I've used the Leica on my G9 for about 1.5 years and it's a great, surprisingly versatile lens (apart from the zoom stiffness at the long end). I considered getting my wife the 100-300 for her GX85 (the 100-400's a bit large for that body, but tiny compared to full frame) but she really doesn't think she needs it. If I were primarily using that body, I'd definitely get the 100-300 as it's more than "good enough" to print large and only an off-the-charts pixel peeper would complain about the images that lens can render. Another huge advantage of these lenses over full frame is the minimum focusing distance (1.5m for the 100-300 and 1.3m for the Leica), which enables "virtual macro" ability from a safe distance with skittish/dangerous subjects. They're also both weather-sealed (although the Leica's likely moreso) It's simple: you can't go wrong with either lens and If you can afford the Leica, go for it (unless you value lighter weight and smoother video zooming over extra reach and slightly better IQ).
Yes, exactly. And if you add a macro diopter (at least achromatic) you can get very good magnifications at a decent working distance, allowing for macro shots of easily scared subjects, like lizards. This helps avoiding reducing the pixel count too much if you want to print. I 100% agree with you on the pixel peeping part. I found myself in that territory until not that long haha. In the end, paying so much attention to micro-details seems to hurt more than it helps. We'll see if I stand by these words in the future :p
In 2018 I had a G9 and the older version of the 100-300, and I got some great pictures. Over the years, I started chasing larger sensors with more pictures, and finally ended up with a Canon R5. In the past two weeks, I sold all my Canon gear and bought another G9, the 10-25/1.7, and the 100-400. I'm so happy to be back in a smaller, lighter(even with my kit being some of the largest, heaviest items in the system), and weather sealed kit. My issue with the relatively affordable Canon RF 100-400 and their 800/11 prime isn't their slow max aperture, but their lack of weather resistance. I've literally had my Lumix kit for less than 24 hours and already got some killer shots.
I'm new to Lumix with G9II, also coming from R8 and 100-400 and 800/11 as you said, I'm very happy with the Lumix, the overall experience is amazing! My hand always goes to G9II instead of Canon now.
I accidentally bought the old version first and then got the 100-300 mkii because I thought it would always bother me if I didn't know what the difference was. At the long end the dual-IS makes a bit of a difference. I get less jitter with the new one. Both versions improved a lot with the newest firmware update, so I highly recommend doing that. Optically the new one might be a tiny bit sharper, but that could be down to variance. Both aren't very sharp lenses. I find stopping down to 7.1 whenever I can, and backing off on the zoom improves sharpness on both. I'm keeping the new one, but I wouldn't bother upgrading. I think mft is in a really weird spot with their wildlife lenses. The 100-400 is the same weight as a Canon 100-400, or even 100-500. That's a hard sell. I'm sticking to the 100-300 and I'm hoping hoping the price comes crashing down on the 150-400.
Hey, On the 400mm, I used a Marumi DHG Achromat 200 (+5 diopters) with pretty good results. However, my macro setup has evolved drastically since that review. Now, I use an OM-1 + Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro, and sometimes a Raynox DCR-250 and / or viltrox extender rings if I need more magnification. As for light, I use a Godox TTL685 flash, along with a Cygnustech diffuser. Some of my macro photograpy is on my Instagram, link in the description if you want to see. Hope this helps!
What is the point comparing two micro four third lenses if they are not compatible with other brand cameras, eg. Lumix can't be use with Olympus and Zuiko can't be use with Panasonic cameras ? 🤷♀️
Hi! sorry for the delay. Unfortunately I hadn't used the C-AF with the 100-300 before selling it, so I cannot answer your question precisely. I'd think that the difference would be notable, but not really game-changing if you are not targetting birds in flight.
Bought the 100-300, tried it a couple of days, exchanged it with the 100-400 mark 2, the 100-300 could deliver some decent images but in the end to many images had a lot of chromatic abberation (green and purple) as soon as the scene had much contrast - the 100-400 only a has tiny bit of purples and greens in certain situations but than can be neglected due to the tiny number. The sharpness above 300 is less but if you stop down from f6.3 to f8 the sharpness improves very well
Very good video! Informative, interesting, and pleasant. I bought the Lumix 14 - 140 mm zoom lens to be my "long" lens when I bought my G85. Turned out to be an excellent "everything" lens! I use it more than my Leica 25 and 45mm lenses.
Hi, sorry for the delay. I've compiled the answers in this video : th-cam.com/video/bXhvF1LDH_c/w-d-xo.html You can watch only the end if you are not interested in what I have to say :)
Many thanks for that. You addressed all the things I wanted to ask. You are very entertaining. I've got a 100-300 II that's never off the camera as I usually photograph birds, insects and flowers. I have been considering the 400 for the extra reach and the advantage of being able to ignore the first 5 metres on autofocus. The speed of the focus is a point to consider also. I'm going to hire the 400mm lens to see how I get on with it.
I bought the 100-400 recently after owning the 100-300 for a while. Theres no doubt its better but I do find the times when 300 isn't enough but 400 is are less than I anticipated. I'm cropping far away birds and getting reasonable photos compared to not great if I cropped from 300mm. But it's not often I hit that sweet spot distance wise where the 400mm version blows the 300 away. I'm definitely keeping the 400. It can surprise you with sharp crops but maybe the difference between 600mm and 800mm isn't as great as I imagined or worth the extra £600
Hi, sorry for the delay, haven't connected for ages :o Thank you for your comment :D That's a good idea to hire the 400 before deciding to make the jump or not. As the time passes, I get better at coming closer to my subjects, and the extra 100mm become less and less important. It's still a pleasant plus in situations where the animals are very shy, but with the experience I have now, I can tell that it's way better to get closer than to get more milimeters.
@@adrienschmouker4854 I'm happy with it but it is significantly heavier and now I'm realising how good the 100-300 really was. But with the extra sharpness and cropability, the 100-400 is the way to go. Just not every time I go out 😀
The first time I used a lens with an AF to MF switch, I dropped my camera out on a trip. When it wouldn't autofocus when I turned it back on I started freaking out thinking I had damaged either the lens or the body. Turns out all that happened was the lens got switched into MF mode. 😆 I don't get the point of it either. I constantly accidentally toggle it in the field. Becomes quite an annoyance.
I've had both of these and recently received the Olympus 100-400. The Olympus 100-400 is heads above the Panasonic version (which has a history of poor quality control). The Panasonic 100-300 is good but I prefer the Olympus 75-300. That wider end is handy and the lens is lighter.
Thank you for your feedback :) On which body do you use your lenses ? I would like to know if the Oly 100-400 has good autofocus and image stabilization performance on a Lumix body. I also read many bad things about the Pana 100-400, but decided to try my luck. Not disappointed for now ! We'll see if it stays that way.
I also decided on the Oly 75-300mm over the Pan 100-300mm. I read a lot of contradictory reviews saying either one was better than the other one by a little bit, so just put it down to them being virtually the same with a bit of sample variation, and if one was actually better it couldn't have been of much significance else there'd be a clearer winner. So think I went for the olympus in the end almost purely because the extra 25mm on the wide end made it a lot more versatile, but also partly because it was about £50 cheaper (IIRC, maybe only £30) and the apparent lack of a clear winner in IQ made it a bit of a no brainer. I already had the Pan 45-175mm, which IMHO is a very underrated lens. I've still got both as the extra reach of the former makes it ideal for zoos, etc, but the much lighter and more compact latter is better for long walks. Also (although still not actually tried this) the internal/electric zoom makes it good for putting on a tripod and controlling the camera with WiFi with the bonus of also being able to remotely zoom (I couldn't even get the camera with 75-300 to attach to my tripod the one time I tried cause the base of the lens sticks out too far on the bottom of the camera and gets in the way, not sure if this is a common problem?).
Great review! Tossing up between these two and nearly convinced on the "expensive one", which is currently $1600AUD (969EUR, 1146USD) on sale at a local retailer.
@@thrallingFRgloryNo, not Ted's. I ended up getting it for $1510AUD at a Digi Direct weekend sale. I figured it couldn't get much lower than that, but it probably will :)
Hi, I tend to do this more and more as the time goes on :'D I should do a video "1 yeard after", some things have changed a little, such as zoom creep ^^
@@adrienschmouker4854 If you want a real amazing vintage lens experience; get a [Nikon 300mm f4.5 ED IF]. It's all manual but the focus ring will almost move with a gentile breeze.
Hi, thanks for your comment! I sometimes have the same thought about music in youtube videos. I even hate this current trend of putting click noises everywhere. It's just too distracting lol
That's an interesting option, indeed ! I would loose the dual I.S. if I went that route, and even though the Panny 100-400 isn't what we can call compact, the Sigma 150-600 is even beefier.
