana (I would choose a Nikon D750 or D810 and a 300mm f4,0 in second hand + crop or teleconverter if more reach is needed).

Hopefully that camera "deficiency" gets addressed through future m43 cameras.

Also, I wonder how the Pana 100-400 compares with the Oly 40-150/2.8 and with MC-14 for 100 and 200 mm?
Likewise the Pana at 400 mm with the Oly 300/4 with MC-14 at 420 mm?
 
Last edited:

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Not a great sample perhaps, but to my eye the PL100-400's output at 132mm is pretty good, certainly good enough for me ... :grin:
Thanks Bart. BTW, which image stabilization are you using, if any?
The in Lens or E-M1 Body IS?
Is there a difference in user experience?
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Thanks Bart. BTW, which image stabilization are you using, if any?
The in Lens or E-M1 Body IS?
Is there a difference in user experience?
Well, I've spent no time yet bothering about the stabilization.
So I'd say every single option is still switched to ON.
Seems to work fine though ... :confused:

Perhaps anGY can run some tests otherwise as soon as the weather improves and my dad is out of hospital I'll give it a try.

Kind regards.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
From the 5min comparison I could make, the Oly 300mm PRO IQ looks clearly in another league (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) but I'm not sure the m4/3 sensors deserve such IQ level.
Personally I'm more happy with a smaller, lighter, cheaper, more flexible lens like the 100-400mm Pana (I would choose a Nikon D750 or D810 and a 300mm f4,0 in second hand + crop or teleconverter if more reach is needed).
Don't shoot me for saying this, it's just my personal view and I've never been a sport photographer :roll eyes:
The problem with using a D810 for this is that you need a 300mm plus a 1.4x TC plus crop mode to get the same reach as an E-M1 with the 300mm without TC. Although the image quality of the D810 is amazing, particularly at low ISO, you would rarely be at base ISO with such a combo. ISO 800 and an effective aperture of f/8 would be the norm according to my experience, while the Olympus combo with better IS and wider effective aperture probably would allow ISO 100 or 200 under the same circumstances.

With a D750, which has less resolution, it becomes even more problematic. I think one can safely say that m4/3 has a great advantage when it comes to long lenses. Notice also that the new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for Sony E-mount is a expensive, as heavy and as large as the Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 which has comparable reach, and I suspect better image quality plus the option of a TC. Getting to 600 or 800mm with an A7 would get me in to all kinds of problems with my bank, while with an Olympus or Panasonic camera, it's really a piece of cake :)

When all that is said, I do prefer optical viewfinders with long lenses, but the weight of a full frame camera with the necessary lens can be quite a challenge, particularly when travelling. The best compromise is probably the D500 plus the 300mm f/4 PF and a TC. That's an option I will consider vs. m4/3 in the coming months.
 

anGy

Member
Yes, I agree.
The m43 is the king of small & lightweight equipment and this is even more true when using long focal lenses.
I knew before buying the Oly Pen F that the pixel quality wouldn't be at the same level as full frame dslr; but I also knew I would never go out with a DSLR + 500mm lens for casual shooting like I now can do with the Pen F + 100-400mm.

But this logic doesn't hold well if the Olympus 300mm F4 comes in the equation.
600mm equivalent / top optical qualities / 22cm long / 1.6kg / 2.600eur are remarquable specs compared to FF DSLR lenses.
The problem is that 2kg in a small bag is not lightweight anymore, and I only use my M43 system when I want to be light so it immediately puts this combo out of the equation.

I'm new to the m43, I don't know how good the AF continuous tracking of an EM-1 is compared to a sport DSLR body, and I don't know neither how the Pen F AF tracking compares with the EM-1.
Maybe after a firmware update and better settings I'll get better results with my Pen F, but for the moment my continuous shooting experience (with of without TR activated, with or without face recognition, etc) is quite disappointing.

To me long focal length lenses (300mm eq. and up) are much more usable on bodies with excellent AF (for sport of course but also nature). This is important and could also be a reason enough not to spend 2.600eur on a tele lens.

But 'maybe' again, the combination of a Oly body + a Oly lens that has a constant f4 aperture will give good AF tracking results when a Oly body + a Pana zoom lens with a slower aperture will ruin your action shots in any other than ideal situations.

In this case I might re-consider my choice as the 300mm f4 Pro lens would then be more usable than the Pana zoom lens.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Yes, I agree.
The m43 is the king of small & lightweight equipment and this is even more true when using long focal lenses.
I knew before buying the Oly Pen F that the pixel quality wouldn't be at the same level as full frame dslr; but I also knew I would never go out with a DSLR + 500mm lens for casual shooting like I now can do with the Pen F + 100-400mm.

But this logic doesn't hold well if the Olympus 300mm F4 comes in the equation.
600mm equivalent / top optical qualities / 22cm long / 1.6kg / 2.600eur are remarquable specs compared to FF DSLR lenses.
The problem is that 2kg in a small bag is not lightweight anymore, and I only use my M43 system when I want to be light so it immediately puts this combo out of the equation.

I'm new to the m43, I don't know how good the AF continuous tracking of an EM-1 is compared to a sport DSLR body, and I don't know neither how the Pen F AF tracking compares with the EM-1.
Maybe after a firmware update and better settings I'll get better results with my Pen F, but for the moment my continuous shooting experience (with of without TR activated, with or without face recognition, etc) is quite disappointing.

To me long focal length lenses (300mm eq. and up) are much more usable on bodies with excellent AF (for sport of course but also nature). This is important and could also be a reason enough not to spend 2.600eur on a tele lens.

But 'maybe' again, the combination of a Oly body + a Oly lens that has a constant f4 aperture will give good AF tracking results when a Oly body + a Pana zoom lens with a slower aperture will ruin your action shots in any other than ideal situations.

In this case I might re-consider my choice as the 300mm f4 Pro lens would then be more usable than the Pana zoom lens.
I doubt that any current mirrorless camera can compete with the best DSLR bodies when it comes to focus tracking. This is partly technology-related, but I suspect that Canon's and Nikon's experience within this field, with enormous input from thousands of professional users, comes into play as well. This may change in the future, but not any time soon I'm afraid. If you turn the table, there's no way Nikon can compete with the contrast detect AF-C of the GH4 when shooting video. That's Panasonic's domain, and they are he ones with the experience.

I agree that the Zuiko 300mm is surprisingly heavy, even more so than the old, full frame Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S. My guess is that the Zuiko in reality is a full frame lens, and possibly telecentric om the 4/3 format to optimise sharpness across the frame on a digital sensor. Oversized lenses seem to be all the rage at the moment :rolleyes:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I am shooting now m43 since years, starting from GH2, then EM5, and now EM1. While AFC and AF tracking significantly improved even the EM1 with latest firmware does not come close to a Nikon D810 WRT to AF tracking. I also shot the XPro1, XE2 and XT1 for a long time (all sold finally) and also the Fuji's were far away from the Nikon responsiveness and AF tracking capabilities, even with the latest FW updates. And from what I heard and read about the XPro2 even this latest Fuji incarnation cannot compete with Nikons when it comes to AFC and AF tracking.

And I even do not compare that to the latest incarnations of Nikon AF in a D5 and D500 respectively. It for sure is experience from more than one decade of constructing and designing AF systems as well as lens parks which most of them are superior AF wise to new mirrorless lenses coming from whatever manufacturer, name it, as soon as we are talking AFC and AF tracking.

Maybe it will take another 4-5 years till mirrorless and DSLR will become equal in that disciplines.
 

anGy

Member
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Let me clarify that I'm not expecting the little Pen F + zoom to approach the CaNikon AF tracking performance, it would have be foolish. Here when I say I'm disappointed with the Oly + Pana combo, I'm talking about following people at 50m distance that are gently walking towards you, or ducks fighting in the middle of a pond (okay, there was a lot of water reflections :rolleyes:).
I expect such basic moving subjects to be efficiently tracked with a better ratio than 1/5.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Hi folks. If any of you are still looking for this lens, my local camera shop (Stewarts Photo) has a few in stock and more on the way. Contact Brian Weeks in Anchorage, Alaska at 907-272-8581 or [email protected]. I have bought a lot of gear from Brian and Stewarts Photo over the years. Highly recommend them.

Gary Benson
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Tend to agree with anGy, on the shorter end the lens is good, the longer end indeed less so.

LEICA DG 100-400/F4-6.3 Shot at 132 mm
Aperture priority AE, 1/250 sec, f/8, ISO 400



 

Elliot

Active member
Tend to agree with anGy, on the shorter end the lens is good, the longer end indeed less so.

LEICA DG 100-400/F4-6.3 Shot at 132 mm
Aperture priority AE, 1/250 sec, f/8, ISO 400



I seem to think the longer shot is pretty good, too. Maybe my eyesight, monitor, or taste is failing me?
 
Top