Comparing the Lumix Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 vs Olympus 100-400mm f5-6.3

Occasionally, a rare opportunity presents itself – one you may have previously hesitated to take advantage of. However, when the price becomes truly irresistible, and there are compelling reasons to own two nearly identical lenses, you might find yourself tempted to make the purchase. Such was the situation I encountered.

I already owned the Lumix Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3, which had earned its place as one of my beloved lenses. It impressed me with its exceptional build quality, relatively lightweight, and compact design, making it the perfect companion for my bird and wildlife photography expeditions. I acquired it at a fantastic price, truly a steal. Nevertheless, I noticed that occasionally, the focus would struggle a bit when approaching the far end of its focal range—though not consistently, only on occasion. This minor inconvenience led me to invest in the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro some time ago, which is an outstanding lens in its own right but offers a different shooting experience being a prime lens.

Recently, from an automatic search on a second-hand site that I completely forgot about, I received an unexpected email alert about an Olympus 100-400mm. It turned out to be a great find—a well-maintained lens with a protective filter from day one. Its appearance suggested it had seen very little use, and the price was quite enticing. New models of this lens were priced around €1350 at the time of writing, and the second-hand market typically hovered around €1100—a price I considered somewhat high. My personal rule when buying used gear is to seek at least a 30% discount from the original price, preferably more. In this case, I was fortunate to secure it at a remarkable 40% discount, paying just €800, with an additional €10 for shipping. This irresistible offer was too good to pass up.

Bird and wildlife photographers can never have enough lens range, that’s precisely why I decided to purchase the Olympus 100-400 mm lens. Its compatibility with teleconverters sets it apart from my Leica 100-400 mm, substantially extending its range.

I am not going to do a full review, for that I refer you to Mathieu Gasquet’s review at Mirrorless Comparison. He has made an extensive comparison with photos. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I have added a few photos below that were taken with a lens test chart I found on graphics.cornell.edu. An intriguing aspect is the compatibility of the Olympus lens with teleconverters. However, the more crucial consideration is whether it remains practical to use it handheld, and are the results usable or is the loss of quality too high ? This could significantly enhance the appeal of investing in this lens. Additionally, I am keen on understanding how the handling characteristics compare between these two lenses.

The two lenses compared in size to each other

The two lenses compared in weight to each other, with tripod collars mounted.

The two lenses compared in weight to each other, without tripod collars mounted.

The ISO 12233 Test Chart printed on an A4 and stuck to the window of an outside door.

On the left a photo with the Leica at 400mm, on the right the Olympus at 400mm, both on tripod – uncroped.

Exposure : both @ f6.3 – ISO200 – 1/320s – 400mm with Olympus E-M1X

Photos taken with the Olympus 100-400mm, at 400mm with MC14 and MC20 on tripod – uncroped.

Exposure : MC14 -> f9 – ISO 200 – 1/60s – 560mm, MC20 -> f13 – ISO200 – 1/100s – 800mm

Taken with the Olympus 100-400mm handheld at 400mm and one with MC20 handheld – uncroped.

Exposure : at 400mm – f6.3 – ISO 200 – 1/320s, With MC20 at 800mm : f13 – ISO 200 – 1/100s – Please take note that in the photo captured with the MC20 handheld, there is a slight blurriness observed in the corners. Interestingly, this blurriness is either not noticeable or less pronounced in the photo taken with the camera mounted on a tripod. It appears that the handheld shooting might be the reason behind this slight blur.

I captured all the photos with an Olympus E-M1X, from a distance of around 8 meters, ensuring the A4 sheet filled the frame without any cropping. The outdoor conditions were quite dynamic, with intermittent sunshine and clouds, leading to constantly shifting lighting. These conditions didn’t offer the stability of a controlled lab environment. My main goal was to assess whether both lenses delivered similar image quality, whether using a teleconverter was feasible, and if handheld photography with a teleconverter was possible. In my opinion, both lenses performed admirably and lived up to their respective capabilities.

So I’ve listed my personal impressions with both lenses here below:

• The Leica lens provides a more professional feel when held due to its substantial metal construction, which contrasts distinctly with the predominantly plastic build of the Olympus lens. This gives a clear advantage to the Leica lens.
• Regarding the tripod setup, the Leica lens has a fixed rotatable collar, but you can remove the protruding tripod mount to save 75g in weight. In contrast, the Olympus lens allows you to remove the entire tripod collar, resulting in a more substantial weight reduction of 202g. Despite this, the metal-built Leica lens remains lighter than the Olympus lens, with a difference of 1047g versus 1230g. Therefore, the Leica lens holds a notable advantage of approximately 200g.
• The Leica lens’s significant size reduction is quite noticeable, as depicted in the photo above. This not only applies to its length but also to its diameter, which appears smaller than that of the Olympus lens. This distinction becomes particularly evident to me since I predominantly shoot handheld. Furthermore, when zoomed to its maximum magnification, the Leica lens extends more than the Olympus, resulting in a longer extension tube. As a consequence, the Leica lens feels much sleeker and more comfortable when shooting handheld. In contrast, the Olympus lens’s larger diameter contributes to a bulkier and less ergonomic feel in hand. Hence, the Leica lens undoubtedly gains an advantage in this aspect.
• However, when it comes to handling, the Olympus lens has a slight edge. It provides an extra setting for adjusting the autofocus distance limitation, and the inclusion of the lFN button, which can be assigned to AF, proves extremely handy during handheld photography. This earns a point in favor of the Olympus lens.
• The retractable lens hood of the Olympus lens (despite being plastic) offers added convenience, but I must admit it’s more of a personal preference rather than a substantial advantage in practical lens usage.
• One of the remarkable features of the Olympus lens is its compatibility with teleconverters, namely the MC14 and MC20. This capability is especially advantageous for bird and wildlife photography, as it allows for extended reach without compromising sharpness significantly. With the MC14, the lens reaches an impressive 560mm, providing a FOV of 1120mm, while the MC20 takes it to 800mm, delivering an astonishing FOV of 1600mm. Although there is some light loss with the MC20, I managed to capture a handheld test shot at f13 ISO 200, 1/100 sec indoors, proving its usability. By adjusting the ISO settings, one can achieve acceptable results with a faster shutter speed. Overall, this stands as a notable advantage for the Olympus lens in my opinion.
• Here’s a little tip regarding stabilization: If you’re using the Leica 100-400mm lens with an Olympus camera (excluding the E-M10), make sure to set it to “Lens IS Priority.” This setting works remarkably well, primarily due to the lens’s lightweight and compact design, which helps minimize unintentional movements while shooting. However, if you’re capturing “Birds in Flight” or employing panning techniques, it’s best to turn off the lens stabilization. If you want to delve deeper into topics like IBIS, using Panasonic lenses, and lens switches, you can find more valuable information in Robin Wong’s content : Check Your Image Stabilization Settings! Olympus OM-D Tips

My conclusion in summary:

I am not someone who strongly adheres to brands or habits in photography; for me, the equipment just needs to meet my requirements. By “meeting my requirements,” I mean acceptable image quality and ease of use in the field, considering factors like complexity, weight, and size.

I believe the Leica 100-400mm lens strikes the perfect balance between lens range, image quality, weight, and portability. Its compact design allows for easy transportation in a small backpack or even a messenger bag. Moreover, it outperforms the Olympus lens when shooting handheld. Regardless of what anyone says, a shorter lens with a lower overall weight has an impact on capturing sharp photos handheld and even just being able to take the shot without scaring away your subject by movement, especially when you have to hold the lens/camera combination steady for minutes on end.

With that said, it’s essential to consider that each of us encounters unique situations. There have been instances where getting closer to the subject, be it a bird or an animal, was simply unfeasible. Also, in some cases, using a tripod becomes more practical. Additionally, some individuals may have better physical capabilities to handle longer and heavier lenses comfortably for prolonged periods.

In terms of image quality, there are minimal differences between the two lenses from my perspective. So, you’ll need to weigh the potential trade-offs: choose the Leica for a smaller range but better weight and portability, or opt for the Olympus with more range (if converter used) but slightly higher weight and decreased handling ease. There is, of course, a third option – simply go ahead and purchase both, just as I did 🙂

---

La Gallerie

The photo gallery of Open Source Photography, Olympus micro 4/3 system, Vintage Lens Photograpy, Film Simulation, PictureFX, HDR – Photographer : Marc R.