Reading mode: Light Dark

Yet More Birds with the 100-300. Eagle, Heron, Peregrine Falcon

Go to last post
S

sb123

Senior Member
Messages
1,162
Reaction score
151
Location
WA, US
GH1 + 100-300. Drayton Harbor & Semiahmoo, WA. The new lens is light, easy to carry, easy to hold while waiting for something to happen. It has good color and contrast. Sharpness is ok but clearly inferior to my 400/4.5 prime (used with Sony A33)- no surprise as that lens is vastly larger and more expensive and is near optical perfection. BIF is iffy with the GH1 - the GH2 should do a lot better.













--
Steve Barnett
 
Love the Bald eagle shot best, well done.

Regards Alan.
 
Really? That's the new 100~300mm that Panasonic released? Seriously, those are terrible. You seem to have a fairly good eye for composition so I assume you know what you're doing. That just leaves then lens then. I collect, clean, repair field test, and sell old lenses. I'll buy anything from $5 to $50. I've been at it for about five months now and have gone through about 200 lenses. About 100 reconditioned and sold off and another 100 still in my cabinet waiting to be sold or still needing work. I have 18 different adaptors and field test everything on the GH1 - same camera as you.

I don't everything about everything but the images you posted are in comparison, the softest, mushiest, most detail-less images I have ever seen compared to any of 200 I've tried and that's even considering lenses in dire need of cleaning and/or repair. I looked it up on Amazon and they want about $600 for that. I'm beside myself and speechless. I really don't know what to say. If Panasonic thinks they can get away with releasing glass like that for anything over about $100 I guess they're going to be very surprised.

Either that or I will be very surprised at the extreme low quality people are willing to shell out the big bucks for.

The only other thing I can think of is that you're new to processing images and took a few wrong turns while editing. So, assuming you'll still talk to me after this may I ask how they were processed?

PS: I'm not trying to be vindictive, rude, or come off as a jerk. I think the camera operator is above average at least. The IQ that was posted here from the Panasonic Lumix 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 G Vario Aspherical MEGA OIS is honestly what I'm concerned about. I just can't believe it's really this bad. Oh my.... :(
 
I agree, at 100% it looks bad.
Tesselator said:
Really? That's the new 100~300mm that Panasonic released? Seriously, those are terrible. You seem to have a fairly good eye for composition so I assume you know what you're doing. That just leaves then lens then. I collect, clean, repair field test, and sell old lenses. I'll buy anything from $5 to $50. I've been at it for about five months now and have gone through about 200 lenses. About 100 reconditioned and sold off and another 100 still in my cabinet waiting to be sold or still needing work. I have 18 different adaptors and field test everything on the GH1 - same camera as you.

I don't everything about everything but the images you posted are in comparison, the softest, mushiest, most detail-less images I have ever seen compared to any of 200 I've tried and that's even considering lenses in dire need of cleaning and/or repair. I looked it up on Amazon and they want about $600 for that. I'm beside myself and speechless. I really don't know what to say. If Panasonic thinks they can get away with releasing glass like that for anything over about $100 I guess they're going to be very surprised.

Either that or I will be very surprised at the extreme low quality people are willing to shell out the big bucks for.

The only other thing I can think of is that you're new to processing images and took a few wrong turns while editing. So, assuming you'll still talk to me after this may I ask how they were processed?

PS: I'm not trying to be vindictive, rude, or come off as a jerk. I think the camera operator is above average at least. The IQ that was posted here from the Panasonic Lumix 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 G Vario Aspherical MEGA OIS is honestly what I'm concerned about. I just can't believe it's really this bad. Oh my.... :(
Click to expand...
 
I like the Falcon best. Never seen one from close enough, that I could get such a picture in the first place !

Seeing some other comments on these pictures, I was wondering if those are ooc jpeg or actually pp from raw?

My (few days) experience with the G1 + 100-300 so far is that the standard ooc jpeg is not extremely convincing. I'm a lot happier with what I get starting from raw then using "higher" sharpness, contrast, and often saturation too. Still trying to adjust the in-camera settings, so that the produced jpeg is immediately at that level, BTW...

Didier
 
honesty at last.. i'm fed up of seeing posts on here with poor shots and people saying how great they are..

these shots are all soft and i would not be happy if they were mine.. great record shots of the birds but poor examples of the lens..

i also have a gh1 and this lens.. its lovely.. light and easy to use but i reckon its not super sharp at distance..

p.s. there is nothing else available unfortunately for M43 with autofocus at this sort of magnification
 
Thanks to the OP for posting - nice captures, but have to agree - when magnified they just don't look sharp enough to warrant the price tag of that lens - no better than my 45-200 and certainly not up to good APS-C telephoto lenses (e.g. Tamron 200-500 on APS-C).
 
While I agree these shots are not convincing, there have been plenty of others which are.

Skill at composition does not mean skilled photographer. The art aspect and "equipment operator" aspects are totally separate. Some people seem to have the art aspect intuitively. Everyone must learn how to operate the equipment properly.

To me, these images look like one of the following happened:
  • atmospheric haze/fog is reducing the contrast. A UV or polarizing filter might have helped
  • AF missed
  • camera blur. My first guess would be using IS while mounted on tripod
  • this is a particularly bad copy of the lens
The 45-200 has similar issues. Some of the most spectacular shots I have seen - both good and bad - have come from this lens. While the optics are capable of incredible resolution, at these focal lengths, the demand on the equipment operator are extreme.
 
Such spleen! Please. These were all shot JPEG and adjustments were mostly cropping and levels. At the size they are posted I think they are enjoyable. Peregrine falcons close up can't be that common. The last one I saw was 30 years ago.

For larger magnification I agree? What to do? I'm using the lens as I want to use it... hand held with IS on, wide open, and possibly not as it demands to be used. The very idea of a hand holdable 600 would have been ridiculous in film days but seems possible now. I use the 400/4.5 + A33 hand held and get good results. I'll post one.

Steve Barnett



 
redrunnertc said:
To me, these images look like one of the following happened:
  • atmospheric haze/fog is reducing the contrast. A UV or polarizing filter might have helped
  • AF missed
  • camera blur. My first guess would be using IS while mounted on tripod
  • this is a particularly bad copy of the lens
Click to expand...
I'm still a little confused about IS and long lenses. Why does the camera offer IS for long lenses if it doesn't work? I was using my EP-1 with my 400mm yesterday on tripod and yet there was camera shake. Touch the camera in any way and the image would shake for about 2 seconds before settling. Since I'm only part-time stupid I set the shots up on the timer, but how is turning on IS undermining the IQ in this situation? Is it a known technical issue or just the voice of experience?

Granted, I'm still not happy with the IQ of my own long shots, for multiple reasons. I'm still working this out.
 
I'm a little bummed now because these shots aren't any worse than mine! :(

The upside is that I've only spent $65 for my 400mm and $30 for my 135mm. So sometimes I'm happy just to get the bird in the dang frame! But I'm not ruling out operator error just yet. Spent yesterday afternoon with some very uncooperative birds and got zero shots. I may try again if the temperature gets out of the 30s.

So far this has been an informative thread, hope the OP doesn't take the comments personally.
 
OIS or IS only helps to stop hand shake, you need fast shutter speeds for long FL.

And you should turn OIS or IS off when using a tripod.
LincolnB said:
redrunnertc said:
To me, these images look like one of the following happened:
  • atmospheric haze/fog is reducing the contrast. A UV or polarizing filter might have helped
  • AF missed
  • camera blur. My first guess would be using IS while mounted on tripod
  • this is a particularly bad copy of the lens
Click to expand...
I'm still a little confused about IS and long lenses. Why does the camera offer IS for long lenses if it doesn't work? I was using my EP-1 with my 400mm yesterday on tripod and yet there was camera shake. Touch the camera in any way and the image would shake for about 2 seconds before settling. Since I'm only part-time stupid I set the shots up on the timer, but how is turning on IS undermining the IQ in this situation? Is it a known technical issue or just the voice of experience?

Granted, I'm still not happy with the IQ of my own long shots, for multiple reasons. I'm still working this out.
Click to expand...
--
Mark.
 
mark1000 said:
OIS or IS only helps to stop hand shake, you need fast shutter speeds for long FL.

And you should turn OIS or IS off when using a tripod.
Click to expand...
Why? How can the camera tell the difference between hand shake and tripod shake?

If the camera is not shaking, how does IS reduce IQ?

(I have a very sturdy tripod, btw)
 
Do this for a test so that you will become a believer.

Take your E-P1 and put on the kit lens or 17/20mm and put the camera on your kitchen counter. Point the camera on a wall that is at least a good 8 feet away, hopefully with some detail, maybe a calendar, what ever. Keep the camera flat on the counter so that it is shooting straight. Auto or Manual Focus, just make sure you focus.

Take to shots exactly of the same composition, do one with IBIS and one without. But for both use delayed 2 second shutter so that there is no finger/shutter button movement.

Now look at the photos. You will notice the non-IBIS is a lot sharper.

A lot of these IBIS and OIS systems are made to work properly only when handheld. That buzzing you hear when you take the shot is the magnets stabilizing the sensor plate/component. Some image stabilization systems inject noise (movement) to better help stabilize a shaking camera. Your hands (literally, your hands) are soft enough to absorb the IBIS opposite forces and your arms help in that you are not too stiff.

Always read the manufacturers recommended settings. I have heard of some image stabilization systems that DO work on a tripod, but MOST don't. Also turning on both IBIS and OIS is not a good thing.

I apologize that I can not explain this more clearly, I understand the technical and physical reasons behind this, but I'm not very good at explaining :(

If you do the simple test above, I'm sure you will the difference. I can reproduce this test 100% of the time with a legacy 50mm f1.8, IBIS on and off on a table top.
LincolnB said:
mark1000 said:
OIS or IS only helps to stop hand shake, you need fast shutter speeds for long FL.

