Panny 100-300 and Oly 750-300 at full length.

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has come on and said here's a really bad shot which proves these lenses are unusable at 300mm

Now, now...why would you possibly want to have complainers provide proof? It would only expose the real source of the complaint.

I am not at all surprised, and I do appreciate this thread and the fine examples debunking such complaints.

It is easier to complain than to work at mastering the technique to produce results such as those displayed here. Okay, now I have to go back to work.

I am headed to Africa next May, thank you very much for sharing these fine examples of the capabilities of the lens.

Nice. I thought that was an artifact in your moon image, then I realized it was a photobomb by Saturn!

daddyo wrote:

I remember seeing these images before -- it's a pleasure to see them again. I love the first shot especially -- excellent job, and a perfect example.

I also remember that you commented on the cheetah. I was so pleased, give your skills as a photographer. Awesome. Thanks.

Fri13 wrote:

In those temperatures and distances you wouldn't really benefitten much from a sharper optics as heatwaves anyways blurs everything.

The problem is that too often people blame optics while there simply is too much air mass between camera and a subject and it is big limiter when long telephoto objectives can be used.

Just to share my experience, not to challenge. Of course, there is thermal degradation. But these are not cherry-picked examples. I have NEVER experienced serious thermal degradation on our safari trips. I don't know exactly why. My guess is on a reasonably sized target (cheetah, for example) that fills the frame reasonably, you just get rather minimal degradation, compared to, say, shooting down the railroad tracks at some nebulous target. It might be dry air, too, though our last safari was two weeks long. Must have been moist PART of the time. On other trips (New Zealand) I do certainly notice haze at a distance, but then still no distortion. I personally think the problem is easy to demonstrate, but less important in practice, at least for what I shoot. Whether showing problems is beyond the sharpness of the 75-300, I just don't know. Anyway, it's not me blaming the optics!

A friend of my who went on safari before we did said it was a life-changing experience. Truly it was for us. We were "hight" for months afterward. Of course, that depends on your interests and personality. But, I expect you will REALLY enjoy it.

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has come on and said here's a really bad shot which proves these lenses are unusable at 300mm

I do think you should have insisted on 'at full aperture' - most lenses are OK when stopped down a bit. (As you know!)  I only buy lenses for use at full aperture, otherwise why buy them?

I'm still v happy with my ancient 45-200 and am sitting on the fence re a 300; was waiting for the Oly 300 to see what that is like. But now I'll have to wait for the Panny 100-400! Then please can we all go through this again?!

Mike

Michael J Davis wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has come on and said here's a really bad shot which proves these lenses are unusable at 300mm

I do think you should have insisted on 'at full aperture' - most lenses are OK when stopped down a bit. (As you know!) I only buy lenses for use at full aperture, otherwise why buy them?

I'm still v happy with my ancient 45-200 and am sitting on the fence re a 300; was waiting for the Oly 300 to see what that is like. But now I'll have to wait for the Panny 100-400! Then please can we all go through this again?!

Mike

Yes...

"it is soft at the long end especially when the light is low and my shutter speed is slow."

Wow! Someone actually said that; was it meant as a joke? It's amazing that companies have designed glass that actually gets softer as the lighting changes... the marvels of technology.

Michael J Davis wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has come on and said here's a really bad shot which proves these lenses are unusable at 300mm

I do think you should have insisted on 'at full aperture' - most lenses are OK when stopped down a bit. (As you know!) I only buy lenses for use at full aperture, otherwise why buy them?

I'm still v happy with my ancient 45-200 and am sitting on the fence re a 300; was waiting for the Oly 300 to see what that is like. But now I'll have to wait for the Panny 100-400! Then please can we all go through this again?!

Mike

I still have a 45-200mm as well, and on the whole I have been pretty pleased with it. Mine is very sharp up to 150mm and still pretty darn good at 200mm (especially stopped down a tad). My biggest issue with it is light falloff and the fact that it's diameter takes up more room than I'd like in my m4/3 shoulder bag.

I also have a Nikon 300mm f/4 that doesn't get much use since my Nikon gear sits on the shelf most of the time. Since I shoot 95% of my photos with an E-M5 these days, I'm thinking about selling that and replacing the 45-200mm with an Oly 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R for daily carry stuff (lighter and smaller than the 45-200mm) and the 75-300mm for wildlife. I'm also tempted to get the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro with the teleconverter, but it would probably sit at home almost as often as my Nikon gear.

Sean

I got some really nice results from this lens. But at the same time handholding 300mm isn't all that easy...

The E-M5 IBIS often saved the day!

300mm f/6.7 1/40s

I really prefer situations with more light. A shot like the following is easy enough...

300mm f/8 1/750s

If you didn't know yet, I like frogs (this one was in our back yard).

300mm f/8 1/350s

It gets more difficult as heat-induced turbulence increases and you have long distances:

300mm f/8 1/400s

Here it was so bad that no shot came out sharp despite plenty of light and fast shutter speed:

300mm f/8 1/640s

The bad reputation is to a large extent a consequence of heat-induced turbulence over long distances. It's not a lens problem. It's not a hand-holding problem. There is no solution for this at all.

Paul De Bra wrote:

I got some really nice results from this lens. But at the same time handholding 300mm isn't all that easy...

The E-M5 IBIS often saved the day!

300mm f/6.7 1/40s

I really prefer situations with more light. A shot like the following is easy enough...

300mm f/8 1/750s

If you didn't know yet, I like frogs (this one was in our back yard).

300mm f/8 1/350s

It gets more difficult as heat-induced turbulence increases and you have long distances:

300mm f/8 1/400s

Here it was so bad that no shot came out sharp despite plenty of light and fast shutter speed:

300mm f/8 1/640s

The bad reputation is to a large extent a consequence of heat-induced turbulence over long distances. It's not a lens problem. It's not a hand-holding problem. There is no solution for this at all.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this

Lieslayer wrote:

No doubt...

Excellent!!

Mike

It works just fine for people/action shots as well (when i don't mess up).

I find they both shine wide open at the full focal length:

75-300:

100-300:

Would I like longer and faster - sure - who wouldn't - but the effective field of view and the small size and low weight allow me shots that I just couldn't get with a bigger rig.

Regards,

Kurt

khoss wrote:

I find they both shine wide open at the full focal length:

75-300:

100-300:

Would I like longer and faster - sure - who wouldn't - but the effective field of view and the small size and low weight allow me shots that I just couldn't get with a bigger rig.

Regards,

Kurt

I find that I'm able to shoot the P100-300 at full length with my E-M5II, but needed to pull it back to 286 with my GX7 to retain the sharpness. Were both of your pics done with the M5II?