You're totally right, most people in the world don't have the skill or knowledge to be able to pixel peep the difference between a MFT or FF, or for that matter, even a smartphone from an MFT. However, that still doesn't mean that subliminally there can be a difference. There is a reason why subconsciously, why 99% of us would choose the good FF image vs the good MFT image if opportunity were identical and compared side-by-side. MFT has value in it's line and undoubtably appeals to certain people just like how you said for you it appeals to you in portability, but it's also important to know what you're sacrificing. Every tool has it's strengths and weaknesses, MFT: chooses to sacrifice image quality for portability and price. It's simple physics at the end of the day how much you can cleanly fit on a sensor at the moment and that's why FF wins in IQ. It's not without reason the biggest productions buy the most expensive gear. The whole industry isn't unintelligent for that choice. MFT is great and perfect for many hobbiest or creators, but, as someone who has been in the client production industries and ran a business there, I know first hand that MFT didn't cut it for some levels of business.

@@JeremyNeipp yes totally agree. I was just saying that this aspect of the lens was not addressed in the video. Thanks for your reply 👍 was really insightful

You’re right, I definitely could have addressed that more 👌 I do in some of my MFT reviews but I must not have in this one, it’s been a long time since I made it so I don’t even remember haha. Thanks for your input 🙌🏻

Print more and peep less!

Thanks Don! Yea it’s a solid telephoto lens for travel and I was happy during my time using it as my main wildlife lens a few years back. Glad you liked it!

Thanks for the encouragement! Definitely always hope to point out all sides of a piece of gear in my reviews. Hope it helped!

Thanks man! Yea I try to mix it up to not always be indoors haha. It's been difficult to get out recently since I'm having 60+ hour work weeks lately but I do my best haha. I know! 1k will come soon hopefully!

Also, if I am not mistaken, the Mk 1 with Mega OIS cannot do Dual IS. That feature is exclusive to the Mk II with Power OIS.

And better focus ring on the V2

lol, he may be just one of these clueless youtube kinds posing as an expert, at least he had enuf brains to put a right amazon link for mk2 (you know, the only important thing for all these YT talking heads is to make ppl buy any crap they advertise)

I have the mk 2 got some great shots with it,

I noticed this, too... He's telling how it's sealed, and I'm like Bro, no you got the old one 😅

Hey Bruce, thanks for the compliment and you are most definitely right. Price and size are the two biggest driving factors for a MFT system as compared to FF for 97% of all MFT shooters I talk too. I actually did create a video comparing the differences between Full Frame and Micro-Four Thirds systems already. You can find it on my BEYOND THE SHOT playlist called "Does Sensor Size Really Make A Difference?" I hope that helps you in your comparisons!

Thank you! Yea it's a great lens for being so light weight and affordable. Glad to hear you have been liking it too.

Yes this first version also does not support Panasonic DFD because the focus motor and aperture mechanism is too slow. Optical performance should be the same.

Thanks man! Most definitely, if you look around my channel you should find answers to all those questions you asked. I have videos showing how I pull focus, what I use my telephoto lenses like this one for (which is all wildlife photography), and many other things. In regards to the ISO, that depends on the camera body not the lens, so I recommend you watch one of my camera review videos to see those features such as the G9 review video I pair with this lens specifically. Also, in regards to telephoto lenses, there is virtually no situations in which you would use a filter to answer that question. I hope that helps!

Or what the lens can do at all. More sample footage/pictures, less talking head. It’s a video about a lens after all.

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you so much! Appreciate the encouragement.

Thanks man! I appreciate it and hope you continue to enjoy the channel!

Thank you for the encouragement!

That’s awesome! Glad to hear you’re enjoying it ☺️ I don’t throw filters on this lens, it’s pretty hardy and not worth the hassle at the price point for me to through a filter on to protect it. And ND’s are very rarely desired in wildlife photography, and polarizers would give a weird look in my opinion. But, if you’re worried about damage it’s definitely not bad to get something protective

No problem! I'm glad it helped in your decision. To be honest, I didn't think I was ever going to switch to full frame earlier in my career when I was a purely MFT shooter, but eventually when my business picked up enough and my skill level increased, it just became inevitable. Just some advice from a person that was in your shoes in the past haha. Let me know if you have any other questions!

