Fun with Panasonic 100-300

[peterb]

I could understand The Tesselator's comments if the ONLY images he'd seen were the two pathetic samples that Panasonic had on its website. There was a swimmer that echoed nearly all of his observations.

And after seeing them (and downloading them for further examination) I, too, had begun to have serious doubts about this new lens. (Why Panasonic would post shots with such God-awful IQ as representative of the what you could expect from their new super tele in an attempt to show off it's optical prowess was totally beyond me!)

But seeing the images here (and now also on Flickr) I have now reconsidered and want to see more. If these images are more of what one can expect from this lens, bring it on. There are still more images to see but, for now, I like what I'm seeing. A lot.

 

[biglouis]

Why would you wonder if M43 is my bag?

Don't mistake an honest lens review for a senseless hater post. I'm not like that. I'm very knowledgable and fairly skilled. I spend all of my time on camera gear as it's my current job. If not in critical bench tests and reviews then in design theory, history, and etc. I'm not trying to add weight to my comment but I know what I mean and I mean (most of ) what I say. Seriously, it's not that this lens isn't for me... it's not for anyone serious about image quality. In many cases it produces worse results than some super-zoom point and shoot cameras of the same equivalent focal length.

Peace!

Tesselator,

I'm not trying to get into an argument with you but I disagree with about everything you say about the lens and my experience with it thus far. I do agree it suffers from lower contrast than some other panasonic offerings but you would have to agree that it is far easier to cope with low contrast in pp than high contrast, so you could say it is not exactly a drawback.

At 100mm it is sharp even wide open (which is after all f4) but it does soften towards 300mm. That said, stopping down rescues the softness although inevitably there will be a trade off in IQ as you increase iso to take advantage of a slower aperture. I'm interested in the new GH2 because I think it will make a great platform for this lens with its demonstrably better higher iso performance.

I think this lens offers creative possibilities that are easier to achieve than with a third-party lens and an adaptor. Personally, I am willing to pay for ease of use - especially as my other kit cannot be similarly described.

Now, in an ideal world I personally would like to own a Nikon D700 and a VR 300/2.8. I could be very happy with that kit. But in reality, (a) I'm not prepared to sell a kidney for the amount of use I would make of it, and (b) I probably can't even lift it!

For sub-£500 which is what I paid in the UK (do not pay full RRP as there are plenty of discounters out there and you can PM me for where I got mine) I think it is a great lens for all kinds of recreational photography.

If you are a professional photographer, you probably don't want the 100-300 (although I'd argue that you might just get that picture of Charlie and Camilla in their Roller because it is easier to drag a m43 camera and this lens around with you than a D3x and a VR70-200) but for the majority of weekend photographers this is a great piece of kit.

LouisB

 

[Amin]

Louis, thanks very much for the samples and comments! I think it looks pretty good.

There's a fellow who posted some nice samples at DPR, though they are resized, and to my eye oversharpened: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37142193

Further down in that thread, he posted a "full sized image" (? 100%) which looks pretty good to me, especially considering that the lens is wide open and he shot in-camera JPEG: http://g4.img-dpreview.com/53DE576184FF4B11A0ADDB3541C779DC.jpg

 

[biglouis]

Louis, thanks very much for the samples and comments! I think it looks pretty good.

There's a fellow who posted some nice samples at DPR, though they are resized, and to my eye oversharpened: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37142193

Further down in that thread, he posted a "full sized image" (? 100%) which looks pretty good to me, especially considering that the lens is wide open and he shot in-camera JPEG: http://g4.img-dpreview.com/53DE576184FF4B11A0ADDB3541C779DC.jpg

Blimey. They look good. If I did not already own the lens, I'd go out and buy it!

