Comparison of M.Zuiko 100-400mm verses 75-300mm

[Jeff Wahaus]

I recently (Finally!!!) received the M.Zuiko 100-400mm and wanted to see how it compared to the 75-300mm I already had. So... I shot my lens test target that I have tacked to my refrigerator and found out.

I shot under sterile test conditions. Mounted on a tripod with remote release. Lighting was two FL-700 strobes at 45% at 6 ft using camera TTL metering set to +2 EV flash comp. (i.e. the mostly white target needed EV adjustment)

I shot both lenses in the range where they overlap at both wide open and at f/8. Wide open the lenses have almost identical f/stops except towards 300mm where the 100-400 is slightly faster by about 1/3 stop. I shot at 100, 150, 200, and 300mm for each lens at wide open and at f/8.

What I found:

The 100-400mm and 75-300mm have very similar resolution in the center of the lens both wide open and at f/8. Most of the time the 100-400mm is just slightly sharper than the 75-300mm in the center but in one case the 75-300mm was slightly sharper.

At the edges of the frame it is a different story. The 100-400mm is significantly sharper than the 75-300mm at the edges. Additionally, the 75-300 shows slight purple fringing at the edges which the 100-400 didn't.

I took many photographs but I'm only going to upload what I think is the most significant. This image is the difference in the lenses at the corners. At the center the lenses are almost identical.

M.Zuiko 100-400mm (left) M.Zuiko 75-300mm (right)

Not only is the 100-400 siginificantly sharper at the edges but it has a more neutral color cast. The 75-300 has a blueish/UV color cast. Color balance was fixed at daylight.

I didn't disable the OIS or IBIS in any of my photographs because I've found in testing that it makes no noticeable difference with the E-M1iii in previous tests. These are straight out of the camera JPEGS at 100% magnification in the extreme corner of the frame.

I'm not trying to trash the Olympus 75-300mm as I find it a very capable lens with very good IQ at a very reasonable price and it is very light weight and compact compared to the 100-400mm. I'm more trying to justify carrying around a lens that is much bigger and heavier. When I want the best IQ the 100-400mm is definitely the one I'll be taking, the OIS is likely much more significant than this tripod test reveals I suppose for handheld shots.

 

[WileEC_ID]

So what is the point of the post? You only confirm what is effectively known. You've compared a consumer oriented zoom to a prosumer oriented zoom. Different zooms designed for different users and price points - of course the performance will be different.

 

[tomhongkong]

I think your comment is a little hard. On going user experience keeps our knowledge of lens performance up to date and refreshed. I would prefer to see a well constructed test by a user than a 'review' by a professional journalist, who although more experience may be biased or just under pressure to get something on paper.

Actually the test does show something interesting. It shows that (for the OP) the only advantages of the 100-400 are

extra FL from 300-400

Better corner sharpness

to which I would add, Water resistance, and IS

Lenses have their color signature, easily altered in Post so that does not count (for me).

There are a couple of interesting points, the OP does not find that the 75-300 relative sharpness suffers at close to 300mm. Mine doesn't either although many users comment that it does. I have always put that down to shaky handling!

It would have been better to do the test at a distance. Lens performance does vary depending on target distance and I suspect both of these are normally used for far off subjects.

I do have both lenses, (on Olympus) and for a casual country walk, I take the 75-300. If I am going to shoot birds at our bird park, of course the 100-400 is the one to use. My 100-400 spends quite a lot of time in the dry cabinet!

Incidentally, I bought my 100-400 last year and it has no sign of zoom stiffness or mount incompatibility as sometimes reported. it's a nice built lens (clearly better than the 75-300)

Just my 2p worth

tom

 

[kbouk]

Low budjet telephoto lenses have good enough quality on short distances.
You have to do the comparison on the field or with target charts on longer distances than your refrigerator (15-20m and maybe more at 400mm) to judge them as telephoto lenses.

--
Cheers
Costas

 

[EspE1]

Thanks a lot, Jeff!

Don't listen to that sour grape of Wile. For me, an owner of 75-300 who contemplate the 100-400, I found your post interesting. However, I do agree with other posters that it would be very interesting to see results from a test at much greater distance (where possibly varying atmospheric conditions may influence, depending on how tests are made).

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

Low budjet telephoto lenses have good enough quality on short distances.
You have to do the comparison on the field or with target charts on longer distances than your refrigerator (15-20m and maybe more at 400mm) to judge them as telephoto lenses.

Yes, I'll have to do another test at a longer distance. Unfortunately for me that will mean outside where the wind can move the camera and target. Also the lighting may not be as consistent.

I was pretty surprised at how well the 75-300mm did. This test gives me more confidence in the 75-300mm IQ and I'll definitely bring it with me when I want to travel light.

-Jeff-

 

[ABCMO]

There is no need for the disclaimer about not trying to trash the 75-300. In fact, I was surprised to see the disclaimer after reading the portion of the review that preceded it. Why was I surprised? Because to me the review confirmed the quality and value of the 75-300. As another respondent noted, the principal advantages you found for the 100-400 over the 75-300 were the 100-400’s additional focal length and it’s corner sharpness. For me center sharpness is much more important than corner sharpness, and you found there wasn’t much in it as far as any center-sharpness differences between the two lenses. And all of this confirmed a decision I made about 10 days ago.

In a different thread you started about when the 100-400 was shipping, I commented that I was considering the 100-400. After a while I decided not to go that route, for even though I could afford the 100-400’s $1,499 price tag, I wasn’t convinced it was a good value proposition for me, especially since I’ve gotten some excellent results with my 75-300 II. So instead of ordering the 100-400—it’s still a bit vague out there about availability and shipping—I made a major upgrade to my tripod and ball head by getting a Benro Tortoise carbon fiber tripod (TTOR 34C) and Benro ball head (GX35), and to facilitate using them, I also bought the Really Right Stuff L-bracket for my OM-D E-M1 III. And all of this came to less than half the price of the 100-400.

Good luck with your 100-400. From all accounts, yours included, it is a fine lens over a remarkable range of focal lengths.

Al

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

... It shows that (for the OP) the only advantages of the 100-400 are

extra FL from 300-400

Better corner sharpness

to which I would add, Water resistance, and IS

The extra FL is actually 300-800mm since I have the TC's. The ability of the 100-400mm to accept the teleconverters was a major incentive for me to get this lens.

In practice the lens OIS is going to have a significant impact on image sharpness for handheld shots at the longer focal lengths.

Lenses have their color signature, easily altered in Post so that does not count (for me).

I agree. It's good to know the characteristics of each lens so you can have a standard color adjustment in post.

It would have been better to do the test at a distance. Lens performance does vary depending on target distance and I suspect both of these are normally used for far off subjects.

I plan on doing a distance test when I get a chance. If the subject is too distant then atmosphere has a significant impact and can make a lens look softer than it really is.

it's a nice built lens (clearly better than the 75-300)

It's also interesting how much bigger they had to make the lens in order to get the corners sharp and the OIS implemented. Everything is a trade off.

-Jeff-

 

[Art_P]

The bigger advantage I see of the 100-400 is it will take the MC-14 and MC-20
However it is still only slightly brighter than the 75-300.
I opted for the 300 F4 plus converters, although I may regret the lack of zoom at some point.

 

[WileEC_ID]

Low budjet telephoto lenses have good enough quality on short distances.
You have to do the comparison on the field or with target charts on longer distances than your refrigerator (15-20m and maybe more at 400mm) to judge them as telephoto lenses.

Yes, I'll have to do another test at a longer distance. Unfortunately for me that will mean outside where the wind can move the camera and target. Also the lighting may not be as consistent.

-Jeff-

This is real world conditions - where either lens will be used. Evaluating them here is really the only way to check out an optic. How does it resolve feather, fur, or fauna - not a flat chart with ideal light. I don't intend to sound harsh - but you don't really know how a camera/lens combo will work or compare without shooting the kinds of subjects you want to - and at the distances you want to. Varying light and wind - that's the planet we live on.

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

The bigger advantage I see of the 100-400 is it will take the MC-14 and MC-20
However it is still only slightly brighter than the 75-300.

I agree, the teleconverter compatibility was my main incentive for getting this lens. Otherwise I probably would have just stuck with the 75-300mm.

I opted for the 300 F4 plus converters, although I may regret the lack of zoom at some point.

The 300mm f/4 is the king of the hill as far as speed and optical quality. At 420mm it only has a slight speed advantage of 1/3 stop over the 100-400mm at 400.

I've gotten too used to zooms to give up adjustable focal lengths. My 3 primes don't get nearly as much use as my zooms. They're more for special purpose conditions like low light or macro.