I had the same choice and opted for the Leica 100-400 otherwise I’m sure I would have regretted it. It is very sharp and worth the extra. I did get it used from eBay so not so bad.

That's awesome Michael! Glad you've been happy with your lens choice. Nothing better than feeling like you made good use of your money.

Yep I had lots of similar thoughts back in the day when I was purchasing and have now lived those experiences! Hope you have fun with it all.

Thanks Greg! Most definitely. It does affect it a little if you’re using something basic like a cheap ballhead tripod for example. It will wind up setting slightly lower than you angle it. However, if you use a higher or more sturdy tripod head like a video head or gimbal head you’ll be able to either balance it well enough on the plate since it’s a small lens for a telephoto, or the head is strong enough to hold the weight

@@JeremyNeipp Thanks for the advice. Do you recommend any tripods that are reasonable that would do this? Thanks

Hey Greg! It is hard to get a tripod that doesn't cost a lot that does the job really well for wildlife photography. If you wanted to go really affordable you can go for something like a Ballhead, however, you will experience a little lack of accuracy when locking it into place due to the weight of the lens. Next level up you can go for a video head. These work great and will lock off powerfully, however, they are heavy and clunky so that's the inconvenience of them even though they are relatively affordable. Lastly you can go for a gimbal head setup which is by far the most expensive, but its magical in practicality and functionality. I'll list the links below: Ball Head:amzn.to/3qvXaVY Video Head: amzn.to/3szDfbi Gimbal Head (2 Links): amzn.to/3z6db8U amzn.to/3eureLH

It is a little sticky, I’ve reviewed many more lenses since these early days of reviews and I can tell tell how “cheap” this lens is in retrospect, but it will be hard to find any smooth zoom and focus ring lens at this price point

@@JeremyNeipp noted, thank you!!

Personally, I would 100% go for the lens first! It’s a game changer going from a 150mm focal length to a 300mm on the MFT system and will allow you to get shots you physically couldn’t have gotten before. The G7 yo G9 upgrade is also great, but definitely not as large of a difference as that lens switch.

Unfortunately no

no, it can't cover the APSC sensor

Yes and yes! This lens works great with the GH5 and if you’re only looking to film wildlife and nothing else, you can get away with just purchasing this one lens. If you’re ever looking to learn how to film well and create your own KZfaq channel I offer mentorships as well. If you’re interested let me know and I can send you more details!

@@JeremyNeipp oh thank you so much! Yes i could be intrested!

You can send me an email at jeremy.neipp@gmail.com if you’re interested in the Mentorship and I can send you the details to you personallt!

Thank you! And It does!

@@JeremyNeipp great thanks for reply, I'm still deciding on which one is for me. Your video seems the best.

Yea there is a difference. It is supposed to be a little better cause it can do dual I.S. as opposed to having to select one from either the body or the lens.

@@JeremyNeipp oh i see. Thanks. Besides the dual IS is there any image quality improvement too?

There is a slight improvement but nothing crazy. I would still argue unless you’re wanting to spend over $1k it’s probably about as good as you’ll get for the MFT lineup though

That's awesome! Best of wishes on your new venture wanting to shoot wildlife. Personally, I would never use as low as a 150mm MFT for wildlife, however, that is considering that I mostly shoot birds. For other wildlife, that would be the low end of what I would use, but for birds, 150mm is nearly never enough. If you are wanting a better mix of length vs. low light, check out this test I did over on this video I'll include in the link below... turned out AMAZING and if I had to go back knowing what I know now, I would have invested into this lens for my MFT camera originally. Let me know what you think! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oryKnsqGsdzLfGw.html

@@JeremyNeipp Lol now I’m really on the fence. Another fantastic review! It’s interesting you did this, because I was considering buying a used Canon EF 100-400 IS for $800 and a speed booster $449. That’s $1100 vs 1700. Appreciate your thoughts.

Glad to help! Yea that’s a hard choice, that Sigma 150-600mm in the video I used often goes on sale down to $1,000, so if you’re patient as well you may get a better price on it.