LouisB

 

[CPWarner]

Tessalator,

It seems that you expect a lot for a $600 lens. That is kit lens category and certainly in the neighborhood of relatively inexpensive 70-300mm lenses with similar image quality. In comparison, you have to spend well over $1000 in Canon equipment to fit on an EOS camera (not talking about old FD lenses here) to get a significant upgrade in image quality. It also seems to genuinely be better than the 45-200mm, and absolutely better than the 14-42mm. The 14-42mm should get the dog of the range award. I agree that it would be nice to have some faster zooms with pro-level optics, but you will not be buying them for $600. I would expect lenses like that would be priced well over $1000.

I am eager to get my 100-300mm so I can compare it to my 45-200mm and my converted 200mm and 300mm Canon FD lenses.

Cliff

 

[ustein]

Recently we saw an Eagle pair. No long lens available. What if I had a GH1 + the 100-300 (field of view of 200-600mm). No problem to have this combo with us most of the time. This is not true for other high-end lenses with the same angle of view.

And I am not talking about price here.

100-300 is on order.

 

[Tesselator]

Tessalator,

It seems that you expect a lot for a $600 lens. That is kit lens category ...
Cliff

Hi cliff,

Yes, I expect a lot for what is a lot of money - $600. If that's not a lot for you then please send me $600 - every week. :thumbs:



Hi all,
I'm being fairly clear about what I'm comparing this lens to. The FD 100-300mm f/5.6, the Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8, and other manual focus legacy lenses like it. I guess I'm a particular class of photographer. I evaluate lenses on the bases of IQ performance first and foremost. After that I look at price. And lastly I consider such features as AF, IS, EA, and etc. I don't care how consumers define the various segments of the market. I'm not a marketing agent so that's completely meaningless to me. It's also not very important to me whether people agree with my assessments or not. They are mine and stand for one man's time and effort in making such judgements. That I spend an excessive amount of time doing just this may or may not add weight to my analysis - that's for others to decide. Certainly, I can't be the only one here who wants top drawer performance at bargain prices. I'd find it strange if other here or anywhere didn't.

As for image samples of this particular lens I haven seen any "great" ones that weren't scaled down and intelligently processed to hide this lens's severe shortcomings! I think the images posted in this thread are perfect examples. The photographer is good - certainly no slouch - but the lens just can perform and it shows. These samples as far as IQ goes are pretty terrible - yes, bad! The first three are very soft and detail-less even though they have both been scaled and sharpened extensively. The 5th and 6th are much better which to me shows that this lens may have a sweet spot around 120mm if it's also stopped down. If one looks at all of these images here and thinks to themselves that they are examples of good IQ then IMHO they either haven't seen the results of a good lens so have nothing to compare to, haven't learned how to analyze images slash what to look for, or are confusing themselves with emotional content - either from the photographer's skill in composing the capture or from the marketing/forum hype that frenzies the consumer fanatics. In any case these samples do not serve as samples acceptable to actually evaluate this lens. They are not 100% crops and at least a few of them have been sharpened to death - which introduces false detail & noise and destroys some of the existing micro-detail.

In all it is still the result of my evaluation that anyone would be better suited and better equipped via the purchase of a step filter adapter (if needed) and a 2.4x Canon tele-con (telephoto converter) to place on your existing 14-140 kit lenses. The IQ will be slightly better than this 100-300mm Lumix, the OIS will still function perfectly, the AF will still work correctly, and there is no measurable light loss. It will provide about 150mm to exactly 336mm of extension without vignetting and it only costs $60 - as opposed to $600. Hey, if $600 is nothing then there's absolutely nothing to lose with this! :angel: It still may not be as good as the Tamron 60-300mm F/3.8 Macro I mentioned but it's guaranteed to provide better IQ than the Lumix 100-300mm. The tele-con can also be added to any other existing lenses of about 55mm or more...

.

 

[Tesselator]

Louis, thanks very much for the samples and comments! I think it looks pretty good.

There's a fellow who posted some nice samples at DPR, though they are resized, and to my eye oversharpened: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37142193

Further down in that thread, he posted a "full sized image" (? 100%) which looks pretty good to me, especially considering that the lens is wide open and he shot in-camera JPEG: http://g4.img-dpreview.com/53DE576184FF4B11A0ADDB3541C779DC.jpg

I just finished reading, thanks for the links!

The 100% crop he posted http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37143643 actually looks pretty good. It's the best sample I've seen from this lens so far. If I start seeing more like it I may just have to reevaluate this thing. :lecture:

As it stands this is one collection to about 20 that I've seen. So 1:20 isn't a good ratio but it shows there's still hope!

It would be nice to have a native lens in this length - that's worth owning. Not that I would probably use it myself but it would help to ensure some longevity to the format - and that would be a good thing for all us M4/3 shooters! :toocool:

 

[Tesselator]

Tesselator,

I'm not trying to get into an argument with you but I disagree with about everything you say about the lens and my experience with it thus far. I do agree it suffers from lower contrast than some other panasonic offerings but you would have to agree that it is far easier to cope with low contrast in pp than high contrast, so you could say it is not exactly a drawback.

At 100mm it is sharp even wide open (which is after all f4) but it does soften towards 300mm. That said, stopping down rescues the softness although inevitably there will be a trade off in IQ as you increase iso to take advantage of a slower aperture. I'm interested in the new GH2 because I think it will make a great platform for this lens with its demonstrably better higher iso performance.

I think this lens offers creative possibilities that are easier to achieve than with a third-party lens and an adaptor. Personally, I am willing to pay for ease of use - especially as my other kit cannot be similarly described.

Now, in an ideal world I personally would like to own a Nikon D700 and a VR 300/2.8. I could be very happy with that kit. But in reality, (a) I'm not prepared to sell a kidney for the amount of use I would make of it, and (b) I probably can't even lift it!

For sub-£500 which is what I paid in the UK (do not pay full RRP as there are plenty of discounters out there and you can PM me for where I got mine) I think it is a great lens for all kinds of recreational photography.

If you are a professional photographer, you probably don't want the 100-300 (although I'd argue that you might just get that picture of Charlie and Camilla in their Roller because it is easier to drag a m43 camera and this lens around with you than a D3x and a VR70-200) but for the majority of weekend photographers this is a great piece of kit.

LouisB

Thanks. I can respect that. And you own the lens so you're probably better able to assess it than I - who must go only by what others have posted - which are unquestionably some of the worst images I've ever seen from any lens. The recent DPR link of the GH2 bird images being an exception of course! :thumbup:

I hope to see many more such exceptions! They aren't "exceptional" but they're very good!

 

[CPWarner]

I just finished reading, thanks for the links!

The 100% crop he posted http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37143643 actually looks pretty good. It's the best sample I've seen from this lens so far. If I start seeing more like it I may just have to reevaluate this thing. :lecture:

It would be nice to have a native lens in this length - that's worth owning. Not that I would probably use it myself but it would help to ensure some longevity to the format - and that would be a good thing for all us M4/3 shooters! :toocool:

Lets get this straight. You lamblast this lens without using it based on some images posted on the web and then admit that would not own it anyway?

:ROTFL:

By the way, I never said $600 is a insignificant amount of money. What I am saying is that those old Canon FD lenses are a misleading comparison as they are 20+ years old and used. The lenses you refer to were relatively much more expensive at the time they were sold new (on an inflation basis). Of course one can get those lenses cheap now, but they are used lenses. If you compare prices of new lenses and high quality ones, the $600 for the Panasonic 100-300 is not unreasonable and comparable to other NEW lenses of similar quality on the market.

 

[ustein]

>The FD 100-300mm f/5.6, the Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8,

Are they even image stabilized? Which makes huge difference in practice.

 

[Tesselator]

Lets get this straight. You lamblast this lens without using it based on some images posted on the web and then admit that would not own it anyway?

:ROTFL:

Yeah, you got it straight. I don't get the ROTFL thing tho. This isn't uncommon. In all cases I tried to qualify my remarks with phrases like "based on what I've seen so far" and etc. It's much more ROTFL to me to see people looking at images like presented originally in this thread and other threads like it and then pronouncing the lens "great" - when the images speak very loudly the exact opposite. Pretty much every commenter in this thread has done the same thing I have. Only their conclusions are the opposite as mine.

