Panasonic 100-300 -- views of a late adopter

I would say it's acceptable regarding to sharpness. Anyway, it seems it gives you a lot of opportunity. Full head shots with blurred background, shooting events from a distance, or doing beautiful macro. (I was never a fan of macros with relatively short FLs, because the too narrow DOF they produce. The DOF is wider with this one (let the subject be in focus completely) and still, it blurs the background much smoother due to the background compression.)

Hen3ry wrote:

alex2b wrote:

Not quite sharp? I would say that the 100% crops you provided are stunningly sharpfor a consumer lens at 300mm! It would convince me to immediately buy this lens - but I already own one .

Thanks for your comment, Alex. I am kind of in two minds -- in some ways, there is sharpness there but in others not. For example, the little boy's hair. It comes as a jumble. The lens should be showing it better than that. I think!

I plan to investigate that. I am wondering whether some camera settings are interfering with that.

Cheers, geoff

Henry Richardson wrote:

I noticed in this new article the writer talks about how much he likes his 100-300mm too:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/two_weeks_with_the_olympus_e_m1.shtml

Great link, thanks, Henry. The lad can take a decent snap or three, can't he?

The size comparison he shows comparing it on the camera with the Nikon is what m43 is all about (or one of the things it is all about) for me.

Cheers, geoff

Hi Geoff,

I keep meaning to respond in your threads about the 100-300, which I really enjoy , thank you!

I got my 100-300 Panny recently too during a sale, and I'm really loving it. I had expected it to be a bit like the old Oly 70-300 on my E-620, but with the advantages of M43 AF speed and better High ISO performance.

Its a lot like what I expected, but perhaps better. For example, birds are my favorite telephoto  subject and I am particular about feather detail.  I'm kind of used to not getting great detail on 43 & M43 sensors unless the subject fills the frame. But some of my subjects are filling 1/4 or less of the frame and the feather detail extracted is excellent.

Another thing I love about the lens it is has a very nice contrast and general colour rendering on both my G2 and EM10. I have lot of confidence in the lens now.

I actually bought it at the same time as my Panny 35-100 f/2.8. I was expecting to find its IQ massively poor by comparison, but it is very good in its sweet spots. They are a good combination for anyone who like nature photography.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and for the review!

natattack wrote:

Hi Geoff,

I keep meaning to respond in your threads about the 100-300, which I really enjoy , thank you!

I got my 100-300 Panny recently too during a sale, and I'm really loving it. I had expected it to be a bit like the old Oly 70-300 on my E-620, but with the advantages of M43 AF speed and better High ISO performance.

Its a lot like what I expected, but perhaps better. For example, birds are my favorite telephoto subject and I am particular about feather detail. I'm kind of used to not getting great detail on 43 & M43 sensors unless the subject fills the frame. But some of my subjects are filling 1/4 or less of the frame and the feather detail extracted is excellent.

Another thing I love about the lens it is has a very nice contrast and general colour rendering on both my G2 and EM10. I have lot of confidence in the lens now.

I actually bought it at the same time as my Panny 35-100 f/2.8. I was expecting to find its IQ massively poor by comparison, but it is very good in its sweet spots. They are a good combination for anyone who like nature photography.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and for the review!

… n d that's hat don't seem to be getting. Look at little Pius's hair. But I'll look more at this in the next day or two.

Many thanks for your post; it helps in pointing me in a new direction.

Cheers, geoff

Hen3ry wrote:

On reflection, I think 3.5 stars fairer. I would not like to go to 4.0 because of the build quality and the feeling that it is simply not quite as sharp as it ought to be.

Cheers, geoff

I would agree. Its a very good lens, for the price. However it is built to a price and I find images with it do need more PP.

Hen3ry wrote:

alex2b wrote:

Not quite sharp? I would say that the 100% crops you provided are stunningly sharpfor a consumer lens at 300mm! It would convince me to immediately buy this lens - but I already own one .

Thanks for your comment, Alex. I am kind of in two minds -- in some ways, there is sharpness there but in others not. For example, the little boy's hair. It comes as a jumble. The lens should be showing it better than that. I think!

It's hard to tell sharpness from the small size of the images posted, but the boy's face looks well focused. It would make sense his hair would not be sharp (as in out of focus) given the shallow DOF for a telephoto shot.

Michael

I plan to investigate that. I am wondering whether some camera settings are interfering with that.

Cheers, geoff

-- hide signature --

Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://rabaulpng.com/we-are-all-traveling-throug/i-waited-51-years-for-tavur.html

Michael L NYC 99 wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

alex2b wrote:

Not quite sharp? I would say that the 100% crops you provided are stunningly sharpfor a consumer lens at 300mm! It would convince me to immediately buy this lens - but I already own one .

Thanks for your comment, Alex. I am kind of in two minds -- in some ways, there is sharpness there but in others not. For example, the little boy's hair. It comes as a jumble. The lens should be showing it better than that. I think!

It's hard to tell sharpness from the small size of the images posted, but the boy's face looks well focused. It would make sense his hair would not be sharp (as in out of focus) given the shallow DOF for a telephoto shot.

Thanks for your thoughts, Michael. The 100% is 100% at the full resolution.

The front of the hair should be clear, I think. BUT I am experimenting with in-camera settings and will take a few more test pix in the next day or two and see how it looks.

Cheers, geoff

Hi Geoff,

Regarding the hair detail, to me that was  a pretty ambitious shot to make with a consumer grade zoom lens. The hair section occupies something like less than 1/9th of the frame at full 300mm. I would expect to pull out good hair detail in that pic from a prime lens , and perhaps the canon 100-400 zoom under optimal conditions. But I wouldn't expect much from consumer type zooms on the M43 sensor. basically, I would want the hair section to occupy 1/4 of the frame on M43, if i wanted alot of detail.

