-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Yet another Olympus 75-300 vs Panasonic 100-300 review
- Thread starter expressocoffee
- Start date
Art_P
Forum Pro
but does it do as well in dim light?
Only at 75mm... in the rest of the range it focuses no closer than the 100-300
In addition, the max magnification on the 75-300 is only 0.18x, while the 100-300 goes to 0.21x Not a lot, but it does gve the 100-300 an 11% edge in macro.
And if money isn't an issue. But if you've blown mos of your photo budget on the camera, paying almost double might not be an option.
Actually, I'd just get a 70-300 if that lens was at least as sharp as either of the these.
And that lens dwarfs the other two in size and weight... and once you add the EC-14 and m43 adapter so it comes close to a slowish 75-300...
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"
Anders W
Forum Pro
Nice, especially the first one! And yes, 1.5 m gives you a reproduction ratio of 1:5 which is certainly close enough in many cases. In practice, it means that an 85x65 mm object fills the entire frame.
Midnighter
Senior Member
Dont bring logic into it dude, this is a photography forum.
Anders W
Forum Pro
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
It would be great if you would write up a detailed review of these 2 lenses along with test photos (we would like to download the original raw files also to examine)! Please let us know when it is ready because I for one want to see a good, detailed, unbiased review of these 2 lenses.
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
Paul De Bra
Forum Pro
True arguments (I agree with all of them, they are factual after all):
The gap between 50 and 75mm is acceptable. For me it was either the 75-300 or something smaller and cheaper like a 45-200, but the focal range 100-300 just didn't cut it for me.
--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
But also true:
- The Olympus starts at 75mm
- The Olympus is smaller
- The Olympus is lighter
- The Olympus is sharper
The gap between 50 and 75mm is acceptable. For me it was either the 75-300 or something smaller and cheaper like a 45-200, but the focal range 100-300 just didn't cut it for me.
--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
axlotl
Senior Member
I have both and am currently in the process of comparison testing. This is proving a more complex task than I had initially imagined. Preliminary results on GH2 suggest the P100-300 is delivering better resolution with distant subjects, in the range 0.5 k or more from the camera. However up close, in the region of 20 meters they are closer in resolution. I will not post a full test until I have had a chance to test both on the EM5, when I can get one. I guess the fact they are hard to separate indicates there is not much between them in optical performance and any individual's buying decision might be based on other factors, such as size, weight, smoothness of zoom action etc.
j.m.young
Forum Enthusiast
Things like the smooth zoom and MF zoom.
I think this is not noticeable do to the quality glass of the Olympus.Well, I keep mentioning it when others forget.It is certainly important on a lens which you often need to shoot wide open to keep the ISOs down and the shutter speed up
IQ in respect to image sharpness is what I was talking about.
I guess bokeh is in the eyes of the beholder.
Don't know, just my feel shotting with both. And I have shot both on my e-M5
I think this is explained above.
Respects to you Anders you bring up valid questions in a pleasant way!
Anders W
Forum Pro
It is actually about half a stop slower across the entire range.
On what do you base that claim?. The only directly comparable reviews I am aware of (see links above) show them to be equally sharp.
Although it is of course convenient to have a long zoom go down to 75 mm or so, I am personally not bothered by the gap between 45 mm (or so) and 100. I prefer to have that range covered by a faster zoom (such as the upcoming Pany X 35-100/2.8) or a fast prime (like the upcoming Oly 75/1.8).
Anders W
Forum Pro
MF zoom? Do you mean the manual focus ring (which is very smooth on my copy of the 100-300 as well as all other Pany lenses I have)?
Sorry, but I don't understand what you have in mind here. The "quality glass" (special lens elements) of the Olympus does absolutely nothing to improve the speed (light intake) of the lens.I think this is not noticeable do to the quality glass of the Olympus.Well, I keep mentioning it when others forget.
Yes, but you said in your previous post that "IQ is so close it would just depend on the copy you have". Can't see how this is consistent with what you say here about the Oly being superior.
Well, it's rather easily analyzed in more objective terms if you know how to do it. All you need to do is look at the characteristics of the blur disk. See here for example:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html
Same to you. It's always nice to be able discuss things in an open fashion with mutual respect for one another.
FritsThomsen
Senior Member
Not at all !! a lens is for taking pictures ...not for resale...
--
Please visit my galleries at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/
or
http://www.naturephotos.dk/NaturePhotos_ejergalleri.php?menu=3&_Ejer=57
FritsThomsen
Senior Member
or maybe because people are getting
but those aren't going particularly cheap either.
--
Please visit my galleries at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/
or
http://www.naturephotos.dk/NaturePhotos_ejergalleri.php?menu=3&_Ejer=57
Art_P
Forum Pro
to seeing your write up of the two.
