The best lens I have ever owned bar none

Thanks for this useful review Trevor (you already know my thoughts on how great your photography is )

I've just about worked out my future lens strategy and it looks like this will be joining my collection (haven't told Pam yet mind you )

I really like the plane against the dark sky, very nice contrast.

Regards John

Hen3ry wrote:

If only you and I had this lens we could take pictures just like Trevor's! ROFL!

Oh, and a G7.

I am so agreed - part of it's the gear, most of it's the talent holding the gear.  Or anybody who used the same brand of paintbrush as Rembrandt did could paint like that (or play the same brand of guitar like Segovia/Hendrix/Clapton .....)

Trevor, I seem to be following in many of your gear footsteps for over a decade (remember our fond discussions on FZ50 with Nikon TC17ED ??), so I guess I better budget a G7 + 100-400 for 2017!!!!  Or GX80????  What comes after GX7 ?!?!?!  I actually bolted the TC17ED in front of the 100-300, weight of the contraption pulled the zoom out until I locked it into a Manfrotto tele bracket.  After all that, just using the ext tele is about the same effort.

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

I don't remember but probably ex tele 1.4

Does that mean you customarily shoot JPG, as ext tele wouldn't be available in RAW??

dontfret wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

If only you and I had this lens we could take pictures just like Trevor's! ROFL!

Oh, and a G7.

I am so agreed - part of it's the gear, most of it's the talent holding the gear. Or anybody who used the same brand of paintbrush as Rembrandt did could paint like that (or play the same brand of guitar like Segovia/Hendrix/Clapton .....)

Trevor, I seem to be following in many of your gear footsteps for over a decade (remember our fond discussions on FZ50 with Nikon TC17ED ??), so I guess I better budget a G7 + 100-400 for 2017!!!! Or GX80???? What comes after GX7 ?!?!?! I actually bolted the TC17ED in front of the 100-300, weight of the contraption pulled the zoom out until I locked it into a Manfrotto tele bracket. After all that, just using the ext tele is about the same effort.

I think there are a few of us who have taken the same journey.  I have now owned 10 digital cameras.  If I were to list them in order of which had given me most pleasure.  Number one would be G7 and number two would be FZ50.  Nothing too wrong with the rest but it was the FZ50 that rejuvenated my interest in photography and its the G7 that has really made that rejuvenation most satisfying.

dontfret wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

I don't remember but probably ex tele 1.4

Does that mean you customarily shoot JPG, as ext tele wouldn't be available in RAW??

I shoot in RAW by default but frequently switch to Ex tele conv, sometimes with some very good results.

There is one part of your review which confusing to me. You mentioned that the lens is not low weight and I agree , so my confusion is: Why would you or anyone buy such a lens for a MLC camera when a Nikon or Canon or Pentax (just to mention a few) would be much better choice for the type of photography that you do? I am referring to the AFC, which is known to be somewhat of a touch and go. Just curious as I own both formats.

When these lenses (the Olympus and the Panasonic) came on the market, I was looking for a lens with a longer reach, and I opted for the Tamron 150-600mm. I could have  purchased  the Panasonic as there was not too much difference in price , but having been very frustrated too many times with the Panasonic 100-300mm where it would not even focus, it was easy to make the choice. I own both formats, so don't go thinking that I am bias. Just an opinion.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pontiacar/

nebulla wrote:

There is one part of your review which confusing to me. You mentioned that the lens is not low weight and I agree , so my confusion is: Why would you or anyone buy such a lens for a MLC camera when a Nikon or Canon or Pentax (just to mention a few) would be much better choice for the type of photography that you do? I am referring to the AFC, which is known to be somewhat of a touch and go. Just curious as I own both formats.

