Lumix 100-400mm mkii !! Worth the Upgrade??

[@MicroFourNerds]

So what do you think?? Worth the upgrade??

[@DandoPorsaco-ho1zs]

£1,499, ouch!

[@veikop]

Downgrade?😂

[@jeffslade1892]

Yes and no. If I did not have the mark.1 I would buy the mark.2, because of the teleconverter compatibility. But not such a big loss, I do have longer lenses which I rarely use, 400mm on MFT is huge. I am glad they have fixed the zoom ring. The mark.1 zoom ring is too flimsy but the underlying problem is the weather sealing, which is a waste of milk in the first place. The grease on the rubber weather sealing always dries up so that when this zoom ring is gripped, it distorts and grabs the O-ring and pulls it. then it balls up and gets dragged out of its groove, it may even snap, the zoom ring jams. The zoom ring can end up getting squeezed egg shaped. Weather sealing does not mean you do not have to clean the lens; the external moving parts seem to attract fine grit which will wreck the seals; brush out (toothbrush) after use in hostile environments. It can be fixed. The remains of the broken O-ring can be teased out, careful squeezing can return the zoom ring to circular. The very last thing you want to get on glass is silicone oil but it is the only lubricant to be used, one drop, one drop (nb) of high quality silicone oil (silicone gun oil) off a cocktail stick into the front crevice of the zoom ring. Grip the zoom ring nearest the camera, if you grip at the front it distorts and grabs the body of the lens and locks solid. Nice and smooth as it should be now.

[@basukisugito8929]

I am keeping use vintage lenses, I just love the feeling of vintage lenses😊

[@KirstenBayes]

Those of us in the cheap seats don't really do safaris. But I can imagine using this to track a terrier running off with a discarded burger at the other end of Friar Street in Reading.

[@BackusCreativeImaging]

Or a feral cat rumaging around a trash pile in the trailer park I grew up in with an empty McDonald's bag completely on it's head. I saw that when I was a kid but couldn't capture the shot. I didn't have a camera lol.

[@KirstenBayes]

@BackusCreativeImaging not really lions on the majestic African plains, but sounds like a decent shot!

[@BackusCreativeImaging]

@KirstenBayes It happened over 10 years ago and I still remember it. Was an amazing potential shot I missed

[@DandoPorsaco-ho1zs]

Diffraction kicks in at about f/6 for M43 (according to the equations), but it doesn't become really obvious with fine details until you go over f/11 or so. At f/6.3 the diffraction is very difficult to notice, and maybe at f/8.9 with the x1.4 adapter is still fine, but you get f/12.6 with the x2 adapter, which is definitely going to suffer from visible diffraction problems.

[@scgb5]

The Mk1 100-400 is hands down my favorite lens of all lens. It stays glued to my G85 so much that I started dragging out my 2nd body so i always had the 100-400 locked and loaded. FYI, i always get the bird in focus at 400mm ;).

[@ImageMaven]

Thanks for your honest and fun video. Love the safari photos. Always amazed when I see modern urban architecture in the background with rhinos and giraffes walking around. I suppose that's somewhat like seeing bears roaming the city where I live - which definitely happens. As I have the mki version of this lens, I think I'll stick with it and perhaps spend that money on the G9ii instead. Cheers!

[@I4getTings]

Ooh! Hello there, it is cool seeing you in the comments over here. I've got my eye on that G9ii too 😀

[@brianwhiteside]

@imagemaven looks you did pull the trigger on the G9MII. I recently did and love it so far.

[@ImageMaven]

@@brianwhiteside​​⁠Not exactly. I’ve got one on loan for now, but yes I’ll likely buy it when the price drops a bit.

[@sijodee]

You can fit a teleconverter onto the mk1 by removing the plastic ring on the lens.It's 3 small screws if i remember correct but the lens need to be at 200 or 210mm to allow the converter to fit in.The risk is forgetting about the converter and zooming in then the internals will hit the converter and it can break the zoom mechanism if any great pressure is aplied.That's why there is a lock on the mk2 to stop it coming back more than 200mm.I wouldn't recommend doing it to the mk1 but if very careful it works just fine.

[@tvbs56]

So they are same optical design.

[@TurboNorm]

If someone is selling a Panasonic 100-400, how can you visually tell if it’s Gen 1or Gen 2? Is it even possible?

[@whistleblowermay2010]

@@TurboNorm The only difference from the outside is that the Gen 2 has a switch/lock on the barrel that prevents the lens from zooming back to 100 when the teleconverter is attached

[@whistleblowermay2010]

yep this hack definitely works! Just gotta be careful to not bring the lens closer than 200mm

[@AprilClayton]

I’m so glad you reviewed this. I’m really looking to get this for hiking. I can’t deal with the big Sigma 150-600 on Sony A7IV due to the weight.

