Leica Magic With A Lumix Mount: The 200mm and 50-200mm Lenses
Leica magic with a Lumix mount—the 200mm and 50-200mm lenses have been part of a very exciting year for Panasonic and the Micro Four Thirds category of cameras. I had to check Mylio to see exactly when I first started shooting these two new Leica lenses, and I was surprised to see it’s been almost a year!
Snow goose in flight, Bosque del Apache NWR, New Mexico. Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8 and 2X teleconverter
Along with the Leica 50-200mm F/2.8-4.0 (7,489 images) and the Leica 200mm F/2.8 (22,407 images), I’ve been using the new Lumix 1.4X and 2X teleconverters with both lenses. Needless to say between the four optics, there’s been a lot of new possibilities that needed to be tested. And so I have.
American dipper, Yellowstone National Park, Montana. Lumix G9 with Leica 50-200mm @ 200mm (400mm equivalent), handheld at 1/30th of a second (which helps create the movement in the water)
Like usual, I don’t have a lab. Most of the images I’m going to share are from shoots in the field. However, I do have a few in-the-studio tests I’ve done as well. To be honest, I’m never quite comfortable with my studio tests since I don’t have any way to do them with absolute precision. But I’ve tried. I suppose there will be a few who will find fault with my procedures, but then, as my father’s always told me, “You can’t make everybody happy.”
Mom and Dad on a trip we took to see the Tetons. Dad is the one who reminds me you can’t please everybody. Mom on the other hand bucks that old adage completely.
With that out of the way, let’s look at what I’ve found. We’ll start with my newest favorite zoom, the relatively new Leica 50-200mm F/2.8-4.0. This is now my lens of choice for most wildlife photography.
Leica 50-200mm F/2.8-4.0
Fit and Finish
One of the first things I did once I got my hands on this lens was to give the zoom mechanism a thorough test—in and out, back and forth, zoom, zoom, zoom. Those of you reading this who have the Leica 100-400mm, you know what I was up to. As much as I’ve loved the Leica 100-400mm, the concern I had from the moment I first tested it was the stiff and less-than-buttery-smooth action of the zoom mechanism. I’m happy to report the Panasonic engineers got the 50-200mm zoom action perfected. It’s smooth as silk, not too loose, not too tight, and has none of the catches you get with the 100-400mm.
Lumix G9 with battery grip and Leica 50-200mm zoom.
Metal Construction
It’s made of all metal from what I can tell, other than the lens hood. Plastics lens hoods don’t bother me in the least. In fact, I actually prefer them since when a lens is dropped the plastic typically bounces back and doesn’t dent like a metal hood does. The body of the lens is all metal. The zoom and manual focus rings are metal as well.
If the Lumix engineers can build a miniature camera that withstand a 50 yard bouncing tumble down a French mountain side, I’m confident this new 50-200mm and the 200mm F/2.8 are up for a lot of long term use. Here’s a video of the Lumix LX10 taking a seriously difficult tumble.
Manual Focus Ring
This lens is a so-called fly-by-wire, meaning the manual focus is actually activated by electronics. Therefore manually focusing does not give you the precise, consistent feel of a lens that’s being turned by metal gears on metal gears. Is that a problem? Not for me since I virtually NEVER use manual focus anymore. Could it be a problem for those who rely on manual focus a great deal, say somebody shooting this lens for video? I could see the fly-by-wire being a bit of an issue but only if you insist on manually focusing your lenses. The video below was shot with the Lumix G9 and Leica 50-200mm handheld from within my truck in Yellowstone National Park.
I’ve been shooting a lot more video and I find my technique of using Back Button AF extremely efficient as a video tool. Many video shooters are very proud to announce they do not use any form of AF. They don’t want the potential for the camera’s AF to start hunting while shooting a scene. But what many of them don’t understand is the power of Back Button AF. Using the Back Button AF to precisely focus on your subject and then releasing it puts the camera back to a completely manual focus state, so you’re basically getting the benefits of AF without the downside. I’ve never met even one cinematographer who uses the Back Button AF, but if they did they would see a huge upside to using lenses that Auto Focus.
American robin in a mountain ash tree covered in snow. Lumix G9 with 50-200mm and 1.4X teleconverter
AF/MF Switch
The AF/MF switch is well positioned for easy reach but can be inadvertently moved. I’m very aware of these switches and therefore seldom find them moved to the wrong position. However, I do shoot with lots of enthusiast photographers who don’t use their gear as much as I do, and many are accidentally hitting this switch and not knowing how to get their AF back. I’ve solved this problem for several of our NE Explorers by adding a small piece of tape to keep them from being switched out of position.
Horned puffin pair, Alaska. Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8 with 2X teleconverter
OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) Switch
Right next to the AF switch is the OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) switch. This is another control that can be easily moved to the ‘OFF’ position without knowing it. Again my suggestion is to put a small piece of tape on this switch. One reason you might want to get at this switch is when you’re shooting on a tripod. To be honest, I’ve never even checked the lens manual to see if Panasonic suggests you turn OIS off when using a tripod. I know all manufacturers did when OIS first came out, but I’ve not found it necessary on the newer lenses. However, keep in mind that if I have a lens with OIS on and the camera locked down as tight as possible on the tripod, I would definitely turn the OIS to the ‘OFF’ position. But if I’m on a tripod and keeping the head slightly loose, like I do when photographing birds in flight, I never turn the OIS off.
Caiman, Pantanal, Brazil. Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8 and 2X teleconverter, handheld from boat
Weight and Size
Those who’ve bought MFT cameras know MFT lenses are much smaller, lighter, and typically cost significantly less than their traditional full-frame DSLR counterparts. All of that holds true for the Leica 50-200mm. This lens is so small, compact, and lightweight it’s hard to believe. A similar lens for my Nikon system was the 80-400mm, my favorite go-to lens for much of my wildlife work when I was still shooting Nikon. But the Nikon 80-400mm was an F/4.0-5.6—a two stop difference in aperture. Additionally, it was much larger and heavier than the Leica 50-200mm and almost $1000 more expensive!