When these lenses (the Olympus and the Panasonic) came on the market, I was looking for a lens with a longer reach, and I opted for the Tamron 150-600mm. I could have purchased the Panasonic as there was not too much difference in price , but having been very frustrated too many times with the Panasonic 100-300mm where it would not even focus, it was easy to make the choice. I own both formats, so don't go thinking that I am bias. Just an opinion.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pontiacar/

I'm well and truly entrenched in m4/3s now so the lens is for the system that I have bought into.  If I wanted the best possible IQ etc, I could scrap it all and buy a FF DSLR and  a good long lens but it wouldn't give me the flexibility that my m4/3s system does.  In my bag is a GX7 and when I go sightseeing on goes the 14-40 and gives me great flexibility.  If I wanted to go even lighter I could buy a GM1 and all of my lenses could be used on that or I could buy a pancake for ultra light/small portability.  In the same situation my FF body would of course be sitting in my bag.

I'm never clear on the AFC advantage either. I understand when an Osprey is flying/lumbering  towards me I might be more capable of keeping it in focus but with burst speeds being what they are getting an in focus shot isn't that difficult with a m4/3s system.  On the other hand take a small bird like a Redshank, travelling horizontally through my field of view at 30 mph and I would be deceiving myself if I thought that I had the capability to stay on the bird while panning.  Instead it goes all over the VF, out of shot and behind AFC would be lost.  With my G7 and 100-400 however, providing I stay roughly with the bird I will regain focus.  I may well have wasted a few burst shots in the meantime but objective was met.

I am still having some back focusing issues where there is a green background although I think lower light is for once beneficial.  If the picture below had been in bright sunlight I may have struggled.

This shot isn't posted as an example of a great BIF picture but it is a random selection from shooting I was doing this afternoon and illustrates what I like to shoot.

nebulla wrote:

You mentioned that the lens is not low weight and I agree

I don't know why, but the lens seems relatively light to use. It's lighter than bigger FF 150-180mm macro lenses, 400mm 5.6, or the 80-400 / 100-400 zooms. Reading it in internet, I initially thought the lens would be actually bigger, but it's smaller than I expected, fits quite easily in my shoulder bag. I can't have the camera attached on it vertically in the bag, but horizontally I can have it rest over the foams (or whatever there's called), and suddenly it fits in my bag even when attached to a camera!

I guess I'm a little disappointed by the zoom stiffness too , but other than that it seems to be very good lens.

yes the m43 poor af-c compared to the best aps-c? full frame is still a big gap when ever I shoot something of interest and compare images with the likes of people who use sophisticated systems and big lenses there results are always better than mine ,even though sometimes I have more reach ,but I am talking about 2-5k maybe more  invested systems ,you know Nikon d4 d810 and d500 also canon 5d mk and 7d combined with either big f4 f2.8 lenses 200-500mm 5.6 and the sigmas and tamrons  150-600mm

I would say it is around 50% -80% consistent on a Panasonic with clear background ie sky with certain birds obviously the smaller and faster they become the more difficult , it is but when the 3d focusing is required against confusing back ground it drops to around 20%-40% sometimes fails completely .

the Olympus em1 does better with confusing backgrounds but the images are not as good as gx8 for me  although the higher frame rate is plus 9-10fps c-af although lots of blackouts in viewfinder when following subject ,but at least we are getting the lenses that will take advantage of the new tech that m43 will be receiving in future hoping the Olympus will have a more sophisticated focus for moving subjects .more pdaf cross points and on the vertical plane as well not just horizontal

s-af well the system is there in this regard super accurate and fast .

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Lol ... of course it is better in every way. The fat wallets don't have much of a decision to make, do they?

The thin wallets have even less of a decision to make....

TN Args wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Lol ... of course it is better in every way. The fat wallets don't have much of a decision to make, do they?

The thin wallets have even less of a decision to make....

S'truth

Let's see some of your best examples so we can compare.

I think some of the flicker pics look heavily PP'd, while the 100-400 photos seem have less artifacts from sharpening.

Without meaning to you have encouraged me to do the deed and I have reserved my copy of this lens (waiting on confirmation of a rather nice part-ex deal, which sorts out the question of how to get it past "the boss" )

Hope to have it before my 75th birthday on Friday as I don't get many presents at my age

Brian Wadie wrote:

Without meaning to you have encouraged me to do the deed and I have reserved my copy of this lens (waiting on confirmation of a rather nice part-ex deal, which sorts out the question of how to get it past "the boss" )

Hope to have it before my 75th birthday on Friday as I don't get many presents at my age

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do Brian