[@ddsdss256]

Thanks. My original copy of the "old" lens stayed stiff at the far end of the zoom range for over a year. I finally complained to Lumix and they replaced it with a new copy that was much better. I even have to lock it when hanging it off my shoulder or it can creep. Re sharpness, I get tack-sharp results at any FL, including 800mm EFL from my "Mk I"--more than enough for large prints. There is such a thing as "too sharp" (unless it's for something like military purposes). I'm just trying to determine if it's worth taking the huge hit from re-selling my Mk I in order to gain TC compatibility. Based on your findings (especially re diffraction and the resulting very narrow usage window), I'm not sure about that. Certainly, if something were to happen to mine, I'd get the new one, however.

[@BruceGraner-h1k]

Thank you for this review. As an owner of a G9 and 100-400mm lens it is exactly what I needed to know. I will consider upgrading my 100-400mm AFTER I purchase the G9 Mk 2 and see how it performs. All things considered I'm happy with both of the originals. The only other option that would tempt me away from Lumix would be a Canon R7 mk2 WITH Canon's 100-500mm lens. However, I really like the ergonomics and portability of the Lumix combination I have now.

[@simplyawesomephoto]

Funny note. I have the 1.4x teleconverter and just received the Mark II lens and looked at the back of the lens and thought to myself, "there is no way this will fit." When I tried to mount the teleconverter, the back of the lens had this spring type mechanism which allowed the protruding piece to fit. Nice design. I just thought I was going to break my new lens. 😆

[@MicroFourNerds]

I did the same I was so convinced I'd break it all 😂

[@PokeHeikoEx]

Ein Telekonverter ist nicht gut Bildqualität leidet sehr

[@mrmoon1482]

I regularly use the built in tele converter option on my g9 with 100-400 for videoing osprey and red kites, it works perfectly well just crops the sensor giving 1800mm equivalent 🙂

[@jonathanscherer8567]

The advantages I see here are the capacity for Dual IS with Panasonic cameras (those that support it) and the wider aperture. Olympus' 100-400 has IS but doesn't completely sync with the camera. It has 3-axis stabilization, IIRC, where as most Olympus/OM-System cameras have 5-axis stabilization when syncing with supported lenses. As you've noted before, these do not number many. I do believe it's been tested against the previous and current Panasonic 100-400 and found sharper overall. I suppose it's a tossup then whether sharpness is more important to you or the aperture and stabilization. I can't say for sure if the Dual IS for the Panasonic makes it that much better in that regard. I'd have to test them side by side. I can say from experience that the Olympus option is not as quick to focus as their pro lenses. It also is rather large and heavy, even compared to the Panasonic. This is only compounded when you zoom and it extends. It feels unbalanced even on the OM-1, which is a fairly heavy body for M43. I suppose sharpness is a positive. I do not know if it can focus quickly enough to keep up with the OM-1's burst speeds though. I didn't try those out when testing the lens. It's a shame there isn't cross compatibility when it comes to sync/dual IS. If OM-System and Panasonic can use autofocus with lenses from one another, why can't they figure out how to synchronize their stabilization? It's a shame because it makes cross-use cases more difficult. I for one like to have as much stabilization as possible. I'm often out and about, unable to use a tripod or even get a lot of bracing to take a photo. The camera needs to make up for the situation. Even the 12-100mm f/4 pro has trouble on the long end, especially in video. So imagining using it on a body that can't sync stab with it is not very inspiring.

[@BobDiaz123]

I'm sure the 100-400mm is a great lens, but the price was a bit too high for me. In the end, I had to scale it down to the Panasonic 100-300mm lens to keep the cost in line with what I could afford. One nice thing about the 100-300mm lens is that it fits nicely in my camera bag and the weight is low enough that I can carry it all day without problems. The only down side is the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters are incompatible with the 100-300mm lens, oh well.

[@bigdhav]

Absolutely love that lens for airshows. Running around with 600mm equivalent whilst the full framers are jockeying for position with their gimbals 😂

[@aaronharper444]

I’ve owned both. The 100-300 is 1/4 the quality of the Leica. Rent it

[@BobDiaz123]

@@aaronharper444 I live in Northern Nevada and there are no camera stores in my city. Even in Reno, there's one camera store and they don't have M4/3s. So, renting is not possible. However, even if it's not as good as the 100-400mm Leica, I'm happy with the 100-300mm.

[@letni9506]

I prefer the 100-400 but tbh I struggle to tell photos apart at 300. At 100 and obviously 400 the costlier lens is sharper but in that 200-300 range it's very close with my copies. The size of the 100-300 is a big reason I never sold it.

[@ddsdss256]

Thanks for doing this, as I've been on the fence about getting the new one and one or both TCs (the one complaint I've had with the "Mk I"--why can't you use a TC?!). It also sucks that used gear companies give you an insultingly small percentage of original cost for trade-ins (plus the TCs aren't cheap). My original copy of the Mk I was quite stiff at the far end, and failed to loosen up after more than a year, so I sent it back to Panasonic and they replaced it with a new copy and that one's been much smoother throughout the zoom range, so that was apparently an early quirk. Re IQ, I often shoot my Mk I fully-zoomed, often taking advantage of the crazy short minimum focusing distance of a mere 1.4m/4.27' for "quasi-macro" (0.5x) shots of things like insects, and every facet of compound eyes are sharp--not possible with a "FF" at anywhere close to 800mm (with MFDs more like 6m/20'). As you mention, full macro with such a massive FL is a great feature. In general, all of the higher-end Lumix (and Oly) lenses are way sharper than any lens needs to be to produce large gallery/museum-quality prints, so spending much more (and hauling more weight) for larger-format gear is a ridiculous pursuit, IMO. The thing is, I rarely encounter situations where 800mm isn't enough (although this combo is a lot less than the Oly 150-400 f/4.5 w/2x TC, and much lighter/smaller)...

[@FieldingSmith]

I actually ended up picking up a PL 50-200 last week instead. It can also use the TCs (though they are really hard to find right now in the States), and I’m much more likely to be shooting landscapes than animals. Would definitely rent a 100-400 if I ever went on a safari though… maybe one day.

[@mikijourdan9559]

Emily, have you used the Olympus 300mm f/4? I’ve seen reviews praising its sharpness, and it is brighter than the 100-400. On the other hand, the 100-400 has greater reach and versatility. It’s also cheaper! Decisions, decisions.

[@55whiplash]

I agree, hard to justify if you already own the 1st gen. At least for me. The weight of the 100-400 is surprising, it's very light. I also own the Olympus 300 F4, which I tend to leave at home because of the weight, even though it is definitely sharper. I generally use it between 250 and 350, after 375, sharpness falls off. Since I sold my old G9, I use it on my OM-1, and the lens stabilization is fine. Not as good as the 300mm dual stabilization but I seldom notice it. The 200mm F2.8 is very tempting, I might pick up the G9II and then keep the one I prefer, or more likely keep both and use the G9ii for video...

[@andychan1087]

Great review and I need advice, please. A used mint condition is nearly $900 less than the MKii. Is it worth that price differential?

[@michaelschneider9710]

On a zoom, I would suggest the 1.4. For excellent primes, (Lumix 200 f2.8 and Olympus 300 f4) both the 1.4x and 2.0x yield sharp images. Some hold true on my Cannon glass. (primes zoom (100-500rf) 1.4 only, and big white primes 1.4x or 2.0x).

[@nickcrispe1321]

I love the clip of the giraffe with busy urban Nairobi in the background.

[@ElMundoDuro]

I would be curious to see how the Panasonic 100-400 compares with say the 100-400 Sigma EF mount lens that can be easily adapted to MFT and that costs much less even with the adapter. And you can put a speed booster on it to bring in more light.

[@garycasey7986]

Was that a Stephen King 'The Stand' reference in there? Hoping the answer is yes. Photography wise, have you tried this lens & teleconverter on an Olympus body?

[@MicroFourNerds]

It was!! Fun fact, The Stand was the first adult book I ever read, when I was 8 years old. It probably explains quite a lot 😂 I read it every year or two. it's one of my all-time faves. I didn't use the teleconverter much on my OM1 unfortunately, just because swapping lenses was quite tricky with all the dust on safari, so I kept it on the g9ii most of the time. I did use it briefly to check that the auto focus worked, and it seemed to work fine - it worked as well as the 100-400 lens without the teleconvertor did.

[@garycasey7986]

@@MicroFourNerds I first read The Stand sometime around 1979 (!) I much prefer the revised version where SK added back in all the stuff that was removed by his editor for the first release 👍

[@MicroFourNerds]

Yes me too the uncut version! With The Kid's crazy side story. Stephen King is one of the few writers that you should let meander. It's all about the journey with him I think

[@garycasey7986]

@MicroFourNerds Agreed. Down the rabbit hole then, favourite SK book? The Stand or Salems Lot for me.

[@MicroFourNerds]

@garycasey7986 ooo! So IT will forever give me nightmares. I loved all the Dark Tower series dearly, and the tie-in books like Insomnia. Pet Semetary scared the crap out of me when I was younger. There are so many great ones! I need to read Salem's Lot again actually, I've only read it the once many years ago. Some of the newer King was a bit hit and miss for me. Have you ever read his son's books? Joe Hill? He has some cracking horror stories!

[@wenkeli1409]

I got hooked on birding this spring and right now I'm using a P950 point and shoot. Its reach is pretty ridiculous, and it's a good camera to learn on, but the autofocus is hard to work with, and obviously no chance for any sort of bird in flight. I am seriously considering upgrading, and the g9II and this lens or the OM-1 and the olympus lens are the contenders. Your reviews on the camera and the lens are really helpful, and I think right now I'm leaning toward the Panasonic combination. Now if only Panasonic would officially release the TC14 teleconverter as a standalone product so we don't have to deal with second hand on ebay...

