Lumix G9 and 100-300ii - what a difference

After upgrading from the G7 to the G9 when I got more into photography, I didn't have the budget for a wildlife lens so had been using the Panny 14-140 for my safaris as it was the longest focal length I had. I got some great shots with it, but this year I decided to get the 100-300ii and I just came back from my first safari with it and wow, what a difference. Not only in the framing possibilities with the longer focal length but the sharpness and contrast as well. I was lucky enough to have a young male lion pose for me to test the quality, see for yourself! (Critiques welcome, of course)

Photos taken at Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda.

Also, please don't try and tell me to try the 100-400, my wallet can't take it lol.

When you need the reaching, you need the longer lens.

IMHO the 14-140 could probably replace the 45-200 (I did replace 45-200 by 14-140 and 45-150 happily), but when going longer, 140/150 are just too short for the task.

alcelc wrote:

When you need the reaching, you need the longer lens.

IMHO the 14-140 could probably replace the 45-200 (I did replace 45-200 by 14-140 and 45-150 happily), but when going longer, 140/150 are just too short for the task.

Yes and the sharpness at the end just falls off, plus much more noticeable CA. I still think it's a remarkable lens, though I've since replaced it with the Oly 12-100 for my travel photography. For the price and size though, it has served me extremely well.

novalaker wrote:

Also, please don't try and tell me to try the 100-400, my wallet can't take it lol.

I understand, but B&H just knocked $400. off it. 😀

Great shots! I do three or so safari's per year in South Africa's Sabi Sands. I started with the G7 and the Panasonic 100-300 and I'm happy with the results. I upgraded to the G9 when it was released and traded in my 100-300 v1 for the PL 100-400. You can't go wrong with either lens. I kept the G7 as a second body but always felt the disparities between sensors was a hindrance. I was planning on picking up a second G9 body but haven't in the hopes that Panasonic will release a v2 in the near future. I came across a practically new GX8 at a local camera shop a few weeks ago for a steal and decided to trade in my G7 for that. I got $200 for the G7 which I think shows the value that Panasonic cameras hold. I see the GX8 as a tremendous upgrade over the G7 in terms of sensor size and weather sealing. I look forward to giving it a full test on my next adventure. I think my next purchase will be the Oly 12-100 Pro. That will give me the full 24-800 mm full-frame equivalent on two weather-sealed bodies which, from my perspective, seems ideal. That will be my first Oly lens.

Thoughts? Go!

chipal wrote:

Great shots! I do three or so safari's per year in South Africa's Sabi Sands. I started with the G7 and the Panasonic 100-300 and I'm happy with the results. I upgraded to the G9 when it was released and traded in my 100-300 v1 for the PL 100-400. You can't go wrong with either lens. I kept the G7 as a second body but always felt the disparities between sensors was a hindrance. I was planning on picking up a second G9 body but haven't in the hopes that Panasonic will release a v2 in the near future. I came across a practically new GX8 at a local camera shop a few weeks ago for a steal and decided to trade in my G7 for that. I got $200 for the G7 which I think shows the value that Panasonic cameras hold. I see the GX8 as a tremendous upgrade over the G7 in terms of sensor size and weather sealing. I look forward to giving it a full test on my next adventure. I think my next purchase will be the Oly 12-100 Pro. That will give me the full 24-800 mm full-frame equivalent on two weather-sealed bodies which, from my perspective, seems ideal. That will be my first Oly lens.

Thoughts? Go!

Awesome, I'll be in South Africa a couple times this year, will see if I have time to get a safari in. My G7 is unfortunately busted, will see if I can get it fixed when I get home and sell it for a couple hundred. Regarding the 12-100, I haven't had a chance to test it yet extensively, but I played with it a bit just to see how it handles and how the AF work. First thought is it feels great on the G9, balances really well. It's super solidly built, especially compared to my Panny lenses. The AF was snappy just focusing on stuff around my house and backyard, but I hope to try it with some moving subjects to test the C-AF as well. My main complaint is that I didn't know the zoom ring worked in the opposite direction, which is my fault for not looking into it and will definitely take some getting used to. But I think I will like the lens overall and look forward to testing it more. I also liked the idea of getting coverage from 16-600mm between my 8-18, 12-100, and 100-300. I think my next lens would probably be upgrading to the 100-400, especially for all the birding opportunities where I live. But I'm trying to be content with what I have for now. GAS is a real thing!

novalaker wrote:

Also, please don't try and tell me to try the 100-400, my wallet can't take it lol.

Leica 50-200 it is, then!

On a more serious note, given your budget, I would recommend the Canon FD 300mm f2.8L (around $550) or at least the FD 300mm f4L (not the f4 S.S.C.). I have owned the SSC and the f2.8 and in both cases, my photography took a giant leap forward. You can also use Olympus teleconverters with them for additional reach.

They are manual focus but the quality is ... *chef's kiss*. It wasn't until I switched primarily to my 300mm Pro that my use of my FD 300mm f2.8 declined ... I still find uses for it.

Look at this ... wide open:

Indian wild boar

Or you could get a Rokinon / Samyang 135mm f2 lens. I just got the cine version and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. And a nice focal range and aperture. However it's about as expensive as the 300mm f2.8 at full price, so not worth it unless you get a steep discount.

novalaker wrote:

Photos taken at Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda.

These two are my favorites ... love the colors and composition. Goes to show that you do not need the absolute best optics if you have the right subject, a sense of composition and good timing.

I continue to desire a long-telephoto lens.  I've done my research and I think that the 100-300ii will meet my photographic needs.

John Koch wrote:

Many safari "packages" cost over $10,000. If the wallet suffices for two or more adventures of that sort, why quibble over whether one bought the $800 lens or the $1,600 one?

I see cases where a used 100-400mm sells for under $1,000 and a used 100-300mm ii sells for under $500.

A deduction: perhaps buyers discover they cannot really use such lenses adequately.

Good wildlife shots require great amounts of time and patience. The yields from casual hikes or occasional excursions can be underwhelming or nil. Add to that the difficulty of framing a shot at 300mm or 400mm while in the bush, under bright light, and when wearing sunglasses. Perhaps a lazy lion will come along, lounge at length, and save the day. More often, though, it is a story of hide and seek, where the critter dodges, hides, or flees before one can see it properly.

Then there is the challenge of the beast that happens to get quite close. You thought the lion was friendly. Or is he just very hungry? How to photograph him nibbling on your knee? You tell him, "Hold on, Leon, while I change my lens," but he doesn't wait.

The 14-140mm lens gives one the option to shoot wide. If one selects the 2X digital zoom for the Program mode, the effect approximates the reach of the 100-300mm lens at the long end. Perhaps this is more effective than to swap lenses while out on that dusty trail.

I've only done budget safaris, none costing more than $500, but that's the luxury of living somewhere where I can drive to safari or take a short flight. So for me, the difference of $400 or $1000 is the difference of one or two safaris! But I see your point in general.

John Koch wrote:

Many safari "packages" cost over $10,000. If the wallet suffices for two or more adventures of that sort, why quibble over whether one bought the $800 lens or the $1,600 one?

If you work with local safari operators, you can have a nice safari in under $1000 excluding airfare. Depends on the country and location as well, I guess. Botswana and Chile for example are very expensive. Kenya, SA and India not so much. I had a 2-week luxury safari in India for under $2500 in 2019. Two weeks is a lot, and when I say it was a luxury safari, that's what I mean. It's like we had the entire forest to ourselves. Saw every species we wanted to see and much more. Then again, I know the country well and do not need to rely on Western operators who are generally a rip-off.

I really like the photo 2 and photo 3 of the set.

The composure was well done with those 2 especially, all photos sharp on the lion here.

Maybe if you can get close, you can try the 12-35 option.

tulsamal wrote:

I looked on eBay not long ago at those vintage top of the line Canon FD 300mm F2.8 L lenses… seemed like everybody was asking $999. Where are you seeing them for half that?

Gregg

I bought mine from a Japanese seller (eBay) for $520 (I think). Right now, I do not see any for that price either, but it's a demand-supply thing and prices come down occasionally. Here's one right now for $700 which is not much more than $550.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/125255171812?hash=item1d29ca3ee4:g:TasAAOSwjqFht4yV