Comparing Olympus 60mm vs Panasonic 100-300mm

[barry]

Alas, you have poor taste. Photo "B" is not smooth. It's blotchy.

I think that was his point; the 100-300 had more blur.

 

[pigiron]

I think that was his point; the 100-300 had more blur.

He asked two questions of which I chose to answer the second. I wasn't referring to the hardware for which I didn't bother voting as it was a false apples to oranges choice at best. I was picking the better picture, which was "A" and I gave my reasons irrespective of the particular manipulation of the disparate pieces of machinery used.

 

[TNcasual]

Alas, you have poor taste. Photo "B" is not smooth. It's blotchy.

The answer I was giving was to the poll question. There is no good or bad taste to a fact. The first image is with the 100-300. The second image is with the 60.

I prefer the first image, as well. But that is purely subjective.

 

[pigiron]

The answer I was giving was to the poll question. There is no good or bad taste to a fact. The first image is with the 100-300. The second image is with the 60.

I prefer the first image, as well. But that is purely subjective.

My sincere apology. I confused the poll with your second image preference question. But i disagree about aesthetics being entirely subjective. J. S. Bach's music is objectively better than that of the Beatles and Bach's music will always be objectively better than that of the Beatles.

 

[Aristophanes]

Both photos suck

 

[retiredfromlife]

Well i missed the correct result despite owning both lenses, just reinforces my veiw it is often more the person, not the gear that makes the shot.

I must admit these challenges are interesting, very glad they are put up for discussion.

 

[Mountain]

Just for fun, this is a similar subject shot with the 42.5 f/1.7 wide open

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bee flower

 

[pigiron]

Just for fun, this is a similar subject shot with the 42.5 f/1.7 wide open

View attachment 664393 Bee flower

That's about as razor thin a DOF as it gets.

 

[Cagey75]

The Pany 100-300 makes for a very decent macro lens with a Raynox 250 attached. You can achieve up to 3:1 at the long end, but just use it at 100mm for a more reasonable 1:1

 

[ToxicTabasco]

Once you get into telephoto ranges, and zoom in to subjects up close, apertures larger than f/5.6 don't make much of a difference at 100mm (or 200mm equivalent) in well lit conditions. Also, the distance to subject and the distance from background play a larger part in the blur of the background when apertures are the same.

Backgrounds are very important for good composition.