Your thoughts on Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 II

buratino said:

I wonder if anybody had a chance to compare it to the Sony RX10 III/IV.

Click to expand...

My wife has the RX10 IV and compared to my 100-300mm it is sharper and the DOF/ subject isolation total light gathering of m43 vs 1" is effectively a wash as the Sony is F/4 at the long end matching equivalently to the F/5.6 of the 100-300mm.

You also need to add a reasonably high end m43 to match the feature set of the Sony . Personally I prefer the access to a huge range of lenses that the interchangeable m43 cameras allow for , however the RX10 IV is no slouch

softmarmotte said:

I personally do not understand 'it's a good/bad copy' comments. I have had hundreds of lenses and never had a 'bad copy'

Click to expand...

I've had two bad copies in 30 years. So it's possible.

One I purchased and was a bit soft on the edges. The review didn't find any fault and I returned it for another copy which was fine.

The other was a rental which was slightly out of focus on the right side, so I returned it for another copy. They told me after taking the lens apart, it had shifted elements on the right side.

- Richard

richj20 said:

softmarmotte said:

I personally do not understand 'it's a good/bad copy' comments. I have had hundreds of lenses and never had a 'bad copy'

Click to expand...

I've had two bad copies in 30 years. So it's possible.

One I purchased and was a bit soft on the edges. The review didn't find any fault and I returned it for another copy which was fine.

The other was a rental which was slightly out of focus on the right side, so I returned it for another copy. They told me after taking the lens apart, it had shifted elements on the right side.

- Richard

Click to expand...

I had 3 bad copies of the Voigtlaender 15/4.5 Super Heliar from the infamous first batch. CV wouldn’t admit they were bad but infinity hard stop focus on them was at 5, 8 and 10m. My fourth copy is fine and infinity is at about 25m. There were reviews on launch of copies that were worse than any of mine and that were better than my current copy.

I have a weak copy of the Samyang 35/1.8. There are reviews from copies as weak as mine and from much better copies.

I’ve bought lots of used lenses and they have all been fine.

Copy variation is real, as you can see from Roger Cicala’s articles about it.

Andrew

500 new isn't bad for it but I got mine for 300 used which seemed like a solid deal for its performance. For me it's a stop gap lens until I can get the 50-200. The better AF and stabilization of that lens are the key differences between the 2 since I use it for performances not wildlife (and likely will be trying to get one of the 1.4x teleconverters later on). You can still get good shots with the 100-300 just the hit rate is lower than my other lenses.

If you just want a lens that'll give you really good reach in a relatively small size while providing some weather sealing it can't be beat.



Edit: Here's my first test after I got it with the full image then 100% crop:

Here's are the samples that I took with the lens with my E-M1X and E-M5 Mark II. Please click on the link.

https://img.gg/T9FpW9K

I only had it for 6 months as I bought it used from a store last Christmas that mistakenly labelled it as a Mark 1 version, so I only paid $250. So what could I go wrong with $250 right? I mean, I initially wanted the PL 100-400, but I decided against it, because I don't know if I would really like to do wildlife. Well guess what? I really LOVE IT and am considering adding the M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 Pro lens as I usually shoot at 300mm anyhow, but need f/4 since this zoom lens at 300mm can only go down to f/5.6.

Pros:

1, Fast AF (240fps) which is FASTER than the Mark 1 version. If you want to do BIF, you need the Mark II version

2, Basic weather sealing, but not at the Pro level. But it's better than the Olympus version which isn't weather sealed at all. Yes, I took it out in light rain and in a snow blizzard (I got cause once in it) and both events, the lens survived.

3, 300mm @ f/5.6 which is a stop slower than the 300mm f/4 Pro. A close to medium distance, wide open can be sharp as you will see in some of my examples. Perhaps maybe it's due to my used copy, which I was so grateful to find that it's sharper than what most people had with theirs.

4, Comes free with a lens hood, which you will need to shoot in sunny days or in inclement weather as it prevents rain drops from hitting the elements.

and now to the cons.

1, It has very pronounced CA (Chromatic Aberrations) @ 300mm @f/5.6. You need to stop it down to f/6.3, but the sweet spot it seems is f/7.1. There are ways to shoot @ f/5.6 and get good results. Shoot during the Crepuscular period. If you don't understand this terminology; it's shooting either in dawn or dusk. Some birds and wildlife are active during this period as they hunt for food (breakfast or dinner). Do not shoot directly towards the sun or next to the sun. This lens is weak in controlling the flare from direct light as the CA is at its worst. You can control CA somewhat via a Raw converter. I use DXO and it gives pretty good results. All my samples have the CA reduced.