-Jeff-

 

[M_digicapt]

The bigger advantage I see of the 100-400 is it will take the MC-14 and MC-20
However it is still only slightly brighter than the 75-300.

I agree, the teleconverter compatibility was my main incentive for getting this lens. Otherwise I probably would have just stuck with the 75-300mm.

I opted for the 300 F4 plus converters, although I may regret the lack of zoom at some point.

The 300mm f/4 is the king of the hill as far as speed and optical quality. At 420mm it only has a slight speed advantage of 1/3 stop over the 100-400mm at 400.

I've gotten too used to zooms to give up adjustable focal lengths. My 3 primes don't get nearly as much use as my zooms. They're more for special purpose conditions like low light or macro.

-Jeff-

Have you considered a two camera setup?

I use the main camera with 300-400mm primes and a second camera with the 75-300mm.

 

[Woody Meristem]

Although almost all prime lenses produce better IQ than zooms, for me, a nature/outdoor photographer, the flexibility of zooms is worth the trade-off. I really like my 75-300mm II, but would like more reach, maybe someday I'll spring for the 100-400mm and one or both teleconverters. I've tested my 75-300 and, yes the corner sharpness leaves something to be desired -- but given my usual subjects corner sharpness isn't a factor.

I've tested two bridge superzoom cameras outside at the same time on the same subjects and really wouldn't call an outdoor test definitive, especially if it was on living subjects, plant or animal. Living subjects move, even if only a little, and the time it takes to change lenses on the same camera allows for wind, movement of the subject, atmospheric variables, tripod movement, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, lenses should be tested at real life distances, but that's hard unless you have access to an empty gym or really long hallway. If you're happy with the images produced by a lens it's good enough -- as with most things in life, good enough is good enough.

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

. I did some more testing at longer distances to the subject and the results did change. The 100-400mm is a little sharper than the 75-100mm at distances of 35-50 ft. The most significant difference, however, is the contrast. I would say the 100-400mm has significantly more contrast.

These shots were at 300mm f/8 with both lenses. The camera is on a tripod with remote release as before. These are 100% magnification crops of the JPEGs.

M.Zuiko 75-300mm (Left Image) M.Zuiko 100-400mm (Right Image) - Distance 35 ft.

So, yes it seems that at distances that would be typical with wildlife, the 100-400mm has a bigger edge than what appeared to be the case with the test target 10 feet away.

The real kicker though is the OIS. I did a sequence of 4 images with both lenses handheld at 1/250 sec, f/8, at 300mm. I picked the best image from each lens. Again these are cropped at 100% magnification.

M.Zuiko 75-300mm (Left Image) M.Zuiko 100-400mm (Right Image) - Distance 50 ft. - Handheld

The 3-axis Sync IS (IBIS+OIS) being used by the 100-400mm is far superior to the in body 5-axis IBIS which is used when the 75-300mm is attached. It seems the body IBIS alone is not very effective at longer focal lengths.

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

The bigger advantage I see of the 100-400 is it will take the MC-14 and MC-20
However it is still only slightly brighter than the 75-300.

I agree, the teleconverter compatibility was my main incentive for getting this lens. Otherwise I probably would have just stuck with the 75-300mm.

I opted for the 300 F4 plus converters, although I may regret the lack of zoom at some point.

The 300mm f/4 is the king of the hill as far as speed and optical quality. At 420mm it only has a slight speed advantage of 1/3 stop over the 100-400mm at 400.

I've gotten too used to zooms to give up adjustable focal lengths. My 3 primes don't get nearly as much use as my zooms. They're more for special purpose conditions like low light or macro.

-Jeff-

Have you considered a two camera setup?

I use the main camera with 300-400mm primes and a second camera with the 75-300mm.

I often use a two camera setup. Typically the 12-100mm will be on one and on the other will be either a 7-14mm or 100-400mm depending on the subject matter.

 

[WileEC_ID]

This seems like more reasonable testing. I'm a little curious in these because while I have the 150-400 on order - not holding my breath on delivery. I had the 100-400 on order, but it also was backordered.

These images, especially given shot at f/8, seem soft to my eye. I will be interested to read what owners of the 100-400 think.