[@MrVara411]

Sad to see all the development in the background of some of these photos. Was looking forward to this one! Long time subscriber. You deserve far more! Thanks.

[@MicroFourNerds]

Thank you! Yes, the buildings in the scene are from Nairobi National Safari Park. I think it's about the only place in the world you can see compositions like that with buildings behind the wild animals! It was probably my least favourite of the three parks I visited - amboseli and Masi Mara feel much more remote!

[@MrVara411]

@@MicroFourNerds Oh wow! That's wild! ... Well, sort of. Well, maybe. Well you know what I mean. :p

[@boboneill1828]

I wonder how well this lens would perform in lower light conditions. Your safari was close to perfect for it. I had a OMS 100-400 but I found that my results were variable in the poorer light conditions I am usually out in - a combination of aperture and lack of Lens IS sync with IBIS. I wonder if this lens would sync with an OM1, and whether the OMS MC14 could be used with it (bearing in mind the apparent difficulty in getting the Panasonic version). I partexed my 100-400 for the 150-400 TC Pro, which is a totally different experience.

[@mondujar279]

I want to consider this mark 2 but I had the mark 1 a few years ago and felt it was soft. I would need to test the newer version before buying it

[@bitwise2832]

I bought the Mark 2. This is a versatile wildlife lens.

[@joedavidson7114]

Great review thanks..top quality reviewer and humble heart.

[@A2Z1Two3]

I upgraded from the G9 with the Leica 100-400 , to the GH7 with the Leica Mk II. My hit rate on birds in flight was much better , well worth the change up ( and it went up straight out the box , I have nit yet tweaked all the settings .

[@tablameister]

Thanks for the review. I have almost bought the 100-400 a few times when I have seen used ones. I am planning to upgrade my G9 to the G9ii so after that I am going to keep an eye out for a 100-400ii. I had both the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters but never used the 2.0 teleconverter so I sold it.

[@eaglesvideography]

A GREAT REVIEW. WELCOME BACK TO KENYA.

[@gregpatterson134]

I just got this lens and so far really enjoying it. Have you or anyone else noticed a very faint gear turning sound when zooming, more in than out?

[@vesku2676]

I have had bad luck with lumix tele. I had 3 100-300mm and all died after 1-3 years of use. Focus motors died. Now i have 100-400 and it is very soft wide open at 400mm. It is usable at f10. F6.3 is softer than f22.

[@ericaceous1652]

Nice breakdown Emily - the range and convenience is tempting, but not sure how much of an upgrade would be over a 100-300? Have you ever used the 200mm 2.8 - any thoughts if so?

[@MicroFourNerds]

I am quite worried that the 200mm might be my next unnecessary purchase 😂 I have only used it during a lumix event for a few hours and it's soooo sharp.

[@richardfink7666]

Hallo, I bought it 3 months ago. The lens is worth every cent (1399Euro,new). With the converter (included) you have 280mm/4.0.

[@stuartriley]

Amazing Emily...fantastic features for a nature and animal photographer. Which digital camera did you use for the safari? Did you use the Lumix GH6 MkII or the G9 MkII for video? You piqued my interest. Thank you so much for your content and work.

[@MicroFourNerds]

Thank you! I used mostly the G9ii and also the OM1 on safari for photo and video 😊

[@AguilaDeOnix85]

I prefer the 1.4x teleconverter, but that thing is so expensive and rare. I traded my original 100-400 for it for my 200 2.8. At the same time, I sort of miss it because of the extra separation you can get on certain subjects (it has beautiful bokeh). And that lens is magic on an Olympus camera.

[@photographerw.j.smithphoto1214]

I did the same as well but finding the 1.4 on the 200mm doesn't always grab focus.

[@AguilaDeOnix85]

Yeah, I use it on my EM-1 Mark II and it's an absolutely beautiful combo. I use my Olympus 40-150 2.8 pro on my G9 because it performs fantastically on either system.

[@jonathanscherer8567]

@@AguilaDeOnix85 How does that 40-150 do so well even without stabe? I don't understand, but the results speak for themselves. It's a shame it slows down so much with the 2x tc, but even then you can get some pretty good photos. You just have to brace yourself, or use a tripod, and accept the slight softness that results when compared to using the bare lens.

[@benejpocock]

@MicroFourNerds - Hi Emily - great review! How would you say it stacks up against the OM/Olympus 100-400? It would be an interesting comparison - OM-1.2 v G9ii with their respective lenses. OK, the OM is a slower lens, starting at f5, and it's 150g or so heavier, but with current promotion and cash back deals it can currently be had for £969, whereas the PanaLeica seems to be £1499 everywhere. What's pants though is the OM lens isn't compatible with sync IS, so there'd be no reason not to use the PanaLeica on your OM body if it is indeed a superior lens (pricing aside). I'll stop rambling now...ahem...

