What a POS Locked

User error, most likely. I've used three different copies of the Panny 100-300 over the years (two of my own and one of my wife's) and all have performed very well. Long slow lenses require good technique. There's just no getting around that.

Kurt_K wrote:

User error, most likely. I've used three different copies of the Panny 100-300 over the years (two of my own and one of my wife's) and all have performed very well. Long slow lenses require good technique. There's just no getting around that.

I've no real complaint about sharpness from my Mk1 but do object strongly to the stiction mine suffers from the manual focus ring. Its so bad that manual focussing at 200mm and more is virtually impossible. That's just where manual focusing is most useful.

I would not buy this lens again as a result.

HudsonBob wrote:

I think I may have gotten a bad copy, but every picture I took was so soft and slightly out of focus. This lens is no better than my Nikon 55-300, which is also a POS.

Maybe you got a bad copy. Maybe not. It's hard to know without more info.

I have this lens, and it's exceeded my expectations every time. You must have a bad copy.

Aberaeron wrote:

Kurt_K wrote:

User error, most likely. I've used three different copies of the Panny 100-300 over the years (two of my own and one of my wife's) and all have performed very well. Long slow lenses require good technique. There's just no getting around that.

I've no real complaint about sharpness from my Mk1 but do object strongly to the stiction mine suffers from the manual focus ring. Its so bad that manual focussing at 200mm and more is virtually impossible. That's just where manual focusing is most useful.

I would not buy this lens again as a result.

+1   Not the smoothest zoom; as u say, terribly rough focus... wish i could spray some dry teflon lubricant inside (-:

Pretty sharp,  & a "cracker" at short end!

Is the mk2 much better?

rashid7 wrote:

Aberaeron wrote:

Kurt_K wrote:

User error, most likely. I've used three different copies of the Panny 100-300 over the years (two of my own and one of my wife's) and all have performed very well. Long slow lenses require good technique. There's just no getting around that.

I've no real complaint about sharpness from my Mk1 but do object strongly to the stiction mine suffers from the manual focus ring. Its so bad that manual focussing at 200mm and more is virtually impossible. That's just where manual focusing is most useful.

I would not buy this lens again as a result.

+1 Not the smoothest zoom; as u say, terribly rough focus... wish i could spray some dry teflon lubricant inside (-:

Pretty sharp, & a "cracker" at short end!

Is the mk2 much better?

The MkII had better be better, because my example of very late build MkI  Is so unpleasant to use that it is actually barely acceptable for manual focus. I'd go further and say that it just isn't acceptable. Since it is impossible to manually focus on the long end when I really need it, the lens can't be described as anything other than unacceptable.

This may be just my lens and other's may be better, but I can only comment from my own experience.  I've tried turning the focus ring and the zoom ring multiple times but while the zoom seems to have improved somewhat, the focus is as sticky and jerky as ever.  It hasn't been used all that much [Its not been on the camera for more that a couple of hours intermittent shooting in total] and is as clean as when it came out of the box.

Nine times out of 10 it is the user who is a POS when it comes to using long lenses.

NCV wrote:

Nine times out of 10 it is the user who is a POS when it comes to using long lenses.

LOL - that sounds like me - Over the years, I've come to realize i generally suck at much of anything beyond 200mm.

I do see people complain about bad long lenses and then when you see the exif data they are shooting them at ridiculously low shutter speeds for hand holding. When I'm shooting my 75-300 at 300, just my heart beating makes the lens jump. Not saying this is the case with the OP, but hard to say without examples posted. Even with IBIS, at 300mm I try to stick to the old rule of thumb of 1/FL or 1/600. I know IBIS will allow cheating on that rule of thumb, but not so much for me. I must have shaky hands!

Also shooting a consumer grade lens and expecting National Geographic results, especially at extreme telephoto, might be asking a bit much, although I see many excellent results posted.

Or the OP could indeed have a bad copy.