• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Leica 100-400 resolution (lenstip)


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 01 July 2016 - 01:28 PM

So lenstip tested the olympus 300mm lens and in the review they make comments comparing the two lenses including defending their results for the Leica.

 

Basically the 300mm is over 70lpm wide open. They also test it with the 1.4 converter.

 

Unfortunately I had to start a new thread due to some foobars forcing the old thread to be closed; please behave. Btw imaging resource also has a review of the leica 100-400; and while they state the 300-400 range is 'sharp' they show in their 'blur' test that is not nearly the quality you obtain at 100-200mm. My guess is that max aperture of f6.3 @ long end is causing issue and perhaps outdated firmware (there has been report that firmware update actually has a big impact).

-

In any event while I think the results are a bit low i can't really see the results being spetacular @ 400mm.

 



#2 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,405 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 01 July 2016 - 02:12 PM

Well, over at imaging resource - just compare it to e.g. the Olympus M.Zuiko 70-300mm at the long end.

A comparison with a prime lens is always a bit unfair IMHO since the scopes are different.

 

It is about as good as the Sigma 150-600mm C, Nikkor 70-400 VR, Tamron 150-600mm and better than the Canon 100-400mm mk I - and these are all "shorter".

 

Disclaimer - I have no clue at all about IR's test method - just comparing those charts.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#3 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 01 July 2016 - 02:27 PM

SLR=gear/IR is not the most trustworthy, the charts often raise questions...



#4 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,405 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 01 July 2016 - 03:43 PM

I'm slightly wondering about the often flat planes in those charts.


  • Brightcolours likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#5 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

Posted 01 July 2016 - 04:19 PM

Their charts show how many de-centered lenses they test at any rate.



#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 01 July 2016 - 05:41 PM

I'm slightly wondering about the often flat planes in those charts.

Indeed. Or when you don't see resolution go down till or past f11. Or when you see corners get worse when stopping down. Or when you see them say a lens has a high CA from a lens known to have no CA issue, or vice versa.



#7 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 02 July 2016 - 05:37 PM

To be fair: most of the time the I-R results are in line with what I've seen in the other sources: here at Photozone, or at Lenstip, DPReview (when they were testing lenses...), EPZ. There are exceptions, but then again, none of the sites is immune. After all, Markus has found the Nikkor 58/1.4 to be sharp where Lenstip and some other reviews proclaimed it the overpriced failure of the year.



#8 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 02 July 2016 - 09:45 PM

Based on what I read in vlogs by wildlife shooters it is considered a very good lens, although slightly less sharp/contrasty above 300 mm, and obviously not great at AF-ing birds in flight, but that is a camera-thing.

 

F/6.3 certainly would have an effect, indeed, but at longer FLs, so does air quality etc., heat, haze, and what have you. Since the resulting MTFs are essentially additive, this has a relatively large effect on the system resolution, which is exactly what is shown in the lenstip chart.

 

As it is a rather extreme long zoom, it will not easily beat a prime anyway, that is to be expected. However, all in all, I reckon it is a great lens.

The 300 F/4 is in a different class alltogether, however. Based on my calculations it looks like it is very close to being diffraction limited from wide open, IOW, it is as sharp as it gets. I'd still have to see how it behaves on a camera wih a newer sensor, with higher resolution, but I do expect it to do as well.

 

HTH, kind regards, Wim

 

P.S.: Do note that the readings are done from the RAW-files. I'd expect for processed images to do better.



#9 chrismiller

chrismiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • LocationGlasgow, UK

Posted 02 July 2016 - 09:56 PM

The 300mm f4 is in a different price league. You could buy a 7d and 100-400 for the same cash!

#10 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 02 July 2016 - 09:58 PM

The 300mm f4 is in a different price league. You could buy a 7d and 100-400 for the same cash!

 

That too <ROFL> :).

 

Kind regards, Wim



#11 sundial267

sundial267

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 22 August 2016 - 08:46 PM

My 2Cents.  I like to hike local trails in Pennsylvania and ride a bike along the NJ shore and combine both with photography.  So, for me, weight and size of the gear are critical.  I had a Canon 5Dmk2 and a Canon 100-400mm L series but it was just too much to carry as I got older.  I currently have two M43 cameras (Pana GX8 and Oly EM1) and my preferred carry tele lens is the Panasonic 100-400mm lens.  The first Pana 100-400 had to be returned because it was not sharp.  The second one is crystal clear and pinpoint sharp.  I mainly shoot birds stationary and in flight and have no problems with the AF-C, speed or accuracy of the Pana 100-400 on the GX8.  It is IMHO, every bit as good as was my Canon 5Dmk2 and the Canon 100-400 lens but it far less weight to carry.  To put this in context I also have a Nikon D810 and several lenses that I use for landscape photography, but it is a load to carry around, and works best when I am driving in the car.  However, must admit, I do love those big sharp image files that it generates.  So to return to my main point, M43 equipment is perfect for someone my age who likes to walk and ride a bike because it is all about size and weight traded against image file size.



#12 nandadevieast

nandadevieast

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • LocationMumbai

Posted 04 February 2017 - 11:42 AM

Experts,
Can you explain to me the DOF characteristics of this lens vs a vis Canon 100-400 ii ?
Both are similar lenses, being 100-400mm in full frane terms, so the DOF and background blur should be similar?

#13 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 February 2017 - 02:57 PM

You want to compare DOF of 400mm with DOF of 800mm (equivalent)? What use does that have for you, exactly?



#14 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 04 February 2017 - 06:00 PM

Experts,
Can you explain to me the DOF characteristics of this lens vs a vis Canon 100-400 ii ?
Both are similar lenses, being 100-400mm in full frane terms, so the DOF and background blur should be similar?

 

In terms of field of view and aperture, the Panansonic 100-400 f4-6.3 on MFT is equivalent to a 200-800 f8-12.6 lens on a full frame system (which of course doesn't exist).


--Florent

Flickr Page


#15 nandadevieast

nandadevieast

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • LocationMumbai

Posted 06 February 2017 - 05:22 PM

Thanks

#16 nandadevieast

nandadevieast

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • LocationMumbai

Posted 07 February 2017 - 09:04 PM

@klaus, will you review this lens?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de