Size comparison between the two new lenses by CameraSize.
Let’s catch up with some news, tests and unboxing videos of the new lenses:
Panasonic 100-400mm:
CES interview (vidoe above)
Lens presentation video at Jessops.
Hands-on by Camerahoarders.
Olympus 300mm PRO:
Olympus 300mm f4 Unboxing by Damian McGillicuddy
Sample images taken with the 300mm f/4 and MC-14 by Mirrorlessons. The performance is still very good even with the teleconverter attached.
Olympus 300mm video by Jessops.
Olympus Sweden will show 300mm F4 for the first time in Europe at Arvika Fotofestival February 6 2016.
Preorder links to the two new MFT lenses:
Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and Panasonic. In EU at WexUK. ParkCameras.
Olympus 300mm f/4.0 PRO lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, GetOlympus. In EU at Amazon DE. WexUK. ParkCameras.
95 Responses
The size comparison picture is not fair. The Oly lens is photographed *with* the hood extended and the Pana lens *without* any hood at all. Just my 2 cents…
Actually the Zuiko’s hood is not extended. I believe the Pana has a small retro style sliding hood not extended in the photo. The Pana’s hood looks too small though, it’s a lot smaller than in the original Zuiko 50-200 HG (4/3) for example, despite the fact that it’s 100 vs. 50 at it’s widest.
The Panasonis has the “small” lens hood in retracted position; it extends probably 2cm. You can purchase a full size lens hood if you want an effective one…
Specs from Panasonic’s site: Standard Accessories include extended tripod foot, and the extended hood.
Lens Construction20 elements in 13 groups (1 aspherical ED lens, 1 UED lens, 2 ED lenses)
Nano Surface Coating-
MountMicro Four Thirds mount
Optical Image StabilizerYes (POWER O.I.S.)
Focal Lengthf=100-400mm (35mm camera equivalent 200-800mm)
Aperture Type9 diaphragm blades / Circular aperture diaphragm
Maximum ApertureF4.0(Wide) – F6.3(Tele)
Minimum ApertureF22
Closest Focusing DistanceFULL:1.3m/4.27ft, LIMIT:5.0m/16.4ft
Maximum MagnificationApprox. 0.25x / 0.5x (35mm camera equivalent)
Diagonal Angle of View12°(Wide) to 3.1°(TELE)
Filter Sizeφ72mm / 2.8in
Max. Diameterφ83mm / 3.3in
Overall LengthApprox. 171.5mm / 6.75in (from the tip of the lens to the base side of the lens mount)
WeightApprox. 985g / 34.74oz (excluding lens cap, lens rear cap, lens hood and external tripod mount)
Standard AccessoriesLens cap, Lens rear cap, Lens storage bag, External tripod mount, Lens hood
I think you mean “extends probably 4cm”. Easy enough to see from the B&H photos. And there is an additional 1cm to the top of the lens.
I thought that at first as well, but that’s actually with the Olympus lens hood fully retracted.
http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/8479457172/DSC_1498.jpeg
It gets almost 30% longer with the hood extended.
The Panasonic hood is built in, but also retracted. Probably too small to be useful, really.
Well…the Olympus looks huge relative to the Panny until you realize that it is an internally focusing prime that is has a focal length that is at the longer end (and at wider aperture) of the zoom range of the Panasonic. If we zoom the Panny out to 300mm..um…it might even be longer than the Olympus. Great image for comparison. Both lenses are beautiful, too.
These lenses are both large and expensive for the MFT system, though.
In my opinion the length of a lens only matters in collapsed mode because that’s how it needs to fit in a bag and to be transported.
The ideal camera would be the size of a Panasonic GM1 when switched off and would transform itself into an 1Dx when switched on 🙂
Hey…Damian (who works for Olympus) can sell it any way he wants.
The Olympus is a HUGE lens by ANYstandard. (See specs below)
I am comparing it to FULL FRAME 300mm f/4 lenses w/IS and special glass elements.
