Panasonic 100-300mm II may not be splash proof

Why did you get the 100-300 instead of the Oly 75-300? I have both, but prefer the Olympus as it's much more portable, if a little slower - but they're both slow, of course.

I'm going to sell one, which will probably be the Olympus as I need OIS on my lenses because I bought a GH4 to replace my E-M5II.

Actually, I may sell both lenses as I also have an RX10M3 which has the same long reach and which I really like.

453C wrote:

mg_k wrote:

MarkDavo wrote:

I hope the repair is quick and inexpensive.

OP has got my chance imo.

As soon as Panasonic opens the lens and see salt deposit inside it's over and done.

Maybe, but it's also possible that the freshwater used for cleaning entered, which would be better all around. Salty water isn't very nice, no matter who gets the bill.

What splash-proof means is a few slight drops of water here and there.

OP running camera and lens down on a running water tap? It's GAME OVER, Panasonic won't and shouldn't cover the repair cost imho.

Corkcampbell wrote:

Why did you get the 100-300 instead of the Oly 75-300? I have both, but prefer the Olympus as it's much more portable, if a little slower - but they're both slow, of course.

Because at the used price it was about the same price as the 75-300mm and it claimed to be weather sealed.

When I was originally was looking at buying either of them at new prices, the 75-300mm would have been my choice, since it is lighter, and cheaper.  I hoped that at some point, Olympus would come out with the 75-300mm mark III that was at the same price point/weight/size as the mark II.

mg_k wrote:

What splash-proof means is a few slight drops of water here and there.

OP running camera and lens down on a running water tap? It's GAME OVER, Panasonic won't and shouldn't cover the repair cost imho.

FWIW, I've done that with my Olympus lenses over the years, ever since I got my E-1 and 14-54mm mark I in December 2004.

Because it was a used lens, I wasn't expecting Panasonic to pay for it under warranty.  If I had bought it new, given the wording in the Panasonic manual and website, I would argued that they should, since they explicitly mention rugged conditions.

When I was on the phone with Panasonic, the number used as a potential repair cost was around $285.  It will depend on the actual number they quote after they open it up.  But if it is much higher, I might just go for the Olympus 75-300mm mark II lens ($360 for refurbished or $400 for new).

Thanks for the reply and I understand. I have the original 100-300 and the fact it's not weather-protected bothers me. It's the only non-weather-protected lens I may keep when I sell all of the others, or I'll just keep my eyes open for sales on version 2. I may keep my 14mm 2.5 pancake as well, as it's performed well.

Robiro wrote:

Michael Meissner wrote:

My local store had a near mint Panasonic 100-300mm mark II lens for sale, and I bought it on Saturday to add to my weather sealed lens collection (Olympus 12-50mm, Olympus 12-40mm, Olympus 14-150mm mark II, Panasonic 12-60mm [G85 kit lens], plus the classic 4/3rds lenses 11-22mm, 14-54mm, 50-200mm, and 50mm).

I went on a whale watch on Monday (US Labor Day), and had the 14-150mm mark II mounted on the E-m1 mark I and the 100-300mm mounted on the G85. While the day was sunny, we got splashed quite a lot.

I had distilled water in the car to rinse everything off, and later rinsed everything under the tap once again to get any salt off the gear.

The E-m1 mark I works fine. The 14-150mm mark II works fine. The G85 works fine. They've been on whale watches before. However, the 100-300mm mark II unfortunately makes a loud buzzing when I turn it on.

So, I'm putting it in a sealed box with uncooked rice for a few days to see if the rice can draw out the water. Hopefully it will work, otherwise I will probably need to find where the Panasonic lens repair facility is. Bummer.

Splash proof probably means, the lens can cope with drops of water on its surface.

Rinsing a lens means pouring a continuous flow of water onto it.

That is not what splash proof means.

Splash proof lenses should be cleaned by wet cloth, not by pouring a flow of water on them.

IMHO.

That may be true, but I've rinsed my E-M5i & ii, 12-40, and 7-14 many times after salt and sand exposure, and had zero issues. I'm not talking light exposure, either. I walked over 5kms into 60km/h+ winds in the rain along Long Beach near Tofino in December with my new 7-14. I was a bit worried, as the rain (and hail) caught me off guard, but camera and lens did fine. I've also spent several hours in high winds in the dunes in Mojave with the same kit, and the only issue was a tiny bit of grit in the zoom ring. I carefully removed it with a small piece of paper slid between the rings.

pannumon wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/12/18/phone-drying-systems/20212889/

Looks like USA Today ran the same story.

Rice is not the answer

Actually, they are not saying that rice does not work. They are saying that the system(s) they are trying to sell are better. I am pretty sure that they are right.

They are clearly saying that rice doesn't work:

"And rice? Well, they both say immersing soggy electronics in a bag of rice doesn't really work. You'd probably be just as well off setting your phone on the counter and leaving it alone for a few days, where air can circulate through it."

And that was no 'story', that was an advert.

After letting the lens dry out, it was suggested that perhaps a little percussive maintainance would help.

So, I thumped the lens lightly once, and it seems to have knocked whatever was blocking the gears away, and then lens appears to be working fine now.  So for the time being, I will not be sending the lens in for repair.  Long term, I probably will not use the lens where salt waves are an issue, but I will probably use it where normal rain occurs.

If it fails at a later date, I will decide what to do then.

453C wrote:

I'd give those a try in a sealed bag or container if I was trying to dry out camera gear. I don't know how well rice works, but I know desiccants do.

Rice is a desiccant.

Not nearly as effective as silica gel, but a desiccant all the same.

I did a side-by-side between the 7-14 and 8-18. Edges and corners, the 7-14 is the clear loser at all focal lengths. Even at 5.6, the Panny is quite a bit better.

wpbarr wrote:

I did a side-by-side between the 7-14 and 8-18. Edges and corners, the 7-14 is the clear loser at all focal lengths. Even at 5.6, the Panny is quite a bit better.

are you replying to the right thread?

wpbarr wrote:

I did a side-by-side between the 7-14 and 8-18. Edges and corners, the 7-14 is the clear loser at all focal lengths. Even at 5.6, the Panny is quite a bit better.

I've not seen reviews that back this up. Care to post some examples? I like the idea of a removable hood and filters, and the extra reach, but nothing I've seen so far on the 8-18 has been enough to convince me to trade in my 7-14. Of relevance to this thread, I know the 7-14 is well sealed. How is the 8-18 in this regard?

I just came from a whale watching/photography outing this week in Juneau, Alaska. I was using a Panasonic G85 with an Olympus 14-150 II and the Panasonic 100-300 II. We had rough seas and heavy blowing rains. The camera and both lenses were soaked numerous times.  I dried them with a towel and kept shooting. They all performed flawlessly throughout that day and for the rest of the week during my trip through the Inside Passage. I am totally impressed with the way everything held up under some very harsh conditions.