It looks like the prices vary a lot and the 50-200mm can be more expensive than the 100-400mm. If that is the case in your region, just ignore my points for the price.
With my GX8 and Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, I've photographed birds and wildlife. Now I'm thinking of replacing the 100-400mm with the 50-200mm because the 50-200mm's faster maximum aperture is a great benefit in low light. The longer zoom lens is fine on sunny days, but for photographing animals on cloudy days or in a forest, the shorter lens would be my choice.
I got the 50-200mm in May and have been using it ever since. My god it is sharp and so compact. Save up for this one folks, so many uses for it. And combined with IS Lock its crazy stable at long focal lengths hand held for video. It’s quite expensive though but you get what you pay 4.
I have the 14-140mm and the 100-400mm. These together with the 30mm macro cover most of my requirements.I need the longer reach, and find I don't need the adaptors.
I was debating between the two lenses and ended up going with the 50-200 with the 2x teleconverter. The real deciding factor for me was that I found a bundle deal that included the teleconverter for free. I basically got two lenses for the price of the 100-400 alone. I am extremely happy with that decision. I’ve gotten some really nice shots of the moon and birds using the combo. I’ve also gotten good shots of birds using the 50-200 alone. With just 2 lenses I have a focal range from 12-400mm (I also own the PL 12-60 f/2.8-4). It’s very easy to pack the G9, the teleconverter, and the 2 lenses, which gives me the ability to shoot pretty much anything I want in a very portable kit.
I bought the 50-200 to replace my early non weather sealed 100-300 which I passed on to my daughter. I was lucky to find a damaged box 1.4 extender at a much reduced price. This makes the lens a 70 to 280 lens and I normally leave this on. Hence it complements my standard lens a Leica 12-60 with no overlap, and nicely replace a 100-300. It’s easy to carry in a pouch ready to swap over with the extender on and focuses much quicker than a 100-300, with much more successful pictures.
I haven’t noticed any difference apart fro slightly slower. I have read that the 2 times extender does have some noticeable difference and is slower again. I have a 45mm macro and I think that that is very slow to focus compared to this lens and once scaled to same picture size 50-200gives better macro type pictures?
I've had the 100-400mm but found it to be pretty soft above 300mm, so I sold it and replaced it with 50-200mm + Olympus 300mm F4. The 50-200mm is a marvelous lens: light & compact, useful range for both landscape and wildlife, and tack sharp throughout the range. The 50-200mm + 300mm is an unbeatable combination in terms of range, sharpness and speed (max F4). As a bonus, both lenses take tele-converters, though unfortunately they are mutually incompatible. Only downside is the high cost.
Thanks for sharing. When a lens looks like it's not as sharp as it should be, it might a a faulty copy. The 100-400mm is probably not a match for a fast prime, but it's certainly not soft at 400mm. Anyway, good you found your dream combo.
I think that the Oly 40-150 f2.8 is a better companion for the excellent Oly 300 f4. In addition, they use the same TC. But it is just my opinion. I actually use the Lumix 35-100 f2.8 + Leica 100-400. The Aperture f2.8 seems to me to be a great alternative, especially at 100 or 150mm, and the Leica 50-200 does not provide this, since it is not constant. But everything always depends on the use of each person.
I've owned the Leica 100-400 for several years and more recently purchased 50-200 I use 100-400 mostly for bird photography and taking photos of surfers. I love the 400 mm maximum focal length in a lens of this size and weight. HOWEVER, it is not as consistently sharp at 400 mm especially at longer distances. Better in closer to mid range I also find for birds in flight (on G9, EM1 Mk3 and EM1X) the focus doesn't seem as fast or accurate as with my Leica 50-200 which I purchased more recently. I get a fairly large number of slightly out of focus images with 100-400. Maybe the wider aperture of the 50-200 gives the autofocus system more light, helping autofocus performance. The 50-200 is clearly the sharper of the two in my experience at their respective maximum focal lengths. The zoom ring in my 100-400 has loosened over time but is still stiffer than I like. Makes it very difficult to smoothly zoom during hand held videos which is a shame. The zoom ring is much nicer on the 50-200. Because of the issues above I have ordered the Olympus 300 f4 to try out the 50-200 and 300 f4 combo to see how it works for me. Even if the 300 f4 is optically superior I may still prefer the 100-400 for its maximum reach and ability to zoom as a surfer rides a wave and distance changes rapidly. No way to switch lenses during a single run....We'll see. BTW, my 100-400 is noticeably better than my panasonic 100-300 mk1 someone asked about. I still use the 100-300 occasionally for travel because it is so small and light but I suspect going forward I will use the 50-200 for these purposes.
Thank you for another good video. I prefer the 100-400. If I want telephoto, I need as much as possible. The 50-200 with the Teleconverter loses all advantages: weight, size, aperture and price.
You are kind of right, but you'd still have the option to shoot without the TC and have all the advantages. So, if you are mainly happy with 200mm, the TC makes a lot of sense, but if you need 400mm all the time, then of course the 100-400mm makes more sense.
I still use the Olympus 50-200 mm f2.8 - f3.5 SWD Four Thirds with adapter. It is a hefty 1.3kg, but comes with a tripod collar and uses fase detect autofocus. No IS obviously, but my camera takes care of that.
I own the PL 100-400mm and a G9. For photographing many birds (and birds in flight) you want the reach of the 800mm equivalent provided by the PL 100-400mm. It is not ethical to crowd wildbirds by getting too close. I've used the Panasonic 100-300mm. That is a great lens, smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But the extra reach is worth it.
Perfect zoom lens set for me: 8-18mm, 14-140mm mk2, 100-400mm, three lenses with decent brightness, good sharpness, Power OIS in the longer two cases, and not too much overlap. I'd travel with those and a GX9 for sure. Skipping the 100-400 depending on the trip for an even more compact set up.
I own the 100 to 400 and it is indeed a very impressive lens. Shot in pouring rain attached to the G9 and no issues so weather sealing is reliable. I'll add the 50 to 200 soon for sure. 😊
I used to have the 100-400mm but I found it a little soft in the 300-400mm range. I sold it and I now have the 50-200mm plus 1.4x teleconverter. I may consider the Olympus 100-400mm (with tele-converters) if I need more reach.
Nice to have "deep pockets" - enough money to be able to buy a few different lenses and try them out in the field. I still want better auto focus. I can get over the small sensor but give me good auto focus and tracking. I am hopeful that Panasonic/Lumix will continue to improve its autofocus and tracking. I just bought more micro four thirds lenses. My bet is on Panasonic.
