Panasonic 100-300 4 - 5.6 II "mushy"/blur at far distances, not close?

Ok, let me see if I can articulate this well.

I am not new to shooting, but for some reason (and it could be over-analyzation) the lens mentioned exhibits mushy details when using the long end (300mm) for items that are farther away, REGARDLESS of the ISO. Let me explain that better.

I've run some tests to make sure I mean what I mean.

I shot some rocks at a distance (see attached photo) and the green details are all blended together. One could attribute that to a high iso of 3200. However, I shot a rock at a much closer distance, and a HIGHER ISO (8000!) and the details are better!

Now, yes, I understand that the closer something is, the more detailed it will be, for obvious reason.

Having said that, I was shocked at the difference. And as alluded to above, I would have guessed the ISO would have negated the distance problem. (maybe, maybe not)

I went birding yesterday and the same thing. 300mm in a tree nearby....not the sharpest ever, but WAY more than suitable for my needs. A bird flying over the water, the focus point of the image (it wasn't a misfire) and it was a mush of blackness)

Thoughts? am I missing something? Is this camera worse as it heads out to infinity? Am i overthinking this? Is there a setting I am not thinking of on my Panasonic G9? (no I dont have noise reduction on)

The only other thought i had was the shutter speed. Some of the photos were below the focal length (1/300th, I mean) - but with the DUAL IS of that lens, should it matter...anyway? (that aside, i shot another photo with the same shutter speed and that looked ok. Could this all just be attributed to me moving the camera, despite the IS?)

Dave Andrade wrote:

Ok, let me see if I can articulate this well.

I am not new to shooting, but for some reason (and it could be over-analyzation) the lens mentioned exhibits mushy details when using the long end (300mm) for items that are farther away, REGARDLESS of the ISO. Let me explain that better.

I've run some tests to make sure I mean what I mean.

I shot some rocks at a distance (see attached photo) and the green details are all blended together. One could attribute that to a high iso of 3200. However, I shot a rock at a much closer distance, and a HIGHER ISO (8000!) and the details are better!

Now, yes, I understand that the closer something is, the more detailed it will be, for obvious reason.

Having said that, I was shocked at the difference. And as alluded to above, I would have guessed the ISO would have negated the distance problem. (maybe, maybe not)

I went birding yesterday and the same thing. 300mm in a tree nearby....not the sharpest ever, but WAY more than suitable for my needs. A bird flying over the water, the focus point of the image (it wasn't a misfire) and it was a mush of blackness)

Thoughts? am I missing something? Is this camera worse as it heads out to infinity? Am i overthinking this? Is there a setting I am not thinking of on my Panasonic G9? (no I dont have noise reduction on)

The only other thought i had was the shutter speed. Some of the photos were below the focal length (1/300th, I mean) - but with the DUAL IS of that lens, should it matter...anyway? (that aside, i shot another photo with the same shutter speed and that looked ok. Could this all just be attributed to me moving the camera, despite the IS?)

If you look at the vegetation by the rock and in front of the rock, focus is in front of the rock.

However, things will loose detail at greater distances due to both atmospheric distortion and fewer pixels on the target.

I doubt shutter speed is your problem, but focus is critical with any long telephoto lens even when things are far away.

My old MK1 version of this lens needed to be stopped down to f/7.1 beyond 250mm FL to get the best out of it.

I never used it with my G85, but with my old G7 AFC and Tracking AF were very hit and miss. I found AFS with a small central AF box worked best for me. You may need Pinpoint AF if trying to capture a subject hiding behind foreground vegetation.

My understanding is that the G9 has the best DFD/IS that Panasonic have yet provided, so your mileage may vary.

Atmospheric interference.

So we think of air as invisible.  Truth is air carries particulates, has currents, and refracts light like any other fluid.  The more air between you and your subject, the dirtier the air, the more air currents etc, the more pronounced the effect.

This isn't caused by the camera or the lens, and since conditions are localized and sporadic its hard to visualize it.  The 100-300mm II I have has been quite good to me, but it is sensitive to shutter shock on a G7, its also sensitive to movement.  Equiv 600MM handheld can be tough no matter the system, and good technique is critical.

Lastly I've heard from others that stopping down from f/5.6 to f/7.1 increases sharpness, but I haven't seen that to be the case in my use.  At least not enough to compensate for raising ISO or slowing the shutter.

For best results in my uses I shoot with it wide open, ISO no more than 1600, e-shutter, and a solid hold braced if I can.  Then I also shoot burst in case I screw up one, I get extras.

Don't own this lens.

But heard that it has the sweetest spot at f/7.1~f/8. Try to see would it produce sharper result?

BTW, please posted the original image instead of a screen shot since the EXIF, and allowing members here to download the original of the image for closer examination might produce more fruitful suggestion.

How about the SOOC jpg? Would it produce sharper result than RAW conversion?

alcelc wrote:

Don't own this lens.

But heard that it has the sweetest spot at f/7.1~f/8. Try to see would it produce sharper result?

I have the original version and you’re correct. f7.1 is the sweet spot! The optical design didn’t change between versions of the lens.

I learned to keep the aperture at f7.1 at all times. Moving it to f8 gets it into the diffraction zone, so I avoided that.

The rough part about shooting with such a small aperture is keeping reasonably fast shutter speeds.  I’d often use a monopod or an UltraPod II braced against my chest (this method works extremely well!)

jeffharris wrote:

The rough part about shooting with such a small aperture is keeping reasonably fast shutter speeds. I’d often use a monopod or an UltraPod II braced against my chest (this method works extremely well!)

I'd heard that tip a bunch of times and never thought I'd need it, but it came in handy when I found myself shooting a rocket launch and doing a long exposure with my E-M5 II + UWA... Only other body I had was the GX850 but putting the 100-300 II on a small tabletop tripod (I also did use the Roesch collar on it) and resting said mini tripod against my chest worked a treat, framing wasn't too terrible even using the flipped out tilt screen (no other choice, duh).

These aren't anything special but it was fun to do (and worth it to get the long exposure of the launch arc w/my PL8-18), it beats not getting a long shot at all, one of them is at 1/4... :o

GX850 + 100-300 II SOOC JPEG 1/4 f5.6 ISO200

GX850 + 100-300 II SOOC JPEG 1/400 f5.6 ISO800

Edit: This was the launch of the Parker Solar Probe at Kennedy Space Center btw, night launch at that (as you can well see), shot at 300mm.

I have the 100-300mmii and at 300mm it's a combination of.

Use f7.1-f8 as it is the sweetspot for the 2e part 200-300mm , the first 100-200mm is 5.6-7.1 also suitable.. Remind you that DoF is at 300mm also quite "thin"  for closeby aming which doesn't help to have a sharp image.

Hot air and air polution is at 300mm a factor in blurry haze.

Above 250mm the optics starts to break apart a bit.

So in cold winter clear days with sunlight to bumpup the shutterspeed it's the most ideal moment.. 😁

But in general i still like this lens.

Pete Berry wrote:

Dave Andrade wrote:

I am not new to shooting, but for some reason (and it could be over-analyzation) the lens mentioned exhibits mushy details when using the long end (300mm) for items that are farther away, REGARDLESS of the ISO. Let me explain that better.

I've run some tests to make sure I mean what I mean.

I shot some rocks at a distance (see attached photo) and the green details are all blended together. One could attribute that to a high iso of 3200. However, I shot a rock at a much closer distance, and a HIGHER ISO (8000!) and the details are better!

Unless I'm severely mistaking what appears to be a rather small rock with shoots of moss about it, this was not anywhere near the distant shot you suggested, where atmospheric turbulence might play a part. For the most part, it's simply out of focus - the only sharp area in the lower right corner at what appears to be at water's edge.

Hah! You’re right. There are even a few broken sticks and what looks like an acorn in the front center. So, it can’t be that far away.

Regarding your use of the UltraPod ii, I already have an Oben mini-tripod/ballhead, so I'm trying to figure out if that will work vs. buying even more stuff. But, if it conveniently improves stabilization, I'm all for it.

Is the advantage of the UltraPod ii that it needs no ballhead in order to swivel?

If there are any other benefits vs generic TT tripods I'm missing, please point them out as well.

Thanks.

MacroDonata wrote:

Regarding your use of the UltraPod ii, I already have an Oben mini-tripod/ballhead, so I'm trying to figure out if that will work vs. buying even more stuff. But, if it conveniently improves stabilization, I'm all for it.

Is the advantage of the UltraPod ii that it needs no ballhead in order to swivel?

If there are any other benefits vs generic TT tripods I'm missing, please point them out as well.

Kinda like that…

This is my GX8 and 100-400mm. The 100-300mm is similar, but the camera is closer to the body.

With the GX8, I reverse the tripod foot, so the camera is a bit further from the body. With the Roesch Feinmechanik tripod collar on the 100-300mm, that's not possible.

The other option is sticking a monopod in a front pocket. That works quite well.

Reversed tripod foot.

A couple of years ago, on a hot August day, I went to a local airshow with my new G9 and the 100-300mm II lens. Some of the planes being flown were large and not very fast (B52, for example).

I zoomed all the way out to 300mm to get the B52 as it made its turn to come back to the airfield.    When it was in front of us, at 100mm it was hard to keep all of it in one frame.

Punchline: the pictures I took at 300m were SO disturbed by hot air rising, it looked like the plane had ripply wings.  Of course it does not.  The closer shots were crisp and excellent.

Because it was a sunlit day, I was shooting at ISO 200. No high ISO issues.

I was just as surprised as you were.   Shooting very distant things at 300mm, it turns out, is difficult due to external factors the photography cannot control!