[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Neil

I took the 100 - 300 zoom out on the G1 today to the local park. It's not a bad lens but it's quality is not as good as a prime Canon/Nikon but it's much easier to carry around your neck all day.
Neil

Hong Kong,
China.
Jan 2011

It doesn't exactly cost as much as a prime lens either A more fair comparison lens in the Nikon lineup might be the 70-300?

Niels

[John Cantelo]

After a few false starts, it looks like I really will be getting a Panasonic 'evil' camera in the next month or two. As I already carry bins, tripod & 'scope, I'm attracted to the smaller size of the 4/3 system (not only that of the camera, but also the lenses). So I the 100-300 lens seems ideal. However, some folks elsewhere have suggested the G2 (my current choice) has a sluggish in the autofocus. Is this so and/or is it a problem?

[njlarsen]

I have read the reports to say the same thing which is why I will be getting the GH2 for the same lens. However, I would imagine that even the G2 would be faster than my old FZ18 superzoom? You may also look at the high iso performance for the two cameras (unless all you images will be in open areas in sunshine).

Niels

[John Cantelo]

Thanks Niels. I'd like a GH2 as I've heard the same thing, but, realistically, I don't think I can afford both it and the 100-300 lens! The main reason I'm not rushing out to get the G2 is that details of the G3 are due soon and it might just have that faster auto-focus at a keener price.

The other idea that I've been toying with is whether to substitute the 'obvious' choice of a smaller 'standard lens' (14-40? I forget) with the Samsung TL500/EX1 even though this would be more expensive. I'll be using the 'G' camera/100-300 lens for birdy shots and it strikes me that for landscape/townscape/flowers/insects it might simply be better to have a smaller good quality x3 camera. The Samsung also has an articulated screen which is good for my knees when trying to photograph plants! It would avoid problems of dust on the sensor and missing shots when fiddling around changing lens. Perhaps this would be better in a new thread though,

[rockfowl]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

However, some folks elsewhere have suggested the G2 (my current choice) has a sluggish in the autofocus. Is this so and/or is it a problem?

I guess it depends on what you are used to John. I've recently been using a G2 in Thailand (love the video) and with a Panasonic 45-200 lens, the focus has been pretty quick and although still tweaking and learning the camera, pretty happy with the results.

Attached part of a group of Grey-headed Lapwings which flew out from a roost in mangroves.

Quite keen to have a play with the 100-300 myself.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by rockfowl

I guess it depends on what you are used to John. I've recently been using a G2 in Thailand (love the video) and with a Panasonic 45-200 lens, the focus has been pretty quick and although still tweaking and learning the camera, pretty happy with the results.

Attached part of a group of Grey-headed Lapwings which flew out from a roost in mangroves.

Quite keen to have a play with the 100-300 myself.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Being realistic about it really don't think I can afford the GH2 (much though I'd like one) and I'm used to a much slower set up. A cracking photo such as the one you've posted would do me very nicely,

[John Cantelo]

There's a short 'review' (it's more like a 'reaction to' than a proper detailed discussion) at
http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_...0mm/index.html

It basically concludes that whilst the lens may not be the super sharp & bright lens of our dreams, its a lens that 'does the job' and, moreover, due to its size/weight the one you'll actually keep taking into the field unlike some behemoth 'standard' 200-600 lens

[ammadoux]

Hello all

i have decided to get this lens for my Olympus EPL1 instead of its Olympus sister the m3/4 75/300mm. it seem to be strange since the lens has IS which i don't need since it is already built in the camera body.

but still i found that the Lumix cheaper than the Olympus, and is one stop faster.

anyway i had to confess that what made me not go for the olympus is the bad experience i had with the 4/3 70-300mm one regrading both its AF and MF.

no as i got the Lumix since about 3 weeks, here are some images.

1- the bulbul was the first ever shot i took, and i was amazed by how fast the AF worked, i took about 6 shots all were really sharp.

