You really missed a very important point: the compatibility with the 1.5 and 2x teeconverter, which v1 didn't have. I was looking for that. It's definitely a selling point for me, owning the v1 already.
I'm not convinced that's a really significant benefit. Even with the 1.4X it's f/8.8 on the long end, which means that the diffractive image-softening is equivalent to an f/16.6 lens on full-frame. With the 2X it's f/12.6 on the long end, which means that diffraction impacts are similar to f/25.2 on FF. I think that the base lens makes a lot of sense, provided its image quality is sufficient to allow wide-open shooting on the long end. That does seem tobe the case based on the reviews I've seen.
@@patrickchase5614 using a 2x teleconverter with a 400mm Micro 4/3 zoom lens seems a bit crazy to me. I bet the images would be as soft as a baby's butt.
I own the previous 100-400, Both have Leica, so this leaves me no clue as to whether there is any value in "upgrading." If the previous were branded "Lumix," I could imagine it continuing and this as the more premium option. Since Panasonic Lumix is oriented towards video, an evaluation of this and the previous in that context might have been of value.
nice review, I wish there had been some comparisons and review with the 2x teleconverter (after all, this is one of the key changes compared to the original version)
I was left deciding between the 100-400 from Olympus to the 40-150 f/2.8 pro. I ended up with the latter and a 2x teleconverter on sale last year for the price the lens usually goes for alone. This was also the same price of the 100-400mm. In the end, the shorter focal length won out due to the incredible sharpness, superior light-gathering ability, but versatility with the tc to reach 300mm (600mm ff equiv). It's not as long as the 400mm reach, but the 40mm short end allows more versatility when you're out in nature. Sometimes you don't have time to switch to a wider-angle lens. The internal zoom, shorter length, and lighter weight made up for its shortcomings. I'm curious to know how the new Panasonic lens compares to the Olympus 100-400mm.
Thanks for teviewing this lens. Even though I am not in the market for it now and the near future - and have the lumix 100-300 for the few times I need some extra reach - it was still very good and interesting.
Olympus 100-400mm f/5-6.3 based od Sigma C 100-400 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM is much better optically but it doesn't sync with IBIS. I hope for its II generation or for Panasonic lens based on the optical formula of Sigma 100-400mm DG DN lens but with sync IS. That would be a killer lens.
How does it compare to the current 100-400 (which I have together with a G9)? IQ better? Stabilization better? Also I have some dust inside my lens, does this version have better sealing?
I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison as well as to be honest, I can't speak to how much better all these features have improved, however, the claim is that it's sharper. Stabilization theoretically should be similar as they are both Power OIS. In regards to weather sealing, I can't speak to that much as I only have had it for a month but in that amount of time there has been no problems.
The version 1 of this lens is the sharpest zoom I’ve ever used, at least at 400mm, I think I got an amazing copy and I’ll never part with it lol. It blows away my Nikon 200-500 and is half the size. The shallow DOF of the 500 5.6 is obviously nice, but it’s not worth lugging around unless I was being paid for my shots or something.
That’s interesting! I know for most people that Gen 1 was a little soft and especially compared to something like the Nikon 200-500 which is generally a very sharp lens for a super telephoto zoom. But weight difference is definitely there haha
@@JeremyNeipp maybe my copy of the 500 was a bit off, it was a good lens just didn’t blow me away. I remember liked the Fuji 400 more at the time, plus the Fuji colors were great, I miss those. My least favorite was my Sigma 150-500 for Canon, but I think the newer sigmas are great .
@@JeremyNeipp I had the Mark 1 of that lens and yes, it was really not that sharp. I switched to the Sony 200-600 and despite the wider field of view, i got much more details with that one. And that lens is now the same price as the Mark 2.
Wish I could see it compared to the 100-300. 1,000 dollars is definitely out of my budget for the 100-400, tho compared to canon 200-800 I guess 1000 is a steal
It has "updated focusing performance" and takes tele converters, i.e TC1.4 and TC2.0. With TC2.0 the f-stop is 11.2 so pretty far into diffraction land, but 800 mm is perhaps still a thing. Alas to avoid colliding the rear lens element with the TC element the tele converters can only be used from 210 mm and up...
It's definitely worth comparing to the Olympus 100-400mm and the previous version of this lens. Obviously, the Olympus 300mm and the 150-400mm are in another category.
Just what was needed, a review from a competent wildlife photographer. I'm in need of a lighter travelling kit as I can't really lug the Sony A9 and 200-600mm around with me any more as I travel around SE Asia. I'm in my late 60's and the knees are not great. I have and old GH4 and 100-300mm lurking in a cupboard so might spring for the G9 II to begin with then upgrade to the 100-400 mm II
Glad it was valuable! And yea for a light setup, I believe that’s close to as good as you can get with the exception of some of the much pricier Olympus lenses, hope it works for you!
Although the G9 "Mk I" is still a phenomenal camera, I will be supplementing it with the G9 II, but my question is if I should replace my current Leica 100-400 with the new one. Is it worth it? My main complaint with the original (which is an amazing lens and tack-sharp--more than sufficient to produce large gallery/museum-worthy prints) is that it's not TC compatible, while the new one is. I really don't want to lug around that massive Oly (and lose dual IS), so if I can get 1,600mm EFL with a much more compact lens (even if it means losing a couple of stops), that's an easy choice.
Maybe, but this lens optical aberration (mainly astigmatism) are so big they still limit resolution more than the diffraction. This lens is not working at its diffraction limit until around f11. But yes, this is possible that this tradeoff doesn't warrant closing down in that particular case.
Several of the versions I tried left metal shavings in the bodies of Olympus cameras. Different lenses and different bodies, some brand new some not, so it wasn't a one-time problem.
What the point of comparing with the OM 150-400 PRO. What you should be comparing to be relevant is with the Olympus 100-400. I mean it is useless to compare a Ferrari and a Corolla
I only like to speak on extensively on gear I have personally reviewed in detail since it’s not fair for me to speak on a piece of gear I haven’t tested. I haven’t used the Olympus 100-400 so I can’t speak for it personally
Added in post just to show what the focus was like in my viewfinder :) I don't record to an external recorder due to the clunkiness of it when things happen quick in the field and I don't want to miss the moment
Just another Jhon Dillinger's lens with amateur slow F-stop. They need to say the real focal length rather than scamming people with 1/1 lens. It's a JD's 200-800 with F6.3 once you JD wakes up.
Panasonic is getting lazy with update lenses, they should have improved the f values. The new 9mm 1.7 is over priced, I think they are cashing on on the system and MFT will eventually be phased out.