Black bear feeding on rose hips along the roadside in Jasper National Park, Canada. Lumix G9 with 50-200mm
Teleconverters
Along with all the weight and size benefits, the Leica 50-200mm works extremely well with the new Lumix 1.4X teleconverter. I’ll admit I have no idea if the Nikon 80-400mm was able to take a teleconverter. I never tried it since I was never completely happy with Nikon teleconverters even on my fixed focal length lenses. The results weren’t terrible, but I always felt like I could see a bit of image degradation. That being the case, I was hesitant to try teleconverters on my zooms since historically a teleconverter on a zoom was going to be even more problematic—way too many pieces of glass with zoom and teleconverter. But those days seem to be behind us with the new Lumix 1.4X teleconverter and the 50-200mm zoom. This combination produces excellent results. I haven’t tried the 50-200mm with the 2X teleconverter in the field, but the lens test charts do have some samples with this combination.
Toco toucan, Pantanal, Brazil. Lumix G9 with Leica G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8 and 2X teleconverter
Leica 200mm F/2.8
Doing two lens reviews in one Blog could make for some redundant reading, so I’m going to spare you where possible. If the category I’m speaking of is similar or identical to what I’ve written on the 50-200mm, I’ll label the title as such.
Capybara portrait, Pantanal, Brazil. Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm and 2X teleconverter.
Metal End to End, Except for the Lens Hood
This is a hefty, solid feeling lens. It’s not light as the 50-200mm by any means, and for those who’ve never held a 400mm F/2.8, this lens would seem excessively heavy. But if you understand the equivalency factor to a full-frame 400mm F/2.8, you know it’s a huge size and weight reduction. The black metal finish is smooth to the touch, unlike what we see on Nikon’s telephotos that have a semi-texture to them.
Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8, which is equal to a 400mm F/2.8 on a full-frame camera.
The lens hood is also substantial. It’s half as long as the lens, and when attached gives an additional length of about 1/3 the total length of the lens. Some might complain it’s made of plastic, but as I said earlier when we covered this subject on the 50-200mm, I don’t mind plastic. It cuts down on weight and if banged it doesn’t get bent out of shape. Plastic is just fine for this lens.
Snow geese pair in flight over Bosque del Apache NWR, New Mexico. Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8 with 1.4X teleconverter
Front Manual Aperture Ring
For those who love a manual aperture ring, the new Leica 200mm F/2.8 will make you happy. Personally I never use any of the manual rings that are included on several of the Leica/Lumix lenses, but I know there are those who like this feature. When turning this ring, it is exceptionally smooth with the feel of absolute perfection. Click stops are broken into 1/3 increments. For those shooting video, having solid aperture click stops is not ideal, but for the stills crowd it’s not an issue. Lock it into the ‘A’ position and you can adjust the aperture via the front dial, as I like to do. One critique I have of this ring is the lack of a locking mechanism for keeping it set to the ‘A’ position. Before I started taping it in place, I found it moved, which eliminates the ability to use the front dial for aperture adjustment. Now I place a small piece of gaffer tape beneath the front of the lens. It works.
Horned puffin in flight. Shot with Lumix G9 and Leica 200mm F/2.8 with 1.4X teleconverter
Manual Focus Ring (same as 50-200mm)
This lens is a so-called fly-by-wire, meaning the manual focus is actually activated by electronics. Therefore manually focusing does not give you the precise, consistent feel of a lens that’s being turned by metal gears on metal gears. Is that a problem? Not for me since I virtually NEVER use manual focus anymore. Could it be a problem for those who rely on manual focus a great deal, say somebody shooting this lens for video? I could see the fly-by-wire being a bit of an issue but only if you insist on manually focusing your lenses.
Jaguar in tree overlooking the river. Pantanal, Brazil. Lumix G9 with Leica 200mm F/2.8 and 1.4X teleconverter. Shot hand held from a boat.
I’ve been shooting a lot more video and I find my technique of using Back Button AF extremely efficient as a video tool. Many video shooters are very proud to announce they do not use any form of AF. They don’t want the potential for the camera’s AF to start hunting while shooting a scene. But what many of them don’t understand is the power of Back Button AF. Using the Back Button AF to precisely focus on your subject and then releasing it puts the camera back to a completely manual focus state, so you’re basically getting the benefits of AF without the downside. I’ve never met even one cinematographer who uses the Back Button AF, but if they did they would see a huge upside to using lenses that Auto Focus.
Red colored striations of dead pines show the result of pine bark beetle infestation in the trees outside of Jasper, Alberta. Jasper National Park, Canada. Lumix G9 with Leica 50-200mm lens
AF/MF Switch (same as 50-200mm)
The AF/MF switch is well positioned for easy reach but can be inadvertently moved. I’m very aware of these switches and therefore seldom find them moved to the wrong position. However, I do shoot with lots of enthusiast photographers who don’t use their gear as much as I do, and many are accidentally hitting this switch and not knowing how to get their AF back. I’ve solved this problem for several of our NE Explorers by adding a small piece of tape to keep them from being switched out of position.
