The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with Panasonic 100-300

Tesselator

New member
Any 300mm lens you put on your M4/3 camera. If your camera has IBIS then you have that too!

There's nothing special about the 100-300 that makes it 200-600mm and not all others.

But if you would like just one of 10 or 20 examples I know of off the top of my head:

Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX: $358.97 at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G-ED-VR/dp/B003ZSHNCC

I could fill the post with other examples too. With the difference in price you could even pick up a camera body that can make use of it's VR too. And that body will, without a doubt produce better images than any M4/3 camera. (of course it won't have any of the other advantages, like video, real time full time live view, and the shallow flange depth that allows us to adapt just about all other lenses... but the DR and overall IQ will be better.)
 
Last edited:

ustein

Contributing Editor
>Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX: $358.97 at Amazon

Ok, is angle of view of 450 on Nikon Bodies. on all other bodies no AF.
 

Tesselator

New member
So, you're going to let Panasonic charge an arm and a leg because their crop factor is 2:1? Really?

By that reasoning P&S cameras should cost in the thousands - as their crop factors is 5:1 and more. :p

I call baloney. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. Crop factor is a whole different thing. There are upsides and downsides to it you know.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
So, you're going to let Panasonic charge an arm and a let because their crop factor is 2:1? Really?

By that reasoning P&S cameras should cost in the thousands - as their crop factors is 5:1 and more. :p

I call baloney.
No, it's just business. As long as nobody else deliver the features, and most people want AF and IS these days, they can charge that much. They do what any other supplier would have done in their shoes. I agree that samples so far have been rather mixed, but I think it's far too early to make a final judgment.

I'm less worried about the quality of consumer zooms for m4/3 than I am for the almost total lack of pro quality lenses, particularly zooms with large/constant apertures. They would probably be larger than many people would like, but until they exist, I'm holding back a bit, and continue using legacy glass on my GH1. My OM Zuiko 500mm Reflex is much longer than the Panasonic zoom anyway, but still shorter :D
 

Terry

New member
So, you're going to let Panasonic charge an arm and a leg because their crop factor is 2:1? Really?

By that reasoning P&S cameras should cost in the thousands - as their crop factors is 5:1 and more. :p

I call baloney. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. Crop factor is a whole different thing. There are upsides and downsides to it you know.
If the general public thinks there is no value in buying this lens, the price will drop. There are people, as Uwe says, that want fast AF as well as image stabilization. Clearly you don't see the value.
 

Tesselator

New member
No, it's just business. As long as nobody else deliver the features, and most people want AF and IS these days, they can charge that much. They do what any other supplier would have done in their shoes.
Yeah, the weenies! :p

:talk028:



I agree that samples so far have been rather mixed, but I think it's far too early to make a final judgment.

I'm less worried about the quality of consumer zooms for m4/3 than I am for the almost total lack of pro quality lenses, particularly zooms with large/constant apertures. They would probably be larger than many people would like, but until they exist, I'm holding back a bit, and continue using legacy glass on my GH1.
That's a rather interesting question. I've just always assumed there never ever would be any such things. You're talking about something the equivalent of the Canon L line-up right? 300mm at F2 or 85mm at f/1.2 with AF, OIS, excellent MTF curves, and so on? It would be nice but I kinda don't think it'll happen. Especially in Panasonic's case! The Sony mirrorless pro/semi-pro body is due out sometime in 2011. After that hits maybe Sony will have something. But I think for M4/3 we'll be using legacy glass until the format expires altogether. I think there's more hope for battery powered electronic adapters that can control AF, VR/IS and the Aperture of attached lenses myself. It'll be interesting to watch for sure.

The thing is that the m4/3 format has about a 7 year maximum lifespan. With the advent of semi-spherical sensors some years ago and what I believe is the trend/realization for FF sensors with the DR and low noise they can deliver, it won't be long till we see mirrorless full-frame offerings. Once that happens M4/3 will die almost immediately or shortly thereafter. I'm guessing that will come to pass in 7 years or less. It could be done within 2011 if someone wanted to break the ranks but that never happens anymore.

My OM Zuiko 500mm Reflex is much longer than the Panasonic zoom anyway, but still shorter :D
hehehe, try hand-holding that! :D I scooped up a Zeiss Mirotar 500mm f/4.5 with the mount ripped off from it not long ago. I haven't had a chance to repair it yet but I'm looking forward to the day when I do. :) Is the OM a catadioptric design?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
hehehe, try hand-holding that! :D I scooped up a Zeiss Mirotar 500mm f/4.5 with the mount ripped off from it not long ago. I haven't had a chance to repair it yet but I'm looking forward to the day when I do. :) Is the OM a catadioptric design?
Yes, it's catadioptric, and yes, I'm hand-holding it. That requires a lot of light, and 1/2000s or faster. The problem with shooting mirror lenses on a light tripod (and a heavy one kind of negates the purposes of a small telephoto lens, doesn't it?) is the low mass of the lens. Unlike heavier lenses, it picks up vibrations very easily, and even the shutter of the GH1 creates problems. But when conditions are right, it's a lot of fun. It requires a lot of practice though.