For video I would go with 50-100. As for GH6 and G9II, you can turn on pixel to pixel in 4k and we have 300mm. We can go longer but you can not go wider. That' my point.
thank you for this lens comparison..one thing you didn’t mention is the mechanical zoom action..i would like to know how smooth the zoom action is on the 50-200? for video you need a really smooth action, no sticky jerky jumping motion..i bought the 100-300 ii and it was so jerky i returned it as it was unusable! so still looking for a travel tele zoom lens
When coupling the 50-200mm F2.8-4.0 lens with the 1.4x teleconverter, do we get a 70-280mm F4.0-5.6 instead? And when we couple it with a 2x converter, it becomes a 100-400mm F5.6-F8 instead? Also, is F2.8-4.0 one stop and over one stop larger/faster than F4.0-6.3? Is there something wrong with your calculations?
I think you really have to test the 50-200mm with the teleconverters to really have a fair comparison. With the 2x teleconverter, it should not only have the same reach as the 100-400mm, but it should also have double the magnification ratio, producing a 1:1 full frame equivalent magnification! Good luck finding a 400mm full frame macro lens! Of course, you should be able to use extension tubes on either lens to get better closeups. The main thing I would want to know before purchasing either lens is how the sharpness of the 100-400mm compares to the 50-200mm with a 2x teleconverter. Obviously, you're losing 2/3 of a stop of light, but in most cases, I would accept that if the image is sharper. In fact, that's why I seldom use my Panasonic 100-300mm anymore. I got an Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro, and even with the 2x teleconverter, it is MUCH sharper than the 100-300mm. The only reason I haven't sold the 100-300mm is that the 40-150mm is so heavy that I wouldn't be inclined to take it with me on a long hike or a bike ride unless I was going somewhere specifically to photograph wildlife.
@@mattisulanto That would be interesting. It would also be interesting to see you and Peter do a video comparing the 50-200 to the Olympus 40-150. It would be interesting to see if, for instance, the image quality of the 50-200 with a 1.4x converter is better than that of the 40-150 with a 2x converter since either combination would have a similar maximum reach and whether there are any compatibility issues when using mixing Panasonic and Olympus cameras, lenses, and teleconverters.
Without a doubt the 50-200 is a great lens, but I really think that those who need a set of superteles are better equipped with the Duet Lumix 35-100 f2.8 + Leica 100-400 (or maybe the Leica 200 f2.8). Another drawback that makes the 50-200 unattractive to me is the competition from the excellent Olympus 40-150 f2.8. Constant Aperture is a huge advantage, in my opinion. But I agree that for the occasional use of a supertele , the 50-200 is a lens that can count for all, just add a TC to the backpack.
I have the 45-200 Lumix, the 100-300 Lumix and the 100-400 PanaLeica. The 45-200mm is serviceable. The 100-300mm is quite useful. I used it for about a year before purchasing the 100-400mm. All in all, there is nothing like the 100-400mm in terms of reach, sharpness and that distinct, but hard to describe "Leica look". I suspect that the 50-200mm is the same in this regard. Now if I can only find buyers for the 45-200 and 100-300, I could put that towards an Olympus 12-100 and get myself down to two lenses for 90% of my shooting.
Matti, could you comment on the image viability if I use the 2X mode available on the Olympus OM5 cameras rather than optical comparing the 200 vs 400? Thank you in advance and great video also.
Thanks for the coffee😀 I have not used the 2X mode, but that is essentially a crop and yields lower image quality. Why don't you test it for yourself. If you own any zoom lens, you can take one picture at 40mm and then a second one at 20mm using the 2X mode. That way you can at least get some idea of the image quality.
Good video, yet again. Am getting the 50-200 second hand towards the end of the week. Sold off my Oly40-150Pro with 1.4X TC and the Panasonic 100-300MKI to finance it. The Oly was to much of a beast to actually bother to carry around, looking for something to use it on and as I tended to use it with the TC all the time, the F/4 on the far end of the PL will not be too bothersome. The Panasonic MkI was not weather sealed, nor frost proof and if I can get those features, I will. The weather up here in Norway rates it, I think. I am quite interested in the 1,4TC, though, it may push off the occasional need for the 100-400, even though it is about as costly as the 100-300.
This was really helpful! I wish you would review yet another lens: the Panasonic 45-175mm f4-5.6. I have to say, this is one of my favorite lenses right now. It's equivalent to 90-350mm, which is decent reach, and it does not extend since all the zooming in internal (love that), so it's small enough to be balanced on a small camera body such as the GM5. You can indeed get shots of birds with this, especially using the in-camera Tele. Ext. feature. The quality is pretty darn good (and better than if you use the Digital Zoom). Maybe you've reviewed it already, but I couldn't find it, if so. Thank you for all the excellent reviews! I look forward to your vlogs!
Thanks! I'd love to review every lens, but because I can't buy them all, I have to be able to borrow some lenses and that is sometimes difficult. But, if I try to review as many as I can😀
Which model Lumix camera were you using for this review? I'm planning to go into the micro 4/3's and I've always been a Lumix guy. Would you suggest the G9 or G90/95?. I do a lot of birding and wildlife.
@@mattisulanto Thank you.. G9 was my choice as well.. but a built-in flash is something I'd miss on the G9, but can make do with an external i guess. thanks again for the advice. Cheers 😊👍
Fantastic review. I will say that I wish my 50-200 had a focus locking mechanism. When I walk with it around my neck when im out birding I find that after a bit of walking the lens is almost fully extended! For the price, it should have this feature.
@@mattisulanto That's nice that your doesn't creep. I have used mine a lot over the past year in some difficult conditions (especially in Africa) so maybe it's just due to wear and tear.
If you add the extra cost - you don't mention this - of the teleconverter to go on the 50-200mm lense then the 100-400mm is the better deal. I tried using the 50-200mm lens - on my G9 - for one week but took it back to the camera store - not wide enough & not long enough. I now have the Leica 100-400mm for nature shooting & for my walk around lens I chose the Olympus 12-200mm lens. Although not a ' pro / $$ lens ' the 12-200 covers a lot of area & is great for ' getting the shot ' as apposed to missing the fleeting moment while changing lenses. Enjoy seeing your vids.
Sure, if you need 100-400mm, the 50-200mm with a TC makes no sense. But, if you need 50-200mm and sometimes 100-400mm, then it makes sense. I'm happy you found the right lenses for you. Thanks for sharing.
@@mattisulanto Thanks for the quick reply. After 3 + years into photography I still have much to learn - some of which is obtained from the partaking of your channel.
4 роки тому+1
I sold my Pentax K-3, DA 300 mm and got a G90 and the 100-400 mm. I needed a lighter and more portable gear. Really like the G90 and the lens. Much better AF and more narrower af-points than the K-3. (Like your videos so I get you a cup of coffey!) But the 100-400 lens seems to be a dust pump? Have had it for 6 months and I am not a heavy user and don´t let the gear be dirty. Don´t know if the dust was already inside from factory but now after 6 months I can see 3-4 dust particles on the inside of the front lens. Not a big deal since it will not affect the image quality but more of a cosmetic type... yet.
Thanks for sharing. I think it was in Lensrentals blog that zooms really don't suck in dust any more than other lenses. It's more like an urban legend, I guess. It's probably possible that some lenses are more prone to collecting dust inside, but zooms in general are not any worse than primes. Thanks also for the coffee.
We think a lot alike! I went through the same comparison before finding a deal here in the US for the 50-200 plus the 2x teleconverter. I am REALLY liking this setup! Light, (well, for a lens with this range anyway), Dual IS with the G9, I'm finding more and more opportunities to use it. I was curious why they put a manual/auto focus switch on the barrel though, but found a use for it yesterday. I was photographing a number of bumblebees flitting from flower to flower. Of course, I had issues with the auto focus (Panny system!!) because it would frequently autofocus on something other than what I wanted. Frame was crowded with flowers from foreground to back ground. So with one finger I switched off the auto focus, did a quick sloppy manual focus on the flower/bee I wanted, switched on the autofocus and I had instant clear sharp focus on my subject. Then I could follow it. It was pretty helpful, but a discussion on the Panasonic focus system is for another day......... Overall great lens, and a really great and I thought fair comparison. Thanks.
Another excellent video. Enjoyable as well as educational. Question for you: does Panasonic have plans to release a replacement for the G9, which has been around for about 3 years? If so, when might that happen and what features might it have? Thanks and keep posting!
Thanks! I don't know about the possible G9 replacement and even if I knew, I could not say anything. I think the rumored GH6 is more likely to come first, but that is also just my opinion and not based on any facts.
At 400mm equivalent, the shorter zoom should have a collar for tripod use. I mostly love my 100-400mm, but hate a few things about the "Leica" design features. The switches for OIS, range limiter, and AF/MF are WAY too easy to accidentally toggle. I have to visually check the lens for configuration every time I mount it, and again while I'm using it. The switches move with the collar, so when I'm not using the tripod mount I rotate the controls to the top of the lens where they're less likely to get bumped while shooting. My lens didn't come with its dedicated metal hood, which is expensive and fussy to use - fastening with a knurled screw. The sliding pseudo-hood isn't really useful and just adds fussiness to mounting the lens hood. The 70-300 has Panasonic-style switches, which are superior for staying where you want them.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the 100-400mm. I thought the 50-200mm would need a collar, but it's so light weight that a collar is really not necessary.
I considered both but wanted more reach so I settled on the 100-400. I could've gotten the 50-200 with the 2.0x converter (US$600-too much!), but that would've made the combination a lot more expensive than the 100-400 and I have the 35-100 f/2.8, which is faster than the 50-100 over the overlapping FL range. Also, I find the 100-400 to be a lot more versatile than might be expected from such as lens and would not call it “special purpose” as you’re going to be switching lenses anyway for many shots as neither of these is a “carrying around/all-in-one” lens. If I didn’t “need” a longer lens, I’d go for the 50-200 but as you say, it’s a personal decision and both are great lenses, capable of delivering as much IQ as anyone would need. The only downside of the 100-400 (besides the price, but it’s actually a bargain compared to FF options) is that after well over a year of reasonably heavy use, the zoom ring is still somewhat stiff at the far end (although weirdly, if you turn the lens upside-down, it’s smoother). Not much of a problem (except for video), but annoying none-the-less. Also, I’d recommend the battery grip on the G9 to balance that lens (though it’s usable even on the GX85, but hold the lens, not the body!), plus it makes shooing in portrait mode a lot better.
Thanks for sharing. Well, if I was going to use either tele zoom, I'd have another body for some normal lens so I would not have to switch lenses😀 However, I appreciate your points and we all have different ways to shoot and use our camera gear.
@@mattisulanto I have the 12-60 Leica, and it is not that sharp at 60mm. Very obvious comparing ta 100% with a prime or the 50-200. Sharpness is good up to 40mm.
@@jeangoupil8129 It's possible your lens has something wrong in it. It's true that the sharpness drops slightly towards 60mm, but it should not be obviously not sharp.
@@mattisulanto I think you are right, i did some test with my 12-60mm lens, at 60mm, it is sharper at F22, and a lot sharper at F16 compare to F4. Base on the reviews i saw about this lens, it is not normal, should be sharper at f4 than f22. Similar happen at 40mm. I will have to return that lens. I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks
I have the 200mm 2.8 prime with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters... from the very beginning I decided to only buy prime lenses... and I really don't regret it, but sometimes my wallet does 😅 Anyway, very nice video! I like your style and quality very much... Maybe in the price comparison you should have mentioned the price of the teleconverters too? Because without them you cannot have 400mm with the 50-200mm...
Thanks for sharing. You are right, the converter adds to the price and I should have mentioned it, but then again, it's optional. I'm sure the 200mm F2.8 is a very nice lens.
@@mattisulanto I want to ask you another question... If I'm right you also own the S1 or S1R? I am very interested in a lot of very special Laowa lenses like for example the 15mm f4 wide angle macro. Laowa just came out with 6 L-mount versions of some of these lenses, so I was thinking: they're all manual, AF is not IMPORTANT, so why not buy the S1... I already have the G9, I'm so happy with it, then why not stay in the same brand... I know the Canon R6 will be there too, but the S1, even it looks quite heavy, still attracts me... Could you help me out of my dilemma 😉
@@hanslamal5632 The S1/R has been out for some time now and at least you know that it's reliable. I shoot quite a bit on the S1R and I like it a lot. I think it's a benefit to have similar control lay out as on the G9 and the new menu system is really good. The weight is not an issue, especially when I have smaller cameras too and you have the same situation. So, I'm not actually sure what else I can say😀
@@mattisulanto you're completely right, I was already thinking the same about the control layout because that makes everything still more easy... I also do lots of low light photography in the Indonesian jungles and like to use the "night mode" on the G9... if I'm right the S1/S1R also has it? I saw even some back buttons are illuminated? I only need to choose between the S1 and the S1R... Is the S1 not better in low light? Thanks a lot for wanting to help me out! 🙂
Do you know what, when I do not want to use the PL100-400, I want a much lighter lens and use the 380g 45-200ii. No, it is not as good as the Leica 200 but these extra long lenses always want to be stopped down so f/2.8 is a bit of a waste of milk. You do not always want a heavy lens. I do still have the 100-300 mark.1 Mega-OIS. It was never long enough nor short enough, the PL100-400 replaces that. As with the 100-300ii, the 45-200ii makes a good lightweight alternative to the Leica 200mm.
I would rather see comparison of cheaper 45-200, 45-175, 45-150, 100-300. But this video was likely recommended to me cause I've searched that and just ordered 45-150. I have 45-200 and I don't like it. I took one of my best photos with that lens, but it's used like 0.5% of time, it's heavy, it's not sharp beyond 120mm focal length (at least my copy). I either regret carrying big bulky lens or not having it.
I saw a review that compare the 50-200 with the 2 converter, sharpness remain good with 1.4TC, but bad with the 2.0TC www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4300994
I don't have the 2.0TC, but I can tell you the image quality on the 50-200mm with the 1.4TC is nearly perfect. A slight loss of contrast, but still exceptionally sharp, even wide open. I also have the 100-400MM version 2, and it is much smoother zoom action than the original. The performance of the 100-400mm with the 1.4TC is acceptable. There is a small loss of resolution, and the one stop loss in light gathering makes it difficult to use in anything but strong lighting. I question if I am better off cropping at 400MM.
Both are great but I think the 50-200 looks better as it is smaller and f2.8-4 is amazing. But the 100-300 is three times cheaper in cost, I wonder if in quality too? I think you will have to get your hands on the 100-300 now ;-) I have a feeling value-wise the 100-300 looks just right.
And there is the 45-200 which at the moment is a real bargain. It is always the problem of how much you're willing to spend on a lens that doesn't see frequent use. (I hardly ever shoot a subject that cannot be covered with the 12 - 60 mm range) And I think the quality differences between most lenses are in the pixel peeping range.
I bought the 45-200 Mark 2 Last year. The sharpness at 45mm was really good. But at 200 mm (and that is the focal lengh, you use the most of the time) , sharpness was really Bad. IT was so soft, that i die Not have to Zoom in the picture to See, that sharpness is Bad. I Sold it after a few weeks.
There is a very cheap competitor from the old 43 system from Olympus. The Olympus 50-200/2.8-3-5 SWD ED, and there is also TC for that lens. The price is between $ 200 and $ 500 used, and they are still very good. But they don't work with all m43 cameras. You have to check it before you buy one.
@@mattisulanto Otherwise great review. I do have 100-400mm and it is really excellent telephoto lens. In Australia 50-200mm is more expensive. At least used to be
Both lenses are the winner, but only the Converter 1.4 is a good Option. Unfortunately, in combination with an OLYMPUS OM-D pro capture does not work. I Use it with two GX80, the G9 and the OM-D E-M1 III. Says the Husband of Gabriele....
I hate the zoom action on the 100-400 so I'm considering selling it for the 50-200 and the 2x TC. Annoyingly the 50-200 is much more expensive than the 100-400 here and the price of the 2x TC is seriously overpriced
That 100-400 lens is probably one of my dream lenses. Extremely unnecessary for me, yet what an insane piece of engineering to have such an extreme reach, especially consider the OIS + IBIS!
Thanks! I'm sorry about too many ads, UA-cam places them automatically. However, it's always good to remember, that this is free content for the viewers and ads are one way to generate some income for the creators, who put a lot of their time into making theses videos. I have to see, if I can have fewer ads in my future videos. Thanks for your feedback.
It looks like the prices vary a lot and the 50-200mm can be more expensive than the 100-400mm. If that is the case in your region, just ignore my points for the price.
I have the Lumix 100-300mm and that lens is amazing, one of the best I have for bird photography
Thanks for sharing. I've heard many good comments on that and hopefully I can try one some day.
@@mattisulanto maybe a good idea to try one and do a video? :)
@@vidlyvonkompost3652 Yes, it's a good idea.
With my GX8 and Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, I've photographed birds and wildlife. Now I'm thinking of replacing the 100-400mm with the 50-200mm because the 50-200mm's faster maximum aperture is a great benefit in low light. The longer zoom lens is fine on sunny days, but for photographing animals on cloudy days or in a forest, the shorter lens would be my choice.
Thanks for sharing.
I got the 50-200mm in May and have been using it ever since. My god it is sharp and so compact. Save up for this one folks, so many uses for it. And combined with IS Lock its crazy stable at long focal lengths hand held for video. It’s quite expensive though but you get what you pay 4.
Thanks for sharing.
I have the 14-140mm and the 100-400mm. These together with the 30mm macro cover most of my requirements.I need the longer reach, and find I don't need the adaptors.
I was debating between the two lenses and ended up going with the 50-200 with the 2x teleconverter. The real deciding factor for me was that I found a bundle deal that included the teleconverter for free. I basically got two lenses for the price of the 100-400 alone. I am extremely happy with that decision. I’ve gotten some really nice shots of the moon and birds using the combo. I’ve also gotten good shots of birds using the 50-200 alone. With just 2 lenses I have a focal range from 12-400mm (I also own the PL 12-60 f/2.8-4). It’s very easy to pack the G9, the teleconverter, and the 2 lenses, which gives me the ability to shoot pretty much anything I want in a very portable kit.
Thanks for sharing. I was thinking about the same kit, the 12-60mm and 50-200mm +TC. It's a perfect compact kit with a lot of reach.
I bought the 50-200 to replace my early non weather sealed 100-300 which I passed on to my daughter. I was lucky to find a damaged box 1.4 extender at a much reduced price. This makes the lens a 70 to 280 lens and I normally leave this on. Hence it complements my standard lens a Leica 12-60 with no overlap, and nicely replace a 100-300.
It’s easy to carry in a pouch ready to swap over with the extender on and focuses much quicker than a 100-300, with much more successful pictures.
Thanks for sharing. How's the image quality with the extender?
I haven’t noticed any difference apart fro slightly slower. I have read that the 2 times extender does have some noticeable difference and is slower again. I have a 45mm macro and I think that that is very slow to focus compared to this lens and once scaled to same picture size 50-200gives better macro type pictures?
@@kenfowler8482 Thanks!
I've had the 100-400mm but found it to be pretty soft above 300mm, so I sold it and replaced it with 50-200mm + Olympus 300mm F4. The 50-200mm is a marvelous lens: light & compact, useful range for both landscape and wildlife, and tack sharp throughout the range.
The 50-200mm + 300mm is an unbeatable combination in terms of range, sharpness and speed (max F4). As a bonus, both lenses take tele-converters, though unfortunately they are mutually incompatible. Only downside is the high cost.
