I have a very VERY low opinion of the Panny 100-300mm. The build quality is the worst I think I've ever seen and the images from it are generally poor! If the light is very good it doesn't do too bad from 100 to about 200mm and stopped down it's OK-ish at 300mm. But even a $50 zoom from 1990 is all those things. And Panasonic wanted like $800 for it when it first came out !!! I guess it's still up there too... But now more like $550 which is still a laugh and a half! I like their 7-14 and a few others but the 100-300 has got to be their worst lens ever - in spite of the scaled down images we see on the web that seem to look ok-ish. I've had it twice and sold it each time within a week of getting it.
How important is AF to you?
And yes, you need a tripod for it past 200mm if the shutter speeds are low. The M-OIS tries but ultimately fails on the long end of that lens.
For some AF will be important than others. When I got started in photography it was well before the day of digital and AF. Maybe because of that I still use manual focus quiet often, just as I often shoot in manual mode. I think it just comes down to how a person wants to shoot. I think the images shown above look pretty good from the Panasonic 100-300. I guess some of the credit should go to the fact that maybe the photographer knew what they were doing; it seems like that is last thing that is criticized when photos don't look to good.
If that's directed at me I love 300mm and up! For quite a few months I was shooting only 300+ with 300 being my preferred length. Not everything is on-line of course but here's a few test shots from a few lenses (all better than the lumix I might add):
I may have worded that poorly. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what you were doing, but rather those that had posted their images had done a good job of getting it right.
I may have worded that poorly. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what you were doing, but rather those that had posted their images had done a good job of getting it right.
Yeah, no foul... I figured that's what you meant. But took the opportunity it qualify my remarks anyway.
It's all good!
theSuede wrote:
Bif; What's the magnifications on the images you linked? Some seem to be 100%, some seem to be downscaled.
Yeah, there's all sorts in there. Occasionally the filename will give it away by containing "100c" "100", "100_crop", or just "crop".
If you wanna know about a particular one I can probably tell ya. And again, of course, I have hundreds more samples from those lenses that aren't on-line - so if you're interested in a particular lens I could maybe upload more samples for it.
I believe the vast majority of the images are at the lens's widest aperture BTW.
mawz wrote:
You do sacrifice a LOT of AF performance though, the ZD 70-300 has lousy AF performance on 4/3rds and it's even worse on m43. Surprisingly good glass though, I never really had any complaints with it, although it wasn't as good as the cheap little ZD 40-150 f4-5.6 which I also had in 4/3rds mount.
The AF is appalling but the images are very good and it does half life size at the sensor at 300mm at closest focus, 1:1 due to cropping. It is very good for subjects where you need a long working distance.
I'll add something to what Harold expressed. I have used the Oly 50-200 SWD with the EPL-1 & 2 cameras by using the adapter. The AF was not the best but it was faster than I thought it be. The IQ and other characteristics of the lens is excellent. In addition, I believe the tripod collar on the lens really helps the lens reduce vibration/shake when used on a tripod(vs having the lens hanging off the front of the lens). The collar is something I would have liked to seen on the 100-300.
faremax wrote:
How is it on the long end? Do you find the need to use tripod at 300mm?
Without this lens I wouldn't have managed either of the following two shots out of a canoe in low light (obviously no tripod and hand-held with the panny gf2):
Oly 40-150 - If you can still find a inexpensive non-"R" version in the $150 range this is an amazingly good value. My copy got soft corners and edges at infinity at the long end but was otherwise optically very good. Cheap construction, plastic lens mount. Since you are shooting on an Oly body with IBIS this is definitely your lightest and cheapest solution and a pretty darn good one.
Pan 45-200 - For a Panasonic shooter the OIS helps. Wide copy variation. Lots of people unhappy with their copies of this lens. I was fortunate to get a "good" one and it out resolves the Olympus at all focal lengths when focused at infinity (where I use it). Bigger, and heavier. Better build quality than the Olympus. Again, since you are an Olympus shooter I think I'd recommend the 40-150 over this.
As to the other two I have no direct experience. I have my eye on the 100-300 and I think would get that over the 75-300 if I was choosing between the two. There was a firmware update for the 100-300 and folks are saying the OIS is definitely improved with that update. Both of these lenses are a lot bigger than the 40-150 of course.
So - I'd suggest you go for the 40-150 and look for a deal on a non-"R" version to save some money.
Gary Clennan wrote:
That last one is really cool Vern!
+1
Yeah, cool shot! I really like it!
It doesn't really say anything about the lens tho. It's too scaled down to see any detail, it's been processed (and a half) for sure, there's of course no comparison shot showing what an actually good lens would do, and at 1/250s f/5.6 ISO1600 300mm I don't need stabilization neither do I think the stabilization is actually active at that shutter speed. Same goes for the top one too at 1/500s f/5.6 ISO400 300mm.
I certainly agree about the 2:1 crop factor of the µ4/3 format tho! It's way cool having access to 600mm, 800mm, and 1000mm equiv lenses at around f/4 to f/6.3 for just a few hundred bucks! Usually more like $150 to $200 tho!
It doesn't really say anything about the lens tho. It's too scaled down to see any detail, it's been processed (and a half) for sure...
Thanks - I think.
I disagree about not saying anything about the lens. First of all, it was shot RAW, so of course it's processed. Second, it's hanging on my wall at 24"x36" and it looks great. Third, I wouldn't have got this shot at all with a shorter lens (i.e. the 40-150) because I was perched a good 500 meters away and when I tried going closer the moose left the area.
OK, but that's not what you said. You emphatically implied the shot was only possible because of "Having a stabilized lens".
#1 the Mega OIS in that lens does very very little at it's 300mm length. MegaOIS pretty much poops out between 180mm and 210mm.
#2 I don't believe either MegaOIS nor the new improved telephoto ready PowerOIS lens based stabilization can assist much or at all with shutter speeds over about 1/100-ish
It doesn't detract from your image being cool nor the fun you had in capturing it. Lens IQ over the past 15 or 20 years is pretty much splitting hairs anyway. But at the same time those hairs define what people here consider in determining a lens poor, good, excellent, etc. and the Lumix 100-300 is just about hairless - especially from 250 to 300mm.
To your revised statement sure having FL reach helps things but in the case of the Lumix 100-300 you might actually end up with better detail using a different lens at 200mm and then cropping.
Anyway there's also the Oly lens which I hear is quite good. I haven't tried it myself yet but some folks I tend to trust have and claim it's head & shoulders above the Lumix for everything to do with IQ. And that's really not hard to believe at all.
Olympus is making (probably) 300mm f2.8 lens. Tho I think that with 4/3 adapter AF wont be superb (but most of 4/3 lens AF kinda ok-ish on late models, GH2 or G3) and it definitely wont be balanced.
But you wont get better.
As long as one can live with manual focus, m4/3s doesnt need any lens. I would rather have focus peaking with magnification for m4/3 than another native lens.
Well I used to have a 1DsII and 500/4.5 L (and also the 400/5.6) for birding and know for fact that manual focusing does not work for birds in flight with long telephotos. It's just impossible, think of a fast flying bird comming at you at 60mph. Having said that I don't think the upcoming OM-D will be equipped with a focusing system that will be able to do that, with any lens. But auto focus lets you focus on compositon and the "moment" instead of stuggling with manual focus, even wth stationary birds.
I just want a moderately fast 150-200mm lens, even f/2.8 would be fine, that has optical characteristics similar to the 45/1.8. I'd be pretty happy then. I'm using an FD 200mm f/2.8, which works fine, and is rather sharp, but it fringes like mad on high contrast subjects. Luckily most of that can be eliminated, provided your subject isn't purple.
I'm tempted to get the Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 and the 4/3 adapter, as I've heard it autofocuses decently on newer m4/3 bodies, but the price is a bit at the moment. I'd love for Oly to make a micro 4/3 version for about $800.
I actually tried out the 100-300 at my local shop today. It was OK. And that's about it. It was passably sharp, but nowhere near what I'm used to, and I just can't justify dropping $500 on that. If it were $300, I'd probably own one.
!!! I guess it's still up there too... But now more like $550 which is still a laugh and a half! I like their 7-14 and a few others but the 100-300 has got to be their worst lens ever - in spite of the scaled down images we see on the web that seem to look ok-ish. I've had it twice and sold it each time within a week of getting it.