The Olympus is bigger and more expensive. Simple. Talk equivalency all you want…yadda..yadda… on the side of the lens it says 300mm. I am not saying I hate the lens or will not own it…but …WHY is it so large and expensive for a MFT sensor??? I would like to go to a lecture with the Oly engineers…I am sure that I would learn a lot (I mean that)…but it does not change the reality. Even though this new lens is an asset to the MFT system, has great IS, has special glass elemnents….. from the simple specs below it is disappointing both in size and price for our MFT system, even though it is a great optic. (skip the rationalizations and the “equivalency nonsense”, please). 🙂
Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro: 3.6″x8.9″ 52.03 oz. ~$2500.00
Nikon 300mm f/4 VR: 3.5″x 5.81″ 26.63oz. ~$2000.00 (recent design)
Canon 300mm f/4L IS: 3.5″x8.7″ 41.9 oz. ~ $1350.00 (dated design)
Some other comparisons that ignore “equivalency nonsense”
Panasonic 25mm/1.4: 63 x 54.5 mm, 200g, $598
Canon 24mm/1.4: 83.5 x 86.9 mm, 650g, $1549
Sigma 24mm/1.4: 85 x 90.2 mm, 665g, $849
Panasonic 14mm/2.5: 55.5 x 20.5 mm, 50g, $268
Nikon 14mm/2.8: 86.4 x 86.4 mm, 670g, $1892
Samyang 14mm/2.8: 87 x 93.6 mm, 530g, $349
Live by the sword, die by the sword?
Turbo, you just displayed complete lack of comprehension – of what the equivalency stands for. The Equivalency stands for “my camera is better than yours!” The Equivalency stands for “Stop making sense!” And most importantly, the equivalency stands for “mine’s longer!”
😉
There you go! It’s a new unit of manhood measurement.
“Mine’s 4 FF and two 43”
😀
You make my point perfectly. In both cases the FF lenses are larger, heavier and more expensive. LOL! THANK YOU!!!
Yet…in the case of the new Olympus 300mm…”it” is larger, heavier and more expensive than the FF lenses with the same focal length. It should not be.
Thank you for helping illustrate my point! 🙂
at 300mm I wonder if the image circle plays much of a role. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the wider the angle, the greater the image circle impacts the dimensions of the lens.
So yes, the Olympus is beefy. Notwithstanding the image circle, it’s said to be terrific optics.
I think your original comparisons from other posts are more compelling, as they show that better quality requires larger/more expensive glass, even in the same lens mount:
Canon 50mm f1.4: $349 290g
Sigma Art 50mm f1.4: $949 815g
…bigger image circles…with bigger glass …so that we just use the sweet spot in the center to hit the sensor…I know that is what my Sigma 35mm, 50mm and 20mm Art lenses do…they are HUGE..but incredible resolution.
(This could be what Olympus is doing with the new 300mm..right?..that may account for it being so over-sized for the MFT format).
That is likely the case here, just as it is the case for the 50mm Sigma lens I used as an example. It is to ensure you get results like this from corner to corner at max aperture:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus300f4m/1blur-t.gif
Are you sure you wanted to reply to me?
I am never sure of anything! LOL!
Not sure if you’re trying to be misleading or you simply don’t understand the comparisons you’re making. You say the Nikon is a “recent design” and the Canon is an “old design”. What you should be saying is that the Nikon is a fresnel lens and the Oly and Canon are not. And of course we all know that fresnel lenses will be lighter and smaller and … not that great otherwise. I wouldn’t spend my money on one. YYMV, maybe you’ve never used one or maybe you think they’re great, but at least be upfront when doing the comparison.
I doubt the Nikon, or the Canon for that matter, can compete well with the Oly when looking at resolution.
You don’t have to play the “lens police” routine with me. I absoultely understand the comparisons I am making and know about the fresnel lens. I said what I wanted to say..not what you wanted me to say. I am not trying to hide anything…I was just not going to write a 2-page article here, discussing all the particulars. It would be quite lengthy…so I just covered the basics, (your inference of deception is ridiculous). I am just a photographer using the MFT system.
I would LOVE to see a comparison of the IQ of all three lenses on say, an EM5II. You may be correct. I have no idea what the results would be..and you don’t either.
If you look at SLRGear’s tests on each lens (Nikon & Oly..they did not test the Canon)..you will find that the Nikon “is” (as you say), just ever so slightly less sharp on a crop body. (by a hair)..but that resolution may get worse on MFT current sensors. We don’t know.