[@florianortner1362]

Thank You very much for this review! Greatings from Austria!

[@bjnslc]

I wonder if they addressed a couple of other flaws with the lens? I find the original lens's side switches too easy to move accidentally. Stronger detents would help a lot. And the tripod foot mount is too easy to break on the original lens. I bought my lens used, and it has a broken mount that was repaired using epoxy since replacing that part is very expensive. I'm not really fond of the two part hood. The built-in part depends on a fuzzy material to slide but with enough friction to stay in place. As this material wears, the action will get sloppy.

[@frankinblackpool]

I've had my 100-400 practically from the moment they hit the shelves at Jessops in York. I woz on me o'lidays. And the zoom ring is as stiff/snaggy as when I bought it. I'm not too sure where you went for your photo shoot, because I could not quite catch what you said during the episode 🤣, however may I ask did the dirty hot air have a part to play in some of the images looking mottled by enlarging the moving air? Or would the image quality be similar in cold clean still air conditions as well? I think I'll stick with your advice, and until my 100-400 dies a death, I'll stick with it rather than upgrading. BTW do you have any advice on removing fungus inside lenses? I have a spot on the rear of a couple of lenses and I can only think they are fungus but I don't really know. I've taken to putting silicone bags in with my lenses to try and suck the life out of them.

[@michalsiegel6717]

The lens is OK with 1.4x TC but horrible with the 2x one. You are right, the 2x TC is quite usable with the Leica 200/2.8 and the quality is still better then 100-400 on 400mm, so is the aperture. However, due to price and sensor resolution / capabilities I am partially switching to fujifilm. Fuji 150-60 is much more value for money compared to their 40MP sensor as well as incredibly cheap but also insanely great Viltrox 27 and 75/1.2 Pro lens. I'm only keeping the G9II, PanLeica 200/2.8 and OM 90/3.5 for the MFT as everything else doesn't makes any sense for the price.

[@5AM-9PM]

How about Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 II? Have you used it? Is it good for sport/bird/wildlife photography, especially in term of AF speed and AF accuracy? It seems like a good compact, lightweight, budget lens for sport/bird/wildlife photography.

[@chrisbrown6432]

Thank you for this. I asked that you did this comparison and you did it.

[@jeffslade1892]

The teleconverters do have an electrical connection to the lens. Panasonic put their connectoid in a different position to OLympus. Meaning the teleconverters are not interchangeable between the lens makes

[@jeffslade1892]

Question - Panasonic and Olympus teleconverters have an extra contact in different places (that tells a compatible lens it is on a teleconverter), are they interchangeable? I've found the Dual2 of the G9+PL100-400 (mark.1) to be absolutely insane, as in swing it around like a ping pong bat and still be steady on a bird in flight. Yes, the OM-1 and 150-400 Pro might have the same degree of steadiness with Sync-IS but have you seen the size of it, and the price. I do have a Bigma the same weight and it needs the tripod to support it. Lifting above shoulder height increases strain fivefold, that 3kg becomes 15kg. Diffraction is a thing above f/11, but these are Leica so that is minimised and really only an issue if pointed towards the sun. I do have a Samyang reflex 800mm f/8, and a better than average Kiron 2x TC for it (not the supplied junk). So now we're talking 1600mm before we stick it on a MFT, but at f/16 it is now struggling for light nevermind the diffraction and doughnuts. And MF, so kinda limited to Moon shots. The capability of the PL100-400 makes it a far better lens, we can always crop-in after shooting. Once upon a time I used the Kiron a lot with Pentax lenses, a 2x always adds two stops, a 1.4x would be more useful.

[@hauke3644]

I‘m about to change from Olympus to the G9 II. Now I wonder if I can keep the Oly 100-400mm, which is a good lens, too, and still reasonably compact. But Dual IS isn’t compatible and who knows about AF with the G9 II…

[@luismoran7176]

Great video!!! I just bought the G9II , I’m not a professional/ just take pictures for fun 😁 would you say that the 100-300II would be good buy , or is the 100-400 worth spending the money. Thank you for your help.

[@angeloplayforone]

Great video especially the diner of that big cat.

[@cmhuggins29]

I have the 100 to 300. I wonder how this lens would do tracking sports players in a soccer match. I am a newbie so I just shoot my son's soccer games. Working with a gh6.

[@keithmanning702]

Great video. This is the only one I’ve found that actually covers both versions of the 100-400. You mention in your commentary that the ver.2 model will accept both 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. Do you know the model # of the 1.4x I can’t find it listed anywhere? Also is the 1.4x a Leica/Panasonic extender or a Leica model? Thanks ( greetings from Newfoundland Canada).

[@ernielucas2879]

Thanks, love all your reviews. I am new to birding and I'm using G85/GX85 with an Oly 75-300 (as well as Pana FZ80 - but will sell this one soon). I found this lens sharper than the PL 100-300mm that I previously owned. If money is not an issue, I will not have any 2nd thoughts upgrading to this Mk2 version but right now, I am thinking more of the cheaper Oly 100-400 as it's compatible with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Clarification - is the G85 IBIS compatible with the Oly's 100-400 stabilization?

[@bigdhav]

Fantastic airshow lens too!

[@stevenunez]

Is the zoom ring really much smoother?

[@uquid8909]

I would like to purchase the mk2 lens for my lumix GH-7 for video only,is the model number on the mk2 different to the mk1 ?,can you suggest any good places to purchase this

[@MrHasherd]

Thanks for the honest appraisal.

[@DatuDieter]

When you shoot wildlife or birds i. flight, what color profile do you use, Normal, natural, Cine D, V-Log? Also which video modes mp4, mov or ProRes with which bitrate? I will go on a once in a lifetime trip soon and do not want to mess up. 😀

[@vj-nikkolax8008]

How can I load Lightroom presets on Canon? Is there a similar method? I use picture styles but I want to have cinematic presets like the ones you use in Lumix, I couldn't find a monitor app that allows me to use LUTs in camera mode and the monitors that use LUTs are very large and I don't know if they allow me to use LUTs in camera mode, what would you recommend?!!! 😔😔😔😔😔

[@MicroFourNerds]

I think without a feature like Real Time LUT in the Lumkx cameras, the only way might be to use an external monitor/recorder like the Atmos devices, and even then I'm pretty sure it would only affect the video files and not the photos unfortunately. Real Time LUT is such a great feature I wish more people knew about it!

[@vj-nikkolax8008]

@@MicroFourNerds When you use the presets in the camera, do all the settings apply, including the lens correction profiles? I want to edit the photos as little as possible and see the final result in the camera.

[@MicroFourNerds]

@vj-nikkolax8008 no, a LUT only has the colour information, so you don't get lens correction, grain, noise reduction, clarity for example. Just colour, curves, and contrast info. Which is 90% of a look to be fair it gets you very close

[@cryptographerchris4856]

Have you ever tried the Olympus 100-400 lens?

[@celilylmaz5808]

Hi Emily First of all, thank you for this beautiful video. I have a question for you. Is Olympus teleconverter compatible with Lumix 100-400mm lens?

[@travelbagphotography]

Good review. Thanks!

[@rawalkiran1]

How is the macro capabilities of 200mm f/2.8 with 2x tele converter

[@andrewlaslone]

ohhh, I'm drooling again on the nice gear🤤

[@rafaellewis1263]

I'd like to see a video about the Nikon p1000. I know that's crazy, but it could be kinda fun to see what you'd make of it.

[@shaneweightman]

Was about to buy a mk1 from Mpb , but recon I’ll hang about till I see a used mk2 , thanks that saved me 629 quid tonight, shane uk 🇬🇧

[@newtuber4freedom43]

Is the new lens version and the new teleconverters compatible with the old original G9?

[@MicroFourNerds]

Yes fully compatible 😊

[@NatanRufino]

hi there! Don't you have the links for the products? Could you share where we could buy them online?

[@PtakiKujawiaki]

Hi. Is Lumix g vario 45-200 Lens with power ois compatibile for any teeconverter ? I want to extend my lens as cheap as possibile. Unfortunatelly i am poor but i love bird photography

[@DatuDieter]

Btw, Panasonic has discontinued to produce the 1.4 Teleconverter which I think is outrageous thinking, that one of the main sales arguments for the new 100-400 is, that it is Teleconverter compatible!

[@enzocolonna]

Hi you speech about macro photos on 100 400... Could you please post a video on it...

[@37even]

please do a comparison vs RX10 IV

[@AZTEC_ARTS2023]

Sooo ... this would be gold on a GH7 + (IBIS) and the 1.4 TC ? This would be the equivalent of how many mm ??? Thanks

[@MicroFourNerds]

It would be fantastic on the gh7. The 1.4 converter would give you 560mm equivalent... so 1120mm in full frame terms!

[@dirk.4711]

Hi, how would you rate the image quality of this Mark ii version for MFT vs. the Sigma 100-400 for L-Mount fullframe (ignoring the crop factor of MFT)?

[@fishballrox]

Planning to get this lens for my upcoming safari trip, but I will be using my GX8 will the autofocus be as good?

[@MicroFourNerds]

It won't be as good as the two cameras in this video unfortunately, because the gx8 has the less responsive contrast-based auto focus. But having said that, you'll still do great. I shot for a day with the g9 in Kenya which is contrast based, and all my previous bird hide day videos have been with the gh5 and gh6 which are also contrast based 😊

[@fishballrox]

@@MicroFourNerds thank you for the advised, will be buying it. Do you change the lens mounting?

[@bigdhav]

Wow! That Safari footage is LASER sharp! 🔪

[@snippephotography1913]

is the image much sharper with a converter vs crop in post.

