I have both and believe the 100-300 to be sharper, the weight difference is negligible and the size difference is not that great either.

The 45-200 can be frustrating in that some days it will perform well and others not so, so far the 100-300 seems more consistent.

These are unprocessed in any way and although taken in different conditions, they were from almost the same spot.

200mm


300mm

Nice comparison shots, Glen!

Cynthia - why not just a 1.4x TC for your Canon 300? The 400L is an f/5.6, BTW. :-) Quite larger than the 100-300, due in part to the deep hood on the 400L. I am looking forward to carrying the 100-300 Pany into the field this summer and seeing how it fares.

When my 45-200 arrives (supposed to be today), I can post a shot of the three lenses side by side for comparison.

Hi

The Canon 400 5.6 is a very fast , very sharp lens, from all I've heard. Most people use it for birds in flight. I use a 1.4x woth the 300- it's not terribly sharp, it's loose on the mount, and autofocus is poor. Other than that....

I'll llok for your comparative posts, thanks!

I have not experience that with the 45-200, it has been consistence when mounted to my pen. Theses are samples taken with the 45-200 compare to my canon with the ef 70-300. Each thread was taken on different days, but the performance is alway the same on the pens.

Opel Zoo, in Taunus Germany - Steve's Digicams Forums

FRA Airport Take Off's - Steve's Digicams Forums

I am really suprised your 1.4x is loose! Is it the Canon version? I have the 1.4x II and no problems with it.

Yep, the 400 is fast and sharp. I also have 100-400L and am not sure which I prefer, the IS of the 100-400 is very helpful for me and it also is pretty darned sharp.

Hi again

I guess we're getting a bit of topic here..

Briefly- no, my TC is a Kenko. Supposed to be OK...
Ahh- the 400 vs 100-400 eternal debate. I heva yet to try both to compare.

Couple of comparison shots - I am not a product photog, as you can tell. :-)

Up front: Panasonic 100-300 and 45-200, then the Canon 100-400, in the back the 400 f/5.6, and the older 500 f/4.5.



Pany lenses side by side.

I do have to admit optically the 45-200 is great, it is stabilized which makes it useable at the longer range. I really do think that this lens is good , but micro4/3 system has still a long way to catch up in terms of autofocus reactivity. In low light it hunts like hell, i personally do not use it much. I prefer manual lenses.

It does hunt more. I used it for a set of sunset shots yesterday evening, and it was quite noticable. It did lock focus, but only after a little hunt each time. Kind of annoying on bracketed shots where focus wasn't changing.

The images were sharp enough, no real issues there. I shot it side by side with the Canon 100-400 since someone here had said that m4/3 was as good as their 100-400. My Canon kit was definitely a little sharper, and as expected captured more shadow detail (even with HDR'd sets).