Galapagos lens: 35-100/f2.8 or 100-300/f4.0-5.6

I'm headed to the Galapagos and want to buy one long lens for the trip. Would you recommend the Panasonic 35-100/f2.8 or Panasonic 100-300/f4.0-5.6 ?

Obviously these are very different lenses.  I've heard reports about whether you mostly want a medium zoom (35-100) on the Galapagos because the animal get unexpectedly close anyway. But others have written that their favorite keepers were at the longer zoom level.  Anyone have an opinion to offer there?

The other factor I'm thinking is that the difference in zoom length may be a bit misrepresentative given the difference in sharpness. DxO gives these scores:

35-100 overall score 19 (with sharpness at 10 P-Mpix)

100-300 overall score 12 (with sharpness at 5 P-Mpix)

I'm not familiar with these DxO scores, so I may be misinterpreting it.  Would that imply that with cropping, these two lenses might have more overlap than one might guess as judged by the detail captured.   E.g. would a print from the 35-100 at 100mm be more like the 100-300 at e.g. 160mm?

Since the 100-300 is reported to be especially soft at the long end, maybe it doesn't really have 3x more "effective" reach than the 35-100?

I can't answer directly your questions, but I will give some indications based on experience.

First, about the lenses themselves. I don't know the 100-300, but I can tell you that the 30-100 2.8 is an outstanding lens, and is 2.8. I am almost sure that within overlapping range, it is  noticeably superior to the other lens. This in in general.

Now, I have been, several years ago, to the Galapagos, and one thing I can tell you: I would not gmake that trip without good coverage from lets say, 12 or 14 mm, 20 at very minimum, to something longish, 200 mm or more. Definitely not only 100 mm.

It is true that the photographic opportunities in the Galapagos are not like in the African plains, where the longer the better. But there are occasions when you will want a longish lens, 200 mm or 300 mm.

Now, it is not always very convenient, in such environment, to swap lenses, so I would use if possible two cameras. A GM-1 or GM-5 Panasonic with a 12-32 mm lens is one possibility, could fit in a pocket and the quality is surprisingly good. But take also a camera with a longish lens, as I said a 200 or 300 mm. I personally would take a 100-300 mm, regardless of DxO it is a quite useful lens.

And you will love the Galapagos!

9z9z wrote:

I'm headed to the Galapagos and want to buy one long lens for the trip. Would you recommend the Panasonic 35-100/f2.8 or Panasonic 100-300/f4.0-5.6 ?

Obviously these are very different lenses. I've heard reports about whether you mostly want a medium zoom (35-100) on the Galapagos because the animal get unexpectedly close anyway. But others have written that their favorite keepers were at the longer zoom level. Anyone have an opinion to offer there?

The other factor I'm thinking is that the difference in zoom length may be a bit misrepresentative given the difference in sharpness. DxO gives these scores:

35-100 overall score 19 (with sharpness at 10 P-Mpix)

100-300 overall score 12 (with sharpness at 5 P-Mpix)

I'm not familiar with these DxO scores, so I may be misinterpreting it. Would that imply that with cropping, these two lenses might have more overlap than one might guess as judged by the detail captured. E.g. would a print from the 35-100 at 100mm be more like the 100-300 at e.g. 160mm?

Since the 100-300 is reported to be especially soft at the long end, maybe it doesn't really have 3x more "effective" reach than the 35-100?

I would go with the 35-100 f2.8. First of all, it is the much better IQ lens. Second of all, if there is one place on earth where wildlife will be up, close and personal it is galapagos. And at another note. The fast aperture can help freeze motion when you are shooting from a shaking boat on a somewhat cloudy day or in twilight. Make sure to take a wide angle as well. And have fun. This is a trip of a lifetime. I seriously enjoyed it.

I've been there twice. The most important thing to understand is the wildlife has no fear of humans so you can approach VERY closely. You will be surprised how many relatively short FL shots you will make of the wildlife. I seriously doubt you will be able to tell the difference between the two lenses as you will be stopped down most of the time and won't be shooting much at the long end of the 100-300.

First trip was in 2008. I took a D90 (APS-C) with a 35-105mm zoom (about 155mm EFL). It worked out OK. There were a few shots that would have benefited more reach but not a huge number. For every shot that I missed because the animal was too far away, another one came along that was much closer.

This fall I took an EM-1 with a 12-40mm pro, 35-100mm f/2.8 and a 40-150mm (300mm EFL).   In retrospect, I would have left the 35-100mm at home - the speed was unnecessary. However, I would have been happy with the 35-100mm.  I got the 40-150mm as a backup but wound up using it a lot.

Take a look at some of my shots.  I did shoot some at 150 but 100 was a sweet spot and there were times when 100 was too narrow.  I'd say take both lenses if you can make the room.

Take a landscape lens. There is nothing in the world like the landscape of the Galapagos. And be sure to visit the fish market in Puerto Ayora if you can. Great interaction between the humans, sea lion, pelicans and herons.

By the way, on our boat there were 7 photographers. All but one was shooting with MFT cameras. The Guy with a Canon 5D had a Canon zoom monster. He got way tired of lugging that thing around and was paranoid about getting it wet. Got some good shots but so did I.

I loved this fluffball. Think it is a Red Footed Booby chick.

Oyster catcher with a snack.

This guy was trapped in a lagoon by low tide.

need to pp out that shadow...

This is pretty common - you can get so close to them.

Gaggle of photogs shooting a bird in the shade while facing the setting sun. The herding instinct is strong. The woman with the point-n-shoot was the only one to at least try to get a decent vantage point.

I was shooting APS-C when I was there and a 70-200/4 was what was on the camera the most.  Very occasionally I used a 1.4x converter for even more reach.  This was Canon APS-C so the 70-200 was equivalent to m43 56-160.  However, I also did a lot of shots with a 17-40.

100mm will be way too narrow a starting point I think.  Lots of reach in Galapagos can lead to really boring shots of bird heads with no context or interest.

On the flip side I'd say 50% of our good shots were more in the m43 140-180 focal range so I think I'd find 100mm a little short.

For a "once in a lifetime" trip I'd recommend getting a little gear just for the trip.  Get both the 35-100 and 100-300 with the plan to sell one or the other used when you get back from the trip.  Similarly I'd strongly recommend picking up a used camera body as a backup for while you are there and then sell it used when you get back.  Buying the extra lens and the extra body you might lose at most $50 to $75 selling them used when you get back.  Cheap rental and cheap insurance for a "once in a lifetime" kind of trip.

Oh - and have a blast, Galapagos is an amazing place!

If you're running an E-M1, you could consider the 4/3 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 as well.