Fun with Panasonic 100-300

[kai.e.g.]

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.

I didn't use the 70-300 DO lens much before I stopped using the Canon system altogether in favour of smaller systems. I had taken some OK shots with it, but like you say, it was never stellar. My 70-200L f/4 (non-IS) lens completely outclassed it - in fact, looking back on things, I really have no idea why I purchased that DO lens in the first place. Now I'm selling it, and it won't sell for probably half of what I paid for it.

 

[henningw]

I didn't use the 70-300 DO lens much before I stopped using the Canon system altogether in favour of smaller systems. I had taken some OK shots with it, but like you say, it was never stellar. My 70-200L f/4 (non-IS) lens completely outclassed it - in fact, looking back on things, I really have no idea why I purchased that DO lens in the first place. Now I'm selling it, and it won't sell for probably half of what I paid for it.

I still have the a 100-400, and had the 70-300DO. The 100-400 is definitely better optically.

I got the DO for its obvious compactness, but in the end it just wasn't worth it. Even with extensive PP the image quality was disappointing. So now I use a 70-200/4 IS as my more compact lens, and am willing to compromise on size on the one hand or even switch to the 100-400 if I need more reach. I feel that the image quality/size and convenience balance is now acceptable.

I dropped the first 100-400 I had, which was one of the very early ones, a short distance and the IS stopped working. After a couple of weeks at Canon (and I was a CPS member at the time!) I got it back with the AF making a lot of noise and the IS still not working properly. After 3 more trips to Canon I finally got it back in useable condition, but by that time I had lost confidence in it and sold it, getting a new one shortly thereafter, which I still use.

The performance is hardly that of the Nikkor 400 I wrote about earlier, but that lens was such a bear to handle quickly that I really can't recommend it except to people who only photograph stationary subjects. Acceptable optical peformance and decent handling generally outweigh outstanding optical quality and awful handling. Therefore my satisfaction with the 100-300, which I would consider optically in the same ballpark as the 100-400. It's hard for me to say more at this time because a) I've only had the 100-300 for a short time, b) the lenses cover different angles of view on the G series and the 5DII respectively, and c) the sensor differences are going to seriously blur the optical differences between the two setups.

Henning

 

[henningw]

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:

Cliff

A very nice and appropriate comparison. I've used all except the 135, and still have the zooms.

I don't have the Canon 200/4, but do have and use the Micro-Nikkor 200/4 IF AiS, and use it on both the FF Canon and the m4/3. It works really well on the G bodies as a 400mm equiv. macro, and also as a 560mm equiv. macro with the TC14b converter. Very decent optical quality and excellent handling with the IF. The new Nikon 200 Micro is better optically, but is a lot larger and heavier.

Henning

 

[CPWarner]

Therefore my satisfaction with the 100-300, which I would consider optically in the same ballpark as the 100-400. It's hard for me to say more at this time because a) I've only had the 100-300 for a short time, b) the lenses cover different angles of view on the G series and the 5DII respectively, and c) the sensor differences are going to seriously blur the optical differences between the two setups.

Henning

Henning,

That is true about the sensors confounding the differences in the lenses. I will be looking at the 1DsII/100-400mm vs the G2/100-300mm. It would not be a true comparison of glass but glass/body combination. If I can get my hands on a GH2, I would really like to add that to the comparison. However, they are very hard to get in the US now. Nobody has stock, so that will have to wait.

As to the Canon FD 200mm F4 Macro, that is a stunning lens. 1:1 at closest focus, and really sharp images.

Cliff

 

[CPWarner]

GH2 on the way! I found a body only that was being sold at list price rather than being sold at way over list. Can't wait.

Testing will wait until it gets here next week. So far, in a preliminary test, the G2/100-300mm held its own with the 1DsII/100-400mm. I will say that for images taken indoors at moderate distances with a tripod, this produces very good images with equivalent detail to the Canon setup. There are some color differences in the Panasonic vs Canon setups. Pretty impressive. There were some differences, but not as much as I expected. Since I have heard so much good about the GH2, I am going to wait for it to show up before doing more careful tests.

 

[Rich M]

Got a chance to take a few pics this morning with the 100-300 on a GF1. It was a bit challenging. The sun was at my back hitting the LCD and I forgot the VF-1 in another bag. I was shooting a little blind.

This shot is ported straight out of camera through LR w/ no adjustments.

Panasonic DMC-GF1, f/6.3 @ 300 mm, 1/500, ISO 100

Here is a 1:1 crop....

