Questions about Panasonic 100-300 lens

Charley123 wrote:

My professional photography does not reqiure any telephoto lenses longer than 60mm. Mostly, I use normal and wide-angle prime lenses for architecture and landscapes.

I'm currently wanting to shoot super telephoto of wildlife for fun. I have no prior experience with super telephoto or wildlife photography.

I've read the reviews of Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400 lenses. I know 100-300 is not as sharp as the 100-400, but would I notice the difference in sharpness at the sizes/resolutions I display photos at?

I display photos 8 x 10 print or 1280 x 920 on-screen. Never larger. I want to see good sharpness at those resolutions.

There are two answers to this question.

In absolutes? The 100-300mm, when used with care (using e-shutter when possible, keeping aperture at around 7.1, keeping shutter speed up, and not expecting miracles at above 270mm or so) can indeed give you excellent results. I used the original one for years, and after the first year learning how to get the most out of it, I had great results with it. I would not hesitate to recommend it as a place to get started with long teles, especially the version II, which has improved a number of performance weaknesses of the original (although optically both 100-300mms are still pretty much the same).

However, if you think you are going to want to shoot at the long end (300mm) all the time, and/or do a lot of cropping, then the 100-400mm will make a difference even for your lower resolution purposes. It also has better color rendition (although the 100-300mm is pretty good, the 100-400mm is better in that respect), and the 100-400mm has noticeably less CA on bright edges of things. The question is, are those differences enough for the extra $ and weight? For me they absolutely were, and I have been very pleased with the 100-400mm. For your purposes? Maybe not? Only one way to see, and that is to find a way to try them (rent or try in store, if there's one near you).

So, yes, you may see the difference in sharpness between the two, if you shoot long, wide open, and crop, or no, you may not, if you shoot shorter, stop down, and not crop.....

-J

jalywol wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

My professional photography does not reqiure any telephoto lenses longer than 60mm. Mostly, I use normal and wide-angle prime lenses for architecture and landscapes.

I'm currently wanting to shoot super telephoto of wildlife for fun. I have no prior experience with super telephoto or wildlife photography.

I've read the reviews of Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400 lenses. I know 100-300 is not as sharp as the 100-400, but would I notice the difference in sharpness at the sizes/resolutions I display photos at?

I display photos 8 x 10 print or 1280 x 920 on-screen. Never larger. I want to see good sharpness at those resolutions.

There are two answers to this question.

In absolutes? The 100-300mm, when used with care (using e-shutter when possible, keeping aperture at around 7.1, keeping shutter speed up, and not expecting miracles at above 270mm or so) can indeed give you excellent results. I used the original one for years, and after the first year learning how to get the most out of it, I had great results with it. I would not hesitate to recommend it as a place to get started with long teles, especially the version II, which has improved a number of performance weaknesses of the original (although optically both 100-300mms are still pretty much the same).

However, if you think you are going to want to shoot at the long end (300mm) all the time, and/or do a lot of cropping, then the 100-400mm will make a difference even for your lower resolution purposes. It also has better color rendition (although the 100-300mm is pretty good, the 100-400mm is better in that respect), and the 100-400mm has noticeably less CA on bright edges of things. The question is, are those differences enough for the extra $ and weight? For me they absolutely were, and I have been very pleased with the 100-400mm. For your purposes? Maybe not? Only one way to see, and that is to find a way to try them (rent or try in store, if there's one near you).

So, yes, you may see the difference in sharpness between the two, if you shoot long, wide open, and crop, or no, you may not, if you shoot shorter, stop down, and not crop.....

-J

I won't be cropping much, if any. I can't justify the expense of the 100-400 because this is only for fun, not professional use. I'm handicapped and cannot carry the 100-400. So really I'm trying to decide whether to get the 100-300 or skip super telephoto altogether.

It sounds like the 100-300 would be good enough for my hobby needs assuming that I use it competently.

Charley123 wrote:

I won't be cropping much, if any. I can't justify the expense of the 100-400 because this is only for fun, not professional use. I'm handicapped and cannot carry the 100-400. So really I'm trying to decide whether to get the 100-300 or skip super telephoto altogether.

It sounds like the 100-300 would be good enough for my hobby needs assuming that I use it competently.

Yes, I agree.  I really enjoyed mine a lot over the years.

Some tips:  The output of the 100-300mm can take a lot of sharpening very nicely.  I used to do a 2 level sharpening on the longest shots, where the lens is the weakest (300mm range) ; the first with a very small radius (0.4) and a high percentage (over 100), and then a normal sharpening (about 1.0, and 50 % ish) .  For closer in shots, the lens is quite good, and usually just needs a normal level of sharpening.  (You will be exceptionally pleased at its quality in its shortest range.)

The learning curve for this (and any long tele) lens can be a bit steep.  You will need to work on your holding techniques, and you may even want to use a monopod while you get used to it.  Just remember, stop down (esp at the long end), and keep the speed up as best you can, given the lighting situations where you are.  And, as I said before, if you can use the e-shutter, you will reduce one more potential source of blur, so use it when you can, and keep the speed up when you can't.  You'll get the hang of it!

-J

Eric Nepean wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

My professional photography does not reqiure any telephoto lenses longer than 60mm. Mostly, I use normal and wide-angle prime lenses for architecture and landscapes.