[@soneeeee4440]

Tele converter: I prefer to strap a piece of glass on the end like Olympus 1.7x. no impact on aperture. Decent enough glass if needed, and 70$ on ebay

[@pwolkowicki]

100-300 + x1.4 teleconverter or 100-400??? Which one gives better quality? I'm looking for a light travel long range setup. 100-300 plus 1.4 teleconverter is cheaper, and looks lighter.

[@pwolkowicki]

Oh, and Sony R10 IV is also an alternative.

[@jiangyuyi]

i have 100-300 100-400 & 1.4, it is not such a problem because you cannot use 1.4 on m43 100-300. you can break some structure of 100-300 to do, but i don't think it worth.

[@FilmRepair]

Unrelated question, what happened to the gx9?

[@SKLAD_UMA_18]

Is it compatible with "first" "100-400" MFT Leica?

[@ThatGuyOverThereWeird]

Can this lens capture UFOs? I was at Joshua Tree desert in California and im quite sure I saw UFOs buzzing around at high altitude when it hit pitch black night. I was wondering if a lens like this would work or if I need a telescope?

[@drillthrallable]

I enjoy your videos and reviews. I might just sell my Mk 1 lens for the new one. Groovy.

[@MarcoPi-pq5kg]

Anyone try to fit an OLYMPUS converter 1,4x or 2,0x on this PANASONIC 100-400 MKII lens?!?

[@samson40a]

What functions do you lose on an Olympus body?

[@cityproofdad]

How is the mark 1 stands up from 100-300??

[@chrisklugh]

I got the 100-300 and tested it against the 100-400 and did not find enough 'value' to justify getting it at all. But I would imagine if you really need it yet, get the mkii.

[@MultiPaldo]

I heard/saw compare that Olympus is sharper. What do U think? Also what is aparature on 300 on boths? 6,3? That is a shame if so :(

[@esterix101]

I think it depends on the user. I saw one gallery with panasonic guy and his captures are incredible sharp.

[@DatuDieter]

You tend to always publish the videos that are extremely interesting for me. Having the 100-400 mark I, getting the G9II and going on a trip with lots of birds in flight, I might get the mark II I have the OM1 with the M.Zuiko 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter, I assume that this teleconverter would not fit on the lumix lens, right?

[@katesavage2001]

I have the firt version and will see how it goes before upgrading.

[@DatuDieter]

@@katesavage2001 If I buy the 100-400 mark II together with the G9II, I get a 300€ discount, a double battery charger and a spare battery (2 if I am lucky) on top. Makes me think.

[@andrenj1970]

Try olympus 100-400, it’s sharper especially at 400mm;)

[@richardfink7666]

That´s right, I tried both and I bought the Olympus.

[@Docfly62]

But what are the tradeoffs? How is the focus. Whats the weight compared to the Lumix. And does it work with the teleconverter?

[@richardfink7666]

It works with both converters (I use the 1.4). It´s only 150grams heavier, but it feels better and is more beautiful.🤣@@Docfly62

[@John-fj2kq]

Which teleconverter do I need s mount or L mount for the 100-400mk2 ? Looking at 1.4x

[@MicroFourNerds]

It's the micro four thirds mount 😊

[@wenkeli1409]

you need the TC14 model (MFT), _not_ STC14 (L mount). But, TC14 isn't easily available.

[@John-fj2kq]

@@wenkeli1409 many thanks for the information 👍

[@slows728]

Always take in consideration copy variation with these ultra zooms. I had 3 samples of the 100-400mm Panasonic and 2 of the 100-400mm Oly. First Pana was sharp enough (2017), second (2018) was hopeless at the long end, last one (2021) is really brillant, sharp even at 400mm, so no need for me to play the lotery with the mark II. The two Oly samples were sharp enough at 400mm but slightly less sharp than my last Pana sample. Also the converters for the 100-400mm II are really a joke, there is no way you get better quality with them rather than cropping.

[@dylannewton76]

Always start with a 1.4. TC Every pro photographer I've watched on this platform.

[@LeoNatan]

Looking at the measurements of this lens, it is fast approaching the Sony 100-400 GM, at both dimensions and weight. The GM is, by now, a relatively old lens, so it is likely that Sony could give it a GM II treatment, if they cared, making it as small and light as this lens, if not more. The GM is also faster than this lens at the telephoto end and has a faster AF system. Optics may also be better. This, coupled with a body that is basically a full frame sized body, and MFT is losing any pretension it used to have about size. There is this false notion of “reach”, but given a sufficiently high resolution FF body, like a Sony a7R V or a Nikon Z8, cropping to a similar “reach” is viable, while still giving the photographer options that are not possible with a small sensor. I feel like the MFT niche lost its way in recent years. APS-C bodies are consistently smaller and lighter than MFT bodies; lens size advantage is basically gone these days, while sensor size advantage cannot be denied. Part of it could be lack of innovation. Sony has been consistently been able, over the last few years, to improve optical performance while reducing size and weight. I’d argue this miniaturization should be happening much more aggressively by MFT vendors, but, alas, the opposite is true; there is a consistent size increase creep over the last years. A similar process happened to FF mirrorless bodies, where they started small and size increase creep set in as bodies matured, but, in that case specifically, it was due to photographers’ demand for the sake of ergonomics. This is not true about MFT lens size.

