Which is the better m43 telephoto lens? Leica 100-400mm vs Leica 200mm f/2.8 Review

I've compared the two Leica telephoto lens for micro four thirds cameras:
Leica DG 100-400mm f/4-6.4
Leica DG 200mm f/2.8 Review with both 1.4x TC and 2.0x TC
Which one is the better lens? which lens is sharper? Check out the video to find it out yourself.
For 100% crop photos (all shot on a Lumix G9), please check my website:
www.photobyrich...
Camera equipment used to film this video:
Panasonic Lumix G85 | Lumix 12-60mm
Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone

[@TheRealRichardWong]

So between these two lenses, which lens will you get? Let me know and tell me the reason :)

[@jeremym3592]

Photo By Richard I own the 100-400. Want to justify the 200mm 2.8 - but just can’t get there. (Still trying to figure out how high I can safely take the GH5 iso and still be satisfied in the image quality.) If light is too low - i just switch to the 42.5 f1.2 and make due. Good comparison video & article - thanks!

[@TheRealRichardWong]

+Jeremy M Jeremy, yes the 200 2.8 really isn't cheap so I can completely understand that. 42.5 1.2 is a good alternative if you have to shoot under low light. But if you have to shoot something far away, you will have to crop a lot if shoot with the 42.5. anyway happy shooting, and I have none of those lenses we just talked about :(

[@mikew5349]

I have the 100-400, i would expect the 200 to be sharper but in my wildlife situation the zoom is more useful to me,i only ever post on line at 1024 long side.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

mikew5349 Yes exactly. While the 200 is definitely better in terms of optical performance, I guess many people will still prefer the 100-400 for the flexibility and of course the lower price. Good that we have some excellent options isn't it :) and don't forget the also excellent Olympus telephoto lenses and the upcoming Leica 50-200mm ;)

[@grnchile]

I own the 100-400mm and I see both the slight softness and the low light focus uncertainty (especially during Pacific Northwest rainy winters) that you mentioned in your review. However I think that I have a long way to go as a photographer before I can justify the cost premium and loss of flexibility that I would have with the 200mm lens. Thanks for the great comparison!

[@mrsyclone]

A test against 300 pro would be interesting! Panasonic 200 + 1,4 vs Olympus 300

[@jeffslade1892]

Well thought out comparison. Thanks. I own the G9 and PL100-400 and find the combination to be a wildlife photographer's dream. But I've been using MFT for a long time and have more than a few other lenses and cameras too. A prime lens is always, always going to be sharper than a zoom. A zoom lens has to compromise. The PL100-400 is a X4 zoom, optimum is X3. The wide end of an extra-long zoom is intended for finding the subject, not intended for taking photos; it is going to be soft there. The long end, it is usually best to haul it back slightly. With the G9 and the PL100-400 the AF is almost instantaneous, it rarely gets it wrong. If it is hunting, the focus mode is set wrong; it probably doesn't know where you want it to focus and is spoilt for choice. A teleconverter expands the central area of a lens. That may improve corner sharpness, but you lose some contrast and DoF. Much depends on the glass in it. There is usually some compromise with a teleconverter. It will never be as good as the bare lens, on a zoom lens they will show up more faults. I do not have the 200 prime, I do have the 45-200 Mark 1 and Mark 2. The Mark 2 offers Dual 2. They are a lot smaller than the PL100-400. The Mark 1 gets mounted on the E-M5ii, it cannot tell the difference. The PZ45-175 is a hell of a lot smaller, smaller than a cola can and nearly as good as the 45-200, it is tiny. With the PL-100-400 the 100-300 becomes obsolete. If you have the PL100-400 you do not want to lug around another big lens. It's often down to practicality. How much junk do you want to carry? Do you swap lenses out with wildlife or grab the other camera? Less is more.

[@petedraper5185]

Richard Wong. Great video, it has been of real value to me. I ordered an "excellent condition" secondhand 200mm f2.8 lens for £1149 this morning and it arrives tomorrow.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Hi Pete, enjoy your 200 2.8! it's one of the best lens for m43!

[@alandunn4459]

Good review. I find many get too caught up in pixel peeping rather than what really matters - which is getting the photo in the first place. I've never missed a photo because my lens lacked sharpness. But I've managed to get lot of great photos because I had 800mm 35mm equiv focal length when 300-400mm @35mm equiv simply wasn't enough.

