Olympus 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 IS lens

[BPCS]

This is not an existing Sigma design. It appears to be a modified design based on the original Sigma. So the questions and conclusions that you arrived at are incorrect.

Do you have information showing a difference... it looks identical to the 21/15 design of the DSLR 100-400 Sigma from a few years ago (not the new Sigma 100-400 mirrorless 22/16 design).

 

[MichailK]

@BPCS earlier in this thread

 

[Pluttis]

Do you have information showing a difference... it looks identical to the 21/15 design of the DSLR 100-400 Sigma from a few years ago (not the new Sigma 100-400 mirrorless 22/16 design).

Its a Olympus lens based on Sigams design and optical formula..Its not identical when it comes to the lens formula and when it comes to design/construction and functions they differ quite much.


https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4509689

 

[RAH]

Regarding the use of the MC14 and MC20 with the new 100-400, I wonder how they will perform, as Olympus has previously restricted usage to lenses designed with the tele converters in mind... this is an existing Sigma design which wouldn't have that prerequisite. Did Olympus just get lucky and determine the tele converters "fitted in fine" with the established Sigma design... or has Olympus been over stating the supposed optical "co-design" concept with the 300 and 40-150 Pro?

I don't know (or care) whether Sigma designed the lens. Seems to me, if the TCs fit, they fit. I suppose it would be nicer if Oly had designed the lens and the TCs from scratch, intending from the start that they would be an amazing combination, but that's kind of unlikely (especially since the TCs have existed for awhile).

I think what matters with TCs is that I personally wouldn't touch a 2x converter with a ten foot pole. I'm even somewhat leery about the 1.4s . Many times I have used a 1.4x over the years and always wished I hadn't because the IQ suffered. Even with some relatively high-end lenses like the Canon 400 5.6L lens and a matched Canon 1.4 TC, on a tripod, my results suffered.

I'm not a great photographer, but I think the nature of the TC beast is such that they usually degrade your IQ, especially the 2x, and with a consumer-grade lens like the new 100-400, I doubt if I will get one for it (although GAS might dictate otherwise! ). I realize a lot of folks like the Oly TCs, even the 2x, with the 300 and 40-150 Pro lenses, but I think it is unlikely they will work as well with the 100-400. Just MHO.

 

[SteveAdler]

Those are great pictures Steve.

Thank you. The last two are examples of what we can do in post processing when lenses don't give us the background blur we want. I had the 45-175 on the camera for both shots and didn't have time to put on another lens. Th

Although the P 45-175 is not a pro level lens your photo is superb and clearly demonstrates that sometimes it is not about modern gear but what you can do with your current gear. But this is incomprehensible to a majority of gearheads on internet forums/sites.

Regarding the P 45-175. How good/bad is chromatic aberration on Oly bodies? Thanks.

With that lens I never noticed any aberations. What I do like about it is that it is very small and light and focuses internally. The small size means that many people could never imagine that you can take a candid photo of them from 30 meters away. But... it is f5.6 at 175mm and that means you need to take care with your backgrounds when you shoot or have good post processing methods to isolate your subject. But technically, the lens is more than sharp enough. That photo of the girl is printed on canvas in my living room at 200cm x 300cm and it is very sharp. So this idea that we need the latest pro lenses to take advantage of our m43 sensors is just not true.

 

[Lcrunyon]

There’s only so many ways to design a lens, and fewer that are really good. It wouldn’t be surprising if the Olympus and Sigma lenses were designed independently despite their similarities.

 

[RAH]

Lenstips has a new initial review of the lens. Yikes!! Perhaps best not to read it. I usually like their reviews, but I don't know what to think about the lens now. https://www.lenstip.com/144.1-artic...6.3_IS__–_first_impressions_Introduction.html

 

[John King]

@RAH TCs do not degrade image quality very much if you pay for the top shelf stuff.

