It'll just make you want something better...

mdocod · Nov 2, 2017

This is one of those lenses that will give the occasional taste of what a great telephoto experience could be.

Biggest gripe, as with pretty much all plastic lenses on oly bodies, is the shutter shock, which, can be really extreme on this one, and ruin tons of photos. You won't "catch" it in the viewfinder without constant chimping at 1:1 crop to camera processed jpgs (raw previews on camera often aren't detailed enough to show it).

From ~75-150mm, this lens is reasonably sharp. Above 200mm sharpness drops off at a pace that brings into question whether its worth using anything above 200mm... Basically choosing when to crop at this point, and the effects of shutter shock get even worse above 200mm, even with anti-shock modes.

For best results, set electronic shutter for all shots with this lens. Use F8 for basically everything where light isn't an issue.

This lens will make you yearn for a better quality telephoto lens.

The 75mm prime 1.8 may actually be better for telephoto work than the 75-300mm in many applications. The prime is significantly sharper, provides several stops of light gathering advantage, and doesn't suffer from shutter shock, so can be used with the shutter for maximum sensor performance. The 75-300 will only produce better results in ideal conditions (lots of light). In real world conditions, shooting with the 75mm prime then cropping after the fact will often deliver similar or better effective resolving power.

shinndigg · Nov 3, 2017

mdocod said:
shinndigg said:

mdocod said:

mdocod said:

Comparing a $550 "kit" zoom to a $899 prime lens somehow seems disingenuous. These are two different animals. It's like comparing a BMW 3 series against a Dodge Caravan. one is fairly exotic, the other is built for utility.

Click to expand...

I don't feel obligated to defend my purchasing decisions with raving reviews on everything I buy. The reality is everything I have ever purchased, and everything I ever will purchase, has flaws in my own critical eye, and I'm not afraid to point them out.

Click to expand...

And yet here you are defending your position.

Click to expand...

What? Your argument here doesn't even make any sense.

It makes perfect sense.... unless one is defending an unrealistic pov.

mdocod said:
mdocod said:

mdocod said:

One thing I am noticing here on DPREVIEW, is that a simple mostly positive sounding review, gets no attention, because it is the positive reinforcement people are looking for to rationalize their purchase decision. A critical review that covers all the flaws of a product, gets tons of attention, from people very concerned with defending their perception of the qualities and rationalization of their purchase decision.

-Eric

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There is merit to your pov on user reviews. Conversely, some choose to post reviews simply to bash, as they are not satisfied no matter what. Thus the reason to rely on generally unbiased professional reviews, such as in this case, Imaging Resource.

mdocod said:
mdocod said:

I stand by my assessment of your review. The 75-300 and 75mm prime are simply two different animals.

Click to expand...

Light Bender · Nov 3, 2017

In all your lens reviews, you've mentioned shutter shock. Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field when I ask - what exactly does shutter shock have in any relation to the quality of the optics?

Now when I ask this questions it's on the basis that shutter shock comes from the camera's FP shutter mechanism and not anything mechanical within the lens itself.

So if you're experiencing shutter shock, would that not suggest that the issue is with your camera body and not your lens? Further more, if you are experiencing increased shutter shock with this lens at longer telephoto focal lengths, wouldn't that emphasise the fact that the shutter shock is body related and not optics related (because the sensor movement is magnified through the optic - hence there'd be a higher potential for shutter shock blur)?

Lifesucks · Nov 3, 2017

I love this lens and have no complains with it..dont no about the shutter shock as i havent experienced it....but for 425 dollars i got a bargain and love it. Certainly good technique is important as it is with every lens, but if you can get it right the results are great.

mdocod · Nov 3, 2017

Light Bender said:
In all your lens reviews, you've mentioned shutter shock. Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field when I ask - what exactly does shutter shock have in any relation to the quality of the optics?

Now when I ask this questions it's on the basis that shutter shock comes from the camera's FP shutter mechanism and not anything mechanical within the lens itself.

So if you're experiencing shutter shock, would that not suggest that the issue is with your camera body and not your lens? Further more, if you are experiencing increased shutter shock with this lens at longer telephoto focal lengths, wouldn't that emphasise the fact that the shutter shock is body related and not optics related (because the sensor movement is magnified through the optic - hence there'd be a higher potential for shutter shock blur)?

