Before cancer and I had to sell my gear I rented this and the 300/4. After testing both, this is the one I bought. It came with the 1.4 and I added a 2X which gave me more detailed images than any of the lens available then (before the 150-400). Still, I used it a lot without adapters as I found that a good length until Olympus brings back the wonderful 150/2 four thirds lens which is just right focal length for me, (but weighs twice as much).
@@TH3-MONK I lived in an RV full time traveling. My chemo put me in the hospital for a week every time. We ended up selling some things so my wife could eat and live some place while I had to stay in the hospital. After the surgery I was there full time as I could not eat and drink. I was going to have palliative care and die without pain. Then a miracle one night and I started getting better. We had to sell everything then and start over. I rent lens for jobs I get paid for. Also, if I get a good copy I can buy that lens instead of new one. Since it is a business cost I can deduct renting a lens or camera is a good option for me. I prefer to rent 2 lenses and see which one I like rather than buying a new one. Each lens is tested before rental and the rent price is deducted from the lens.
I shoot with a G9 with primarily PL lenses except for a Oly 12-100 f/4. I went with the PL 50-200mm f/2.8-4 and purchased a Panasonic 1.4 tele from MPB to get me out to 560mm at f/5.6 rather than buy the 200mm 2.8, though don’t think I would not love to have the lens but it is expensive for a one stop advantage. Gordon Laing did a review several years ago on both the 200 and 50-200 with the Pan TC-1.4 and the 50-200 held up very well to the 200 but then again there is always that one stop difference. The 50-200 is a wonderful lens and for travel the 1.4 TC provides me with a very light weight ability for wildlife and of course it is much better for general photography than the 200mm. The BIF hit rate is only about 50% for me but stationary wildlife is excellent. The low hit rate is a function of the G9 which does not have phase detection capabilities as does the OM-1 and older Oly cameras. Still, my kit is very acceptable for travel purposes. I went with a D500 & 500 PF f/5.6 lens for BIF and I am very pleased with it but if I’m traveling the 50-200 is going and not the heavier Nikon kit. Of course, at the right price I would buy the 200mm 2.8 and enjoy the low light capabilities of the lens. Thanks for the review.
Could you do a video about teleconverter compatibility between Olympus and Panasonic lenses? I've seen comments on various forums saying that you have to have Panasonic teleconverters on Panasonic lenses or you can only have Olympus teleconverters on Olympus lenses and others say that's not the case. I'd also like to see you compare the image quality and autofocus speed of Panasonic and Olympus teleconverters, particularly the 2x teleconverters since most 2x teleconverters for DSLRs tend to get a really bad rap.
Great video yet again. maybe convinced me to move from my Nikon Z9 & z mount lenses to use this MFT set up for street and holiday's and leave the z9 for action, sports & wildlife.
This is the best lens going around... l love mine so much I bought another one... so now I have two! I wish Lumix / Leica would make a 300mm/f2.8 version, as that would help with the shortfall in reach when shooting surfing/birds. Physically it would only need to be slightly longer but with a wider front objective!
I own and love the 200mm f/2.8 too. It gives an excellent compromise of a 400mm f/5.6 on full frame which is more than enough. A 300mm f/2.8 MFT lens would require at minimum a 108mm wide aperture opening because 300 / 2.8 = almost 108. Not too bad. Actually ... I'd love to see a 200-400mm f/2.8-4.0 ... a 4th lens in the original trio (8-18, 12-60, 50-200). The f/2.8 at the 200mm end would be identical here (maybe not in sharpness but you know what I mean), and f/4.0 at the 400mm end would require a 100mm aperture opening. It would be a big lens. At 400mm f/4.0 it would beat the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 by 1/3rd of a stop, and I could imagine at 280mm the aperture opening could be something like f/3.5, again beating all other options available ... that would be a lens for die for if it was made sharp. They'd be able to sell it for easily $8,000 though, but I'd buy it :)
@@BackusCreativeImaging All good points.... I find there always seems to be a compromise in quality with zoom lenses, so I would prefer a pin sharp 300mm / f2.8 with similar spec dimensions of the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8 VR ED II Lens... with a MFT sensor and also usable with the converters if necessary. f4 would slow the af down too much, but maybe not if new G series cameras move to phase detection ????
(3:17) The Leica 200mm is designed and engineered by Leica (German), and manufactured/built by Panasonic Lumix (Japanese), both known for quality and precision in their processes… ‘Nuff Said… …
@@weisserth To be fair, the engineering design and tolerances are stringently measured and certified by Leica AG, which means the optical qualities of the lens. The electronics, AF, OIS, EXIF Data, etc. are designed by Lumix. The lenses are in fact made in China… Still high quality glass/lenses either way… …
I just looked this lens up. Sticker shock! I think I will try to save up for the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8. That's under 1000 GBP in UK. The PanaLeica is over 2000.
I've had this lens for ages and it is absolutely brilliant, only let down by my inadequacies. It is massively underappreciated, overlooked and undervalued for such an expensive lens, an excellent copy can be found between 40-50% of the full retail price. There is so little to choose between the Oly 300mm and this which ever you get will be great. I would love OM to sort the aperture ring because it just sits there going "please use me, pleeeeeeassseeeeee". I had the great pleasure recently to be able to compare this and the 300mm whilst shooting Kingfishers recently and it's just great, with the x1.4TC packaged in the box you get flexibility, no loss of quality and superb quality. I cannot see a time when this won't be in my bag for wildlife.
Thank you for the enthousiastic video! Did you use the Olympus Teleconverter on this lens? Did you compare OIS without IBIS to IBIS without OIS. Does focus delimiter work smoothly with this lens?
Thanks for watching mate. I used Panasonic TC for this and it worked fine. I did tried both OIS, IBIS independently (as I couldn't use both as you know). I found IBIS worked better for me, others may have different opinions I've heard some say using OIS is better for this lens. The focus limiter works fine too without problem.
@@Red35Photography Thanks for sharing this! I've seen other people say that the Olympus TCs don't work on Panasonic lenses, so this is good to hear. I wish you had put that in the video. That was the biggest thing I was hoping to see, but thanks for answering the question. For those that wish to use this lens alongside Olympus telephoto lenses, it sure would be nice to not have to carry around four teleconverters! And while we're on the topic, do the Panasonic teleconverters work on Olympus lenses? I think I've heard some people say that they do and some say they don't.
Oh, and how does the optical performance and AF speed compare between the Olympus and Panasonic teleconverters? I have been very impressed with the Olympus teleconverters, especially the MC-20, especially since most 2x teleconverters made for DSLRs are not very good by most accounts. I'm really curious as to how the Panasonic 2x teleconverter compares to the Olympus.
Great review! Just wonder about the buttons, you didn't say anything about them. What is the "Memory" function and this round button, and does it work on Oly body?
@MPHshoots omg I'm sorry I didn't see this before. I love it! I also traded my 100-400 for the 1.4 extender, but it was worth it for the extra reach. I still plan on getting the Oly 300 4.0 w/ extender so I can use it for stills and the 200 for video on a separate body. BTW the video rendering from this lens is fantastic!
Unless Panasonic provide phase detect AF for a G9 successor I will be off to Olympus for sure. We shouldn't have to rely on manual focus for wildlife photography in this day and age!
@@JoeMaranophotography My experience using mainly M.Zuiko Pro glass on the GH5II has proven otherwise, especially with the 40-150mm/2.8. Only recently acquired the pair of Leica 1/7 zooms, though fairly new to me, they seem thus far equally responsive. To each their own.. Could just be delusions of grandeur, maybe its simply raw talent/skill. Honestly, a bit new to capturing wildlife, but have some cool shots of hummingbirds and ravens… …
@@superzero4250 Yeah I'm using a 100-400 so it's obviously a bit more work for the camera but still I have sat in hides and watched phase detect cameras lock on instantly and track the subject and kept it in focus for burst after burst.
@@superzero4250 No one ever complains about dfd focus? Believe me, my G9 has the shittiest autofocus when it comes to BIF and military jets that I take pictures of flying over my house with my 100-400mm Leica. Love everything else about the camera except that. I'm probably going to grab the OM-1 because of it's great autofocus.
