Jordan -- I take it the battery is different from those used in the E-PL1 and E-P2? I don't have any problem charging after market battery for those, same as OEM.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I see a lot of good reviews for the Panasonic 100-300 and it's cheap. Any one tried this on a m4/3 that can comment.
Also has there been any word on when the 60 f/2.8 macro is being released and how much it'll cost.
I had it with the GH2 and didn't really care for it. I personally didn't have that much use for a 200-600mm lens for one thing so it didn't really seem worth $500 to me. Additionally, I didn't find the OS system to be that effective, though to be fair, 600mm equiv is a tough focal length to shoot. Optically it wasn't bad, but it wasn't really good either, basically your typical consumer zoom that gets softer towards the extreme and that just so happens to be 600mm equiv due to the m4/3 crop factor.
I found a 100-400 type zoom on a APS-C DSLR to give a bit better results, but of course those lens usually run over twice as much, and the overall size and weight is a lot more too. Basically the 100-300 falls between a superzoom and a DSLR as far as getting the 600mm equiv reach goes.
Interesting. I was on B&H and based on 65 reviews it's got a 4.5/5 rating, with universal praise for IQ. I've also seen it for much cheaper than $499 too.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Interesting. I was on B&H and based on 65 reviews it's got a 4.5/5 rating, with universal praise for IQ. I've also seen it for much cheaper than $499 too.
Depends what the reviewers are otherwise used to. If your only experience with a long lens is a 24x superzoom bridge camera, then sure, its probably great compared to what your used to. If your used to a Nikon 200-400 f4 VR then its pretty poor in comparison.
Its hardly the worst lens I've owned, and its hardly the best either. Really comes down to the question of what you expect for $500 (or maybe less) in terms of IQ and also usefulness, and thats a subjective personal question only you can answer.
I found it to be your basic, run of the mill, slow, consumer type zoom lens that gets a little soft on the long end and with less than stellar OS. If I enjoyed shooting at 600mm equiv a lot though, I'd probably of kept it, but as I don't really use that focal range much, and the lens isn't anything to write home about, it wasn't worth $500 or even $400.
I probably wouldn't even want it for $300 simply because I find a lens starting at 200mm to be a bit restrictive for the focal range I find myself using. Something else might always be at 600mm and fit it perfect for their needs.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I see a lot of good reviews for the Panasonic 100-300 and it's cheap. Any one tried this on a m4/3 that can comment.
Also has there been any word on when the 60 f/2.8 macro is being released and how much it'll cost.
I use the 100-300 on my E-P3 and quite like it. I have to say I bought it to take it with me on hikes where my regular wildlife kit (7D with 100-400 and 600/4) are just too heavy and bulky. That's where it shines - we usually hike in good light, meaning I can stop down a bit. Wide open, I found it a bit soft, but when stopped down, it's decent. About on par with the 100-400 I'd say (which isn't as stellar as my 600/4, obviously).
What I love about it is the excellent stabilizer. That is not on par with the 100-400, it's FAR better. Makes me wish Canon would update the 100-400... The AF is decent and OK for mostly stationary objects, I wouldn't shoot birds in flight with it though.
I bought the entire m4/3 kit after a backpacking trip in Norway last year - the hills where swarming with lemmings, and all I had with was a measly Canon G10... the 7D was sitting in the lodge down by the sea. And I have to say for something I bought as a compromise and a replacement for a G10, the 100-300 performs amazingly well.
Antje wrote:
I use the 100-300 on my E-P3 and quite like it. I have to say I bought it to take it with me on hikes where my regular wildlife kit (7D with 100-400 and 600/4) are just too heavy and bulky. That's where it shines - we usually hike in good light, meaning I can stop down a bit. Wide open, I found it a bit soft, but when stopped down, it's decent. About on par with the 100-400 I'd say (which isn't as stellar as my 600/4, obviously).
What I love about it is the excellent stabilizer. That is not on par with the 100-400, it's FAR better. Makes me wish Canon would update the 100-400... The AF is decent and OK for mostly stationary objects, I wouldn't shoot birds in flight with it though.
I bought the entire m4/3 kit after a backpacking trip in Norway last year - the hills where swarming with lemmings, and all I had with was a measly Canon G10... the 7D was sitting in the lodge down by the sea. And I have to say for something I bought as a compromise and a replacement for a G10, the 100-300 performs amazingly well....Show more →
Thanks for the info Antje.
I know my 100-400L is a superb lens, even wide open it's sharp at 400mm. I agree though it really needs an update if for just the newer IS. There is a rumour of a new version, but I'll believe it when I see it announced.
I don't see this happening anytime soon as it will eat into the sales of their 200-400 lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I know my 100-400L is a superb lens, even wide open it's sharp at 400mm. I agree though it really needs an update if for just the newer IS. There is a rumour of a new version, but I'll believe it when I see it announced.
bobbytan wrote:
I don't see this happening anytime soon as it will eat into the sales of their 200-400 lens.
I don't see that as an issue at all. The number of sales of a $2K, 1.5kg lens compared to a $10K+, 3kg+ lens would be probably a 1000:1. If you really will shell out for the 200-400 you are doing it because it's f/4 and has tc built-in. You will possibly have both lenses as the 100-400L is vastly more portable. basically these lenses move in different markets. If this logic is true there never would have been a 300 f/4 or 400 /4 or 400 f/5.6.