The exception from the rule is very long shutter times (3 seconds or longer), since vibrations usually die within a second or so. Unless it's windy...
 

lcubed

New member

henningw

Member
Hi cliff,

Yes, I expect a lot for what is a lot of money - $600. If that's not a lot for you then please send me $600 - every week. :thumbs:



Hi all,
I'm being fairly clear about what I'm comparing this lens to. The FD 100-300mm f/5.6, the Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8, and other manual focus legacy lenses like it. I guess I'm a particular class of photographer. I evaluate lenses on the bases of IQ performance first and foremost. After that I look at price. And lastly I consider such features as AF, IS, EA, and etc. I don't care how consumers define the various segments of the market. I'm not a marketing agent so that's completely meaningless to me. It's also not very important to me whether people agree with my assessments or not. They are mine and stand for one man's time and effort in making such judgements. That I spend an excessive amount of time doing just this may or may not add weight to my analysis - that's for others to decide. Certainly, I can't be the only one here who wants top drawer performance at bargain prices. I'd find it strange if other here or anywhere didn't.

As for image samples of this particular lens I haven seen any "great" ones that weren't scaled down and intelligently processed to hide this lens's severe shortcomings! I think the images posted in this thread are perfect examples. The photographer is good - certainly no slouch - but the lens just can perform and it shows. These samples as far as IQ goes are pretty terrible - yes, bad! The first three are very soft and detail-less even though they have both been scaled and sharpened extensively. The 5th and 6th are much better which to me shows that this lens may have a sweet spot around 120mm if it's also stopped down. If one looks at all of these images here and thinks to themselves that they are examples of good IQ then IMHO they either haven't seen the results of a good lens so have nothing to compare to, haven't learned how to analyze images slash what to look for, or are confusing themselves with emotional content - either from the photographer's skill in composing the capture or from the marketing/forum hype that frenzies the consumer fanatics. In any case these samples do not serve as samples acceptable to actually evaluate this lens. They are not 100% crops and at least a few of them have been sharpened to death - which introduces false detail & noise and destroys some of the existing micro-detail.

In all it is still the result of my evaluation that anyone would be better suited and better equipped via the purchase of a step filter adapter (if needed) and a 2.4x Canon tele-con (telephoto converter) to place on your existing 14-140 kit lenses. The IQ will be slightly better than this 100-300mm Lumix, the OIS will still function perfectly, the AF will still work correctly, and there is no measurable light loss. It will provide about 150mm to exactly 336mm of extension without vignetting and it only costs $60 - as opposed to $600. Hey, if $600 is nothing then there's absolutely nothing to lose with this! :angel: It still may not be as good as the Tamron 60-300mm F/3.8 Macro I mentioned but it's guaranteed to provide better IQ than the Lumix 100-300mm. The tele-con can also be added to any other existing lenses of about 55mm or more... ;)

.
I recently got the 100-300 and the GH2. As background, I also have various other equipment including my (3rd) copy of the Tamron 60-300, which as you note is one of the best zooms to get to 300. I also have and have had/used other lenses that are or get to 300, 400mm and longer from Canon, Nikon and Leica. For the record, the long lens that was optically the best that I've used is the 400PC Nikkor from the early 70's; the first compact f/5.6 that Nikon produced with exotic elements. Better than any Nikon 400/3.5 or 2.8 or Canon 300/2.8 of any generation. In use it was rather clunky, as it didn't have IF and a long throw rather rough helicoid. I haven't used the Leica 280/4 Apo, which is apparently the class of the field so that lens is excepted.

I got the 400/5.6 Nikkor in 1976 to replace the 400/6.8 Telyt I had. Optically the Nikkor was way ahead of the Telyt, but operationally it was exactly the opposite. I could follow focus birds near the close focus limit with the Telyt, whereas the Nikkor was best used for subjects that were stationary.

I now have the Telyt again. No point in having optical excellence if the haptics prevent you from getting the picture.

All that said, the 100-300 Panasonic is of similar optical quality to the 60-300 Tamron, but the latter is a lot heavier, larger, and operationally a lot harder to use. When testing I got a lot fewer useably sharp shots with the Tamron due to misfocus and/or shake. The only things better about the Tamron is that it is now cheap, it goes down to 60mm and has a useable macro range.

The Panasonic 100-300 is a lot better than the 45-200 and the 14-140. That it is better than the 45-200 is good, because the latter is just barely acceptable. The 14-140 is also not that good, but some allowances can be made for the range, just as for the 28-300 Tamron which is really not that good either unless you desperately need that range.

In any case, to judge the 100-300 you should try it or wait until someone you trust does a full test. Until then making statements such as using a teleconverter on the 14-140 will produce better quaility is rather laughable. Whether the lens provides value to you is something completely separate of course, but optically I am quite satisfied.

As I'm sure you realize, testing a lens that has the angle of view equivalent to a 600mm lens on full frame requires excellent atmospheric conditions; in fact that is probably one of the main reasons you will see poor quality from a number of long lens shots on the internet.

Henning
 

Tesselator

New member
Interesting. Thanks for that Henning! OK, I'll have to reconsider my initial assessments then. :p


BTW, Which Nikkor are you talking about? I dunno the Nikkor-PC 400mm F/5.6. I know the old Nikkor EDs...

Is it this one?

 

CPWarner

Member
Here are a few size comparisons of the telephotos I have:

First up from left to right: Panasonic 45-200mm, Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS, Canon FD 135 f2.8, Canon FD 200mm Macro F4, Canon FD 300mm F4, and Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS with lenses retracted:



Second: same set with lenses extended. Note that the Canon FD 200mm macro is a helicoil focusing and extends with macro focusing. Shown extended for reference.



Third: Looking at the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS vs the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS with lenses retracted and wearing their hoods.



Fourth: Same as last set with lenses extended:



Panasonic 100-300 on the scale:



Canon 100-400mm on the scale:



Up to now, my Canon 1DsII with the 100-400mmL was what I used when I needed something in the telezoom range. The 45-200 was not quite cutting it for what I wanted in terms of image quality in comparison. I recognize that not everyone will care about this comparison or even consider it relevant, but for some it might be useful. I put the Canon FD lenses in for comparison as they are very good single focal length lenses that work well adapted to m 4/3 bodies. The 135mm and 200mm have adapters on them and the 300 does not have an adapter in the photos.

I did think that it is rather remarkable that the Panasonic is almost 1/3 the weight of the Canon 100-400mm L IS. Note that the Panasonic does not have a tripod mount which does add weight to the Canon. That said, I would rather cary the Panasonic than the Canon. What is next will be to run some comparison of the Panasonic G2 with 100-300mm versus my Canon 1DsII with the 100-400mm. What is interesting to me is whether I can replace the 100-400mm with the Panasonic. Again, not the comparison everyone is necessarily looking for, but relevant to those looking to downsize their gear from a larger DSLR. I will not be able to get to the image comparisons for a week or two, but I do plan on running them.

One last note: The Panasonic 100-300mm cost $600 while the Canon 100-400mm L is running $1500 with current rebates.

Cliff
 
Last edited:

biglouis

Well-known member
Cliff

Very interesting physical comparison. I look forward to your optical comparison in the future.

LouisB
 

henningw

Member
Interesting. Thanks for that Henning! OK, I'll have to reconsider my initial assessments then. :p


BTW, Which Nikkor are you talking about? I dunno the Nikkor-PC 400mm F/5.6. I know the old Nikkor EDs...

Is it this one?

That's the one. The 'ED' before the ED's.

Henning
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Very interesting, Cliff !

What's the use of a lens that is optically excellent, but that you do not take with you because it's to heavy ????

I own a Nikkor 300/2.8 IF-ED, I find it optically superb, but, as it brings 2740 gr of weight, and you need to carry a STABLE tripod for it, I use it mainly around the house for shooting birds and the moon.

For my mobile needs, I'm expecting delivery of an Olympus B300 Teleconverter (one that mounts on the front of the lens) that I'll test on my 45-200mm.
If not satisfactory, then I'll consider buying the 100-300mm Panasonic lens

C U,
Rafael
 

kai.e.g.

Member
I owned that Canon 100-400mm for 24 hours a few years ago. I purchased it 2nd hand, and it exhibited an issue with the zooming action jamming up within hours. Exchanged it for the 70-300 DO (diffractive optics) instead, which is by design a little more compact. I could post a picture of it, but I have nothing to put next to it to give it context.
 

Tesselator

New member
Here are a few size comparisons of the telephotos I have:

First up from left to right: Panasonic 45-200mm, Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 OIS, Canon FD 135 f2.8, Canon FD 200mm Macro F4, Canon FD 300mm F4, and Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS with lenses retracted:

I have the four on the right! I paid less than $600 for all four combined. Of course I had to repair two of them but that was the fun part! :) (actually it seems the EF just sold a few hours ago... So I [will] have only the three - costing me a total of $160).

BTW, I think your comparison was very interesting *and* relevant! Nice one!


That's the one. The 'ED' before the ED's.

Henning
Thanks Henning! I'm going to try and hunt one down!
 

CPWarner

Member
I owned that Canon 100-400mm for 24 hours a few years ago. I purchased it 2nd hand, and it exhibited an issue with the zooming action jamming up within hours. Exchanged it for the 70-300 DO (diffractive optics) instead, which is by design a little more compact. I could post a picture of it, but I have nothing to put next to it to give it context.
I used to own a copy of the 70-300mm DO. I was never really happy with the optical performance of that lens, so I sold it. I also had the 400mm DO for a bit, so I do have experience with the post processing that images created from the the DO lenses require. But neither of the copies I owned gave me the optical performance I was looking for. That could be because I owned earlier versions of those lenses, as there is ample reports on a number of sites that later lenses in the DO range improved optical performance. The new 70-300 L should be an interesting alternative as well, as it is much more compact and gets rid of the push-pull dust pump of the 100-400. Not quite as long a reach, but interesting.
 
Top