Panasonic 100-400mm vs Oly 75-300/Pana 100-300 for my Pen-F

[andreuscia]

Hi, I have an Olympus Pen-F. I have a 100-300mm Panasonic lens and I am quite happy with it. The price I paid (used) was great (around 300 USD) and it is quite light and bright lens F/2,8.
Now, the Oly 75-100 cost new much more (hard to find used). The benefit coukd be to buy also the 1,4/2,0 focal multiplier from Oly (which cost quite a lot), or just consider the Panasonic 100-400mm. This lens however cost around 1000 USD and it is quite heavy.
I do landscape, events, quite various genre. I am not so crazy to get a huge telephoto lens but for example soon I might go to South Africa @ Kruger Park and to get a close-up picture of animals, a longer focal lenght might be worth.
Of course it cost much more and weight more. I could of course just make a small crop in photoshop and with a 20 megapixels sensor from my pen-f I could still enlarge the image a bit without loosing much details,,,
Based on those considerations, what would be your final decision on which lens to consider?
Thanks in advance,
Andrea

 

[RS86]

Hi, I have an Olympus Pen-F. I have a 100-300mm Panasonic lens and I am quite happy with it. The price I paid (used) was great (around 300 USD) and it is quite light and bright lens F/2,8.
Now, the Oly 75-100 cost new much more (hard to find used). The benefit coukd be to buy also the 1,4/2,0 focal multiplier from Oly (which cost quite a lot), or just consider the Panasonic 100-400mm. This lens however cost around 1000 USD and it is quite heavy.
I do landscape, events, quite various genre. I am not so crazy to get a huge telephoto lens but for example soon I might go to South Africa @ Kruger Park and to get a close-up picture of animals, a longer focal lenght might be worth.
Of course it cost much more and weight more. I could of course just make a small crop in photoshop and with a 20 megapixels sensor from my pen-f I could still enlarge the image a bit without loosing much details,,,
Based on those considerations, what would be your final decision on which lens to consider?
Thanks in advance,
Andrea

What is this Panasonic 100-300mm f/2.8 lens? Is it MFT lens?

Olympus 75-300mm doesn't take the teleconverters if you meant those with focal multipliers. They work only with Pro-telezooms as far as I know.

You might want to wait for Olympus 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 IS lens which should be released this year. I think PEN-F has Sync-IS and with longer lenses OIS helps more.

 

[djtaylor7]

Just to warn you the MC-14 and MC-20 teleconverters will not fit on the Oly 75-300 lens. Only the 40-150mm f2.8 Pro and the 300mm lenses. You might be best to stay with the 100-300mm lens you have.

 

[Kae1]

I've got the Olympus 75-300mk II and the Panasonic 100-400 too. The Panasonic has better IQ but at additional cost and weight, and, for me, is a bit of a handful on larger bodies (G9, G80) and I struggle too much with it on GX80. However, we're all different. I don't know how much of an improvement the 75-300 will be over your existing lens.
I was going to suggest, as a no cost option, that you try the digital teleconverter on your camera to see the trade off between IQ and reach using your existing lens. On Panasonic bodies there is a built in Ex Tele Converter setting which, for me, gives good enough images when I'm looking for more reach. I know the Olympus equivalent works differently but it could be worth trying.

 

[RS86]

I've got the Olympus 75-300mk II and the Panasonic 100-400 too. The Panasonic has better IQ but at additional cost and weight, and, for me, is a bit of a handful on larger bodies (G9, G80) and I struggle too much with it on GX80. However, we're all different. I don't know how much of an improvement the 75-300 will be over your existing lens.
I was going to suggest, as a no cost option, that you try the digital teleconverter on your camera to see the trade off between IQ and reach using your existing lens. On Panasonic bodies there is a built in Ex Tele Converter setting which, for me, gives good enough images when I'm looking for more reach. I know the Olympus equivalent works differently but it could be worth trying.

Isn't the built-in tele-converter same as cropping in post? It just makes the framing easier on the fly?

The physical tele-converter will affect speed and image quality, but is not the same as cropping and will bring better quality.

 

[Mike Wingate]

The built in ex-tele converter, just applies cropping in camera.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Probably limited to JPEGs with ex tele. Take the shots normally in RAW and crop in PP.

 

[RS86]

Actually I would consider renting Panasonic 100-400mm for the South Africa trip. That way you will know how you like such a lens.

And can then wait for Olympus 100-400mm to be released this year.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Trips. Holidays. Had our Cambodia and Vietnam holiday cancelled. No visas. Embassy closed. Countries locked down.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I’ve been in the same dilema. I tried the 100-400 and found it too hefty for me. I use my 100-300ii a lot, so this extra weight would be a big factor. It was largely handling for me, I could feel it in my right wrist after some use, and I think part of the issue is the very stiff zoom—it puts more strain on the right hand, as that is your leverage point.

I’ve been seriously looking at the O40-150 2.8 and P50-200 2.8-4.0, with the idea that I could use a TC on them for more length. I’m kicking myself, as B&H had the 40-150 2.8 used (grade 9) for $999, but they weren’t taking orders at the time, and they were gone soon after their checkout resumed. I think that ultimately I want the 50-200, as it’s the lightest/smallest in this premium category. They just don’t sell as cheaply as the 100-400, and used they are rare.

 

[RS86]

I’ve been in the same dilema. I tried the 100-400 and found it too hefty for me. I use my 100-300ii a lot, so this extra weight would be a big factor. It was largely handling for me, I could feel it in my right wrist after some use, and I think part of the issue is the very stiff zoom—it puts more strain on the right hand, as that is your leverage point.

I’ve been seriously looking at the O40-150 2.8 and P50-200 2.8-4.0, with the idea that I could use a TC on them for more length. I’m kicking myself, as B&H had the 40-150 2.8 used (grade 9) for $999, but they weren’t taking orders at the time, and they were gone soon after their checkout resumed. I think that ultimately I want the 50-200, as it’s the lightest/smallest in this premium category. They just don’t sell as cheaply as the 100-400, and used they are rare.

I think Olympus has stated that they will focus on portability more now. I would expect the Olympus 100-400mm to be smaller than the Panasonic counterpart, especially with the wide-end being f/5.0. It would make sense to differentiate it a bit from it and make something in-between to those other zoom lenses.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I think Olympus has stated that they will focus on portability more now. I would expect the Olympus 100-400mm to be smaller than the Panasonic counterpart, especially with the wide-end being f/5.0. It would make sense to differentiate it a bit from it and make something in-between to those other zoom lenses.

I would certainly consider this rumored lens, as my use case typically doesn’t require 2.8-4.0. I often shoot my 100-300 on the 300 side, which is what makes the 100-400 so tempting. However, I can see the 50-200 having a lot of flexibility with its range. My big reservation there is the cost and so-so reviews of using it with the TCs. Still, I could see it being a really good zoo lens. With a TC in your pocket, it might be all I’d need.

 

[RAH]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the Native lens forum? He is asking about MICRO 4/3 equipment, as far as I can determine (at least all the replies seem to be talking about m43 stuff).

 

[oldracer]

We have been to Africa seven times, including four photo safaris. We were just in Kruger, Timbavati, and Botswana at the end of February this year. Here is how I handle it:

I buy a 100-400 on the used market and sell it when I get home. That lens is a real brute by M43 standards and I have no use case for it except Africa. In Africa there is no lens that is too long for the images you want; the limiting factor is lens stability at long focal lengths. To deal with this, I shoot the 100-400 off a monopod with a ball head. Like this:

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

Once you get over the mistaken belief that a monopod is a vertical stick under the camera, you will find that it is very useful in game drive vehicles. Here the tip of the monopod is on the floor near my left foot. It is tilted right and leaning against my right leg, then it is tilted back for a comfortable shooting position. The ball head is an Acratech GPS with a lever A-S clamp. The Acratech lever locks into position, unlike the RRS, so the camera can't be accidentally released.

The lens is on a standard neck strap so I can drop it onto my lap when I pick up the second body. (The speckled cord is the glide strap for the second body that has gotten caught on the 100-400 body.)

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

Here I have dropped the camera with the big lens and am shooting with a 12-200. It is not at all uncommon for animals to get too close to the game drive vehicle, necessitating a second body with a shorter zoom. Having two bodies with complementary zooms is important. Identical bodies if possible and a little bit of zoom range overlap is quite handy. This was my first trip with the 12-200; previously I have used the 14-140, which is also nice.

I do not carry or shoot prime lenses. Things change too quickly. Below we found an elephant herd that our guide thought was headed to a watering hole. So he drove out ahead and positioned us perfectly to watch the dramatic arrival:

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

So, 12-200 set at 43mm. But then a couple of the kids started to play submarine in the water:

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

Same lens, now at 200mm, maybe 20 seconds later. (One of the kids is submerged and snorkeling!)

 

[andreuscia]

Thanks all. I guess at the end I should keep the 100-300mm F2,8 Panasonic lens (which is quite bright and not heavy). There is a possible teleconverter for this lens to me mounted into my 4/3 Pen-F camera?

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

Thanks all. I guess at the end I should keep the 100-300mm F2,8 Panasonic lens (which is quite bright and not heavy). There is a possible teleconverter for this lens to me mounted into my 4/3 Pen-F camera?

There's no 100-300 f2.8 lens. If there was ever it would be heavy like bag of potatoes.

If I have to guess it's the 100-300 mk2 lens by Panasonic. It's light. So fits the description. And unfortunately it doesn't accept teleconverter.

 

[oldracer]

FWIW, I have the 100-300 and have used it in Africa Here is an old favorite. Leopards' eyes fascinate me:

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

But the extra reach of the 100-400 really helps:

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

​

This one is interesting to me for a couple reasons. First, it is the first cross-eyed leopard I have ever photographed. Second, he is illuminated by a guide's floodlight; it is night. The monopod won the shot; 400mm, f6.3, 1/50th second. But 300mm would not have have been enough length. And hand-held IMO would not have worked with either lens.

 

[RAH]

Thanks all. I guess at the end I should keep the 100-300mm F2,8 Panasonic lens (which is quite bright and not heavy). There is a possible teleconverter for this lens to me mounted into my 4/3 Pen-F camera?

Well, either there is a Panasonic 100-300 f2.8, as mentioned by the OP several times or there isn't. We have 2 people saying they both have one, but @oldracer isn't mentioning what f stop it is. The only Panasonic 100-300 I can find on DPReview going back to 2010 is a 100-300mm F4-5.6. This is the one we're all familiar with, so we seem to be talking about apples and oranges, or what?

(Nice pictures, by the way, @oldracer !)

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

The only Panasonic 100-300 I can find on DPReview going back to 2010 is a 100-300mm F4-5.6.

There is also 100-300 Mk II released in 2016-17 which is more expensive than Mk I, is weather-sealed and able to handle fast burst shooting better BUT that is also f4-5.6.

 

[oldracer]

Yup, mine is f4-5.6. So it gets the credit for the leopard in the tree. I'm sure I have had it for five years, maybe longer. It is an excellent M43 general-purpose tool with a good compromise between focal length, size and weight. I served my time lugging heavy Nikons and Nikkor lenses around & am done with that. As I said, the 100-400 is a brute; a special purpose tool.