1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Daniel Cox has posted full size sample images from the PL100-400

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by D7k1, Jan 23, 2016.

  1. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    688
    Nov 18, 2013
    Here is the link from DPR - 8 images (TIF's) for download. I think this lens is the real deal. Just waiting for funds next week to preorder.

    Link from Danial Cox's site: "If you have an interest in seeing these images for yourself please visit my Blog at Lumix Diaries Leica 100-400mm Samples | Natural Exposures, Inc.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 2
  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    These look good. The shots from the Oly 300mm f/4 Pro are a bit sharper, but the PL 100-400 also looks very good and it's a zoom with more range! I think any serious telephoto shooter will have to own both!
     
  3. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    No reason to own both, the PL is to slow. Even with the 1.4x TC my 50-200 is faster all thru the zoom range. Better off having 300 Pro on one body (with or without TC depending on reach needed) and either 50-200 SWD or 40-150 Pro on a 2nd. For me, getting the 300 Pro is more expensive because I will want a 2nd EM1 to put the 150mm ƒ2.0 on. I hardly ever need less then 150mm but at times the 300 Pro will be long, the two lenses will work out perfectly :biggrin:
     
  4. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Of course your 50-200 lens with the EC14 is faster than the PL100-400. You need to be using the EC20 instead & then that will be slower than the PL100-400 lens. I wouldn't mind trying an EC20 in that combo to see how well it would perform for me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    No, not with EC-20 because the 300 Pro will be on the other camera. This was in reference to why as a serious telephoto shooter I would not want to own both the PL 100-400 and 300 Pro. People always say that in the case of telephotos having the zoom is more versatile because what if something comes by that is closer or any number of different scenarios. 99.9% of the time when I set up to photograph something after determining the focal length needed have I ever needed something much shorter. When I have it has just been a perfect opportunity to get a nice closeup portrait of what ever it was that showed up really close. With the really close focus ability of the 300 Pro there is even less need to worry about that. I have already stated that this lens will force me to buy a 2nd camera so I can have the 300 Pro and ZD 150mm ƒ2.0 both at the ready. But that is mostly so I don't have to swap lenses when I come across something that will require a different focal length (a lot of time the environment precludes being able to swap lenses). Personally I would prefer two faster lenses on two bodies then a mega zoom that is a compromise in both IQ and speed.

    Actually the 50-200 with EC-20 is only a little slower then the PL 100-400, it works out to 100-400 @ ƒ5.6 to 7.1 or 1/3 stop slower at the long end (full stop slower at 100mm but I could just pull of the EC-20 and be at ƒ2.8-3.5 from 100-200 if I need faster). The IQ is actually pretty good, here is a post I did comparing the ZD 150mm to the 50-200 using all combos of lens/TC: Focus Accuracy and Comparison of ZD 150mm ƒ2 and 50-200 SWD After the PL 100-400 was announced I spent a day in the woods using the 50-200 with the EC-20 and for my shooting it was to slow. I do not like going above 800 ISO and will not go above 1600 ISO for wildlife. Above 1600 you lose way to much detail in the feathers or hair and I really prefer to stay at 800 or lower. Now for other subjects I will and do go higher, but for wildlife it is just not useable to me. Given my personal ISO cap and the shutter speed needed to freeze a birds head when it strikes a fish (1/1000 at minimum, 1/800 will give some motion blur to the head but can be used in a pinch) limits this to good light only, forget about using it early as the sun rises or later as it sets or under a heavy canopy of tree limps and leaves.

    My µ4/3 setup is light enough that it will not be a burden to carry the 300 Pro and 150mm ƒ2.0 around all day in the woods, or for me the swamps of Southeast Texas. Much easier then trying to carry around a full frame DSLR or APS-C and two lenses with similar FoV and aperture ranges and IQ. With those two lenses I will be able to cover just about any situation with lenses that are fast and have outstanding IQ.