Iris missouriensis, AKA Rocky Mountain iris, Bridger Mountains, Montana. Lumix G9 with Leica 50-200mm
OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) Switch (same as 50-200mm)
Right next to the AF switch is the OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) switch. This is another control that can be easily moved to the ‘OFF’ position without knowing it. Again my suggestion is to put a small piece of tape on this switch. One reason you might want to get at this switch is when you’re shooting on a tripod. To be honest, I’ve never even checked the lens manual to see if Panasonic suggests you turn OIS off when using a tripod. I know all manufacturers did when OIS first came out, but I’ve not found it necessary on the newer lenses. However, keep in mind that if I have a lens with OIS on and the camera locked down as tight as possible on the tripod, I would definitely turn the OIS to the ‘OFF’ position. But if I’m on a tripod and keeping the head slightly loose, like I do when photographing birds in flight, I never turn the OIS off.
American pika, Beartooth Mountains, Montana. Lumix G9 with Leica 50-200mm
Two features on the 200mm that aren’t on the 50-200mm are the Memory Recall/Fn button and Focus Limiter button.
Memory Recall/Fn Button
Memory recall is an option most useful for sports photographers. It allows you to focus on a particular spot, let’s say second base in the game of baseball. Selecting this spot and marking it by way of setting the Memory/Fn button allows you to quickly return to that particular place by hitting the button. This allows you to pick a point where action may happen and when it does, push the button to quickly focus where the action is taking place. It’s a very specialized feature, and all the big lenses by Nikon, Canon, and Sony have it, so Lumix has added it as well to compete.
Bighorn sheep, Jasper National Park, Canada. Lumix GH5 with Leica 50-200mm
Focus Limiter Switch
Using the focus limiter switch is helpful for things like birds in flight where the camera might miss focus. The idea behind the focus limiter switch is to reduce the amount of travel the lens has to move if it misses focus. All AF systems have to move through the entire length of the lens’ AF, from closest focus to furthest focus. At the end of the range, the AF motors hit a stopper which triggers the focus motors to go the other way. If that distance it reduced by way of the focus limiter, the lens and camera can get back on track to reconnect with the subject. The focus limiter switch allows you to set it from full focus to 3m-infinity. If shooting birds in flight, it’s good to set the lens to 3-infinity, since typically a bird won’t come any closer than three meters. This limits the lens from trying to focus at the closest position since we know the subject won’t be there anyway.
Canadian jay, Jasper National Park, Canada. Lumix G9 with Leica 50-200mm
Tripod Collar and Foot
Unlike the 50-200mm, the Leica 200mm F/2.8 does have a 360-degree rotating tripod collar. Yes, you read that right, 360 degrees—not the very strange 45 degrees we have on the Leica 100-400mm. Notice I mention nothing about a tripod collar for the 50-200m lens. Some reviews of the 50-200mm have criticized Lumix for not including a tripod collar, but I can tell you, it doesn’t need one due to its light and compact form factor. The Leica 200mm on the other hand does have one, and it needs it.
Salvinia water droplets, Pantanal, Brazil. Lumix G9 with Leica 50-200mm and 1.4X teleconverter
A nice feature of the 200mm tripod collar is that the foot can be swapped with the same foot as the Leica 100-400mm zoom. Both are identical. I would be even more excited if this foot used the common and omnipresent Arca Swiss Quick Release style plate, the same one that Olympus is now incorporating into all their telephotos. This would be such a simple bonus. If by chance a photographer was using something other than the Arca Swiss Quick Release tripod head, there could be a tripod socket in the bottom of the foot just like the Olympus 300mm has. This could be such a small but really important feature, since almost the entire natural history community uses Arca Swiss plates. Kudos to Olympus for adopting this very simple idea.
Teleconverters
I had many opportunities to shot both 1,4X and 2X teleconverters with the Leica 200mm F/2.8 and overall I was very pleased. Without a doubt, as expected, the 1.4X was the superior performer. But… the 2X also produced stellar results, just not as consistently.
Full image of jaguar resting on the banks of the river. Shot with Lumix G9 and Leica 200mm with 2X teleconverter, 1/100th of a second at F/5.6, ISO 640
Why? I’m not sure, but it reminds me of the nagging feeling I often have with my Leica 100-400mm racked all the way out to 400mm. However, it too is capable of producing stunning results at 400mm. I’m starting to believe my disappointment with the 800mm range on both the 100-400mm and the 200mm with 2X teleconverter is mainly due to atmospheric issues and trusting the DUAL IS more than I should.
Screenshot of above image at 100% showing excellent detail. Shot with Lumix G9 and Leica 200mm with 2X teleconverter (800mm full-frame equivalent), 1/100th of a second at F/5.6, ISO 640
Here’s what I mean. With the 2X teleconverter on a 200mm lens attached to a Micro Four Thirds camera, you get an effective focal length of 800mm. That is a very, very powerful lens. When shooting telephotos you have to keep in mind that along with your subject magnification, you get magnification of ANY movement.
Additional frame near the one above where either the jaguar’s head moved slightly or the boat I was shooting from moved. Either way, it’s soft, and that’s not unusual for this much magnification. Shot with Lumix G9 and Leica 200mm with 2X teleconverter, 1/100th of a second at F/5.6, ISO 640
This includes the photographer’s hand and body shake, as well as ANY movement by your subject, like in the jaguar sample above. I use both the 100-400mm and the new 200mm with converters, exclusively, off tripod, depending heavily on Dual IS. Dual IS is supposed to give us at least five stops lower shutter speed than the typical shutter speed needed of equal to or greater than the lens you’re shooting.
Having less ability to increase the ISO due to a smaller MFT sensor, I often shoot at speeds slower than I would like. And that may be the culprit of some less than exceptional image detail when using 800mm on any of my Lumix/Leica lenses. That said, it is possible to get excellent results as witnessed by the jaguar image two pictures above.
Conclusion
So there you have it. That’s my take on two of what I consider the best lenses Lumix has ever released. In fact, I like these two optics so much, they’ve now replaced my beloved Leica 100-400mm.
100% crop of a test chart showing the Leica 200mm with 2X teleconverter on the left and the 100-400mm @ 400mm on the right. Test shots were not exact, but I found the numbers—both on left side, edge of image—to be sharper on the left test chart/the Leica with the 2X teleconverter. No sharpening was added.
The 100-400mm will still be part of my ongoing Leica arsenal, but I have to say, these new lenses are sharper, enough that I absolutely have to use them especially when following what I’ve come to refer to as the Micro Four Thirds Triad.
Micro Four Thirds Triad
So what is the Micro Four Thirds Triad? Quite simply it’s a combination of equipment and software that will allow anyone following these three simple rules to compete with full-frame cameras. They are:
- The best, most up to date MFT camera possible such as the Lumix G9, GH5, and GH5s or the Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark ll (for now)
- The finest and highest quality optics you can buy – Leica glass for Lumix and Pro versions for Olympus
- The best, most up to date RAW conversion software on the market. Today I’m convinced that it’s DxO PhotoLab.
Follow these three simple directives and you can do prints as large as 40×60 inches as well as offer your work to the most elite publications in the world. In short, you can actually use Micro Four Thirds cameras to lighten your load, improve your bank account, and still realize your creative photography dreams whether they are for fun or profit.
Sample Images Free to Download
Follow this link for a set of sample images shot in my studio of a lens test chart. All images shot on the Lumix G9 with the following lenses:
- Leica 50-200mm F/2.8-4.0 (with and without 1.4X and 2X teleconverters)
- Leica 200mm F/2.8 (with and without 1.4X and 2X teleconverters)
- Leica 100-400mm F/4.0-6.3
- Olympus 40-150mm F/2.8
- Olympus 300mm F/4.0
If you have an interest in these lenses and want a great camera store to deal with, check out my friends at Bozeman Camera. They’ve become one of the biggest Lumix dealers in the Pacific NW. “Small town store, big time dealer” I like to call them. They often have hot, hard to get products of all kinds, that the big dealers may have sold out of. Under the heading of full disclosure, I get no kickback from Bozeman Camera other than the perk of having lots of gear available for testing.
The Bozeman Camera crew including Mike Gover, Gary Bummer, Marshal Lewis Brian Sorg, Tanner and some really cute little blonde, hey wait a minute that’s Miss Nikon Dixie Dixon trying to get in on the Lumix love. The Bozeman Camera guys have no idea Dixie has snuck in behind to get in on the action. No doubt, everybody loves Leica glasss.
Even Nikon’s Dixie Dixon stops by the “Small town store, big time dealer”, Bozeman Camera. Dixie is all about good glass and Bozeman Camera has loads of it.
Lumix Ambassador Disclaimer
In the spirit of complete transparency, I want all my readers to know that I am a Lumix Ambassador. That means I get paid a small stipend for writing about a system I absolutely love. That said, there is no amount of money more important than my integrity. Much to the chagrin of some of my Lumix colleagues, I often point out the bad with the good regarding Lumix technology and camera gear. My belief is honesty and truthfulness will not just help other photographers, but it also helps a company I truly admire and enjoy working with.
Danny W.On Dec. 10th, 2022
Have you tried using the in-camera teleconverter or digital zoom with either lens? If yes, I am curious about your observations.
I mostly make 4×6 prints and an occasional 11×14 so I would like to save on not purchasing the teleconverters.
Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 13th, 2022 (12 months ago)
Danny, what camera do you want to use the digital converter with?
FrankOn Dec. 2nd, 2020
Hi Daniel
First of all thank you for this great article. I also travel a lot and I mostly use the Pana 8-18, 12-40Pro and 40-150Pro on my G9`s, but I was always looking in a longer lens. On my last trip (2019) to south Africa and Mozambique, I used the 40-150 Pro with the 1.4 converter on a safari, but I have to say that the bokeh was not pleasant to me. Pictures are looking very nervous – especially when gras ore bushes are in the background.
So, I was looking for 4 different lenses:
Pana 50-200mm as a potential replacement for the 40-150
Pana 100-400
Pana 200mm
Oly 300mm
I did not take the 50-200, because of the lack of sharpness and light in comparison to the excellent 50-150 Pro. I also tried the Pana 100-400 (3 different copy’s!!) but I was never really excited about the image quality and the build quality in some ways. During my tests with the 100-400 I also realized the relatively slow aperture to be a real problem for the way I shoot (which was the reason not to try out the new 100-400 from Olympus).
At the end, I had to decide between the Oly 300mm and der Pana 200mm (+ converter). It was not that easy because both lenses have many great characteristics and of course a fantastic native image quality.
The Oly lens is natively 100mm longer and has a more beautiful build quality than the Panasonic in my opinion. It also can be a 420mm with the 1.4 converter without losing to much image quality. It is the clearly the more flexible lens when super long ranges are important.
The Pana on the other side has although shorter range but faster native aperture. It also has the better bokeh than the Olympus in my opinion. And in conjunction with the 1.4 converter it nearly matches the range and the image quality of the Olympus at the same aperture. It is the much more flexible lens up to 300mm.
So, I was thinking of how many times I use focal lengths more than 300mm? Because this was very rare, I took the Panasonic 200mm with the converter. And I have to say this lens with the G9 is a dream. I often use the lens without adapter in addition to the 40-150 Pro on my second G9, just for getting that extra 50mm of reach within the same 2.8 aperture. And it often makes the difference – especially in bad light conditions. And when I need longer ranges – just take the converter and enjoy 80mm more length without any visible lost in image quality. I think the Pana 200mm is a fantastic option because of its versatility and fast aperture.
Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 8th, 2020
Thanks Frank for your insight. Greatly appreicated.
