Lumix 100-300 - what do people think?

M

Matthew B

Well-known member
I was shooting a V8 buggy on a circuit the other day and found that my 14-140 just didn't quite have the reach I was after, I found myself at 140mm a lot of the time wishing I could just get a bit tighter. Wondered if anyone had used the Lumix 100-300mm and what they thought of it.
 
I have one for sale.

Take from that info whatever you wish.

Guess a little exposition would be helpful...

I like its reach, sharpness, OIS, and size for its range. Also that I could use auto features if I desired.

I don't like it's sticky zoom action and it always seemed like it was just a little too telephoto for how I need to use such a lens. Once this is sold, it will be replaced by a Nikon 80-200/2.8 despite its size.
 
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with mcbob about the 100-300. Great reach, nice sharpness wider (although for stills it gets a little softer when zoomed in), great OIS, and it's incredibly small for a 100-300 zoom, but the zoom action is sticky/clunky.
 
+1 on the sticky zoom. But I put up with it for the reasons listed - especially the size and weight. My Tokina AT-X 300mm, f/2.8 slaughters the 100-300 at 300mm for sharpness and low light. But it also weighs 5 lbs. and is more than twice the size.
 
I picked up this lens last night (100-300). Although I haven't had much time to really play with it, it appears to be a pretty good bang for the buck. Depth of Field is really nice, OIS works well, and it seems to be sharp. The zoom is cheap, but I don't plan on zooming during recording too much anyways.

I have to say that the amount of zoom is extreme. The 200-600mm equivalent is crazy....it's almost too much. Great for nature and when you have to stand very very far away from your subject.

And you simply cannot beat the size. It's smaller than the Olympus 14-35....tiny for that zoom range.

I'll probably keep it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top