    Ronnie

    P.S. I have nothing against the PL 100-400 and I am sure it will be a great lens and Panny will sell a lot of them. But as a serious wildlife photographer and telephoto lens user, it is just to slow for my needs and I know a lot of other serious wildlife shooters feel the same. It will also not give me the amazing IS I will be getting with the 300 Pro when paired with my Olympus EM1.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  6. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    I have heard this broken record once too often. What lens is this thread about? Instantly he is in here to tell all, again, how this lens is inadequate for 'him and other serious photographers'. Well la de da. Plenty of people could stalk all m43 camera threads and instantly leap in with how m43 is inadequate for 'them and other serious photographers', but that wouldn't be very nice, would it? Oh wait a minute, that's DPR!

    Please revise your strategy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    If you don't like what I have to say you can either:

    1) not read what post

    Or

    2) the forum software offers an ignore feature for your convince

    It's not my fault that Panny decided to upgrade their consumer grade 100-300 by adding an extra 100mm, adding weather sealing, improving the aperture mechanism, and by early examples improving IQ.

    Saying that every serious telephoto shooter will want to own both (not you but @Jonathan F/2@Jonathan F/2 ) is not true. There are way better options to cover the focal lengths below 300mm. That is who my response was for.

    So, please follow option number 2 above so we can avoid these discussions in the future. It really will not hurt my feelings. Or you can continue to stroke my very large ego and keep responding to me.

    Have a fine day
     
  8. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    @T N Args@T N Args @Phocal@Phocal - Please keep it courteous. I'd like to spend today watching football, not moderating.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    In Sunny 16 conditions you can easily shoot 1/1000s @ f6.3 @ base ISO (~125).

    Obviously depends on the specific conditions you shoot in.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    More then happy too
    That is just it......SUNNY. The sunny 16 rule does not apply when shooting in early morning or late evening light. Not once did I suggest that the lens was not capable of shooting at 1/1000 at base ISO as that would be a ridiculous statement to make. I said that in early morning or late evening light you will have to increase ISO to get shutter speeds at/above 1/1000. How much depends on the amount of light obviously and at 300mm it is a stop slower then the Olympus, which could make the difference of shooting at ISO 1600 or 3200 (which I find unusable for wildlife photography).
     
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dude, it s just a hypothetical statement made in passing. He didn't literally mean that every single telephoto lover must own both our turn in their photographer card. The thread was for discussion of samples of the 100-400 lens, not arguing which exact lens may make one person happiest.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    And?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Anyway, having looked at the shots, I wouldn't say they're at the same ultimate pixel-level quality as the 300/f4 (though these are 20MP images, whereas the 300/f4 samples have been 16MP), but to be fair, some of the 300mm/f4 images are probably the sharpest I've seen this side of a $6,000 300mm/f2.8 IS II or $12,000 600mm/f4 so it's in good company.

    Regardless, just because they are not at the same level as the 300/f4, they still have extremely high resolution. It is also a pre-production lens - whether having a hand-made sample means it is better quality or worse, it is hard to tell. Less likely to be de-centered, I imagine, but the overall process control is probably not ticking along at 100%. I don't expect the export-sharpening has been kind to the images, either, though that's not present in the 2016 samples, particularly the extremely sharp photo of the dik dik (?) @ 350mm, f5.9. The lion doesn't look as good, but it's shot @ 400mm and f9.0, so I imagine diffraction is gently softening the details on that one, too, and it would probably look better wide open.

    Looking forward to seeing more samples from production lenses that are in more hands, and maybe some lab tests, too.
     
  14. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Let me rephrase that then, any serious telephoto shooter who wants to keep weight down to a minimum. I think if one wants to pursue the ultimate telephoto setup, buying a new Nikon D500 and choosing from a plethora of DSLR telephoto options would be a better way to go, if ultimate image quality and performance is what you're after. ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    688
    Nov 18, 2013
    There are a lot more reasons than pure sharpness to choose a less. Robbin's images were shot in a controlled environment with the 300mm and Cox's out in the wild with a sample not production lens. First and foremost, for me, m43 is about the size. If I had wanted a large lens (and the 300mm is a large lens) I would have stayed with my Nikon stuff and traded my 300mm for a 400 or 500mm. Phocal your arguments are often based on assumptions that fit your world, but perhaps not others. Your are missing a key point about the 100-400, it is simply a more versatile tool for many other types of imaging. And since you didn't take the time to read about the lens I intended this thread to be about, perhaps you don't know that Cox had some of the earliest samples of the pre-production lenses and he is getting reports of better performance from newer samples. And as a video person (who does not care for anything less than 4K ) the PL100-400 will take full advantage of the Dual IS/DFD for stills and DFD/OIS when videoing on my Gx8 . Mr. Cox over a DPR has stated that his post processing skills are not the best and that the Tiff's may represent that. So final assumptions as you have made based on a pre-production sample are at least premature IMHO and have no place in this thread which I started for people interested in this lens. Perhaps you would fit better at DPR.
     
  16. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I do not know. Not ideal samples for me, a lot of noise. And...well...why does he shoot birds at ISO 800, f/13 and 1/250s? f/9, f/10?

    The noise in the duck shot (ISO 200) is terrible, two deers(?) shot ISO 640, bird with rocks ISO 800 look the same: bad processing?

    Waiting for better samples.
     
  17. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    688
    Nov 18, 2013

    On DPR, he said he is giving some RAW files for someone else to post process, so we will see those results - I certainly don't get noise that bad on my Gx8.
     
  18. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I think there might be a conversion issue.

    If you look at the "2015" labelled samples, they have a strong, uniform level of noise all across the frame. If you look at the "2016" labelled samples, some of them are cropped, but they still look a lot better. The dik dik and the monkey have quite a lot of fine detail visible.
     
  19. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    688
    Nov 18, 2013
  20. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    1) I would not call Robbins images as being in a controlled environment, the only control was that the animals could only move so far away. The lighting and shooting conditions were at the mercy of the weather that day, I am sure he picked a nice day to go take the photographs and who wouldn't if they could? Yes, he did get close to the animals for some amazing shots and Cox was out in the wild. I routinely get very close to wild animals in the wild, so Cox could have gotten just as close if he really wanted to (well, if he posses the skills necessary to get that close to wild animals). But, I question why you even bring this up in a response to me because I never mention IQ or even compare the IQ between the two lenses.

    2) My arguments do fit my world, never said they did not.....would be stupid to argue for/against something that did not fit my world. Yes, a 100-400 zoom is more versatile then any single Prime in that focal range.....be kind of stupid to think it was not. When paired with a 2nd lens (another prime or a zoom) you get much great versatility and in the case of current µ4/3 offerings can be paired with lenses that also keep you with faster apertures. As a one and only one lens solution, sure it is more versatile but we use interchangeable lens cameras for a reason.

    3) How do you know what I did and did not read? I actually read his initial blog post within the first few days it was posted. My biggest question is why would Panasonic provide their new lens for someone to test and write a review who could not then process the images to show the quality of the lens? I know nothing of the photographer and have only seen his work from the two post he did about the 100-400. So, I have no idea about his ability other then those two post and in the 2nd one he admits that he cannot process images or that his skill is not the best. Makes me seriously question why Panasonic picked him for this.

    4) Again, I never once said anything about the IQ of this lens. Someone made a comment and I replied to that comment and it had absolutely nothing to do with the IQ of the lens. I simply stated that it was really to slow for me and for a lot of other serious telephoto shooters.

    5) I can make any comment I want in a thread as long as it does not break the site-wide rules. Which a large number of you have broken rule #1 in response to my post. I never once said anything rude or insulting toward anyone and only expressed my opinion (which everyone on this forum does) about a particular lens that the thread was about. Well, I guess that was true until the personal attacks against me started, then I did change my attitude and manner of post. I also did not come to this thread to say anything bad about the lens (which I have still not done) and was only replying to someone else post (which by the way even with his terrible processing I am impressed by the images from this lens, it is just not for me). But, for the sack of full discloser.........the IQ of the PL 100-400 is not in the same league with the Oly 300 Pro, but it really is good enough (just about any modern camera and lens is good enough at this point really). The Oly can go to 400 and is faster and still retains better IQ then the PL and for focal lengths under 300 you have the 40-150 Pro which is probably just as good as the PL and maybe a little less with the TC or you can dip into the 4/3 lenses and the 150 ƒ2.0 even with the EC-14 will probably still be better in IQ (other factors like focus speed and aperture mechanism speed not so).

    With that I will follow rule #4 - Don't repetitively argue. If you've made your argument, move on without trying over and again to have the last word. I hope you do the same.

    Have a great day.....it's time to smoke and drink beer while watching the Football game.

    Ronnie