Jerrin1 wrote:
Some time ago I owned 2 x Olympus EM1 bodies plus an Olympus 300mm f4, an Olympus 1.4TC, a PanaLeica 100 - 400mm and a number of other Olympus lenses. As I photograph wildlife almost exclusively, I used to take out both cameras with the 300mm +/- the 1.4 TC on one and the PanaLeica 100 - 400mm on the other. At that time, I also owned a Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR + Nikkor TC14EIII. In December 2016 I swapped my 2 x EM1 bodies for a single EM1 mark II. As I owned the said Nikon system, I decided I no longer required both my Oly 300mm and my PanaLeica 100 - 400mm: but which one should I keep? I set up an very hairy cuddly toy at a distance of about 15m/30ft and tested each lens against my D500 + Nikkor 300mm, both with and without the 1.4TC. The quality of the images produced by the Nikkor 300mm and the Oly 300mm were indistiguishable to my eyes, both with and without their respective 1.4 teleconverters. Though the PanaLeica was very good, it did appear inferior to the Oly and Nikkor, though not by much. The beauty of the PanaLeica 100 - 400mm is that it produces great results, it is more versatile than a prime lens, and it is lightweight. If, however, you favour better image quality, then the 300mm f4 wins out, even with the 1.4TC fitted. Whether it is worth the extra cost is down to the individual: for me it was. I must ephasise that I was very happy with the performance of my PanaLeica 100 - 400mm; and had I owned 2 x EM1.2 bodies instead of a single EM1.2 and a D500, I would have kept the PanaLeica.
Some time ago I owned 2 x Olympus EM1 bodies plus ... (
show quote)
Thank you Jerrin1, very informative and great user info. That is my issue now, trying to decide if the 300 F/4 is worth the cost and IQ over the 100-400. The Pany 100-400 does produce great results in good light even wide open.