Joe Blackwood
New member
Jono,
How do you like the Oly 75-300 compared to the Panasonic 100-300? :toocool:
I know that it is smaller. How are the images from the new lens?
Have a great trip to Crete...
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!
How do you like the Oly 75-300 compared to the Panasonic 100-300? :toocool:
I know that it is smaller. How are the images from the new lens?
Have a great trip to Crete...
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Joe
I have a definite feeling about the difference between the images . . but I suspect it might be more to do with the feel of the lenses.
To be honest, without real and serious comparisons, I'm not sure there's much difference . . I changed for two reasons:
1. Size
2. Occasional aperture rattle on the OMD with the 100-300
3. I prefer the more 'analogue' feel of the Zuiko lenses (and if you understand that you can explain it back to me!).
. . . sorry, that's three reasons
Tim
Active member
This thread got me to thinking does anyone travel or use an OM-D with 12 f2.0 / 20 f2.0 /45 f1.8 combo? Its a nice set of compact HQ primes. The "problem lens" is the expensive 12mm.
This would be a similar set to the original Contax G2 kit with 21mm/45mm/90mm
The digital version would be a bit more "risky" if you had a lot of lens changes with dust incursion.
This would be a similar set to the original Contax G2 kit with 21mm/45mm/90mm
The digital version would be a bit more "risky" if you had a lot of lens changes with dust incursion.
JMaher
New member
Jono,
1) You take great shots with the 100-300
2) GAS set in
3) I buy the 100-300
4) You sell the 100-300 and buy something else.
Apparently I can't keep up
Actually I purchased the 100-300 a few weeks ago but have only had time to do a few test shots. They look great and I understood going in that the 75- 300 may have been a better choice (and maybe not) but I bought the 100-300 at a good price from another forum member and its a range didn't think I would use often. I'm happy with it and it was a great choice for me. I have attached one of the test shots. Nothing great but my first day with it, handheld and at ISO 6400.
Congrats on the 75-300. The photo you posted above is excellent.
Jim
****
To be on topic for one second - when I travel I usually find something like the 12-50 (or if I owned it the 12-35) zoom and the 25 1.4 for low light cover most of my needs.
1) You take great shots with the 100-300
2) GAS set in
3) I buy the 100-300
4) You sell the 100-300 and buy something else.
Apparently I can't keep up
Actually I purchased the 100-300 a few weeks ago but have only had time to do a few test shots. They look great and I understood going in that the 75- 300 may have been a better choice (and maybe not) but I bought the 100-300 at a good price from another forum member and its a range didn't think I would use often. I'm happy with it and it was a great choice for me. I have attached one of the test shots. Nothing great but my first day with it, handheld and at ISO 6400.
Congrats on the 75-300. The photo you posted above is excellent.
Jim
****
To be on topic for one second - when I travel I usually find something like the 12-50 (or if I owned it the 12-35) zoom and the 25 1.4 for low light cover most of my needs.
Last edited:
jonoslack
Active member
LOL - sorry Jim - absolutely NOTHING wrong with the 100-300, it's faster as well, I only changed for the size, and the fact that my particular body was particularly subject to aperture chatter- which I found pretty irritating. (having got another body which is much better, that complaint seems to go away).Jono,
1) You take great shots with the 100-300
2) GAS set in
3) I buy the 100-300
4) You sell the 100-300 and buy something else.
Apparently I can't keep up
Actually I purchased the 100-300 a few weeks ago but have only had time to do a few test shots. They look great and I understood going in that the 75- 300 may have been a better choice (and maybe not) but I bought the 100-300 at a good price from another forum member and its a range didn't think I would use often. I'm happy with it and it was a great choice for me. I have attached one of the test shots. Nothing great but my first day with it, handheld and at ISO 6400.
Congrats on the 75-300. The photo you posted above is excellent.
I don't think the 75-300 has better image quality, and the difference in size isn't that big a deal!
