Moon zoom - go big or go home?

I'm looking for a new zoom lens to use with my Oly O-MD 10 II for occasional sports photography, but more often lunar photography. I already have an Oly 40-150mm lens but the reach isn't really sufficient for lunar photography so I'm looking for something a bit beefier. I was considering either the Oly 75-300 or the Panny 100-300 lenses, but then I found the Panaleica 100-400. Wow.

Question is: Is the extra 100mm (200mm in full frame terms) the Panaleica gives really worth the x3 price tag, or will one of the "more reasonably priced" lenses sufficient for my needs - and if so, which one? I guess the Oly is a better match system-wise, but I've heard the Panny gives better picture quality?

smsaville wrote:

I'm looking for a new zoom lens to use with my Oly O-MD 10 II for occasional sports photography, but more often lunar photography

Buying an expensive telephoto lens for lunar photography is a collosal waste of money. (because you don't need autofocus, image stabilisation, close focus capabilities and a few other things that make telephoto lenses expensive). You could get a much better telescope for half the price.

smsaville wrote:

I'm looking for a new zoom lens to use with my Oly O-MD 10 II for occasional sports photography, but more often lunar photography. I already have an Oly 40-150mm lens but the reach isn't really sufficient for lunar photography so I'm looking for something a bit beefier. I was considering either the Oly 75-300 or the Panny 100-300 lenses, but then I found the Panaleica 100-400. Wow.

Question is: Is the extra 100mm (200mm in full frame terms) the Panaleica gives really worth the x3 price tag, or will one of the "more reasonably priced" lenses sufficient for my needs - and if so, which one? I guess the Oly is a better match system-wise, but I've heard the Panny gives better picture quality?

After you've photographed the moon half a dozen times there doesn't seem to me like there would be anything new to shoot. It doesn't change much. I don't think it's worth buying a lens that 3x as expensive for something that is so photographically limiting. There isn't going to be that much difference between 300mm and 400mm anyway.

If you have plenty of money though, then buy whatever you want. Only you can decide if something is worth the money to you, and what your budget can handle.

biggles266 wrote:

After you've photographed the moon half a dozen times there doesn't seem to me like there would be anything new to shoot.

That is another thing - what's the point of taking lunar shots with ordinary photo gear? You can't come even close to serious enthusiasts, let alone professional astronomers.  It's interesting to see what your camera and longest lens is capable of, but that's about it.

I've done my share of lunar photos, but I wouldn't buy any special (and expensive) gear just to do that.

With an inexpensive telescope ($300 used).

With Olympus 300mm Pro.

smsaville wrote:

I'm looking for a new zoom lens to use with my Oly O-MD 10 II for occasional sports photography, but more often lunar photography. I already have an Oly 40-150mm lens but the reach isn't really sufficient for lunar photography so I'm looking for something a bit beefier. I was considering either the Oly 75-300 or the Panny 100-300 lenses, but then I found the Panaleica 100-400. Wow.

Question is: Is the extra 100mm (200mm in full frame terms) the Panaleica gives really worth the x3 price tag, or will one of the "more reasonably priced" lenses sufficient for my needs - and if so, which one? I guess the Oly is a better match system-wise, but I've heard the Panny gives better picture quality?

As an enthusiast, I have thoroughly enjoyed the Oly 75-300ii for moon shots. Most recent pic (half moon from last night) posted at:

http://www.framedinspirations.com

(Facebook reduces quality slightly, but again, good enough for my enthusiast needs.)

None.

Others have suggested a telescope, I'll suggest a superzoom such as a Nikon P900. It doesn't cost much more than the 75-300 II or the 100-300 II, but you get the benefit of a 2000mm equivalent lens. Sure, the sensor is small, but if you do the math, you're actually coming out ahead:

- A 1/2.3" sensor (like in the P900) has an area of about 28.5mm sq (based on wiki)

- A 4/3" sensor has an area of about 225mm (also based on wiki)

- Therefore, a 4/3" sensor is just about 8x the size of a 1/2.3" sensor

However, because you're restricted to a 600mm eFL on either the 75-300 or the 100-300, you'll end up needing to crop down to 1/9 the image area (about 1.8MM) to be able to get an image where the moon fills the frame. At this point, you're essentially using 25mm of sensor area, or less area than you'd get from the P900. Not only that, but you'd only have 1.8MP to work with - not saying you'll get the full 16MP from a P900, but it should at least appear more detailed than 1.8MP.

If you're usage scenario for super long range is the moon, which is bright and moving relatively slowly, go for the P900 - if you want to shoot sports, or animals, or BiF, then stick with the m4/3 options.

But I can't, so I will be perfectly happy upgrading my 100-300 to 100-300 II for shower proofing, improved focusing, and Dual IS.

I actually don't have all that much use for longer than 300, but if I had the 400 reach, I'm sure I could extend to use it! LOL.

In Australia, the 100-400 isn't 3x the price of the 100-300 II, more like a bit over 2x, going towards 2.5x. From the results I have seen on this forum from that lens, I reckon it is very reasonably priced.

The 100-300 is very good; the 100-400 is stellar.

Thanks for all the input folks. Sitting back and thinking about it rationally, you're right - I was a bit crackers thinking about it. I have a Skywatcher 750x150mm telescope which I can easily use - I was just being a bit lazy I guess! I'll play about with that, see what I can do and hone my skills with that.

Thanks again for the sense check!

I was very pleasantly surprised by this TZ60 shot. -  https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/13110073454

I actually recently bought the Panasonic 100-400mm, for wildlife. Never occurred to me to try a moon shot but I will now mounted on the G80. It'll be a good t st of the Manfrotto 324RC head I just bought to take the weight of the combo at circa 1.5Kg. It'll be week or so before I can attempt this and post the result.

smsaville wrote:

I have a Skywatcher 750x150mm telescope which I can easily use

That's a great focal length and focal ratio where you can get good single images without the need for a tracking mount and for image stacking (unless you want to put in the extra effort).

Glad to see that cooler heads have prevailed.

The 100-400 is very specific and I think your money would be better spent on a telescope.