The LUMIX 100-300 II Lens, Sharp or Not?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ค. 2021
- #LUMIX #100-300 #lens
A discussion of the LUMIX 100-300mm f4-5.6 II lens. It's frequently said it's soft at 300mm at f5.6. What I've found with my copy is it's acceptably sharp at f5.6 but sharper stopped down a bit. Sample images at f5.6, 6.3 and 7.1 presented. And check out the pretty picture slideshow toward the end of the video if you don't want to watch me gab.
Music: Frolic, by E's Jammy Jams. TH-cam Audio Library
Some of the Grand Canyon and Arizona photos are here, but only the Raven is with the 100-300: bannorphoto.smugmug.com/Natur...
Please Like and Subscribe!
Follow me on Instagram: / todd.bannor
Twitter: @BannorTodd
My ebook, Starved Rock State Park, Through the Seasons, is available for both Kindle & Apple Books:
Kindle: www.amazon.com/Starved-Rock-S...
Apple Books: books.apple.com/us/book/starv...
My fine art photography:
pixels.com/profiles/1-todd-ba... - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
I have owned both the Mk1 and Mk2 versions of this lens. I always use it wide open and have obtained lots of contrasty sharp images. I find that it is motion blur and focus that are the crucial factors that reduces the quality. Take lots of shots and pick the best. Oh! To improve manual focus, put a large tie wrap around the focus ring and cut off the excess. Use it with the tie wrap lock between your index and second finger amd your thumb on the top. It is amazing how much control improvement one gets from the slight increase in torque.
Great tip on the zip-tie. Thanks.
What a crackin’ good comment!
Thank you Todd. Wonderful photos and lovely complementary music.
There are some lovely images at the end!
i like this review! it's kinda nice to just hear simple honest stories and reviews once in a while! :)))❤
Great shots with this lens 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Thank you, I really appreciated your input and enjoyed the beautiful music and pictures
Music was perfect choice for mood. You have some beautiful photos. I'm amazed, as a G9 owner that the quality of this lens is so good. I'm looking for that focal range without spending a lot. This will work. Of course it may be a bit difficult in lower light, in forest for example but it's better than spending 3x as much.
Greetings from the UK. I got a copy yesterday and am using it today for kids Rugby. Enjoyed your video and really liked the slide show with great pics. particularly the one with the deer by the railroad tracks
Thank you!
Cracking photos sir👍
I have this lens with the quite underated but very good GX8, and am more than happy with the results. I believe there is far too much emphasis on more mega pixels etc./newer is better when it comes to gear these days. Most cameras of the last few years have more than adequate functionality, features and take great images, especially when used correctly. It's Generally lenses that are worth investing in for greater results. Apologies for the long winded comment and thanks for sharing. cheers, Rob 👌
New photographer, and I love the shot of the coyote. Excellent review!
Thank you Todd, beautiful images. Yes, the music is perfectly fine. I have the Mki version of that lens and I agree with your comments - for a hobby photographer. I have learned that this lens works better with a lot of light and, I suspect, faster shutter speeds. This year I took it to the Australian F1 Grand Prix and I was using it worth my OM-5; i.e., I only had stabilisation on the camera. This was my first time doing motorsport photography and I just wanted too see if I enjoyed it. The images that I took were perfectly fine - for a hobby photographer. It was a super bright day, hand held, using f6.3 or f7.1,. 1/8000 (soft images at 1/5000), ISO at 6400. I cleaned the noise and sharpened the images using the latest version of Topaz AI. If you just look at the screen, the images look sharp. If you zoom in, well the writing in the nose of the cars is not crystal clear. The images are really nice for a first-time effort of a hobby photographer, shooting F1 cars hand-held.
Thanks for sharing, those were some very fine images!
I've used the Lumix 100-300 II with G9, found it to be very sharp, and the AF worked great for my level of skill. For video, the stabilization and AF worked great. The only reason I sold it was for the 100-400 Elmar because of birding (the extra reach). The only issues I found with the Lumix 100-300 II was the manual focus at infinity had some slop, and was difficult to quickly nail focus manualy. Other than that, the Lumix 100-300 AF and Animal Detect AF is comparable to the much older Leica 100-400 Elmar lens. I suspect Lumix upgraded the 100-300 v1 for the new G9 and GH5 in 2017 as they did with the 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8. Thanks for your videos and insight.
Thanks for sharing. I'm struggling with what to take to the UK (mostly Scotland) for a month. Most of my shots are with Nikon Z but I also use M43 and have the 100-300. You have convinced me that the 100-300 is "good enough" and the weight / size savings (not to mention $) offset any disadvantageous over the Nikon 100-400 (which I don't even have yet).
Thanks for this. I bought this lens recently. Good info.
Thank for the information and the music was fantastic.
Thanks for sharing good advice and good photos. At present I'm hiring this lens for $14 per month, with the option of buying, and I've struggled a bit with 'sharpness', but I will try again using your suggestion of using shutter speeds of 1/500 and/or higher. Thanks again,
Mike inOz
Really great stuff Tod. It really hit the mark for me as you might have already gathered from the length of my response ;-). I'm a long time (25 yrs) birder and I have packed my share of big, heavy lenses in that time. As I get older though (I suspect we're in the same general age group) I find my priorities are changing. Sure , 5-6 times a year, I'll pack the big guns into the car and head out at oh dark 30 to go to one of the big state or national wildlife reserves here in the Sacramento Valley. But the vast majority of my birding is done at my small local wildlife preserve. I'm there 3-4 times a week so I'm on a first name basis with a lot of the local denizens. But my motives for being there are different. First, at 70+ yrs old and retired, I need to keep moving, but mostly, I love being out there in the forest and wet lands. I love watching the squirrels collecting acorns, and the Tits skittering from branch to branch and the Great Egrets and Great Blue Herons regally wading up the river banks. I love the spring flowers and fall colors. What I am finding of late though, is that a heavy kit just sucks the joy out of the experience for me. Pretty much, no one but me will ever see my pictures. Except for a few other locals that frequent the same preserve. Heck, I delete most of them anyway. So after all that rambling, there really is a place, and a time, for a lens, just like this. The term "good enough" comes to mind. and for what a lot of us are doing, this lens is "good enough", where despite it's technical superiority, the Leica100-400mm really, is not "good enough"
Thank you James! I'm like you, I visit a Forest Preserve ten minutes away from me more frequently than I go any further. I almost always get interesting shots. And I used to do it with Canon equipment but as I too am creeping up in age, I'm thankful MFT equipment makes it a lot easier. And yes, most of the lenses are good enough, if not really good. I just put up a video on using the G95 and Lumix 45-150 to photograph sandhill cranes, so check it out: th-cam.com/video/1dnumzeM19A/w-d-xo.html
Came for pics, was not disappointed!
Some really nice images in what looks like some very cold weather. I liked the music and found your transformer test an easy demonstration of what you were saying. I'm still considering the G9 with the 100-400mm lens since our wildlife along the gulf coast seems a little more skittish than yours. Have you ever conducted your transformer test with that lens (perhaps a rental)?
Thank you, I appreciate it. I haven't tested the 100-400. As I've gotten older, weight has become a bigger concern. My guess is it's probably sharper wide open than the 100-300. It'd better be, given the cost.
You’re exactly correct about shutter speed. My hands are not a steady as when I was 20 years old. Are usually shoot at 1over 1/2000 if I can. I do have pro line lenses that I very much enjoy. But when I am putting it back on and hiking they are awfully heavy. So I will carry the Panasonic 100 to 300 and a shorter telephoto
Hi Todd. I'm a proud new owner of a G9 and also bought this lens when I bought the camera (plus I got the Leica 12-60- 2.8 with it too). Your shots look amazing and are very encouraging..enough that I really don't feel I'd ever need the much more expensive 100-400. Thanks for sharing!
Awesome! You won't be disappointed. Have fun and show us your shots when you have some.
I just received this lens and loving it so far. Do you use ND, polarizer, or other filters with this lends and in what settings? I usually at least get the very basic almost imperceptive protective filter. Thanks for ideas and the recommendation of this lens. For my budget as a hobby photographer, this lens is great and already getting shots I've never been able in the past at a distance and semi-macro. Thanks.
For stills, I rarely use a filter. For video, I use a three stop ND if it's bright and I'll add a polarizer if it's really bright.
