OM System
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Micro Four Thirds Mount
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS — 100–400mm f/5-6.3 for Micro Four Thirds, a popular choice in the om-system lineup.
$1,499
Launch priceReleased Sep 2020
Sony
FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
Sony E Mount
The standard telephoto zoom, completely redesigned to be 29% lighter and significantly sharper.
$2,799
Launch priceReleased Oct 2021
FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II is 1.1 years newer.
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Wins
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Wins
FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
Which would you choose?
TL;DR — Key differences
- BFE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II has lower Min focus distance (40 cm vs 130 cm)
- BFE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II has lower Max aperture (Tele) (f/2.8 vs f/6.3)
- BFE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II has lower Max aperture (Wide) (f/2.8 vs f/5)
- BFE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II has higher OIS effectiveness (4.5 stops vs 3 stops)
- BFE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II has lower Weight (1045 g vs 1120 g)
Key specs at a glance
Size and weight, to scale
📸 Snap this lens size diff to shareM.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
⌀86 × 206 mm
1120 g (2.47 lb / 39.51 oz)
Credit card
85.6 × 54 mm
for scale
FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
⌀88 × 200 mm
1045 g (2.30 lb / 36.86 oz)
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS is 6mm longer and 2mm narrower than FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II.
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS is 75 g heavier than FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II.
Diameter (⌀) is the maximum barrel width; length is measured from the mount to the front of the lens.
Use-case scoring
Which one for what?
Algorithmic scores from verified specs · 10 = best in class
Why pick one over the other
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 4 ED, 2 Super HR, 2 HR
- ✓
Control ring
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS supports it
- ✓
Diameter
86.4 mm vs 88 mm — lower is better
Reasons to choose the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 1 XA, 1 Aspherical, 1 Super ED…
- ✓
Min focus distance
40 cm vs 130 cm — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Tele)
f/2.8 vs f/6.3 — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Wide)
f/2.8 vs f/5 — lower is better
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
4.5 stops vs 3 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Weight
1045 g vs 1120 g — lower is better
- ✓
Length
200 mm vs 205.7 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Max magnification
0.3 × vs 0.29 × — higher is better
Shared specifications
Internal focus
Both support internal focus
Optical stabilization
Both support optical stabilization
Weather sealing
Both support weather sealing
Custom function button
Both support custom function button
Pros & cons at a glance
Editorially curated highlights and trade-offs.
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Pros
- ✓Versatile zoom range covers multiple focal lengths in one lens
- ✓Built-in optical image stabilization
- ✓Weather-sealed construction for outdoor shooting
Cons
- –Relatively heavy for extended handheld use
- –Slower maximum aperture limits low-light performance
FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
Pros
- ✓Extremely lightweight for an f/2.8 telephoto zoom (only 1045g)
- ✓Virtually instantaneous and silent autofocus with 4 XD Linear motors
- ✓Stunning optical performance and contrast across entire range
- ✓Outstanding built-in Optical SteadyShot stabilization
- ✓Dedicated physical aperture ring with click and lock switches
Cons
- –Very high price tag
- –Lens hood is bulky and can block storage space easily
Decided which one is right for you?
Compare live prices for the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS and FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II at major authorized retailers.
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Full specifications
✓ = category winner
Specs sourced from manufacturer data. Use-case scores algorithmically derived. Last reviewed June 2026.