One reason why my 600mm f4 is gathering dust

Just brought the Panasonic 100-300mm out for a test run.  I felt that optically it's around 60 to 70% of the 600 f4 but at least I don't have to lug around 10lbs for the lens and an additional 5 lbs for the tripod and wimberly head.  IQ wise it's more than an acceptable trade off for the small size.  It's not the best for sure but for travel it's a welcome addition.



... that is some kind of target rich environment you have there.

Nice shots. I bought that lens for exactly that reason ... unbelievable reach for the size and weight. And the image quality is really rather nice, especially when you can keep ISO fairly low.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Thanks, I sometimes bring out the big guns for fast shooting, but after I got this gem I'm seeing less and less reason to lug around the big rig, for when I'm not reaching for ultimate quality.

Excellent shots

Sounds like somebody had no idea what he spent so much money for in the first place.

--
OM-D for sale; see classifieds forum.

These are all nice sharp images but they look overexposed to me.  Is anyone else seeing them as a bit too bright?

Isabel

--
http://www.pbase.com/image/111520345.jpg
http://www.pBase.com/isabel95
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/

A couple, by a small amount that can easily be fixed in post.

Very nice series.  In an aviary I take it?

Beautiful photos! I have this lens on my list, and I'm thinking about selling my Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4. Compared to your 600mm f/4, the 300 is quite portable, but it's still enough lens that I leave it at home quite often. Unless I know I will be mostly photographing wildlife, I usually take my 80-200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter for more versatility... or I leave all the Nikon gear at home and take my m4/3 kit (which is happening more and more often these days).

Now that I have kids, I rarely get to devote the time to a shoot that would justify lugging around heavy gear. I have the Panasonic 45-200mm. It's pretty good, but definitely not in the same class as the 300mm f/4. But many of the shots I have seen taken with the 100-300mm, or the Oly 75-300mm, are really impressive. I would be very happy with results like these, and 300mm on m4/3 gives me a tighter angle of view than 300mm on APS-C.

What I find especially impressive about these shots (besides the fact that you obviously know how to take great bird photos) is that they were all shot wide open.

Sean

Thanks, yes, in an aviary, that's why the birds are not afraid of humans, they got used to it and I can get super close.

Yeah, it really depends on what your mission is, whether it be ultimate quality, or versatility / portability.  I didn't expect the Panasonic 100-300mm would exceed my expectation either.  And for BIF shots the AF still needs a long way to go to improve.

A matter of taste, I guess, but they all look well done.

...that you'll get much more background blur with the 600 F4. Very nice shots though.

Hi,

Nice photos of the birds.  I also enjoy very much "shooting" birds there.  Here is one shot last year taken with Nikon D90, 70-300mm.  May be the same guy.  It is not that sharp at the long end, usually I stay below 200mm.  Anyway, my Nikon gear had gone except the macro.  Really enjoy the light weight and high optical quality lens of the m43.  I just bought the 75mm last week, haven't give it a good trial.  May be a bit short for birds but will test it this week.



Thanks.  Like you said the 600mm f4 is used when you know exactly what you are going to shoot.  But for trips where you're not sure you need the FL, the 100-300mm is the prefer choice.  I posted the images to give us an idea of what to expect when shooting at 300mm wide open.  I've seen a couple of posts prior that said at 300mm the IQ penalty is significant, but I didn't find it objectionable, and certainly usable.

The reason why I didn't go for the Oly 75-300mm was the smaller max aperture.  Therefore even if it's sharper, at f6.7 at the longest end, the shutter speed is reduced by 1/2 compared to the Pana 100-300mm, resulting in blurrier photos due to subject movement and your own lens movement.  That's why I prefer the Pana 100-300mm to the Oly.

Nice shot!  Haha maybe the same guy   With the EM5 I enjoy the 5 axis IBIS which allows me to stay at around 1/200 sec for a 600mm shot and still get a decently sharp shot.  You will no doubt enjoy the 75mm, IMHO a must have lens for every m43 shooter.

Yes, but 600/4 on FF camera collects 8 times more light and has better resolution, and faster AF. Of course, if you don't need it there is no reason to lug a heavy system, but if you do need the light and/or the resolution and/or good AF (indoor sports, for example) then better have a heavy tool than no tool at all.

Actually, the images are on the soft side, though only 2MP in size. Both Panasonic telezooms are known to be soft on the long end. Overall, they look normally exposed, though the whites are washed out with virtually no details, like those two images above.

Your images are fine. But to be honest, they are far and away from good images with 600, 500, and 400.