I don't see shutter shocked images coming from my metal bodied lenses mounted to the EM5 II. Only the plastic ones.

Yes, the "longer" lenses suffer more.

I brought my lenses to a local camera shop and played with them on an em1 II to compare shutter shock.

Still only shows up on the plastic bodied lenses, and worst on the 75-300.

On the other hand... The GM5 never ever has shutter shock on any lens.

I'm sure the shock originates with the body, but the lens seems to play a role.

jalywol · Nov 3, 2017

mdocod said:
I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

When bracing, try leaning against a tree and doing the both elbows on chest with vf pressed to eye method. I find that gives an extra bit of stability that is quite handy. Or, try a monopod.

mdocod said:
I wouldn't consider myself a jittery photographer. I routinely get sharp images, handheld, shooting base iso with 1/8-1/2 second exposures on my collection of primes.

Yes, but this is a LONG lens, AND it's very lightweight, which increases the tendency to inadvertently move it during shots, and that combination is going to behave very differently than your shorter primes. Trust me on this.

mdocod said:
I also need to give the latest firmware a chance on the body with this lens... I noticed a big change in the way anti-shock is handled compared to previous firmware. (didn't have an automatic anti-shock option before). I wonder if any other changes to the anti-shock algorithm are in play here. I had previously noticed best results shooting electronic shutter only.

Yes, for sure.

Good luck...

-J

Ken Croft · Nov 3, 2017

During my first year with the 75-300 I was so disappointed with sharpness that twice I put it on eBay but twice relented to give it a second and a third chance. I thought the lens was just rubbish or that I had the universal excuse, a "bad copy". Then via private messages with a respected forum member, I sorted out how to use the lens, and I am now happy with it. Yes I would like a sharper and longer lens, but I am not sure that the Panny 100-400 is any sharper, just longer, and the 40-150 pro is too big and too heavy. I am well used to handling longish lenses, my chosen birding outfit being my Canon dslr with the Canon 400/5.6L. The big change that made my Oly 75-300 / M1 combination work, apart from holding technique, was to always use f/7.1, never less than 1/640, ALWAYS electronic shutter, and single point S-AF. If possible don't go beyond 275mm. Shooting raw goes without saying.

I now regard the lens as excellent value for money.

Ken C

EspE1 · Nov 3, 2017

jalywol said:
mdocod said:

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

When bracing, try leaning against a tree and doing the both elbows on chest with vf pressed to eye method. I find that gives an extra bit of stability that is quite handy. Or, try a monopod.

I will say that neither of you hold the camera in a way that gives optimum support:

I think you should get the same a-ha experience as I did when I read what Rich Z wrote in another thread (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/5893965) some months ago:

jalywol said:
"Here's a great trick taught me by an ancient photographer, fifty years ago.

Firmly grip right upper arm with left hand. Extend left elbow out in front of your face. Rest the lens in the crook of the elbow. Hold the camera very firmly against the bone above your eye (might have to remove certain eyepiece shades) while gently but firmly and constantly twisting the camera down to push the lens into the crook of the elbow. Now, your head and both arms are locked into one structure. Feet apart, set well and firm, and do not move them. Pan from the waist ( fight the urge to pan with the neck when using this technique, or you will need surgery). Be mindful to breathe regularly and shoot on slow exhalation. All of the pix I posted were shot this way. Out among photographers using tripods, I am scoffed at while using this technique. That is, until they see the pix."

I had for about thirty years followed the usual instructions to carry the lens in my left palm and tucking my left elbow into the left side of the body or supporting on a knee and whatever. However, applying the posture described by Rich (in particular when shooting with my 50-200) I experience a wholly different reduction in camera shake. (I have after this also begun, under the circumstances, to lean the 50-200 on my left shoulder while looking into the viewfinder with my left eye.)

After now having bought the 75-300 and used it a lot on my EM-1 mk i, I see the same improvements in image sharpness following this posture with the 75-300 also. With the availability of the improved IBIS, I'm really impressed with the sharpness thay may be obtained with the 75-300 even in low light.

Time for new positions - try It! You won't be disappointed.

(Much of what I say here above is a quote from what I said in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60141804, where the topic was discussed somewhat further in the thread.)

jalywol said:
jalywol said:

I wouldn't consider myself a jittery photographer. I routinely get sharp images, handheld, shooting base iso with 1/8-1/2 second exposures on my collection of primes.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is a LONG lens, AND it's very lightweight, which increases the tendency to inadvertently move it during shots, and that combination is going to behave very differently than your shorter primes. Trust me on this.