All in all, I am pretty pleased with the results considering I was standing about 25' away, handheld in a slight breeze.

R

 

[CPWarner]

Very nice image Rich. Wish we had something other than snow and ice to look at here. Sun would be nice too!

 

[slau]

I found the 100-300 is very similar to performance of the 45-200, and I am quite impressed with the new lens. I have been waiting for this lens as I would like to have option not to carry my Canon super tele lenses if I want to travel light. Even with the GH2 body, the combination is not fast (in terms of AF) enough for bird-in-flight. But, I think it is more than capable for general outdoor shots with half decent lighting.

All the full sized images in the 100-300 gallery were shot in raw and converted to 90% JPG using Lightroom 3.3 with the sharperning off during the Export. While the last 5 shots were handheld, the other shots were shot with tripod under very windy condition. I did exposure adjustment to all the images with the Auto tone and minor fill adjustment:
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/panasonic_10_300

 

[Rich M]

Even with the GH2 body, the combination is not fast (in terms of AF) enough for bird-in-flight. But, I think it is more than capable for general outdoor shots with half decent lighting.

Thanks Stephen for putting these up. I think you summed it up nicely.

The 100-300 on the GH2 body is so tiny in comparison to the Canon 100-400 on the 7D and will grab the majority of the same shots.

R

 

[biglouis]

Got a chance to take a few pics this morning with the 100-300 on a GF1. It was a bit challenging. The sun was at my back hitting the LCD and I forgot the VF-1 in another bag. I was shooting a little blind.

This shot is ported straight out of camera through LR w/ no adjustments.

Panasonic DMC-GF1, f/6.3 @ 300 mm, 1/500, ISO 100

Rich: WoW! Amazing example of what the lens can do in the right hands.

 

[Rich M]

Rich: WoW! Amazing example of what the lens can do in the right hands.

Louis.....like many of my of my photos, there is a large component of luck involved.

After shooting with this lens over the last several days, I find it to be very versatile......like all m4/3 gear. However, it will be challenged In low light or in very fast action....like almost all gear and lenses.

If you want fast glass and 8fps, you will pay for it.....in price AND in weight. For $600 and a kit less than five pounds, I have absolutely no regrets.

R

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I found the 100-300 is very similar to performance of the 45-200, and I am quite impressed with the new lens. I have been waiting for this lens as I would like to have option not to carry my Canon super tele lenses if I want to travel light. Even with the GH2 body, the combination is not fast (in terms of AF) enough for bird-in-flight. But, I think it is more than capable for general outdoor shots with half decent lighting.

All the full sized images in the 100-300 gallery were shot in raw and converted to 90% JPG using Lightroom 3.3 with the sharperning off during the Export. While the last 5 shots were handheld, the other shots were shot with tripod under very windy condition. I did exposure adjustment to all the images with the Auto tone and minor fill adjustment:
http://www.pbase.com/stephenl/panasonic_10_300

Thanks for posting these. They gave me a lot of answers. I played around with them a bit, and except for those taken at 300mm, they all look plenty sharp, even those taken at around 270mm. That is 540mm eqv., and longer than a 70-300mm on a DX format camera. That's good enough for me

 

[biglouis]

If you want fast glass and 8fps, you will pay for it.....in price AND in weight. For $600 and a kit less than five pounds, I have absolutely no regrets.

R

My feelings exactly!

 

[Tesselator]

I've seen enough now to think that the 100-300mm is (or can be) pretty good. It's still not for me though. It's just too expensive (for me) for what one gets. The same $600 will buy 2 or 3 killer MF lenses (used) and I seem to be able to snuff the 100-300's output with something like the $150 ~ $200 FD 300mm F/4 L and even match it with something like a $75 ~ $150 Sigma 400mm F/5.6.

Sigma 400mm f/5.6 @ f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO: 500, Camera: GH1

Sigma 400mm f/5.6 @ f/8, 1/100s, ISO: 500, Camera: GH1
​

I know I've been a nay-sayer on the 100-300 previously in this thread and I guess I have to retract most of that... But the lens is still not for me. Now, if it were $200 ~ $300 I would be wanting one! No, wait... ...I would be having one.



.

 

[mark1000]

As one of my threads over at DPreview was linked to and criticised for showing resized images, i would like to point out that i post images for fun, not to prove this camera or that lens is the best ever since sliced bread, i always post resized and PP images, but i did post a couple of full sized images on request OOC, i bloody hate pixel peeping and don't see the point, you don't hang a 200% picture on the wall or frame one for your desk, i just don't get it guys.