I'm currently wanting to shoot super telephoto of wildlife for fun. I have no prior experience with super telephoto or wildlife photography.

I've read the reviews of Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400 lenses. I know 100-300 is not as sharp as the 100-400, but would I notice the difference in sharpness at the sizes/resolutions I display photos at?

I display photos 8 x 10 print or 1280 x 920 on-screen. Never larger. I want to see good sharpness at those resolutions.

Both the 100-300 and the 100-400 get a little softer at the long end. But 300mm on the 100-400 is sharper and faster than 300mm on the 100-300.

That being said, the 100-400 is quite expensive, and quite heavy for hand holding.

A lot depends on what kind of wildlife you want to shoot and at what distance. I've had some reasonable success with the old 45-200 (have to be careful to choose the right aperture when working at the long end), and I find it a very handy length for wildlife and for walking or skiing around in the bush.

Panasonic did say they were going to release a PRO Pana-Leica 50-200 f2.8-4 in 2017.

This might be a more useful wildlife lens than any of the above

One cool thing about micro four-thirds is that it keeps getting better and stays interesting as new things are released. Hopefully lens choices will keep growing.

Maybe I should wait and get something even better, or wait until the prices drop on existing stuff.

jalywol wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

I won't be cropping much, if any. I can't justify the expense of the 100-400 because this is only for fun, not professional use. I'm handicapped and cannot carry the 100-400. So really I'm trying to decide whether to get the 100-300 or skip super telephoto altogether.

It sounds like the 100-300 would be good enough for my hobby needs assuming that I use it competently.

Yes, I agree. I really enjoyed mine a lot over the years.

Some tips: The output of the 100-300mm can take a lot of sharpening very nicely. I used to do a 2 level sharpening on the longest shots, where the lens is the weakest (300mm range) ; the first with a very small radius (0.4) and a high percentage (over 100), and then a normal sharpening (about 1.0, and 50 % ish) . For closer in shots, the lens is quite good, and usually just needs a normal level of sharpening. (You will be exceptionally pleased at its quality in its shortest range.)

The learning curve for this (and any long tele) lens can be a bit steep. You will need to work on your holding techniques, and you may even want to use a monopod while you get used to it. Just remember, stop down (esp at the long end), and keep the speed up as best you can, given the lighting situations where you are. And, as I said before, if you can use the e-shutter, you will reduce one more potential source of blur, so use it when you can, and keep the speed up when you can't. You'll get the hang of it!

Although I've never done any super telephoto work, I do understand the general theories and techniques because I received formal photography education in college. I was a business major, but I took every photography class I could.

My plan is to (on sunny days) keep aperture F8, shutter 1/1600, ISO 400; or shutter 1/800, ISO 200. That's because I assume the lens would do best at F8. The rest I calculated in my head starting from Sunny 16 exposure rule and focal length/shutter reciprocal rule. So it looks to me like the lens should be handhold-able (when not using a polarizer) especially with OIS in lens.

When using a polarizer, a tripod might be necessary. It would depend on how effective the OIS is.

khunpapa wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

My professional photography does not reqiure any telephoto lenses longer than 60mm. Mostly, I use normal and wide-angle prime lenses for architecture and landscapes.

I'm currently wanting to shoot super telephoto of wildlife for fun. I have no prior experience with super telephoto or wildlife photography.

I've read the reviews of Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400 lenses. I know 100-300 is not as sharp as the 100-400, but would I notice the difference in sharpness at the sizes/resolutions I display photos at?

I display photos 8 x 10 print or 1280 x 920 on-screen. Never larger. I want to see good sharpness at those resolutions.

It's a huge difference between 8x10" and 1280x920. The print demands at least 8*300*10*300 or 7.2 MP resolution, while the screen is only 2 MP.

My point was I never need resolution above 8 x 10 print at 300^2 dpi. So that's 2400 x 3200 resolution. Is the 100-300 lens sharp enough for a sharp 2400 x 3200 print?

Thus, on the screen, the picture from the lens that can provide 8 MP resolution may be seen almost no-different to the one shot with the 12 MP-resolution lens

Although the pictures are for fun, I still want them to be sharp, or it won't be fun.

From what I read on this thread and at some scientific review sites that do careful testing the lens will be more than good enough for my needs. The price is right and the size is right too. I'm going to get one.

Charley123 wrote:

I've read the reviews of Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400 lenses. I know 100-300 is not as sharp as the 100-400, but would I notice the difference in sharpness at the sizes/resolutions I display photos at?

I display photos 8 x 10 print or 1280 x 920 on-screen. Never larger. I want to see good sharpness at those resolutions.

The 100-300mm will be fine for that.  You can even use the 2x digital teleconverter to get a pseudo 600mm (1200mm-efl) and the photos will look great after resized down.

Charley123 wrote:

From what I read on this thread and at some scientific review sites that do careful testing the lens will be more than good enough for my needs. The price is right and the size is right too. I'm going to get one.

I think you'll enjoy it! I find it's very easy to get imperfect results at full stretch, but I blame my own poor technique rather than the lens. Good light helps, as then I can use a high shutter speed.

I was pleased with the technical quality of this shot I got last month (the eyes are as sharp as I need, and I would be happy to print this at A4).

TOY (drummer - Charlie Salvidge - Victorious Festival)

I say a bit more about the shot here - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4197775 - and there are some really useful comments and examples from others.