Nice video Todd, I plan on doing some wildlife videography with my lumix, what’s the closest you can realistically focus on an animal yards wise? Also the farthest? I’m trying to decide between this lens and the 45-200mm.
Thank you! Minimum focus distance on the 100-300 is just under 5 feet, about 1.5 meters. I find this works for larger butterflies but not for anything smaller. And anything inside our yard is within 30 feet or so. It’s not a big space.
Thanks Todd for your video. I bought this lens 3 years ago and last year I got the 100/400 mm which is heavier for me. I love them both. Just a question: what manual mode are you using for birds : M or S. I wish I could you M all the time but it is always too dark. Very lovely shots of animals.. Thanks in advance for your answer. I am an old french girl of 70 years :)
You’re welcome and thank you. I use M mode with auto ISO. I find I can let the ISO go up to 3200 on the G9 and still be able to manage the noise. 1600 is no problem at all.
Great images, music is good too 👍
Thank you! I appreciate it.
I enjoy your videos!
Thank you! I'm working on another one featuring the 100-300 with the G9 Mark II. Hopefully I'll have it up tomorrow.
10:00 love it!!!!
Thanks for the thoughtful review. I carry a Canon SX 720 HS point and shoot as a supplement to my Lumix GX85. The tiny Canon zooms to ~ 1000mm "equivalent". At the price, size and weight of the 100-300mm I'm wondering if you get anything over the point-and-shoot? It isn't abundantly clear to me.
You get better image quality, especially at higher ISOs due to the much larger sensor size. And If you crop it to 1000mm and run it through Topaz Photo AI to upsize it back to the original size, I’m willing to bet you still get better image quality.
Excellent video. I think this lens is an unsung bargain of the optical world. You get long reach in a compact and light package and while build quality doesn't match the Zuiko Pro or Panasonic Leica lenses it doesn't feel low rent and feels pretty good with a smooth zooming action. Optical quality is fine for most users, I find it does tail off a little at 250-300mm but that the results are still perfectly usable and that most users will be happy with it. Between 100 - 250mm I'd defy most users to discern a difference with much more expensive lenses short of micro-analysing images with the specific objective of trying to find differences (or in other words any differences in that range really don't matter). If people want premium build quality and slightly better optical performance then spend a lot more for the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, I think a lot of the criticism is from those who want ultimate quality at consumer grade prices.
Spot on, thank you.
Hi Todd, thanks for sharing this video, could you let me know what filter is best for birding with 100-300mm? Do I need a CPL filter for birding?
Thank you for your question. The problem with using a CPL for birds or any wildlife really, is the light loss. This is okay if you're shooting video, but makes freezing motion difficult when shooting stills since the 100-300 is already a slow lens. So the only time I use filters on the 100-300 is for video in bright conditions. Bird feathers aren't generally highly reflective, except for the glossy feathers of starlings and grackles, so there isn't a lot of need for a polarizer anyway.
I traded my 100-300 for a Panasonic 100-400, paying the significant difference for the upgrade. Of course I like the results from the 100-400, but that 100-300 II lens is a sweet lens. It is smaller and lighter than the 100-400, and the zoom ring moves easier and smoother than on the 100-400. Like you say, if I just want to go hiking and get some decent shots, I would rather take the 100-300. I wish I had it back!
Thank for sharing your thoughts with us. Like you Todd, I came to MFT (Olympus M1 mkiii) from Canon. On advice I bought the camera with the Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro and two tele-converters (1.4x and 2x) The lens is superb on its own and ok with the 1.4x. With the 2x I thought it was rubbish! So I quickly sold the 2x and bought a used mki version of the 100-300 Lumix. The results amazed me - much better than the Oly Pro with the 2 x converter and almost on a par with the Canons when using their Pro lenses! Maybe not up to 1Dx standards, but there is a heck of a difference in price and weight. I don't worry about sharpness, it's fine, just shoot at the speed, aperture and focal length as required by the picture itself.
Most of my photography is either motor-sports or birds (static and in-flight). I tend to boost contrast and maybe give a slight boost to sharpness in PhotoShop Elements - apart from cropping (even from 300 / 600 mm!) that's all I really need to do.
I do sometimes wonder if I should up grade to the mkii as that has weather sealing and, presumably, the existing features are all up-graded.
I'm curious why you chose to go with the Lumix 100-300mm vs the Zuiko 75-300mm.
