Any real world opinions on a Panasonic 45-200 or 100-300

mancubus

mancubus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
504
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Honestly I'm struggling to decide which one to go for when out and about for some wildlife.
I generally don't carry a tripod and prefer to be 'free' when out shooting so the 45-200mm would be the obvious choice due to cost and usability but the reach of the 100-300mm is very interesting, however is hand holding a shot at 300mm (600mm eqv) feasible?

Any thoughts?
 
What body are you using? I have an EM-1 and 100-300 combo and I find handholding at 300 no problem. However I would ad that IMO the 100-300 is sharp up to 275 and then gets very slightly softer.
 
GX1 & G5 but will primarily be used on the G5.
 
The Mega OIS is ok on both, but I prefer the 45-200.
Smaller, lighter, and as you state above, cost and usability wise, a no brainer for me.
But it depends on what you shoot, for wildlife I prefer the 100-300!
 
With your bodies you would be using the in lens OIS. With my body the EM-1 has excellent in camera IS. I used the 100-300 with a GX7 for a while hand held it was not a problem even at 300mm.

I agree with wontella it does depend very much on what you shoot.
 
Here's a link to an album I did testing the 100-300mm. Don't expect award winning shots, was just me testing the lens out ;)

https://www.flickr.com/gp/99443690@N04/0U8561


Handholding this on the EM5-II is a piece of cake, but then I'm used to handholding the Tamron 150-600 on a D750 which is nearly 3kg in total :eek:
 
Last edited:
This is one from the Yorkshire Wildlife Park with the 100-300

P6282961-2 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Thanks guys, 100-300mm it is then as primarily I want to do some 'birding' and I don't think the 45-200mm would have quite enough reach as when I shot FF & APS-C 400mm just wasn't enough to not rely on cropping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top