Funny, I looked down at the lens on the camera in my hands and noticed with a sorta shock, that it says "LEICA DG
VARIO-ELMAR" on the top, and when I checked, the same thing on the front ring. "LUMIX' is placed far more discreetly
down on the side at the rear. "Panasonic" only appears in small, low contrast, extremely discrete print on the bottom.
So I guess this is my first Leica lens?*
It looks and feels really well made, although I couldn't say for sure whether some exterior parts are very high quality
plastic or metal, nor do I care.
It is bigger and heavier than I would like, but has yet to make me feel over burdened wearing/carrying it for a few
hours. It's assets seem to have won me over. ;-) It's also wreaked havoc on my carry/bag situation. There is just no way
to fit a camera with this 100-400 lens mounted into my most recent favorite bag, at least not without major surgery. So
it's two bags for the moment. Oh well, they are for protection while not in use and have no impact once I'm out shooting.
There are so many questions, and so few, or such incomplete, answers:
Is it capable of extremely fine IQ captures? Yes, no surprise there.
Is IQ @ 300 mm better than the Oly 75-300? Well, sorta, but it's close enough that I would need to do more testing. In
any case, only pixel peeping. It certainly does make things both near and far larger on the sensor than the 75-300. Keep
in mind that many/most all µ4/3 lenses out resolve the 16 MP sensor systems, so there may be a bigger difference if one
shoots in High Res Mode. All my shooting with it so far has been out in the field, sans tripod, so I haven't tried that.
Which IS is better? I did several shots both ways, Fortunately, as I don't seem to do notes in the field, I can tell
which is which from the EXIF data. I didn't try to stress them in any special way, nor try special longer shutter
speeds, just my usual ways of shooting. My sorta answer is the the body IBIS may be a little better, but I'm not going
to know for sure unless I shoot some flat things with lots of sharp detail. The good news is that both are excellent.
Does it make me happy in use and results? Yes. I love the way long tele can isolate small parts of the broad visual
field, showing what is not otherwise obvious, and the way it compresses perspective. I don't go looking for critters,
but enjoy shooting those I come across, and it is excellent for that. I also like getting close to smaller things, and
it's pretty good at that. I'll have more to say about using it with C-U lenses soon.
Is it a good Flutterby-insect-spider lens? Well, it's what I'd use, but I'm no
master at those subjects.
L. A. G. Moose
* I do have a Summicron-R 1:2/35 mm box that a Zuiko 35/2 came packed in.
It's sorta like the way I backed into owning a Mercedes, by buying the RV van conversion we liked, which happened to
have a Mercedes chassis.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|