1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

PL 100-400 vs. PL 50-200 with 2x tele-converter

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by ralf-11, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    I've heard that the 50-200 with a 2x on it is Sharper than the 100-400...

    Anyone tried them side by side on the same scenes/subjects?
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Legend

    Mar 21, 2014
    You may have seen this already, but this is the only review I've seen that's done the comparison.

    Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0 ASPH lens Review – Review By Richard

    It certainly was enough to convince me that the 50-200mm + 2.0x TC is a better idea than the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is certainly better in the corners, but the fact that 50-200mm + TC is even close is enough justification for me, considering how lightweight and flexible the 50-200mm is all by itself.

    Now I just need to find that spare $2000 lying around...
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. The one downside is f/8 versus f/6.3...
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Yep, that's the big issue IMO. The lens is $1,700 and the 2.0x TC is $600 (all prices USD). That's $2,300 for a 100-400 f/5.6-8

    That's a lot of money for a slow lens.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    my 80-400 Nikon AF-S retails for $2,100 and was widely regarded as very reasonable in price when intro'd - it turns into a 120-560mm when I stick a DX body on the rear

    Like the old saying in the speed shop: "IQ & speed cost money; how fast do you want to go?"

    I AM waiting for a sale...
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Canon's 100-400 L II is really no better in cost than the Nikon.

    However, something like the Tamron 100-400 is a good deal. $800, f/4.5-6.3 (i.e. same as the PanaLeica), dust & moisture resistant. Sure, it "only" gets you to 600mm on an APS-C body, but how frequently are people shooting subjects at 600+mm to begin with, let alone having the conditions conducive to that type of photography (sufficient light, minimal atmospheric haze, etc.).

    Like you said, speed costs money...
  7. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    It the price was a bit more reasonable and you could actually find a 1.4TC I'd probably have the 50-200.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.