My point is …the Olympus lens is overly large and expensive for the MFT format. It’s just a fact. Maybe it has to be to get the IS and the resolution. …maybe it doesn’t…but I KNOW there is an element of the price being so high because people committed to the system only have that choice for a super-tele AF native prime..and that fact is reflected in that price. No doubt.
Your “fact” that the 300mm is too large for m43 is an opinion, not a fact, and a not very good one at that. I’d agree that the standard m43 body will be out of proportion and not well balanced with this lens, but the quick and easy Rx is to add a grip. Once you do that, and when shooting in the field you’ll want the extra battery anyway, it’s every bit as fine as a 300mm f/4 on a Canon 5D or even a 1D.
As far as being the lens police, you can’t compare a fresnel lens to a standard lens. Of course the fresnel lens will be lighter and smaller. It will also not be as good. It shouldn’t take a lot to figure out that if fresnel lenses didn’t have drawbacks then, manufacturers not being stupid and/or incompetent and fresnel lenses being known for a very long time, all telephoto lenses would be fresnel. The fact very few are should tell you something.
I agree that one reason you pay a higher price for an Oly or Panasonic lens is the number that get produced. So if you don’t want to pay for a top quality long telephoto like this, don’t. There are alternatives, including using one of the “superior” FF lenses from Nikon or Canon with an adapter (but when you do this you find out there is a quality drop).
And I was thinking what mattered was its size when actually shooting. Silly me.
Actually, to a certain extent it does. Fluffy light and tiny when shooting at 400mm would be far more demanding on the IS.
I think that each person will have a different take on that situation.
I like big bodies. They are comformable to hold, stable and can have many decent sized controls.
The problem is carrying them.
I like big bodies and I cannot lie.
Yes we all love big bodies! Camera bodies too.
But mass is not length and a camera body is not a lens. A heavier camera body will help stabilize the kit, and in my experience a heavier lens also reduces shake by preventing flex in the wrist, but with telephoto lenses it’s harder to hold a longer lens than a shorter one. The idea that size only matters when you’re not shooting is silly, especially since in many situations you’re in a vehicle in the first place.
Here’s amazon’s notes on the 300mm F4 Olympus:
“Due to high demand we anticipate being unable to fulfill all customer orders with our first allocation”
High demand? 2500.00 bucks..really??
Maybe the first allocation is 5 lenses?
At this price, they have unlikely ordered more than a dozen.
“Product supply from Olympus is very limited,” says the note.
$2500 is obviously more than most of us can justify, but for people who are used to shooting telephoto on DSLRs, it’s almost a drop in the bucket if the results are good. And the results, by all indications, are absolutely superb. So yeah, I can believe that they’ve sold out their first run.
That’s what they said about both pro lenses. It’s called “spin”.
That Panasonic lens done ate Olympus’s lunch. Olympus better release this lens before Panasonic. Even still, I think the Panasonic lens is going to sell much more. It’s just a more versatile lens. And let’s not forget one of M43 biggest hurdles, Price.
What’s your point? The margin for Olympus would be greater therefore they don’t have to sell as many.
At the end of the day having two great options for long telephoto is a good thing.
Panasonic will sell more 100-300mm and the expensive 100-400 is likely staying on shelf forever because of… Price. So why bother to release it?
Forget it. Another useless post.
If you want to see pictures of the 300 f2.8 in comparison to the 300 f4.0
http://pen-and-tell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/300-f4-unboxing.html
It looks like Olympus could ship some unit today if they wanted.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x7x8mHADR1s/VpTPQ7dHtmI/AAAAAAAAG3o/WjRSB2M7jYI/s1600/P1123009.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_iGsBxDR2kg/VpTPRefF6jI/AAAAAAAAG4Q/ZEm-zgvlhS4/s1600/P1123011.JPG
Oof. I just added my GX7 + 100-300 rig to the mix, which is already reasonably large. It’s tiny by comparison. I guess as all of us in M4/3 land already recognize, ultra-quality requires compromises…
Not when we compare to larger sensored cams. I don’t. All I want is more reach, very good IQ at a reasonable size and weight. The Panasonic 200-800 can deliver it, the 100-300 could not.
My 2c about the 300/4, for birders one would need a 372mm lens on a 5DSR and a 536mm lens on a Nikon D750 vs the GX8. It would be a 331mm lens on a 5DSR vs. the E-M1 (assuming both lenses have the same sharpness on pixel level).
