100-300 or 75-300?

I use the em5 and 100-300, its quite good on larger or static birds but hunts too much for bif.  I also usw the Panny 35-100 which is a beautiful lens, focuses more accurately, but of course is shorter.  Can't wait for someone to come out with a high quality longer lens, perhaps since Oly discontinued the 75-300 the replacement will be good!

Bird Nerd

If you have the EM5, then the 75-300 is the lens you want.  It focuses much faster than the 100-300, and even has some AFC capability with your camera.

--
Steve Barnett

The m.Zuiko 75-300mm is a half stop dimmer throughout the range, it's $400 more and it has been discontinued.

The 75-300 appears the better lens

zoom is smoother, slightly sharper at the long end, 25mm wider at the short end, and all in a smaller package

The 100-300 is slightly brighter, and it has OIS (important on a Panny body, but not on the OM-D)

Zoom on mine can be stiff. but at close to half the price, is it a better value?

You have to decide which features are more important to you.

Oh, if cost is the most limiting factor, there is a third option- the 4/3 mount 70-300mm.  Bigger, slower focusing, but can be had for under $300 (maybe as little as $200 for a used one) Just add a third party adapter and you're in business.

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

This comes up every week. And every week the same answers are given ... the Oly lens is smaller and lighter and might be (haven't actually seen tests that show this on multiple samples) slightly sharper at full tele. Also no OIS and much more expensive. Sounds like a winner to me lol ...

I have Panny bodies, so I could not go Oly anyway ... thus, I have the Panny lens. I quite like it but I do not try to shoot BIF. I think BIF remains a dSLR pursuit for now anyway.

I do try to shoot it stopped down to 7.1 ... some say that works best. I plan on testing it more thoroughly on my copy of course.

Meanwhile, a few examples ...

I do love the subject isolation

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Where is this evidence?

#1 is so lovely.

--
Editor of Digital Outback Photo
http://www.outbackphoto.net/
Lightroom: http://www.outbackphoto.net/lightroom/

Fast AF indeed. Slow in terms of aperture so it's really a daytime use lens.

I'm not much of a BIF person. I have a bird picture but it's static, shot at 300mm, and a BIF picture that's not really a bird (shot at 75mm)...

I got the 75-300 because 1) 75mm is closer to the long end of the 12-50 kit lens than 100mm and 2) it is smaller and lighter than the Pana 100-300 and my whole reason for moving to m43 was to go smaller and lighter.

--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

If you're in no hurry, it might pay to wait a little and see if the 75-300 is really being replaced.  It would make sense for Olympus to try and make one with lighter faster focusing elements.   Hopefully with a more reasonable price (but I would guess not).

--
----
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaltrails/

Have both and am still deciding which to keep...

Tests so far (I've had the 75-300 a few weeks only) have been inconclusive, also because of the bad weather. If anything, the 75-300 doesn't do worse in darker conditions.

SIze & weight is in favour of the 75-300, though not as much as I'd hoped.

Handling on the 75-300 is far better: it zooms more smoothly & with a shorter excursion. Overall it's nicer to hold and use.

Unless I'm unplesently surprised when the sun comes out, I'll probably keep the 75-300 for the above reasons.

Thank you all for your help with this.

Having read many reviews, both professional and consumer, it seems that the 75-300 is a little sharper at the long end, plus it has a somewhat better autofocus.

I do get the feeling that there may be a quality control issues (some less good copies out there). The 100-300 mention on Luminous Landscape talking of considerable CA seems completely at variance with other reviews.

Further, 5.6 to 6.7 is only 1/2 stop, so not too great an issue. The point that the 75-300 is no longer in production had escaped me, will a new version be produced and at what price will it be sold?

That's the $100,000 question no one knows the answer to. When I was at Arlington Camera a few weeks ago the Olympus reps were there with the entire micro system for everyone to play with and they were saying "stay tuned, fast zooms are next on the list...." Will that mean any replacement is faster? How much faster? How much more will it cost? When would such a lens be available?

Who the heck knows. Definitely no one here. Not even the National Inquirer-like speculators over at Four-Thirds Rumors are guessing or making predictions.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

Thanks, thats pretty much the answer I expected

Too bad that Olympus and Panasonic use different IS strategies. This leaves the Panasonic user with the 100-300 if he wants IS.

--
Editor of Digital Outback Photo
http://www.outbackphoto.net/
Lightroom: http://www.outbackphoto.net/lightroom/

Thanks! Much appreciated.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Has you or anyone else actually tried to systematically measure the difference in AF speed between the 75-300 and the 100-300? If so, could you please link to or describe the methods and results.

In view of the many subjective impressions I have read about the AF speed of the 20/1.7 versus how it actually does when tested, I am more than a little wary about taking user impressions about AF speed at face value.

I have the 100-300 but haven't had a chance to play with the 75-300. All I can say is that the 100-300 is very fast on the E-M5 when refocusing on a target at roughly the same distance as the previous one and certainly not irritatingly slow when moving between two targets at significantly different distance.

This is in good light and an AF target such that there will be no hunting. But both lenses need good light in the first place (unless you are shooting from a tripod with a static subject in which case AF performance doesn't matter) and I am sure both lenses are slow when they start hunting (which you should therefore do your best to avoid by choosing a good target and let go of the shutter button immediately when the lens starts hunting rather than wait for it to finish/give up).

I suspect that the easy answer is that the 75-300 performs better on Olympus bodies and that the 100-300 is the better lens on Panasonic bodies.  I have Panasonic bodies and the 100-300 and I have no complaints about the lens.  It is sharp, focuses very rapidly (does not "hunt") and the image quality at the long end is fine.  I do believe that some lenses behave better when matched to original equipment.

My experience is anecdotal and not experimental.  So, if you don't believe it, but really want to know, try to test it for yourself.  The difference is not small, and should be immediately clear.

--
Steve Barnett

That is really impressive. That the Oly can give up 1.5 stops at the long end and still focus significantly faster.

Do you still have both? Why not set up a test and put it on video? That would answer the question permanently and become the standard reference.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com