Panasonic 100-300mm II review

HRC2016 wrote:

...

The 100-300 (and the Oly 75-300) are underrated, while the 100-400 is overrated. I recently had all three. I think many who praise the 100-400 so much just don't know how to use the smaller lenses as effectively. Bigger is not always better.

or the opposite...

I'm an amateur, so the 100-300 is my first long zoom lens ever. Previously I had the 45-150. At first I wasn't pleased with the 100-300 but I quickly realized two things.

First, it's challenging to use without good technique and optimized settings, so you need to practice. Especially handheld for moving subjects. Second, it really needs direct sunlight to achieve maximum sharpness (low ISO, high shutter speed); even on a cloudy day you can start to get noise and blur.

Keep in mind that I'm generally talking about shooting at 300mm, moving subjects, handheld, and then cropping on top of all that. So I'm asking a lot from such an inexpensive lens. My conclusion is that it mostly delivers under ideal conditions.

Here is the ubiquitous (cropped) moon photo that I think makes a good test for long lenses:

This is about the best I could do with at 300mm with tripod, remote shutter, etc. YMMV.

EDIT: you know I just realized that if you were just in it for the max zoom, for about the same price as this lens, you could get a Nikon P900 and get better results more easily.

JosephScha wrote:

I hope someone takes a picture of the moon with a P900 and posts it here. I'm not at all sure it would be better.

Well there was a thread about this exact topic on this very forum a few days ago. But it's a mess:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4280884

Unfortunately the thread got a lot of people's knickers in a bunch but looked at objectively I think it's pretty clear that the optics of a 2000mm equivalent zoom outweigh all the other factors in m43's favor at 600mm equivalent.  Given it's price point, the P900 is very good at one thing only: huge zoom.

It's hard to find apples-to-apples comparison between the P900 and the Panny 100-300ii lens, but I know for sure my Panny can't do this, in video mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clg7rQB6H2U

There are dozens more examples of the P900's zoom capabilities easily found online.  I'm not saying it's a better camera, but I am saying that it will do a better job zooming to 2000mm equivalent than taking a photo with the Panny100-300ii and cropping to 2000mm equivalent.

JosephScha wrote:

I hope someone takes a picture of the moon with a P900 and posts it here. I'm not at all sure it would be better.

Below is Moon taken with OMD EM10 and f=1000 mm telescope.

I have had the original mega ois for many years and i understand the optics are the same as in the mark2 ( but obviously sealing and ois are uprated )

Because m43 is now not my main kit, I decided to keep it as a lighter weight system and sold my em1.1, oly pro 40-150 but have started to use the 100-300 again - I use longer focal lengths a lot and not just for action / wildlife.

I would agree that it is underrated and, for me, since I only print or view to A4 ish, then it does a really good job.

Reviewing some photos I took 3-4 years ago with it and my em5.1, and which i was not happy with at time, I realise that  most of the problems were down to bad technique eg unrealistic expectations of the early ibis or mega ois or shutter shake etc.

Just trying it again, I am really happy with it but might get the mark 2 and poss a em5.2 or a pan sometime.

Incidentally, i did have the 100-400 for a short time ( it had a bayonette failure and i decided not to replace it).  It is obviously sharper than the 100-300 thru most of their common range but the lower weight, size, cost and the resolution i actually need makes the use of the 100-300 the best choice for myself.

richard

rich_cx139 wrote:

I have had the original mega ois for many years and i understand the optics are the same as in the mark2 ( but obviously sealing and ois are uprated )

Because m43 is now not my main kit, I decided to keep it as a lighter weight system and sold my em1.1, oly pro 40-150 but have started to use the 100-300 again - I use longer focal lengths a lot and not just for action / wildlife.

I would agree that it is underrated and, for me, since I only print or view to A4 ish, then it does a really good job.

Reviewing some photos I took 3-4 years ago with it and my em5.1, and which i was not happy with at time, I realise that most of the problems were down to bad technique eg unrealistic expectations of the early ibis or mega ois or shutter shake etc.

Just trying it again, I am really happy with it but might get the mark 2 and poss a em5.2 or a pan sometime.

Incidentally, i did have the 100-400 for a short time ( it had a bayonette failure and i decided not to replace it). It is obviously sharper than the 100-300 thru most of their common range but the lower weight, size, cost and the resolution i actually need makes the use of the 100-300 the best choice for myself.

richard

I also have the original 100-300. This lens is indeed underrated. The main reason is that proper technique and knowledge on the lens sweet spots are important. At the long end it is quite sensitive to the shutter-induced vibrations (E-shutter solves the problem). I have also found that the OIS can result in loosing the resolution, so I prefer using the IBIS of my OMD EM 10II.

scotttnz wrote:

I’m a big fan of this lens, and I often wonder why it is generally not rated more highly. I am often amazed by how sharp, and punchy images are straight out of the camera, even at 300mm wide open. It has nice bokeh and the image stabilisation with a dual IS body is very impressive.

I have considered replacing my 100-300 with a 100-400, but for me that would be trading a lens that is not small, but small enough to always carry in my bag with a more specialised lens, that is big enough to only take with me when I’m going to shoot wild life etc. and I’m very happy with the results the 100-300 gives me.

Ditto for me too!

Steveus wrote:

JosephScha wrote:

I hope someone takes a picture of the moon with a P900 and posts it here. I'm not at all sure it would be better.

Well there was a thread about this exact topic on this very forum a few days ago. But it's a mess:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4280884

Unfortunately the thread got a lot of people's knickers in a bunch but looked at objectively I think it's pretty clear that the optics of a 2000mm equivalent zoom outweigh all the other factors in m43's favor at 600mm equivalent. Given it's price point, the P900 is very good at one thing only: huge zoom.

It's hard to find apples-to-apples comparison between the P900 and the Panny 100-300ii lens, but I know for sure my Panny can't do this, in video mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clg7rQB6H2U

There are dozens more examples of the P900's zoom capabilities easily found online. I'm not saying it's a better camera, but I am saying that it will do a better job zooming to 2000mm equivalent than taking a photo with the Panny100-300ii and cropping to 2000mm equivalent.

p900 lens is 4.3-350mm so technically it is also cropping to 2000mm equivalent. Given higher resolution sensor and very sharp lens (300mm f4 comes to mind) it should be doable to match it on m43 in the future, when denser sensors arrive.

Serguei Palto wrote:

I also have the original 100-300. This lens is indeed underrated. The main reason is that proper technique and knowledge on the lens sweet spots are important. At the long end it is quite sensitive to the shutter-induced vibrations (E-shutter solves the problem). I have also found that the OIS can result in loosing the resolution, so I prefer using the IBIS of my OMD EM 10II.

Like your shots - the second especially.

Looking at the loads of pics posted on this forum, flickr etc etc, I conclude that it does a really good job at producing images with, and its a personal view, a resolution and rendering that are fine for what I want.  Certainly if you put it up against the 100-400 or even the Nikon 1 CX70-300 and start zooming then the differences are apparent but not relevant to me in my real world usage.

No problem in throwing it, with a few smaller m43 lenses, into a small bag to take out 'just in case'.  It is really compact.  Also the reason I got rid of the 40-150 pro - superb lens but just a bit too big and heavy for light kit and I ended up not using it:  taking a DSLR and a 100-400 out instead if I specifically needed that range.

I am still fiddling around with IBS/OIS settings as well as aperture to get the best out of it. Part of the reason for considering an em5.2 or maybe a em10.x is the better ibis on the later cameras. I might pop into my local camera shop and try the Mark 2 out with a modern Pan body to see what difference the dual IS makes.

richard

rich_cx139 wrote:

Serguei Palto wrote:

I also have the original 100-300. This lens is indeed underrated. The main reason is that proper technique and knowledge on the lens sweet spots are important. At the long end it is quite sensitive to the shutter-induced vibrations (E-shutter solves the problem). I have also found that the OIS can result in loosing the resolution, so I prefer using the IBIS of my OMD EM 10II.

Like your shots - the second especially.

Looking at the loads of pics posted on this forum, flickr etc etc, I conclude that it does a really good job at producing images with, and its a personal view, a resolution and rendering that are fine for what I want. Certainly if you put it up against the 100-400 or even the Nikon 1 CX70-300 and start zooming then the differences are apparent but not relevant to me in my real world usage.

No problem in throwing it, with a few smaller m43 lenses, into a small bag to take out 'just in case'. It is really compact. Also the reason I got rid of the 40-150 pro - superb lens but just a bit too big and heavy for light kit and I ended up not using it: taking a DSLR and a 100-400 out instead if I specifically needed that range.

I am still fiddling around with IBS/OIS settings as well as aperture to get the best out of it. Part of the reason for considering an em5.2 or maybe a em10.x is the better ibis on the later cameras. I might pop into my local camera shop and try the Mark 2 out with a modern Pan body to see what difference the dual IS makes.

richard

I am Agree with you regarding Pana 100-400 and OLY 40-150. These two lenses are indeed very good, but not so compact as Pana 100-300. The only drawback of Pana 100-300 is that, at long end (f=300mm)  it is a bit soft at f/5.6.

A few years ago I had tryed Nikon 7100 with 70-300 mm. I spent a lot of time for testing and comparison the Pana and Nikon. The rsult - I was very disaapointed by both the Nikon lens and camera ( D7100). Below are two crops of the same object captured with the two lenses (the distance to the object is of about 100-120 m).

Pana 100-300 really shines in this comparisson despite, as I said, Pana at 300 and f/5.6 is not good enogh to my criteria.

In general m43 lenses are underrated, the peaple do not take into account that they are designed for much higher pixel density compared to those for FF systems.

image from Nikon D 7100 and 70-300 f4.5/5.6 lens

Image from OMD EM10(I) with Pana 100-300 (I)