And you should turn OIS or IS off when using a tripod.
Click to expand...
Why? How can the camera tell the difference between hand shake and tripod shake?

If the camera is not shaking, how does IS reduce IQ?

(I have a very sturdy tripod, btw)
Click to expand...
 
Nice bird shots as always, leitzmeister! I presume the 100-300mm makes a lot of the legacy glass almost irrelevant. Will have to think of a new moniker for you... :) If/when you get the GH2, I'm willing to bet that GH2+ 100-300 will be your go to kit.

SLOtographer
Panasonic G1, LX5
 
SLOtographer said:
Nice bird shots as always, leitzmeister! I presume the 100-300mm makes a lot of the legacy glass almost irrelevant. Will have to think of a new moniker for you... :) If/when you get the GH2, I'm willing to bet that GH2+ 100-300 will be your go to kit.
Click to expand...
I think it's just the opposite. That 100-300 Panasonic lens is so bad it makes all legacy lenses all the more relevant.

Heck even 100% crops from a 100mm $10 lens looks far far superior. And the OP's posted above, are I assume, like 30% scales after they're zoomed all the way in using DPReview's message zoom. Here is an 85% crop using a $10 Rokkor-PF 100mm f/2.5 wide open :



Here are two 100% crops also wide open with the same $10 lens (pardon the motion blur on that last one):





So, a 100% crop from a $10 "legacy" lens looks vastly better than Panasonic's new lens does at 30%. I would venture to say that implies Panasonic's lens is 4 or 5 times worse than an old $10 lens and by result is therefore between 240 and 300 times over-priced. This makes "legacy" lenses very very much more relative IMO. If anything I think these samples show that Panasonic's new lens is to be shunned and relegated as completely irrelevant - nolo-contendo!
 
LincolnB said:
I'm a little bummed now because these shots aren't any worse than mine! :(

The upside is that I've only spent $65 for my 400mm and $30 for my 135mm. So sometimes I'm happy just to get the bird in the dang frame! But I'm not ruling out operator error just yet. Spent yesterday afternoon with some very uncooperative birds and got zero shots. I may try again if the temperature gets out of the 30s.

So far this has been an informative thread, hope the OP doesn't take the comments personally.
Click to expand...
Me too. I'm kinda worried about that. I think he's pretty good actually. His framing is nice and he was able to locate the subjects and place himself for the shots. All those things spell at least some degree of talent - more IMO than it would take to mess up those opportunities via pilot error. This is why I jumped in with both feet to comment. All evidence points to the fact that the lens itself is of extremely poor design - perhaps the very worst lens of all lenses still in circulation. Time will tell as others post more examples. This particular poster has another thread of birds using the same lens and they are all equally as bad.

$65 for a 400m - not bad, which lens is it? Be careful about the Sigma 400mm's. They are among the worst in circulation! My three favorite budget birding lenses on the GH1 are:

Canon FD 300mm F/4L ($180 ~ $250)
Tamron SP 60-300mm F/3.8 w/ 1:1.2 Macro! ($80 ~ $200)
Canon FD 100-300mm f/5.6 ($25 ~ $150)

And in that order. All those are sharp enough to shave with - seriously! I also agree with you tho that out past about 200mm one really really needs a Wimberly (or any Gimbal) head and some sturdy legs or one of those rifle type things. I haven't tried the later yet but I will soon I think. 300mm on a m4/3 body is equiv. to 600mm and your 400mm is equiv to 800mm. No human can hand-hold that with any degree of consistency or accuracy. :(

Here's some of those rifle-pod thingys:

http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/fs12/
http://www.bushhawk.com/ (Most popular among bird photographers)
etc.
 
Tesselator said:
$65 for a 400m - not bad, which lens is it? Be careful about the Sigma 400mm's. They are among the worst in circulation! My three favorite budget birding lenses on the GH1 are:

Canon FD 300mm F/4L ($180 ~ $250)
Tamron SP 60-300mm F/3.8 w/ 1:1.2 Macro! ($80 ~ $200)
Canon FD 100-300mm f/5.6 ($25 ~ $150)

And in that order. All those are sharp enough to shave with - seriously! I also agree with you tho that out past about 200mm one really really needs a Wimberly (or any Gimbal) head and some sturdy legs or one of those rifle type things. I haven't tried the later yet but I will soon I think. 300mm on a m4/3 body is equiv. to 600mm and your 400mm is equiv to 800mm. No human can hand-hold that with any degree of consistency or accuracy. :(

Here's some of those rifle-pod thingys:

http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/fs12/
http://www.bushhawk.com/ (Most popular among bird photographers)
etc.
Click to expand...
My 400mm is a Tokina 5.6

I took this shot today with it, let me know what you think. No processing or cropping:



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top