Hi Adrian - simple really! I wanted a 75-300 and part exchanged the teleconverter and an old Canon lens I'd forgotten about when I did the original switch to M4/3. By the time the dealer had checked out my old items the Zuiko had been sold to someone else, but the dealer had the Lumix and as I am lacking somewhat in patience, I went for that instead. I don't whether I should have waited or not, or indeed waited for a mk2 Lumix to become available!
Incidentally since the original post I have purchased a used Panasonic / Leica 200 f2.8 (without the teleconverter). It's heavy for M4/3 but not when compared to a 400 mm 2.8 full frame lens. I would say that with this lens (and the 40-150 Zuiko Pro) I am getting very close to what I used to get with my Canons - I think any problems or variations lie with the photographer rather than the equipment!
@@malcolmmeddings8502 I moved over from Nikon myself primarily because of the weight. To date, I've picked up the Zuiko 9-18, 17, 45, 60, 12-40mm f2.8 and 40-150 f4-5.6 along with the Lumix 25mm. Would love to get the Leica 200 f2.8 or the Zuiko 40-150 f2.8, but I keep coming back to the weight issue. Think I'm going to go add either the Zuiko 75-300mm, 75mm or Sigma 56mm next. Then perhaps the Lumix 35-100mm and after all those, maybe the Zuiko 7-14mm. Any suggestions? Or experience with those lenses?
@@snugsonblitz I was struggling with the weight of my old Canon, hence my change to M4/3 too. I do have the sigma 56 mm which I bought used. It is an excellent lens, although I have not used it very often. I went for the Sigma for when the light is poor, such as just after sunset. I bought the 2.8s for a similar reason - dull winter days - which we get a lot of here in the Isle of Man! The 5.6s can't cope.
@@malcolmmeddings8502 I'm actually from Yorkshire, I remember those foggy dreary days. However, I live in Japan and aside from the rainy season, we get lots of blue skies, even in winter.
I adapt lenses for a hobby. Good vintage ones Ziess, Cannon,Takumar. That is fantastically sharp for 300mm.
Thank you Todd, the slide show was beautiful. I skipped ahead because I am really interested in folks show talk about their photos and less about the gear. One lens that gets no love at all is the MK1 45-200 which I bought with my G7. I also own a GX85 my everyday carry and a GH5 I do lots of video.
Thank you! I'm actually trying to move more to talking about photographs and photography and less about gear. But gear videos tend to get a lot of views, so there's always that temptation. The one I'm working on now is more photography and less gear centric.
@@ToddBannor Understood, my suggestion is to mix it up. You did't get to the images till the very end of the program. Try breaking up the talk with images and samples and if you have a produced piece at the end.
Same feeling about my 45-175. Lesser known lens, but so small, so sharp, and zooms internally. Power OIS is pretty good.
Rocker switch for zooming makes it a joy for video. Actually I do lots of video with it, and when I want an even longer telephoto I just film at 4k and crop to 1080 in post 🤣
I have the same lens I heard the same thing that it is supposed to be soft after long in but I found it to be sharp enough for me almost all of the time.
Great review, thanks for it. Were all the photos from the slideshow shot at 300mil 5.6?
Thank you! No. I'd have to go through and look though. Some were at 7.1 and some were at 5.6 and not all were at 300. I still try to stop down a bit at 300 if I can, but I don't worry too much if I can't.
I just happened to look at the file of the Cooper's hawk taken from the front and that was at 300 and f5.6, shutter was 1/1000 and it's really quite crisp.
Great review, and great pics. I wish the pics were labeled with focal range and aperture though, to really get a sense of the lenses capabilities.
Ive owned 3 of these ii model. One was fantastic. I couldn't tell the difference between shots with it vs a $1,500 lens i use. In fact, the shots from that lens got me a crazy gig photograhing bugs for a company. The second one i bought, was terrible. The third is on the way, and i hope its like the first (which i stupidly sold).
I think most of the photos were taken at or near 300mm and probably in the range of f5.6-7.1. I almost never stop down further than that. I got some shots of a spike buck yesterday morning shot at f6.3 and the detail in his fur is great.
And that’s a hard lesson to learn about lenses. I learned a while back never to sell a good copy of a lens. One would hope there is less variation with a $1500 lens though. I will never sell my current 100-300.
GREAT photos, thanks for sharing. I just bought this lens myself. I've got the P-Leica 8-18 and 12-60 2.8-4 lenses, which I love. But I've had good luck with the (I think underrated) Lumix 45-150 and other Lumix-branded lenses, so I'm hopeful this lens will do well. The Leica 100-400 seemed like a bridge too far on my budget :). Thanks again.
You’re welcome! Glad it helped.
Hi Todd, when you use this lens for Birding, do you use a CLP filter?
No, I generally don't use a CPL filter for birding, since you lose at least a stop and a half of light. And actually, I don't use one often except to take care of glare off foliage and sometimes water. You have to be careful with water, especially with streams in my area, because the bottoms are mud and full polarization doesn't look that great.
@@ToddBannor Thanks for your recommended Todd
I use the mk2 on a gx8. The shutter chock is really my only problem when using the, or any lens at burst. Combined with the modern day AI softwares for Noise reduction, I can go up to ISO 6800 and still get useable images. I’m a bit of a pixel peeper but most of time it’s my technique that is at fault. I’m mostly shoot birds I should say.
I agree. I’ve found the G9 and G95 are good up to 6400 with a bit of noise reduction applied. The GX8 has the older shutter. Shutter shock isn’t an issue with the newer LUMIX cameras as far as I can tell.
i have used version one and two love them both with different olympus bodies frankly i did not find them inferior until i got the zuiko 300 mm f4 that was WOW in sharpness as well as bright for early hour birds. but i think i may consider the 200 mm f2.8 from lumix. i became addict to primes.
A prime lens is generally sharper than a zoom, if you can spend the extra money.
Hi ammadoux, did you notice any improvement in terms of image quality between the two versions of the 100-300mm?
Thank you for your comment
Hi guys . I have a dilemma . I have a Olympus 75-300 on my gh5 and zcam and have the chance to get a lumix 100-300 ii cheap . Should I grab it and sell the Olympus or stick with the Olympus ? Any comments appreciated.
Not sure about the lens, but I like your composition skills!
Thanks for the video. I had the Leica 100-400 but decided it was too heavy and not worth the cost. This lens is a far better value and pair for the MFT bodies.
whats is your opinion 14-140 lens?
thanks
I’ve tried a lot of superzooms and the only one I liked was the 14-140. Most of these lenses had softness problems somewhere in their focal range. The 14-140 that I had was sharp throughout its range, even wide open. It’s a great one lens solution for MFT shooters. Almost all the images in this gallery were taken with the 14-140: bannorphoto.smugmug.com/Nature/Arizona. The panoramic images are stitched from multiple frames.
I have used this lens for several years. I don't have a problem with softness. However, in photos with high contrast I do have a problem with chromatic abberation at times and get purple fringing in the whites. It is a very good lens and very light for its size, but the chromatic abberation could be problematic to serious photographers.
My copy is very good in this regard. There is probably some variation among copies given this is a consumer lens.
I have this lens. It seems that it is sharper at 6,3 - 8. For action shots, panning and wildlife you must disable image stabilization.
Regarding image stabilization, for stills, you can set it to panning mode and it works well when panning. But you do have to go through the hassle of turning it on and remembering to turn it off.
For video, you just need to make sure you're not set to "IS Lock" because that gives jerky video. Standard Dual IS seems to work fine for panning video from what I've seen. Panning mode is disabled when shooting video, but it doesn't seem to matter much.
@@ToddBannor I agree. I had no problem with video. But during an airshow and while i was trying to shoot hawks in flight IS gave me blurry images! Its a good value for money. My next buy will be the Lumix 14-140.
Hi, thanks for the video. I have a G85, but I am not really into photography. I use my camera for online corporate training. When I travel, I just take tourist snaps. I find camera equipment to be confusing and your video helped me understand that this lens is what I need. Thanks, Peter .
You’re welcome! Glad it helped.
8:34 $17k CAD for current 600mm f/4L IS, so yeah: just a little expensive.
maybe i am expecting too much but too many seem blurry to me
You might want to bear in mind you’re looking at a maximum 2 megapixel image in 1080P. Probably not the best way to judge. They’re sharp enough to get through Alamy Quality Control without a hitch.