[@jettysplash]

Thank you Richard for your video! Hmmmm. I have the 100-400 Leica and have gotten nothing but excellent sharpness with it, especially with G9/G9 II with Leica Dual IS, even at 400. I heard the 200 is crazy sharp, and I imagine sharper than the 100-400 from what I hear, but I need that extra reach of the 100-400 for wildlife, particularly birding. I imagine you'll do more than just fine with either.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Yes prime is always sharper especially a good prime. But the Leica 10-400 is very good and more flexible

[@DrRedFox]

Thanks for the comparison. Already have 100-400 for more than a year now. A bit impressed by 200mm one. But I’m not buying as it is too expensive.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

+D E yes the 200 2.8 is one of the sharpest lens I have ever tested. But I do feel most people should be very happy with the 100-400 as it is a very solid performer at half the price

[@alandimery3379]

Thanks for the comparison. Nicely done. Having to insert and take out TC's is to much faffing around when shooting wildlife. As the quality of the Leica 100 - 400 is still very good, the versatility and price of this lens makes it a clear winner for me.

[@SWatchik]

Really great comparison! Not that I can afford either of these lenses yet, but the 200mm is a thing of beauty. Top of the want list for the sharpness and extra stop of light gathering

[@ar43r]

Avoid 400mm at f6.3 with distance shots. If the subject is at least 1/3 of the frame it can produce good results. Avoid grass or twigs in background at all cost. This lens dont like lines. I have so many photoswith all of these mistakes. And all of the are a mess. On the other hand if these mistakes are avouded the results are nothing short of spectacular

[@Serenoj69]

I have the 100-400 and will keep it. It costs 50% it is more versatile too. You results would be amazing if the 200 mm wasn't sharper than the 100-400. So the results are as expected. Good review as always!

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Haha yes the result is pretty much what I expected too. Thanks for watching this review. I have the new Leica 50-200 review almost ready.. just need a bit of time to edit it together

[@Serenoj69]

Eagerly awaiting your results! Might be informative that for the Em1.2 and the 200 mm F2.8 a FW upfate (2.0) is needed to make it work properly. As an aside: I have had huge troubles with my 12-35 and 35-100 F2.8 and the Em1.2. Only FW updates for the lenses made it work better, FW 2.0 from Oly adds to the better functionality as a whole of the cam and for AF in particular. Kind regards!

[@AnastasTarpanov]

Great videos Richard, thanks for making it. Will be interested to share speed of AF of the Leica 200mm on Olympus E-M1 Mark II body and also comparison with Olympus mZuiko 300mm f/4.0 PRO with all combinations of teleconverters.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Hi Anastas, thanks and yes I will see if i have a chance to test that as well. But I believe the Olympus 300 would not work with the Panasonic teleconverters (correct me if i'm wrong)

[@AnastasTarpanov]

Sure, I was thinking about the Leica without and with 1.4 and 2.0TC nad Olympus 300mm without and with his own 1.4TC.

[@anterix1999]

Great comparison. Is is possible to use a 2x teleconverter on the 100-400mm? for exemple, to shoot the moon?

[@TheRealRichardWong]

The 100-400 is not compatible with the teleconverters unfortunately

[@derekmidgley]

Thanks for making these comparisons. I have had the 400mm for over a year. Use it for bird photography when I don't want to carry my heavier Nikon gear. But my one isn't as sharp as it should be when one considers how expensive it is. It's not nearly as sharp or consistent in focussing as my Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 (that covers similar range). It also struggles more in backlit situations and its VR isn't as quick to stabilise. Based on your video if I had to start over I would NOT get the 400mm lens. Maybe I might get the newer F2.8... but I would want to test it carefully first!

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Hi Derek, i'm also a nikon user myself and have used the 200-500 quite a but. I agree there are definitely areas that the Panasonic autofocus system in general doesn't handle quite as well as the nikon. backlit scene is definitely one of them. I don't think the 200 f/2.8 would solve that problem as most of the limitations comes from the autofocus system itself. However, without doing any side by side comparsion, I would say the Leica 100-400 should be at least as sharp or sharper than the Nikon and the Nikon lens is twice the weight of the Leica and also not weather sealed. As the Leica 200 f/2.8 is such an expensive lens, I would definitely recommend you to give it a test before you make your decision. Also check out the new Leica 50-200 (in my other video) as it's a lot cheaper but performance is pretty decent. Thanks Richard

[@StewartBairdPhoto]

I’m interested in the 200 prime as it’s better for sports. Actually both are useful - depends on the use case

[@JamesBenet]