[@eternaleden3014]

I love you! Thanks for the review! Long time Olympus shooter. Definitely picking up the g9ii and the new leica 100-400mm ii. Olympus is great but they seemed to have lost their way for the telephoto lenses. How they didn't offer sync IS on their 100-400 is beyond me.

[@_cyclofob8990]

Why do you ignore the lenses 40-150/2.8 - 300/4 and 150-400/4.5 ? With these lenses Olympus has by no means lost the way to telephoto lenses, quite the contrary.

[@wenkeli1409]

​@@_cyclofob8990I would love those lens if I had the money for them too. But I'm guessing that's outside most people's budget. You can argue that 3K USD can be better spent on the 300/F4 instead of switching to PL, but that is only if the OP doesn't need an upgrade on the camera. So, tradeoffs. Speaking of lens, I wish someone would release a decent, not expensive (2K USD) 200-600mm (F7.5?) for MFT, that would kick butt for the reach.

[@ChargedPulsar]

Why do you guys insist on showing the biggest lenses of full frames, extended with hood on, only to compare a m43 lens thats not extended and does not have a lens hood on? Besides, 800mm on ff is not the same quality on effective 800mm on m43. There is a reason those lenses and telescopes are big. Big is always better in imaging world. Its just a compromise that smaller lenses exist, but portability comes with tradeoffs, there is no way around it. 100-400 on m43 is a very good lens, you don't even need to compare it with ff world, its good enough by itself.

[@catrionathomson8981]

I think your claimed maximum magnification is wrong.

[@MicroFourNerds]

It's a 2x converter. The 100-400mm on a crop sensor is 200-800mm in full frame terms. X2 = 1600mm at the long end in full frame terms

[@catrionathomson8981]

Maximum magnification pertains to macro. This lens, either version, is 0.25:1. With the X2 TC will offer only 0.5:1 not 1:1!

[@MicroFourNerds]

@catrionathomson8981 hey I'm just parroting the info I was given by lumix. To quote, "maximum magnification of 1.0x with the 2x teleconverter attached. 0.5x magnification without" if I didn't word it right, that's what I meant.

[@iM-mf1ke]

Your pictures look like they were shot with analog film (in a good way)...was this on purpose or a happy accident?

[@rosselur]

I like how she pronounces animals on-a-moles. Lovely.

[@Emerald_City_]

Charming as you always are, I think you haven't been realistic with this review. The original version is a very difficult lens, requires a lot of learning and practice to overcome some its idiosyncrasies. But even then, you can't get away from some major problems. Stabilization shows a weird quirk, which admittedly may belong to my copy only. Also, sharpness (resolution) at the wider end is terrible. It's a similar phenomen as with the Panasonic 14-150 mm zoom, just that here it's even more pronounced - it's an impossible task to get a picture sharp at 100 mm and at the far end it's reasonable. You need to stop down to at least f/7.1 or F/8.0. Actually it's much sharper at the long end, which of course is a happy coincidence, but you have to perform some acrobatics to get it right, or use a tripod and switch off the IS and/or autofocus and use self shutter release. Yes, even handheld, you do get a sharp picture once in a while, but it's once in 10 times if you've mastered this bad boy, or once in 20 shots if you are a regular mortal. Colors are a good side to this lens, but that's about it. I've also seen renown reviewers say that the new version is almost as stiff as the old one. And I've been photographing for half a century almost and gave classes to students. Disclaimer: I've bought my copy second hand, thus perhaps something may have happened to it that I don't know. But I had brought it to Panasonic service, and they refused to take a deeper look, according to those folks, everything was right with this copy. I almost never sell my gear, but this lens may be on such a list soon. Look what folks have to say about the Olympus version, it is much more expensive and heavier, but the hit rate is 10 times as much. The original Panasonic 100-400 lens asks for strenuous efforts, will put a physical and mental strain on the photographer trying to tame it and get it still, and yet feel like a poker machine - you never know when you'll get a sharp result. Because it's a gamble. Highly not recommended.

[@rofferdal]

These are costly lenses... I wish I could buy these, but would you be able to enjoy photography on such a trip with a maximum focal length of 300mm instead? There are some 300mm lenses that after all hit the wallet a lot less hard than the 100-400 Panasonic Leicas.

[@crogs571]

I have the oly 40-150 f4, and am now camping out 100m from a finish line for boat racing. Losing a lot of detail heavily cropping to have the boats fill the frame. I'd love to have facial detail as the races are grueling and the expressions and muscle tension exemplify it. So the less cropping the better.

[@flipped435]

I see a Stephen King reference. I upvote. 👍