Totally agree - shorter primes and sreally long teles are two different planets in this respect. This cannot be stressed enough.

jalywol said:
jalywol said:

I also need to give the latest firmware a chance on the body with this lens... I noticed a big change in the way anti-shock is handled compared to previous firmware. (didn't have an automatic anti-shock option before). I wonder if any other changes to the anti-shock algorithm are in play here. I had previously noticed best results shooting electronic shutter only.

Click to expand...

Yes, for sure.

Good luck...

-J

TomFid · Nov 3, 2017

jalywol said:
mdocod said:

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

Click to expand...

If you're getting a lot of shutter shock with this lens on an EM5ii, I think something is wrong. Using EFCS (0s Antishock) or e-shutter more or less eliminates the problem. Some testing at home against a static subject might be useful to narrow down the cause.

jalywol said:
jalywol said:

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

I find 1/100s to be pretty viable together with the EM5ii IBIS. I've gotten sharp results at as low as 1/30s, well braced against a tree. The keeper rate may be fairly low, but if you use burst mode and e-shutter it's easy to get lucky. I find subject motion to be the limiting factor most of the time.

maltmoose · Nov 3, 2017

mdocod said:
maltmoose said:

I'd like to see the evidence that 75mm vs 300 will give a comparable or better image, even 200 or 150mm vs 75 for that matter.

I wish it were true as i would be using my 25mm instead of a 100mm telephoto..

Click to expand...

I don't really see how the 25mm instead of 100mm applies here....

I'm talking about a very specific prime lens, known to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made being used as an alternative to to what is essentially the "kit" X-300mm small aperture telephoto option from olympus.

In this very specific comparison, in conditions that push the 75-300 into requiring higher iso or under-exposure and electronic shutter to produce acceptable results, the 75mm prime is apt to produce an image that can be cropped to a very similar "effective" resolve, and in some cases will likely out-resolve the zoom lens.

In ideal conditions for the 75-300, yes, it can out-resolve crops from the 75mm prime, especially ~200mm, where it's still reasonably sharp, and delivering a pretty narrow perspective compared to the 75mm prime.

The issue for me has been, that rarely have I ever found myself grabbing for the telephoto lens in "ideal" conditions. Wildlife sightings almost always happen at dusk and dawn.

-------------

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II__1110_1136_898_1136

is a link to dxo valid on dpreview? I don't know the religion here.... lol.

Lab tests at imaging resources reveal similar results. In many conditions, the 75mm prime "resolves" about double the effective resolution compared to the 75-300....

------------

The takeaway, from my experience with both of these lenses, is that the 75mm prime can do a lot of the work that the 75-300 can through post-cropping due to extraordinary sharpness and reduced noise from being able to operate at lower iso or higher exposure. On the other hand, the 75-300 can't step in and do the work that the 75mm prime can.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but that is my experience, take it or leave it.

I appreciate you trying to clarify your position about the 75 vs 75-300 but your original post has some fairly bold claims about the 75 vs 75-300.

Why not provide some evidence that the 75 bests the 75-300 at 150 and 300.

Would be interesting info for everyon.

PLShooter · Nov 3, 2017

mdocod said:
Light Bender said:

In all your lens reviews, you've mentioned shutter shock. Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field when I ask - what exactly does shutter shock have in any relation to the quality of the optics?

Now when I ask this questions it's on the basis that shutter shock comes from the camera's FP shutter mechanism and not anything mechanical within the lens itself.

So if you're experiencing shutter shock, would that not suggest that the issue is with your camera body and not your lens? Further more, if you are experiencing increased shutter shock with this lens at longer telephoto focal lengths, wouldn't that emphasise the fact that the shutter shock is body related and not optics related (because the sensor movement is magnified through the optic - hence there'd be a higher potential for shutter shock blur)?

Click to expand...

I don't see shutter shocked images coming from my metal bodied lenses mounted to the EM5 II. Only the plastic ones.

Yes, the "longer" lenses suffer more.

I brought my lenses to a local camera shop and played with them on an em1 II to compare shutter shock.

Still only shows up on the plastic bodied lenses, and worst on the 75-300.

On the other hand... The GM5 never ever has shutter shock on any lens.

I'm sure the shock originates with the body, but the lens seems to play a role.

Poor technique plays just as much a role. My 75-300 II gives excellent images even on my EPL-7. Go figure!

jalywol · Nov 3, 2017

EspE1 said:
jalywol said:

mdocod said:

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

When bracing, try leaning against a tree and doing the both elbows on chest with vf pressed to eye method. I find that gives an extra bit of stability that is quite handy. Or, try a monopod.

Click to expand...

I will say that neither of you hold the camera in a way that gives optimum support:

I think you should get the same a-ha experience as I did when I read what Rich Z wrote in another thread (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/5893965) some months ago:

EspE1 said:

"Here's a great trick taught me by an ancient photographer, fifty years ago.

Firmly grip right upper arm with left hand. Extend left elbow out in front of your face. Rest the lens in the crook of the elbow. Hold the camera very firmly against the bone above your eye (might have to remove certain eyepiece shades) while gently but firmly and constantly twisting the camera down to push the lens into the crook of the elbow. Now, your head and both arms are locked into one structure. Feet apart, set well and firm, and do not move them. Pan from the waist ( fight the urge to pan with the neck when using this technique, or you will need surgery). Be mindful to breathe regularly and shoot on slow exhalation. All of the pix I posted were shot this way. Out among photographers using tripods, I am scoffed at while using this technique. That is, until they see the pix."

Click to expand...

I had for about thirty years followed the usual instructions to carry the lens in my left palm and tucking my left elbow into the left side of the body or supporting on a knee and whatever. However, applying the posture described by Rich (in particular when shooting with my 50-200) I experience a wholly different reduction in camera shake. (I have after this also begun, under the circumstances, to lean the 50-200 on my left shoulder while looking into the viewfinder with my left eye.)

After now having bought the 75-300 and used it a lot on my EM-1 mk i, I see the same improvements in image sharpness following this posture with the 75-300 also. With the availability of the improved IBIS, I'm really impressed with the sharpness thay may be obtained with the 75-300 even in low light.

Interesting. Tried this, but my left upper arm gets a little fatigued after a bit. I actually rest my left upper arm and elbow on my chest so my lower left arm is quite stable but still can move up or down a bit (using elbow as a fulcrum), and then rest the lens in the palm of my left hand. Right upper arm is also braced against chest, with camera body being held in right hand and camera also braced above eye. This accomplishes about the same level of stability, with less fatigue to upper left arm muscles, since you are bearing the downward weight of the camera and lens on the bones in your lower arm rather than the muscles in your upper arm.
I think the take-home message of both of these techniques is that body bracing using both arms, torso, and head, are necessary and effective for long lens stabilization without external support.

-J

TomFid · Nov 3, 2017

mdocod said:
Light Bender said:

In all your lens reviews, you've mentioned shutter shock. Excuse my lack of knowledge in this field when I ask - what exactly does shutter shock have in any relation to the quality of the optics?

Now when I ask this questions it's on the basis that shutter shock comes from the camera's FP shutter mechanism and not anything mechanical within the lens itself.

So if you're experiencing shutter shock, would that not suggest that the issue is with your camera body and not your lens? Further more, if you are experiencing increased shutter shock with this lens at longer telephoto focal lengths, wouldn't that emphasise the fact that the shutter shock is body related and not optics related (because the sensor movement is magnified through the optic - hence there'd be a higher potential for shutter shock blur)?

Click to expand...

I don't see shutter shocked images coming from my metal bodied lenses mounted to the EM5 II. Only the plastic ones.

This could be purely an effect of mass. Duct tape a brick to your plastic lenses and you're all set.

mdocod said:
Yes, the "longer" lenses suffer more.

I brought my lenses to a local camera shop and played with them on an em1 II to compare shutter shock.

Still only shows up on the plastic bodied lenses, and worst on the 75-300.

On the other hand... The GM5 never ever has shutter shock on any lens.

I'm sure the shock originates with the body, but the lens seems to play a role.

I think the lens definitely plays some role. However, shutter shock should be almost negligible with EFCS (0s Antishock), and obviously nonexistent with e-shutter. If you're not using those on the EM5II, you should be.

Here are some tests with the 100-300 demonstrating this:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

EspE1 · Nov 3, 2017

jalywol said:
EspE1 said:

jalywol said:

mdocod said:

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting this lens at 1/100s, out at the long end especially, you are asking for blur. I found, when using the Panasonic 100-300mm that anything below 1/500s was hit or miss in terms of sharpness. The faster I could get, the better. With my 100-400mm, the OIS is a lot better than that in the original 100-300mm, so I can get, with care, shots that are sharp below 1/500s, but it requires patience and excellent bracing to do so.

When bracing, try leaning against a tree and doing the both elbows on chest with vf pressed to eye method. I find that gives an extra bit of stability that is quite handy. Or, try a monopod.

Click to expand...

I will say that neither of you hold the camera in a way that gives optimum support:

I think you should get the same a-ha experience as I did when I read what Rich Z wrote in another thread (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/5893965) some months ago:

jalywol said:

"Here's a great trick taught me by an ancient photographer, fifty years ago.

Firmly grip right upper arm with left hand. Extend left elbow out in front of your face. Rest the lens in the crook of the elbow. Hold the camera very firmly against the bone above your eye (might have to remove certain eyepiece shades) while gently but firmly and constantly twisting the camera down to push the lens into the crook of the elbow. Now, your head and both arms are locked into one structure. Feet apart, set well and firm, and do not move them. Pan from the waist ( fight the urge to pan with the neck when using this technique, or you will need surgery). Be mindful to breathe regularly and shoot on slow exhalation. All of the pix I posted were shot this way. Out among photographers using tripods, I am scoffed at while using this technique. That is, until they see the pix."

Click to expand...

I had for about thirty years followed the usual instructions to carry the lens in my left palm and tucking my left elbow into the left side of the body or supporting on a knee and whatever. However, applying the posture described by Rich (in particular when shooting with my 50-200) I experience a wholly different reduction in camera shake. (I have after this also begun, under the circumstances, to lean the 50-200 on my left shoulder while looking into the viewfinder with my left eye.)

After now having bought the 75-300 and used it a lot on my EM-1 mk i, I see the same improvements in image sharpness following this posture with the 75-300 also. With the availability of the improved IBIS, I'm really impressed with the sharpness thay may be obtained with the 75-300 even in low light.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Tried this, but my left upper arm gets a little fatigued after a bit. I actually rest my left upper arm and elbow on my chest so my lower left arm is quite stable but still can move up or down a bit (using elbow as a fulcrum), and then rest the lens in the palm of my left hand. Right upper arm is also braced against chest, with camera body being held in right hand and camera also braced above eye. This accomplishes about the same level of stability, with less fatigue to upper left arm muscles, since you are bearing the downward weight of the camera and lens on the bones in your lower arm rather than the muscles in your upper arm.
I think the take-home message of both of these techniques is that body bracing using both arms, torso, and head, are necessary and effective for long lens stabilization without external support.

-J

When I follow the method conveyed by Rich Z, I put emphasis on grabbing around the right upper arm on the outside with the four fingers, while the tumb is more passiv in the grip, (as opposed to create a countergrip with the tumb on the inner side of the arm also). By initially overdoing the grabbing around the upper right arm -- by first stretching my left arm as far around the right arm as I'm able - I feel then that things fall into a more relaxed position when flex in clothing and body tissue gives way, and the left arm gets 'spanned down' ready for finalizing the postion. I find that for me this reduces strain in the left arm. Also the left arm may get (dependent on the length of the lens) a certain support from the lower right arm 'on its way up to' holding the camera.

But bodies are different. You must find what works best for you. (I have also tried - with fairly good success - to rather grab over my right shoulder with my left arm. Perhaps this also something you shiuld try?)

The shocking thing for me, though, was that it was fairly by coincidence I came over Rich's posting so as to learn that what I have read in photo mags and books for decades about shooting postures really was not very good -- at least for long tele photos were camera shake comes into play for a wholly different dimension and hence where stabilizing the camera/lens is of paramount importace, particularly in low light. I know that there are lots of pictures I've taken in low light that would not have been ruined had I learnt/realized this when I started with photography.

mdocod · Nov 4, 2017

maltmoose said:
I appreciate you trying to clarify your position about the 75 vs 75-300 but your original post has some fairly bold claims about the 75 vs 75-300.

Why not provide some evidence that the 75 bests the 75-300 at 150 and 300.

Would be interesting info for everyon.

For comparisons sake, consider the following situation calculated for a shutter speed that seems to be more in-line with what people are suggesting is required to get good results out of this lens:

A: 75-300 @ 300, F8, 1/640, ISO 3200

B: 75 @ 75, f2, 1/640, ISO 200

Both of these configurations will have roughly the same "exposure."

"A" has 16X as much sensor coverage for the intended subject.

"A" gets all 16MP of a typical 4/3 camera. While "B" gets only 1MP to work with after cropping to the same subject.

"B" has a significant lens sharpness advantage here, on the order of 1/2-1/3 the "blur units, as well as ~1/3 the chromatic aberration.

"B" also has 3 "dxo" stops of dynamic range advantage, has 2 "dxo" bits of tonal range advantage, and 12 "dxo" dB S/N advantage over "A."

Do a little 2x2=4, carry the fuz, and I figure in this comparison, "A" will have up-to a ~1.8X resolving power (~35% larger diagonal print size) advantage for an intended subject over "B" in situations where the loss of dynamic range doesn't matter.

In any situation where the limited dynamic range of "A" ruins the photo, B wins.

Peter Del · Nov 4, 2017

mdocod said:
maltmoose said:

I appreciate you trying to clarify your position about the 75 vs 75-300 but your original post has some fairly bold claims about the 75 vs 75-300.

Why not provide some evidence that the 75 bests the 75-300 at 150 and 300.

Would be interesting info for everyon.

Click to expand...

For comparisons sake, consider the following situation calculated for a shutter speed that seems to be more in-line with what people are suggesting is required to get good results out of this lens:

A: 75-300 @ 300, F8, 1/640, ISO 3200

B: 75 @ 75, f2, 1/640, ISO 200

Both of these configurations will have roughly the same "exposure."

"A" has 16X as much sensor coverage for the intended subject.

"A" gets all 16MP of a typical 4/3 camera. While "B" gets only 1MP to work with after cropping to the same subject.

"B" has a significant lens sharpness advantage here, on the order of 1/2-1/3 the "blur units, as well as ~1/3 the chromatic aberration.

"B" also has 3 "dxo" stops of dynamic range advantage, has 2 "dxo" bits of tonal range advantage, and 12 "dxo" dB S/N advantage over "A."

Do a little 2x2=4, carry the fuz, and I figure in this comparison, "A" will have up-to a ~1.8X resolving power (~35% larger diagonal print size) advantage for an intended subject over "B" in situations where the loss of dynamic range doesn't matter.

In any situation where the limited dynamic range of "A" ruins the photo, B wins.

Instead of all this waffle, why not take a couple of pictures of the same subject, to show us the similarity or difference between all of the frame at 300mm and a tiny crop of the 75mm.

Peter Del

mdocod · Nov 4, 2017

shinndigg said:

shinndigg said:
Perhaps you should have been more realistic in your expectations?

I bought the 75-300 when I bought my camera system. Same day. Was part of my "first lenses" kit for getting into this hobby.

The 75-300 fell into the mix as the telephoto solution.

I didn't buy the 75mm till about a year later, which is when I had the revelation through experience, that it can do a lot of the same "work" in real world conditions with difficult lighting, while also providing a better performance on the shorter end anyway.

My review is not based on "expectations." I didn't know what to expect going into this lens. But I have owned it for nearly 2 years, and have taken hundreds of pictures with it, and taken pictures with plenty of other lenses on the same camera as well. My experience, is that it can be challenging to get good photos out of the 75-300mm, and it has left me wanting of a better telephoto lens. I have shared my opinion formed from experience in the form of a review. There was never a problem here with "expectation."

shinndigg · Nov 4, 2017

So maybe the problem is you haven't a clue as to how to use it, based on other responses

john isaacs · Nov 4, 2017

A very good argument for a 200mm f/2.8 prime.

shinndigg · Nov 4, 2017

As someone else pointed out, considering your issues seemingly across the board with "shutter shock" and "pixel blur", the issues you're having are unlikely to be the lenses. The issues likely reside elsewhere, be it a body issue or technique

mdocod · Nov 5, 2017

shinndigg said:
As someone else pointed out, considering your issues seemingly across the board with "shutter shock" and "pixel blur", the issues you're having are unlikely to be the lenses. The issues likely reside elsewhere, be it a body issue or technique

It'll just make you want something better...

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts