Can anyone do a comparison of 75-300 ii/ 100-400 / 100-300 ?

I'm curious because I own a 75-300 ii, and want to know just "how much" better the 100-400 is. Is it worth all the money when I already have "some lens"? I took couple of shots with my 75-300 couple of days ago, and whilst I got some images pretty good, most of them were out of focus due to slow focusing speed.

While I'm at it, how would you rate these two images? Are they good?

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious because I own a 75-300 ii, and want to know just "how much" better the 100-400 is. Is it worth all the money when I already have "some lens"? I took couple of shots with my 75-300 couple of days ago, and whilst I got some images pretty good, most of them were out of focus due to slow focusing speed.

It seems that 75-300mm and 100-300 have very similar IQ. That being said, this comparison may be useful. Look the video!

http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/10/panasonic-100-400mm-vs-100-300mm/

While I'm at it, how would you rate these two images? Are they good?

Nice images, but common subjects and nothing jaw dropping. Technically, the images look soft. I have not shot much BIF myself, but I am getting much sharper results on static birds than what you got. Try finer scale sharpening (e.g. on LightRoom: Adjust Sharpening/Radius setting ).

See the video to see what kind of IQ you should expect.

To reduce blur, I don't practically use mechanical shutter anymore. Even for BIF, I would try electronic shutter first (I know, rolling shutter is there). Olympus cameras with first electronic curtain are probably fine.

All I can tell you is the 100-400 attains focus much faster than the 100-300.  The quality is better overall and of course, the build of the lens is also much better.  Having said that, I will keep the old lens as well as the new one.  Never know when some deserving individual may come along.

Well, I would say that both pics are too soft and show chromatic aberrations. So in terms of technical value, a 4/10. Now is this due in part to dpreview compression? Probably but not mostly. I would surmise that using a PL 100-400 "pro-level" lens capable of dual IS would be a great advantage to the non-stabilized lens but also a great disadvantage to your pocketbook...

WhiteBeard wrote:

Well, I would say that both pics are too soft and show chromatic aberrations. So in terms of technical value, a 4/10. Now is this due in part to dpreview compression? Probably but not mostly. I would surmise that using a PL 100-400 "pro-level" lens capable of dual IS would be a great advantage to the non-stabilized lens but also a great disadvantage to your pocketbook...

Thanks for criticism. The gulls I posted here I tried to do sharpening / noise reduction, but looking at the raw with zero NR/sharpening the gulls are pretty soft. I wonder if I need to get it sharp "in-camera" for a picture to be good, and only after then enhance it?

The 75-300 / 100-400 / 300 posted here also shows quite a difference between the lenses. 75-300 doesn't seem very good at 300mm, so maybe I should limit myself to using it @ shorter fl if possible (where it's sharper)?

Lassoni wrote:

Thanks for criticism. The gulls I posted here I tried to do sharpening / noise reduction, but looking at the raw with zero NR/sharpening the gulls are pretty soft. I wonder if I need to get it sharp "in-camera" for a picture to be good, and only after then enhance it?

I actually the images may have been fine, but the noise reduction/sharpening may be the problem. Sharpening with "large brush" (radius in Lightroom) actually destroys fine detail. The sharpening artifacts around the birds suggest this. So, you need to decide if you want the image to look as sharp as possible on screen (typically 1-2Mpix) or maximize the fine detail sharpness (16MPix). It is only possible to add limited amount of sharpness. The point 6 in my list below is crucial. At this point, the selected radius/"brush size" largely depends on how sharp the image was in the first place.

I am no expert, but my noise reduction procedure in Lightroom is as follows,

1. Rough adjustment with exposure parameters
2. check enable "remove chromatic aberration"
3. Put view to 1:1 or 1:2, and select a critical location for Detailed zoom.
4. Put NR, Sharpening parameters to 0
5. Set Sharpening/Amount to max
6. Adjust 'radius' depending how sharp the image is. The sharper the image, the sharper the result will look at low 'radius'. I do not worry about the noise at this point.
7. Fine tune the Sharpening/Detail parameter
8. Reduce Sharpening/Amount according to taste. The smaller the radius, the more NR can be applied.
9. Change the masking parameter according to taste
10. Select Noise reduction/color, increase it so that all the color noise is eliminated
11. Carefully apply luminance noise reduction. Keep it as low as possible!
12. Re-adjust some of the parameters.

Lassoni wrote:

I'm curious because I own a 75-300 ii, and want to know just "how much" better the 100-400 is. Is it worth all the money when I already have "some lens"? I took couple of shots with my 75-300 couple of days ago, and whilst I got some images pretty good, most of them were out of focus due to slow focusing speed.

While I'm at it, how would you rate these two images? Are they good?

I'm not a bird person.  What kind of birds are those?

FWIW,  I've been thinking about buying a used 100-300 to take on an Alaska land tour ocean cruise holiday.    Offered at $250 USD.

Good luck on your lens decision.   Report back your choice.

Lena