Something I've learned living with the PL100-400 for 3 years (or so)

[Lindsay D]

Yes, birds are terrible for 'micro-vibrating'. Their heads move almost constantly but it can be hard to see from more than a few feet away.

I've had the odd bad copy over the years (only two or three I think in 30 years) but they were consumer grade super zooms, not expensive well specified lenses which we tend to discuss around here. It can be hard explaining to a student that it might be 'them', I've had some cracking replies.

 

[Mountain]

One of my best purchases as well. I find it does everything I ask of it (except low light, understandably). I tend to put examples in other threads, but I suppose I should put some in the showcase thread as well, just for an easy reference. It seems like opinions are polarized on it, but I don't understand why.

 

[Bidkev]

One of my best purchases as well. I find it does everything I ask of it (except low light, understandably). I tend to put examples in other threads, but I suppose I should put some in the showcase thread as well, just for an easy reference. It seems like opinions are polarized on it, but I don't understand why.

Yes, I don't understand why so few people post in that thread considering how many images taken with the lens show up in other threads. X posting does no harm and having the images in the sample thread is what the thread is there for.....so that others can easily find a place to judge for themselves what the lens is capable of.

 

[Ziggy]

I got a chance to borrow a PL 200mm f2.8 & 1.4 TC with the G9 and that rather spoiled me for shots done with long end of the PL 100-400mm. Dammit.

 

[D7k1]

At close to twice the price it should be better. However its still too short IMHO. Imho . How is it at 100mm? Different lens for different uses.

 

[Ziggy]

This is the prime.
FE length is 560mm which is fine for short & midrange shots. In an urban park there was no trouble getting bird shots with impact.

See images in posts 195 & 196 here: G9 with birds

 

[Andrewmap]

Not exactly BIF (but quite close), but one that I took (with a hired Panasonic 100-400) at Old Warden several

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

weeks ago.

 

[retiredfromlife]

One of my best purchases as well. I find it does everything I ask of it (except low light, understandably). I tend to put examples in other threads, but I suppose I should put some in the showcase thread as well, just for an easy reference. It seems like opinions are polarized on it, but I don't understand why.

I think the 100-400 may suffer from a lot of variation between copies. If I had purchased the copy I used on the Panasonic Bird Walk I would have tried to return it as it was horrible to use, but the copy I tried at a shop the other day was fine and felt smooth to use. I like the size and output but considering the possible variation and possible repair problems not sure I would get one at this time. But no doubt I may think differently later.

 

[panamike]

I think the 100-400 may suffer from a lot of variation between copies. If I had purchased the copy I used on the Panasonic Bird Walk I would have tried to return it as it was horrible to use, but the copy I tried at a shop the other day was fine and felt smooth to use. I like the size and output but considering the possible variation and possible repair problems not sure I would get one at this time. But no doubt I may think differently later.

The first one i had was stupid stiff, the second one 2 years later was silky smooth, asking around on forums at the time it looked like it was the early ones that where stiff, my first one the stiff one developed a wobble with the extending part,only a guess but i felt it was to do with the internal weather sealing.
I see in the UK they offer a two year warranty could be a safer bet now.

 

[retiredfromlife]

I see in the UK they offer a two year warranty could be a safer bet now.

Not so lucky in Australia

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

 

[panamike]

After using the Sigma 100-400 @ £699 on a Nikon and finding it just as sharp and quick plus the extra warranty, it makes me wonder and wish i could still cope with a crop system.

 

[Ziggy]

I think the 100-400 may suffer from a lot of variation between copies. If I had purchased the copy I used on the Panasonic Bird Walk I would have tried to return it as it was horrible to use, but the copy I tried at a shop the other day was fine and felt smooth to use. I like the size and output but considering the possible variation and possible repair problems not sure I would get one at this time. But no doubt I may think differently later.

M43s lenses all suffer a good deal of variation according to Roger Cicala of Lensrentals.

 

[D7k1]

This is the prime.
FE length is 560mm which is fine for short & midrange shots. In an urban park there was no trouble getting bird shots with impact.

See images in posts 195 & 196 here: G9 with birds

I know I was just making my point that primes are primes and zooms are zooms, each (for me) has a different purpose.

 

[Lindsay D]

M43s lenses all suffer a good deal of variation according to Roger Cicala of Lensrentals.

Interesting, but very much counter to my own experience (that's shooting professionally with the system from the beginning, and testing more lenses than I can remember in the four years I was a brand ambassador at Olympus, when I also had as many Pana lenses in my bag). I'd cite Tamron APS-C followed by Canon APS-C and FX as the worst offenders. So far I've found Sony to be very similar to Canon (on the consumer front, but strong on the pro lineup).

What it boils down to is this - we should always test a lens when we get one. Easy for us to say, I'm used to doing it but newcomers don't even think to. And when they do, the testing protocols can be all over the place. An example being myself many years ago when I got a Canon 12-35L f2.8. Really soft on the edges wide open. So I exchanged it and the next one was the same. At that point I didn't even realise it was a 'normal' characteristic of that lens and it's rarely used at those settings in fact.

 

[retiredfromlife]

M43s lenses all suffer a good deal of variation according to Roger Cicala of Lensrentals.

Interesting, but do Mu-43 lenses have more variation that other systems. I used to hear that Fuji had very good quality control but recently have seen some complaints about their 2.8 zooms having variations

 

[retiredfromlife]

What it boils down to is this - we should always test a lens when we get one. Easy for us to say, I'm used to doing it but newcomers don't even think to.

I think for a lot of us testing would not be a very good option. I know I would not be confident of any results I got and also I doubt I could micro adjust a lens either.

 

[Lindsay D]

I think for a lot of us testing would not be a very good option. I know I would not be confident of any results I got and also I doubt I could micro adjust a lens either.

I've never felt a need to micro adjust a lens, particularly when I'm using that lens on multiple bodies (which might not have any tweaking built in). I do pretty simply tests with a tripod, a spirit level and a brick wall. Then I shoot the same shots in a familiar testing environment. This means focus at infinity, then a long row of buildings, etc. Then I simply ask myself if I'd be happy making a large print and if or where any compromises might lie. We also have to be realistic - it's often not worth returning a lens for very minor 'issues'.

 

[retiredfromlife]

I've never felt a need to micro adjust a lens, particularly when I'm using that lens on multiple bodies (which might not have any tweaking built in). I do pretty simply tests with a tripod, a spirit level and a brick wall. Then I shoot the same shots in a familiar testing environment. This means focus at infinity, then a long row of buildings, etc. Then I simply ask myself if I'd be happy making a large print and if or where any compromises might lie. We also have to be realistic - it's often not worth returning a lens for very minor 'issues'.

I think if someone not known as a professional tried returning a lens that they tested in Australia would have a hard time, unless it was a real dud.

 

[archaeopteryx]

Interesting, but very much counter to my own experience

Hmm, thoughts on what might be up with the 25mm and 42.5-45mm data relative to cine and your measurements? Roger's also published some wide angle and standard observations from 2012.

 

[Lindsay D]

I think if someone not known as a professional tried returning a lens that they tested in Australia would have a hard time, unless it was a real dud.

There'd be no reason to return it, unless it were a dud. Retailers should be prepared to accept back faulty goods and to send out an exchange. In my photographic life I've only ever had to do that a couple of times, and I've used an awful lot of lenses. That's what I mean about being realistic. It also depends on the category of lens, it's easier to be forgiving of some minor foibles on an inexpensive kit lens vs a very costly pro spec optic.

A faulty lens is different to just 'not liking' something, and I can understand retailers picking up on that one. There are however 'distance selling' regulations here in the UK where the consumer has certain rights, whether something is faulty or not. Purchasing face to face in a store is different - and you'd need to understand the specific return policy of the establishment you were buying from.

Faulty lenses aside, I had a faulty bridge camera with an iffy built-in lens. A Panasonic FZ1000 which I'd bought for a relative. I bought it from a store face to face. Wildly decentered lens, unusably soft - I took it back to the store, they tested it and agreed it was a lemon, their policy is to exchange faulty goods. Had I bought it online, I could have sent it back for any reason (providing it was unused and with original seals etc) for an exchange or full refund.