I'm not sure what NR and sharpening options are available in camera on the G6. On my EM10, I get sharpest results turning Sharpening right down to -2, and NR off. Then i can ajust in post processing. If I use the cameras defaults, NR tends to smear fine details, adn sharpening causes some nasty artifacts instead of bringing out nice details. My G2 is very nice with the panasonic 100-300, but I think the 12MP sensor makes it look sharper. Its a bit trickier with the 16MP sensors.

Tom has just posted this mini-review of the Tokina 300mm mirror lens on another thread.

It is well worth a look.

(I have had to do another post because DPR is not allowing me to post edits AGAIN!!!)

Cheers, geoff

natattack wrote:

Hi Geoff,

Regarding the hair detail, to me that was a pretty ambitious shot to make with a consumer grade zoom lens. The hair section occupies something like less than 1/9th of the frame at full 300mm. I would expect to pull out good hair detail in that pic from a prime lens , and perhaps the canon 100-400 zoom under optimal conditions. But I wouldn't expect much from consumer type zooms on the M43 sensor. basically, I would want the hair section to occupy 1/4 of the frame on M43, if i wanted alot of detail.

I'm not sure what NR and sharpening options are available in camera on the G6. On my EM10, I get sharpest results turning Sharpening right down to -2, and NR off. Then i can ajust in post processing. If I use the cameras defaults, NR tends to smear fine details, adn sharpening causes some nasty artifacts instead of bringing out nice details. My G2 is very nice with the panasonic 100-300, but I think the 12MP sensor makes it look sharper. Its a bit trickier with the 16MP sensors.

I've just gone through the camera and done some positive (or purposive!) fiddling with the various controls, much along the lines of what you have talked about with the EM10, Nat.

I have to admit that before testing the 100-300 I did run through and make some pretty random changes to the image controls. I am now back to a more orderly situation. We'll see how it goes in the next round.

Cheers, geoff

So having read all the comments here and seen others' pictures, I got out this afternoon and took a few more pix of my own with the 100-300 on the G6.

BUT FIRST I made some adjustments to the camera settings. I reduced sharpening and NR, and tweaked one or two other things, and possibly most importantly of all, I switched off iDynamic which I had switched on totally at random and for the first time in my life before I did my first set of 100-300 tests. You can ask me why I did such a thing, but I don't want to talk about it!!!

I also reduced ISO to my usual 200 for most of my shots in this series.

And furthermore, they are all handheld, albeit with a few of them being steadied by some support to the ancient body against the verandah rail or the side of the house.

And now I am a believer! I should have rated this lens at 4 stars, despite my concerns about the build quality.

Thanks for you help in my conversion, everyone! LOL.

All pix are OOC or virtually so except for resizing, unless otherwise stated.

The tower a kilometer away. handheld, free standing. Ain't the Panny OIS a wonderful thing?

Not the same kid, but we've got hair! Looks as though the problem with little Pius's hair in my first series might have been artifacts of in-camera over-processing. Free standing hand held.

One of the sunflowers - I was leaning against the verandah rail for support. I didn't even see the hopper in the middle of the picture, let along the out of focus one on the left.

100% extracted from above. Okay, okay, so it is sharp enough to count the hairs!

The kids were playing "tin". This is 100% from the center of the frame, OOC, I think! Freestanding hand held -- another testament to Panny's "old" Mega OIS. Fun game - read about it here.

Same picture with minimal sharpening by Focus Magic plug-in in PhotoLine.

Ha! I just liked this! I love the swirling patterns of the flowerettes (or whatever they are called) in the center of these miniature sunflowers. Handheld but I was supporting my arms on the verandah rail.

http://rabaulpng.com/we-are-all-traveling-throug/the-kids-played-tin.html

DPR dropped it out when I posted and is not posting my edit again. Sigh!

Cheers, geoff

Tony8232 wrote:

You mentioned its not pin sharp at 300mm my Olympus 75-300 is also softer at 300mm which irks me to no end. I seems obvious that someine who buys a long range tele lens wants to use it mostly for the long reach. What are the manufacturers thinking? Id give up some resolution at the short end if it would increase sharpness at 300mm. I don't mean to change the subject but this is a pet peeve of mine.

Hello Tony

Hmmm -- well, have recanted somewhat. Have a look at my latest post above "Okay, stop hitting me…"

Looks like the resolution I had initially was negatively affected by some of my in-camera settings.

But yes, in general terms you are right. Phooey to the lower end -- other lenses cover that. Give us top performance at the longer end. In telephotos, anyway! Invert that for w/a zooms.

Cheers, geoff

I have just bought the lens, hoping I can completely migrate from apsc to m4/3.  Only played around with it so far.    Off the Florida in a week or two, what  settings would you recommend for capturing birds' feather detail?   The body is a GX7 , and I shoot RAW.

Thanks,

Dave

Dave Stott wrote:

I have just bought the lens, hoping I can completely migrate from apsc to m4/3. Only played around with it so far. Off the Florida in a week or two, what settings would you recommend for capturing birds' feather detail? The body is a GX7 , and I shoot RAW.

There was some talk and examples of bird pix with the GX7 and 100-300 fairly recently, Dave, but I had a quick scan through the forum and couldn't find it.

Searching for "GX7" in subject lines might get you on to something quickly.

For specific advice, might I suggest you post a new thread with a subject like: "GX7, 100-300, bird pictures, help please"? I am sure the GX7 users will come thundering through the ether to your aid.

Cheers, geoff

Try f/7.1 and try to keep the speed above 1/500. I found a beanbag quite useful. You'll hear that the lens isn't very sharp at 300mm but that was not my experience. See http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53360894 for samples.
Tom