Panasonic Decision To Make 100-300 f4 zoom a great idea...

Started Jul 31, 2014 | Discussions thread
Skeeterbytes Forum Pro • Posts: 13,192
Re: Maybe they didn't think it could compete

DLBlack wrote:

Gregm61 wrote:

DonSC wrote:

Falk from Hamburg wrote:

The long range is whats really missing in m43 system. Too bad Panasonic seems to think otherwise. They propably want to see how the Olympus 300 prime sells. In all honesty though I have no use for a 300mm prime and think the market for the 100-300 f4 zoom is MUCH larger. Hopefully panasonic really does reconsider.

Maybe they didn't think they could compete with the Oly prime on quality and price. If the zoom cost a lot more and wasn't as good, they might have a very slow seller on their hands. That's all I can think of because, as you say, a 100-300mm zoom is much more versatile than a 300mm prime.

But either one should round out the lens selection, especially if the prime comes with a TC.

The one lens I always wanted/wished for when I was using the Olympus DSLR system, was the 100-300mm f4 HSM Sigma zoom, which they unfortunately never released in the Four-Thirds mount. If I had a choice between the upcoming Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 and a Panasonic 100-300mm f4, I'm not sure I wouldn't eventually buy both. I already own both the Olympus 12-40/2.8 as well as the Panasonic 12-35, 35-100mm f2.8's, use the two standard lenses interchangeably with my E-M1 and often take them both so I have a backup in case something happens to the one I am using.

I would also buy a 100-300mm f4 zoom over a 300mm f2.8 prime any and every day.

-- hide signature --

"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

I totally agree. I came close to buying the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 for a back-up to the 12-40/2.8 but haven't so far. I use the excellent primes for a back-up to the 12-40/2.8 I do see owning both the 35-100/2.8 and the 40-150/2.8. They are such different lenses and will serve different purposes for me. I do agree that if the long zoom such as the 100-300/4.0 has an high enough image quality that I would use it over a 300 prime. The flexibility of a zoom when it comes to wildlife and sports is extremely nice.

Interesting how this conversation has evolved. A 100-300/4 zoom (okay, actually 100-350) can be had today with the ZD70-250/2.8+EC14. Not many own it because 1. it's a substantial investment and 2. it's a very substantial lens. Same goes for the ZD300/2.8 (420/4 with the EC14)--fabulous lens but huge and very expensive.

There aren't a lot of paths to long+fast+sharp, and they all involve size+weight+cost. Any µ4/3 variation on the above will be large and expensive. I believe they should be built regardless, because they're hallmarks of a mature system and the folks who need them will buy them--they need not be high-volume lenses (the Nocticron demonstrates Panny's willingness to make a high-price, low-volume lens).

Variable-aperture long zooms will be more reasonable in cost and size, and there is where the 3rd party makers really need to step in, since they already have myriad designs on the shelf.



-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow