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

Anders W said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you tell if you have a bad copy of a lens or not unless you have others to try. (apart from visible physical defects)

I think the biggest issue with the 75-300 at long focal lengths is going to be camera shake if you're shooting hand held. I intentionally used a rather slow shutter speed for the 300mm test (1/250) so that the effect of the OIS would be apparent. When shooting with the 75-300mm I'll likely try and keep the shutter speed at 1/2000 or higher and boost the ISO to 800 or 1600 if I'm shooting handheld and towards the 300mm end. Moderate ISO noise is very easy to get rid of these days.

As your links show, with some skill you can get good handheld images with the 75-300mm. Bracing yourself, holding your breath when pressing the shutter. Pretty much the same techniques a marksman uses.

Jeff Wahaus said:

Anders W said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you tell if you have a bad copy of a lens or not unless you have others to try. (apart from visible physical defects)

Click to expand...

By testing for asymmetric rendering across the frame (a good copy shouldn’t have much of that) and by comparing your results with others (as we did in the thread I linked to).

Jeff Wahaus said:

I think the biggest issue with the 75-300 at long focal lengths is going to be camera shake if you're shooting hand held. I intentionally used a rather slow shutter speed for the 300mm test (1/250) so that the effect of the OIS would be apparent. When shooting with the 75-300mm I'll likely try and keep the shutter speed at 1/2000 or higher and boost the ISO to 800 or 1600 if I'm shooting handheld and towards the 300mm end. Moderate ISO noise is very easy to get rid of these days.

Click to expand...

As long as you have in-body IS and a camera reasonably free from shutter shock, you don’t need to go all that high in terms of shutter speed to manage camera shake with the 75-300 even at 300 mm. I have managed to get really sharp 300 mm shots at 1/10s. That said, I’d usually start a bit higher.

Jeff Wahaus said:

As your links show, with some skill you can get good handheld images with the 75-300mm. Bracing yourself, holding your breath when pressing the shutter. Pretty much the same techniques a marksman uses.

Click to expand...

Sure. Good holding technique helps. But IBIS and/or OIS helps even more. Without either, you’d be hard pressed to get anything really sharp at 300 mm below 1/1000s or so.

Jeff Wahaus said:

. 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.


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.

Click to expand...

The focus speed of the 75-300 for fast BIF is also slow compared to the expensive super tele zoom or prime options.

--
Addicted To Glass
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me... Make the best you can of every day!

Thanks for your effort.

Did you use lens hood on Old 75-300mm? That seems to improve contrast.

Woody S said:

Although almost all prime lenses produce better IQ than zooms

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would agree with that. For example does the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 produce better IQ than the 12-100mm if both lenses are at f/4 and 17mm?

I have the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.2 and it would be interesting to see if it's any better than the 12-100 at the same aperture. I'm pretty sure at f/1.2 it would be a little softer in the corners than the 12-100 at f/4. I know that's not a fair comparison but I would expect it's as good at f/2 as the 12-100mm is at f/4. The real question is though, is it any better at the apertures that overlap?

Woody Meristem said:

, 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.

Click to expand...

More reach is why I acquired the 100-400mm. As the magnification increases, however, getting sharp images becomes more and more difficult. Especially hand held. I don't think the OIS of the 100-400mm is going to work very well at 800mm (with 2x TC) so a tripod at this magnification is pretty much a requirement for good IQ. At 800mm (1600mm FF equiv) the slightest breeze or ground vibration will moderately move the image around even when the camera is on a heavy tripod.

Woody Meristem said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is a pixel peeping thread. At typical viewing magnifications it's hard to notice any difference between the 75-300mm and 100-400mm image quality. The only time the edge sharpness comes into play is if you're planning on printing billboard size images or you need to significantly crop the image. The images I posted of the hand held shots which showed motion blur on the 75-300mm image seem pretty significant at 100% magnification but at typical viewing magnifications, it's hard to tell much difference.

WileEC_ID said:

Jeff Wahaus said:

WileEC_ID said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Really? Soft for a 100% crop? I'm not sure how much better the 300mm f/4 is than this since I don't own one but I would expect only slightly better. At normal viewing magnifications or print sizes to 16x20 the extra resolution is not even noticeable.

It would be pretty nice to be able to crop at 100% and still get tack sharp IQ but I would rather frame the subject as close as possible to the final crop and minimize how much cropping I'm doing in the first place.

So, yea... if you're printing posters or billboards the extra resolution from the 300mm f/4 may be warranted but in most cases it makes no difference.

Yeah - it is soft to my eye - for a 100% crop. It can be tack sharp at 100% - not over-processed, etc. as can happen, and is usually apparent.

I don't have any stump shots to show, but this is an image I took recently as I explore what I can do with the 300mm f/4 IS Pro - with the MC-14. This image is highly cropped and I was probably 250-300 feet away. I would normally not take the shot, because the subject is so small in the frame, but I don't see a Kestrel with a meal every day, so gave it a shot.


