Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS Review

The Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS is a light and compact telephoto zoom, and makes a great travel kit when paired with the Olympus 12-100mm F4. We tell you how it works in our review.
Music provided by BeatSuite.com
www.beatsuite.com
Rentals provided by The Camera Store
www.thecamerast...
-----------------------
DPReview.com is the world's largest digital camera review website. Welcome to our KZbin channel! Subscribe for new feature videos, reviews, interviews and more.
Discover the world's most in-depth digital camera reviews at www.dpreview.com

[@leerothman7570]

Coming from a Canon R5 and RF100-500L lens I have to say the copy I got of this lens is every bit as crisp and definitive across it's entire range. I was thrilled that even at the 400mm end it's sharp as can be no compromise. I tried the Panasonic/Leica 100-400 but it simply was NOT consistent in results like this lens IS. The IS on the lens with the OM-1 is quite nice indeed.

[@cpoole419]

The perfect vlogging lens is upon us my friends

[@fatherofbirds]

I read that in Casey from camera conspiracies voice.

[@artistjoh]

I have this lens, have had it for several months. A great purchase, and produces great images. Sure there are some compromises, but it is not a ten thousand dollar lens. And for most of us this is a niche lens for those times when extreme reach is needed, and most niche lenses, whether ultra-wide, ultra-tele, tilt/shift, involve compromises of some sort, especially if it is affordable, so I work with the compromise and am simply glad the lens can do something otherwise difficult to achieve. I get more critical of the lenses I need to use every day. Something not mentioned, but important - The Lumix version does not support teleconverters, while the Olympus 100-400 works well with both 1.4x and 2x T/C's. Combined with the close focus abilities already in the lens, it produces a better than 1:1 macro capability (about 1.25:1) which is very useful both in studio and in the outdoors.

[@RhawiDantas]

I would totally watch a cooking show with Chris converting Metric units into bushels, gallons, cups, thimbles, shampoo caps and other weird imperial units.

[@igordmitriev7211]

4:52 Never change please

[@Centauri27]

On Micro Four Thirds, diffraction really doesn't become an issue until after f/11 or so. Yes, it's visible before then, but you'd had to really pixel peep. You didn't need to stay at f/6.3 (it probably would have been a tad sharper if you had stopped down).

[@redred623]

Just got this lens and really love the weight, the build quality and ruggedness, and versatility. It is hard to get sharp on moving subjects, in shade, at distance but that really is a recipe for a stuff regardless of lens choice. Overall it is a super sharp lens and Robin Wong has a good series of videos proving that. Not sure why we a lot of negatives for such a great, do anything, tele photo. Also I am not behind the comparisons to the 300mm prime. Comparing it to the 300mm prime would be like comparing the 12-45 f4 to the 45mm f1.2. It just isn’t fair to the zoom. Especially with the price point difference.

[@TITAOSTEIN]

It seems contradictory that influencers on KZbin talk about the end of the mft system because smartphones are more portable and more practical, but those same influencers highlight the benefits of FF !!! In my opinion, no system is more fun than mft! Compact, lightweight, and with all the necessary requirements for high-level photography and video. I don't know of any Smartphone capable of changing lenses, or receiving a supertele lens, or professional MIC, or optical stabilization with quality! Likewise, I find Cameras FF (although great and ideal in some cenarios) absolutely gigantic (due to the laws of physics the lenses have to be gigantic) and heavy (in the Camera + lens set)!

[@mrrcassidy]

The only constant in photography is light. Everything else involves compromise.

[@c.augustin]

Glad you mentioned fun! There are so many self-proclaimed know-it-alls around that only go for specs, concentrate a 100% on only two or three of them, and try to force anyone thinking differently to comply to their skewed views. Easy to spot - they _never_ mention fun … ;-)

[@c.augustin]

Oh, on your note that FF lenses have to be gigantic - they weren't in the past. This is one reason I stick to my Leica IIIf and M6 and their lenses: While rightfully "full frame" (it was called "35 mm film" when I started photography ;-)), they are are often as tiny as comparable m43 lenses, sometimes even smaller. My Leica IIIf with the collapsible Elmarit 2.8/50 mm is even smaller than my Olmypus Pen F Digital with the M.Zuiko 25mm F1.8 (all right, all right, this lens is faster, but I get the same size if I slap the Summarit 1.5/50 on the IIIf, being faster again; while overall image quality is better with the M.Zuiko, the old Summarit has "the look"). I wonder what forces manufacturers to make bigger and bigger FF lenses, especially primes (the L-mount FF primes from Panasonic and Leica are humongous).

[@TITAOSTEIN]

Christian Augustin try to use a 600mm f4 in FF and compare with the 300mm f4 m43

[@TITAOSTEIN]

Christian Augustin I use the Nikon Z6, D7200, GH5 and EM1iii. But I have worked with many other systems. I work professionally with video since 1996 and photography is a hobby that I take very seriously, since 2010. I've used huge camcorders in the past and I've used Cameras Medium format. In my case, the m43 system is the smallest size possible with the desired quality, it depends on the lens used.

[@Bluefax]

I love Chris' unit conversions!

[@Krekkertje]

I lost it when he said 46000 feet above sea level 😂

[@Elgsdyr]

He really does hate the the imperial system. 😂

[@eriklonneborg4697]

@@Elgsdyr Ignoring the citizens of the USA for a moment, don't we all? ;-)

[@TingILi]

1. Try to use the EM-1 Mark III with x2 converter to taking 1600mm photo for the Jupiter and the Saturn. 2. Testing the stabilizability when at the 400mm side(800mm 135mm frame) as how much seconds you can doing the effection handheld photo taking. please.

[@wanhl2440]

I have get an image of 1600mm on moon. The moon almost fill the whole frame. I expected very poor image quality on zoom lens+2xTC nut this time the of 2x TC is producing surprisingly usable result.