2, It is a good close to medium distance lens only. It is not a high resolving lens like the 100-400 or the 300 Pro @ 300mm, so if your subject distance is too far from you and you need to crop 100%, then you will not be happy with the results. This is why this lens is a good lens to teach you how to get closer to the birds, ethically and skillfully. Also, shooting at long distances can also bring an issue such as atmospheric haze (the air distortion) that can cause images to appear soft on the centre or the edges and sometimes people blame it on the lens.

3, The free lens hood can act as a HEAT DOME in warm climates, causing the images to have this odd haze around the edges. It's easy to fix simply by not using the hood. But if you take off the hood, then you need to struggle with lens flare. So again, shooting during the Crepuscular period is the best for this lens and not during day light.

4, There is NO AF LIMITER switch which you can find in the more expensive 100-400 and 300 Pro and 150-400 lens. You need this. This is the issue why the 100-300 sometimes misfocuses, because without the AF LIMITER set, this lens just racks in and out of focus through the entire ranges. It wasn't until I watched the video made by Marlene H. as she shoots with the G9 that you need to set the AF limiter feature to limit the lens from going through all the AF distance range. With my E-M1X, I have set 3 distances for 3 situations. After that, I have zero issues with this lens and my hit rate is above 90% with BIF with eyes SHARP!

In the end, I really love this lens! It's so versatile as I can do birds, wildlife and flowers and a bit of insect photography. For $250 that I paid for, I simply can't complain. And while I continue to sharpen my birding skills with this lens, I am starting to save up for the 300mm Pro to have it as a companion to my 100-300 Mark II.

FWIW, Amazon in the US has the same deal:

https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-100-300MM-MIRRORLESS-Thirds-H-FSA100300/dp/B01N0U4BY2

I had the 100-300 ii, bought a second hand PL 100-400 just to try and consequently sold the 100-300ii.

I found that the 100-300 produces good results below 250mm and with plenty of light. In situations with low light, such as dawn or dusk and in densly forrested areas the 100-300 shows considerable less contrast and hunts for focus.

But: if you're not looking for birds in the woods and value (relative) small and light, the 100-300 is unbeatable in the 150-250mm range.

I use the lens some times on holiday, when I don't want to carry the much heavier 100-400mm lens, and also it is nice to have a relatively inexpensive lens in case of theft or damage.

The lens has a fairly good optical quality. Compared with more expensive lenses, the contrast is somewhat poor at 300mm, especially with strong light sources.

The sharpness is quite good at 300mm, no problems, I think.

I made some tests of the lens here:

https://m43photo.blogspot.com/2017/08/better-focus-with-lumix-g-100-300mm-mk.html

A few years ago I debated whether or not to get the Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6ii or the 100-400. At the time, I decided to go with the 100-300ii lens. It works well for an all-round nature lens. I use it to shoot landscapes, nature, birds, etc. and it has not let me down. When shooting birds I miss a few here and there but for the most part it does well.

If you are strictly a bird shooter then the 100-400 might be a better choice but for all round nature this lens is quite good enough without the extra weight.

Haven't been here a while.

I got it for £499 from Wex, and have used it on the GH5 and EM5iii. But as someone still relatively new to telephoto photography it was difficult getting the focus right. It's not a bad lens when you have gotten used to it and work with limitations. I also went with it because of weathersealing that the 75-300ii does not have and could never confirm if that lens was also weather sealed.

I went with sticking with the lens, with f7.1 as the advice was given by someone else's experience, and found it looking better this way. Image quality wise I don't think it matches an Olympus f2.8 40-150mm, and if anything the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 using the TC 2.0 will still be better than the 100-300mm.

I currently use it time to time with my DC-GH5M2 now. I don't know why it struggled on my old GH5 and EM5iii though, because it works better on my GH5M2 for some reason. It's odd. Maybe I'll post sample images to show what it's like for me if anyone's curious.

This was taken with my Panasonic G9 and the Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 ii lens.

--
GR

Dear all,

Sorry for the slow follow-up on everyone’s comments! I just got COVID either in Europe or while traveling back to the US, so I had a very nasty surprise a few days ago…I am slowly returning to normal.

Anyway, all of your comments were extremely useful, and I greatly appreciate both the detailed observations about the Panasonic 100-300 lens and the example photos.

To summarize some of the common themes,

• Several people posted excellent and appealing photos taken with the 100-300, including links to extensive galleries. It always seems that, even with just OK equipment, photographic skill and persistence can still lead to great pictures. We have always known this, but it is good to be reminded!
• Concentrating on the technical aspects from now on, the 100-300 is found not to be very sharp wide open.
• There seems to be a consensus that f/7.1 is a good operating point.
• The lens is not a particularly sharp lens overall; its performance is ”consumer grade,” in line with what you might expect at this price.
• The suffers from significant chromatic aberration.
• Contrast is not great.
• Mixed story on "splash-resistance"; some OK experiences, but some not so good. In this area, as in others, the lesson seems to be, “Don’t expect too much.”
• Several people tried the lens but returned it.
• Quite a few people like the 100-300 as an inexpensive, relatively lightweight lens for its FL. It is easier to carry around than many of the obvious competing lenses, but also not as good.
• It is still chunky, similar in size to the much loved Oly 12-100 f/4 PRO.

Everyone recognizes that, for a lens at this low price, one should not expect miracles.

However, the takeaway that I am getting is that this lens does not “punch above its weight.”

It does not seem like a lens for demanding wildlife photography, but in the right hands (probably not mine), it can nevertheless deliver really good results!

Please feel free to correct/add to this summary if you feel that I missed something important!

All the best,

Jeff(pix)

My take:

jeffpix said:

Everyone recognizes that, for a lens at this low price, one should not expect miracles.

Click to expand...

True. It would be a miracle if it performed as well as one of the much more expensive lenses: the 100-400s, the PL 50-200 with 1.4x TC, the Oly 300mm f/4. It won't.

jeffpix said:

However, the takeaway that I am getting is that this lens does not “punch above its weight.”

Click to expand...

Well, if its "weight" is $500, this is a closer question. I'd say at that price it punches at its weight or somewhat above.

jeffpix said:

It does not seem like a lens for demanding wildlife photography,

Click to expand...

If "demanding wildlife photography" means BIF, perhaps not, but I think it can do fine for subjects less demanding than that.

jeffpix said:

but in the right hands (probably not mine), it can nevertheless deliver really good results!

Click to expand...

It could probably deliver really good results in your hands, too. I've seen excellent shots by many people, including a near novice. Not every shot you take, but I think anyone with some aptitude could quickly learn how to get good shots with it.
It's not the best, but in terms of size, weight, and cost, it does a pretty good job, IMO.

jeffpix said:

Dear all,

Sorry for the slow follow-up on everyone’s comments! I just got COVID either in Europe or while traveling back to the US, so I had a very nasty surprise a few days ago…I am slowly returning to normal.

Anyway, all of your comments were extremely useful, and I greatly appreciate both the detailed observations about the Panasonic 100-300 lens and the example photos.

To summarize some of the common themes,

• Several people posted excellent and appealing photos taken with the 100-300, including links to extensive galleries. It always seems that, even with just OK equipment, photographic skill and persistence can still lead to great pictures. We have always known this, but it is good to be reminded!
• Concentrating on the technical aspects from now on, the 100-300 is found not to be very sharp wide open.
• There seems to be a consensus that f/7.1 is a good operating point.
• The lens is not a particularly sharp lens overall; its performance is ”consumer grade,” in line with what you might expect at this price.
• The suffers from significant chromatic aberration.
• Contrast is not great.
• Mixed story on "splash-resistance"; some OK experiences, but some not so good. In this area, as in others, the lesson seems to be, “Don’t expect too much.”
• Several people tried the lens but returned it.
• Quite a few people like the 100-300 as an inexpensive, relatively lightweight lens for its FL. It is easier to carry around than many of the obvious competing lenses, but also not as good.
• It is still chunky, similar in size to the much loved Oly 12-100 f/4 PRO.

Everyone recognizes that, for a lens at this low price, one should not expect miracles.

However, the takeaway that I am getting is that this lens does not “punch above its weight.”

It does not seem like a lens for demanding wildlife photography, but in the right hands (probably not mine), it can nevertheless deliver really good results!

Please feel free to correct/add to this summary if you feel that I missed something important!

All the best,

Jeff(pix)

Click to expand...

Sounds about right, though to around 200-225mm it's not the best glass ever but it's noticeably sharper than at 300.

Sums it up nicely.

