At 100% zoom I can see the 200mm has more "pop" (for example 18:26) as opposed to 400mm which looks more flat, but I would have loved if you zoomed more on than P1016421 so it's exactly the same size in the frame as the 400 one Is it the difference in f stop that creates this effect, or is it the lens itself? I wonder to what extent the fact you can use f2.8/f4 helps with producing more quality shots as there's just so much more light to work with P.S. Thanks for delivering on the video!
I’d say it’s both, the shallower depth of field helps a bit, the lens is sharper, it renders better. I’m finding that up to 100% crops the 200mm is still delivering a sharper image but sometimes with less compression. They’re definitely both very capable and very different lenses. My summary advice, someone should buy whatever one suits their needs better. If one broke and I only had the other, I’d be fine getting results, so that reassures me for sure!
@stevenunez I’ve never used it but I’ve heard it can be pretty tight. Mkii isn’t loose or tight. I’ve had a lot of zooms over the years and this feels the same as any other one I’ve had no issues with. Light enough that it doesn’t creep, but still easy to turn.
would you be able to share the files please? youtube's 1080p compression looks pretty bad on bigger screens and in some parts where you're editing it's hard to tell if anything even changes (sharpness, lens blur) at least the martin and the jay (400, 200 and 280)?
I was wondering what the performance of the 100-400ii is at 300x2 with a teleconverter. Every test I see just goes for the longest end, but I would like to have it as a 600mm alternative without carrying a second body. And yes, I don’t see why the 100-400 has that bad “forum only” fame. I have loved it so far, pretty sharp and cropable, and can use a monopod or flash for the aperture issues.
You’re talking at 300mm with a 2x teleconverter? I’m pretty confident saying that would stink. I know a very talented shooter who has the 2x and it’s totally unusable on the lens for any semblance of image quality. I do like the 1.4 for video usage but have yet to get a still image that felt decent with it. I would say you can comfortably crop the lens to 600mm in most cases. I definitely try not tk go farther than that.
@@dasaenI’ve shot 2x teleconverters on many lenses, from low to mid to high end. I’ve only ever found them acceptable on a 300 2.8 prime. Most 1.4s have been solid but I’d definitely skip a 2x. Glad to help!
Hello Mike Riley you have to admit that every time you buy a camera you of course seem convinced that you have in your possession the best camera this was the case with the Fuji X-h2S with the Z9 here with the G9ii. When I look at your images here where some also benefit from a slightly pronounced sharpness adjustment on Lightroom to be honest I find the images sharp but at the same time not exceptional either now via RUclips it is difficult to form an opinion. In another video you seem to compare the RF200-800 with the 100-400ii and you even say that the 100-400ii compares... So when I see the image quality that I produce with my R7 and my RF200-800 I'm a little surprised... So while this comment may seem negative, on the contrary you made me want to test the GH7 or the G9ii with the 100-400ii! A friend has the G9ii. I often go on photo outings with it and for birds in flight I find its AF so much less responsive than my R7 but is it using the right settings? To be continued! Hello from France, Ludovic
Well for one, you can’t really trust sharpness on RUclips compression. But yes, the 100-400ii is absolutely just as sharp as the rf200-800. And that was just as sharp as the Fuji 200-800. I don’t really care about lab tests, but it in the real world, they’re all sharp lenses. The Fuji lens is lighter than the canon which was a win. The Lumix is way smaller and lighter than both, cheaper than both and fits in a tiny bag as a daily carry. That’s why it’s easily my choice. I personally wouldn’t use an 800mm lens on an apsc body and while the r8 gives you a bit more leeway in low light, I sold the 200-809 because I thought it was too big and I didn’t like using it. Not to say there’s something wrong with it, but I wanted a very portable wildlife kit and m43 did that better. I still very much like the xh2s, but the video tracking autofocus wasn’t reliable for animals so that made wildlife filming pretty tough. The canon and Lumix kits have been way better. I’d say the Lumix is better video autofocus and the canon is better stills, but they both work fine. I’d only switch from m43 for wildlife purposes if I knew I’d be shooting on a tripod at a hide or something.
@@heymikeriley Thank you for this feedback and sharing your different experiences with these different brands! The weight argument is indeed a very important argument! I'm going to look into renting the 100-400ii to do a comparison test with my 200-800. The GH7 particularly appeals to me with access to the ARRI LOG C3! I wish you lots of fun photographing in nature. Best, Ludovic
Yea sadly my library management was bad and most of the 200-800 shots I took in the month I owned the lens got deleted lol. Nothing of note, but would have been handy for image quality tests. Honestly the lens results are very similar. So close that I don’t think it matters. Form and function is where they differ. If I still shot canon, the 200-800 is a great option. I’d much prefer a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens like the Lumix though. Today I had a snake outside my office and was shooting it at 800mm from 4’ away, that’s pretty cool to be able to do. And it really compresses the background nicely too. But then, you’ve got to be comfortable using micro four thirds to get away with a lens that small. But the options are nice to have at least!
At 100% zoom I can see the 200mm has more "pop" (for example 18:26) as opposed to 400mm which looks more flat, but I would have loved if you zoomed more on than P1016421 so it's exactly the same size in the frame as the 400 one
Is it the difference in f stop that creates this effect, or is it the lens itself?
I wonder to what extent the fact you can use f2.8/f4 helps with producing more quality shots as there's just so much more light to work with
P.S. Thanks for delivering on the video!
I’d say it’s both, the shallower depth of field helps a bit, the lens is sharper, it renders better. I’m finding that up to 100% crops the 200mm is still delivering a sharper image but sometimes with less compression. They’re definitely both very capable and very different lenses.
My summary advice, someone should buy whatever one suits their needs better. If one broke and I only had the other, I’d be fine getting results, so that reassures me for sure!
if possible do a Olympus 100-400 vs lumix 100-400 MkII, most of those comparison were vs Mk1
If I ever come across someone with the OM lens I’ll definitely compare!
Is the PL 100-400 II version smooth to zoom?
I’d say so
@@heymikeriley thank you: the first version is stiff!
@stevenunez I’ve never used it but I’ve heard it can be pretty tight. Mkii isn’t loose or tight. I’ve had a lot of zooms over the years and this feels the same as any other one I’ve had no issues with. Light enough that it doesn’t creep, but still easy to turn.
would you be able to share the files please? youtube's 1080p compression looks pretty bad on bigger screens and in some parts where you're editing it's hard to tell if anything even changes (sharpness, lens blur)
at least the martin and the jay (400, 200 and 280)?
Ah sorry I don’t have anywhere to host at the moment. If there’s enough demand I’ll look into getting something for future gear comparisons though.
@heymikeriley you can just create a Dropbox link to a folder for image viewing
@@_mattparish or Flickr
I was wondering what the performance of the 100-400ii is at 300x2 with a teleconverter. Every test I see just goes for the longest end, but I would like to have it as a 600mm alternative without carrying a second body. And yes, I don’t see why the 100-400 has that bad “forum only” fame. I have loved it so far, pretty sharp and cropable, and can use a monopod or flash for the aperture issues.
You’re talking at 300mm with a 2x teleconverter? I’m pretty confident saying that would stink. I know a very talented shooter who has the 2x and it’s totally unusable on the lens for any semblance of image quality.
I do like the 1.4 for video usage but have yet to get a still image that felt decent with it.
I would say you can comfortably crop the lens to 600mm in most cases. I definitely try not tk go farther than that.
@@heymikeriley Thanks! that saves me a lot of work. Just looking for these teleconverters on ebay is a pain haha. I’ll skip it then.
@@dasaenI’ve shot 2x teleconverters on many lenses, from low to mid to high end.
I’ve only ever found them acceptable on a 300 2.8 prime. Most 1.4s have been solid but I’d definitely skip a 2x. Glad to help!
Panning shots are a lot of fun.
Way harder than I anticipated haha
Hello Mike Riley you have to admit that every time you buy a camera you of course seem convinced that you have in your possession the best camera this was the case with the Fuji X-h2S with the Z9 here with the G9ii.
When I look at your images here where some also benefit from a slightly pronounced sharpness adjustment on Lightroom to be honest I find the images sharp but at the same time not exceptional either now via RUclips it is difficult to form an opinion.
In another video you seem to compare the RF200-800 with the 100-400ii and you even say that the 100-400ii compares...
So when I see the image quality that I produce with my R7 and my RF200-800 I'm a little surprised... So while this comment may seem negative, on the contrary you made me want to test the GH7 or the G9ii with the 100-400ii! A friend has the G9ii. I often go on photo outings with it and for birds in flight I find its AF so much less responsive than my R7 but is it using the right settings?
To be continued! Hello from France, Ludovic
Well for one, you can’t really trust sharpness on RUclips compression. But yes, the 100-400ii is absolutely just as sharp as the rf200-800. And that was just as sharp as the Fuji 200-800. I don’t really care about lab tests, but it in the real world, they’re all sharp lenses.
The Fuji lens is lighter than the canon which was a win.
The Lumix is way smaller and lighter than both, cheaper than both and fits in a tiny bag as a daily carry. That’s why it’s easily my choice. I personally wouldn’t use an 800mm lens on an apsc body and while the r8 gives you a bit more leeway in low light, I sold the 200-809 because I thought it was too big and I didn’t like using it. Not to say there’s something wrong with it, but I wanted a very portable wildlife kit and m43 did that better.
I still very much like the xh2s, but the video tracking autofocus wasn’t reliable for animals so that made wildlife filming pretty tough. The canon and Lumix kits have been way better. I’d say the Lumix is better video autofocus and the canon is better stills, but they both work fine. I’d only switch from m43 for wildlife purposes if I knew I’d be shooting on a tripod at a hide or something.
@@heymikeriley Thank you for this feedback and sharing your different experiences with these different brands! The weight argument is indeed a very important argument! I'm going to look into renting the 100-400ii to do a comparison test with my 200-800. The GH7 particularly appeals to me with access to the ARRI LOG C3! I wish you lots of fun photographing in nature.
Best, Ludovic
Yea sadly my library management was bad and most of the 200-800 shots I took in the month I owned the lens got deleted lol. Nothing of note, but would have been handy for image quality tests.
Honestly the lens results are very similar. So close that I don’t think it matters.
Form and function is where they differ. If I still shot canon, the 200-800 is a great option. I’d much prefer a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens like the Lumix though. Today I had a snake outside my office and was shooting it at 800mm from 4’ away, that’s pretty cool to be able to do. And it really compresses the background nicely too.
But then, you’ve got to be comfortable using micro four thirds to get away with a lens that small. But the options are nice to have at least!
@@heymikeriley Thank you for this additional information!
Best, Ludovic