 

[Dino Anderson]

The real kicker though is the OIS. I did a sequence of 4 images with both lenses handheld at 1/250 sec, f/8, at 300mm. I picked the best image from each lens. Again these are cropped at 100% magnification.

The 3-axis Sync IS (IBIS+OIS) being used by the 100-400mm is far superior to the in body 5-axis IBIS which is used when the 75-300mm is attached. It seems the body IBIS alone is not very effective at longer focal lengths.

Wow, the difference is very pronounced here. Which shows how important is good lens IS in long FLs.

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

These images, especially given shot at f/8, seem soft to my eye. I will be interested to read what owners of the 100-400 think.

I think they look a little soft because they were straight OOC JPEG's. I keep my camera profile very flat: 0 Contrast, 0 Saturation, 0 Sharpness. I think the flatter JPEGs tend to look better when reduced to viewing size.

Here is the same image taken with the 100-400mm after a little post processing.

M.Zuiko 100-400mm - Left straight OOC, Right sharpened using RAW post processing.

 

[WileEC_ID]

These images, especially given shot at f/8, seem soft to my eye. I will be interested to read what owners of the 100-400 think.

I think they look a little soft because they were straight OOC JPEG's. I keep my camera profile very flat: 0 Contrast, 0 Saturation, 0 Sharpness. I think the flatter JPEGs tend to look better when reduced to viewing size.

Here is the same image taken with the 100-400mm after a little post processing.

M.Zuiko 100-400mm - Left straight OOC, Right sharpened using RAW post processing.

Yeah - that looks better, but still soft to my eye - BUT I have not shot that lens - so I don't have a good frame of reference. The only 300mm MFT lens I have is the 300mm f/4 IS Pro, and I would expect that lens to do a better job. Stumps like this have a lot of contrast and detail, so can be useful for checking out a new camera/lens combo.

 

[Anders W]

I recently (Finally!!!) received the M.Zuiko 100-400mm and wanted to see how it compared to the 75-300mm I already had. So... I shot my lens test target that I have tacked to my refrigerator and found out.

I shot under sterile test conditions. Mounted on a tripod with remote release. Lighting was two FL-700 strobes at 45% at 6 ft using camera TTL metering set to +2 EV flash comp. (i.e. the mostly white target needed EV adjustment)

I shot both lenses in the range where they overlap at both wide open and at f/8. Wide open the lenses have almost identical f/stops except towards 300mm where the 100-400 is slightly faster by about 1/3 stop. I shot at 100, 150, 200, and 300mm for each lens at wide open and at f/8.

What I found:

The 100-400mm and 75-300mm have very similar resolution in the center of the lens both wide open and at f/8. Most of the time the 100-400mm is just slightly sharper than the 75-300mm in the center but in one case the 75-300mm was slightly sharper.

At the edges of the frame it is a different story. The 100-400mm is significantly sharper than the 75-300mm at the edges. Additionally, the 75-300 shows slight purple fringing at the edges which the 100-400 didn't.

I took many photographs but I'm only going to upload what I think is the most significant. This image is the difference in the lenses at the corners. At the center the lenses are almost identical.

M.Zuiko 100-400mm (left) M.Zuiko 75-300mm (right)

Not only is the 100-400 siginificantly sharper at the edges but it has a more neutral color cast. The 75-300 has a blueish/UV color cast. Color balance was fixed at daylight.

I didn't disable the OIS or IBIS in any of my photographs because I've found in testing that it makes no noticeable difference with the E-M1iii in previous tests. These are straight out of the camera JPEGS at 100% magnification in the extreme corner of the frame.

I'm not trying to trash the Olympus 75-300mm as I find it a very capable lens with very good IQ at a very reasonable price and it is very light weight and compact compared to the 100-400mm. I'm more trying to justify carrying around a lens that is much bigger and heavier. When I want the best IQ the 100-400mm is definitely the one I'll be taking, the OIS is likely much more significant than this tripod test reveals I suppose for handheld shots.

Thanks for the test but be aware that with these as well as other lenses, there's quite a bit of variation from one copy of a certain lens to another. Based on my own experiences as well as what I've seen on the forum, the 75-300 may be a case in point. I first got a terrible copy but was fortunate enough to land what I think is an almost perfect specimen on my second try. As I hope you can see from the sample crops/pictures in the posts I link to below, it does very well not only in the center but also at the edges/corners. Be sure to click on "View: original size" to see the images properly.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54249039

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54203323