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

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
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 ...
Thanks Bart. Well, I had already concluded that my MC-14 sucks badly on the 40-150/2.8 PRO and the 300/4 PRO. :banghead:
So, I wouldn't hold that against the lenses that both are outstanding. :thumbs:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One thing to be aware of when it comes to the Zuiko TC is that it doesn't like busy backgrounds. I struggled with that when I had it, and this was one of the reasons why I sold the combo.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Thanks Jorgen. Depending on the situation I agree the bokeh can be rather busy.
But I am more worried what the MC-14 does to the IQ of the 40-150/2.8 PRO.
From http://www.lenstip.com/479.4-Lens_r..._40-150_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html we get these measurements.

frame centre

From 150mm to 210mm the MTF50 drops by way too much to result in a sharp image IMHO.


edge of the frame

Same here at the edges.

Does anybody ever got a good MC-14 without this dramatic drop in performance? TIA.
 

drb

New member
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've been watching this thread with interest as I'm looking for a longer range lens for my EM1.2. I'm renting both the Pana 100-300 II and Pan-Leica 100-400 to do some side by side comparisons, including comparing it to the Oly 40-150 + TC which I already have. The 40-150mm is great, but like others have mentioned I was disappointed when using it with the TC (thus, I never use the TC anymore). Much of what I shoot is at significant distance (multiple kilometers) and atmospheric effects are usually the limiter in IQ.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm looking for a longer range lens for my EM1.2. I'm renting both the Pana 100-300 II and Pan-Leica 100-400 to do some side by side comparisons, including comparing it to the Oly 40-150 + TC which I already have. The 40-150mm is great, but like others have mentioned I was disappointed when using it with the TC (thus, I never use the TC anymore). Much of what I shoot is at significant distance (multiple kilometers) and atmospheric effects are usually the limiter in IQ.
Exactly! Thanks.
BTW, IQ also suffers when using the MC-14 on the 300/4 PRO - but not as severely. :facesmack:
Question: Is the EC-14 any better when used on the SHG 150/2.0 or 300/2.8? :watch:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Folks,

I begin thinking that there are obviously sample variations of the TC1.4. Mine seems to be excellent. Maybe it was also a selected one as I bought the combo of 2.8/40-150 plus TC.

Having said that in all my photographic life I shot many different TC's from Nikon, Canon, Leica, .... and all were best case mediocre. The Olympus TC1.4 is really outstanding compared to all I know from the past.

Plus I also found that while lens charts are good I stopped trusting them, as well as most of the tests you can find published. My go to strategy is try a lens (lens combo) myself and see how it handles, performs and how I like it. It is as simple as that :cool:;):clap:
 

drb

New member
I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm looking for a longer range lens for my EM1.2. I'm renting both the Pana 100-300 II and Pan-Leica 100-400 to do some side by side comparisons, including comparing it to the Oly 40-150 + TC which I already have. The 40-150mm is great, but like others have mentioned I was disappointed when using it with the TC (thus, I never use the TC anymore). Much of what I shoot is at significant distance (multiple kilometers) and atmospheric effects are usually the limiter in IQ.
I shot with both the Pan 100-300 II and the Pan-Leica 100-400 for a few days and did some comparisons. I also did a few comparisons with my Oly 40-150 Pro f2.8. While I wouldn't consider it formal lens testing (I didn't use a resolution chart nor did I have an optical bench for precise alignment), I did shoot hundreds of shots with each lens and got a good sense of the differences, at least for my purposes. All shots were done on a Oly EM1.2. These are the only non-Oly m4/3 lenses I have used.

First, the obvious for those that have already handled these lenses. The P-L 100-400 is a big, heavy, solidly built metal lens. It's very similar in size/weight/build to the Oly 40-150 Pro. The Pan 100-300 II is significantly smaller, lighter, and molded plastic housing. The Pan 100-300 II is also weather resistant as I believe the P-L 100-400 is although I didn't see that in the specs. The Pan 100-300 II is much less expensive than the Pan-Leica 100-400.

Bottom line is that I found both lenses impressive. I'm going to list a number of observations from my testing.
- Neither lens had quite the IQ of the Oly 40-150 Pro at 100mm or 150mm.
- The Pan-Leica had better IQ/sharpness in the corners compared to the 100-300.
- The 100-300 may have been ever so slightly sharper in the center wide open only.
- I thought the Pan-Leica performed well at 400mm although I've seen forum posts of people commenting about image degradation on the long end (similar comments seen for the Pan 100-300 at the long end, but it did well too in the center but not so much in the corners). We already had a discussion how some of these observations might be related to atmospheric influence at distance. I was able to use the 100-400 @ 400mm to identify a house at a distance of 15km.
- The OIS image stabilization on the Pan-Leica was amazing and noticeably better than the Pan 100-300. Now you have to take into account I was using this on the OMD1.2 which I don't think will do Sync IS with non-Oly lenses (I did have the just released V1.2 fw on the Pan-Leica though). I'm also wondering if the increased weight of the Pan-Leica made it easier to hand hold steady. I found that I got a bit better results with the OIS of the Pan 100-300 turned off and only using the IBIS on the Oly OMD1.2. On the Pan-Leica 100-400 I got some sharp images @ 400mm at 1/20th second hand held. At 1/30th or so, I consistently got sharp images at the long end of the Pan-Leica. BTW, the best I was able to get was a couple of sharp images @ 400mm @ 1/8th hand held (sitting down braced), but these were outliers.
- In one series of tests, I had some issues getting tack sharp images at 400mm on the P-L mounted on the tripod at slow shutter speeds (between 1/4th-1/20th sec). In retrospect (and after repeating the test), I think I must have had some vibration in the mounting system because I could get tack sharp images in a similar setup hand-held at faster shutter speeds. On the tripod, I had no such issues with the Pan 100-300 II.
- The Pan-Leica didn't seem to perfectly autofocus at 100mm with some closer range shots. I got better results manually focusing in this scenario.

Other observations/comments:
- Olympus Pro Capture mode doesn't work on either of the lenses (the option is greyed out)
- I've seen people complain about the very stiff zoom on the Pan-Leica 100-400. The lens has a "zoom lock" feature and you have to make sure it is completely unlocked, otherwise it's very hard to zoom. Placing the lock ring in the completely unlocked position was not obvious on initial use.
- I do not believe (from reading other posts) either of these lenses will work in Sync IS mode on an Oly body. I would hope the two companies would work together to make that happen in a future fw update. I have to imagine Dual IS with Panasonic bodies would be amazing, but I don't have a Panasonic body to try that.
- In one shoulder bag, I can have a travel kit with three lenses that cover the continuous FF equivalent of 14mm all the way to 600mm or 800mm. That wouldn't be close to possible with my FF setup.
- For my purposes, I ended up ordering the Pan-Leica 100-400mm. The deciding factor was the extra range, better IS performance on the OMD1.2, and corner sharpness. However, I think both lenses are great options.
 

drb

New member
I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm looking for a longer range lens for my EM1.2. I'm renting both the Pana 100-300 II and Pan-Leica 100-400 to do some side by side comparisons, including comparing it to the Oly 40-150 + TC which I already have. The 40-150mm is great, but like others have mentioned I was disappointed when using it with the TC (thus, I never use the TC anymore). Much of what I shoot is at significant distance (multiple kilometers) and atmospheric effects are usually the limiter in IQ.
I shot with both the Pan 100-300 II and the Pan-Leica 100-400 for a few days and did some comparisons. I also did a few comparisons with my Oly 40-150 Pro f2.8. While I wouldn't consider it formal lens testing (I didn't use a resolution chart nor did I have an optical bench for precise alignment), I did shoot hundreds of shots with each lens and got a good sense of the differences, at least for my purposes. All shots were done on a Oly EM1.2. These are the only non-Oly m4/3 lenses I have used.

First, the obvious for those that have already handled these lenses. The P-L 100-400 is a big, heavy, solidly built metal lens. It's very similar in size/weight/build to the Oly 40-150 Pro. The Pan 100-300 II is significantly smaller, lighter, and molded plastic housing. The Pan 100-300 II is also weather resistant as I believe the P-L 100-400 is although I didn't see that in the specs. The Pan 100-300 II is much less expensive than the Pan-Leica 100-400.

Bottom line is that I found both lenses impressive. I'm going to list a number of observations from my testing.
- Neither lens had quite the IQ of the Oly 40-150 Pro at 100mm or 150mm.
- The Pan-Leica had better IQ/sharpness in the corners compared to the 100-300.
- The 100-300 may have been ever so slightly sharper in the center wide open only.
- I thought the Pan-Leica performed well at 400mm although I've seen forum posts of people commenting about image degradation on the long end (similar comments seen for the Pan 100-300 at the long end, but it did well too in the center but not so much in the corners). We already had a discussion how some of these observations might be related to atmospheric influence at distance. I was able to use the 100-400 @ 400mm to identify a house at a distance of 15km.
- The OIS image stabilization on the Pan-Leica was amazing and noticeably better than the Pan 100-300. Now you have to take into account I was using this on the OMD1.2 which I don't think will do Sync IS with non-Oly lenses (I did have the just released V1.2 fw on the Pan-Leica though). I'm also wondering if the increased weight of the Pan-Leica made it easier to hand hold steady. I found that I got a bit better results with the OIS of the Pan 100-300 turned off and only using the IBIS on the Oly OMD1.2. On the Pan-Leica 100-400 I got some sharp images @ 400mm at 1/20th second hand held. At 1/30th or so, I consistently got sharp images at the long end of the Pan-Leica. BTW, the best I was able to get was a couple of sharp images @ 400mm @ 1/8th hand held (sitting down braced), but these were outliers.
- In one series of tests, I had some issues getting tack sharp images at 400mm on the P-L mounted on the tripod at slow shutter speeds (between 1/4th-1/20th sec). In retrospect (and after repeating the test), I think I must have had some vibration in my mounting system because I could get tack sharp images in a similar setup hand-held at faster shutter speeds. On the tripod, I had no such issues with the Pan 100-300 II.
- The Pan-Leica didn't seem to perfectly autofocus at 100mm with some closer range shots. I got better results manually focusing in this scenario.

Other observations/comments:
- Olympus Pro Capture mode doesn't work on either of the lenses (the option is greyed out)
- I've seen people complain about the very stiff zoom on the Pan-Leica 100-400. The lens has a "zoom lock" feature and you have to make sure it is completely unlocked, otherwise it's very hard to zoom. Placing the lock ring in the completely unlocked position was not obvious on initial use.
- I do not believe (from reading other posts) either of these lenses will work in Sync IS mode on an Oly body. I would hope the two companies would work together to make that happen in a future fw update. I have to imagine Dual IS with Panasonic bodies would be amazing, but I don't have a Panasonic body to try that.
- In one shoulder bag, I can have a travel kit with three lenses that cover the continuous FF equivalent of 14mm all the way to 600mm or 800mm. That wouldn't be close to possible with my FF setup.
- For my purposes, I ended up ordering the Pan-Leica 100-400mm. The deciding factor was the extra range, better IS performance on the OMD1.2, and corner sharpness. However, I think both lenses are great options.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
drb,

many thanks for posting your experiences!

You reflected my findings with the 40-150 Pro hundred percent, I also find this a wonderful and tack sharp lens. As I already mentioned, I think the TC1.4 can have sample variations, as mine works perfectly with my 40-150.

WRT the Pana 100-400, I think that for the money it is a great lens, maybe even stellar in some areas. For me as a wildlife shooter I need the flexibility of a zoom and this seems to cover more than I usually need - ideal would be 75-300, but well, this is not available so far in top quality. I might order this lens later this year as I would mostly use it between 100 to 350 and what I have learned from many reviews I read, in that range it performs flawlessly. Also pairing it with my 40-150 for when I need the additional speed seems to be a good combination.

Peter
 

Matix

Member
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
Hi Jorgen, further information on the disconnection or loosening of the bayonet on the 100-400 Lens. As I have been having ongoing problems with my Panasonic Leica G 100-400mm lens that I purchased for a trip to Antarctica. It was and is very loose on both the G85/80 and GX8. In fact, it did disconnect several times in use, but thankfully I had a double strap Black Rapid harness on, one on the lens and one on the body.

I resolved the problem on my return by using a modified flat flash mound strap, and linking the lens and body together.

Apart from the 3 times the lens disconnected, prior to my using the above fix, it also had several time, turned the viewfinder black, necessitating the quick twist to lock the bayonet again. This I was getting used to, but not happy.

I spoke to Panasonic, and sent them a copy of a DPR Thread noting the issue discussed by 3 who had experienced it. I also sent an image of my temporary fix. After discussions, Panasonic gave me an RMA to send it back to the repair depot in Sydney. After two weeks, they got back to me and said it is normal, no fault found.. send us $100 and we will send it back.

In the meantime while they had the lens, I purchased another one.. and it is perfect, fits tight, a firm twist, and never moves... what I noted was, the new lens has a noticeable seal ring on the bayonet face, while my original does not.. cannot feel or see the seal ring.

Now I have gone back to the store I purchased if from 4 months ago, and they are going to help get it resolved.

So, check if anyone has this problem, check you lens and if it is still loose, look for the environmental seal ring to see if it exists.

Regards,

Phil.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hi Jorgen, further information on the disconnection or loosening of the bayonet on the 100-400 Lens. As I have been having ongoing problems with my Panasonic Leica G 100-400mm lens that I purchased for a trip to Antarctica. It was and is very loose on both the G85/80 and GX8. In fact, it did disconnect several times in use, but thankfully I had a double strap Black Rapid harness on, one on the lens and one on the body.

I resolved the problem on my return by using a modified flat flash mound strap, and linking the lens and body together.

Apart from the 3 times the lens disconnected, prior to my using the above fix, it also had several time, turned the viewfinder black, necessitating the quick twist to lock the bayonet again. This I was getting used to, but not happy.

I spoke to Panasonic, and sent them a copy of a DPR Thread noting the issue discussed by 3 who had experienced it. I also sent an image of my temporary fix. After discussions, Panasonic gave me an RMA to send it back to the repair depot in Sydney. After two weeks, they got back to me and said it is normal, no fault found.. send us $100 and we will send it back.

In the meantime while they had the lens, I purchased another one.. and it is perfect, fits tight, a firm twist, and never moves... what I noted was, the new lens has a noticeable seal ring on the bayonet face, while my original does not.. cannot feel or see the seal ring.

Now I have gone back to the store I purchased if from 4 months ago, and they are going to help get it resolved.

So, check if anyone has this problem, check you lens and if it is still loose, look for the environmental seal ring to see if it exists.

Regards,

Phil.
Thank you for the report. Now I know what to look for when buying this lens, which I probably will later this year.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Hi Jorgen, further information on the disconnection or loosening of the bayonet on the 100-400 Lens. As I have been having ongoing problems with my Panasonic Leica G 100-400mm lens that I purchased for a trip to Antarctica. It was and is very loose on both the G85/80 and GX8. In fact, it did disconnect several times in use, but thankfully I had a double strap Black Rapid harness on, one on the lens and one on the body.

I resolved the problem on my return by using a modified flat flash mound strap, and linking the lens and body together.

Apart from the 3 times the lens disconnected, prior to my using the above fix, it also had several time, turned the viewfinder black, necessitating the quick twist to lock the bayonet again. This I was getting used to, but not happy.

I spoke to Panasonic, and sent them a copy of a DPR Thread noting the issue discussed by 3 who had experienced it. I also sent an image of my temporary fix. After discussions, Panasonic gave me an RMA to send it back to the repair depot in Sydney. After two weeks, they got back to me and said it is normal, no fault found.. send us $100 and we will send it back.

In the meantime while they had the lens, I purchased another one.. and it is perfect, fits tight, a firm twist, and never moves... what I noted was, the new lens has a noticeable seal ring on the bayonet face, while my original does not.. cannot feel or see the seal ring.

Now I have gone back to the store I purchased if from 4 months ago, and they are going to help get it resolved.

So, check if anyone has this problem, check you lens and if it is still loose, look for the environmental seal ring to see if it exists.

Regards,

Phil.
Hi there Phil,

thank you for your time to share your experiences and explain to us what's going on.
One more thing: would you care posting a close-up of the bayonet face with environmental seal ring so we know exactly what to look for ?
I guess you can't show us the one without ring too ?

TIA

Kind regards.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hi there Phil,

thank you for your time to share your experiences and explain to us what's going on.
One more thing: would you care posting a close-up of the bayonet face with environmental seal ring so we know exactly what to look for ?
I guess you can't show us the one without ring too ?

TIA

Kind regards.
I can't see any kind of environmental sealing ring around my 100-400, at all. A photo of what it is supposed to look like would be good.

But I haven't noticed any kind of unlocking behaviour either.

LouisB
 

Matix

Member
I can't see any kind of environmental sealing ring around my 100-400, at all. A photo of what it is supposed to look like would be good.

But I haven't noticed any kind of unlocking behaviour either.

LouisB
Hi, Louis and Jorgen,

Couple of quick shots here showing the weather seal ring, which protrudes approx .75mm, just enough for a tight seal and to remove any mount / body movement. Sorry about the image quality, we are in the throes of a major weather even here in Brisbane, so had to shoot inside without a decent light.

I will send the image of the lens that does not have the protruding seal, when and if I get it back from the Panasonic service centre. They are trying to tell me it is normal, and the looseness is within tolerances. Will keep you posted.

This new lens has not even shown any signs of looseness or disconnecting, totally happy with it. I must just have received a bad copy, the store I purchased at, is backing me to get a satisfactory resolution.

Phil

Seal1.jpg
 
Last edited:

drb

New member
I can't see any kind of environmental sealing ring around my 100-400, at all. A photo of what it is supposed to look like would be good.

But I haven't noticed any kind of unlocking behaviour either.

LouisB
Hi, I took a photo of the mount of my 100-400 which I just received last week. There appears to be a very thin o-ring and the mount looks a bit different from the photo posted by Phil. My lens is solid when mounted to the camera (OMD1.2).
 

Attachments

Matix

Member
Hi, I took a photo of the mount of my 100-400 which I just received last week. There appears to be a very thin o-ring and the mount looks a bit different from the photo posted by Phil. My lens is solid when mounted to the camera (OMD1.2).
Hi yes, my original does not have that slightly protruding ring..there is a black line, but not protruding like the new copy I have. I think because of this, it does not have any friction from the face of the lens or body. Hope they can sort it out.

Phil
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hi, I took a photo of the mount of my 100-400 which I just received last week. There appears to be a very thin o-ring and the mount looks a bit different from the photo posted by Phil. My lens is solid when mounted to the camera (OMD1.2).
Hmmm. Never noticed that before but thanks to your photos I can confirm my one also has the o ring. My lens was one of the first in the UK, I'd had it on order for months and the supplier was one of the first to get them. So, this must have been a part of the design since the beginning.

LouisB
 

drb

New member
A tip if you are using this lens on the OMD1.2...be sure to update the lens fw to V1.2 or later as the lens will not focus in CAF or CAF + tracking mode with older fw. When I rented the lens to try it, it had the latest V1.2. I then purchased a 100-400, and it turns out it didn't have the latest fw. Over the weekend, I tried using it in CAF and CAF+tracking, and the lens would not focus at all. Some searching on various forums turned up a known bug that was recently fixed in V1.2. The bug only occurs if you have the focus limiter switch on the lens turned on.
 

popcan

New member
Weighing in with a moon shot taken with the 100-400 PL on GX8.... this lens is definitely one of my favourites!


Last August "Sturgeon Moon" Sturgeon moon aug.jpg
 
Top