Warren BeattieOn Nov. 7th, 2020
This article, and some of the comments, have been very informative and extremely helpful to me. I’m an interested amateur with a GX80 and the 45-200mm Lumix lens, trying to take shots of deer under gloomy irish forests, and coming away slightly disappointed with similarly gloomy photos. There are a lot of other things I could and should do to improve my results, but part of me thinks it couldn’t hurt to upgrade the lens at the same time. Which one to aim for is a head-scratcher, but your review of the practical differences was a big help in sorting out the right choice for me. Thank you!
Daniel J. CoxOn Nov. 7th, 2020
Warren, the other potential option would be the Olympus 40-150mm F/2.8 which is a bit less magnification but.. gives you almost two stops advantage for dark/gloomy light situations. The Leica would give you the 400mm magnification and a much wider aperture of F/2.8. The downside to the Leica is the fixed focal length. Always trade-offs. Good luck and let me know how it goes.
LucianoOn Jul. 31st, 2020
Hi Daniel, I saw these posts late, for some years now I have been using a Leica 100-400 with Olympus E-M1 markII and actually @ 400mm there is a drop in quality, but not always.
I am attracted to the Leica 50-200 which is certainly valid, but I cannot understand well what results are obtained with the 1.4x and 2x multipliers. Unfortunately, the multipliers do the opposite of what we need, they work well at short distances, but they lose quality with subjects at greater distances. I downloaded the sample files (some have deteriorated) and I think they were made a short distance away, recordings at 30/50 meters would be very useful to better evaluate how they behave.
Thanks for any response, interesting blog
Luciano Vinco
LeonOn Feb. 16th, 2020
Hi Daniel
Just wondering what you are stilling using in your kit these days in 2020? I have the G9 and the 200mm and 1.4x. Is it worth buying the 2x for birding? I also have the 50-200mm. Is the 200mm still your go to lens for wildlife?
thanks fo your experience
Leon Lester
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 18th, 2020
Hi Leon, Since the last quarter of 2019 I’ve been testing other options in camera gear including Olympus and Sony. I’m still a big fan of Lumix equipment but I needed to start seeing what the competition has to offer. In my tests, I’ve found the Olympus lenses to be sharper than their equivalent in the Lumix/Leica line. It pains me to write this but ignorance has been bliss and so I’m now exploring the possibilities of Olympus lenses. This all came to a head last fall when I decided to test my Lumic G9 against the Olympus E-M1X and the Sony A9 on fast-moving subjects in Predictive AF. Unfortunately, this is another area where my beloved Lumix gear just wasn’t keeping up. Those tests brought me to where I’m at today using three different systems. I still use and much prefer my Lumix gear for travel photography where my main subject matter does not include any or very little wildlife. For my wildlife work, I’m using both the Olympus E-1MX and the Sony A9. I don’t plan to do that for more than several more months. At some point, I plan to settle on either one or the other system. My goal is to see which one is easiest to use and produces the best results for action-oriented pictures. I can tell you this, the Olympus lenses are probably the sharpest lenses I’ve ever shot, specifically the 300mm F/4 and the 40-150mm F/2.8. On the Sony A9 I’m using the 200-600mm and I’ve also been impressed with that as well. I apologize for this all sounding more than a bit confusing but hang in there and stop back for my final report in a few months.
Ovidiu FabianOn Dec. 27th, 2019
Thanks for the reply. While I am aware that Panasonic and Olympus lenses and cameras work well with each other there are still certain limitations that are quite frustrating even after 10 years of being a customer for both. If I were to get another Olympus camera I would have to switch the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm to Olympus 40-150mm f Pro to get Pro Capture and Focus Stacking, also I would have to go for the Olympus 300mm Pro to get a wildlife prime and benefit from Sync IS. Same with Panasonic, if I go down that route I would gain most AF performance through DfD of the Panasonic Lenses, Dual IS as well.
After reading Mirrorlessons’s comparison between Panasonic G9 and Olympus E-M1 II I found that I prefer the image quality of the G9 more: the (marginally) cleaner ISO 3200 and 6400, the magenta tint of boosted shadows (past 3 EV), the better highlight recovery and more sharpness of the HRS, the better AWB, as well as the more advanced subject recognition, face and eye detection and tracking, better and bigger EVF, USB charging on the go, more direct controls (dials and buttons) for what I use the most, and the fact that its 380£ cheaper body and 500£ cheaper with the kit lens.
But then I also love E-M1 II’s better AF performance for wildlife, more compact body (which I value greatly as a system overall), better IBIS, especially with Sync, IS lenses, better battery life, better in-camera focus stacking.
If only there wasn’t either this Corporation or Japanese pride and both of them would cooperate more to stop locking features to their own brand, they might win a bit more against the competition in an ever-shrinking camera market.
Now I feel stuck in a limbo of neither camera/brand would be better than the other but also neither would be best over the other (as a landscape and wildife photographer).
Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 28th, 2019
So much of what you’re disappointed with mirrors my frustrations to a tee. When I first got excited about the MFT system is was for two reasons. One was the size of the gear and the second was two camera companies cooperating to grow their market much more quickly than on their own. Well… the second benefit of MFT seems to have dried up completely and that’s a major disappointment. I’m on the verge of doing something completely different than MFT which I’m guessing many others are doing as well.
Ovidiu FabianOn Dec. 25th, 2019
Hello, sorry for coming so late to this post, only now have I just found it. I have been shooting with Micro Four Thirds for 10 years now, since the Panasonic G1, and I’m currently using an Olympus E-M1 Mark I for 2 years now and after my Olympus 50-200mm f 2.8-3.5 Mark I died in April I bit the bullet and the price and bough the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm and I’m so happy with everything about it (except for the lack of a focus limiter) that I cannot find myself going out of the house without it (even if it’s just to buy some food or pay a bill).
I have started doing Wildlife for about a year now and I’m madly in love with this side of photography, I have found myself frustrated sometimes when I can’t get close enough (UK has man-made and natural fencing EVERYWHERE) or unable to fill the frame (very small birds) without scaring off the subjects, I have been looking for a longer focal range for over 6 months now, looking at Olympus 300mm and the upcoming Olympus 100-400mm f 4.5 but I’m unsure if I want to mix Panasonic and Olympus camera/lenses because they don’t seem to work at their 100% (I have notice more then usual deep blue and strong yellow chromatic aberrations for example in my pictures) and the 2nd lens might be to expensive and to big for my comfort (I’m hoping the lens choice would be under 20 cm and 1.5 Kgs).
I looked at Panasonic 100-400mm as well and it seems to be such a mixed bag of results, especially since I do find myself shooting around early morning and evenings often. I was even thinking of Panasonic 200mm f 2.8 and have the 1.4x teleconverter in the mix as well and crop my way to 800mm if need be. Though these teleconverters are so expensive, going for more then 400£ each (1.4x and 2x).
And my big Oly camera needs an upgrade for AF sake, and I’m still in a toss up between the G9 and E-M1 Mark II … or waiting 6 more months to see if Panasonic or Olympus can bring handheld High Resolution stacking at a price point lower then 2000£ (I shoot landscapes a lot as well so it’s an extremely important feature for me in the future).
Right now I’m invested only in one Panasonic lens so adding another Panasonic would probably swing me towards Panasonic’s side (for Dual IS, DFD and better software correction).
Any extra voice of reason and knowledge would be greatly appreciated to help plan my upgrade path for next year. (Can’t afford any more purchase regrets or mistakes).
Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 26th, 2019
Ovidiu, the good news is that all Olympus lenses work with Lumix and all Lumix lenses work with Olympus. That’s what I love about MFT. If one company outdoes another on a camera body, you don’t have to change entire systems to get a better camera. Do you shoot many birds in flight? If so then the Olympus EM-1X is the camera to get. Right now the Lumix just doesn’t cut it for birds in flight. If action is not much of what you do, then the G9 is a far superior camera based on its much easier menu system, phenomenal touchscreen, much better buttons layout, and overall ergonomics. The only issue I have with the G9 is the AF for fast action. Otherwise, it’s an amazing camera. As far as the 200mm F/2.8 Leica is concerned. It’s a very good lens but not as sharp edge to edge as the Olympus 300mm. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks for joining the conversation.
Marko KoskenojaOn Nov. 2nd, 2019
Great reviews of these 2 lenses Daniel.
I particularly enjoyed your pragmatic observations about the history of the wildlife photography business in your response to Riley Shiery – a real eye-opener!
I just bought a G9 w/12-60 & 8-18mm lenses and sold my G85. It’s a huge improvement in every way except the weight and size but I kept my GX85 and small prime lenses for times when I need to travel lighter. Based on your review I’m going to buy the 50-200 f2.8 but sell off my 35-100 f2.8 ii to help pay and justify the 55-200.
Luis MesaOn Jul. 27th, 2019
Daniel,
Great photos and very useful guidance. Have you ever used the Lumix 100-300 ll, and what do you think of this lens?
Can you get the 1.4 Lumix teleconverter for the 50-200 in the US?
Thanks, Luis
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 27th, 2019
Thanks Luis. I have used the new 100-300mm version ll. It’s a very good lens. It doesn’t focus as fast as the Leica zoom but it’s a terrific choice if you only have a limited amount of cash for a very good lens. Unfortunately, I’ve been told by the folks from Panasonic that they don’t plan to sell the 1.4X teleconverter in the US by itself. It does come with the Leica 200mm. But I personally think they’re making a big mistake. I’ve used it with the 50-200mm Leica and the combination is very good to excellent. I think they could sell many here in the states. I several people who have purchased it off of eBay out of Japan. You’ll give up the US warranty doing it like this but there’s not much that can go wrong with a teleconverter. If I didn’t already have one, which I got with the Leica 200mm, I would definitely buy it off of eBay. Thanks for joining the conversation.
Al G.On Jul. 16th, 2019
Really disappointed by the lack of vision from Panasonic with the collar and tripod compatibility (as opposed to Olympus and the arca swiss design). Is that a design that would fit the manfrotto style of tripod plate?
Thank you for the review.
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 16th, 2019
I agree Al. Olympus building the Arca Swiss plate directly into the foot of the 300mm is nothing short of “Common Sense”. Not genius as some have suggested since it’s such an obvious idea it’s hard to believe others manufactures missed it.
Steve CuttingOn Mar. 19th, 2019
Hi Dan
I notice many of your shots with the 200mm are with the 1.4x. Would a better kit be with the Olympus 300mm, then the 1.4x for distant shots, rather than a 200mm which doesn’t get used on its own as much? I’m thinking bird photography rather than anything else.
Daniel J. CoxOn Mar. 20th, 2019
Steve, I agree with your idea of using the Olympus 300mm over the Leica 200mm. I’ve considered EXACTLY what you described and I’m doing just that in some situations. The downside to using the Olympus 300mm is the lack of Dual IS and DFD AF technology we get with the dedicated lenses from Leica/Panasonic. If it weren’t for these limitations I would be using the 300mm exclusively. It’s really disappointing that Panasonic and Olympus have not lived up to their original intent of working together. Based on this comment from a Lumix executive, “This alliance (Micro Four Thirds) is like marriage. The previous arrangement (with Olympus) was more like we were just living together”. Apparently, Olympus is being more territorial than Lumix had envisioned. Not a good situation for MFT. Why Olympus does not see that they can’t crack the Nikon/Canon stranglehold on their own is beyond me.
Mike PeetOn Feb. 16th, 2019
Thanks Dan for a great review and everyone else’s comments.
I’m still enjoying my PL 100-400 and must say that it’s a pleasure to get out with such lightweight kit. One day I hope to join the 50-200 / 200 club.
For now I have accepted that I’m not going to get close every time and sometimes I won’t hit the mark in terms of focus at 400 mm (800) but I would rather have a ‘soft’ image than none at all. I accept that you as a professional photographer rely on getting the sharpest possible images.
As I see more wildlife I’m just amazed by what is around us if we just slow down and take the time to look.
Your passion for nature and wildlife really comes across in you work and are such an inspiration. Keep up the great work.
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 16th, 2019
Thanks for the kind words Mike. It’s always so inspirational to hear from our readers. We’re so unbelievably lucky to have so many terrific options for long lenses with LUMIX and Olympus. Keep up your work with mother nature, the planet needs as many advocates for all things wild and natural as she can get.
Riley ShieryOn Nov. 16th, 2018
Hi Daniel,
Current Nikon user here, your blog is extremely helpful. I have been shooting a Nikon D300/D3s for years, with 300mm and 400mm f2.8 lenses and teleconverters. Carting all that gear around plus the necessary tripod/gimbal is an impracticality few people appreciate.
Seeing that the m43 system is good enough for someone with your eye, and your experience is very valuable at a time when most internet ‘photographers’ are hyping FF so much. The benefits of the FF format are overblown, and the weaknesses of m43 are exaggerated so much that even as a person who has used both professionally (I have a new-to-me E-M1 Mark I and 12-40 + 40-150 f2.8 lenses) I have anxiety about selling off the last of my Nikon kit.
I have moved into a van, and am preparing to leave my day job to pursue full-time nature/science photography. I am determined to make the dream a reality, or die trying. However, I worry (irrationally I think) that selling off my FF gear and relying on m43 gear will handicap me. Your work and writing on this subject has really helped assuage those fears, this whole endeavor is terrifying enough as it is XD
Thank you again, keep up the good fight!
-Riley
Daniel J. CoxOn Nov. 17th, 2018
Riley,
Thanks for the kind words. I could not agree more with your comments about FF and MFT hype both ways. Believe me, I understand the anxiety of selling off your last piece of Nikon gear. I held on to my 600m F/4 for almost three years after not owning a Nikon camera. I just did not want to have to buy that lens again. But, this past spring it too went the way of my other Nikon equipment.
You mention that you’re about to embark on your quest to be a full-time wildlife photographer. I congratulate you but feel I should offer some sage advice that actually relates to your decision to shoot the smaller gear. This is something I’ve never written before but have discussed with many of our NE Invitational Photo Tour participants. One very small but definite reason I switched to the smaller cameras was due to the incredible expense the FF cameras imposed on my business of wildlife photography. I’m not sure if you know this but the actual money people pay for wildlife images today is literally a fraction of what they used to pay us in the 80’s and 90’s. My average sale for an image back before 2000 was about $250.00US. Even at that price, I had to sell one hell of a lot of images to pay for my travel, my home, my insurance, my expensive camera gear, and the list goes on and on. And keep mind that that $250.00Us was for ONE TIME USE with a limit attached. Meaning that if a card company wanted to use my image for a greeting card, that was ALL they could use it for. AND it had a top end limit on how many they could produce before they had to pay me again for additional rights. There were many times over my career that one image sold as RIGHTS MANAGED produced tens of thousands of dollars in ongoing usage rights.
Today the standard licensing agreement is ROYALTY FREE which means, when the client pays you, they can then use your picture as long as they want, anyway they want, and never even have to contact you let alone pay you again. It’s a horrible business model. Today, iStockPhoto sells similar pictures to the ones I used to shoot for $12.00US. And as I said, once the client pays $12.00US they can use that picture FOREVER. Below is a screenshot from iStock photo showing a beautiful image that at one time would have been worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Shooting less expensive camera gear was one way I changed my business model to try and compete with this new reality. From a business perspective and that’s what wildlife photography is–a business–unless you have a boatload of cash from a different life–it’s not possible to justify a Nikkor 600mm F/4 that sells for $12,000+ when you can get something almost identical in the Olympus 300mm F/4 for $2500.00US. If I were making my full-time living shooting photos that I had to be guaranteed would be the highest quality possible in dark light, fast-moving subjects, and could be printed larger than billboards, I would still be shooting my Nikons. But… nobody is willing to pay for those images anymore so why would I spend the money to have the absolute best equipment when it won’t pay for itself due to the deflated prices in the industry? It makes no business sense.
Thankfully, the MFT gear has other benefits I enjoy besides costing less. Things like less difficult to travel with due to much smaller size. They make me less conspicuous in places people want to harass professional photographers and they have technology available that my big old Nikon’s could not compete with. The one downside for MFT is dark light and that can be drastically improved by way of software.
I hope this bit of honesty and experience, having done what you are about to do, doesn’t discourage you but I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t share the things I’ve learned over a 40-year career in the business of wildlife photography. I’m still in the business today due to lots of irons in the fire that include teaching, stock sales of stills and video, as well as speaking engagements etc. I used to be able to do it with stock photo sales exclusively. I wish you the best and please stop by and join the conversation when you can. I admire your detemination and spirit.
Chris BaudeOn Nov. 5th, 2018
>> It cuts down on weight and if banged it doesn’t get bent out of shape. Plastic is just fine for this lens.
Not only is it BETTER than metal, if knocked on door frames, hard bounce when putting down the camera, the plastic absorbs the shock and is resilient. Metal will transmit the shock to the lens, right down to the mount. Metal lens hood belong on Leica’s that sit on shelf, and for the week-end or vacation shooter.
Daniel J. CoxOn Nov. 5th, 2018
Completely agree.
Robert LaddOn Oct. 29th, 2018
Hello Daniel,
Thanks much for your blog and insights. A few months ago I bought a G-85 and then I got the Leica 12-60mm 2.8-4 lens which I really like. But I haven’t printed large prints yet, just posted images to websites (need to set up printer) and I’m wondering how significant the difference is between the G-85 and G9. I think I would rather invest in something like the 50-200mm than upgrade to the G9 but not sure if the G85 will take full advantage of the great Leica lenses.
Many thanks, Robert
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 31st, 2018
Robert,
I think the G85 would prove an excellent option for pairing with the 50-200mm. Have a G85 since it’s first release and love it. The G9 will give you bette AF for really fast moving subjects but even I don’t shoot super fast action more that maybe 5% of my photography. The 50-200mm is such a special lens I would suggest getting that first and maybe down the line you can add the G9.
David RobinsonOn Oct. 23rd, 2018
Thanks Dan for an excellent comparison review. Just what I was looking for. It seems to Jive with a technical comparison done by Richard Wong comparing the 50-200, 200 F2.8 and the 100-400. The 100-400 is versatile, but slower and not as sharp at longer focal lengths. The 50-200 is excellent through its range and matches well with the 1.4x teleconverter but did not match up as well with the 2x converter which was noticeably, but not horribly softer. The 200 F2.8 seems which tested as the sharpest of the 3 lenses all the time was impressive with the 2X converter and the 1.4x converter. And another thing, common to both the Olympus lenses and the Panasonic lenses that I like is how very close they focus compared to their equivalent FF lenses. Thanks again for a very helpful review.
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 26th, 2018
Thanks David, I appreciate your input.
Deborah AlbertOn Oct. 19th, 2018
I find my images are not as sharp with the G9 and 100-400 than my Nikon D500 and Tamron 150-600. What could I be doing wrong?
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 26th, 2018
There are lots of possibilities Deborah. First of all what shutter speed were you shooting with the 100-400mm.
Glen FoxOn Oct. 15th, 2018
Thank you for this Daniel. The Lumix-Leica collaboration definitely provides great lenses. I gather you can’t buy the 1.4x separately at the moment. Out of curiosity, will the 1.4x work on the 100-400, and the 2x on the Oly 300/4? Thanks!
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 26th, 2018
You’re correct Glen. The 1.4converter is not yet available separately. I have heard it’s coming however. The 1.4X will not work on the 100-400mm. The 2X should work with the Olympus 300mm though I’v not tried it yet. Thanks for stopping by to join the conversation.
JimLandersOn Oct. 14th, 2018
Thanks for the terrific article Dan. I saw your FB post. I know that you already know this, but if you don’t feed trolls, they go away. ;-).
Regarding these lenses, I am very tempted by the 50-200 with the 1.4x. I just like the aded flexibility of a zoom. The problem is, Panasonic doesn’t sell the 1.4X separately in the US. The only place I can find one is on some Chinese site on eBay which I’m not comfortable with. Very strange decision by Panasonic.
All that aside, one of the parts of the article I found most interesting was your remarks about shooting at 800mm. I’ve recently come to similar conclusion after years of frustration. As a 69 year old male, walking is as important to me in my bird photography, as the pics I get.(for my health), hence, I shoot pretty much exclusively hand held and just carry a Sony RX10IV. I’ve been frustrated of late because I find I get better, sharper images with my Sony , than I do with the bigger, more expensive, 840mm kits. (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, tried em all). The conclusion I’d come to and which you sort of confirmed, is that hand held, 600mm is less effected by hand shake, and at 600mm I subconsciously avoid taking those ridiculously long shots that I might have gone for with an 800mm kit. A longer focal length lens may help fill more of the frame, but it doesn’t help at all with all that annoying air between you and your subject.
I would love to be able to step up from the 1″ Sony sensor to m43, but 600mm is my minimum acceptable FL so until Panasonic decides to release the 1.4x, I’m kind of stuck with the Sony. I own the G9 so I’m ready to go when that happens.
Again, thanks for great review .
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 14th, 2018
Great input Jim. I appreciate you adding your voice.
Regarding the trolls, It’s so amazing how many bullies there are on the internet. Growing up with the last name Cox I learned very early you can’t back down and so I don’t. Sometimes I may sound a bit harsh but I’ve found few are able to take any kind of pushback.
Hold tight for the 1.4X teleconverter. I promise it’s coming. Lots of folks want it badly.
Thanks again for joining the conversation with well thought-out comments that offer quality substance. Unlike some internet bullies.
christian fuerstOn Oct. 13th, 2018
I fully agree with Dan’s judgement ragarding the Leica-Lenses. As a mainly stills photographer I also prefer the G9 to the GH5 which up to now serves as a backup-camera body for “just in case”. ergonomically speaking the G9 is simply the best camera I ever used in my photographic life of more the 55 years! As a stage photographer I am frequently confronted with a competition stubbornly sticking to FF-cameras including heavy equipment and huge tripods which they carry in massive board-cases etc and constantly compain about aching backs and shoulders. And finally their photographic results are by no means any better, or rather the opposite: when they have to change cameras and put on their heavy-weight gear (2,8/300 etc) I can freely move around with my light-weight 50-200 getting closer (at 400mm FF). for my stage-photography I have not used the 1,4 converter yet since with MFT I try to stay as low as possible with my ISO. at emergencies I sometimes use the 1,8/75mm Olympus, also a great piece of equipment (i.e. 1500mm in FF) but generally I prefer the 3 new Leica-Zooms
Daniel J. CoxOn Oct. 13th, 2018
Thanks for your input Christian. Great real life example.