[@d96669b]

As an olympus shooter myself, I suspect, you didn't trust the image stabilisation enough. I usually shoot my 200mm at around 1/60 without any problems. Maybe bursting it could help a lot as well. Or a monopod... I mean trying to hand-held a 800mm equivalent would have been a stupid idea 10 years ago.

[@WMedl]

You cannot shoot 1/60 moving targets, for flying birds at least 1/1250 is appropriate, better 1/2000!

[@nashsok]

1:10 - This isn't the case - While the lens does have OIS, it does not support Olympus' Sync IS standard as it's other OIS lenses do.

[@Simoneister]

It is the case, but it's only 3-axis stabilization, not 5-axis. Lens does pitch and yaw, body does roll.

[@TL-xw6fh]

@@Simoneister That's incorrect. The body is 5-axis and the lens 3 axis. Sync IS is supported, just have to switch both IS systems on.

[@leonchan4325]

@@TL-xw6fh That's not Sync IS. That's just having two different IS systems on at the same time. This is originally a Sigma FF lens, so it also has the original standalone Sigma IS inside it. Watch Gordon Laing's review.

[@michaelcisler1435]

@@leonchan4325 Who is Gordon Laing? Influencer on KZbin channels? A photographer, or rather someone who makes a living disseminating information? No Sync IS is correct...because it is not a PRO lens!

[@rzero21]

4:52 I believe him, with that serious look, he is speaking the truth.

[@danieldougan269]

Here's an idea for a future video: test out the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 full-frame lenses with a speedbooster on Micro Four Thirds. On my Viltrox EF-M2, I gain a stop of light, so f6.3 minus one stop is f4.5...same as the new Olympus 150-400mm PRO lens. And a 0.71X speedbooster with a 2X crop factor (1.42X magnification altogether) would take a 600mm lens to 852mm. On paper, it sounds like I should just run out and buy one of those lenses for my E-M1 II, but how does the autofocus performance hold up with a speedbooster? Perhaps it would be an option to test one of these alternatives when you guys get your hands on the new Olympus 150-400.

[@PhanivyasC]

Why isn't this channel reviewing Nikkor Z lenses? Just asking. Its been a while since I saw a review of them here.

[@patrickmolloy6994]

I don't think they've reviewed any Nikon lens so far in 2020, but I'd love to see more Z lens reviews too.

[@PhanivyasC]

@@patrickmolloy6994 They did a review of 24-70 2.8 S & 58 Noct and done. I don't often check their website may be those reviews are already written there.

[@patrickmolloy6994]

Phanivyas C : you asked as per this channel. Yes, their web page has those reviews.

[@SakaphotoGraphics]

If Nikon sends them some lenses, they'll likely review them.

[@Serenoj69]

Nice quick, informative. Well done and I think it in particular shows its weakness but not as much ts strengths. What I dearly miss is a comparison with that other lens, the PL 100-400. First of all when you say that you would love to have seen a quicker aperature, the PL has it even though it is less than a stop and won't make a huge diifference it still does. Since I have that lens I think I know the bokeh is much better but without a comparison I can't be sure. But the behaviour here, with this lens, is not unique to Oly zooms. The 40-150 F2.8 has it and even the 300 mm F4 tends to have it but may be to a lesser degree. Personally when it does pop up I find it pretty much ruining the shot. Something the PL 100-400 does not or far less so. Also: hwo does it compare size wise to that lens? How about the stability in reallife. My PL 100-400 is always using the stabiliser of the lens on my Em1.2. It is so good. and better than the in body one which is a known thing with longer Fls especially. So this is a may be glaring missing point here: the very obvious comparison with the PL100-400...it is a lens I love and use often. It has very good IQ but of curse not as good as the 300 mm F4 prime. May be the 100-400 Oly is better too here? We don't know based on this review.

[@gschweiger]

I think you need to check out the MirrorLessons' article: mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/olympus-100-400mm-vs-panasonic-100-400mm/

[@iqueque]

It seems to be ideal for those of us who want the shot and are less concerned with the pixels. And who don’t need vast prints. Topaz DeNoise handles high iso files remarkably well.

[@danieldougan269]

I've used this and the 300mm f4 PRO. The 100-400mm is fine and probably better than the Panasonic version, but the 300mm is in another category. It's brilliant. It's not just about noise...it's crazy sharp. I have rented both lenses, and I'm saving up to buy the 300. In the meantime, I use the 40-150mm f2.8 PRO with the MC-20 teleconverter. That's a fine lens, even with the MC-14 teleconverter. Putting the MC-20 on it is serviceable, but it's not ideal. That's just not what that lens was designed for.

[@Peterthethinker]

​@@danieldougan269 I just picked up the 40 to 150 2.8. And mc14 teleconverter may consider an mc 20.. I'm fine peeking out at 600 mm butt right now this 100 to 400 is going for a Grand ... I'm tempted to go the converter route on the 2.8 because well I can run it naked at 2.8 and get mid telephoto that is good for indoors.... Do you think that zoomed in to 600 mm they're about the same ... My low lens is 12 to 100 f4.. Any input would be greatly appreciated

[@danieldougan269]

@@Peterthethinker No, they are not the same. The 40-150mm is just not a wildlife lens. With the MC-20, yes it can get to a 600mm equivalent, and I use it that way all the time. But it's compromised for sure, not just in terms of aperture but also sharpness. That's not to say the 40-150mm isn't a great lens because I find it indispensable. But it's best to use that lens without a teleconverter or maybe with the MC-14. It's serviceable with the MC-20 but not critically sharp.

