Agree with Will Crockett

ryan2007 wrote:

Hello forum,

I just watched Will's video on the Olympus 75-300 and was not so surprised to hear your comment or his comment on the Panasonic 100-300

So, I just used the Panasonic 100-300 today for the Ice Hockey league stuff I was doing. I used my Bogen self-standing mono-pod for support with the GX-1. I shot un-obstrusted, so not shooting through any glass or plexiglass that shields the on lookers.

I will say the Panasonic is a sturdy lens in the hands, does not feel like it came from a cracker-jack box.

However, I know when feels right even before I make a print. I have the 45-200 and it does well but gets 10% use so I was looking for a longer lens. I took the 100-300 and just for focal length comparison with this specific activity 100 is ok, 200 is better and that 250-300 or 500 - 600 equivalent is nice. My point is what am I missing having a lens stop at 100 or even 200, just for the visual. Yes, nice to go further down range so to say.

However, Panasonic needs to make lenses on the long end past 150 mm at minimum a prime or fixed focal lengths at either 2.8 or 4.0 constant. I think that would be better with out creating huge zooms that defeat the MFT's idea too much.

The 100-300 is just ok and I think the $500 cost is justified. I am not an Olympus user for anything and can not comment on Will's review first hand, but I am not disagreeing.

I am not saying those that were kind to respond to my "any 100-300 regrets" thread are not appreciated. Thank you all!!

I just knew when I was using the lens to also do video today it was not smooth to me. So, this lens is getting returned. If all goes to plan just one more week for GH-3 to wait.