They are slightly different, at least how I remember it. I don't have the Old 300mm f4 now, but looking at some of my photos taken with the lens before, I would say the Panasonic is slightly more clinical, some would refer it to be more of a modern draw. That doesn't mean 300mm f4 is not as sharp, just looks slightly different. I love both, but I love the 2.8 just a tad more in this case.
I'm going to retire my GX8 for an OM-5, but I do have an E-P5 that I already use my bag of Pana(Leica) glass with, and it's worked out great. I do want to pick up a few of the Olympus lenses people love like the 17mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, and 75mm f/1.8. For supertele I use a Pentax Q/Q7 and Nikon 1 V3/J5 to really take advantage of crop factor. I don't really need the quality this lens would produce and autofocus isn't needed (I have an ft1 adapter which does ok if I absolutely need some). It seems pricey until you look up the price of a Canon or Nikon 400 f/2.8 prime. Even for APS-C bodies the closest is a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 that goes around 3600 last I looked. Full frame primes for 400mm f/2.8 would be closer to 11-14k :|. The listing on KEH for Like New Minus including everything (teleconverter, mount, etc) for ~2.1k doesn't look so bad after you look at the other options. I was really hoping EF-M would solidify if only to have an APS-C specific line to avoid the whole "here's budget full frame lenses to buy so you'll have them when you upgrade!" marketing logic that RF, Z, and to a lesser extent Sony with E mount uses. Fuji has gotten to somewhat reasonable levels of pricing for a lot of their lenses but seeing as how they couldn't keep stuff in stock pre-pandemic, much less now, you're probably going to pay a premium past MSRP.
Hi Jimmy, i miss the old style of your videos which included friends and models like Zoha, Saori etc. Also for suggestion, you can do pod cast with other professional photographers for them to share their experiences on job assignment.
Hi Reza, thanks for watching. I, too, miss interacting with my friends and models. But time has changed everything that I do in this channel. Mostly down to budget and cost. To have more people, each video costs a lot more to make and frankly, most people think we make lots of money doing this, but in reality, we don't. It's just about viable for one person so having two or even three in each video doesn't make financial sense. We all had to take time out to do videos. As much as I want to bring back the old style, it can only be a rare 'get together' occasion in the future. This is why most people don't realise how much effort we all put into this channel at the beginning of RED35. Covid, lockdown basically ended everything that we did together. Most of my model friends have either left the country or doing something else, Tracey is now in another job. That leaves me alone to front and do everything myself. Being a father and a full time self-employed photographer, you can see where I am heading. I am very committed to this community and greatly appreciated everyone's support, so I will continue to build this, may be at a slower pace than before, because, it's hard to be a creative, a photographer and I love making RU-vid videos, but I will make them as long as I can spare the time or when sponsor like MPB and Skillshare helps out some of the costs. Hope this makes sense. In regards to podcast/live stream, I've been doing that though I haven't continue this year, again, as my photography and video jobs are coming back, that's my priority as that's my sole income.
IDK which I want, now- the PL 200 or the Ony 300. I like the speed at 200 mm and the teleconverter it comes with but I also already have the Only 1.4x. There's good prices now used for both and I want a nice long prime.
I've tried this lens before and it's really really sharp and good. But in my country, the price is too high to justify a purchase, the same goes for the Lumix teleconverters.
I believe there is an issue with Panasonic tele converters not being fully compatible with Olympus lenses. Can you use Olympus converters with Panasonic?
Thanks Dwight, I tested both Olympus and Panasonic TC with this lens and they both worked fine. This video, and all the sample photos were using the included Panasonic 1.4x TC which worked wonder throughout. I didn't notice any problem whatsoever.
@@Red35Photography My understanding is that the olympus teleconverters are not compatible with the Leica 200mm. The pin layout on the converters is different, so exif data isn't correctly reported. This may impact the image stabilisation aswell. I also seem to recall a forum post where someone noticed a small amount of damage (plastic tab broken) on a teleconverter after cross fitting it. Anyways, love your content as always. Cheers
@@jemdude I just tested this at home, having received a Leica 200mm f2.8. The Olympus MC14 just doesn't fit in the Leica lens. I did not try to force it in. Maybe it fits if you break some plastic, but I didn't want to risk it. Oh, and both the TC14 and TC20 don't fit with Olympus lenses either (tested with the 40-150 f2.8).
Nice review. Probably a great option on the G9. It's a shame the Sync IS features are not cross-compatible, but that's understandable. What's not really understandable is why the aperture ring feature cannot work on Olympus bodies. I also think there might be some differences how RAW processing is optimized for Panasonic lenses on Panasonic bodies in terms of distortion correction, corrections for chromatic aberrations etc. - you'll get best results from a Panasonic lens on Panasonic bodies - and if you're spending that kind of money on that kind of lens, you're buying it for best results. So you wouldn't want to use it on a body that doesn't provide you best results. Just my two cents.
Cheers mate. In terms of IQ, I wouldn't worry too much, most software has profiles that you can apply to correct any defects these days, most notably DxO and PureRAW. But for this lens, on my OM-1, the images are excellent to say the least, so I don't see how it can further improved. I did notice the 25mm 1.4 PL was somewhat disappointing due to heavy CA issues, but again, I also hear some Panasonic users have similar problems, so I am not too sure myself.
@@Red35Photography The issue of software not applying the proper corrections to the raw file with the other manufacturer's lenses is one that bothers me a bit. I believe from what I've read that the in-camera processing (of either brand) does not apply the optimum corrections to images from the other brand's lenses. And DXO, which is my preferred raw converter, doesn't yet have downloadable optimizer modules for E-M1 Mk III or E-M1X raws, even with Olympus lenses, let alone Panasonic/Leica.
Cool vid, and cool lens. Do olympus also make a similar lens or is that 300mm? A comparison of all the long (more pro end) lenses would be cool. The Panasonic Manual Aperture rings notoriously didn't work on Olympus bodies a few years ago. Has this changed, and if so is it just the OM1 it works with, or is it other newer olympus bodies also??? I'm more interested in the 15mm Panasonic than this lens, TBH, but assume it's the same issue. Many thanks if you have time to reply...!
Sorry, both my questions were answered further on in the vid!!! If anyone else is watching and wondering the same, still no on the Aperture ring with Olympus bodies, and yes the Olympus long prime lens is 300mm... Would be nice to see Aperture compatibility in the future. Does anyone know if it's just software/firmware or there's a physical limitation meaning it could never happen (it uses the same communication pins on the lens connection for the lens button unique to Olympus, maybe?).
I like the idea but I'd go with a 25-200mm F4. Being limited to f5.6 would be mostly limited to bright sunlight. It would make a great combination with the Leica 10-25mmf1.7. 🙂
Actually, there is a Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0, which is also compatible with Panasonic teleconverters (but not with internal zoom). Maybe that could be a good choice for your needs.
Love this lens as much as my 300mm F4. BTW, I don't think lens hood is metal and mine for sure is made of plastic of which I prefer better than the metal.
I don't really get this lens and I'm a big panasonic fan. It's a strange focal length to me. You need the TC for wildlife and its too tight for most other things. The 40-150 pro and 300 Pro I get.
The 400mm f/2.8 prime lens on a full frame camera is one of the most popular tools of professional sports photographers, especially for field sports like football. This was meant to be a micro four thirds alternative that is MUCH smaller than a 400mm f/2.8. There are situations where this lens can be used for wildlife without the use of.a teleconverter. It would have been perfect for photographing the otters that were hanging around the ponds at Evergreen Cemetery in Portland, Maine, USA a few months ago because they mostly ignored the crowds of photographers that were standing around the ponds watching them and such a lens would allow you to stay out longer as the light started to fade. It would also be perfect for photographing beavers and muskrats at a pond near my house where I often go kayaking because if I just sit still in my boat near the lodge, they often will come pretty close before they notice I'm there. Also, if you're trying to get shots of birds flying to and from a feeder and you're just sitting in a blind fairly close to it, but you want a wide enough field of view that you can get several shots using Pro Capture and select the one with the wings in the best position, this could be a great option. My thinking is that while it's the best or one of the best MFT lenses for photographing field sports, it would also make a good secondary lens for wildlife photography to use when there is not enough light to use a 300 f/4 or a 100-400 or 150-400 or to have a lens you can grab when an animal comes in too close to use the 300 f/4. But I agree that it's not the ideal primary lens for wildlife photography.
I have all three lenses and they do serve for different purposes. 200mm f2.8 has the best Bokeh hands down. I find the sharpness to be as equal as 300mm f4. I had used 200mm f2.8 in photo blind in pretty dark environment to capture Oriental Dwarf Kingfisher. Every bit of light gathering helps a ton. The very same is true when capturing wildlife in jungle as sun is going down. My last trip to Ranthambore NP, this 200mm f2.8 lens enabled me to capture bangal tiger images that was close to sunset or after sunset moment without sacrificing too much on ISO or motion blur while providing that extra reach beyond 40-150mm f2.8. If I have to choose just 2 lens from the three, I would definitely keep 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 as I am into wildlife photography.
I wish Olympus had made a lens in the 150mm range. Something like f/2.5. No way I could ever afford that Leica. Didn't know there was one until I saw this video. I wonder if it's more expensive than the 40-150mm f2.8.
I have to say I have the Leica DG 50-200mm on my G9.... I love them both the the build quality and beautiful photos... It is pretty much my walk around lens 90% of the time.... Lol neither one are perfect,,, and that includes me behind the cam at times... again 90% of my shots are nature... Sighhhhhhhh This lens is on my list of hopefuls? lol time will tell,,,, along with my bank account.
Imho 12-100 for the win. It's hard to justify 200mm 2.8 lens. It is faster and has longer reach, but is worth extra money? Niche lens, I wish Pana made more premium or pro mainstream primes in 20-80 range. Maybe a 12-60 2.8, that would be a very strong competitior to 12-40 2.8, 12-100 4.0, more pro and modern than 12-60 2.8-4. That's a lens I would gladly pay 1500$ for!
Niche indeed, and so is Olympus' 300mm f4 Pro. Any sort of these tele prime lenses are specialist items. They are also usually more expensive. Look at the likes of 500mm 5.6 on full frame, they are in the region of $10000 if not less. However, $1500 is what this lens is at MPB, mint with box!
It's a lens meant specifically for photographing field sports, particularly football. Yes, it can also be a secondary lens for wildlife photography for the rare instances when you're able to get really close to the subject or when you want to do a more environmental shot when the light starts fading, but it's primarily meant for sports photography.
Nice review, but I do wish you would remove the lenshood at least for some of the video so we can get a better idea of how large the lens actually is. It almost seems as though you are trying your best to make it appear really big. This would NOT encourage me to buy the lens!
three different equivalent considerations exposure wise f2.8 is f2.8. Perspective is 200mm/400mm equivalent. Depth of field changes and is better or greater on micro four thirds than FF. If shallow depth of field is desired then the FF is shallower. That may be why they are not directly compared.
@@jameshuddle5111 yes, exposure triangle stays consistent, but DoF of 2.8 on m43 is equal to 5.6 on FF. You can get to 2.8 FF equiv DoF on m43 by using a 1.4 m43 lens. But yes, exposure is the same (although you'll have 2x as much noise in m43 for the same exposure on FF).
Because Tony Northrup has been wrong and misleading thousands of people for years wanting manufacturers of lenses to factor in Aperture for equivalency. The only thing he is right about is that a 200mm F2.8 will look fairly similar to a 400mm F5.6 in terms of depth of feild and Field Of View. He tries to argue that noise should be factored in. But there are far too many variables for that. Each camera has different Signal-to-Noise-Ratios, Megapixels, Dynamic Range and many other factors that can also effect image quality. Also noise has nothing to do with the lens and image quality is more impacted by the lens than the sensor. So it is simply stupid to bother with equivalency beyond focal lengths. Full Frame cameras will TECHNICALLY have better quality images at the same F-Stop. But with modern cameras it only makes a noticeable difference in poor lighting or heavily cropped photos. But you will also need lenses that are twice as large and heavy on average. This is a physical fact that will never change. And anybody that has studied photography for years will know this.
@@overnightdelivery when you say "the only thing he is right about is that a 200mm f2.8 will look fairly similar to a 400mm f5.6..." isn't that 95% of TN's argument?
olympus made you all into a bunch of clowns saying 30x per video "PRO" with their product name choices. There's only one 300 f4, only one 150-400, etc. So you can cut 2 minutes of the video , sound less ridiculous, and leave it out.
