"Is this a camera lens in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

I'm a bit late to this review but it is the most useful of the several that I've seen - thanks

Thanks for keeping this lens in the spotlight! I traded mine for a 100-400 after only a few months. Now I want it back. There are times when it is a better choice than the 100-400 because of its size and how smooth and easy the zoom ring is compared to the 100-400. I can find/acquire a subject faster with this lens.

I want to pick this up for motorsports, my 100-400 Olympus is just too big tbh. Great Video Eli.

Thanks for this.

I would like to try this lens purely because I have the Olympus 75-300 which is not weather sealed and is 6.7 at the long end instead of 5.6. That’s enough of a difference for me. Sounds like a good alternative. Thanks

I had the mk1 version and upgraded to the mk2 it’s a great budget telephoto lens for micro four thirds, no complaints.

I've been tempted, however I think my 45-150 does the job for my style of photography even on the G9 and is light

I prefer the 100-300 over the Leica. I miss more shots with the 100-400 due to misjudging minimum focus distance and the background gets focused on.

Nice review. I agree with all of youe comments. Love my lens. I will add though that on mine the out-of-focus elements have a bit of a doughnut shape. It's not bad, it's just a little unusual. Having said that, I like it.

Yeah, I have the 100-400* and it has three switches, all of which seem to move on their own to the "wrong" position. Just another thing to check before shooting. The other potential downside of that lens is the size and ~1kg weight--still smaller/lighter than a "FF" 70-200 f/2.8 (my Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 is so much smaller), but only "pocketable" in a parka, not most jackets. That's why I'm considering the 100-300. Along with the 12-60 (I have the Leica variant, which I find relatively small and light), that would make a great travel combo. My current choice is the Sony RX10IV, which covers the same range (24-600mm EFL Zeiss Sonnar T*), without the 120-200 gap (not that big a deal) and of course MFT vs 1" sensor (although that's a great camera that deserved to sell better, but that's another discussion). Most lenses are at their best at f/4-5.6 anyway (plus the 100-400 is f/4-6.3), so "slowness" isn't really an issue. As you say, just crank the ISO if need be, as NR's so good now (IMO DxO DeepPRIME is the best and PhotoLab is superior to LR), so check that out.

*An obviously phenomenal lens, not just for reach (and range--no larger format 800mm lens zooms out to 200), but also its 1.3m/4.27' minimum focus distance gives you effectively 0.5X magnification, so you can do "semi-macros" from a distance unlikely to disturb the subject.

Would you recommend this lens for sports photography?

Ma tra la vecchia versione e la nuova, parlando di stabilizzazione, con le Olympus fa differenza? Non credo che le Olympus sfruttino l'OIS di Lumix...

I have the version 1 lens for some years now. It doesnt have weather sealing, the OIS is apparently not as good, and I hear the focus is better on the version 2. Which is good as it's sometimes very slow on the V1! Birds in flight are tricky, or any low contrast scene. It also can't do fast bursts with C AF unfortunately. Image quality never seems quite sharp and contrasty at 300mm, better at shorter lengths. Still, if you pre focus on a spot  (e.g. bird perch) you can get some good shots, especially with pro capture on my olympus om-d e-m1 mk ii. And its small, light and the reach is good. There doesn't seem to be an affordable alternative that's better. Version 2 seems to be a good upgrade but I can't bring myself to spend that much on essentially the same lens!

500 зелёных! Вот это я понимаю, бюджетные варианты!

I am in Arizona and I was like no way he’s gonna say Arizona and then you said Arizona and I was like oh no haha

For the price, I think it's ok, but not great. I find the results are inconsistent, but that's probably me, not the lens.  Thanks for your work.😊

I have this lens. Since most of the time I have no need for a 100-400 reach I went with the 100-300 and often when I take it with me it is enough.
I bought a tripod mounting collar from the company in Germany that makes that: really helpful in some shooting sceanarios.
Like a number of users have said on other yt channels, the lens gets a bit soft towards 300. For me I generally do not go beyond 275-ish.
While not the best telephoto zoom for the price and for someone who works in several genres, and not with a focus on wildlight or sports, I find the lens to be affordable and "light enough" for my needs.
Something which I have not seen on YT would be a good Leica 50-200 vs Lumix 100-300 comparison. With a 1.4x teleconverter that would be 70-280 and so rather close. Have you seen such a comparison?

The 45-150 is excellent optically(for the price) much more than the 100-300, even the MKii, which I also own. The 100-300 is fine but from 270 ish mm is very soft compared to the rest of the focal length.

Really?? From your bedroom??