I originally posted this in DPReview and realize that I should have posted it here.
I have done the brick wall test for the Pana 100-300, Nikor 300 ED IF 4.5, and the Tokina ATX 100-300 4.0. Test done on GH2, 160 ISO, Daylight WB with remote shutter release. Manual exposure. Raw files processed in Lightroom 3.3. The tripod was a Manfrotto 055 Pro with 410 geared head.
I did a similar test a couple of days ago but with a lighter tripod, self timer, poor light, slow shutter speeds, and windy conditions. A recipe for disaster and it was. The current test turned out much better. I am confident of its results.
I tested wide open to 16.0. The only apertures I am really interested in are 5.6 and 8.0 with some nod to wide open for when really needed. 11.0 will not be discussed as diffraction starts to be noticeable and the sharpness degrades slightly but still sharp enough to use if you need depth of field.
Cliff notes results: The Panasonic was the sharpest, best contrast at all apertures. At 5.6 the Panasonic vignetted noticeably, pretty much gone by 8.0. The other two lenses exhibited chromatic aberration in the corners. The Nikor towards red, the Tokina towards yellow. Of course, the Pansonic was corrected automatically in Lightroom 3.3. The Tokina was easier to remove the aberration than the Nikor.
Need aperture speed: The Tokina
Need sharpness: The Panasonic. Vignetting usually not a problem as I usually darken the edges anyway. If needed, it is easy to remove.
Need close up: The Pana goes to 4.9ft, pretty good. The Nikor to 7.4ft. The Tokina to 2 meters (a little less than 7ft). But the Tokina and Nikor can be used with tubes, which I have, Pana is stuck at 4.9ft.
Below is an example of what I mean by noticeably sharper. The Panasonic on the left and Nikor at right. 1:1 crops of upper left corner. When I say slightly I mean that you have to look carefully at 1:1 crops to see the difference which is not much. In real world both would satisfy. The Pana at 5.6 was noticeably sharper at the center than the other two also. At all comparable apertures. Second image is the center crop at 1:1
My decision on which lenses to keep - all of them.
The Pana for general use due to sharpness, size, ease of processing, and autofocusing (fast).
The Tokina for speed and use at other focal lengths - it was sharper than three other 135mm prime lenses when tested.
The Nikor for closeups of flowers - easier to use because of tripod mount on lens and slightly better sharpness than Tokina (I do a lot of flower images with long focal length and tubes).
Cost factor: Pana $550, Nikor $250, and Tokina $80 (I got lucky).
I also have the Pana 45-200. Next week I will test the Pana 100-300, Pana 45-200, Tokina 100-300, and an Olympus OM 200 4.0 against each other at 200mm.
Tests are surprising. I expected the Nikor to spank the other two, but of the three it is the one I would let go first.
Larry
I have done the brick wall test for the Pana 100-300, Nikor 300 ED IF 4.5, and the Tokina ATX 100-300 4.0. Test done on GH2, 160 ISO, Daylight WB with remote shutter release. Manual exposure. Raw files processed in Lightroom 3.3. The tripod was a Manfrotto 055 Pro with 410 geared head.
I did a similar test a couple of days ago but with a lighter tripod, self timer, poor light, slow shutter speeds, and windy conditions. A recipe for disaster and it was. The current test turned out much better. I am confident of its results.
I tested wide open to 16.0. The only apertures I am really interested in are 5.6 and 8.0 with some nod to wide open for when really needed. 11.0 will not be discussed as diffraction starts to be noticeable and the sharpness degrades slightly but still sharp enough to use if you need depth of field.
Cliff notes results: The Panasonic was the sharpest, best contrast at all apertures. At 5.6 the Panasonic vignetted noticeably, pretty much gone by 8.0. The other two lenses exhibited chromatic aberration in the corners. The Nikor towards red, the Tokina towards yellow. Of course, the Pansonic was corrected automatically in Lightroom 3.3. The Tokina was easier to remove the aberration than the Nikor.
Need aperture speed: The Tokina
Need sharpness: The Panasonic. Vignetting usually not a problem as I usually darken the edges anyway. If needed, it is easy to remove.
Need close up: The Pana goes to 4.9ft, pretty good. The Nikor to 7.4ft. The Tokina to 2 meters (a little less than 7ft). But the Tokina and Nikor can be used with tubes, which I have, Pana is stuck at 4.9ft.
Below is an example of what I mean by noticeably sharper. The Panasonic on the left and Nikor at right. 1:1 crops of upper left corner. When I say slightly I mean that you have to look carefully at 1:1 crops to see the difference which is not much. In real world both would satisfy. The Pana at 5.6 was noticeably sharper at the center than the other two also. At all comparable apertures. Second image is the center crop at 1:1
My decision on which lenses to keep - all of them.
The Pana for general use due to sharpness, size, ease of processing, and autofocusing (fast).
The Tokina for speed and use at other focal lengths - it was sharper than three other 135mm prime lenses when tested.
The Nikor for closeups of flowers - easier to use because of tripod mount on lens and slightly better sharpness than Tokina (I do a lot of flower images with long focal length and tubes).
Cost factor: Pana $550, Nikor $250, and Tokina $80 (I got lucky).
I also have the Pana 45-200. Next week I will test the Pana 100-300, Pana 45-200, Tokina 100-300, and an Olympus OM 200 4.0 against each other at 200mm.
Tests are surprising. I expected the Nikor to spank the other two, but of the three it is the one I would let go first.
Larry