While highly cropped, I converted this to 72ppi and inserted the whole crop, so you can check it at 100%. (I had been shooting not into the sky, and didn't check my settings, else I would have lowered the ISO and not used so fast a shutter speed. Also - this was shot S-AF, single shot at a time)

This image is soft - but what I would expect for the distance and with a TC. I do think if it had been a stump and closer, it would have been tack sharp at 100%.

Jeff Wahaus said:

Woody S said:

Although almost all prime lenses produce better IQ than zooms

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would agree with that. For example does the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 produce better IQ than the 12-100mm if both lenses are at f/4 and 17mm?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be buying the 17/1.2 to shoot at F4, I'd be getting it to shoot at 1.2 or perhaps 1.8, for shallow DoF or low light performance.
I don't have the 17/1.2, but I do have the 1.8, love that lens for night time street shooting, or sometimes indoor venues. Love the size as well when I don't want to be packing a big lens.

Jeff Wahaus said:

I have the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.2 and it would be interesting to see if it's any better than the 12-100 at the same aperture. I'm pretty sure at f/1.2 it would be a little softer in the corners than the 12-100 at f/4. I know that's not a fair comparison but I would expect it's as good at f/2 as the 12-100mm is at f/4. The real question is though, is it any better at the apertures that overlap?

Jeff Wahaus said:

, 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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Right now my general outdoor do everything lens in the 12-200, (replacing the 14-150) and I might pack a clip on closeup lens or extension tube.

Jeff Wahaus said:

More reach is why I acquired the 100-400mm. As the magnification increases, however, getting sharp images becomes more and more difficult. Especially hand held. I don't think the OIS of the 100-400mm is going to work very well at 800mm (with 2x TC) so a tripod at this magnification is pretty much a requirement for good IQ. At 800mm (1600mm FF equiv) the slightest breeze or ground vibration will moderately move the image around even when the camera is on a heavy tripod.

Click to expand...

Actually the 100-400 might suit me better, but it wasn't out yet when I bought the 300/f4 for a birding trip that was canceled for various reasons. Perhaps when I start to see the 100-400 hit the used market, I'll sell off the 300 and pick up the zoom. In the mean time I'll make do w what I have.

With my 75-300mm, and a M1 mk2, I find that 1/250 is not adequate for hand holding. Too much coffee, bad shutter release? I find that a light weight monopod makes a huge difference and is easy to carry. With the monopod, I find that 1/250 is usually Ok and 1/500 is very reliable. Thinking about the 100-400, but not sure I would use it enough to justify the cost.

Greg

plantdoc said:

With my 75-300mm, and a M1 mk2, I find that 1/250 is not adequate for hand holding. Too much coffee, bad shutter release? I find that a light weight monopod makes a huge difference and is easy to carry. With the monopod, I find that 1/250 is usually Ok and 1/500 is very reliable. Thinking about the 100-400, but not sure I would use it enough to justify the cost.

Greg

Click to expand...

The general rule would be 1/FF EFL - so with the 75-300 at 300, that is a suggested 1/600 for sharp images. Of course there are plenty of variables to tinker with that - good support being one of them. I rarely shoot at that focal length without support - it's a hassle I'll deal with to get home with sharper images. Of course the guideline doesn't address subject movement.

WileEC_ID said:

Yeah - it is soft to my eye - for a 100% crop. It can be tack sharp at 100% - not over-processed, etc. as can happen, and is usually apparent.

I don't have any stump shots to show, but this is an image I took recently as I explore what I can do with the 300mm f/4 IS Pro - with the MC-14. This image is highly cropped and I was probably 250-300 feet away. I would normally not take the shot, because the subject is so small in the frame, but I don't see a Kestrel with a meal every day, so gave it a shot.


While highly cropped, I converted this to 72ppi and inserted the whole crop, so you can check it at 100%. (I had been shooting not into the sky, and didn't check my settings, else I would have lowered the ISO and not used so fast a shutter speed. Also - this was shot S-AF, single shot at a time)

This image is soft - but what I would expect for the distance and with a TC. I do think if it had been a stump and closer, it would have been tack sharp at 100%.

Click to expand...

That's a nice shot. It looks a little overly sharpened in PP to me when viewing at 100%, the foot and rat look a little strange.

For 420mm the sharpness looks good to me. I think my stump shot would have been a little sharper if I wasn't relying on the OIS and used a fast shutter speed.

If you want a zoom with similar IQ to the M.Zuiko 300/f4 then you'll have to spring for the M.Zuiko 150-400/f4.5. It costs 5 times as much as the 100-400 so I would expect it to be a little sharper. I've read a few comments from people claiming it's sharper than the 300/f4 but I haven't seen any direct comparisons.

-Jeff-

WileEC_ID said:

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.

Click to expand...

I found this very useful. :/