Thanks for sharing. When a lens looks like it's not as sharp as it should be, it might a a faulty copy. The 100-400mm is probably not a match for a fast prime, but it's certainly not soft at 400mm. Anyway, good you found your dream combo.
I think that the Oly 40-150 f2.8 is a better companion for the excellent Oly 300 f4. In addition, they use the same TC. But it is just my opinion. I actually use the Lumix 35-100 f2.8 + Leica 100-400. The Aperture f2.8 seems to me to be a great alternative, especially at 100 or 150mm, and the Leica 50-200 does not provide this, since it is not constant. But everything always depends on the use of each person.
I've owned the Leica 100-400 for several years and more recently purchased 50-200 I use 100-400 mostly for bird photography and taking photos of surfers. I love the 400 mm maximum focal length in a lens of this size and weight. HOWEVER, it is not as consistently sharp at 400 mm especially at longer distances. Better in closer to mid range I also find for birds in flight (on G9, EM1 Mk3 and EM1X) the focus doesn't seem as fast or accurate as with my Leica 50-200 which I purchased more recently. I get a fairly large number of slightly out of focus images with 100-400. Maybe the wider aperture of the 50-200 gives the autofocus system more light, helping autofocus performance. The 50-200 is clearly the sharper of the two in my experience at their respective maximum focal lengths. The zoom ring in my 100-400 has loosened over time but is still stiffer than I like. Makes it very difficult to smoothly zoom during hand held videos which is a shame. The zoom ring is much nicer on the 50-200. Because of the issues above I have ordered the Olympus 300 f4 to try out the 50-200 and 300 f4 combo to see how it works for me. Even if the 300 f4 is optically superior I may still prefer the 100-400 for its maximum reach and ability to zoom as a surfer rides a wave and distance changes rapidly. No way to switch lenses during a single run....We'll see.
BTW, my 100-400 is noticeably better than my panasonic 100-300 mk1 someone asked about. I still use the 100-300 occasionally for travel because it is so small and light but I suspect going forward I will use the 50-200 for these purposes.
@@jasoncheng5900did you end up using only the 50-200
8-18 | 10-25 | 50-200 | 100-400
My dream lenses, I wish I am rich and just buy all of this beautiful lenses.
A totally fair review, I agree with your results
Thanks.
Thank you for another good video. I prefer the 100-400. If I want telephoto, I need as much as possible. The 50-200 with the Teleconverter loses all advantages: weight, size, aperture and price.
You are kind of right, but you'd still have the option to shoot without the TC and have all the advantages. So, if you are mainly happy with 200mm, the TC makes a lot of sense, but if you need 400mm all the time, then of course the 100-400mm makes more sense.
I still use the Olympus 50-200 mm f2.8 - f3.5 SWD Four Thirds with adapter. It is a hefty 1.3kg, but comes with a tripod collar and uses fase detect autofocus. No IS obviously, but my camera takes care of that.
That is an interesting lens, indeed.
I have the one in the middle, and happy with it. So lightweight with serious reach.
Just scored a slightly used 50-200 Lumix Leica, had to grab it.
Thanks for the video!
Good choice!
I own the PL 100-400mm and a G9. For photographing many birds (and birds in flight) you want the reach of the 800mm equivalent provided by the PL 100-400mm.
It is not ethical to crowd wildbirds by getting too close.
I've used the Panasonic 100-300mm. That is a great lens, smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But the extra reach is worth it.
Perfect zoom lens set for me: 8-18mm, 14-140mm mk2, 100-400mm, three lenses with decent brightness, good sharpness, Power OIS in the longer two cases, and not too much overlap. I'd travel with those and a GX9 for sure. Skipping the 100-400 depending on the trip for an even more compact set up.
Thanks for sharing.
I appreciate you satisfying one of my curiosities regarding sharpness!
I own the 100 to 400 and it is indeed a very impressive lens. Shot in pouring rain attached to the G9 and no issues so weather sealing is reliable. I'll add the 50 to 200 soon for sure. 😊
Thanks for sharing.
I used to have the 100-400mm but I found it a little soft in the 300-400mm range. I sold it and I now have the 50-200mm plus 1.4x teleconverter. I may consider the Olympus 100-400mm (with tele-converters) if I need more reach.
Nice to have "deep pockets" - enough money to be able to buy a few different lenses and try them out in the field.
I still want better auto focus. I can get over the small sensor but give me good auto focus and tracking.
I am hopeful that Panasonic/Lumix will continue to improve its autofocus and tracking. I just bought more micro four thirds lenses. My bet is on Panasonic.
For video I would go with 50-100. As for GH6 and G9II, you can turn on pixel to pixel in 4k and we have 300mm. We can go longer but you can not go wider. That' my point.
Great fun video, very enjoyable to watch. Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much!
What about a comparison to the Lumix 100-300mm lens?
That is a good idea for the future.
50-200mm sharper than 100-300mm
thank you for this lens comparison..one thing you didn’t mention is the mechanical zoom action..i would like to know how smooth the zoom action is on the 50-200? for video you need a really smooth action, no sticky jerky jumping motion..i bought the 100-300 ii and it was so jerky i returned it as it was unusable! so still looking for a travel tele zoom lens
I'd say the 50-200mm is the smoother of the two but I can't say if it's suitable for video. I don't have either lens any more and can't double check.
When coupling the 50-200mm F2.8-4.0 lens with the 1.4x teleconverter, do we get a 70-280mm F4.0-5.6 instead? And when we couple it with a 2x converter, it becomes a 100-400mm F5.6-F8 instead? Also, is F2.8-4.0 one stop and over one stop larger/faster than F4.0-6.3? Is there something wrong with your calculations?
Sounds about right to me.
I think you really have to test the 50-200mm with the teleconverters to really have a fair comparison. With the 2x teleconverter, it should not only have the same reach as the 100-400mm, but it should also have double the magnification ratio, producing a 1:1 full frame equivalent magnification! Good luck finding a 400mm full frame macro lens! Of course, you should be able to use extension tubes on either lens to get better closeups. The main thing I would want to know before purchasing either lens is how the sharpness of the 100-400mm compares to the 50-200mm with a 2x teleconverter. Obviously, you're losing 2/3 of a stop of light, but in most cases, I would accept that if the image is sharper. In fact, that's why I seldom use my Panasonic 100-300mm anymore. I got an Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro, and even with the 2x teleconverter, it is MUCH sharper than the 100-300mm. The only reason I haven't sold the 100-300mm is that the 40-150mm is so heavy that I wouldn't be inclined to take it with me on a long hike or a bike ride unless I was going somewhere specifically to photograph wildlife.
