Panny 100-300 and Oly 750-300 at full length.

Lots of posts recently have suggested that these lenses are unusable at the long end.  I would agree that 300mm may not be their sweet spot but here is a big difference between a slight drop off in IQ and unusable.  I thought I might persuade you all to post some 300 mm shots that defy the unusable tag.

Of course be prepared that someone my post a critique that says it's unusable

Here's one from me.

Trevor Carpenter wrote Lots of posts recently have suggested that these lenses are unusable at the long end. I would agree that 300mm may not be their sweet spot but here is a big difference between a slight drop off in IQ and unusable. I thought I might persuade you all to post some 300 mm shots that defy the unusable tag.

Of course be prepared that someone my post a critique that says it's unusable

Here's one from me.

That's very sharp at 300mm!

Lens variation may account for some that are not happy.

Here's mine but a different lens.  Not as good but still usable.

Tamron @300mm

Tokina 300mm

Best

Pannie 100-300mm at 300mm attached to ancient GH2. Developed from RAW, cropped a bit and downsampled to FHD.

I personally believe that most people who make negative claims about these two lenses simply don't know how to use them properly. There are too many factors that can effect the sharpness of an image captured at a 600mm equivalent FOV -- not the least of which is refusing to use a tripod.

My Oly 75-300mm is sharp, wide open at 300mm -- I have way too many images to prove that. If I get an image that is not very sharp, the problem lies with my technique or the photographic limitations at the time of capture -- low light/shutter speed, subject movement, etc.

Here are just a few sharp images I've gotten with my lens at full zoom:

It took me a while to learn the vagaries of my Panny 100-300. For instance...when I shot it with my GX7 I needed to back it off to 286 to minimize a reduced IQ, also 7.1 was the sweet spot and I needed to keep the speed up above 1/600.

Now I use it on my Olympus E-M5 II and it's sharp right out to 300mm, 6.3 works fine and I can shoot it a little slower.

Here's some of my first results with the P100-300 on the M5II.

gary0319 wrote:

It took me a while to learn the vagaries of my Panny 100-300. For instance...when I shot it with my GX7 I needed to back it off to 286 to minimize a reduced IQ, also 7.1 was the sweet spot and I needed to keep the speed up above 1/600.

Now I use it on my Olympus E-M5 II and it's sharp right out to 300mm, 6.3 works fine and I can shoot it a little slower.

but why would the lens be bad with the GX7 at 300mm compared to the E-M5 MKII assuming shutter speed was fast enough?

This was made through a double pane window.  It's about a 10%.  The Blue Bird is plenty sharp.

Ahaha. Game on. Lots more in my gallery.

Very nice, Martin.

I've found the Panny 100-300 as sharp as my old Oly 50-200. Here are a couple of shots with the Panny at 300mm. All hand held.

Male Costa's Hummingbird

AT6 Texans at a Fly-In on Orcas Island

Rufous Hummingbird Powering Up

Rufous Hummingbird at Delphinium

peppermonkey wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

It took me a while to learn the vagaries of my Panny 100-300. For instance...when I shot it with my GX7 I needed to back it off to 286 to minimize a reduced IQ, also 7.1 was the sweet spot and I needed to keep the speed up above 1/600.

Now I use it on my Olympus E-M5 II and it's sharp right out to 300mm, 6.3 works fine and I can shoot it a little slower.

but why would the lens be bad with the GX7 at 300mm compared to the E-M5 MKII assuming shutter speed was fast enough?

I can't say for sure, but subjectively, I think the focusing algorithm of the E-M5II just resolves the information from the lens faster and more accurately. I'm sure those who know more about this will no doubt prove me wrong, but I know the E-M5II gives me sharp images,end to end with both my Panasonic 45-150 and my P100-300, both using the lens OIS.; something I could not get with my GX7.

gary0319 wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

It took me a while to learn the vagaries of my Panny 100-300. For instance...when I shot it with my GX7 I needed to back it off to 286 to minimize a reduced IQ, also 7.1 was the sweet spot and I needed to keep the speed up above 1/600.

Now I use it on my Olympus E-M5 II and it's sharp right out to 300mm, 6.3 works fine and I can shoot it a little slower.

but why would the lens be bad with the GX7 at 300mm compared to the E-M5 MKII assuming shutter speed was fast enough?

I can't say for sure, but subjectively, I think the focusing algorithm of the E-M5II just resolves the information from the lens faster and more accurately. I'm sure those who know more about this will no doubt prove me wrong, but I know the E-M5II gives me sharp images,end to end with both my Panasonic 45-150 and my P100-300, both using the lens OIS.; something I could not get with my GX7.

If you recall, DXO results from the GX7 is worse than other m43.  This they mentioned is due to the Stack Sensor AKA AA filter glass.

Why would you use lens OIS on the E-M5II instead of the camera's IBIS? Everything I've read suggests using the camera stabilization system, and turning OIS off (on lens or via menu). So, when I bought a 75-300 recently it worked very well. I have a 100-300 but only tried it on the new Oly briefly and I wasn't impressed. However, I didn't spend much time with it. The 75-300 was purchased because I found I needed the longer length for an event while I was traveling and the Pany lens had been left at home due to its size and weight. I have used a 45-175 with camera IBIS set as priority and it worked well.

Just curious.

Corkcampbell wrote:

Why would you use lens OIS on the E-M5II instead of the camera's IBIS? Everything I've read suggests using the camera stabilization system, and turning OIS off (on lens or via menu). So, when I bought a 75-300 recently it worked very well. I have a 100-300 but only tried it on the new Oly briefly and I wasn't impressed. However, I didn't spend much time with it. The 75-300 was purchased because I found I needed the longer length for an event while I was traveling and the Pany lens had been left at home due to its size and weight. I have used a 45-175 with camera IBIS set as priority and it worked well.

Just curious.

I've tried it both ways with the P100-300 on my E-M5 II and prefer the OIS. I found no appreciable difference in image quality, one way or the other, but I seem to get a more stable image in the EVF by using the Panny OIS.

No text.

So much for the negative claims...a picture is worth a thousand words, and you have more than one picture.  

Did you forget to pay the peacock a sitting fee?

He does not seem amused.