Lumix 100-400 Lens

[Ronald Jackson]

Mine's due for delivery today. I will report further as presumably will loads of others. I will avoid moon photos though, I promise.


Ron

[Peter D. Parker]

Nice little video that Ron. Where was it filmed. I'm just up the road from you at Little Hoole,
Peter

[Ronald Jackson]

Bustard on Fuerteventura, Owl near Spurn. Not local but plenty is.

Ron

[Waldi Krasowski]

Originally Posted by Bryce Comer

This is the adaptor i'm using. Have to say, it's the adaptor i use all the time

Bryce - I am really surprised with the image quality of your footage, having in mind that you use adaptor with a built in variable ND filter. As far as I know - variable ND are useful up to about 100mm focal length. Above it - like 200 or 300mm - the sharpness is badly affected, if not destroyed at all... Didn't you encounter such a problems?

[Bryce Comer]

Hi Waldi,
I haven't noticed any issues at all with this adaptor. Maybe because it goes in between the lens & the sensor? Only problem is that there is always a loss of light due to having the ND filter there. If i need more light, i simply change out the adaptor for the Metabones speedbooster.
I have recently made a little bracket to hold an XLR pre-amp along with a home made loupe type thing that fits over the LCD screen. This also connects to a bracket on the tripod foot of the lens & braces the camera when i have the long lens on. Now my GH4 feels like a real camera!! I will have to post a photo of this setup in case anyone is interested.

[Bryce Comer]

Hi Ron,
Did you get your hands on the 100-400mm lens yet? I watched a review on the Panasonic GX85 the other day, & among other lens', they were using it with the 100-400. They didn't have too much good to say about it though. Seems it suffers from mechanical issues just like the 100-300 so often does.
Regards,
Bryce

[Ronald Jackson]

Well not overly impressed, with a major caveat, that my main targets with this lens, butterflies and dragonflies are few and far between so far this summer so not a lot of opportunity to use it.

I think image quality is okay but I don't like the ergonomics of the lens. (I also own the Olympus 40-150 which similar price, and which I can't help but compare.) A substantial lens extension when zooming out so quite slow, not good for moving subjects and also quite stiff.(I'm talking video of course). The Olympus is internal zoom so v quick and easy.

Manual focus is similarly rather slow from near to far, with a large diameter focussing ring. Olympus much easier quicker and smoother.

Looking at the two lenses side by side the Olympus, okay a constant max F 2.8 so quite fat, looks professional, a heavier lens. The Olympus also has a dedicated 1.4X TC which very handy.
The Olympus also much better "close focus" so can cancel out the effect of the longer focal length of the Pannie.

Autofocus, which I occasionally use, "AFS", is okay with the Olympus but sometimes seems to hunt with the Pannie.

Pannie nice and small so handy for carting about and works well off my light tripod. Image stabilisation very good though I don't do a lot of handheld. I find i.s. sometimes useful on a breezy day when using a tripod. No stabilisation with the Olympus on a GH4 of course, hopefully yes on a GH5.

The Pannie really needs a 1.4X T.C., the Olympus one doesn't fit (a new and unfortunate trend with TCs?),
as 400mm not a lot e.g. for videoing birds, even with a 2.3X 4K crop.

If asked to choose between the two lenses my choice would be the Olympus but then I also have a Sigma 150-600 which, with a 1.4X T.C. in place is my bird video "standard lens".

Ron

[Ronald Jackson]

Now getting used to the 100-400 and its idiosyncrasies. My main target with this lens, as mentioned above, is insects: butterflies and dragonflies.

The small size and relatively light weight of the lens and GH4 enables me to use a lightweight tripod and head, so I'm more mobile.

Not using a focussing monitor however means problems in locating the target, particularly when say a small butterfly, close up, perched in a mass of vegetation. Fold out screen pretty ordinary and I have to contend with an effective minimum focal length in 4K of 230mm.

I'm "congenitally stuck" if that the phrase, with manual focus but I might have to use auto from time to time just to speed things up with subjects that won't keep still.

Anyway, here's a few clips from last week, cobbled together as always via Mpeg Streamclip:

YouTube (Short URL)

[Mark OConnell]

Looks nice and sharp.

[Ronald Jackson]

Another short YouTube vid here, with muzack. With a GH4 and the 100-400. Straight off the SD card via MPEG Streamclip. Light weight of the cam/lens/tripod/head meant an easy carry into a cramped location (there for over an hour).

The long zoom extension still a bit of a nuisance but focussing at long range, frequently at infinity not too bad.
GH4 focus peaking almost an essential.

Okayish on my 4K monitor. Was using I.S. due to stiff breeze (see the sea state) which makes panning a bit iffy.

Ron

YouTube (Short URL)

[Ronald Jackson]

I meant to add that I was talking to a Panasonic rep at the British Birdfair on Saturday. He (a Brit) agreed that the Yanks were far more likely than the Brits to shoot video with a GH4.

He also said that the commonest complaint about the 100-400 was the focus extension and he agreed that it needed a 1.4X T.C. (I think he meant Panasonic agreed. I hope so).

No comment about a GH5 which the official line.

Ron