Are you challenging the practice and process of lens evaluation based on posted images? If so I guess this site and others like it should close their doors and pack it up as that's one of their purposes.

I don't intend to purchase this lens because as I explained, it's not up to snuff with what I already have in the $20 ~ $100 department. Here's a thread I composed of just lenses costing around $10 http://www.astronomyforum.net/astrophotography-forum/100266-moon-through-$10-lens.html (6 of the 7 pages are all images by me from just one study - the odd page out #2 has no images on it. :grin so it's not as if I'm not an active participant practicing what I preach. I'm usually very careful and meticulous when assessing the properties of a given lens. Ownership of the item while extremely helpful and convenient is not necessarily a prerequisite - and never has been (post internet).

By the way, I never said $600 is a insignificant amount of money. What I am saying is that those old Canon FD lenses are a misleading comparison as they are 20+ years old and used. The lenses you refer to were relatively much more expensive at the time they were sold new (on an inflation basis). Of course one can get those lenses cheap now, but they are used lenses. If you compare prices of new lenses and high quality ones, the $600 for the Panasonic 100-300 is not unreasonable and comparable to other NEW lenses of similar quality on the market.

Again, I'm not a marketing agent so those classifications are meaningless to me. It's either available to me by some means or it isn't. The bottom lines to me are as I stated previously:

1. How good?
2. How much?
3. What else can it do?

You're also extremely mistaken if you think $600 is an average price for a poor-to-midelin grade lens. A typical price for lenses in that quality range and FL is $150 ~ $450 new. $600 is an outrageous amount to pay for that lens! As just one of many many examples the "SMC Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED" is commonly available for $300 to $350 and it's IQ is unquestionably exceptional! Here it is on Amazon for $349.95 with free shipping:

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-55-300mm-Samsung-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012QCYNM

The "Tamron SP AF28-300 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (A061)" is another stunningly exceptional lens. It's a total jaw-dropper with very few caveats! It typically sells for right around $375 with many deals frequently available for $320 ~ $350. Used in mint condition it's available for $225 to $275. Here's the standard pricing on new ones from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00066EK40/ref=dp_olp_new_map?ie=UTF8&condition=new

No, for $600 a lens in this FL range should be supreme and very close to professional grade with just a slightly slower aperture. In Panasonic's case however, it barely makes hobby kit-lens status. To me this is certainly reason to take issue and create posts giving my assessments of it based on posted images without ever intending to buy it!

I have both of the above though.

 

[Tesselator]

>The FD 100-300mm f/5.6, the Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8,

Are they even image stabilized? Which makes huge difference in practice.

No, they are ancient MF lenses from the 80's. That was part of my point. :grin:

But anyway, I think I've made all my thoughts on the topic known so I'll go away unless someone has some specific questions.

I want to read the thoughts of others from now. There's already been some good exchanges! :thumbs:

 

[CPWarner]

No Tesselator, I am not saying that several web sites which publish reviews of lenses with well documented practices should close up. I am saying that basing the quality of a lens on a few shots from early users is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. You do not know their shooting practices, skill, or post processing. While some of the images are questionable, some others, as you have noted, show some promise. I have made no assessment regarding the capabilities of this lens yet. It could be good, it could be rubbish. I do think that it can augment some other lenses I have for specific needs if it produces images of sufficient quality. I am getting one next week and will base my decision on the lens based on the images I can produce.

In terms of costs of lenses, I love it when one finds a diamond in the rough. However, I know how good really good optics (like a Zeiss ZE 21mm) can be. I do have kit lenses as well, like my Panasonic 14-45mm, which has been shown to be a very good performer. A real surprise for it's cost.

