Over the last couple of days I posted a lot of photos that I took in late May and June. In ways these posts, and a couple of others (like this one) from mid-May, were all leading up to this quick review of my new lens, an Olympus 100-400 5.0-6.3. Just as a reminder, here are the last few posts:
Photos – Everything but the Osprey…
Photos – Osprey!
Photos – Lens Review (This post)
(All photos on this page were taken with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II and the new 100-400 lens except photo of lenses uses Olympus 12-40 2.8)
A super quick background – I started with the original Olympus four-thirds camera, the E1, and the excellent 50-200 2.8-3.5 lens. I later picked up a 1.4 converter to get up to 280mm to compete with the 300s. This was my favorite lens of all time.
When I started micro four-thirds with the EM-5 some seven years later (2012), that beautiful lens didn’t work quite right, so I picked up a micro four-thirds tele-zoom, the 75-300 4.8-6.7. The lens was OK, but not great.
Five years later I picked up my current camera, the E-M1 mark II. I continued to use that same lens, even though the “flaws” were more apparent on the new camera. There were just no better options, at least in a price range I could afford.
And then there was a new option, the 100-400 5.0-6.3. Still expensive, but I saved for a year (yes, I do that) and here it is!
A quick bit about my photography. Maybe 60 to 76% of my telephoto photos are taken from a kayak. I carry my camera even when the water is rough. I took a lot of nature photography, but have experimented with others.
The first big difference in the lens that caught my attention was that the new one is “splash-resistant”. Olympus’ weather-proofing is perhaps the best in the business, or at least they guarantee it to a higher level. The old lens was not weather=proofed at all. As I said, I use it in the kayak when the water is rough.
There is that added 100mm. I was surprised at how much that actually added – I didn’t expect such a big difference. I got some good photos that I would have considered out of range before. Taking photos of the moon gave me a great idea of how much more (this was one of the first photos I took with the new lens)
Here is an actual pixel view of that photo.
The lens is slightly brighter, but nothing to write home about. Still, every little bit helps when photographing flying birds.
The new lens does pretty well with macro-photography. There is a quick switch to make it easy to move from distant photography to macro.
There is another switch to go to manual focus. A good example is the following catbird photo. First, it would have been out of range for the 300. The auto-focus kept focusing in on the twigs that are in front of the bird. I did a quick switch to manual and got this photo that would have been impossible with the other lens.
Oh, and this squirrel had to be manual focus:
The lens also has built in image stabilization. This is needed at 400mm on micro four-thirds (equivalent to an 800 mm on a full frame!) the camera itself has good image stabilization, and the two can either work together very well, but sometimes “fight”. Still, when I was using the camera properly, I was easily able to get great handheld photos from a moving kayak of flying birds that were very sharp to the pixel level.
On the negative side, the lens is large, heavy and awkward. I experimented with it and finally found a good way to carry it while walking and a more convenient way for kayaking. The problem is, as I used my “new way” of carrying it, I had been accidentally adjusting aperture, slowly increasing the f-number/decreasing the size. Most of the osprey photos were taken at f18. That is small (size) and dark! First, the images aren’t quite as sharp at 6.5. And then I was getting more motion blur than expected. I cranked up the ISO and did some at 1600, which lessens the quality (noisier and and not as sharp). I finally found the issue and will now look for it.
Final outcome – I am very happy with the lens. There is something about the way a photo looks with a better lens. the old 50-200 had it in spades, and the 200-400 does much better than the 75-300 for this esthetic quality. I was also surprised at how good the photos look at the pixel level. One of the hawk photos I posted a couple of days ago was actually up-sized more than double (the photo was 400 pixels wide, I changed to 1000) and yet it looks as clear as photos that I downsized (not this photo – but this is at 100%, no up-sizing or downsizing)
Because of all of the issues I had, most self-created, I couldn’t do a true review. I did a few side by side photos with the two telephoto lenses, but not scientific. All of this is just feel. But I do feel that this lens is much better in all ways. Being splash-proof is a big relief. The extra length helps, as does that little extra brightness. But most of all I like the photos better.
Trent's World (the Blog) 
wow! Thanks, I did not know that lenses were that complicated and adjustable. I still have the original lens when I purchased my camera, am playing with the idea of a new lens, but not sure where to turn. At moment I am using Cannon, but find the stabilizing terrible, I think I must first get a better camera before looking at lenses. Thank you, very insightful indeed
LikeLike
There is a lot that goes on… I know Canon makes very good equipment, thought the high end can be pricey. There are a lot of good resources on line. I used to spend a lot of time in the forums on DP Review (www.dpreview.com) which is a good resource. Can get a lot of info from some of the people there.
