Panasonic GX80 + Panasonic 100-300 for Safari

I just recently came back from an amazing trip to Tanzania. Although I only own what is considered to be a basic equipment, I am more than happy with the results. I was surprised with the sharpness I got even when using the Panasonic 100-300 (works much better when the subject is closer, even at 300mm, suffering a bit on distant subjects, do not know if anyone else has the same experience). Focus was good, not perfect, but at 7 FPS I always had enough pictures to choose from (I was lucky to see two Cheetahs hunting and the result in this fast action scenario was OK). The size of the equipment is amazing, I had to share the car with other people and carrying a FF long lens would have been impossible. IBIS helps a lot when using a long lens...

I think that m43 shines for wildlife photography, when carrying huge FF lenses would be impossible or too expensive. Of course it has its downsides. I always tried to keep ISO below 800, but always had enough light available.

Panasonic GX80 + Voiigtlander 42.5

Panasonic GX80 + Panasonic 100-300

Panasonic GX 80 + Panasonic 100-300

Panasonic GX80 + Panasonic 100-300

Aitoritu wrote:

I just recently came back from an amazing trip to Tanzania. Although I only own what is considered to be a basic equipment, I am more than happy with the results.

You got some really nice pics; I would be very pleased with those.

I was surprised with the sharpness I got even when using the Panasonic 100-300 (works much better when the subject is closer, even at 300mm, suffering a bit on distant subjects, do not know if anyone else has the same experience).

Atmospheric turbulence is certainly a factor with anything that is some distance away. That said, the lens is known to be sharpest at the long end when stopped down to f/7.1; maybe something you could try at a next opportunity.

Focus was good, not perfect, but at 7 FPS I always had enough pictures to choose from (I was lucky to see two Cheetahs hunting and the result in this fast action scenario was OK).

I'm interested what burst mode and focus mode you used. I tend to set middle burst speed (so as not to lose the viewfinder image) and AF-S, but I should probably try out the other focus modes.

I tested that lens, it is sharp at 100mm, and reasonably sharp till 200mm, it gets worse at 250mm, and 300mm is very bad ... you should have used the lens till 250mm max.

Jozef.

Fantastic shots! Just another example of not letting "inferior" equipment get in the way of capturing the image (i.e. using "only" a 16MP m43 camera and a 100-300 Mk. I that everyone loves to rag on).

Thank you for sharing!

Jozef M wrote:

I tested that lens, it is sharp at 100mm, and reasonably sharp till 200mm, it gets worse at 250mm, and 300mm is very bad ... you should have used the lens till 250mm max.

Jozef.

The lens is perfectly capable up to 250mm, you can still get very clean, sharp images . Even at 300mm it very usable, with good technique. I reckon you need to work on yours with Tele lenses because this lens is very good even wide open at the longer end. Too many nonsense ''reviews' have persuaded people otherwise.  I wonder how much of a chance may Sayers actually gave this lens, or how iffy their hand holding twchnique of a long lens is .

Great shots OP.

Aitoritu wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

I tested that lens, it is sharp at 100mm, and reasonably sharp till 200mm, it gets worse at 250mm, and 300mm is very bad ... you should have used the lens till 250mm max.

Jozef.

In a Safari animals are often very far away and therefore your focal length is not a choice, I found myself shooting at 300mm many times. In addition, composition is more important than perfect sharpness for me, so I focused on composition, shot 3-4 pictures and check if they were ok for me. The results are not National Geographic level, but good enough for me.

Yes, I know what you mean ... you see interesting stuff in your evf and you want to get closer. That is natural. But most of the time, cheap zoom lenses are soft at tele, and this one is very bad at 300mm. I wanted to buy this lens too, but after testing I changed my mind, a lens that you buy for 300mm must be also sharp at that distance.

I can't spend that much money on those good zooms, so I don't have a lens till 300mm, better no lens than a bad lens that always dissappoint in IQ. That is my p o v.

But if the IQ is good enough for you, then there is no problem. Everyone can see those things different.

Jozef.

Jozef M wrote:

Most of the time, cheap zoom lenses are soft at tele, and this one is very bad at 300mm. I wanted to buy this lens too, but after testing I changed my mind, a lens that you buy for 300mm must be also sharp at that distance.

Jozef.

Cool story Jozef. Now how about you leave this thread, since it was the OP's intention to share images he captured from a great trip, not get in to an argument with some unknown stranger on the internet who says that the lens is no good, without providing any images of his own to backup his statements?

Those shots OP took look pretty sharp and stand on their own to me. He worked with the tools in hand and yielded great result and that's what mattered. As someone whom doesn't even own a super tele, you surely have lots of opinions on their IQ.

Would you rather be going to Africa without a super tele instead? Since you can't afford the top end glass and will not tolerate the budget options? I bought the "not so great" 75-300, which enabled me to start doing bird photography which my 40-150, despite being an amazing lens, simply lacks the FL to do so in many situations.

I agree! I think this is the best Panny telephoto out there.

Thanks for sharing those great images.