On 7/1/2022 2:14 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
<<In any case, whether it started as a Sigma optical design or not, the end result is fully µ4/3
optimized. The PL 100-400 is clearly designed from scratch, whether in Germany or Japan, or <<most
likely, both, for µ4/3, and the newer Oly is easily at least as good. (MikeG is silently thinking
"better at the long end"
Yes, silently at first but now official. ;-) That was my first impression
when the lens was released looking at sample images though there was some
variability. The PL also at 400mm seems to match the object size at 342mm on
the Oly??? Since when is 400 mm not 400mm.
I don't know what you were looking at; how they may have screwed up?
I just took a couple of quick, hand held grab shots @ 400 mm. In the center, there is just no difference in image size.
Farther out, some difference in distortion.
Oly is a little sharper, although I wouldn't bank on the amount unless taken on tripod, with OIS and IBIS off. I may do
that. 😁
Perhaps the Oly is slightly sharper at f5 sharper than the PL wide open at
F4. he PL also tends to produce some busy double edged bokeh.
Bokeh is so dependent on FL and relative subject and background distances that I'd hesitate to generalize. I so often
mess with background, anyway . . .
The PL travels more nicely as is lighter and shorter
Better handling, too. I just used both, moments apart.
as well as faster on the short end. It was the only choice in town before too.
The PL also mates beautifully with the Pentax T132--I think best at 300mm ish
or so and depends on subject distance and how much lens extension is used.
Moose says it works fine on the Oly, but have only seen one image.
I have taken lots, mostly in botanic gardens. But no direct EXIF info on C-U or not. One may guess pretty accurately
from apparent focal distance and that reported in EXIF, but that's slow and painful, as LR doesn't show focal distance.
As I'm prone to carrying the T132 in the palm of my hand, popping it off and on depending on subject, there's no other
way to know.
I do know I've not noticed any way in which the photos are better of worse than
T132 on PL 100-400.
Also critical for some applications a TC can be used with the Oly and
Procapture low that refocuses can only be done on the Oly. Wish they did sync
IS though.
Yeah. I wonder what that's about. Reserving it only for highest end lenses as a matter of marketing? I think Panny's
cooperation 'tween OIS and IBIS seems less sophisticated, but is available with all their OIS lenses on their IBIS bodies.
In any case, for me, I'm stuck with the Oly. It appears to be better on sharpness and distortion, so efforts on
comparisons aren't interesting. If there's something specific you'd like, I'll try to please. 😁
C. U. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|