I'm going to do a test with a converter(s) as soon as I can borrow them somewhere.
@@mattisulanto That would be interesting. It would also be interesting to see you and Peter do a video comparing the 50-200 to the Olympus 40-150. It would be interesting to see if, for instance, the image quality of the 50-200 with a 1.4x converter is better than that of the 40-150 with a 2x converter since either combination would have a similar maximum reach and whether there are any compatibility issues when using mixing Panasonic and Olympus cameras, lenses, and teleconverters.
@@keithholland4322 That is one idea for the future, thanks.
Without a doubt the 50-200 is a great lens, but I really think that those who need a set of superteles are better equipped with the Duet Lumix 35-100 f2.8 + Leica 100-400 (or maybe the Leica 200 f2.8). Another drawback that makes the 50-200 unattractive to me is the competition from the excellent Olympus 40-150 f2.8. Constant Aperture is a huge advantage, in my opinion. But I agree that for the occasional use of a supertele , the 50-200 is a lens that can count for all, just add a TC to the backpack.
I have the 14-140. the 100 /400 would be the perfect addition for me.
I have the 45-200 Lumix, the 100-300 Lumix and the 100-400 PanaLeica. The 45-200mm is serviceable. The 100-300mm is quite useful. I used it for about a year before purchasing the 100-400mm. All in all, there is nothing like the 100-400mm in terms of reach, sharpness and that distinct, but hard to describe "Leica look". I suspect that the 50-200mm is the same in this regard. Now if I can only find buyers for the 45-200 and 100-300, I could put that towards an Olympus 12-100 and get myself down to two lenses for 90% of my shooting.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you Matti. That's a gorgeous image at 7:55 👍
Thanks!😀
Matti, could you comment on the image viability if I use the 2X mode available on the Olympus OM5 cameras rather than optical comparing the 200 vs 400? Thank you in advance and great video also.
Thanks for the coffee😀 I have not used the 2X mode, but that is essentially a crop and yields lower image quality. Why don't you test it for yourself. If you own any zoom lens, you can take one picture at 40mm and then a second one at 20mm using the 2X mode. That way you can at least get some idea of the image quality.
Awesome review, thank you
Thanks for watching!
thanks for review
Thanks for watching!
Good video, yet again. Am getting the 50-200 second hand towards the end of the week. Sold off my Oly40-150Pro with 1.4X TC and the Panasonic 100-300MKI to finance it. The Oly was to much of a beast to actually bother to carry around, looking for something to use it on and as I tended to use it with the TC all the time, the F/4 on the far end of the PL will not be too bothersome. The Panasonic MkI was not weather sealed, nor frost proof and if I can get those features, I will. The weather up here in Norway rates it, I think. I am quite interested in the 1,4TC, though, it may push off the occasional need for the 100-400, even though it is about as costly as the 100-300.
Thanks for sharing.
This was really helpful! I wish you would review yet another lens: the Panasonic 45-175mm f4-5.6. I have to say, this is one of my favorite lenses right now. It's equivalent to 90-350mm, which is decent reach, and it does not extend since all the zooming in internal (love that), so it's small enough to be balanced on a small camera body such as the GM5. You can indeed get shots of birds with this, especially using the in-camera Tele. Ext. feature. The quality is pretty darn good (and better than if you use the Digital Zoom). Maybe you've reviewed it already, but I couldn't find it, if so. Thank you for all the excellent reviews! I look forward to your vlogs!
Thanks! I'd love to review every lens, but because I can't buy them all, I have to be able to borrow some lenses and that is sometimes difficult. But, if I try to review as many as I can😀
@@mattisulanto Your reviews are so good, Panasonic should loan you more lenses to try out and review!
@@roxbittman Thanks for your kind words.
Which model Lumix camera were you using for this review? I'm planning to go into the micro 4/3's and I've always been a Lumix guy. Would you suggest the G9 or G90/95?. I do a lot of birding and wildlife.
Please see the end of the video, I have a full gear list there😀 In my opinion the G9 is currently the best Lumix MFT camera for mixed general use.
@@mattisulanto Thank you.. G9 was my choice as well.. but a built-in flash is something I'd miss on the G9, but can make do with an external i guess. thanks again for the advice. Cheers 😊👍
@@dominicsamuel4187 You can't have everything and high end cameras usually don't have a flash.
@@mattisulanto that's right 😂
Fantastic review. I will say that I wish my 50-200 had a focus locking mechanism. When I walk with it around my neck when im out birding I find that after a bit of walking the lens is almost fully extended! For the price, it should have this feature.
Thanks. My lens does not creep, but maybe I haven't used it enough.
@@mattisulanto That's nice that your doesn't creep. I have used mine a lot over the past year in some difficult conditions (especially in Africa) so maybe it's just due to wear and tear.
@@itsryanwilkes Probably, I'm not a tele shooter really and don't use tele that much.
Love the 100-400 for safaris. So practical to carry on long haul flights. Do you find the zoom ring stiff?
I have a separate review on the 100-400mm, please watch it. Yes, the zoom is a bit stiff.
Mine has softened over time. It's not loose but it's smoothed out.
If you add the extra cost - you don't mention this - of the teleconverter to go on the 50-200mm lense then the 100-400mm is the better deal. I tried using the 50-200mm lens - on my G9 - for one week but took it back to the camera store - not wide enough & not long enough. I now have the Leica 100-400mm for nature shooting & for my walk around lens I chose the Olympus 12-200mm lens. Although not a ' pro / $$ lens ' the 12-200 covers a lot of area & is great for ' getting the shot ' as apposed to missing the fleeting moment while changing lenses. Enjoy seeing your vids.
Sure, if you need 100-400mm, the 50-200mm with a TC makes no sense. But, if you need 50-200mm and sometimes 100-400mm, then it makes sense. I'm happy you found the right lenses for you. Thanks for sharing.
@@mattisulanto Thanks for the quick reply. After 3 + years into photography I still have much to learn - some of which is obtained from the partaking of your channel.
I sold my Pentax K-3, DA 300 mm and got a G90 and the 100-400 mm. I needed a lighter and more portable gear. Really like the G90 and the lens. Much better AF and more narrower af-points than the K-3. (Like your videos so I get you a cup of coffey!)
But the 100-400 lens seems to be a dust pump? Have had it for 6 months and I am not a heavy user and don´t let the gear be dirty. Don´t know if the dust was already inside from factory but now after 6 months I can see 3-4 dust particles on the inside of the front lens. Not a big deal since it will not affect the image quality but more of a cosmetic type... yet.