Interesting that the Olympus has been released for testing to so many online writers and reviewers already. I haven’t heard a peep about the Panasonic apart from reports about it’s launch at CES itself. Is the Panasonic going to be released that much later than the Olympus? Or is Olympus’s PR team just shellacking Panasonic’s? I highly doubt it’s the latter, but that’s certainly what it looks like.
I think Panasonic probably started development of their lens after Olympus, but pre-announced it aggressively in order to keep peoples’ credit cards in their pockets when the Olympus became available.
And from what I can see, it seems to be working. The announced price point at $700 less, plus the flexibility of the zoom and greater reach seems to have a lot of people in “wait and see mode.” That buys Panasonic time to ramp up production, whereas Olympus is probably already ready to go, and have been churning for a while now, hence their ability to distribute final lenses to a lot of reviewers.
Another possibility is that Panasonic knew Olympus would go all out around CES and is strategically waiting for their own assault. Once the dust settles and everyone’s come to their senses about the Oly, the test Panas will start shipping to reviewers and then they get the spotlight all to themselves.
Or they – P&O – have coordinated the announcements to lessen the shock of the Oly’s price.
I don’t understand how that would work. Wouldn’t announcing a longer zoom for $700 less increase the Oly sticker shock?
Not to mention, Olympus and Panasonic are each others biggest competitors. They are 2nd and 3rd place respectively in the mirrorless market, and while they share a lens mount, they’re both vying hard for the lenses and bodies that buyers want to use that lens mount on..,
“I don’t understand how that would work.”
It works by providing the alternatives, if one wants better IQ at 300mm FL. Outrage about the Olympus’ price became subdued when a day later Pana announced its lens. The attention was split and the people were divided which lens to discuss.
“they’re both vying hard”
There are simply not that many people who need the 300mm at the level of quality. The margins might be good – but the sale numbers would hardly add up to any tangible profit.
At this price bracket, the O&P are not competitors – but collaborators trying to raise the class of the whole m34 system. Before we had 0 specialist niche lenses – now we have a couple.
IMO.
It’s Panasonic who rushed to release the lens to steal the thunder from Oly’s unveiling of its master piece, The Sharpest.
Read Dan Cox’s blog, it’s like some 007 operation.
Turnabout is fair play, I suppose. I’m sure Panasonic was a bit peeved that after developing their 150mm/2.8 prime that Olympus announced their 40-150/2.8 zoom which would render it largely unsellable.
I have NO use for such a large lens. I would buy a 2.8/150mm in a NY minute
I really hope Panasonic still releases the 150/2.8 – it would be fantastic to have a prime at that focal length. I have the Oly 40-150 (budget version) and almost always use it at 150mm anyways.
Of all the stupid statements to make you feel the need to comment on a lens (lenses) obviously not intended for you. What you actually meant was: “whilst these lenses look great for the folks who shoot wildlife or other subjects that require a lot of reach, I personally could really make use of a 150mm f/2.8 and would like to see that in the near future”. What is WRONG with some of people on here?!?!
Then Pany needs to hit back harder since 40-150mm Pro killed150F2.8 and has hurted 35-100 F2.8, twice the damage demands double payback…
This time around Pany could have been more threatening, if at 300mm, it’s f4.8 instead of f5.6 as is.
I think Panasonic was very targeted in its approach. They went for the lightest design quality would allow, from the looks of it. Almost the same weight as the 40-150.
Thought that Olympus was late on the release because of inlens stab added in the last minute?
Summary of Camerahoarder’s PL100-400 review for those who cant view at work-
“Das gud”
http://camerahoarders.com/exclusive-panasonic-leica-100-400mm-f4-6-3-telephoto-lens-hands-on-preview/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm2VL0D-hNs
That guy is a good example of an awkward and unnatural shooting position due to a corner biased EVF. If you shoot with the right eye it is awkward as can be. It is moronic and unergonomic.
Take a look – right arm cramped in line, left arm stretched across, weight of camera is offset. Horrible. I will never buy any corner offset EVF camera. This is bad ergonomics at display, I don’t care if you think it is ‘rangefinder’ style. It would have been fine for an old film leica or contax, but those cameras weren’t hefting big telephoto lenses.
