Agree with Will Crockett

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.

You're so biased, that even if someone "gave" you an Olympus gold watch, you'd refuse it.

One thing for sure, you're missing out on some great lenses.

--
My nickel, since the penny is being discontinued...
Jeff.

Well, having read Will's assessment regarding the low-light-performances of G5 and E-M5 - "the G5 is by far better" -  I wasn't too interested in being subjected to another dose of this - how should I put it - either deliberately misleading or extremely uninformed stuff. So no, I didn't watch the video and would recommend the same to others who are waiting for reliable information. How is it possible that a man with such a professional web presence who offers camera tests and so on can come to so strange conclusions?

--
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4688736761_6fd06ae5c8_o.jpg
Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...
I'm a HOlygan

One more week for an unbearable thread about something that could never be bad. Have you written your GH3 review yet.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

Yes, I like the part where he makes a good, very large print from a 75-300 shot at 2500 ISO on the GH3 and then scores that as a negative since those without a GH3 might not be able to do the same - and this in a "review" of the GH3. Also good is his "review" of the AF capabilities of the 75-300 done,  AFAIK, entirely in AF Tracking mode, which is the one mode that's both ineffectual and irrelevant, while not trying out AFS or AFC, which both really shine on the G5 (and presumably on the GH3 as well).

Actually, I would take that gold watch and sell it and buy more Panasonic items to support the GH-3 set up.

I was biased when I shot Nikon SLR/DSLR too and was glad to only use Nikon optics when I could.  If the formula works it works.

As I said, I didn't bother watching the video and now, having read your comment, I know that it was the right decision - as it's well known fact the the 75-300 outclasses the Lumix 100-300 in exactly one area: the C-AF performance. Say no more...

Anything else is more or less a question of taste, but this isn't. It's important.

This guy should really stop spreading wrong information.

--
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4688736761_6fd06ae5c8_o.jpg
Why not - if there's enough space on the sofa...
I'm a HOlygan

I'm specifically talking about the Panasonic 100-300 only.  I would never comment with out first hand experience.

My interest today is either the GX-1 or GH-3 only so far as bodies go.  I am not going to be loyal even to Panasonic if I do not like a product 100%.  It gets returned, no paper weights here.

I'm specifically talking about the Panasonic 100-300 only.  I would never comment with out first hand experience.

My interest today is either the GX-1 or GH-3 only so far as bodies go.  I am not going to be loyal even to Panasonic if I do not like a product 100%.  It gets returned, no paper weights here.

Do you broadcast all of your purchasing decision and angst much?

Autofocus is completely different than aperture ability of a lens. Those properties are a constant.  Autofocus ability could have something to do with what camera body is being used and or a firmware improvement.

He mentioned that 100-300 and if I did not use the lens I would say what is he talking about.  I used the 100-300 lens today and its just ok.

If I could not afford a DSLR solution or the 35-100 2.8 and thought the 100 mm was enough I would still use the 100-300.  Given a choice and its my money its not worth keeping for what I need.

Are you the purchasing and angst police.

Interesting. Unlike Nikon, Panasonic is an electronics company. And like Nikon, Olympus is an optical company.

Panasonic needs help from Leica to design their better optics. Olympus manages quite well on it's own. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Olympus designed Sony lenses in the near future.

As I said, your stubbornness negates you some excellent optics

--
My nickel, since the penny is being discontinued...
Jeff.

why do you think Olympus is better.  Panasonic has more options.  Olympus has I think a 12 2.0 lens they overcharge for just because of its color.  That 75-300 is slower than Panasonic's based on aperture.  The Panasonic 45 2.8 is better than the Olympus only if you need a macro solution.

Panasonic was my choice when I switched from Nikon.  Given a choice i could have picked Olympus.  The Leica optics used by Panasonic was the deciding factor.  If  it was Olympus I would be an Olympus user.  If Nikon had a good MFTs solution I would never have looked at Panasonic, but that's not reality.

I do have an olympus camera, their TG-1 which I determined better between Nikon or Canon.  I have no loyalty.  I take lots of input an make a choice.

I was impressed with the GF-1 so their is not point using Olympus MFTs.  I waited for a while and finally saw a good next option in the GX-1.

when I went from a Nikon SLR to a smaller film camera solution I went to the Contax G2. I could have picked Leica but their were a few things I did not like At the time.  Fr the same money I got three Contax lenses, autofocus and a motor drive built in which is what I wanted.  It blew Nikon out of the water optically.  I know Leica, but for the money I did not have Contax was fantastic.  Then digital came and that was time to sell film based cameras.

for pure aesthetics I hate that most of Olympus has only silver lens options and you have to again pay more if you want a special edition of the same lens which makes no sense.

What many here don't get is I am not saying my choice should be your choice.  I am saying Nikon could make Olympus lenses, Leica can start making Olympus lenses.  No matter how small I want 100% compatibility and you get that matching body and lens manufactures.

I have the 12/2 and the 14/2.5. No contest.

The Olympus 45/1.8 is a great portrait lens, and at less than $400 a great value.

Olympus 60/2.9 macro tested superior to the 45/2.8 macro for 1/2 the price. Just got one

The 75/1.8 is in a class by itself. I'm very tempted.

As for the 75-300, don't knock it until you try it. I had both the 100-300 and the 75-300. I have to say IQ wise they're very similar. Focus wise (on an E-M5), the 75-300 is faster and more surefooted.

And then come all the HG and SHG lenses, which are in among the best. Hoping for a new hybrid model that could take advantage of these lenses.

Don't get me wrong, I may be an Olympus fanboy, but unlike you I also own Panasonic gear. 2 bodies and 4 lenses. The FZ200 may be my next toy.

And the killer, is my µ4/3 pocket cam. The GF3 with the 15/8 bodycap lens.

--
My nickel, since the penny is being discontinued...
Jeff.

LOL

Then you just fell for a brand name : Leica approved the design (only the design) of to nly two lenses (45mm macro and 25mm F1.4 he isn't telling you to only use Olympus, he is telling you that you are missing some great lenses by refusing to mix brands. That principled attituruins running against your own interest !

--
rrr_hhh

the only thing where he may be right is that this lens (the 75-300mm) isn't for a Panasonic body, since it can't be stabilized, but he should have made it clearer from the start.

--
rrr_hhh

I don't need a 60 mm 2.8 macro when I have the 45 2.8 and plan on the 35-100 2.8.  I have the macro same as the Olympus and its a duplicate focal length that is a total waste of money to have an Olympus 60 2.8 & Panny 35-100 2.8

It does not count until you own it same as I can't comment on the 35-100, but I do have the 12-35 2.8 and its Amazing and got it when B&H had it on sale for $200 less.

I could try it and do the same as I did with the Panny, just send it back if I don't like it.  I can't imagine it doing any better on Panasonic body.

The FZ-200 was an option since the focal length goes to the same 600 mm and the price is the same, but you can't stop down past F-8.  DPreview reviewed the camera and it was enough Con's that I see it not on par with what I need.  For p&s I'm happy with my Canon G12 and for waterproof the Olympus TG-1 I am good with that.

That is fine.  Have you ever shot any actual Leica product?  If you did you would know its not just a brand name.  From cameras to lenses to binoculars they are Top Notch optics, better than Nikon or Canon optics hands down at least from where I left off.

When I bought into MFT's, never would I have ever thought of using ANYTHING Panasonic or Olympus.  I am a Nikon DSLR, Canon p&s user. I don't care for Nikon p&s they went down hill after the CP 5400, 8800 line many years ago.

I have always been a Nikon SLR/DSLR user and if Nikon does something great MFT's that I think worthy I will bail from Panasonic faster than you can say Olympus.

The only options at the time were Olympus & Panasonic about three years ago when I bought the GF-1 now sold that.  From the information in front of me at the time I determined Panasonic was better in EVERY way over the Olympus option for me. I think it was the EPL-1, EPM-1 or something like that to compare it to the GF-1.

Its the same for Canon DSLR users I was never a Canon user, did not like their flash system.

Olympus could sell every lens they have for $50 each,  Olympus could make the Panasonic GH-3, I'm still a Panasonic user.  It not about the money. I am not going to mix and match body to lens if I can buy the manufacture lens.  If Panasonic only had three lenses in the system and Olympus had more options I would weigh that, but Panasonic has lots of lenses.

I only complain about something when I do it first hand.  Sure, I can buy all the Olympus lenses and test them over a weekend, but its a waste of time when their is nothing wrong with the Panny lenses I have.