That is impressive sharpness wide open on the f2.8 200mm. I use an adapted Canon 400mm f5.6L on the Lumix to get 800mm equivalent telephoto that is tack sharp for about $1200 with adapter. The AF is also quite good with the Kippon adapter. The reach is however just too much sometimes and need to step back or pull out my 100-300 Panasonic. That 200mm with both teleconverters is a dream for Panasonic users and it clearly sweeps the floor with the 100-400 which is already expenisve for teh sharpness at $1798 ouch. However the 200mm wich includes the 1.4x in the box plus the 2x for $3595 combined is exactly 2x the price. Which is no mistake by Panasonic. If I had to choose I would buy the 200mm with the 1.4x tele and wait for the 2x to be available at a discounted price in the used market or when it is easier to afford. For sports photographers the GH5 or G9 with the 200mm and both teleconverters is a lightweight professional dream house.

[@caryknoop315]

Thanks for doing this test! One point of feedback, please do not use continuous autofocus, just set focus once and leave it, there is constant focus hunting in the video.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Thanks for the feedback! Yes I've been debating/testing between continuous and static autofocus. I prefer continuous as I find myself actually moving quite a bit during the recording and sometimes I want to hold the camera to right in front of the camera which requires continuous autofocus.. But I definitely see the issue you talking about. Maybe I'll turn off continuous autofocus in my next video and glue my chair to the floor, glue myself to the chair and stop my body and head from moving and see how it goes :D But thanks again for the feedback!

[@MrPetebuster1]

I think a comparison with the olympus 300mm would be more appropriate, these are two very different lenses, one is basically a wildlife lens, the other more a indoor sports lens or long portrait lens, though obviously both can be used for different things. Primes will nearly always be sharper but not as versatile so it's always a compromise depending what you shoot, if its wildlife the 100-400 is always going to be the better choice so don't think this is a relevant comparison.

[@TheFaustianMan]

Another amazing review! Thank you Richard.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Glad you like it!! Thank you

[@kenlee697]

another great video! Love your technical comparison

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Thank you! Glad you like it!!

[@TerenceKearns]

Great review/comparison That 200 prime costs a fortune. It would want to be pretty damn brilliant for that price (which it is).

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Thank you for watching Terence!!

[@brelliace6425]

Seems to me that the panasonic 2x like most 2x teleconverters are not worth it. The image degradation is too high specially considering the cost of that tele converter. The 1.4x is on the other hand perfectly fine and does not seem to reduce the image quality at all. To my understanding only the Nikon 2x III is a usable 2x teleconverter. Panasonic should release 350mm 2.8 next. That would be sweet. Some ppl are amazed by 2.8 performance but to be honest .. at that cost it has to be good at f 2.8. Im wondering does panasonic have quality control issues with their 100-400 lenses since some test have been stellar in resolution and some not so much. Lensrentals test of certain olympus lenses showed a grim image of the image quality variance between induvidual lenses. I have 100-400 on order so heres me hoping for the best :).. when ppl speak of good copies its true for many lens makers.

[@appledadlife]

More Leicas, YES! Is that a Zeiss Ikon ZM behind you??

[@TheRealRichardWong]

+Leica Dad haha no it's a Nikon S2. But certainly don't mind a Zeiss Ikon ZM!

[@appledadlife]

Photo By Richard ahh I always get them confused, even tho they don’t really look alike. S2 is a beautiful camera!

[@TheRealRichardWong]

+Leica Dad yes indeed. Solidly built and it has a 1.0x magnification rangefinder! Larger than any standrard Leica

[@oldschoolwarrior]

One thing I didn’t hear mentioned is that with the teleconverters the maximum aperture is reduced. I don’t remember how much for each but the 1.4x might make it an f/4, and I don’t know what the 2.0x one makes it.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

yes you are right! I didn't explicitly mentioned that in this review. You can kind of guess it from the image sharpness test as with 1.4x TC the maximum aperture becomes f/4 and with 2.0x TC, it's f/5.6 :)

[@ROUTES_SAUVAGES]

Thanks for the video!

[@TheRealRichardWong]

You're welcome!

[@mattenmedia]

Nice review man. Any chance you have a spare one of these lenses that you could send me? :) I'd pay shipping

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Thanks! Haha i wish i have spare one to send to everyone!

[@mattenmedia]

@@TheRealRichardWong Haha same mate

[@Y2Y]

poor sound. use a mic,pls

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Thanks for the feedback. Please check my latest videos and see if it's any better? But I am still working on improving the audio and video.