Thanks for sharing. I think it was in Lensrentals blog that zooms really don't suck in dust any more than other lenses. It's more like an urban legend, I guess. It's probably possible that some lenses are more prone to collecting dust inside, but zooms in general are not any worse than primes. Thanks also for the coffee.
Now i have to look for a 72mm close-up filter for my oly 40-150... fascinating how your video could bring me to that course of action... :P
Thanks. Hey, whatever works for you😀
We think a lot alike! I went through the same comparison before finding a deal here in the US for the 50-200 plus the 2x teleconverter. I am REALLY liking this setup! Light, (well, for a lens with this range anyway), Dual IS with the G9, I'm finding more and more opportunities to use it. I was curious why they put a manual/auto focus switch on the barrel though, but found a use for it yesterday. I was photographing a number of bumblebees flitting from flower to flower. Of course, I had issues with the auto focus (Panny system!!) because it would frequently autofocus on something other than what I wanted. Frame was crowded with flowers from foreground to back ground. So with one finger I switched off the auto focus, did a quick sloppy manual focus on the flower/bee I wanted, switched on the autofocus and I had instant clear sharp focus on my subject. Then I could follow it. It was pretty helpful, but a discussion on the Panasonic focus system is for another day......... Overall great lens, and a really great and I thought fair comparison. Thanks.
Thanks a lot for sharing.
How do you find the image quality with the 2x TC? I have heard that it really degrades the image quality so I've shyed away from it.
Another excellent video. Enjoyable as well as educational.
Question for you: does Panasonic have plans to release a replacement for the G9, which has been around for about 3 years? If so, when might that happen and what features might it have? Thanks and keep posting!
Thanks! I don't know about the possible G9 replacement and even if I knew, I could not say anything. I think the rumored GH6 is more likely to come first, but that is also just my opinion and not based on any facts.
At 400mm equivalent, the shorter zoom should have a collar for tripod use. I mostly love my 100-400mm, but hate a few things about the "Leica" design features. The switches for OIS, range limiter, and AF/MF are WAY too easy to accidentally toggle. I have to visually check the lens for configuration every time I mount it, and again while I'm using it. The switches move with the collar, so when I'm not using the tripod mount I rotate the controls to the top of the lens where they're less likely to get bumped while shooting. My lens didn't come with its dedicated metal hood, which is expensive and fussy to use - fastening with a knurled screw. The sliding pseudo-hood isn't really useful and just adds fussiness to mounting the lens hood. The 70-300 has Panasonic-style switches, which are superior for staying where you want them.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the 100-400mm.
I thought the 50-200mm would need a collar, but it's so light weight that a collar is really not necessary.
I considered both but wanted more reach so I settled on the 100-400. I could've gotten the 50-200 with the 2.0x converter (US$600-too much!), but that would've made the combination a lot more expensive than the 100-400 and I have the 35-100 f/2.8, which is faster than the 50-100 over the overlapping FL range. Also, I find the 100-400 to be a lot more versatile than might be expected from such as lens and would not call it “special purpose” as you’re going to be switching lenses anyway for many shots as neither of these is a “carrying around/all-in-one” lens. If I didn’t “need” a longer lens, I’d go for the 50-200 but as you say, it’s a personal decision and both are great lenses, capable of delivering as much IQ as anyone would need. The only downside of the 100-400 (besides the price, but it’s actually a bargain compared to FF options) is that after well over a year of reasonably heavy use, the zoom ring is still somewhat stiff at the far end (although weirdly, if you turn the lens upside-down, it’s smoother). Not much of a problem (except for video), but annoying none-the-less. Also, I’d recommend the battery grip on the G9 to balance that lens (though it’s usable even on the GX85, but hold the lens, not the body!), plus it makes shooing in portrait mode a lot better.
Thanks for sharing. Well, if I was going to use either tele zoom, I'd have another body for some normal lens so I would not have to switch lenses😀 However, I appreciate your points and we all have different ways to shoot and use our camera gear.
Thanks a lot. You succeed to convince me to buy 50-200 mm. I will receive in few dans. :-)
I hope you'll be happy with the lens.
Very nice review, and you deserve a coffee. I wish I could afford to buy you one!
Thanks. I know, it's $3😀, but thanks for at least thinking about it.
I'm trying to wait to see whether I can snatch the 50-200 for a deal! What picture profile do you use for your stills?
I have the Natural for stills, but since I shoot RAW, it doesn't matter that much.
Nice Review! Kudos
Thanks!
Hi. Can you remind me please is the 12-60 Leica 2.8 sharper than both these lenses? Thank you!
It's about the same and very good.
@@mattisulanto I have the 12-60 Leica, and it is not that sharp at 60mm. Very obvious comparing ta 100% with a prime or the 50-200. Sharpness is good up to 40mm.
@@jeangoupil8129 It's possible your lens has something wrong in it. It's true that the sharpness drops slightly towards 60mm, but it should not be obviously not sharp.
@@mattisulanto I think you are right, i did some test with my 12-60mm lens, at 60mm, it is sharper at F22, and a lot sharper at F16 compare to F4. Base on the reviews i saw about this lens, it is not normal, should be sharper at f4 than f22. Similar happen at 40mm. I will have to return that lens. I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks
@@jeangoupil8129 Yes, as a rule of thumb, any MFT lens should be the sharpest at around F2.8-4 or at around max aperture, if that is slower than F4.
Great timing, I was just thinking about these lenses today.. are they parfocal?
I knew that😀 I don't think any Lumix/Leica zooms are optically parfocal, but the electronics keep the focus like they were parfocal.
@@mattisulanto i saw in another review that the Leica 12-60mm is parfocal, in contrary to the Lumix 12-60mm.
@@jeangoupil8129 this is true, I have both 12-60 lenses, and the Leica is parfocal but the LUMIX is not.
You forgot the 35-100mm the only Pana lens I have in my Olympus lenses arsenal ..... and i still like it.
I did not forget the 35-100mm F2.8, I have a separate review of it, and in this video I wanted compare just these two zooms.
I have the 200mm 2.8 prime with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters... from the very beginning I decided to only buy prime lenses... and I really don't regret it, but sometimes my wallet does 😅
Anyway, very nice video! I like your style and quality very much... Maybe in the price comparison you should have mentioned the price of the teleconverters too? Because without them you cannot have 400mm with the 50-200mm...
Thanks for sharing. You are right, the converter adds to the price and I should have mentioned it, but then again, it's optional. I'm sure the 200mm F2.8 is a very nice lens.
@@mattisulanto I want to ask you another question... If I'm right you also own the S1 or S1R? I am very interested in a lot of very special Laowa lenses like for example the 15mm f4 wide angle macro. Laowa just came out with 6 L-mount versions of some of these lenses, so I was thinking: they're all manual, AF is not IMPORTANT, so why not buy the S1... I already have the G9, I'm so happy with it, then why not stay in the same brand... I know the Canon R6 will be there too, but the S1, even it looks quite heavy, still attracts me... Could you help me out of my dilemma 😉
@@hanslamal5632 The S1/R has been out for some time now and at least you know that it's reliable. I shoot quite a bit on the S1R and I like it a lot. I think it's a benefit to have similar control lay out as on the G9 and the new menu system is really good. The weight is not an issue, especially when I have smaller cameras too and you have the same situation. So, I'm not actually sure what else I can say😀
@@mattisulanto you're completely right, I was already thinking the same about the control layout because that makes everything still more easy... I also do lots of low light photography in the Indonesian jungles and like to use the "night mode" on the G9... if I'm right the S1/S1R also has it? I saw even some back buttons are illuminated? I only need to choose between the S1 and the S1R... Is the S1 not better in low light? Thanks a lot for wanting to help me out! 🙂
@@hanslamal5632 I hope to have a comparison between the S1 and S1R soon. Yes, there is the night mode and illuminated buttons.
Does anyone use the GH5 for bird&video photography here? if you do, what are your thoughts? it works as a blogging camera too?
I have the 100-400 and the 200 2.8 is the next lens on my shopping list. It might have to wait a while though 😂
That 200mm F2.8 would be nice😀
@@mattisulanto As Boris would say "Very nice!" probably with the 1.4 TC :)
Do you know what, when I do not want to use the PL100-400, I want a much lighter lens and use the 380g 45-200ii. No, it is not as good as the Leica 200 but these extra long lenses always want to be stopped down so f/2.8 is a bit of a waste of milk. You do not always want a heavy lens.
I do still have the 100-300 mark.1 Mega-OIS. It was never long enough nor short enough, the PL100-400 replaces that. As with the 100-300ii, the 45-200ii makes a good lightweight alternative to the Leica 200mm.
I would rather see comparison of cheaper 45-200, 45-175, 45-150, 100-300. But this video was likely recommended to me cause I've searched that and just ordered 45-150.
I have 45-200 and I don't like it. I took one of my best photos with that lens, but it's used like 0.5% of time, it's heavy, it's not sharp beyond 120mm focal length (at least my copy).
I either regret carrying big bulky lens or not having it.
Something to consider in the future. Thanks.
Nice comparison
Would really like to see image quality comparison with the 50--200 with the 2xTC compared to the 100-400
I'd like to see that comparison too, but so far I don't have the TC😀
@@mattisulanto Hopefully Panasonic will lend it to you, but I suppose that depends on what the result may be
@@marklaurendet1861 Sometimes it's also about the availability of demo units. I'll try to get it at some point, because it would be interesting.
I saw a review that compare the 50-200 with the 2 converter, sharpness remain good with 1.4TC, but bad with the 2.0TC
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4300994
I don't have the 2.0TC, but I can tell you the image quality on the 50-200mm with the 1.4TC is nearly perfect. A slight loss of contrast, but still exceptionally sharp, even wide open. I also have the 100-400MM version 2, and it is much smoother zoom action than the original. The performance of the 100-400mm with the 1.4TC is acceptable. There is a small loss of resolution, and the one stop loss in light gathering makes it difficult to use in anything but strong lighting. I question if I am better off cropping at 400MM.
Do you still have them?
No.
Both are great but I think the 50-200 looks better as it is smaller and f2.8-4 is amazing. But the 100-300 is three times cheaper in cost, I wonder if in quality too? I think you will have to get your hands on the 100-300 now ;-) I have a feeling value-wise the 100-300 looks just right.
I kind of agree and I have to find the 100-300mm for testing.
What about the Zuiko 75-300 ? It's much more affordable than those 2 lenses that I will never own, unfortunately...
That is one option, of course.
And there is the 45-200 which at the moment is a real bargain. It is always the problem of how much you're willing to spend on a lens that doesn't see frequent use. (I hardly ever shoot a subject that cannot be covered with the 12 - 60 mm range) And I think the quality differences between most lenses are in the pixel peeping range.
Thanks. I'm like you and very seldom use long tele lenses.
I bought the 45-200 Mark 2 Last year. The sharpness at 45mm was really good. But at 200 mm (and that is the focal lengh, you use the most of the time) , sharpness was really Bad. IT was so soft, that i die Not have to Zoom in the picture to See, that sharpness is Bad. I Sold it after a few weeks.
There is a very cheap competitor from the old 43 system from Olympus. The Olympus 50-200/2.8-3-5 SWD ED, and there is also TC for that lens. The price is between $ 200 and $ 500 used, and they are still very good. But they don't work with all m43 cameras. You have to check it before you buy one.
You are forgetting how much are those teleconverters?
I didn't forget the cost, I just didn't mention it😀
@@mattisulanto Otherwise great review. I do have 100-400mm and it is really excellent telephoto lens. In Australia 50-200mm is more expensive. At least used to be
There's no such thing as enough reach. :)
😀
Haha so true!
Both lenses are the winner, but only the Converter 1.4 is a good Option. Unfortunately, in combination with an OLYMPUS OM-D pro capture does not work. I Use it with two GX80, the G9 and the OM-D E-M1 III.
Says the Husband of Gabriele....
Thanks for sharing.
I hate the zoom action on the 100-400 so I'm considering selling it for the 50-200 and the 2x TC. Annoyingly the 50-200 is much more expensive than the 100-400 here and the price of the 2x TC is seriously overpriced
Thanks. Where is the 50-200mm much more expensive?
That 100-400 lens is probably one of my dream lenses. Extremely unnecessary for me, yet what an insane piece of engineering to have such an extreme reach, especially consider the OIS + IBIS!
It's accessible dream, though, and I hope you'll get one some day.
@@mattisulanto Oh yes! But for the time being, I invested in a Rokinon CIne DS lens set haha... Incredible manual lenses for a tiny GX85!
"50-20mm"
It's a clickbait😀 No, really it's a typo. Thanks, I'll correct it.
Nice review BUT FAR too many adds - the adds destroy the joy
Thanks! I'm sorry about too many ads, UA-cam places them automatically. However, it's always good to remember, that this is free content for the viewers and ads are one way to generate some income for the creators, who put a lot of their time into making theses videos. I have to see, if I can have fewer ads in my future videos. Thanks for your feedback.