It souds like they are pretty close in good light, but haven't heard yet if one does better in poor light... (overcast, heavy tree cover, dusk) I've found the 70-300 reasonably useable at night (spotlit subject, 70-100mm) but sometimes fussy (to focus) at 300mm even in good light
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"
It souds like they are pretty close in good light, but haven't heard yet if one does better in poor light... (overcast, heavy tree cover, dusk) I've found the 70-300 reasonably useable at night (spotlit subject, 70-100mm) but sometimes fussy (to focus) at 300mm even in good light
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"
j.m.young
Forum Enthusiast
I have found if you are lucky and find the Olympus 75-300 in the used market they hold so much value you might as well buy a new one. You pay about the same if you can find or know a dealer that will give you a discount. I bought mine new.
Anders W
Forum Pro
I think the major reason why there aren't many used 75-300s to be had is that so few of them are sold new. I am pretty sure the ratio of 100-300s to 75-300s purchased new is something like 90/10.
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
What the EM5 has that previous M43 bodies didnt' have is the battery grip. This opens the door to using larger lenses that were clumsy handling on the smaller bodies. Two of particular note:
The ZD 70-300. Commonly available on the used market for $200-250. AF speed is good, but not lightning fast, and it pretty much duplicates the 75-300: good in bright light, soft in dim light. Not a small lens, though not particularly heavy - the EM5 with grip will have no problems here.
The ZD 50-200, especially the older non SWD version. Going for around $500 on the used market today, when that sort of aperture and sharpness from C/N will run you three times that amount. It's heavy, and AF is slow, in the 1.5-2 second range, but handles well on a gripped EM5. The big bonus is: it's quite a bit faster than either m43 long tele: F3.5 on the long end, which means it remains sharp as the light gets dim. Couple this with the EM5's IBIS, and you have a long range lens you can use handheld with a reasonable expectation of sharp, blur free shots.
I can work around slow AF a lot easier than I can work around soft images.
The ZD 70-300. Commonly available on the used market for $200-250. AF speed is good, but not lightning fast, and it pretty much duplicates the 75-300: good in bright light, soft in dim light. Not a small lens, though not particularly heavy - the EM5 with grip will have no problems here.
The ZD 50-200, especially the older non SWD version. Going for around $500 on the used market today, when that sort of aperture and sharpness from C/N will run you three times that amount. It's heavy, and AF is slow, in the 1.5-2 second range, but handles well on a gripped EM5. The big bonus is: it's quite a bit faster than either m43 long tele: F3.5 on the long end, which means it remains sharp as the light gets dim. Couple this with the EM5's IBIS, and you have a long range lens you can use handheld with a reasonable expectation of sharp, blur free shots.
I can work around slow AF a lot easier than I can work around soft images.
Bigbob Irwin
Leading Member
Having looked at pictures from both lenses on this forum and without looking at test charts etc I would say that the IQ is about the same, now which lens is quicker to focus and on what body I do not know however I can understand the dilema which is faced by the first time purchaser of one of these zooms a situation I was in last week.
I had the 75-300 lens before and used it(also took the kit lens) on a round world trip with a E-PL2 now I was impressed by the sharpness of the lens but was totally underwhelmed by its ability to autofocus with the E-PL2 especially as I was an avid Canon shooter and was used to almost instant autofocus with a 100-400L lens.
However I had been totally spoiled by the size weight and function of the m4/3rd system and certainly got more pictures on my trip than I would have got taken with my Canon system as there was no way I would have taken the 100-400 with me because of weight and size. the trip put me in mind to go m4/3. So when the E-M5 came out and the reviews were poitive after much deliberation I sold all my Canon gear and got the E-M5 with kit lens and went with the 75-300 the reason I went with the 75-300 was thanks to Don Parrots testing and posts on this forum and as far as AF is concerned I am very pleased with the lens as I think it equall to the pan 100-300 but smaller.
I had the 75-300 lens before and used it(also took the kit lens) on a round world trip with a E-PL2 now I was impressed by the sharpness of the lens but was totally underwhelmed by its ability to autofocus with the E-PL2 especially as I was an avid Canon shooter and was used to almost instant autofocus with a 100-400L lens.
However I had been totally spoiled by the size weight and function of the m4/3rd system and certainly got more pictures on my trip than I would have got taken with my Canon system as there was no way I would have taken the 100-400 with me because of weight and size. the trip put me in mind to go m4/3. So when the E-M5 came out and the reviews were poitive after much deliberation I sold all my Canon gear and got the E-M5 with kit lens and went with the 75-300 the reason I went with the 75-300 was thanks to Don Parrots testing and posts on this forum and as far as AF is concerned I am very pleased with the lens as I think it equall to the pan 100-300 but smaller.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum