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

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hi, just returned from a 3 week cruise down to Antarctica. Totally happy with the Panaleica 100-400mm, with one major exception!! As far as stabilization, image quality rendering, and a great zoom range..... watch this lens does not fall off the camera body.

Yes, there is an issue, not so much with the lens per se, but with the fact that it is a very heavy lens due to the glass of course, and if one were to wander around with the lens hanging off the camera, or put it down and pick it up again... without due care and attention, it is possible and documented for the bayonet attachment to undo and allow the lens to disconnect.

I used this lens on a GX8 and G85, and found it was worse on the G85 but not so much on the GX8. I have personally solved the disconnect issue with a modified flash bracket, flat strip.. and a couple of extra bracket screws.

Some pics up soon, just in editing mode.. .watch this space.

Phil

So if I understand you correctly, it's the locking mechanism in the bayonet mount that fails, is it?

 

[Elliot]

Hi Elliot, here is an image of the modification, it works well and I have not qualms about the lens and the G85 combination anymore. I did contact Panasonic, and the asked me for confirmation that this had happened before, I sent the link from DPReview that I had found, two or 3 had experienced this. They offered to have me send in the lens and body to Sydney, and they would test it to see if it was my damage.. and also stated in their email that their technicians had tested that combination and found no issue. So far I have opted to not send it in for testing, if they offered to have me come in to their office and show them, ok.

it was very disconcerting to suddenly find the body and lens had parted company, the first two times I had put down the camera and lens after carrying and using it for a while, and when I picked it up the lens stayed on the table. Another time I had to go through security on the ship, and they put it in a small tray, when the security guy did this, the lens separated again... not happy!!

Fortunately, I had been using a Black Rapid double shoulder harness, one attached to the lens and one to the G85. This happened twice when out and using, several times I noted when using the body/lens combination, the viewfinder would go black after 15 minutes or so of use, zooming etc. A quick twist and it would reconnect until the next time.

This method ensures that this will not happen inadvertently, eventually someone will get through, this is a NEW body and lens, purchased a little over a month ago, and it is happening.

The fix...

Photo-Matix Imagery | Camera Tests

It does seem troubling for an expensive lens such as the 100-400, especially since it is designed for the GX8, G85, GH5, etc., I would think. I have tried the Olympus 50-200mm lens with the MMF3 adapter -- which is a heavier combination -- and noticed no slippage, but then it was just a brief trial. I haven't seen other complaints about it, but you say there are two or three others on DPReview who had experienced a similar event?

 

[biglouis]

I've never experienced the lens unlocking issue with my 100-400 but I will be more careful in future.

That said, I follow a very strict protocol with the lens. I never transport it attached to a body. When on the body I rarely let it dangle on my strap (I use a Peak Design system for my bodies). I always hold the lens by the barrel and not (obviously) by the camera body alone (e.g. one handed). Even if I do let the body and lens dangle by my side I generally am holding the lens barrel to stop any strain on the mount and also to stop it from banging into my body.

Everyone knows that you must exhibit caution with long heavy lenses and the strain they inevitably place on the lens mount.

LouisB

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I've never experienced the lens unlocking issue with my 100-400 but I will be more careful in future.

That said, I follow a very strict protocol with the lens. I never transport it attached to a body. When on the body I rarely let it dangle on my strap (I use a Peak Design system for my bodies). I always hold the lens by the barrel and not (obviously) by the camera body alone (e.g. one handed). Even if I do let the body and lens dangle by my side I generally am holding the lens barrel to stop any strain on the mount and also to stop it from banging into my body.

Everyone knows that you must exhibit caution with long heavy lenses and the strain they inevitably place on the lens mount.

LouisB

I still find this worrying. The 100-400mm is not a very heavy lens. I've been running, and I mean literally running, around sports venues for years with heavier lenses (between 1 and 2.5 kilograms) attached to Nikon bodies dangling from my shoulders for years and never given this a thought. This is either a design error or a mechanical problem with this particular lens. It would be very interesting to see Panasonic's (or Olympus') take on this.

 

[Matix]

It does seem troubling for an expensive lens such as the 100-400, especially since it is designed for the GX8, G85, GH5, etc., I would think. I have tried the Olympus 50-200mm lens with the MMF3 adapter -- which is a heavier combination -- and noticed no slippage, but then it was just a brief trial. I haven't seen other complaints about it, but you say there are two or three others on DPReview who had experienced a similar event?

It is random, as I said earlier you can put the lens on, put the camera and lens down, pick it up and the lens is loose.. while shooting in Antarctica and Chile, holding both parts with my hands and zooming, focusing etc.. the viewfinder would go dark, giving the warning that the lens had rotated enough to lose connection to the contacts.

With research, I noted that the body part of the lens mount, has several flat springs to keep the lens mounting face against the body mount face, but these springs cannot keep up with the weight of the Panaleica 100-400 when pointing down. Even when being careful to hold both the lens and camera body to steady it, it will loosen and the warning is the screen goes blank.

It is my opinion, that the weight of the lens can, given the right conditions, compress the flat springs enough to allow the rounded nose of the body locking pin to push back enough to compress and allow the lens to turn.

From DPR

The following information was noted on DPReview under the following thread, with the lens on a GX8. I also have a GX8, but purchased a new G85 to use with the PanaLeica 100-400mm, this has also been my experience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4079065?page=2

HRC2016 wrote:

Make sure you get a good strap to carry this brick of a lens. I've been disappointed with it.

More than that, be carefull not to let it dangle with the weight of the lens on the lens mount!

With my GX8, letting the lens hang from the camera, the weight of the lens actually releases the lens lock! It could easily could all off. I was out shooting when i first got it and noticed it happened numerous times.

This is repeatable and others have mentioned the same thing. I don't know if this is the case with other cameras.

Further in the thread

Trevor Carpenter • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,630
Re: Panasonic Lumix Leica 100-400 zoom...but on which body?
In reply to gary0319 • 3 months ago
gary0319 wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

HRC2016 wrote:

Make sure you get a good strap to carry this brick of a lens. I've been disappointed with it.

More than that, be carefull not to let it dangle with the weight of the lens on the lens mount!

With my GX8, letting the lens hang from the camera, the weight of the lens actually releases the lens lock! It could easily could all off. I was out shooting when i first got it and noticed it happened numerous times.

This is repeatable and others have mentioned the same thing. I don't know if this is the case with other cameras.

Haven't noticed this with my E-M1 or E-M5 II, but thanks for the heads up, I'll be more observant from now on.

The first image is my temporary security bracket and grip, the second was copied from DPR along with the comments above.

 

[Matix]

I've never experienced the lens unlocking issue with my 100-400 but I will be more careful in future.

That said, I follow a very strict protocol with the lens. I never transport it attached to a body. When on the body I rarely let it dangle on my strap (I use a Peak Design system for my bodies). I always hold the lens by the barrel and not (obviously) by the camera body alone (e.g. one handed). Even if I do let the body and lens dangle by my side I generally am holding the lens barrel to stop any strain on the mount and also to stop it from banging into my body.

Everyone knows that you must exhibit caution with long heavy lenses and the strain they inevitably place on the lens mount.

LouisB

I agree Louis, I try to follow the same rules and would never let it dangle from the strap, but just picking up the body and lens, or moving around even holding both parts with your hands or in normal two handed usage, it is possible for this to happen... this was not a rant or complaint, the lens is great, the cameras are fine.. but it is a heavy lens and attachment security is an issue. This post is in the nature of a warning, maybe not an issue for Olympus bodies, but having had it happen maybe 10 times on one trip and noting that it has happened to others, see DPReview... one mistake could lose the lens.

Phil

 

[Matix]

Hi there Phil,

Swapped my PL100-400 for an Oly 300/4.0 yesterday, but up till then I've never encountered this 'disconnect issue' on my EM1.1, EM1.2 or GX8.
Nor did it happen with any other lens for that matter, but anyway it seems to me quite a serious and disturbing experience.
Good thing you found a solution for something that shouldn't happen in the first place.
Still, is your PL100-400 the only lens this happens to ?

Kind regards.

Hi Bart, yes.. .the only lens, I had the Olympus 40-150 and teleconverter, never a problem... I have not tested on the E-M1, but I will give it some testing... with the Black Rapid Double shoulder harness, I had one clip on the lens and one on the body while on the Antarctic trip, as I had no access to extra brackets or screws. It did come lose several times, but I had both hands on the combination.. just lost the viewfinder until I twisted it back into place.

I am happy with the fix, as I do not think a retro fit on the body is practical.. maybe a security bracket designed and supplied by Panasonic.

Phil

 

[Matix]

So if I understand you correctly, it's the locking mechanism in the bayonet mount that fails, is it?

Hi Jorgen, yes, I found that in a controlled test, sitting on the bed in our cabin of the ship.. that by randomly picking up and holding, moving the camera around putting it down, picking it up, zooming and focusing.. that randomly it would disconnect.

Looking further into the actual mount mechanism, I noted that the body part of the lens mount has several flat springs to keep the lens mounting face against the body mount face, but these springs cannot keep up with the weight of the Panaleica 100-400 when pointing down. Even when being careful to hold both the lens and camera body to steady it, it will loosen and the warning is the screen goes blank.

There is movement, lateral, rotational and in general the lock pin is not holding the lens, more than I would expect.

It is my opinion, that the weight of the lens can, given the right conditions, compress the flat springs enough to allow the rounded nose of the body locking pin to push back enough to compress and allow the lens to turn.

Phil

 

[biglouis]

I agree Louis, I try to follow the same rules and would never let it dangle from the strap, but just picking up the body and lens, or moving around even holding both parts with your hands or in normal two handed usage, it is possible for this to happen... this was not a rant or complaint, the lens is great, the cameras are fine.. but it is a heavy lens and attachment security is an issue. This post is in the nature of a warning, maybe not an issue for Olympus bodies, but having had it happen maybe 10 times on one trip and noting that it has happened to others, see DPReview... one mistake could lose the lens.

Phil

Phil, thanks for the warning. I'll bemore careful and check the lens in use. Forewarned is forearmed!

Thanks

Louis

 

[k-hawinkler]

Here is the post I originally responded to:

Originally Posted by anGy
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?

Thanks PSon for reminding me of this post. :salute:
Well it got addressed in the E-M1.2 IMHO. :thumbs:

 

[Knorp]

Still, the PL100-400 renders beautifully and at close range does show some sharpness ...

iso 3200 | 1/250 s | f/8 | 300 mm

 

[Matix]

After a few thousand images with this lens, I still believe it is the best in it's class. I had the earlier 100-300mm Lumix lens, and it was good up to 250mm then faded in sharpness. As noted, the rendering is superb and I am very happy with the results for a relative slow lens, and using the double stabilization the stability is the best I have used on any camera to date. No tripod, not needed.. and slow shutter speeds as noted.

If find the Panaleica DG 100-400mm is excellent from 100-300mm, then very good to 350mm and is OK from there to the 400mm max.

Here are a couple of examples of King Parrots taken with poor light, that is.. in shadow on a bright day, and using my usual C.W.Average exposure to get as much colour depth as possible. Being a bright Red plumage bird some definition is lost, but I cannot get this much better with any lens on a digital camera. The only camera that was superior was my Sony A77.

The third image was outdoors, in shade. The Crested Pigeons are very skittish, no time to fiddle with settings.. they are super aware of your presence..

The fourth, Black Back Cormorant rookery in the Beagle Channel, Ushuaia, South America looks fine to me for a 400mm shot from a moving small boat on rough seas.

Phil

Lumix G85, 1/125s, f/5.9, ISO 1600, 350mm


Lumix G85, 1/100s, f/4, ISO 1600, 100mm


Lumix G85, 1/250s, f/5.8, ISO 1600 318mm


Lumix G85, 1/2500s, f/8, ISO 1600 400mm

 

[henningw]

I've had this lens for over 6 months now and am quite used to it. I've used it only on Olympus bodies: E-M5 MkII, E-M1 MkI and MkII. For ergonomic reasons the E-M1 bodies are better, but the E-M5 works, albeit a bit slower.

While the optical quality in general is very good, it definitely falls off at the long end, but it's not as clear cut as one might first suspect. 500mm effective focal length is different than 800mm effective focal length. At close distances and 800mm efl the lens seems quite sharp, but at longer distances not so much. Close inspection reveals that this is very often (possibly always) due to atmospheric condition. Last August we went to the Arctic, above 75°N, and even there at around 0°C atmospheric conditions (i.e., 'heat waves') were the main cause of less than sharp pictures. I don't think I've shot anything at 800mm efl and at a distance of over 50m that hasn't been degraded by atmospheric conditions. What I did find is that the 100-400 is much superior to the 100-300 and I am uninterested in using the latter anymore. Also, the 100-400 is definitely preferable to the 40-150/2.8 Olympus with teleconverter over their common focal lengths unless the last bit of lens opening is demanded at 210mm.

While in the Arctic I tried different stabilization settings when used on the E-M1 MkI, and found that leaving both on resulted in pretty much the same as only having the lens stabilization on. IBIS only was not as good. I haven't done thorough tests with the E-M1 MkII. For now I will leave both on, as that doesn't seem to introduce detrimental effects. I got many sharp shots at 400mm shooting from a zodiac bouncing on the waves.

I will probably get the 300 Olympus later this year as it seems to be truly outstanding, but overall I'm very happy with the 100-400 when I need the versatility. I also haven't had it disconnect from the camera.

Someone posted that if you wanted more reach at higher quality you should use a Nikon 810 or 750 with the new Nikkor 300/4 with converters. This doesn't work. An 810 with the 300 doesn't give you the reach and with 2x converters you don't get the quality, and with the 1.4x you don't get the reach nor the quality. Your best bet is the D500 with the 200-500, and there the quality and reach is very similar to the E-M1 MkII with the 100-400 at a large size and weight penalty. Some years ago I compared a Canon 7D and EF 100-400 to a Panasonic GH2 and 100-300, and the Panasonic combo consistently beat the Canon combo for detail. Now that the m43 systems have decent focus performance and better long lenses, it becomes harder to make a case for larger sensor cameras, especially if you have to fly with them.

 

[Knorp]

While the optical quality in general is very good, it definitely falls off at the long end, but it's not as clear cut as one might first suspect. 500mm effective focal length is different than 800mm effective focal length. At close distances and 800mm efl the lens seems quite sharp, but at longer distances not so much.

Well put and exactly my observation, too !

 

[ptomsu]

I Also, the 100-400 is definitely preferable to the 40-150/2.8 Olympus with teleconverter over their common focal lengths unless the last bit of lens opening is demanded at 210mm.

While I agree with almost all you said and also I am grateful that you put the 100-400 into right light WRT its qualities I disagree with your statement about the 2.8/40-150 and TC1.4.

This is one of the best lenses ever designed and there is not much degradation of IQ even using the TC. I am having the TC almost all times mounted to this lens and together with the EM1.1 and EM1.2 it produces stunning results. Also the reach is EFL 112-420 that is almost the same as the Nikkor 80-400 or the Canon 100-400 but almost 1 stop brighter at consistent F4.

So the 40-150 is definitely one of the marvels of the whole m43 system:thumbup:

 

[Matix]

I've had this lens for over 6 months now and am quite used to it. I've used it only on Olympus bodies: E-M5 MkII, E-M1 MkI and MkII. For ergonomic reasons the E-M1 bodies are better, but the E-M5 works, albeit a bit slower.

While the optical quality in general is very good, it definitely falls off at the long end, but it's not as clear cut as one might first suspect. 500mm effective focal length is different than 800mm effective focal length. At close distances and 800mm efl the lens seems quite sharp, but at longer distances not so much. Close inspection reveals that this is very often (possibly always) due to atmospheric condition. Last August we went to the Arctic, above 75°N, and even there at around 0°C atmospheric conditions (i.e., 'heat waves') were the main cause of less than sharp pictures. I don't think I've shot anything at 800mm efl and at a distance of over 50m that hasn't been degraded by atmospheric conditions. What I did find is that the 100-400 is much superior to the 100-300 and I am uninterested in using the latter anymore. Also, the 100-400 is definitely preferable to the 40-150/2.8 Olympus with teleconverter over their common focal lengths unless the last bit of lens opening is demanded at 210mm.

I would agree for the most part... but, as a long time user for long lenses, around 50 years, I have not yet found the technique to solve the long distance atmospheric issue. This issue is a scientific fact, and other than testing the lens from the International Space Station, this is one of the joys of living in a moving atmosphere.

Shortly after receiving my copy of the PanaLeica DG, I took this shot on my back lawn, through the atmosphere. Hand held, with a GX8 at 400mm.... I think this result for a camera and lens, hand held by an experienced amateur photographer at age 72 shows what this lens can do. IMHO, the result is mostly due to the lens, camera and Dual IS, and not so much the person holding the camera.

Cropped to 1269 x 846 1:1, GX8, 1/1000th s, f/6.3, -2.33 eV, Center W Av, 400mm - 15/11/2016 at 9pm


And another shot, also hand held, of Venus.... no it is not National Geographic quality, but this was with the same camera and lens, also hand held... and is the first time every I have taken an image of a star and it has show as round.

Cropped to 875 x 583 0.5 MP, GX8, 1/320th s, f/5.3, Center W Av, 236mm - 15/11/2016 at 9:30pm


Phil

 

[ptomsu]

I would agree for the most part... but, as a long time user for long lenses, around 50 years, I have not yet found the technique to solve the long distance atmospheric issue. This issue is a scientific fact, and other than testing the lens from the International Space Station, this is one of the joys of living in a moving atmosphere.

Shortly after receiving my copy of the PanaLeica DG, I took this shot on my back lawn, through the atmosphere. Hand held, with a GX8 at 400mm.... I think this result for a camera and lens, hand held by an experienced amateur photographer at age 72 shows what this lens can do. IMHO, the result is mostly due to the lens, camera and Dual IS, and not so much the person holding the camera.

Cropped to 1269 x 846 1:1, GX8, 1/1000th s, f/6.3, -2.33 eV, Center W Av, 400mm - 15/11/2016 at 9pm


And another shot, also hand held, of Venus.... no it is not National Geographic quality, but this was with the same camera and lens, also hand held... and is the first time every I have taken an image of a star and it has show as round.

Cropped to 875 x 583 0.5 MP, GX8, 1/320th s, f/5.3, Center W Av, 236mm - 15/11/2016 at 9:30pm


Phil

Phil,

could not agree more!

I have shot lot of long glass on Nikon and Canon, even a Nikkor 1000 mirror tele with TC2x and while exceptional always suffered from atmospheric issues.

The PanaLeica 100-400 seems to be a hell of a lens and it definitely has lot of flexibility due to the fact of being a zoom lens. I think it is best used with a Panasonic camera that can make use of Dual IS.

Finally I will need to go for the DG 100-400 AND the Olympus 4/300 :banghead:

Peter

 

[Knorp]

New firmware for the beasty: v1.2

 

[henningw]

While I agree with almost all you said and also I am grateful that you put the 100-400 into right light WRT its qualities I disagree with your statement about the 2.8/40-150 and TC1.4.

This is one of the best lenses ever designed and there is not much degradation of IQ even using the TC. I am having the TC almost all times mounted to this lens and together with the EM1.1 and EM1.2 it produces stunning results. Also the reach is EFL 112-420 that is almost the same as the Nikkor 80-400 or the Canon 100-400 but almost 1 stop brighter at consistent F4.

So the 40-150 is definitely one of the marvels of the whole m43 system:thumbup:

I also use the 40-150 a lot with the TC, and think it is one of the best ways to get to 400mm efl. It's just that I do see a drop with the TC, and the 100-400 is truly outstanding in this range and thus tops it. Please note that these statements reflect what I've seen in my copies, just as what you've seen reflects your copies and experiences. Variations are inevitable.

 

[Knorp]

From a well-known source (lenstip.com), here are the graphs: first PL 100-400, second OLY 40-150 including TC.
It apparently 'confirms' that the PL tops the OLY at 200/210mm ...