Hope you get well soon!

softmarmotte said:

I personally do not understand 'it's a good/bad copy' comments. I have had hundreds of lenses and never had a 'bad copy'

Click to expand...

Two 100-300mm II copies, self-timer, best of 3 or 5 shots shown.

?

yslee2 said:

softmarmotte said:

I personally do not understand 'it's a good/bad copy' comments. I have had hundreds of lenses and never had a 'bad copy'

Click to expand...

Two 100-300mm II copies, self-timer, best of 3 or 5 shots shown.

Click to expand...

--
anyone is welcome to do anything they want with my images except sell them for profit
Vero @softmarmotte

jeffpix said:

Dear all,

Sorry for the slow follow-up on everyone’s comments! I just got COVID either in Europe or while traveling back to the US, so I had a very nasty surprise a few days ago…I am slowly returning to normal.

Anyway, all of your comments were extremely useful, and I greatly appreciate both the detailed observations about the Panasonic 100-300 lens and the example photos.

To summarize some of the common themes,

• Several people posted excellent and appealing photos taken with the 100-300, including links to extensive galleries. It always seems that, even with just OK equipment, photographic skill and persistence can still lead to great pictures. We have always known this, but it is good to be reminded!
• Concentrating on the technical aspects from now on, the 100-300 is found not to be very sharp wide open.

Click to expand...

Not seen this in my photography. I nearly always shoot wildlife wide open in an effort to keep ISO down. Prefer wide to high ISO inorder to have higher SS

jeffpix said:

• There seems to be a consensus that f/7.1 is a good operating point.
• The lens is not a particularly sharp lens overall; its performance is ”consumer grade,” in line with what you might expect at this price.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with it's 'sharpness' (whatever that term means). It seems to me that a poor quality photo is likely the result of slow SS and'or shake more than lack of 'sharpness'

jeffpix said:

• The suffers from significant chromatic aberration.

Click to expand...

Never seen any evidence of this in any image I have taken nor in any images I viewed on Flickr (or elswhere) before I bought it

jeffpix said:

• Contrast is not great.
• Mixed story on "splash-resistance"; some OK experiences, but some not so good. In this area, as in others, the lesson seems to be, “Don’t expect too much.”
• Several people tried the lens but returned it.
• Quite a few people like the 100-300 as an inexpensive, relatively lightweight lens for its FL. It is easier to carry around than many of the obvious competing lenses, but also not as good.

Click to expand...

Clearly as it's not as well made nor nearly as expensive as other options. But you can carry it on a long hike !

jeffpix said:

• It is still chunky, similar in size to the much loved Oly 12-100 f/4 PRO.

Click to expand...

No nowhere near the hefty feel

jeffpix said:

Everyone recognizes that, for a lens at this low price, one should not expect miracles.

However, the takeaway that I am getting is that this lens does not “punch above its weight.”

Click to expand...

I think you are listening to the nay sayers who talk a good talk but provide little photographic evidence...your choice. As someone in the thread says...buy a 2nd hand copy and you will likely lose very little if you choose to resell

jeffpix said:

It does not seem like a lens for demanding wildlife photography, but in the right hands (probably not mine), it can nevertheless deliver really good results!

Please feel free to correct/add to this summary if you feel that I missed something important!

All the best,

Jeff(pix)

Click to expand...

softmarmotte said:

softmarmotte said:

• It is still chunky, similar in size to the much loved Oly 12-100 f/4 PRO.

Click to expand...

No nowhere near the hefty feel

Click to expand...

They objectively are similar in size, with the 100-300 actually a cm longer when collapsed, 2.5cm longer when extended:

12-100: 77 X 116.5mm (158.5 extended)

100-300: 73 X 126 (183.7 extended).

At 520 grams, the 100-300 is 93% the weight of the 12-100's 561 grams. I'd call that similar, too.

brentbrent said:

softmarmotte said:

jeffpix said:

• It is still chunky, similar in size to the much loved Oly 12-100 f/4 PRO.

Click to expand...

No nowhere near the hefty feel

Click to expand...

They objectively are similar in size, with the 100-300 actually a cm longer when collapsed, 2.5cm longer when extended:

12-100: 77 X 116.5mm (158.5 extended)

100-300: 73 X 126 (183.7 extended).

At 520 grams, the 100-300 is 93% the weight of the 12-100's 561 grams. I'd call that similar, too.

Click to expand...

Nowhere near the hefty feel. I have and use both. I am speaking about feel