2- then the bird flew to another branch and i had to change the focus, i switched to MF and i wish i did not as this is the best i could get, still i am having a hard time adjusting with the electronic view finder of the EPL1, that i really think it is a great one, but me as an old timer i just feel more comfortable with the optical VF which is impossible with mirror less m4/3.

3- this bulbul came so close as i think i came too close for there nest and i took this shot with AF only yet the lens was so fast and it made the right focus despite all the FG branches.

4- this was taking facing the 10:30 am sun.

5- also facing the sun but at 7:00 am (2 hours after sunrise).

[ammadoux]

Hello again

attached here are some images i took using the live view, as the dprview say it is not a macro lens but it shows nice capabilities form it.

all are taking by AF, which i am not so good with and it is the first time ever in my life i use the live view for focusing.

the last shot is also taken by the live view as the bird was quite distant, about 10 meters, i took it from he car supporting the lens by a small bean bag.

all shots are as they are taken from the camera, the only change is the crop.

really would like to know what you think.

[John Cantelo]

Some lovely shots there - well done. Incidentally a freind of mine - a judge for photographic competitions and taker of many insect photos - tells me that a long lens like the 100-300 is often more useful for such photos since, as you don't need to get close, it is often much easier to get decent shots.

As for my ambitions to get a camera (as noted above) I've put it on hold until the Panasonic G3 drops a bit in price as it surely will. (The only caveat being whether the GH2 drops in price should a "GH3" appear). The G3 is clearly a fine camera and would certainly be my unquestioned choice had they not (foolishly in my view) shrunk the grip. I read somewhere that the smaller grip makes handling with the 100-300 lens unsatisfactory or even difficult. Anyone (yet) have experience of this? How does it handle with the Olympus EPL1 which, I think, has an even smaller grip?

[Hobbes2]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

Some lovely shots there - well done. Incidentally a freind of mine - a judge for photographic competitions and taker of many insect photos - tells me that a long lens like the 100-300 is often more useful for such photos since, as you don't need to get close, it is often much easier to get decent shots.

As for my ambitions to get a camera (as noted above) I've put it on hold until the Panasonic G3 drops a bit in price as it surely will. (The only caveat being whether the GH2 drops in price should a "GH3" appear). The G3 is clearly a fine camera and would certainly be my unquestioned choice had they not (foolishly in my view) shrunk the grip. I read somewhere that the smaller grip makes handling with the 100-300 lens unsatisfactory or even difficult. Anyone (yet) have experience of this? How does it handle with the Olympus EPL1 which, I think, has an even smaller grip?

Hi John
It sounds like you and I are heading in the same direction with photographic equipment. I'm still dithering between the GH2 and G3. I did pop down to my local Currys last week and tried the G3. The grip is definitely small and does feel a little cramped but I suspect I'd adapt to it over time. I didn't try the GH2 unfortunately (I was in a hurry) but, if I were you, and you have the time/opportunity, I'd see if you can get to a store with both cameras and try them. Nothing beats hands on experience.

Doux - great collection of photos. The focus looks good and clear. I love the bee eater on the wire shot. I'm still saving up for the lens but will be joining you soon

Hobbes

[njlarsen]

Doux,
Your images look very good.

On the DPReview site, they say IBIS is less effective on long lenses, so maybe having the ois on is good?

Re manual focus: on my Pana GH2 there is an option in the menu called AF+MF. When that is selected, I can half press using the AF, keep the half press, and adjust focus using the focus ring on the lens, best of both worlds. You could look in your menu if Olympus allows something similar.

Niels

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

How does it handle with the Olympus EPL1 which, I think, has an even smaller grip?

for me its excellent, but i have really small hands

i think in the hands a male person it will not be comfortable, or maybe they can use it with one hand, not really sure how, but both the EPL! + the lens are really light weight and fun to go around with on you walk, and deferentially marvelous kit for travelling.

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by Hobbes2

Doux - great collection of photos. The focus looks good and clear. I love the bee eater on the wire shot. I'm still saving up for the lens but will be joining you soon

Hobbes

glad you like them, as i said in the above reply it is a fun kit to go around with on your walks. also if you arrange a hide in you garden you can get nice results at lower shutter speed by mounting the camera on a tripod. i will be doing this when the Oliviavous and Basra reed warblers arrive.

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Doux,
Your images look very good.

On the DPReview site, they say IBIS is less effective on long lenses, so maybe having the ois on is good?

Re manual focus: on my Pana GH2 there is an option in the menu called AF+MF. When that is selected, I can half press using the AF, keep the half press, and adjust focus using the focus ring on the lens, best of both worlds. You could look in your menu if Olympus allows something similar.

Niels

thanks for telling me that Niels, i kept it on without known this and immediately notice the difference in results compared with he 4/3 Olympus 70-300mm.

and also this option of C- AF + MF is marvelous, but the real fast AF capabilities of this lens makes me not think of MF at all.

thanks so much for you input.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by Hobbes2

Hi John
It sounds like you and I are heading in the same direction with photographic equipment. I'm still dithering between the GH2 and G3. I did pop down to my local Currys last week and tried the G3. The grip is definitely small and does feel a little cramped but I suspect I'd adapt to it over time. I didn't try the GH2 unfortunately (I was in a hurry) but, if I were you, and you have the time/opportunity, I'd see if you can get to a store with both cameras and try them. Nothing beats hands on experience.
Hobbes

I have tried both and found that the GH2/G2 grip much more to my liking than the G3. However, the GH2/G2 grip is far more like the one on my current Lumix FZ30 so it may just be a case of what I'm used to and that I could adapt to the the G3,

[eastwood]

Looks very promising.
Will it be even better if Panasonic can produce a M4/3 1.4X extender ? (Guess this will not add too much weight to the system, only it will make the aperture smaller by 1 stop)

[njlarsen]

The question is if the sharpness of the lens is good enough to accommodate a TC?

Niels

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by eastwood

Looks very promising.
Will it be even better if Panasonic can produce a M4/3 1.4X extender ? (Guess this will not add too much weight to the system, only it will make the aperture smaller by 1 stop)

lol EW i was going to ask the same question.

then here is another question, is there any plane for Olympus/Zuiko for a 400mm m4/3?

i know that the main idea behind these cameras is the compact size, but, the 100-300mm, and i am sure the 75-300mm were just the right size to keep this concept. and a 400 mm prime in a small size will make a big breakthrough for the m4/3, as it will be just what a Enthusiast Amateur photographer need in a Safari trip.
it might not be comfortable for some to be used handheld, but a monopode will be great.

[eastwood]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

The question is if the sharpness of the lens is good enough to accommodate a TC?

Niels

Very true, I Can't agree more!

[eastwood]

Originally Posted by ammadoux

lol EW i was going to ask the same question.

then here is another question, is there any plane for Olympus/Zuiko for a 400mm m4/3?

i know that the main idea behind these cameras is the compact size, but, the 100-300mm, and i am sure the 75-300mm were just the right size to keep this concept. and a 400 mm prime in a small size will make a big breakthrough for the m4/3, as it will be just what a Enthusiast Amateur photographer need in a Safari trip.
it might not be comfortable for some to be used handheld, but a monopode will be great.

COMPACTNESS with high quality is what I am always looking for, Doux. I saw your butterfly shot in the gallery some days ago and the quality is perfect.

[John Cantelo]

I think that the point about a 1.4X converter is a good one. Apart from anything else it would make a GH/G2/3 camera with a 45-200m lens more competitive with many "bridge cameras" of a similar size for those who want greater reach without excessive weight,

[seanofford]

I'd rather Panasonic (or Olympus, or Sigma) came out with a faster lens first - what about a 300mm f4 prime? I'd go for that like a shot! Only then could we think about a 1.4 converter.
Sean

[ammadoux]

Originally Posted by seanofford

I'd rather Panasonic (or Olympus, or Sigma) came out with a faster lens first - what about a 300mm f4 prime? I'd go for that like a shot! Only then could we think about a 1.4 converter.
Sean

[jimthomson]

A few with my new G3 and the 100-300mm.

All taken at Hendrie Valley, Royal Botanical Gardens Burlington Ontario.