[@Peterthethinker]

​@@danieldougan269. Thank you I appreciate it I use it a bit today after the sun came out and the results are okay the bird feeder I tend to haunt is only about 20 ft away so really I don't exactly go out and do a safari I'm crippled so I stay at home most of the time my definition of wildlife is keeping things at a safe distance. And the results are beating out the old 100 to 300 Lumix I had but I absolutely despise because of its quirks. I did order MC 20 last night right now I do have an emcee 14 and it seems to be pretty good but obviously I'm not doing anything that's hardcore like most of you all folks are doing😂 we shall see the person I bought it from my eBay is not a type of turns so I'm going to probably use it for a little while and then maybe try out that 100 to 400 and it works better but I'll sell the thing I have right now I'll tell you one thing though I really do like how Olympus uses that slide system in front for the manual clutch. A super like this concept and I have it in all my other lenses

[@letni9506]

Chris sounded disappointed but come on, 800 mm. Grumbling about having to go higher than 200 iso for wildlife shots. At around £1100 and a size and weight you can easily manage, its a fantastic lens and compatible with the converter too if you really need it. Ofc you can always carry a rocket launcher sized lens around on long hikes. Always a compromise.

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

Thank you for reviewing this lens.

[@formermpc10]

I've had this lens since day one, and it's been great. None of the problems reported in the Panasonic version (so many of those have hit the used market).

[@jochenkrebs9685]

I have the 100-300 from Panasonic, it´s the best Lens for the price. Nothing can beat that. Cheers from Stuttgart Germany

[@UnluckyNewbie]

That's why i sold my Pana 100-300v1 and bought used Oly 40-150 2.8 with 1.4 TC included. Because of bad Micro 4/3 high iso results! Now i always use 40-150 F 2.8 at 2.8 (razor sharp) or F 4.0 with TC

[@FabledFew]

You guys are starting to get lazy. How much does this lens weigh on the Noct scale? Come on.

[@rinzevnrossum]

Great lens for me, being older. Easy carrying and I don’t need a monopod anymore except when I use the 1.4x converter. A pleasure to walk with and sharpness is oké with me.

[@serdj_50618-P]

talk from DPReview TV is dedicated to birds photography, which is partially right, BUT bird photography is a very small and specific part of photography while this lens can be used for a lot of other situations and cases!

[@yannzheng3179]

Can you guys turn on the subtitle again? I'm a Chinese viewer and I like your videos a lot, it's not that hard to understand without subtitle but it gives me kind of confidence knowing that I can check out the subtitle even it's not accurate. Thank you a lot.

[@mrrcassidy]

I couldn't understand half of it, and I'm English.

[@TITAOSTEIN]

Usage limitations due to light conditions need not even be considered in a Review! Just look at the lens specification! It is no different from other similar lenses like Sigma, Tamron or more precisely Pana Leica. Whoever buys a super-tele zoom, wants flexibility and knows the compromises. Importantly, in my opinion it would have been to highlight and present the Optical performance, with and without the use of CT and compare it with the performance of rivals. From what I have read on other sites, this Olympus is very sharp, and even sharper than PanaLeica. In my opinion the biggest criticisms of this lens would be the size and weight (if compared to PanaLeica) and the price (which we know will fall in a few months).

[@HesselFolkertsma]

A nice equator-region lens I think, love the compact design.

[@kingzozo19]

It is almost same as panasonic 100-400 that is its main competitor I think. You can use Panasonic on Olympus body but you will lose IS and weather sealing. For me 75-300 Oly is fine, this 100-400 is kinda expensive (same as Panasonic).

[@jf9979]

Robin Wong shows he can comfortably hit sharp motion free images at 1/80 @400mm handheld. Shooting at iso 200 and 400 should be a breeze.

[@karlburchill2704]

Yes good technique and posture plus timing come into play when lower shutter speeds are being used.

[@ronin181990]

Robin Wong is basically a human tripod. I have to use at least half his shutter speeds.

[@martindurcansky677]

some time ago I was able to get 1/60 handheld on my 3kg sigma 60-600 on crop body equivalent to 912mm of focal length on the first day the first time I took a long focal length shot, the first time I used a 600mm long lens and the first time I used anything this heavy, while being a newbie to photography on a dslr body without any IS built in. it actually amazes me how weak the olympus IS combo is here . Or vice-versa how good the regular lenses for FF are without anyone bragging about it . 1/80 by a pro photographer at 800mm. not impressed at all.

[@jf9979]

@@martindurcansky677 but thats my point. 1/80 was easily achieved by Robin Wong so I didnt get why Chris was having trouble. Who knows how slow Robin couldve got? Ive got an Olympus and I can consistantly take sharp 2 second night time handheld at 25mm. Sometimes 4 seconds with a few attempts. Thats been my record. I cant get anything near that with my rx100iii with optical stab. Maybe 1/4 if Im lucky. I think olympus IBIS is outstanding.

[@martindurcansky677]

@@jf9979 it is, with shorter focal lengths where good ibis is advantageous, especially pro lenses. with a longer lens, ibis looses some of its efficiency and such is the case w the 100-400 i'm commenting on, it performs bellow average and it is officially rated well bellow average for nowadays lenses (3stops afaik). So that's what I mean. Everywhere I go people praise the options this lens offers in terms of stabilization. Sometimes it feels to me like the desperate attempts to argue "FF-results" and performance are getting out hand.

[@HenryFalkner]

I just bought the 75-300 II from 2013. It does what I am expecting from it. For 2 nights in succession I got noise-free moon shots from it (compared to my SH-1 pocket zoom). I looked at your video to check what I am missing. The 100-400 is nice no doubt. But I will not panic about what I already have, since the 100-400 is not in the New Zealand shops yet.

[@ianmcnamara2100]

And is considerably more expensive. I recently bought a 75 - 300mm for $475. The cost of the 100 - 400mm is in the range $2200 price range.

[@EugeneMaynard]

It will be interesting to see your reviews on the Canon F11lenses. 🙏🏾

[@blackice5649]

Really a very honest review I think. So many people seem to be pushing this lens and not emphasizing the drawbacks. I thought you did a good job of bringing them up without being overly critical.

[@gg48gg]

You are always so hard on MFT. Why do you have to keep iso @ 200, shoot faster than 1/300, and close the shutter past F8? You're imposing arbitrary limits and then complaining about low light performance? I don't get it. Why don't you talk about the 800mm equivalent reach at less than 1kg instead?

[@poudrieres]

I have been wondering if the Fuji 100-400/4.5-5.6 would be worth buying for the same reason (either low shutter speed or low ISO and also a compromized AF at low apertures). f/5-f/6.3 on MFT is even worse. We will see how the upcoming Olympus 150-400/4.5 performs - if it is released at all.

[@abhijeetkrishna]

Can you do a separate video expanding on the diffraction limits for smaller sensor sizes?

[@mrrcassidy]

For MFT, just add 2 stops. I try never to shoot smaller than f8 unless it's macro. My non-macro MFT lenses perform best around 1-2 stops short of maximum. All perform well at full aperture.

[@no_mus4459]

I would love to see this lens in action on the BMPCC 4k!

[@marvesrivas307]

Did you guys ever use the Fuji 100-400mm? Not too many reviews on that lens. Hopefully that can be a video idea one day.

[@oswaldpietzsch4553]

Comparing this lens to the Panasonic/Leica 100-400, there is one important point missing in this review. The Olympus lens is compatible with Olympus' tele converters MC-14 and MC-20, providing an option for incredible 560 or 800 mm focal length (1120 or 1600 mm equiv.). While I love my Leica lens, this is something I really miss. On the other hand, the Oly lens comes without a lens hood.

[@redred623]

The olympus does come with a lens hood.

[@TITAOSTEIN]

Hey, I love your work, but lately I have been surprised by you in what I think is a “bad will” or ironic with Olympus. I do not believe that the photographic equipment should be evaluated in an absolute way, as if all the photos needed Bokeh strongly and every video had to be for vlog or 10bits 4.2.2. Just like cars, or any other equipment, cameras also have their specific audience and also have their specific purpose. The variety of options is fundamental. I think one must be careful not to fall into the hypes ( like TN) of the moment forgetting that the universe of photography is very varied, as well as the target audience. In the same way that I will use my Z6 in low light conditions, or D7200 for Portrait, I will probably take my GH5 if I want video and portability, or my em-1 iii if I want to travel light and able to do everything a little bit , with quality. Regarding the new em10 IV, I found an excellent pocket camera and probably a lot of fun to use. It doesn't need to be comparable to an R5 or A7 or SH1, to find your niche and target audience! A Land Rover Defender is very different and in many ways inferior to a Porsche 911, but it all depends on the use! Have a little more goodwill with Olympus. Anyway I think that this lens could cost around 999Euro! Greetings from Germany

[@thomasanderson5929]

How does the Olympus 100-400mm compare to the Sigma 100-400mm DG DN OS Contemporary?

[@AlgPortfolio]

Thanks for the video! I have 75-300 zuiko, and now heavily thinking if it's worth upgrading to this one. Can you please make comparison video for those two as I couldn't find anything online?

[@vaibhavpisal]

Canon: People think we are crazy to launch f11 lenses. Yay. Olympus: hold my beer.

[@paristo]

Yeah, Olympus is f/5-6.3 and Canon is f/11. Olympus clearly made better one by the specs. And it is 1120 g vs 1260 g, so we have them in the same weight class, same FOV but Olympus just offers 1.8-2 (in practice no difference) stops more light.

[@Han-pd8rw]

@@paristo no? Olympus lens is for MFT which means its equivalent aperture is around 11 too.

[@keithholland4322]

@@paristo The difference is that a lens with an f/6.3 maximum aperture should focus faster than one with an f/11 maximum aperture, regardless of sensor size. When you combine that with the fact that the high end Olympus cameras all have PDAF+CDAF, I'm going to assume that the Olympus is going to run circles around the Canon in terms of AF speed. Also, Olympus cameras have the best IBIS out there, so this is a lens that can be handheld, even at very long focal lengths. Since Canon keeps on refusing to put IBIS in their cameras, you're going to have to crank up the ISO to some sort of astronomical proportions in order to prevent blurry images from camera shake which will just create blurry images due to denoising in post. The only way you're going to get around that is to use a tripod, which kind of defeats the purpose of buying a relatively small, lightweight lens.

[@c.augustin]

@@Han-pd8rw You're talking about equivalent depth of field at open aperture. You still get around two stops faster shutter speed at the same ISO setting, thus compensating for the smaller sensor. It is actually comparable (and Canon isn't known for good high-ISO performance, so the Olympus system might even have a slight edge here).

[@youknowwho9247]

@@keithholland4322 That's complete nonsense. The AF system in the new Canons is vastly superior to Olympus's outdated tech, and the stabilisation of the two systems is equally effective. Canon's might actually be better here, since the Olympus does not support the dual IS. In terms of IQ the Canon is a third or a stop cleaner and better in subject isolation, plus there's the option for significantly higher resolution. It's perfectly obvious that this MFT lens is the inferior option for the more expensive price.

[@UKFX]

The best kind of photography is the type you do for yourself and doesn't involve pixel-peeping. :D

[@uhu4677]

Is it sharper than the 100-400mm Pana-Leica, or is it less sharp?

[@Zhiloreznik]

Mathieu Gasquet of mirrorlesscomparison did a comparison and it is a bit sharper wide open.

[@uhu4677]

@@Zhiloreznik Thx!

[@uhu4677]

@UCrdaDB512TkfWNUnpx5os2Q I don't have an Olympus Camera and will probably stay with Panasonic. Olympus sold their imaging business after all, and it's unclear how much development will be there in the future. Also Panasonic Bodies are much cheaper.

[@NatPhoto56]

Can’t wait to hear your comments on the 600mm f/11 or 800 f/11 Canon lenses if you’re griping about slower apertures at f/6.3!!

[@yizhe7512]

I will take canon r5 or r6 + 600mm f/11 any day.

[@mrrcassidy]

@@yizhe7512 Your mum will need to increase your pocket money, failing that, wait until Christmas.

[@dedclownsRfunny]

Love your channel! I actually love this kind of bokeh as well, and I’m a fan of the vintage lenses with funky bokeh

[@blueredtan2872]

as always, thanks for the review! biggest question is, does this shoot sharper than the panny 100-400 at 300 and above? I've found the panny 100-400 just too soft at 300 and above so I was hopping thia would shoot better. If not, I'll just stick to my 50-200 and pop in a 2x teleconverter when in need.

[@mrrcassidy]

It's actually the only question. Would it have killed them to do a comparison to the only equivalent f/l MFT lens? Oh wait - he may have been forced to say something positive about Olympus.

[@robb8773]

If you want slightly bigger lens and aperture, wait for the Pro 150-400mm F4.5 to be coming by the end of this year from Oly!

[@RobShootPhotos]

You guys are always the best for previews and reviews. 😁 Please talk about the E-M10 IV. There are claims, while it is only contrast based, that the tracking has improved and I want to know if the buffer is truly unlimited in mechanical high and low burst. How good is the 15fps electronic shutter is?

[@TL-xw6fh]

There you go, kzbin.info/www/bejne/moKQYXaVqbOKiKs&feature=em-uploademail. DPR is always very slow when reveiwing MFT cameras.

[@dannyli9424]

As a multiple system user, in my opinion the only two Olympus telephoto that is worth considering is the 300. f4 and 150-400 f4.5. I tried this 100-400 on my E-M1x, focusing speed and IQ is not impressive at all.

[@nerdMike]

What's the final and real price? Cannot find the info. The Pana Leica seems to be close but better in overall quality. IIRC Gordon said the IS in fact cannot work in conjuction with the IBIS at all like usual.

[@przybylskipawel]

With this lens connected to the E-m1 II, will I get significantly better results in terms of sharpness and detail of the image than with the Sony RX10 IV? Significant difference for me is a difference which I can see at first glance on a large monitor at a 100% magnification or without magnification on a 5K monitor when I look more closely.

[@MDMiller60]

In the beginning you said S1H, at 3/4 of the video you said you used the M1 III?

[@johnjon1823]

It is effectively a 200-800 - so how does it compare for that? To me I would like to see the new Canon slower long lenses on their new lower res camera (R6?) Vs. this offering. Or some similar comparisons of some kind for the same reach and approximate -ish price. Would that these gentlemen would be more stills focused - then they would think and report more deeply and usefully. For instance, film is on a bit of an upward trend so STILLS are part of that. Love video - but...........

[@JoeS5263]

I (a G9 owner) will certainly acknowledge that micro 4/3 cameras are not high ISO champs. However, it seems unlikely to me that you needed to raise the ISO to 3200, to get 1/800 second. But even if you did, that shot of wolves looks good to me. Are you saying that noise reduction blurred the hairs on the wolf's coat? I don't see that; looks like focus was on the eye. I do indeed try (when possible) not to go up to ISO 3200. I supposed what you object to is you felt you had to. ISO 2000 at 1/500th second would have been enough for me, I think.

[@prodigyxl]

Please show me the gear needed for FF or even APS-C equivalent to match Olympus...

[@yizhe7512]

a7 r3 (or r4) + sigma 100mm - 400mm (f/5-6.3), cheers!

[@prodigyxl]

Alex : not at all, m43 sensor = x2 crop factor for lens compare to FF. So you need a 800mm on a FF to get the beast that Olympus made!

[@yizhe7512]

@@prodigyxl Question for you: can you crop an image in the center from the a7 r4 to have similar result from an m43 sensor camera, both with a 100mm - 400mm lens attached? :) Also, cropping is just an option for the a7 r4, you can keep the full image if you want.

[@tonyzhu403]

We've been hearing from Chris many times that Smaller Sensors get Diffraction Sooner. Can we have an video on that? Personally, I don't really understand that.

[@LegendaryGauntlet]

To simplify a bit: It's linked to the size of photo sensors, which are smaller. Diffraction is the same for all lenses and formats, so it will affect smaller sensors earlier as the "pixels" are packed tighter. It's actually the main real drawback of smaller sensors. m4/3 is great but you have to accept not stopping down below f/11, which on this lens leaves very little margin if at all.

[@RDBeerman]

Diffraction is a phenomenon that occur when light passes through a small hole (like a aperture). With smaller sensors the aperture is always going to be smaller even if the aperture ratio (say f/6) is the same compared to a full frame or bigger sensor, causing the diffraction effect to set in at high f stops on small sensors. The Diffraction effect itself causes the light passing through the aperture to bend around the edge of this aperture, reducing sharpness.

[@tonyzhu403]

@@RDBeerman Thanks, but isn't the Aperture Ratio related to the Focal Length? If using an Adapted Full Frame Lens, f/8 on Full Frame would create the same aperture as f/8 on M4/3, isn't it? The Size of the Hole would not change, eh?

[@RDBeerman]

@@tonyzhu403 In the case of adapted glass, you're right. I would imagine that the effect of diffraction would be more noticable in this case however as you're essentially cropping into the lens' total image circle, though it'd be hard to differentiate between this loss in sharpness caused by diffraction or plain optical performance.

[@15ThousandDayCrisis]

I think that statement oversimplifies things. A 50mm lens at f16 is going to give project the same diffraction on the sensor be it on full frame, APS-C, or MFT. Imagine it as a point of light, and as you close the aperture down the point spreads our and blurs. The blurred circle it creates is the same size no matter what sensor it is projected onto. Smaller sensors generally pack more photo sites (ok, we can call them pixels) into the sensor...the 'pitch' between them is tighter, and so any degradation is going to show up as a little larger on the final digital image. Modern cameras are starting to approach pixel pitches at which diffraction can be observed at ever wider aperture ratios - at some stage there won't be any point in packing in more 'pixels', because lenses simply can't resolve images at those resolutions (I think we're still a little ways off though, but the impact can be seen).

[@ridealongwithrandy]

I just fitted the dress ring from my 300mm f4 pro (when not using tripod ring) onto my 100-400 Olympus lens. Nice! I was trying to find the dress ring for the 100-400, but it does not exist.

[@mromagnoli]

Why is it that multiple other reviewers only show diffraction after f11 (at 400mm, with sample photos).....yet you're worried about it at after f6.3? Others (inc. Robin Wong) show hand-held at lower shutter speeds still with sharp images at 400mm? Lastly, a number of reviews demonstrate this lens to be sharper than the Lumix lens - which along with being cheaper, is a pretty good thing most people would prefer.

[@sebastiaanvanwater]

1. I'm surprised Chris and Jordan covered this lens. Great. 2. I see they are sticking to the S1H and not switching to the R6 or the A7SIII (maybe not yet for that one)

[@opalyankaBG]

Chris, I don't think it's the lens that's your problem but the camera. All 100-400 lenses have a similar maximum aperture (not any brighter than a f/4.5-5.6, the Oly is only 1/3 stop slower) but those m4/3 bodies. Even at ISO200 their pixel-level noise is similar to ISO800 on FF.

[@thecaveofthedead]

I don't understand why Nikon is the only company that made a constant aperture lens for this kind of zoom. Their 200-500 f5.6 is the killer lens for wildlife. Affordable. Lightweight. For APSC, you'd want a 100-400 f4. But even a 100-400 constant f5.6 would be an improvement.

[@PinnyHead99]

How close does it focus at sea level?

[@paristo]

I don't know that, but I do know that at 3000 meter ASL you get 55% faster AF, and if you get up to 10 000 meters you get 210% faster AF. Same time as well you get about same extra distance capability.

[@SakaphotoGraphics]

That was a compact review for a compact lens. I hope the review for the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.0 Pro lens lasts a bit longer, since it's bigger and heavier, of course.

[@tonyzhu403]

I've been waiting!! Since I've been SPAMing the Comment Section (Sorry)(I was really, really excited about this lens) Here is a Consolidated Comment. To me, this is quite disappointing… Is it a good lens? Most Likely. Is it $1,499 Good? I am not so sure. First: No Sync IS Supported? That's a First… Then Comparing to its Rumored Cousins: (there are rumors that it is a similar lens in terms of design to the Sigma 100-400mm) The Sigma 100-400mm DG is Only $799. The DG DN is Only $949. Comparing to if you get a Sigma with an Adapter for around $999, you would spend the extra $500 for Close Focus + Weather Seal + Better AF (No Adapter Required) + Tripod Collar Of Course, this depends on how well the Sigma performs with an Adapter.

[@TL-xw6fh]

Yup, you just confirmed that you are simply a KZbinr troll, not a photographer.

[@teruphoto]

It would be nice to have a follow up review using an Oly body. I'd be interested to see if Oly's JPEG corrections would resolve some of the issues you mentioned.

[@redred623]

He is using an Olympus body, the jpeg corrections are post processing techniques and if it can’t be fix in post in raw then no amount of Olympus magic would fix it. That being said this is a lens review and they are just trying to show the lenses capabilities, covering up flaws wouldn’t make sense even if they are correctable. Many of the things he has issues with can be dealt with one way or another he is just telling you what the lens can and can’t do

[@MikelRoncal]

I've been shooting with 35mm cameras for a very long time and I've also been using the MFT system since its inception. Just like many other people, I've obtained very good results with both formats. However, sometimes one sets his expectations in the wrong place and that is what causes disappointing results, not the camera systems or their lenses. Since some people seem to be fixated in comparing apples to oranges, then let's just do that. The following vloggers make very interesting points about MFT ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKS6mZRqaNmZj9E ) and full frame lenses ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIuwoKhvms5lr7s ) of this focal length. Even though Emily talks about the Panasonic lens, what she has to say applies to its Olympus equivalent as well. Surprisingly, Jared Polin says very similar things when reviewing the Canon's 800mm and 600mm RF lenses. What I actually like about them is that they do their reviews based on their professional experiences.

[@MikelRoncal]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIuwoKhvms5lr7s

[@rdlmm]

Thanks. I think I will pass this lens. I did not get into MFT for wild life o bird photography anyway, but I though I could get something pretty good but I don't think so with this lens. Maybe is the entire system.

[@AGag47]

This felt like a "let's get this review out of the way".

[@BoyarsMedia]

The real question is, which 150-600mm is best for indoor macro photography. 🙈🙈

[@robertmarks6525]

i felt the same way to seriously it was just so rush and so negative 😂

[@robertmarks6525]

@@BoyarsMedia what your statement has to do with fact he is stating . bro u from Mars ars or Venus. please get in context

[@BoyarsMedia]

@@robertmarks6525 the review was clearly more of a day trip vlog than review. Most people wouldn't use that focal length indoors. Next time, you can just for clarification.

[@garybrown9719]

Onion rings i didn't see oiniin rings in the other reviews

[@gregbillings]

The mk IV is kind of an interesting camera - I have seen online it has the same AF as it's big brothers, but, specs online show contrast only AF. Makes sense I guess, but, it's the same sensor as the other 20MP sensor.

[@dominiclester3232]

4-6000 ft? ie 4.6 ft closest focussing distance...Did Chris just throw that in to see if we were listening?

[@weizenobstmusli8232]

Damn. I want it. New wideangle zoom, 12-100 and this, plus 60 macro. I have to get a smaller backpack..

[@choozzzzchoochoo]

Side note: Olympus says the lens IS won't work with the sync IS of the body.

[@nerdMike]

exactly, like Gordon said. This review is so short with few info! No meaming about CA and other possible problems.. a pain when you shoot birds on the trees. For example Lumix 100-300 II was bad even stopped down while the Pana Leica 100-400 was almost great even wide open, and if the price is similar well... the Leica seems to be smaller, better built and with great IQ.

[@jlwilliams]

But the maximum aperture is too slow, and I must have full frame because I am very serious. So instead I will choose the 200-800mm f/2.8 from... er...