Hey Troy, just saw the Sigma 150-600mm is on sale and just wanted to let you know in case you hadn't seen it. Better price now than ever haha. amzn.to/2Xc6EqS

@@JeremyNeipp Hey thanks for the heads up Jeremy. I’ve decided to purchase the Panasonic 100-300. 1) price 2) the reach for such a small lens is amazing, and 3) I do a fair amount of video. Shooting video with that Sigma wouldn’t be ideal. Ha. I’m sure it will make the bag eventually Thanks again for the feedback and content. Love your work. You should entertain doing an in the field workshop.

I’d say this is the perfect lens for a camera like that! You can’t get too much cheaper in the super telephoto range so this almost as close to baseline as you can get

It's a hard choice! You should check out this video I made below, it might give you a better option! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oryKnsqGsdzLfGw.html

@@JeremyNeipp just watched it. Must have missed that one. I would love that lens but I think now its not a lot cheaper than the 100-400 in the UK and the speed booster would take it past it by a few hundred. Plus its twice the weight of the 100-400 and I was thinking that was heavy 😀 It gave me an idea of what the extra reach would give me though. I am tempted to get the olympus 75-300 and the Panasonic 100-400. The olympus can be had for £329 and it would be for the times I wanted to pack light. I walk a lot and I'm not sure how heavy I really want. I just used to carry my bridge camera around before on walks and that was like 1.5lbs.

Hey Inaki! I have not, as far as I know, that lens actually hasn't been released yet (am I wrong??). I know they had some plans for it but last I checked they haven't released it to the public yet. However, with that being said, I know they are planning on it being in a similar range as the price for the Lumix 100-400mm so in my opinion, it will probably have similar results. For me, that means it wouldn't be worth it as opposed to the 100-300. What are you planning on using your telephoto lens for? That also will help you decide on which type of lens you should grab.

@@JeremyNeipp Haha actually I'm totally wrong ! I could have sworn there's been an Olympus 100-400mm on the market for a while but I guess I confused it with another lens. I was probably thinking about the 75-300, so in the same price range as the Lumix 100-300mm. I want to do a little bit of wildlife but I don't live in an area where there is a lot of "interesting" animals(I live near Paris)so I'm probably gonna shoot wildlife mostly during my trips. So for that use I'm not planning to buy a 1000+ $ lens, not for a while anyway !

Haha most definitely! Well my recommendation would be the Panasonic 100-300mm, but to be honest I have never used the 75-300mm so I can't give a real opinion on that. Especially thought if you are shooting with a Panasonic system, you might as well stay within the brand of Panasonic for that extra compatibility with image stabilization.

@@JeremyNeipp You're right that's definitely a good reason to stick with the Panasonic one. But I'm still hoping for a good discount on the Leica 🤞

It's actually Costco brand! A great hoodie, unfortunately I can't send a link cause I just bought it in the store.

@@JeremyNeipp, thank you so much.

Thanks for your comment! Yes the price I quoted and link I included in my description was actually the updated version. You are right that mine is the older OIS version, however to be honest, they difference in image stabilization in my opinion is relatively minimal between Mega and Power and has mostly been hype around it. In regards to the compatible dual I.S., it is my understanding that Panasonic varies it lens to lens. Anotherwards, not every Power O.I.S. lens has it and some Mega O.I.S. lenses do have it with updates, however, that subject seems to be pretty murky haha. I wouldn't know about the autofocus differences, however, I can say even the "older" version I own still does AF lightning fast. It's a matter of the accuracy which is controlled by the camera body that I still find myself unsatisfied by with the Panasonic system. It's amazing you got a new one for the price you mentioned, that must have been a steal! I believe I purchased mine back in the day for around $550 so a good amount more than you got yours.

Yep! Made for a camera like that one

I got the Oly 75-300 MkII w/ a Panasonic body and even if the lens is objectively sharper than the Pana 100-300 MkI & MkII (with the best results at the widest aperture, that's rare !), the lack of stabilization and the fact that it is a f/4.8-6.7 make the lens less interesting in practice (without mentionning that it is not weather sealed). In comparison to a Dual IS and an aperture of f/4-5.6, if you have a Pana body there is no reason to pick the Oly (at this point in focal lenghts, you're not getting that much "wider" at 75mm instead of 100)

Better stick with brand to brand then.