LikeLike
Love your nature photos and question
Shouldn’t all lenses be weather proof m?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
They should be to a small extent. I did get my old lens damp and wiped it down. There are different levels and with what i have, I’ve seen demonstration of people dropping a camera and lens into a tub of water, wiping it down and using it. Olympus has gone out of their way to get the highest official weather-sealing ratings. It isn’t saying a Canon isn’t as well weather-sealed, but they don’t grantee it to the same level as Olympus. So it is one less thing to worry about when out in the kayak when the water is rough. Or out in the pouring rain, or a blizzard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got it !
📷📸
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not a photographer geek but love this post! My dad was so into photography and ended up purchasing a Canon film camera back in the day (the early 70’s). He added many lenses including a long telephoto lens, I think it was called a 200mm but I could be remembering wrong. He let me use it and take it to horse shows. One year I was at a horse show up in Santa Barbara, CA and Paul Newman and his wife were there watching their daughter ride and show her horse. That telephoto lens came in handy as I took so many photos of Paul Newman without needing to be that close. 😍 I still have those photos (and tons more of my photos and ones my dad took) in boxes. Hahaha, one day maybe when I retire I need to go thru old photos.
Sorry for going down memory lane as I enjoy photography but with the cell phones these days I haven’t kept up with a nice camera like you have with the lenses. One day I’d like to purchase a nice digital camera. 😀 Excellent photos, and from a kayak, so FUN!! 🤩
LikeLiked by 2 people
Back in the day most lenses were “primes”, not zooms, and zooms often had a bad reputation, so most likely it was a 200 mm. (prime means one focal length, say 50 (very common in film SLRs) while a zoom can be moved between 2 focal lengths, like the lens I was talking about from 100mm to 400mm).
In the school I went to, every class goes to DC after 8th grade year. When my sister was there, they were filming All the President’s Men. Robert Redford came out and all of the kids took every photo they could. A few minutes later, the real Robert Redford came out and they discovered they had wasted film on a double. My sister did get one shot of the real actor.
Anyway, since I tend to think of Paul Newman and Robert Redford together, at least in the 70s, your story reminded me of that. You need to dig out those old photos!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the photos :) Yeah, the osprey photos, the egrets and most of the hawks where from the kayak :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh that’s good to know about the prime and the differences between that and zoom. I remember too how we would waste shots and/or develop film and so many photos not turning out! So frustrating! Hahaha, that’s so cool your sister got a shot of Robert Redford, and I too always think of him when I think of Paul Newman!! I devoured that book reading it in one weekend and enjoyed the film All the President’s Men. Now I want to get to my boxes of all my photos so I can share. I took a lot of cool photos with that camera!! 🤠
LikeLiked by 1 person
There were pluses and minuses with having limited shots and no immediate feedback. On the plus side it made you really think out each shot. You only clicked when you were sure, because film and developing was so expensive! So you really had to think and learn (which I never did until I bought a real SLR). Now we can take 20 million photos and pick out the ones that work. And then, back in the day a professional would be able to crop, play with color, exposure, etc. in the lab, while most of us just dropped off the film and picked up whatever they gave to us. Now everyone can do magic with PhotoShop (or cheaper versions). Yep, you need to dig out those boxes :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love the moon shot (those craters!) and the macro shot of the bee. I’m just starting to learn about lenses. Long-Suffering Husband bought his first DSLR last year, and I borrow it now and then to take pics. I learned on a Pentax K1000 when I was a teenager, but I never swapped lenses or learned much more than aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.
LikeLike
Small world – I started on a K1000 back in the 90s. It was a great learning camera.
Did you click on the second moon photo to pull it up closer to full screen size? I’ll admit that I “upsized” that one, but still, you don’t add detail when you upsize…
LikeLike
Amazing shots, Trent!
Mmmm the cat is my fave. Can’t help it. Cats always win!!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Reasa! The real cat is great and I like that photo of him.
LikeLike
Pingback: If We Were Having Coffee on the 9th of July, 2022 #weekendcoffeeshare | Trent's World (the Blog)
As someone who didn’t follow all the more technical aspects of this post … these pics are lovely!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Deborah! With phone photos being so good these days, few really follow the technical end of photography any more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am struggling so bad with focus since I got the Nikon 6ii. Well, since I got the Nikon 6 which was replaced with the Nikon 6ii in an effort to get faster focus. Now I’m thinking maybe it’s the lens(es). It can’t possibly be ME…right? :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Faster focus can be lens or lens/camera body combination… For a lot of telephoto work, I zoom out and zoom in what I want to photograph and am usually able to get a better focus that way. Of course these modern cameras are auto-focus, so it can’t be the user ;) Oh, going back a bit, my old lens that I loved, the issue with it is that it is super sluggish when trying. If something is standing still, I can manual focus quicker. Flying birds? Maybe a 5% hit rate at best…
LikeLike
That’s the lens I always wanted but can’t afford. These day, we have to save just to put oil in the tank for heat this winter. I had — and didn’t like — the Olympus 75-300. I sold it and bought the Panasonic (think Leica) 100-300 which I love. It’s a bit faster (f4 wide open) and unlike the Olympus 75-300, it’s sharp. I use it with the same camera – the E-M1 mark II. It doesn’t have quite the length, but it’s close enough for me 90% of the time. It’s a much smoother lens than the 75-300 and noticeably sharper and faster. It cost a couple of hundred dollars more than the Olympus, but was worth it. I’d love the 100-400, but it’s out of the question right now. I’m glad you like it. It gives me something to yearn for!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I said “no options”, I was ignoring Panasonic, wasn’t I? After I picked up the E-M1 mii I did look at that lens, but I didn’t think it was worth it, particularly since I didn’t think I’d be able to sell my Oly 75-300. The lens actually did a good job with my EM-5 even if not great, but the “flaws” became much more apparent with the EM-1. Panasonic also has a 100-400 that is supposed to be good. I watched a comparison video before I picked up the Oly and they both had their pluses. i think the weather sealing in the Oly is better, and since I use it in a kayak….
Yeah, expensive for us normal people. I said that I saved for a year, but I’ve been earmarking money for it pretty much since it was announced. I wanted to hit a sale – earlier this year it was $100 off plus I had almost $100 worth of points on my credit card so a little easier to take…
I really liked it and a major leap forward from the Oly 75-300, but no surprise there.
LikeLike
The 75-300 was a disappointment. I have lots of Oly lenses and most of them are very good and a few of them are amazing. But their longer lenses are slow and noisy — and not as sharp as they should be. I get very sharp pictures with the Pan 100-300 except when the light is low. It wants light and so often I’m shooting not only through a small window, but into the woods where it’s much darker.
I love the weather-proofing too. I have it on my 12-200 and Garry has it on his 12-100. I use my 12-200 on my Pen F as my “go anywhere, do anything” lens. Except when it gets darker. Then I switch to a different lens, either the prime 25 f1.8 or the 45 f1.8 OR the Sigma prime 30mm f1.4 which is inexpensive (less than $200), FAST, and really sharp. Actually I have a spare. If you want one, get in touch and you can have the spare. I didn’t buy a second one intentionally. I thought it was a different lens. Oops.
You can’t really SELL them because they aren’t expensive, but it’s great for low light. Sigma only makes a couple of 4/3 lenses — this one and a macro “art” lens. I haven’t tried the other one. This one is excellent. I think the only thing wrong is its 30mm odd length — sort of portrait, nearly “normal,” but not exactly either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the most part the shots I’ve taken with the 100-300 have been pretty sharp unless you are pixel peeping. Mine has a “II” after the name, so maybe a remake? One thing – I had a pretty high end EV filter on it, and the E-M1 mii hated it – until I removed it, it was slow and every photo was awful. They had a strange tint and weren’t sharp. It strange, because I did a lot of side by side photos with and without the filter I accidentally found out that was the issue, and there was no difference when shooting with the E-M5 but the E-M1 hated, hated it. It’s odd – I spent hours Googling issues like that, asked about it in forums, etc., and everyone said a filter won’t do that. but it did. (it was the highest end Hoya and five star reviews…) Other thing that I found odd was that every time I posted a photo on the forum at DPReview, I always had at least one person comment “That’s great quality for the 75-300”. Maybe the lens was as bad as you thought, but it worked for me for some reason. But the new 100-400 is much better!
I do have the 45 1.8, but never use it. I did on the E-M5. With the E-M1 I use telephoto at least 75% of the time and use the 12-40 2.8 that I got with the camera the rest of the time. It is a great lens and so, so much better than the 12-40 3.5-6.3 that came with the E-M5. I think what I need is the 75 1.8 – just Googled it and it is $300 off normal price, but I can’t afford even that right now… Hm, actually, the new 40-150 4.0 looks for that price range.
I’m not sure if I’d use the 30 1.4 often. If you still have it in a few months maybe I can meet you in Milford, MA – I occasionally stop there on my way to or from the Cape – and I can take a look at it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Photos (part 2 of 3) – Osprey!! | Trent's World (the Blog)
Pingback: Photos (part 1 of 3) – Everything but the Osprey… | Trent's World (the Blog)