I was sending lots of kit to ebay, and it just seemed like a good idea at the time!
all the best
bobby,
you already have the two lenses needed for your task. Landscape and architecture you do with the 14/2.8 that is great at f5.6
For people 20/1.7 is perfect.
If you have too much money you might want to get the 45/1.8 for portraits if you do any and Lensababy tilt&shift for architecture.
you already have the two lenses needed for your task. Landscape and architecture you do with the 14/2.8 that is great at f5.6
For people 20/1.7 is perfect.
If you have too much money you might want to get the 45/1.8 for portraits if you do any and Lensababy tilt&shift for architecture.
bensonga
Well-known member
Just back from my trip to France. Since half the trip was on a bicycle, I decided to keep it very simple.....a GH-2 and one lens, the 12-35/2.8.
The pictures look very good, but there were many, many times when I was wishing for a longer lens. Should have brought the 14-140 or even the 100-300. Lesson learned. :-(
The pictures look very good, but there were many, many times when I was wishing for a longer lens. Should have brought the 14-140 or even the 100-300. Lesson learned. :-(
dhsimmonds
New member
I am off to the Greek Cyclades Islands on Friday and I shall take my OMD with 12-50, Pana 100-300 and Pana-Leica 45.2.8 macro.
This will be backed up with Fuji XPro1, 18 and 35mm lenses.
The 14-150 would be nice......................!!
This will be backed up with Fuji XPro1, 18 and 35mm lenses.
The 14-150 would be nice......................!!
convexferret
New member
You already have the 14 and 20, that's the wide end covered. Just buy the 45 and you'll be carrying the same kit I carry every day. It's very light and of high quality and a very small extra investment. There's no need to complicate things.
rgeorge911
Member
I am planning a trip to Barcelona in about a month. I think I'll take two DMC-G3 bodies - one with the 14-140mm, the other with either the 20mm f1.7 or 25mm 1.4 Summilux. Probably the 20mm.
Thanks for getting the neurons firing in that direction.
Reed
My Blog: DMC-365.blogspot.com
Thanks for getting the neurons firing in that direction.
Reed
My Blog: DMC-365.blogspot.com
jonoslack
Active member
For normal, planned photo opportunities I'd agree, but for travel, the 14-150 Zuiko is really good - excellent quality, small and very flexible. I didn't take mine to Crete, and regretted it. Now I'm in Cornwall trying out Leica R lenses . . I left the 28-90 at home and am regretting that.
For me, travel photography is about being flexible and grabbing whatever comes up - a wide range zoom makes this possible, and the small sacrifice of quality is rarely of much importance (sure, I carry a couple of primes as well . . and sure, in normal circumstances I shoot primes).
all the best
dhsimmonds
New member
Although I took my Fuji X1Pro to the Cyclades, I only used it for 15 shots...some of those were also taken with the OMD and Oly 12-50 and I preferred them! I used the 100-300 for only a few more shots than I took with the X1Pro and the Leica 45mm macro not at all!
I would have liked a bit more reach on the 12-60, so the 14-150 would have been perfect. I also intend to get the Oly 9-18 in preference to the Pana 7-14 as it is much smaller and will enable filters which the Oly does not.
On the subject of Pana 100-300 v Oly 75-300, the old hands at m4/3rds tell me that the Oly is much slower to focus, with a slower max aperture but with otherwise no discernible difference in IQ.
My Fuji X1Pro is going up for sale!!!
I would have liked a bit more reach on the 12-60, so the 14-150 would have been perfect. I also intend to get the Oly 9-18 in preference to the Pana 7-14 as it is much smaller and will enable filters which the Oly does not.
On the subject of Pana 100-300 v Oly 75-300, the old hands at m4/3rds tell me that the Oly is much slower to focus, with a slower max aperture but with otherwise no discernible difference in IQ.
My Fuji X1Pro is going up for sale!!!
bensonga
Well-known member
Figured I would post one pic here from our trip to France in September.
The kit I took (GH2 and the 12-35/2.8 lens) worked great, but as noted above, I should have brought a longer focal length zoom also.
From a small town in Provence. I used this image for a recent color print exchange.
The kit I took (GH2 and the 12-35/2.8 lens) worked great, but as noted above, I should have brought a longer focal length zoom also.
From a small town in Provence. I used this image for a recent color print exchange.
slau
New member
As much as I dislike the 14-140 lens, it has been my most used lens while I was traveling. Nothing can touch the range of the lens and its IQ is acceptable if there is enough light for you to stop down to f8 or so. The 14-140 is practically for all outside shooting. The low light indoor shots will be the job for the 20/1.7.
I have been in the same boat as you before. My recommendation will be the GH2+14-140+20/1.7.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
This thread seems to go on forever, so here's my take:
Normally, when travelling, I ususally take one WA zoom (always the Pana 7-14), one normal zoom (used to be the PanaLeica 14-50/2.8-3.5 but for my next trip, I'll try out the Pana 14-45/3.5-5.6) and one relatively long portait lens (used to be the Zeiss CY 85/1.4, but that has now been replaced by the Zuiko 75/1.8).
When I've bought the lenses that I plan to buy for m4/3, my setup will probably change to:
Pana 7-14/4
Zuiko 17/1.8
Zuiko 45/1.8 (may be replaced by the Pana 42.5/1.2 when it becomes available)
Zuiko 75/1.8
I do prefer primes for travel, since I mostly have enough time to choose a framing that is suitable for the lenses that I have available. The reward is the ability to shoot at very wide apertures when needed and ultimate image quality. The exception from the rule is ultra-WA, which is mostly used for landscapes and architecture, where the ability to move around is often restricted in relation to the photo I want to shoot.
I often travel with two camera bodies, currently 2 x GH1, but that may change to GH2 plus E-PL5 in the near future. If I shoot mostly landscape or architecture, the 7-14 is permanent on one body while lenses will vary on the other. If I shoot mainly street (portraits), the 75 will be permanent on one body, and so on...
"Unfortunately" part of my E-PL5 budget went into a mint Nikkor 28mm 2.0 AI last night, a lens that I've wanted for the F6 for some time now, and that might even find it's way onto m4/3 as well, replacing the OM Zuiko 28mm 2.8 that has been my "normal" lens so far.
Did this look confusing to you? It most certainly did to me :loco:
Normally, when travelling, I ususally take one WA zoom (always the Pana 7-14), one normal zoom (used to be the PanaLeica 14-50/2.8-3.5 but for my next trip, I'll try out the Pana 14-45/3.5-5.6) and one relatively long portait lens (used to be the Zeiss CY 85/1.4, but that has now been replaced by the Zuiko 75/1.8).
When I've bought the lenses that I plan to buy for m4/3, my setup will probably change to:
Pana 7-14/4
Zuiko 17/1.8
Zuiko 45/1.8 (may be replaced by the Pana 42.5/1.2 when it becomes available)
Zuiko 75/1.8
I do prefer primes for travel, since I mostly have enough time to choose a framing that is suitable for the lenses that I have available. The reward is the ability to shoot at very wide apertures when needed and ultimate image quality. The exception from the rule is ultra-WA, which is mostly used for landscapes and architecture, where the ability to move around is often restricted in relation to the photo I want to shoot.
I often travel with two camera bodies, currently 2 x GH1, but that may change to GH2 plus E-PL5 in the near future. If I shoot mostly landscape or architecture, the 7-14 is permanent on one body while lenses will vary on the other. If I shoot mainly street (portraits), the 75 will be permanent on one body, and so on...
"Unfortunately" part of my E-PL5 budget went into a mint Nikkor 28mm 2.0 AI last night, a lens that I've wanted for the F6 for some time now, and that might even find it's way onto m4/3 as well, replacing the OM Zuiko 28mm 2.8 that has been my "normal" lens so far.
Did this look confusing to you? It most certainly did to me :loco: