1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Image stabilization, Pan OIS vs. Canon

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by RichDesmond, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Veteran

    356
    Nov 18, 2011
    I've largely switched from my Canon gear to :43:. But not completely, there's 2 of my Canon lenses that I don't think have a good :43: equivalent. (for my use) One is the 10-22, the other the 70-300. My problem with the longer range is stabilization. On the Canon it's amazingly good. My only :43: long lens is the 45-200, and the IS is noticeably inferior to the Canon's. Enough so that impacts that keeper rate quite a bit.
    Sooo, I'm wondering how the OIS on the 100-300 compares to the 45-200? About the same, or better enough to matter? If anyone has had both the 100-300 and the Canon 70-300 I'd really like your opinion.

    TIA
     
  2. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    The Panasonic 7-14 is better, in my opinion, than the 10-22. The only drawback is that it doesn't take filters, but it's one of the best ultra-wides in any system. I had both, and sold the Canon.

    I just got my 100-300, so really haven't had much experience with it, but it seems very good to me. I looked at a number of online reviews before purchasing, and it seems to be well regarded. I've seen some reviews that say it's marginally better than Oly's 5-axis IBIS at the long end, some that say the IBIS is very slightly better than the OIS, but they seem to be pretty much on par.
     
  3. droidakty

    droidakty Mu-43 Regular

    34
    May 29, 2012
    Toronto, Canada
    What body are you using?

    I think that the Panny 7-14 would be equivalent to the Canon 10-22.
     
  4. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    The 10-22 is an EF-S lens, so it's a 1.6 crop ... making the 10-22 a 16-35mm equivalent whereas the 7-14 is a 14-28mm equivalent. Given to choose, I'd say the extra 2mm at the wide end is more important than the difference between 28mm and 35mm, but, personal preference ... I'd also take the constant f/4 over a variable f/3.5-4.5.

    But I completely agree with the OP about the 70-300 USM IS lens for Cannon being vastly superior to the Panny 100-300. On a crop sensor you get 480mm equivalent in reach, so you lose some range, but that lens is superb - sharp all the way, fast (focusing, not in terms of aperture), etc..

    I have both the 70-300 and the 100-300 and only recently unloaded my 45-200. I'd say that the 70-300 is the clear front runner of the group, by a wide margin. The 100-300 is a better lens than the 45-200, but only marginally so and the 45-200 gives you some more use in case a 200mm equivalent minimum range is too much for what you are shooting. The 100-300 focuses much more quickly than the 45-200. The OIS on those two lenses seems the same ... and nowhere near as good as the Canon lens.
     
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The 100-300 OIS is about on a par with the IBIS in the OMD and I'd say better than the OIS in the Canon 100-400 that I used to have. Can't comment on the Canon 70-300's OIS.

    IQ wise, the 100-300 is sort of OK. It's not up to any of the other lenses I have in u43 and probably a little worse than the 100-400, esp at the longer end. OTOH, it's miles better than the 45-200 (or at least the copy of the 45-200 that I had!).
     
  6. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    let me amend my statement a little ... I feel like the 100-300 is pretty capable, but it requires more planning and care to get a good shot than the 70-300 Canon lens which you can simply point at your target and click the button and ... magic happens.

    However, if you get used to the lens and you set your shot up right, you can get good stuff. I was pleased with it at the world cyclocross championships this spring, where I got pics like this without too much fuss (taken with the 100-300 at ~220mm, mounted on the GH2):

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rnagoda/8445389681/" title="Geoff Kabush @ 2013 UCI World Cyclocross Championships by Robert Nagoda, on Flickr"> 8445389681_cd52ba05bd_c. "534" height="800" alt="Geoff Kabush @ 2013 UCI World Cyclocross Championships"></a>
     
  7. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Veteran

    356
    Nov 18, 2011
    Thanks guys. First off, I realize that the 7-14 is a good lens, and slighter wider, but I use a CPF a lot on the 10-22. Don't want to give that up.

    I'm using a G3 (mostly) and a GF1

    For some of what I use a long zoom for (motorcycle roadracing) I'm fighting 2 battles. One is shake, the other is C-AF. Right now :43:, at least with lenses I have, the sum of the two loses too much compared to the Canon setup. If the IS was as good I could manage the other, I think, but together it's just too much.
     
  8. beanedsprout

    beanedsprout Mu-43 Veteran

    429
    Apr 13, 2013
    north central Ohio
    Do you need the 600mm equivalent zoom? What about the 45-175? I hear that's pretty good.
     
  9. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Veteran

    356
    Nov 18, 2011
    I don't quite need 600mm equivalent, but 400mm is too short. The 70-300 on the Canon crop body (480mm equiv.) is long enough, barely.
     
  10. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    If you want to use a filter with an ultrawide, check out Olympus' 9-18. Not quite as wide as your 10-22, but it will still give you strong images, and it takes filters.
     
  11. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012

    While I realize it doesn't fit the specific needs of the OP, since the beginning of this thread I was also thinking of the 45-175 as a comparable lens to the apparently excellent Canon 70-300. I was a Canon FF shooter so I always think of SLR lenses in 'exact' focal length mm terms, not an APS sensor crop.

    While I own both the 100-300 and 45-175, they are both relatively recent acquisitions. The added reach of the 100-300 is great, but for the times when nothing more than 350 mm (equivalent) is needed, I'm pretty sure I'll gravitate to the 45-175. I love the size, weight, internal zoom/focusing and that its such a 'sleeper' of a lens.

    In addition to the added reach of the 100-300, there's probably an added benefit to its size for the times when the size of the tool is perceived as important.
     
  12. Just Jim

    Just Jim Mu-43 Top Veteran

    941
    Oct 20, 2011