The 1170g or so extra weight from the lens and the speed booster isn't insignificant. It's pretty big too. Two reasons why people choose m43 straight out of the window there 😀
100-300 is better for the price. For double the price the 100-400 isn't as good. But asking for double the performance is useless because that would have to be much more expensive than it already is
I have 3 different camera systems. Pentax APSC, M4/3 (I have Oly and Pan cameras) and Sony APSC and full frame. I own the 100 - 300 Mk2, but also had its predecessor and kept the 3rd party lens foot when I part exchanged lenses. That was why I stuck with the cheaper lens. For me it was about weight and compactness. What all these lenses fail on is their inability to auto-focus on things that are close, even when you use the smallest auto-focus point available. My Sony 200 - 600 and Pentax 60 - 250 does the same. They could all do with a limiter switch that include a closest focus - to 5M option. That was the only reason I bought the Panasonic G9, as it has an option to program a close focus option dedicated button and is the only camera I know with that option.
Yes, with other systems, you have to use extension tubes if you to focus at comparable distances. But, when you do so, you lose infinity focus... Always a tradeoff! Fortunately, more recent lenses for larger sensor systems tend to be able to focus closer. But the price isn't the same :'D
I've used the Leica on my G9 for about 1.5 years and it's a great, surprisingly versatile lens (apart from the zoom stiffness at the long end). I considered getting my wife the 100-300 for her GX85 (the 100-400's a bit large for that body, but tiny compared to full frame) but she really doesn't think she needs it. If I were primarily using that body, I'd definitely get the 100-300 as it's more than "good enough" to print large and only an off-the-charts pixel peeper would complain about the images that lens can render. Another huge advantage of these lenses over full frame is the minimum focusing distance (1.5m for the 100-300 and 1.3m for the Leica), which enables "virtual macro" ability from a safe distance with skittish/dangerous subjects. They're also both weather-sealed (although the Leica's likely moreso) It's simple: you can't go wrong with either lens and If you can afford the Leica, go for it (unless you value lighter weight and smoother video zooming over extra reach and slightly better IQ).
Yes, exactly. And if you add a macro diopter (at least achromatic) you can get very good magnifications at a decent working distance, allowing for macro shots of easily scared subjects, like lizards. This helps avoiding reducing the pixel count too much if you want to print.
I 100% agree with you on the pixel peeping part. I found myself in that territory until not that long haha. In the end, paying so much attention to micro-details seems to hurt more than it helps. We'll see if I stand by these words in the future :p
In 2018 I had a G9 and the older version of the 100-300, and I got some great pictures. Over the years, I started chasing larger sensors with more pictures, and finally ended up with a Canon R5. In the past two weeks, I sold all my Canon gear and bought another G9, the 10-25/1.7, and the 100-400. I'm so happy to be back in a smaller, lighter(even with my kit being some of the largest, heaviest items in the system), and weather sealed kit. My issue with the relatively affordable Canon RF 100-400 and their 800/11 prime isn't their slow max aperture, but their lack of weather resistance. I've literally had my Lumix kit for less than 24 hours and already got some killer shots.
This is the kind of thing we read pretty much everywhere :) Glad you enjoy your kit!
I'm new to Lumix with G9II, also coming from R8 and 100-400 and 800/11 as you said, I'm very happy with the Lumix, the overall experience is amazing!
My hand always goes to G9II instead of Canon now.
I have the original 100-300. I wonder if the newer version might be better. I’m having issues with sharpness on robins. Shutter speed 1/1000 helps
I accidentally bought the old version first and then got the 100-300 mkii because I thought it would always bother me if I didn't know what the difference was.
At the long end the dual-IS makes a bit of a difference. I get less jitter with the new one. Both versions improved a lot with the newest firmware update, so I highly recommend doing that. Optically the new one might be a tiny bit sharper, but that could be down to variance. Both aren't very sharp lenses. I find stopping down to 7.1 whenever I can, and backing off on the zoom improves sharpness on both. I'm keeping the new one, but I wouldn't bother upgrading.
I think mft is in a really weird spot with their wildlife lenses. The 100-400 is the same weight as a Canon 100-400, or even 100-500. That's a hard sell. I'm sticking to the 100-300 and I'm hoping hoping the price comes crashing down on the 150-400.
Which diopter do you use on the 400mm? I’d love to we one results
Hey,
On the 400mm, I used a Marumi DHG Achromat 200 (+5 diopters) with pretty good results.
However, my macro setup has evolved drastically since that review. Now, I use an OM-1 + Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro, and sometimes a Raynox DCR-250 and / or viltrox extender rings if I need more magnification. As for light, I use a Godox TTL685 flash, along with a Cygnustech diffuser.
Some of my macro photograpy is on my Instagram, link in the description if you want to see.
Hope this helps!
