Panasonic 100-300mm vs Panasonic 100-400mm vs Olympus 300mm. Central sharpness comparison with GX7

Davatuk wrote:

No, I used mechanical shutter. I do not know much about electronic shutter, just that it's not suitable for moving objects, so I was trying to behave as if I was shooting a bird. For that same reason I did not stop it down, the sharpness wide open is what matters for me.

Your title is about sharpness. If you could not produce the sharpness image from your lenses, how can we judge which lens would be better? We can't compare a bunch of rotten apples and decide which one is better because of less rotten.

E-shutter might eliminate any possible shutter shock (I'm not a ss fanboy, but very often e-shutter could capture sharper image easier than m-shutter. In my experience with my GX7, e-shutter would be easier and could give 100% sharp image vs m-shutter's <100%), plus shoot at the sweet spot for their sharpness could make a fair quality/cost comparison.

After you picked the winner, you could then use it in anyway that suit you. How you would use it should be independent from a lens is better than the others.

YMMV

Davatuk wrote:

alcelc wrote:

Davatuk wrote:

No, I used mechanical shutter. I do not know much about electronic shutter, just that it's not suitable for moving objects, so I was trying to behave as if I was shooting a bird. For that same reason I did not stop it down, the sharpness wide open is what matters for me.

Your title is about sharpness. If you could not produce the sharpness image from your lenses, how can we judge which lens would be better? We can't compare a bunch of rotten apples and decide which one is better because of less rotten.

E-shutter might eliminate any possible shutter shock (I'm not a ss fanboy, but very often e-shutter could capture sharper image easier than m-shutter. In my experience with my GX7, e-shutter would be easier and could give 100% sharp image vs m-shutter's <100%), plus shoot at the sweet spot for their sharpness could make a fair quality/cost comparison.

After you picked the winner, you could then use it in anyway that suit you. How you would use it should be independent from a lens is better than the others.

YMMV

Did you mean "if you could not produce the sharpest image"? If so, it was not my intention. I wanted to produce the sharpest image under specific conditions. Maybe I did not give the thread a proper title and clearly specify the conditions, sorry for that.

Stop this nonsense!

Study and react sensible>

Davatuk wrote:

As for myself, I am still undecided, but inclining to Panasonic 100-400mm. At the shutter speed of 1/500 sec, its quality seems to be comparable to Olympus. Another important thing is that it gives me a big step forward in IQ at shorter focal lengths (comparing to 100-300). And last but not least, the price difference, which is even more pronounced in Australia (AUD 1875 vs AUD 3387). And while not being f/4 at 300mm is a huge disadvantage for Panny, it hardly outweighs the advantages.

Thanks for posting these!

The Pany 100-300 being the baseline, the 100-400 is consistently better, but WOW! the Oly 300 is incredibly good! It's not "which one to buy", but "which order"

I have both the 100-400 and the Oly 300mm and although the Oly has an edge on the 100-400, a light extra sharpening in Fotoblade brings it to a level that becomes pretty much indistinguishable.

So because of the size and weight and versatility of the zoom, the 100-400 gets used more than the Oly 300.