Contents
Image Quality
With several budget-level long lenses with good quality already available in the Micro 4/3 system, I had high hopes for the 100-400mm, and for the most part, the lens satisfied those expectations.
Sharpness
The Panasonic Leica 100-400mm lens shows very good image sharpness throughout the zoom range, even at wide apertures. The lens is unsurprisingly sharpest at the wider focal lengths, but even at 400mm and f/6.3, there’s good resolution over the majority of the frame. If focusing on very distant subjects at 400mm, sharpness suffers slightly, but this could also be due to some atmospheric effects as well. Due to the slow speed and the quick diffraction limit on Micro 4/3 cameras, there’s minimal improvement on stopping down, but there isn’t a lot of improvement needed either. Click here for a 100% crop of the image below, taken at 400mm wide open. Click on the green arrow at the bottom of the screen to view at full size.
Bokeh
Supertelephoto lenses are known not only for their reach, but the ability to isolate the subject with extremely blurred backgrounds. Given the modest maximum aperture and the smaller MIcro 4/3 sensor, the 100-400mm doesn’t quite give you the same look as something like an 800mm f/5.6 would give on a full frame camera, but it certainly blurs the background out quite a bit for most subjects. The bokeh produced by the lens is a bit of a mixed bag, as closer-framed subjects will yield images with generally smooth blur, while more distant subjects show a bit of nervousness, with a mild edge to specular highlights visible in the background. This nervousness can also creep in a bit if there’s mottled light on foliage, as can be seen in the shot below. Overall, I find the look to be quite pleasant in most situations, but it’s not a perfect lens when it comes to blur rendition.
Color, Contrast and Chromatic Aberration
The contrast curve from the 100-400mm is fairly unremarkable. There’s enough contrast to provide a great starting point for post-processing without becoming overly punchy. Colors are evenly saturated, with perhaps a bit of a warm cast.
The lens does an excellent job at controlling chromatic aberration, as both lateral and longitudinal CA is essentially absent, which is an excellent finding in a lens such as this.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting
Like a lot of telephoto lenses, distortion isn’t an issue with this lens, and you’ll have no issues shooting things like distant buildings or detail areas of buildings with straight lines. Vignetting is also fairly well controlled, though not absent. There is some mild edge shading throughout the focal range and aperture range, and it never completely disappears, though it’s mild enough that it’s hard to notice unless you’re really looking for it.
Flare, on the other hand, is a bit of an Achilles heel of this lens, at least in the right circumstances. Shoot with the unshielded sun in the frame towards the long end of the zoom and effectively the frame is ruined. There’s a massive loss of contrast and huge purple and green blobs invade the image frame. Thankfully, with such a long lens, framing that includes the sun will be a rare occurrence, and flare performance in most situations isn’t an issue.
Great review, Jordan. In your opinion, how does it fare against the Oly 75-300mm? Is the Leica an “upgrade” over the Oly?
It is. It’s a better optic, though the question of how much better comes into play. For me, who only occasionally shoots wildlife and only rarely needs this much reach, the 75-300 makes a lot more sense. If you shoot very long a lot, the extra reach and a bit sharper results will make the 100-400 a better choice.
Great review. I have a question: did you use lens stabization or IBIS.? Which would you recommend? I am sold on the lens but can’t decide between a gx8 or the em 5 mkII you use
Thanks
Les
Sorry. Just reread your review and saw the answer.
Love that image of the cardinal.
I think you would get drastically different auto focus results with a Panasonic camera that has DHD together with this lens. Just because it’s the same (MFT) mount doesn’t mean that both Olympus and Panasonic don’t have features when using their equipment. If you were going to spend that much money on a lens it’s worthwhile considering a Panasonic body that is software tuned to take full advantage of the hardware. You should mention in the article that with DHD auto focus results should be better.
I’m not going to mention something I didn’t test first hand. And when one of the main draws for Micro 4/3 is the use of two OEM brands intertwined, testing on an Olympus body is just as valid a result. FWIW, there is no guarantee of better accuracy between bodies. I found, for instance, the Panasonic 25/1.7 to focus more accurate on the OM-D line than on the Panasonic GX8.
Hi Jordan,
An excellent review!
I use the 100-400mm with a Panasonic GX8.
The focus abilities with (I assume) DFD (Depth from Defocus) are very impressive! It’s extremely fast, snapping into focus instantly. Works very well in low light. I rarely get the dreaded will not fire red box.
Focus accuracy is also extremely good. Using either the smallest single point focus box or pinpoint, I’m able to focus on birds behind branches and foliage consistently. Often, it’s even able to focus on birds behind leaves! I’m guessing that’s DFD at work, too. Compared to the 100-300mm, which I used for about 4 years, it’s another world entirely! The first few times it did this I was flabbergasted, being so used to giving up with the slow to focus, seemingly endless hunting and extremely finicky 109-300mm.
One word on the terrible lens hood. I picked up a screw-on B+W 72mm Folding Rubber Lens Hood. It stays on the lens at all times.
I find your remark senseless and silly, Go test it on an EPL1 then and then say something conclusive about the lens. I expect expertise from a reviewer, not denial as an answer to the very Obvious and well known fact DFD on Panasonic cams does much better with C-AF than any Oly cam bar the EM1.
Your interpretation of my remark is extremely misguided. You find it senseless that I won’t write a statement about focus that I can’t verify? Seriously? Do you know what a disaster it would be if I added things that were suggested by commenters in every review? What exactly in my review do you object to? I never said that C-AF was terrible with this lens. I never said that it couldn’t keep up. I said I had occasional accuracy issues on distant subjects (and this was in S-AF). That’s a factual statement, and nothing I’ve seen between the different manufacturer’s cameras would lead me to believe that the issue would be different on a Panasonic body. If you want me to test all lenses on a newer Panasonic body as well, I’ll gladly accept a donation of a new GX8.
It is precisely your inconsistency that also filters through in your reply to me and you also sidestep the argument in your reply.
1) So now you imply you do not mention AF you cannot verify….Right?
2) My problem was precisely that. In contrast ot your rhethoric queston the fact is you DO mention EM1 AF(only one PDAF body in MFT land isn’t it)) without any verification, so why not DFD??.
Reason: both are taylored towards much better C-AF and if you read some reviews you know both work well whereas all Oly cams bar EM1 are bad at C-AF…
I never asked you to just write what people like me tell you to. I just point you to your inconsistent wording here and the fact that you leave out something we can consider common knowledge by now. Whatever you do with that is up to you. But yes: I do expect you to change a review when you think whatever someone tells you about it is mostly valid and not just anything.
When I point you to common knowledge as it means that you do not have to use a Panasonic body at all. You can again make a statement very similar to the statement on PDAF. So again, I did not ask you to do that and I did not imply it. It is pretty obvious I think a reviewer should at least know about developments on topic in other bodies and at least mention these as a factor in the outcome of a lenstest.
I see. I misunderstood your original point. I had thought you were talking about my accuracy point as it was one of my negatives, and I wasn’t going to say accuracy was better on a camera I hadn’t tested. The oversight on that statement wasn’t intentional, and has been updated. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
On a positive note: I like the review, I like your writing style and I love the pics you took. Just to give you some perspective, it is one remark or the lack thereoff that I disagree with.
Hi Jordan Steele,
I am a friend of Bobby T., who I believe you know. I have just submitted focusing issues to senior tech support at Olympus to review as it relates to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 with the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC because of focusing problems. If I use Silent [0] (Electronic shutter), the results at 840mm [full frame equivalent] are tack on sharp. If I use their Anti-shock [0] mode (Mechanical shutter), I get slightly out-of-focus, or as you call it, soft focus. It is totally repeatable hand held or on a tripod. I also own the new Panasonic DMC-GX8 camera and the PL 100-400mm f/4-6.3 lens. Using these Panasonic products together at 800mm [full frame equivalent] the results are again tack on sharp in the E-shutter mode, but like the Olympus gear, the results are slightly out-of-focus or soft focus when using the standard mechanical shutter. I have sent the DMC-GX8 camera back to Panasonic for review and potential repair. With Olympus I used their new Sync IS [IBIS+OIS] and likewise with the Panasonic I used Dual [IBIS + OIS], so we know the problems are unrelated to image stabilization. Frankly, I think that we are dealing with mechanical shutter shock at these extreme focus lengths and I am not sure it can be fixed in firmware. So, I am wondering if you had the same problem when you noted soft focus at 800mm if you were using the Mechanical shutter in your E-M10 II camera?
I used the electronic first curtain throughout (anti shock)
Thanks, Jordan, excellent review – as always. I received mine back in late April and have used it extensively on a just completed 70-day, 11,413 mile Bucket List road trip. I had some terrific results with this lens mounted on my Pani GX8 capturing distant mountain peaks, mountain goats, hummingbirds, mule deer, bison and seals. However, as you mention (“…and it would sort of get ‘stuck’ at a closer focus distance…”) I also found the GX8 would, occasionally experience this same phenomenon and I agree with Gary D., it likely is shutter shock. BTW, in bright sunlit situations I would occasionally digitally zoom to 2x and have several stunning examples of a strutting seagull and Sedona’s red buttes (a bit too washed out at 4x digital magnification). All in all, I am extremely pleased to own this relatively reasonably priced lens (compared to Canon or Nikon). One last thing, I also own the Oly 75-300mm (latest version) and it is not as tack sharp at full tele as the Leica/Pani lens – great lens for the price, but not as sharp.
I am enjoying using this lens on my EM-1 very much but several of us have found that trying to use the OIS when panning sequential shots leads to moments of extreme image instability.
I’ve searched Panasonic’s information and they say nothing about this and I wondered if you had any information as to whether or not this is expected behaviour (the work around of using the EM-1 IBIS when panning seems to work)
(This has been reported with the G8 as well as the EM-1)
Dear All
Have some issues with focus and the 100-400mm panasonic zoom and my GH4. Although my MF peaking shows thats my image is OK or AF don’t show any issues my end video images are blurry. Can anybody help? Tks Fernando
I know this is an older discussion. I am using combination of Olympus EM5 MKii with the Leica 100-400mm lens with birds and have felt exactly the same thing as Fernando was experiencing. I tried both with AF as well as MF. My EVF show tack sharp image, however capture photos are soft and most of the time I get out of focus eye rings of my subject birds.