suntouched wrote:
For Olympus and Panasonic users (m 4/3) - any of you thinking of purchasing the Panasonic 100-400 mm lens or the Olympus 300 mm f4 lens when released?
Anyone feeling a bit let down (maybe a lot let down) after waiting what seems like forever for the Olympus 300 mm f4 lens only to discover the size, weight and price? I do.
Referring to the Olympus 300 mm f4 is anyone wondering what is the point of producing such a huge lens for a small camera? I do.
Am I missing something here?
For Olympus and Panasonic users (m 4/3) - any of y... (
show quote)
I'm excited over the Panasonic and planning on buying it. I'm not let down. And, I see the point!
Why? A couple years ago I wanted a "wildlife kit" for both video clips and stills. The obvious choice was to spend $20K on Nikon or Canon gear. That was too much, too big, too heavy, etc. A suitable tripod was too much. Somewhere (probably B&H) I found the Pansonic 100-300 and considered the Panasonic GX7.
A point of reference for me is the four huge Thomas D. Mangelsen prints that dominate my living room. He shoots with the best Nikon can provide. The bear, wolf, moose and owl greet me everyday.
I couldn't find anybody that was doing what I wanted to do with the M4/3 gear. I took a risk and spent (about) $1500 plus another $100 for a tripod. I've been having a ball with it!
Samples:
http://vimeo.com/84832972 and
http://vimeo.com/146185237Can I do better? I think so. The newer GX8 with the new 100-400 provide better everything from weather sealing to stabilization and sensor. A big part is 4K. (Have you seen photos extracted from 4K video clips?)
Using the 100-300 as a comparison, the 100-400 is one pound heavier and 1.75 inches longer. In use, the 100-400 lens hood retracts so in "carry around" mode actually a little shorter because the 100-300 hood screws on and is left there.
The 100-300 is cheap as lenses go. It can be a little soft and requires some care to use it. The softness is less noticeable with video clips than stills. I still like it and enjoy using it. In a perfect world for me, Panasonic would have improved the lens and made a 100-300 Mark II.
To your point about the size of the Oly 300, it is bigger. Compared to the 100-300 I use and enjoy, it would be 3 times the weight at a little more than 2 pounds heavier. At 9 inches it is almost twice as long as the 100-300. Compared to the new 100-400, the 300 is over a pound heavier and 2.25 inches longer. For my interests, the Oly is too big. That said, a trip to Yellowstone where all the big Nikanons are lined up along the road aiming at the same bear, it might fit in and produce great results.
The final part for me will be images and reviews. If the $1800 100-400 does not produce sharper images than my much cheaper 100-300, I won't buy it. So far, sample images are hard to find.