So just to be clear, my pics are posted for fun, i did undertake quite a lot of work on request, since i had a 100-300 and a GH2 before most of the guys over at DPreview, but those images were post OOC and full sized.

Tesselator was very critical of my pics and the 100-300, i never understood his violent outburst that he could produce better images with a 10$ lens.

Actually, beside the image above my post of the cormorant i thought some of the other samples he has shown in various threads to be very average, i saw a shot of a Pigeon that looked so over processed that it was ruined.

Anyhow, i thought i needed to reply,

Be good, and take great pics.

Mark.

 

[Rich M]

I've seen enough now to think that the 100-300mm is (or can be) pretty good. It's still not for me though. It's just too expensive (for me) for what one gets. The same $600 will buy 2 or 3 killer MF lenses (used) and I seem to be able to snuff the 100-300's output with something like the $150 ~ $200 FD 300mm F/4 L and even match it with something like a $75 ~ $150 Sigma 400mm F/5.6.

Tesselator.....I have seen some of your bird shots posted here and on other forums using MF lenses on m4/3 camera bodies.

I have to say that you have amazing ability to be able to focus on the fly (literally) like that. It is a skill to be marveled at.

The closest I ever came to that was to shoot a relatively more compliant bird using the Konica UC 400/5.6 (and even THAT one missed focus by a hair).

I agree with you.....there is a LOT of affordable high quality long glass out there in the second-hand market. I own some.....I just don't have the ability to get a high percentage of usable shots out of them.....and it's not just the focus, it is also the stabilization issue.

So for me, the value equation is pretty simple; $600 for a lens that I can get keepers like this out of...

OR a bunch of out of focus throw aways.

I wish I could shoot and capture images like you do......I can't.

R

 

[Tesselator]

"violent outburst"?

We're talking about photo equipment not war or something actually life and death meaningful. Don't get things too far out of perspective now.

And also you seem to be fabricating reality somewhat here. I don't think I was overly critical of your image at all. It was in someone else's thread. You posted a pigeon and I requested a 100% crop. You posted it and I replied:

Thanks Mark!
Yeah, not great - but not as bad as I thought either. Pretty typical for a low-dollar AF hobby lens. (low dollar being $150 ~ $350). So I've changed my opinion from it being the worst lens ever to: It's just over-priced by 200%.

That's better tho!

Thanks again for accommodating us with the 100% crop!

The images that I was being critical about were these:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37093234

And those are seriously terrible! These were some of the very first samples to appear online from an owner/user of the Lumix 100-300 and these are as well as a few others very much like them from others posted a little later on, the reasons I thought the lens was so bad.

But allow me to clue you in a little bit. Anytime anyone posts an image online they should be prepared to receive criticism without taking it personally or seeking revenge in other forum venues - which would be very un-adult. If it's "just for fun" their own fun, then they should simply ignore any comments that don't seem "fun" to them. If they are like most people however they can probably benefit by listening to the analysis and critique offered - even if it feels hurtful or uncomfortable at first. If it does feel that way it's probably because you're taking it personally. When you post an image it automatically becomes a subjective thing and leaves the realm of your personage. People are free to hate it, love it, use it as a teaching tool, use it as a indication of the photographer's abilities or camera/lens qualities, and etc.

That's just how it is. It's not personal unless you make it so... and then it's only personal to you.

 

[Tesselator]

Tesselator.....I have seen some of your bird shots posted here and on other forums using MF lenses on m4/3 camera bodies.

I have to say that you have amazing ability to be able to focus on the fly (literally) like that. It is a skill to be marveled at.

The closest I ever came to that was to shoot a relatively more compliant bird using the Konica UC 400/5.6 (and even THAT one missed focus by a hair).

http://lanaihale.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v9/p597291702-5.jpg

I agree with you.....there is a LOT of affordable high quality long glass out there in the second-hand market. I own some.....I just don't have the ability to get a high percentage of usable shots out of them.....and it's not just the focus, it is also the stabilization issue.

So for me, the value equation is pretty simple; $600 for a lens that I can get keepers like this out of...

http://lanaihale.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p407289717-5.jpg

OR a bunch of out of focus throw aways.

I wish I could shoot and capture images like you do......I can't.

R

I hear ya. I don't think I'm exceptional tho. I mean there was a time just not so long ago when there were no such things as AF lenses nor image stabilization (IS) and there were millions of photographers taking great photographs - even with 300 to 600mm lenses :toocool:. It does take a little bit of practice but not all that much. Some practice focusing and zooming on cars on a busy or semi-busy street for 30min. will turn an "I can't" into an "I can" right away. :lecture: But I suppose a lot depends on how one looks at it. I like to ski for example but without practice I don't expect to be very good at it. If someone were to come along and invent automatic skies I probably wouldn't buy into that either. Like AF lenses it would just take too much of the fun out of it - for me. I would much rather struggle a little bit (picking myself up out of the snow or discarding some OOF images) and ultimately receive the reward of feeling and knowing that I had accomplished something (meaning an acquired ability in this case). But to each their own - if someone wants to get automatic skies just so they can easily get around on the hill, visit the lodge, or whatever I'll not begrudge them that. It's just not for me is all. And that's what most of us are doing here... talking about ourselves. What we like, what we don't, what we do/did, what we have, how we use it, sharing our experiences, assessments, etc. etc.

I have a question for you though. On the subject of IS what's it like at 300mm (600mm equiv.)? I'm currently of the opinion that there is no IS system in existence that can offer enough correction to stabilize an image at 600mm (equiv.). It's all based on shutter speeds and learning to hold the camera - or the more intelligent, using of a tripod! What's your experience with IS at the long end of your new lens? Have you tried it both turned off and turned on and compared the results yet? What's your assessment?

 

[mark1000]

As one of my threads over at DPreview was linked to and criticised for showing resized images, i would like to point out that i post images for fun, not to prove this camera or that lens is the best ever since sliced bread, i always post resized and PP images, but i did post a couple of full sized images on request OOC, i bloody hate pixel peeping and don't see the point, you don't hang a 200% picture on the wall or frame one for your desk, i just don't get it guys.

So just to be clear, my pics are posted for fun, i did undertake quite a lot of work on request, since i had a 100-300 and a GH2 before most of the guys over at DPreview, but those images were post OOC and full sized.

Tesselator was very critical of my pics and the 100-300, i never understood his violent outburst that he could produce better images with a 10$ lens.

Actually, beside the image above my post of the cormorant i thought some of the other samples he has shown in various threads to be very average, i saw a shot of a Pigeon that looked so over processed that it was ruined.

Anyhow, i thought i needed to reply,

Be good, and take great pics.

Mark.

"violent outburst"?

We're talking about photo equipment not war or something actually life and death meaningful. Don't get things too far out of perspective now.

And also you seem to be fabricating reality somewhat here. I don't think I was overly critical of your image at all. It was in someone else's thread. You posted a pigeon and I requested a 100% crop. You posted it and I replied:



The images that I was being critical about were these:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37093234

And those are seriously terrible! These were some of the very first samples to appear online from an owner/user of the Lumix 100-300 and these are as well as a few others very much like them from others posted a little later on, the reasons I thought the lens was so bad.

But allow me to clue you in a little bit. Anytime anyone posts an image online they should be prepared to receive criticism without taking it personally or seeking revenge in other forum venues - which would be very un-adult. If it's "just for fun" their own fun, then they should simply ignore any comments that don't seem "fun" to them. If they are like most people however they can probably benefit by listening to the analysis and critique offered - even if it feels hurtful or uncomfortable at first. If it does feel that way it's probably because you're taking it personally. When you post an image it automatically becomes a subjective thing and leaves the realm of your personage. People are free to hate it, love it, use it as a teaching tool, use it as a indication of the photographer's abilities or camera/lens qualities, and etc.

That's just how it is. It's not personal unless you make it so... and then it's only personal to you.

Oh come off your high horse, maybe violent is to strong, but you went on a right rant, completely uncalled for as others pointed out to you, read it again, i pointed out that my thread was linked to in this forum, and i wanted to explain why i never post full sized images, nothing to do with trying to hide things about a new camera or promote something about the same camera.

I think my post was pretty clear about that.

And then i post a comment on your picture ( just my opinion, just like you have one too about my pics ) and you throw your toys out of the pram, behave yourself mate, please.

And what analysis did you offer over at DPreview other than " this is the worst lens ever, i have better 10$ lens's that do better " yeah, great analysis.


Mark.

 

[mark1000]

A couple from the G2 and 100-300

Both images are resized with BDsizer to 800x600 and PP.

All the exif is in the images.

UK Blue tit.

UK Sparrow.

Shot through my conservatory double glazing.

Mark.