[@kestrel929]

Because you're very serious and very wealthy ;)

[@youknowwho9247]

The maximum aperture of this lens is an f/13 full frame equivalent on the long end. Significantly cheaper full frame options do exist.

[@Cookiejarlid]

@@youknowwho9247 I can't find any.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@Cookiejarlid The Canon 800mm f/11 is $599, that's close to half the price. There's also a whole host of zooms that go out to 500 or 600mm that will reach 800mm or more at a significantly brighter aperture than f/13 for less money.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@ikaruga_590 You're plain wrong. F- number equals focal length divided by entrance pupil (N=f/D). Adjusting focal length without adjusting aperture is literally invalid math. You've fallen victim to crop sensor manufacturers' marketing. The truth is that shrinking the sensor does not grant lenses magic powers - otherwise, why stop at MFT? Why not use 1/4" sensors and get 800mm f/2.8 glass that fits in a jacket pocket? Here are the facts: That 100-400mm f/5-6.3 lens is just that, a 100-400mm f/5-6.3. Those are the physical specs and they don't change just because you switch camera bodies. However, if you want to compare different systems you'll have to convert the numbers. That's what crop factor conversion is. Your sensor crops the field of view to what a full frame user would get at 200-800mm focal length. This also means you'll stand further back for the same subject framing, which increases your depth of field. And it amplifies the noise in the image. Due to these things being functions of sensor size, and an MFT sensor being one quarter of the size of a full frame sensor, it works out to be a two stop difference. That's why your f/5-6.3 MFT lens delivers results equal to an f/10-13 lens on full frame. Here's a real world example. Let's assume we both shoot the same thing. Your hypothetical prefect settings on MFT are 400mm, f/6.3, 1/1000th, ISO 400. I'll shoot that at 800mm, f/13, 1/1000th, ISO 1600 on full frame. If we now compare those images, well find the same field of view, depth of field and noise. There you go, f/6.3 on MFT performs the same way f/13 does on full frame. Now I open up the aperture by two stops and shoot again at 800mm, f/6.3, 1/1000th, f/6.3 on full frame. That last image will have two stops better subject isolation and less noise than the first two. Clearly f/6.3 on full frame is vastly superior to f/6.3 on MFT. Before you argue with these findings, do keep in mind that this is something everyone can test - and many people, including myself, have. Lying about such easily testable results can quickly lead to oneself being revealed as clueless and disingenuous. I suggest you rent a full frame kit and perform this test so you can reproduce the results for yourself. Sidenote: It's fine that you as an apparent photography beginner don't know these things. What's not ok is spreading misinformation on topics you know nothing about. Next time ask for more information politely rather than being confrontational. It might save you some embarrassment.

[@kc-qw4mh]

I don't really see the reason why I will pick this lens instead of the Leica, especially when considering the current price...

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

What is the maximum zooming? Can reach x32 ?

[@chcomes]

thanks! how sharp is it 300-400mm? i am looking to uograde from my 100-300 but not sure if it makes sense. the pana is known to be soft in the last 100mm, how is this one?

[@TL-xw6fh]

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get super sharp images at that tele range. 400 mm for Olympus is equivalent to 800mm on FF, and at that range, you are going to hit issues like heat haze, light and dust pollution, etc etc.

[@davidthefat]

Is this better than the Panasonic?

[@lampepperhard726]

seems like yes for an Olympus camera but no for a panasonic

[@sks96816]

Will the mc-20 2X Teleconverter work on this lens...?

[@15ThousandDayCrisis]

Yep

[@terrywbreedlove]

Yes

[@sks96816]

@@15ThousandDayCrisis w/my GH5...@ X1.4 .....that would make this lens 400mm x2 x1.4 = 1120mm which is equivalent to 2240mm on full frame......omg!!!

[@youknowwho9247]

@@sks96816 Yeah, at an f/36 equivalent apertures...

[@sks96816]

@@youknowwho9247 so doesnt using the MC-20 teleconverter add 2 stops of light....? @ 6.3 = f8 or f9 somethn....

[@neildaintree]

Am I the only one who looks forward to the metric to standard conversions?! 😁🤣😂👍🏻❤️

[@MadEnglishTV]

I decided that if this lens was priced below $1200, I'd get it. I guess I'll just save for the Sony 200-600.

[@TL-xw6fh]

But the Sony does not fit your Olympus camera! Lol, another troll.

[@kestrel929]

Is there a Sony to MFT adapter?

[@MadEnglishTV]

@@TL-xw6fh I haven't bought into a system yet. I don't own any cameras at the moment. I like the price of the Em10IV but I don't like the price of this lens.

[@petedraper5185]

The Olympus 100 - 400mm is cheaper than the Sony 200 - 600mm.

[@jmkbrx]

Can anyone tell me if the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS Lens used in this video was on an E-M1 MKII I see lots of reviews but all using the lens on a MKIII. I am interested to know if the images are as crisp on the MKII as the reviewers say using a MKIII

[@BrewsterPgonzales619]

Will it work on my EM-10?

[@emptyandseephotos7858]

Waiting for 150 400 4.5 pro lens review DP

[@mastan7207]

I found that the lens stabilization will delay activate if the camera tilt up or down. The delayed time around 1 to 3 seconds, more the tilting angle more the time delay. I went to customer service and got answer that is ture. They don't know can it be fix by FW update. The only solution is turn off the lens IS and use the in-body IS. Sad

[@eXaviar]

Motion blur by a moving subject aside: Why is a shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/320 a problem? The OIS or IBIS should be capable of at least 2 or more stops of stabilisation. 400mm by the rule of thumbs without stabilisation leads to at least 1/800. Then 1/400 or even 1/200 shouldn't be an issue at all. What happened to the amazing class leading stabilisation? Even my XH1 can handle a vintage 500mm F8 at 1/500 with ease... And that IBIS is supposed to be inferior to the Olympus stabilisation.

[@ryantang8146]

With G9 and Panasonic Leica 100-400 I can get sharp shot at 1/60 handheld. Even handheld for video isn’t a problem. I don’t understand why they even put it IS when it does not work with the body. 3 stops of Lens Is is quite useless at 800mm. Why even bother putting it in ? Should have made the lens lighter by leaving IS out and sell at a lower price.

[@RobinLimiscool]

Great video, I am still in doubt if I should buy the 40-150 F2.8 or this new lens? Any comments from you guys are welcome!

[@LegendaryGauntlet]

I've shot butterflies with the 40-150 and 1.4x teleconverter, it's plenty enough IMHO - for most shots i did not even need the teleconverter. If you go for a safari and want to get lions and such, the 100-400 may be a wiser choice... 40-150 is also fantastic for portraits.

[@RobinLimiscool]

@@LegendaryGauntlet Thank you for your reply. I have tried the 40-150 F2.8 and in most cases I found the focal length to be more than enough. However, I am afraid that this new lens will not live up to the ruggedness and image quality of the 40-150 F2.8.

[@eXaviar]

The 40-150 plus teleconverter should deliver a better image quality than this one. You only miss out on the reach

[@paristo]

@@LegendaryGauntlet Going for safari is usually that you end up 3-4 meters from the lions. You likely have the lion just meter from your jeep. But if you want to capture them chasing prey, then you need far better driver and guide than difference between those lenses. People go all the time to these safari trips and have all kind fancy mega zooms but the animals are very close because they are so custom to them. Only real danger there to avoid are elephants and rhinos, and of course hippos as they don't just kill you, they will trash your vehicle if they get on that mood. Lions? The might jump top of your car or lean toward windows just for fun.

[@danieldougan269]

I own the 40-150mm f2.8 along with both teleconverters. They will have to be pried from my cold, dead hands.

[@ryantang8146]

Wrong, Sync IS does not work with this lens to the Olympus body while the Pana Leica one works with the body to achieve 6.5 stop of stabilization. Don’t know why Olympus does that. Maybe they need to save the best for the upcoming 150-400 lens

[@mikkoritala8932]

The reason is probably that this lens is not supported by the firmware of any of their cameras. They would need to update the firmware and that of course costs money. If they will not do that in the near future, its obvious proof that they have no real interest in developing the system further. Which would be a real shame.

[@ryantang8146]

Mikko Ritala I think you have a point there. In order to make the lens works with the body Is, Olympus would have to update the firmware of its existing cameras which will cost money and if they have decided to sell the business, there is no point on investing further. They will probably update the EM1X for its bird af and is sync with the new lens and that’s probably it and if this is another indication, we will probably won’t see any more firmware update with any other existing cameras. Very sad

[@mikkoritala8932]

@@ryantang8146 If the 150-400mm PRO comes out, they will absolutely need to update firmware to support that lens, otherwise what is the point. So there's a chance they will also include this 100-400mm in the same update and maybe some other improvements as well. To my knowledge, sync IS is only found on E-M1mk2, mk3 and X plus the E-M5mk3 so not that many cameras need the update. Let's wait and see, it may come out eventually.

[@Woodenarrows]

The 300 f/4 even with the smaller 1.4 TC gives you f/5.6, probably about the same as the 100-400 at 300 mm.

[@ammadoux]

great review chirs. too bad you could not get a better and smother boheh like what Robin wong and red 35 got from that lens. try again 😘

[@rmgwheelsspokeslab.7767]

How can a camera today be useful if you can´t rise ISO from 200?. I set up my camera on AutoISO up to 51200. Taking the image is what really matters. Actual denoising applications such like DxO Prime/DeepPrime make an incredible work.

[@VoicelessScream]

4:50 - "1.3 metres is its minimum focusing distance, which is about 46,000 feet above sea level. - Had this been recorded right now I would assume Chris was in fact an AI that glitched. WTH was that comment about !?

[@KinChungE]

Why it seems not much people mention the lens is just a rebranded Sigma FF lens?

[@frankfeng2701]

I can't help but see its resemblance to the FF Sigma 100-400 DN which is smaller and cheaper.

[@libork8106]

I feel than any time anybody makes lens with f=6.3 for small format, it is just a handicap lens .... And to add 1.4 or 2x teleconverter, it makes it even worse. I agree with you, the bokeh is poor. Also, I don't get Canon either ... ( f=11???)

[@racketmeister3773]

Olympus om-d does seem to struggle in less than bright light.

[@snippephotography1913]

panasonic 50-200 with 2x converter is for me the best option. its F2.8 with ois and with a lumix body te best option for dual-is

[@LukeBrownFigmentoFilms]

Does the teleconverter work with the 50-200? If so that would be my next purchase.

[@Molybdan42]

It's F 2.8 - 4, so F 5.6 - 8 with converter...

[@snippephotography1913]

@@Molybdan42 is aperture 2x to.

[@petercharles6652]

Not inspired by the performance where defraction sets in and creates softness after wide open aperture setting. This really limits my options for dialing in of depth-of-field. Would have much preferred f4-f5.6 at 300mm or 350mm on the long end or an updated, faster, higher-quality 75-300mm. Very few people actually need FF equivalent of 800mm at f6.3 anyway...

[@arwo1143]

1.3 meters is about 46,000ft above sea level Had to watch that twice to make sure you actually said that XD

[@tonyzhu403]

Over 2 Grand in Canadian. Oof… Rumors has it, it is similar to the Older DSLR Sigma 100-400mm. Which goes for Under 1 Grand Canadian. I am considering if it is better just to get the Sigma with an EF to M4/3 Adapter. Probably Worse AF and No OIS. But for half the price? I'm not sure…

[@LegendaryGauntlet]

Worse AF, no OIS, weather sealing, ED elements, Oly coatings, opposite direction zoom ring, the Oly has an Arca dovetail on the tripod foot (not sure about the Sigma)...

[@tonyzhu403]

@@LegendaryGauntlet I believe the Zoom Ring Spins the Same Direction. No Sync IS anyways. And No Tripod Collar on the Sigma DG, that is Correct.