This was taken with my OM1 + f/4 200 plus a very expensive Teleplus focusing 2x TC. Taken on Agfa Vista 400 print film, then scanned at 5400 dpi and 16 bit colour.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Apparently, the Olympus 2x TC is better than their 1.4x, at least on the 40-150 Pro and 300 Pro.

Generally, you get what you pay for.

There are other reviews and real life use by Robin Wong and Petr Bambousek that show this lens as very good.

 

[SpecFoto]

would a D500+[the dslr version of this lens] vs the m43 EM1iii+[the Oly version] maybe be better suited for Africa safari or BIF/fast action use?

Being a D500 owner I can say for sure the D500 will give you more keepers. While I now have a new EM1 MkIII and the CAF has improved quite a bit, I still feel the D500 is better at this. ML Comparison did an extensive test of 17 mirrorless cameras specifically for BIF and the results were that the Sony A9's were the best at 95/98% (perfectly sharp/acceptably sharp) and the Olympus's were at 1/3 to half-way down the list with the EM1X at 74/91%, the EM5 MkIII at 72/93%, which is likely where the EM1 MkIII, not tested would have been, and the EM1 MkII at 66/81%. While the D500 was not tested in this test, as it is not mirrorless, in the comments the author Matheiu stated the D500, based upon previous test of the D500 vs. the A9's, would have tested 2nd best behind the 2 A9's at 85/98%.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

I did a pretty extensive BIF test 2-1/2 years ago of my then new G9 vs. my EM1.1 and D500 and the D500 came out on top by a pretty good margin. And interesting in the ML test, the G9 came in last of 17 cameras with 51/69%, this is higher than I got in my test at 45% sharp, but the ML test has the advantage of FW 2.0. In either case it just goes to show the Panasonic contrast only AF detection system just can't keep up with those using both contrast and phase detect AF for this type of shooting. If your interested, here is a link to the test I did:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/g9-with-birds.96288/page-3#post-1113694

And regarding costs, right now the D500 and Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (300-750mm f5.6 eq.) is about $400 cheaper as a combo vs. the EM1 MkIII and new 100-400, at least here in the US.

 

[AndyT]

I see Robin Wong has been doing some testing with the TC's, hopefully hew will release the promised video review on them soon.

Saw a pic of the moon from him on instagram, unfortunately in one of those "Stories" thingys so not a great representation

https://www.instagram.com/stories/shutter.therapy/2370581657714793401/

 

[Lcrunyon]

Lenstips has a new initial review of the lens. Yikes!! Perhaps best not to read it. I usually like their reviews, but I don't know what to think about the lens now. https://www.lenstip.com/144.1-article-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_100-400_mm_f_5.0-6.3_IS__–_first_impressions_Introduction.html

He seemed more upset with the system and the recent announcement than the lens itself. Other than the CA results which 1) he admitted was hard on all this type of lens and 2) were better than the PL, there wasn’t much new to go off of.

 

[comment23]

He seemed more upset with the system and the recent announcement than the lens itself. Other than the CA results which 1) he admitted was hard on all this type of lens and 2) were better than the PL, there wasn’t much new to go off of.

Agreed. As a first impressions of a specific product I found this one particularly hopeless.

 

[Lcrunyon]

Agreed. As a first impressions of a specific product I found this one particularly hopeless.

When he started dissing the 25mm pro which, while not as sharp as the 17 or 45, is still a special lens — I knew that he was speaking more emotionally than objectively. Lenstips has always spoken highly of Olympus, so I guess some of this is to be expected.

Personally, I don‘t disagree with his wishes for the direction of the system. However, it’s clear on even this forum that many Olympus users prioritize compactness above all else, and Olympus has had to respect that. Even then, Olympus was also offering some lenses he would have favored, with even more on the roadmap — oftentimes to the criticism of many Olympus users. So, I can’t agree with his sentiment that Olympus has been stupid all these years. Instead, they created a diverse system with a multitude of choices.

 

[RichardC]

When he started dissing the 25mm pro which, while not as sharp as the 17 or 45, is still a special lens — I knew that he was speaking more emotionally than objectively. Lenstips has always spoken highly of Olympus, so I guess some of this is to be expected.

Personally, I don‘t disagree with his wishes for the direction of the system. However, it’s clear on even this forum that many Olympus users prioritize compactness above all else, and Olympus has had to respect that. Even then, Olympus was also offering some lenses he would have favored, with even more on the roadmap — oftentimes to the criticism of many Olympus users. So, I can’t agree with his sentiment that Olympus has been stupid all these years. Instead, they created a diverse system with a multitude of choices.

They're a funny breed these people.

"Not the same build quality as the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM" - I suppose when you consider that the Canon lens costs twice as much money, I don't think we ought to be surprised. Worse still, the Canon won't fit on the EM1 Mk3.

 

[RAH]

"Not the same build quality as the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM" - I suppose when you consider that the Canon lens costs twice as much money, I don't think we ought to be surprised. Worse still, the Canon won't fit on the EM1 Mk3.

Yes, I think that that Canon lens is much like the upcoming 150-400 will be. They even look kind of similar. Very nice lenses, of course. Too big for my tastes...

 

[doxa750]

This is my opinion. I've owned the Lumix 100-300, the Olympus 75-300, Lumix 45-175, Olympus 50-200, Olympus 300mm f4 Pro, Sigma APO 300mm f4 Tele Macro, Canon nFD 80-200 f4, Tokina 60-300, Canon EF 300mm f4, Nikon 300mm f4 AFS, Pentax-M 200mm f4, Nikon AIS 200mm f4. I used them all with the Olympus EM1 or EM1.2.You can get great photos with all of those lenses, depending on light conditions. Even the Pentax, which was never a sharp lens, from the early 1970's can be used to take great photos in the right conditions. Camera makers want us to buy more lenses, so they talk to reviewers about whether lenses are too sharp for sensors and that's all just marketing.

What matters in the field most is aperture and focus speed. With some practice you can make a 20-year lens old focus pretty fast for BIF and a lot of things. I find it more satisfying to work with that lens than with a $2000 modern equivalent, and I'm consistently pleased with the results.
View attachment 839829 View attachment 839830

But when it comes to modern lenses, even the Lumix 45-175 can take great photos. If you think 175mm is too short, you can walk or drive closer, or reframe the shot.
View attachment 839831 View attachment 839832

Fantastic post with amazing photos! Thanks for sharing.

Cheers

 

[comment23]

Another user experience, this one from Rob Knight.

YouTube here with thoughts on how it compares with Rob’s experience with the PL100-400:

Sample photos here: https://robknightphotography.com/olympus-100-400mm-f5-6-3-sample-images/

 

[Alberta Dave]

Thanks Simon. It seems like he gives it a good report which is pleasing. I had the PL100-400 and like Rob I struggled to get consistent results from it so I'm really looking forward to the Olympus version being available.
Thanks for posting

 

[Holoholo55]

Bird and wildlife photographer Scott Bourne weighs in.
https://picturemethods.com/2020/08/...s-lens-perfect-for-bird-wildlife-photography/

 

[RAH]

These reviews are interesting, especially Rob Knight's and what he said about the keeper rate vs the PL100-400 (and @Alberta Dave having similar results with the PL). I really am thinking that the lens is going to be a good one and even good bang-for-bucks.

However, I do wish they'd stop with the hyperbole! The Scott Bourne review has way too many words like "astounding." I mean, really? For example, he says, "It has an insane close focusing distance of 1.3 meters." From the Lenstips intial review, there's nothing special about that spec vs other recent lenses like it. For example, the PL100-400 is the same (although it is very nice to have! My Canon 400 5.6L lens is 11 FEET!). I know that they are Oly Visionaries, so what do I expect, huh. I guess I'd expect that they wouldn't be so obvious!!