Panasonic 100-300 -- views of a late adopter

View of a non-adopter:

unfortunately there is not a mft prime tele longer that the olympus 75mm. I decided not to buy neither the Pan 100-300 nor the Oly 75-300.

Instead, some time ago I bought a used  OM 200mm/f4 (manual focus of course) and a cheap adapter.

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.

Thanks,

Dave

I think sweet spot is F7.1 /F8.  Not bad feather details here with the G6 and this is using the digital zoom

Valentinian wrote:

View of a non-adopter:

unfortunately there is not a mft prime tele longer that the olympus 75mm. I decided not to buy neither the Pan 100-300 nor the Oly 75-300.

Instead, some time ago I bought a used OM 200mm/f4 (manual focus of course) and a cheap adapter.

I bought a used Canon FD 200mm F2.8, I have the simple FD-M43 adaptor, a FD-M43 Metabones Speedbooster and an FD 2x teleconvertor.

The f 7.1 aperture was my discovery when I first bought this lens.  It is great for telephoto-macro shots as well as wildlife.  My 100-300 gets a lot of use and I have never found it to be "soft" at any point when the proper aperture is used.  Enjoy your new lens.

I never have the lens twist when mounted. For yours to lose electric connection means your lens has a deficient mount. I can say I'm impressed with Panasonic's repair service and support (in fact I'm the opposite of impressed), but I'd recommend you get the mount replaced unless the lens is still within and exchange window and you can replace it that way.

Hi Geoff, thanks for the review.  I've also been wondering about this lens for a while.  I mostly use wide angle, but longer would be useful too.

I feel we're spoiled these days.  If your 300 mm examples are seen as too soft, well, how fussy are we getting?

My 'but' concerns your comment about your 45-200.  I have one (bought for my wife's G1 but she didn't want it), and haven't liked anything I've taken with it.  I can't quite say why, just that everything I shot with it didn't appeal to me.

So I would hope the 100-300 to be rather more likeable.

Any thoughts?

A nice OP and thanks for creating this thread, Henry.

My 100-300 is nearly 12 months old now. Quality I would describe as outstanding at the price point. I simply do not have the issue that you mentioned at all.

Sharpness at 300mm I would describe as sharp. At 100-200mm, very sharp. It is neither fair nor accurate to describe this lens as 'not sharp' at 300mm, as some people have done.

Tony8232 wrote:

Valentinian wrote:

View of a non-adopter:

unfortunately there is not a mft prime tele longer that the olympus 75mm. I decided not to buy neither the Pan 100-300 nor the Oly 75-300.

Instead, some time ago I bought a used OM 200mm/f4 (manual focus of course) and a cheap adapter.

This is out of foucs

Right. focus is not perfect (maybe still acceptable).

This one was a little better.

tt321 wrote:

Corkcampbell wrote:

Thanks, but one question. As for your last comment - how do you know that it's not the camera mount that allows the lens to move?

I only ask because I have the lens (used on GH2/3 and EM-5 cameras) and have not noticed this problem.

This move/play exists in probably all camera/lens combos, if you try to wobble the lens hard enough, but breaking the electrical contacts accidentally is quite rare. In fact this is the first time I read about this.

The contacts are lost only if you move by more than a mm, I think, and that would feel quite weird.

I've had this lens for four years. I got it on pre-order in December 2010. During this period I have taken probably over 60,000 images on first the GH1 and now the GH3 and have never had this problem with the mount.

The 45-200 -- hmmm, possibly depends on what camera you use it with. I got it along with a G1 with the 14-45 and to be frank, after not having an interchangeable lens camera for a while, I thought I had died and gone to heaven.

I took some excellent pix with the 45-200 in a range of situations and very much enjoyed using the 45-200 with the G1. A great handling combination. Here are some examples from PNG and Melbourne, Aust., all JPEG and except the first, pretty much OOC:

This was with my then new E-PL3. I found the 45-200 was just wrong with that little body with its lousy grip (I switched from the G1 for the better JPEGs). I switched to the Oly 40-150. I am now back with the Panny G6 but using the 45-150 lens -- and now the 100-300 beyond that.

Cheers, geoff

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Geoff

You saved yourself from a fate worse than death with the Tokina 300mm mirror

It has no image stbilisation, no zoom, is fixed f6.3, on the soft side, lacks contrast, focus settings are hair-trigger even on th cusp of infinity, and has those doughnut out of focus artifacts which just love sparkly foam. It is light but maybe it still needs a tripod for distance shots.

But it is a brilliant "occasional" lens for the following reasons:

It is inexpensive, it works well at closer to medium distances (not far distances where its softness and lack of contrast interfere), it is very light and small for its focal length,, f6.3 is not so bad in reasonable light, it is easy to hand hold as it is light and this is do-able at closer to medium distances. Doughnuts can be avoided once you know what causes them and they are not so bad when they are unavoidable.

It is no birder lens nor is it good for bringing the horizon into your lap but I wouldn't be without it rattling around in my kit bag, I might even use it from time to time when no other lens will do the job.

I can understand the long coat hiding the whipping pointy tail and the crazy hairdo to cover the horns, but where did you park your trident while you typed, you tempting devil, you?

Actually, I am not tempted. No AF is beginning and end of story for me much as I would like the size, etc.

Cheers, geoff

Geoff,

I always like the pictures of masks and headdresses that you post.  The art is in the content of the pictures.  Thanks.

Old Listener wrote:

Geoff,

I always like the pictures of masks and headdresses that you post. The art is in the content of the pictures. Thanks.

It is, Oldie -- I try to make a decent composition, etc., etc. but the fact is that the content, this wonderful art work, is what "sells" so many of my images.

And then I do landscapes with palm trees and volcanoes.

Sometimes I feel like a total cheat! LOL.

Cheers, geoff

Hen3ry wrote:

Old Listener wrote:

Geoff,

I always like the pictures of masks and headdresses that you post. The art is in the content of the pictures. Thanks.

It is, Oldie -- I try to make a decent composition, etc., etc. but the fact is that the content, this wonderful art work, is what "sells" so many of my images.

And then I do landscapes with palm trees and volcanoes.

Sometimes I feel like a total cheat! LOL.

Cheers, geoff

Well, being in the right place at the right time is a priceless skill. Recognizing interesting content is a very real skill.  Capturing the image to best advantage is another real skill.

I think that photography as documentation of a subject at a particular time is mainstream.  Real fine art photography is far less mainstream.