Hey Ray! That's awesome thanks for your input, and thank you for the compliment! It's great to hear your experience with the Fz camera, it's important to remember that there are many reasons for the sharpness turning out like it did in your tests. Firstly, when being shot in jpeg, the sensor automatically tries to enhance the sharpness of an image, so comparing a jpeg shot to a camera that is meant to shoot RAW are incorrect comparisons. If you take that RAW image and through it into a editing program and do the proper edits you are supposed to on it, I guarantee you'll find the results better on a RAW image shot. By nature, RAW is simply a drastically better format. I have example images of the difference between RAW and jpeg files in which you can see the drastic differences in ability to recover highlights and shadows, and details in images. (Someday I plan on making a video showing these examples). Also, I'm sure that you have heard this before, but it really is true that lenses that try to specialize in everything often specialize in nothing... meaning that lenses that cover huge focal distances always have sacrifices in other areas of their IQ. While the 24-480mm gives terrific range, there is a big sacrifice of chromatic aberration, corner sharpness, etc. Ultimately, you get what you pay for, as seen primely in the example of why people pay tens of thousands of dollars for specialized super telephoto prime lenses. While there is no doubt that the Lumix 100-400mm is a better lens than the 100-300mm, for 3x the price, it isn't worth it for me due to the reasons I listed in the video. If I am going to be spending that amount of money personally, I would much rather do it the right way, than investing into something slightly better yet 3x the cost. If I were to ever invest into another telephoto lens for MFT, (which I won't because it just makes more sense to invest into a proper FF system and lens) I would much rather invest into Olympus' 300mm prime than the Lumix 100-400mm because of the superior low light and image sharpness. All in all however, this is my opinion and definitely isn't law! Thanks again for your input.

@@JeremyNeipp Your welcome ! I'm glade I started down my photography road - 3.5 yrs now in retirement - learning on the Pany Fz 2500 - with the integrated touch screen, lots of function capabilities & well designed menu, it was & is ' fun ' to use. Besides the G9 being a big step up in many respects, It's sensor size is over twice that of my Fz . I get the points you made @ shooting RAW, editing, & having good glass & I'm moving in that direction. I have subscribed & thanks for responding. Looking to capture/shoot a Great Blue Heroin this Sunday at sunup.

Of course I am always glad to talk! I hope you capture beautiful photos of that Heron!

I have the 100-300mm and love the light weight. I recently bought a Sony RX10 IV and compared long zoom shots and found that the Sony is a sharper. I’ve owned an FZ2500 in the past and found it to be pretty sharp as well. I still have an FZ1000. . Now I am selling the 100-300 in favor of the 400. I haven’t tried one yet but your feedback certainly reinforces what I am expecting. Thanks!

Hey Rod! Thanks for your input. I am actually releasing a video in 1 week from now on an awesome alternative to the 100-400mm, I would highly suggest waiting to watch that video before making a decision if you do upgrade! I am glad you have enjoyed your 100-300mm and hope you continue to love it while you use it!

I've actually only ever shot with the 100-400 5 times in my whole life, so I'm not sure where you got that it's all I shoot with haha. But, I still feel very indifferent about it and it's pretty much just a standard purchase if you're on the MFT line anyways, but nothing phenomenal and not quite very low budget friendly like this 100-300. If you're looking for a really nice piece of glass on MFT I'd suggest checking out my Olympus 300mm f/4 review.

@@JeremyNeipp thank you! Sorry about my assumptions

Actually I've seen its not as sharp as the 100-300. Varies per lens perhaps.

Exactly, the best camera is the one you have with you. Sure, full-frame is better in quality, but not everyone wants to carry around a whole studio with them all the time. It's an incredible hassle, and I've met a good share of people who upgraded from full-frame to micro four thirds for that reason alone.

That is true! The zoom ring is clean on the 100-400.