As to that stunning Tamron SP 28-300mm, here is what SLRgear.com with test data that backs up the statements had to say about it:

"Wide open, it's a little soft from 28mm till about 100mm or so, but probably acceptable range for many casual shooters across that range. At 135mm though, the corners start to fall apart, and most of the frame is very soft at 200mm, improving slightly (but only slightly) at 300mm. Closing the aperture one stop helps quite a bit, and the lens actually performs surprisingly well from 28-70mm. Even stopped down though, it's quite soft from 200-300mm, to the point that we wouldn't really consider it usable for anything beyond snapshots across that range... Chromatic aberration is high at both wide angle and telephoto, and moderate to moderately high in between. At wide angle focal lengths, CA improves noticeably a full stop down from maximum aperture, but is only what we'd consider to be good from 50-70mm."

That does not sound as stunning as claimed.

 

[biglouis]

Can I point out that because I did not want to link to a full sized capture, I only posted 'cut down' images here (at the top of the thread).

However, in my original post, I did point out that the full size jpegs are available at my Flickr stream (see link below).

I assumed it was obvious to all and sundry that you cannot evaluate a lens without seeing full size examples.

LouisB

 

[CPWarner]

Louis,

I am curious about your opinion on the lack of tripod mount. With this lens getting pretty large, will that limit stability when shooting off a tripod? Curious if you had any thoughts there.

 

[biglouis]

Louis,

I am curious about your opinion on the lack of tripod mount. With this lens getting pretty large, will that limit stability when shooting off a tripod? Curious if you had any thoughts there.

I haven't used a tripod, yet. And that is by no means a boast. I have tried to make sure that at 100mm I don't shoot below 1/125 and at 300mm not below 1/250 but that means I have had to ramp up the iso. However much I like the GF-1 it does not handle noise well above iso800, which explains my comment about being interested in a GH2 as a possible second body.

When I wrote above about 'the promise of m43rds' I was referring to the ability to create smaller optics as a result of the form factor - the 100-300 is a big lens in relation to other m43rds lenses but in fact is surprisingly small and light compared to its counterparts from, say, Nikon and Canon. So you could argue that in good light conditions, with the OIS a tripod is not an absolute requirement for use.

LouisB

 

[CPWarner]

I haven't used a tripod, yet. And that is by no means a boast. I have tried to make sure that at 100mm I don't shoot below 1/125 and at 300mm not below 1/250 but that means I have had to ramp up the iso. However much I like the GF-1 it does not handle noise well above iso800, which explains my comment about being interested in a GH2 as a possible second body.

When I wrote above about 'the promise of m43rds' I was referring to the ability to create smaller optics as a result of the form factor - the 100-300 is a big lens in relation to other m43rds lenses but in fact is surprisingly small and light compared to its counterparts from, say, Nikon and Canon. So you could argue that in good light conditions, with the OIS a tripod is not an absolute requirement for use.

LouisB

Sure, in comparison to my Canon 100-400mm, the Panasonic 100-300mm is a lot smaller and lighter. I do shoot on a tripod with my G2 a lot, the advantage of the m4/3 there is that I can get away with a lot smaller tripod than for my Canon 1DsII. Gitzo 1 series vs Gitzo 3 series. I will have to see how the 100-300mm performs on a tripod with my G2 when it arrives this week.

 

[Tesselator]

That does not sound as stunning as claimed.

I can't comment on corners only having used it on the GH1.

On the GH1 it clears 2,000 LPI (Lines per image) throughout it's range with flying colors. I guess by looking at my test samples it could resolve to around 2,300 had I a chart that high res. You sure they're reviewing the SP version?

Assuming they were reviewing the same lens I wonder what they wold have to say about the Lumix? Or if they would even bother reviewing it.

In any case the point wasn't that the tamron was stellar. It was that the average price for consumer grade lenses in this FL was typically under $450... like, WAY under $450 and not the $600 that Panasonic is trying to squeeze out of us.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

In any case the point wasn't that the tamron was stellar. It was that the average price for consumer grade lenses in this FL was typically under $450... like, WAY under $450 and not the $600 that Panasonic is trying to squeeze out of us.

Can you please point to a 600mm eqv. zoom with AF and IS/OIS/VR/OS for any other make that costs less than $600, or even better: WAY less than $450?