What is the point comparing two micro four third lenses if they are not compatible with other brand cameras, eg. Lumix can't be use with Olympus and Zuiko can't be use with Panasonic cameras ? 🤷♀️
How does C-AF compare on these two lenses?
Hi! sorry for the delay. Unfortunately I hadn't used the C-AF with the 100-300 before selling it, so I cannot answer your question precisely.
I'd think that the difference would be notable, but not really game-changing if you are not targetting birds in flight.
Bought the 100-300, tried it a couple of days, exchanged it with the 100-400 mark 2, the 100-300 could deliver some decent images but in the end to many images had a lot of chromatic abberation (green and purple) as soon as the scene had much contrast - the 100-400 only a has tiny bit of purples and greens in certain situations but than can be neglected due to the tiny number. The sharpness above 300 is less but if you stop down from f6.3 to f8 the sharpness improves very well
Very good video! Informative, interesting, and pleasant. I bought the Lumix 14 - 140 mm zoom lens to be my "long" lens when I bought my G85. Turned out to be an excellent "everything" lens! I use it more than my Leica 25 and 45mm lenses.
Very well presented and focused on the aspects of the lens that matter. Thanks much.
Thank you ! Glad you liked it :)
Which images are which?
Hi, sorry for the delay.
I've compiled the answers in this video :
th-cam.com/video/bXhvF1LDH_c/w-d-xo.html
You can watch only the end if you are not interested in what I have to say :)
Button on lens can be used to lock focus
Many thanks for that. You addressed all the things I wanted to ask. You are very entertaining. I've got a 100-300 II that's never off the camera as I usually photograph birds, insects and flowers. I have been considering the 400 for the extra reach and the advantage of being able to ignore the first 5 metres on autofocus. The speed of the focus is a point to consider also. I'm going to hire the 400mm lens to see how I get on with it.
I bought the 100-400 recently after owning the 100-300 for a while.
Theres no doubt its better but I do find the times when 300 isn't enough but 400 is are less than I anticipated.
I'm cropping far away birds and getting reasonable photos compared to not great if I cropped from 300mm.
But it's not often I hit that sweet spot distance wise where the 400mm version blows the 300 away.
I'm definitely keeping the 400. It can surprise you with sharp crops but maybe the difference between 600mm and 800mm isn't as great as I imagined or worth the extra £600
Hi, sorry for the delay, haven't connected for ages :o
Thank you for your comment :D
That's a good idea to hire the 400 before deciding to make the jump or not.
As the time passes, I get better at coming closer to my subjects, and the extra 100mm become less and less important. It's still a pleasant plus in situations where the animals are very shy, but with the experience I have now, I can tell that it's way better to get closer than to get more milimeters.
@@letni9506 Agreed. The extra range isn't the primary benefit from the 400!
@@adrienschmouker4854
I'm happy with it but it is significantly heavier and now I'm realising how good the 100-300 really was.
But with the extra sharpness and cropability, the 100-400 is the way to go.
Just not every time I go out 😀
@@letni9506 Indeed, the extra size, weight and zoom ring stiffness are things to consider.
The first time I used a lens with an AF to MF switch, I dropped my camera out on a trip. When it wouldn't autofocus when I turned it back on I started freaking out thinking I had damaged either the lens or the body. Turns out all that happened was the lens got switched into MF mode. 😆 I don't get the point of it either. I constantly accidentally toggle it in the field. Becomes quite an annoyance.
Oh, well glad it was just the switch and not damage then haha! Maybe some designers think that more buttons = better gear. I don't get it.
Nice video Adrien! Very helpful.
Thank you very much! I'm glad that after all this time, this still helps :)
Sorry for my delay, I'm not too active on youtube these times.
I've had both of these and recently received the Olympus 100-400. The Olympus 100-400 is heads above the Panasonic version (which has a history of poor quality control).
The Panasonic 100-300 is good but I prefer the Olympus 75-300. That wider end is handy and the lens is lighter.
Thank you for your feedback :)
On which body do you use your lenses ? I would like to know if the Oly 100-400 has good autofocus and image stabilization performance on a Lumix body.
I also read many bad things about the Pana 100-400, but decided to try my luck. Not disappointed for now ! We'll see if it stays that way.
I also decided on the Oly 75-300mm over the Pan 100-300mm.
I read a lot of contradictory reviews saying either one was better than the other one by a little bit, so just put it down to them being virtually the same with a bit of sample variation, and if one was actually better it couldn't have been of much significance else there'd be a clearer winner. So think I went for the olympus in the end almost purely because the extra 25mm on the wide end made it a lot more versatile, but also partly because it was about £50 cheaper (IIRC, maybe only £30) and the apparent lack of a clear winner in IQ made it a bit of a no brainer.
I already had the Pan 45-175mm, which IMHO is a very underrated lens. I've still got both as the extra reach of the former makes it ideal for zoos, etc, but the much lighter and more compact latter is better for long walks. Also (although still not actually tried this) the internal/electric zoom makes it good for putting on a tripod and controlling the camera with WiFi with the bonus of also being able to remotely zoom (I couldn't even get the camera with 75-300 to attach to my tripod the one time I tried cause the base of the lens sticks out too far on the bottom of the camera and gets in the way, not sure if this is a common problem?).
Your French accent made this video very enjoyable to watch - thanks!
Hi, thank you very much ! Sorry for the delay, haven't connected for ages haha
Great review! Tossing up between these two and nearly convinced on the "expensive one", which is currently $1600AUD (969EUR, 1146USD) on sale at a local retailer.
Thank you ! Well if it's not quite in your price range yet but you really want it, I think it's worth saving up.
@@adrienschmouker4854 There was a weekend sale ($1510AUD), so I bought it.
@@650thunderbird Hope you love it ! Is there somewhere we can see your photos ?
650Thunderbird Was this at Ted’s?
@@thrallingFRgloryNo, not Ted's. I ended up getting it for $1510AUD at a Digi Direct weekend sale. I figured it couldn't get much lower than that, but it probably will :)
Great info, thanks
I'm glad it helps!
Do you live over a music bar? Please shut the windows when recording TH-cam clips.
Hahahahaha
I pull the zoom lens in/out with my hand rather than use the zoom ring
Hi, I tend to do this more and more as the time goes on :'D
I should do a video "1 yeard after", some things have changed a little, such as zoom creep ^^
@@adrienschmouker4854 If you want a real amazing vintage lens experience; get a [Nikon 300mm f4.5 ED IF]. It's all manual but the focus ring will almost move with a gentile breeze.
@@mindseyeproductions8798 If I get my hand on one, I'll give it a try! Manual doesn't frighten me :)
The eemargies were good.
Great review, thanks. I hate the background music, but nothing in this world is perfect. ;-)
Hi, thanks for your comment! I sometimes have the same thought about music in youtube videos. I even hate this current trend of putting click noises everywhere. It's just too distracting lol
Okay hear me out..the Sigma 150-600 on a speed booster. Lens $800 and Canon speed booster $650. More reach and wide open at F3.9.
That's an interesting option, indeed ! I would loose the dual I.S. if I went that route, and even though the Panny 100-400 isn't what we can call compact, the Sigma 150-600 is even beefier.
With even worse auto focus
The 1170g or so extra weight from the lens and the speed booster isn't insignificant.
It's pretty big too.
Two reasons why people choose m43 straight out of the window there 😀
Too heavy
100-300 is better for the price. For double the price the 100-400 isn't as good. But asking for double the performance is useless because that would have to be much more expensive than it already is
Hi, indeed, in terms of bang for the buck, the 100-300 wins.
find this video helpful thank you 🔥📽🎞
100 300 enough
I have 3 different camera systems. Pentax APSC, M4/3 (I have Oly and Pan cameras) and Sony APSC and full frame. I own the 100 - 300 Mk2, but also had its predecessor and kept the 3rd party lens foot when I part exchanged lenses. That was why I stuck with the cheaper lens. For me it was about weight and compactness. What all these lenses fail on is their inability to auto-focus on things that are close, even when you use the smallest auto-focus point available. My Sony 200 - 600 and Pentax 60 - 250 does the same. They could all do with a limiter switch that include a closest focus - to 5M option. That was the only reason I bought the Panasonic G9, as it has an option to program a close focus option dedicated button and is the only camera I know with that option.
Yes, with other systems, you have to use extension tubes if you to focus at comparable distances. But, when you do so, you lose infinity focus... Always a tradeoff!
Fortunately, more recent lenses for larger sensor systems tend to be able to focus closer. But the price isn't the same :'D
1) 300mm
2) 400mm
3) 400mm
4) 300mm
5) 300mm
6) 400mm
7) 300mm
8) 400mm
9) 400mm
10) 300mm
11) 300mm
12) 400mm
13) 400mm
14) Lumix FZ300
I would guess :
1 - OLD
2 - OLD
3 - NEW
4 - OLD
5 - NEW
6 - OLD
7 - NEW
8 - NEW
9 - OLD
10 - OLD
11 - OLD
12 - NEW
13 - OLD
14 - OLD