What difference do you think moving the viewfinder an inch right would make on the positioning of his arms? This is bad logic at display.
Reading is not for everyone, but makes a huge difference.
Nor is writing. The left arm, if anything, is cramped, not stretched. It’s not stretching across the face, the difference that moving the thing an inch right would make is completely, and I mean completely, inconsequential. My fiancee owns that camera. I own several, including a full body Nikon. The viewfinder position has practically no effect on the ergonomics here. Certainly, the ergonomics are vastly different, but your analysis is seriously lacking. It’s not the positioning of the viewfinder that’s causing this. It’s the size of the camera and lens.
You’re commenting on something you’ve probably never even held.
Still didn’t read properly, I see?
Sadly nothing usefull to decide on the Panny. They may be have a good reaon, I am also not in a rush but I think it would be nice to get a full review for anyone who wants to preorder it…
I think I’d go for the Panasonic even though the Olympus seems a bit more impressive overall. I’ve already had a 500 reflex and 300mm F4 for 35mm. Truth is, outside of very specific niche applications- the 100-400 would get used much more and it is a bit more compact. Couple that with a better price point and sounds like a win for Panasonic if you ask me.
I just wonder what the maximum aperture is at 300mm. My guess is 5.6.
Yes, it is f/5.6 at 300mm, that was already reported somewhere.
You’re right; the Panasonic is more versatile, more compact, and significantly lighter. It is smaller and lighter the than ZD 50-200 + EC-20 combination, too, and faster to boot (and I have no doubt it will be significantly sharper).
Aside from Dan Cox’s blog and video, there is nothing else useful. The linked video and the one below, are just a read out of some the of lens spec, nothing on the real performances.
In contrast, some of the Oly’s 300mm F4’s images were taken back in Sep. So it’s been out for a quite while.
I think in most cases with these lenses that Olympus Body owners will go with the Oly…and Panny Body owners will go with the Panny…strictly to get the most function out of the IS.
I’ve got the E-M1 & am very seriously considering the Pana-Leica 100-400 lens. But I will wait for reviews & hopefully prices or other promotional incentives before going for it. I also hope our Aussie $ will pick up soon too. 🙁
In the Netherlands you can pre-order the panasonic for €1699. In two shops you get an extra €100 gift voucher for pre-order.
The Olympus 300 f4 cost here €2600 ( no gift voucher) If you don’t have the extender,you have to pay an extra €350.
All my lenses are Olympus but this time the price difference is so big that I pre-ordered the panasonic beauty (for my GH4)
Which shops are these ? (I’m in France but might look if it’s possible)
They deliver also in france and are very reliable shops. Service is very fast and correct: cameranu.nl and camertools.com.
This are the links to the panasonic offer:
http://www.cameranu.nl/en/p846825/panasonic-lumix-dg-vario-elmar-100-400mm-f-4-0-6-3-asph-power-o-i-s-objectief#tab-info
http://www.cameratools.com/lenses/all-our-lenses/panasonic-leica-dg-vario-elmar-100-400/
Thanks a lot for the info, will look at that
Interesting find: The 300 f4.0 should be used without (!) tripod, otherwise the shutter will cause blur. Electronic shutter on the tripod or handheld will deliver crisp images.
http://pen-and-tell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/300-f4-erste-eindrucke-first-impressions.html
The review is in German. Did the tester turn stabilization off when using the tripod?
He says he tried stab on/off, manual focus, anti-shock – only with electronic shutter it was sharp …
Crazy. My 14-140ii has a similar issue in a small range of shutter speeds, but totally acceptable because it’s a (1) it’s a 10x zoom, (2) it’s stabilized and (3) it’s a measly $500. But a $2500 prime “pro” lens should not have this issue. Hopefully a shitty copy or a shitty reviewer.
Crazy. My 14-140ii has a similar issue in a small range of shutter speeds, but totally acceptable because it’s a (1) it’s a 10x zoom, (2) it’s stabilized and (3) it’s a measly $500. But a $2500 prime “pro” lens should not have this issue. Hopefully a bad copy or a bad reviewer.
Sounds like more of an issue with the camera than with the lens
It’s a known issue with the 14-140ii. Electronic shutter remedies the problem and it’s only around 1/150-1/200 sec.