I'm a zoom guy. That said, I bought the Pany 100-400mm shortly after it came out and got a lot of great use out of it. I found the using the lens IS definitely worked best form me, but I still tended to use it on a tripod for maximum sharpness. I never felt good about the lens fit to my Olympus E-M1 Mkll, as it always seemed to have too much play when mounted. After the Oly 100-400mm was released, I finally convinced myself to sell the Pany and get the Olympus lens -- I'm really glad I did. I am convinced the Olympus is a slightly sharper lens. About the time I bought the Oly lens, I also bought an E-M1X -- wow, what a great combo! I have found that I get sharpest results hand holding with the lens IS turned off, and the 1X IBIS turned on. Tests result in about 7 stops of IS. I have almost completely quit using my tripods with this combo. I could care less about the lack of the focus clutch, as I fine that feature more trouble than it is worth and disable it when shooting my 'Pro' lenses.
I have the 300mm f4 and besides being incredible sharp and quick to focus. The Sync IS is really the most incredible thing ever. On my EM1.2 I can shoot as low as a 20th of a second and get a sharp photo. This new lens really needs full Sync IS it is a game changer.
I own the Leica 100-400 for around two years now and the pictures are really nice and the bokeh is surprisingly great. My copy of the PanaLeica has a great sharpness and i wouldn´t wanna miss the f4 at 100mm at sunset inside my hide, when the hares, pheasents and row deers came right in front of me. So I wouldn´t change my PanaLeica to the Olympus... I would consider the 150-400/4.5, but I think my wife wouldn´t agree to put around three or four monthly salaries into a lens :-)
@@LewSpeightVisuals Another good review and great production but I can't see me going out all cammed up, not just yet anyhow. He is going to scare the bejezzuz out of someone popping up in a field like that!
Its more than 1/2 a Pro. The manual clutch would be nice, but having bought one and used it with and without the 1.4 convertor for a few months, I've found it very good. IS is great in the real world. Its actually gone up in price by a fair bit locally since I bought it. However if you compare it to a true Pro lens it has some issues, mainly the movement in the mount.
There is an issue with stabilisation when you cross-pollinate MFT. The Olympus 100-400 will not Synch-IS but will does offer "Olympus Dual Stabilisation" which is independent OIS and IBIS with some axes halted - poorly documented - Turn lens OIS switch ON, Turn "Use Lens IS" OFF. The Leica 100-400 will also use that but if you mount it on a Lumix you get Dual2, which blows Synch-IS out of the water. If you have Lumix Dual-IS backs (as well as Olympus backs) you want the Leica. I cannot say one breed is better than the other - I happily use both. The glass is very similar. The Olympus lens may feel nicer, the Leica zoom ring can feel stiff - do not squeeze the zoom ring, turn it at the back of the grip near the camera. With these extra-long lenses, stabilisation is a key issue. With the Leica 100-400 on a G9 you get the best of the best, an 800mm equivalent that is hand held like a wide angle. The E-M5ii does handle the PL100-400 but it is a bit too big for the tiny body, balance and haptics. The E-M5ii is far happier with the lighter Lumix 45-200, both Mk1 and Mk2 have OIS. The PL100-400 is just right on the G9, and so I imagine the large E-M1- If you have a 100-400 you do not need the 100-300 or 75-300, the 45-200 is a better light weight intermediate choice. If you are using Olympus bodies and building up a lens collection you have to ask yourself whether you will get a Lumix back at some future point. Olympus only Synch-IS very few Pro lenses, Lumix Dual-IS nearly all of theirs. Lumix OIS lenses offer the same or better stabilisation on an Olympus body that do most of their own lenses.
I have the PL100400mm lens and I realised that at times, I need a longer reach for small tiny birds... And cropping the photo doesnt really help as this is a M43. So I will stick with M43 for his compactness & lightweight and hopefully save enuff to get this lens.
Please update this review for use with OM 1. There's a big appetite for more accessible pricing and OM 1's computational capabilities would seem to narrow the gap considerable to either 300mm or the 150-400mm.
I just fitted the dress ring from my 300mm f4 pro (when not using tripod ring) onto my 100-400 Olympus lens. Nice! I was trying to find the dress ring for the 100-400, but it does not exist.
i would like comparison of image quality Pana 100-400 vs Oly 100-400.... (I have Oly 300 f4, and Lumix 100-400, and I'm awaiting the 150-400....but this one seems of interest too. so thanks for the review)
UPDATE: I just pulled the plug and bought the 100-400, I have to wait til the end of December, but then I got this for my critter shooting in the spring. I have the Spider Holster setup, one EM1X with the 40-150 Pro on one hip, and now I will have the other EM1X and the 100-400 on the other hip :)
Perhaps Olympus has raised its standards so much that it cannot consider this to be a pro lens. They also might have a pro version in the works. Something like a 100-400 f4-5.6 like the ones produced by a few other manufactures. This is only a wild guess though.
Good video generally except your background music stinks. The lens seems good but the Pro 150-400 is coming (we hope) and may be a step up. Let’s see before we buy.
Looks like a good lens, reasonably priced. How this it *not* a Pro lens? * splash and dust proof... but not freeze proof?? * lacks the manual clutch * not all metal * could have had larger aperture at 400 mm * not perfect bokeh? (according to dpreview) * lacks Sync IS I wish it would have had Sync IS -- Sync IS is amazing on the 12-100/4. To me, that is the main omission. Still, the price is lower than feared. And it receives good reviews, overall. So probably a winner.
hi hope well im not a pro but a ver passionate severely sight impaired/blind photographer north east based uk i use nikon z7 at moment but i doabit of everythng and notmanyoptions for wildlife unlessuse adapter so been looking and gone with the canon r6 but if it doesnt work out im considering the new olympus om1 and either the 100-400 or the 300mm pro lens can i get your opinion on it do u use the new om1 or considering getting and do u use the 100-400 yourself
I hazard a guess that most wildlife shooters on the M43 system who cannot afford the Oly 300mm f4 Pro, would surely be doing what they love shooting with the Pana Leica 100 - 400mm lens as that was what was available (an affordable for a good while too) before this Oly 100 - 400mm was launched. Surely everybody and his dog would like to see an image sharpness comparison between these two lenses ultimately. Wouldn't you want to be the ONLY youtuber to do it?
be even better if you could actually buy one , got one reserved first on list in the shop and they cant give a update on when due in .. frustrating to say the least someone has dropped a massive clanger , super job by the visionaries but let down badly by supply
Oly 100-400 is a rebadged Sigma 100-400. Sigma 100-400 is a brilliant lens, BUT it is a brilliant lens for FF cameras. For MFT cameras its too huge and heavy. Actually, it denies everything why MFT stands out - smaller LENSES with same speed and better quality. This one is a FULL FRAME lens, it wights as a FF lens, it's size is a size of FF lens so using it on an MFT camera you just drag that heavy thing with you, using it on 1/4 of it's abilities. Actually, I came to MFT because I was too tired to drag around... Sigma 100-400! So no, I don't want it. I am happy with Panasonic 100-300 II - a TRUE MFT lens, that was designed for MFT.
This lens is nice but to be honest an aperture >f5.6 is not enough for wildlife photography, this lens is a good "all-in-one" lens but not good as the 300mm f4 to work without tripod, or except to shot the moon or relatively static or slow subjects, at 6.3 is nearly impossible except by using high ISO, and high ISO is one of the only weaknesses (with DOF) of the MFT cameras. It's the same with the Panaleica 100-400, the Zuiko 75-300 and all these low-cost long tele-zooms. One option is to go to EF mount with an adapter but the AF is slower than native MFT lenses. The 300mm f2.8 is too heavy and too expensive. The "best option" in terms of speed, sharpness, and cost, is the 300 f4. I had a Canon 400mm f4 L, with my EOSD and I use it on my OMDs but it works only well on EM1, because of the AF technology and is too heavy with these cameras. I bought the 300mm f4 and it's amazing.
Providing you're fit and healthy, I would be happy hand holding it for the day. You get a little fatigued from holding it up to your face for a whole 90 mins or so though. A good test is to get a bag of sugar and hold it to your face for about 3 - 4 mins, and see how you feel. The lens is 1120g, so just a bit heavier than the sugar. So add the weight of the body to it and you know if you're struggling with the sugar then you'll struggle with the kit! Hope this helps, come back and let me know how you get on
To me Olympus is charging "Pro" price for an old lens design. Based on the optical formula, this lens looks like a rebranded Sigma 100-400 DSLR version that was released in 2017 but cost half the price. The only thing Olympus did was swapping out two rear elements to just cover M43 sensor.
And since it was Made in Japan, then it was likely assembled by Sigma for Olympus as well, but I'm happy with mine as it was more affordable than the 300 f4 Pro lens & then there was no way I could justify the price of the 150-400 f4.5 Pro lens either.
I have the Panasonic for my E-M1 Mark II and I have ordered this Olympus lens. If it delivers as I expect I will switch. I wish they had added sync-IS, but I guess I will see how well I can do without it.
Hi man! I've got a lumix G9 and I want to buy a lens for wildlife photography: I'm choosing between the olympus 100-400 and the panasonic leica 100-400. I already have a 40-150 olympus pro with the 1.4 teleconverter (I love this lens). It's better for me to buy the leica, that has a best stabilization with the g9 body or the olympus, with less stabilization but the 1.4 teleconverter that I already have? thank you very much :)
Hi mate! Thanks for commenting. I personally would go with the Olympus, only because you're getting much more for your money BECAUSE you can add the teleconverter that you have already. That way you still have image stabilisation (even though its less), AND the higher zoom. Best of both worlds! I've also heard bad things about the Panasonic, and when I used it for a short time I wasn't impressed with the build quality. If anything goes wrong with it I've heard they have to replace it as Pana aren't able to source the spare parts, which can become costly for the consumer (you).
Goodness me, that music that underlies your commentary is so annoying Lew. Why is it there? I had to stop watching unfortunately after 3 or so minutes...
