DPReview TV: Panasonic 70-300 F4.5-5.6 review

I think all telephoto lenses at this range loses image quality at max telephoto range.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

It's a 4.3x zoom, so the situation is more difficult on this one. 2.0x to 2.8x can work well at both ends.

Feb 19, 2021permalink

PredatorsPrey

Would be interesting how this compares to the similar priced Canon 70-300L.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Andrew Higgins

Uh oh, not quite a glowing review from Chris. Lumix really have very tough competition in the full frame market now, getting tougher as flagship mirrorless cameras have yet to be announced, and of course, the competition is very well established with a wide/huge range of lenses, old and new. Yet Lumix often launch new products at premium prices, like this 70-300mm lens, which don't beat the competitors. How can they win the market share they need like this??

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Fairlane

It's Panasonic, a giant compared to many others.. They don't really "need" big market shares within this niche. They seem to be doing just fine, and the L-mount is growing..

Feb 20, 2021permalink

LeDatas

IQ looks great in that soft winter sunlight.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Kurgo

In a 70-300 lens is launched at almost double the average price, I'd rather it were optically exceptional all the way through from 70 to 300, than having more extensive weather sealing or having a nicer bokeh (because who doesn't take portraits at 300mm f/5.6 after all...?).

Feb 18, 2021permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

Average of what?
Seems right in the middle of prices especially being launched at$999

Feb 19, 2021permalink

Stefan Hundhammer

I just had a deja vu: I've been through the exact same thing on Nikon full frame.

The Nikon 70-300 VR was one of the first lenses I got together with my D700 back in 2008, but it turned out (and all reviewers confirmed) that while it was decent from 70 mm to about 250 mm, it significantly lost sharpness at 300 mm. But the 300 mm focal length is the main reason to buy this lens!

So years later, I bought a 70-200 f/4 instead, and I never looked back.

In 2019/2020 when I moved on to a Panasonic S1, I went for the 70-200 f/4 right away; I even got the TC 1.4 which brings the range up to 280 mm. While there is some loss of sharpness with the TC, it's still quite good.

So with this new Panasonic 70-300 it seems to be the same story: Decent from 70 mm to some point beyond 200 mm, but losing image quality at 300 mm. Again, those 300 mm are the reason why people buy this lens!

So I'll gladly stick with my 70-200 f/4 + TC 1.4 to get up to 280 f/5.6. (Yes, it's also much more expensive.)

Feb 18, 2021permalink

yslee1

I don't think you should base this lens on your past experience; an earlier discussion in the comments is a better reflection of what is gong on here: https://www.dpreview.com/news/9340186403/panasonic-announces-lumix-s-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6-macro-for-l-mount?comment=1686076272

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Stefan Hundhammer

@yslee1: It's Chris and Jordan in that video who came to this conclusion. Hence the "deja vu".

Feb 18, 2021*permalink

ANAYV

I bet the AF-P 70 to 300mm is sharper at 300mm than this ...and all older 70 to 300mm AF-S lenses....not to mention fast AF.

For its cheapo price...it baffles me why it is as sharp as it is.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

GinoSVK

Lumix lens should be optically better than Canon 70-300mm L from 2010 but seems like it isn't, at least has a more effective anti-glare coating, and sun stars look really nice and define, which can add some interest to the night cityscape photos.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Jon555

You could use the Canon on a L series camera with an AF adaptor, would be an interesting comparison as the prices are similar, but not the size.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

99tollap

They need a superzoom to compete with the Tamron 28-200, Canon 24-240 and Nikon 24-200.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Cargo

They need a super telephoto lens, such as 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4...

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Ilia Snopchenko

They need a 50/1.0. :)

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Jon555

We need RogerC to test the sample variation (not great for some premium Panny m43 lenses) and their build (so a tear-down), to see if they can be fixed if they have a problem, or you get what you get, which could be expensive for out-of-warranty repairs, like dropping one. What is the policy on those repairs now anyway, is there a statement?

Not saying they might not be excellent on both counts, just it would be good to know.

Two things would keep me away from the L-series, one is DFD and the other is concerns about expensive Panasonic lenses sample variation and repair ability/cost. (My mirrorless system is still my GH5 for now, although I got the fast Oly 45mm not the fast Panny one due to the above concerns, all my other m43 lenses are Panny and okay, although the 12-60 Leicas I tried were quite different.)

Feb 18, 2021permalink

FuhTeng

Yes, clearly systems with DfD really need exotic lenses to take full advantage of their waffling AF. BRILLIANT! Charge customers a fortune AND make them ill!

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Metapolis

Welcome back Chris!

Feb 18, 2021permalink

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa

Chris is the best photographer at DPR and I would venture to say the best YouTube reviewer photographer. He should publish a book of his best photos. It would be good, but would also be an intersting comparison between cameras.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Chris Niccolls

I really appreciate that! Maybe one day

Feb 19, 2021permalink

LJ - Eljot

I love #3 and #45.

Feb 19, 2021permalink

Does Panasonic know they have the L-mount alliance?

The Sigma 100-400 is 949$. So going for a 1200$ price target is steep

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Sony's 70-300mm lenses are also extremely expensive for what they are. Canikon's normal 70-300mm lenses are very reasonable actually.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

@NexUser
Yes, the original Sony 70-300 was very expensive. But it was also for a long time nearly the only tele option in the Sony lineup, which is why it could get away with the high pricing. I doubt Sony would release it at that price point again. Many of the early E-mount lineup like the Batis lenses and early Sony/Zeiss lenses got away with their pricing due to lack of alternatives. Newer lenses by Sony fit much better in the current offerings. Their 24/35mm F1.4 GM were cheaper than both their own older and Canikon lenses, similar for their 20mm G, 35mm F1.8 and other recently released lenses.

Their APS-C 70-350 is like that because it is a new class of lenses made for high performance on pixel-dense APS-C bodies. The only competition is Fuji and they price their tele the same.

And lastly even though I torpedo my argument with this. Canon still sells their 11 year old 70-300 F5.6L IS USM lens for 1349$ new. So it is not like premium 70-300 options never existed in the DSLR world

Feb 18, 2021permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

It's 999 right now

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Pantherfan, Canon's 70-300mm L is QUITE a bit different than Sony's 70-300mm.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

@NexUser
In what way?
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1387&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

To my eyes, the optical quality doesn't differ that much. And it is not like sites that have reviewed both lenses attest the Canon a much superior performance, especially if you consider the 200$ and 200g difference:
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff?start=1

[Also like I said I don't believe the Sony is currently well priced or would be released at that price. It is due for an update and should be cheaper or far better]

Feb 18, 2021*permalink

Pantherfan, you clearly haven't seen or used an L lens. Think like Sony 70-300mm GM which doesn't exist. That Canon lens is fully metal, has excellent build quality, is weather sealed, is sharp from widest aperture. I used it on A7II and was very surprised with the lens. I sold it to finance A9 but really miss it. IS was also top notch.
Sony's 70-300mm is similar to Nikon's 70-300mm VR.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

@NexUser
1. The Sony 70-300 is G lens. So purely on terminology, it would be what Canon calls an "L" lens. (Sony has three tiers GM for high end, G for premium F4 zooms, macros etc... and consumer without a "brand". Canon has only two tiers L and consumer. They also call all their F4 zooms L as well as many mid primes. So GM/G would both be redring L in Canon terminology) [GM wasn't even a thing when it was released, G was the most premium back then and in A-mount]

2. The G 70-300 is also "dust and moisture resistant" and also has all the other usual Sony "premium" lens features like triple switches for AF/IS and focus range as well as the additional custom button. And the housing is also metal for whatever that is worth

3. For optical performance I posted my first link. That is a perfect comparison. Canon on a 50MP 5DSR, Sony on a 42MP A7R III

4. Like I said the Sony shouldn't be in the lineup in the current form/price. But at least the target market is the same

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Impulses

The Sony 70-300 claims sealing yet lacks a rear gasket IIRC... /smh I'd say it's opportunistic pricing, they know some people will wanna go first party and/or don't want the extra bulk of the 100-400 option, and they're probably right unfortunately.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Panther fan, you really haven't used that Canon lens. It is obvious.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Tom Schum

As Chris said, the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | C is significantly heavier and bulkier.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

It's too expensive for a design with 17 elements.

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Cargo

And for 1:2 macro, and for 11-blades diaphragm?..

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Ilia Snopchenko

How much $$$ per element is fair? :)

Feb 18, 2021*permalink

Do I need to explain what lens elements are used for and how the complexity of the design influences cost?

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Ilia Snopchenko

No but the elements are not born equal...

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Jon555

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II also has 17 elements, and is well under half the price. Elements don't really count, it's what glass they are made of, their shape (simple/complex) if they are ground/mounded and how accurately they are made. Also just how good the lens design is, you can spend a fortune on the elements and still get crap..

Feb 18, 2021permalink

Within the same line with similar number of special elements and similar aperture and similar focal length, the number of groups and total elements shows a lot. This lens at $1250 with an 11 group design and 17 elements, vs an 70-200 f4 at $1700 with a 17 group design and 23 elements? That 300mm has be very useful.

Feb 18, 2021permalink