I bought myself an Olympus 75-300 II

At first glance? This lens looks like the cheaper Olympus 45-150, and at a distance you would be hard pressed to tell the two apart. That's were it digresses, the Olympus 75-300 is much more sturdy. The zoom mechanism doesn't rattle or wobble if anything it feels a bit stiff. Zoom creep is a non-issue with this lens as a result. What does one do when they buy a 600mm lens? Take a 6x4 shot of the moon of course.

This is a much improved lens in comparison to the plastic fantastic 40-150, it' still plastic but it feels more solid, and the zoom mechanism is far superior to the 40-150 in every possible way, it's only a passing similarity that would say they had anything in common. It weighs about 5 times as much and though only a couple of inches taller you can tell whel you pick it up the build quality feels excellent.

It's not perfect but for a cheap super-telephoto lens I can't complain much. It lacks contrast and punch on the 300mm lens where this was shot, turning up the clarity and contrast helps somewhat in fixing that, but for $300 I can't really complain too loudly.

It's small, and though for typical Olympus behavior it doesn't come with a lens hood or pouch you can get a 58mm lens hood off of most places online for just a matter of $2.50 of any description you like. I went for one of these plain metal lens hoods that are a bit shorter than the official one and more suited to a lens unlike the official one which is from the Four Thirds 70-300. It's ribbed to catch stray light and its the right shape for a telephoto lens as apposed to a petal lens hood which is better suited for wide angle lenses to minimise visible vignetting from your hood on wide angles. There you go... Free tip for the day if you see a petal hood on a telephoto lens slap them for me.

jor23 wrote:

Where can one get it for 300?

used?

Lightly used, off Gumtree... in Australia. The lens is immaculate. Even cheaper if you're talking USD which is close to $225 by today's rate. I'd been hunting around on ebay for a while and saw a Panasonic 100-300 which went for stupid money second hand at $460, and decided I wanted nothing of it. I found this copy with a nice middle aged lady who was incredibly friendly.

Bear in mind this is the first time I've shot with this lens so better results will be yet to come. I don't like to give an initial judgement on a lens because I almost always will underrate a lens until I am more familiar with it and realise that I was wrong. Either that or it just joins a long list of lenses I've purchased and then resold.

But... for the price and the convenience, for it not being much bigger than the 40-150 anyway and for a lens you can just put in your bag unlike the Olympus 300mm F/4 it is a very useful lens.

I have no doubt the 300mm F/4 is sharper at 300mm but whose counting the weight and cost? This is a great lens that out performs most other cheap zooms up to 150mm and does well beyond that also but hey whose counting blur factors? My 45-175 might be resigned to the sale list at 175 only being sharper in the centre. Especially if I buy the upcoming Panasonic 12-60 F/2.8-4

vs the Olympus 75-300 at 150 which is sharper across the frame

BUT when I fully test a lens I like to do it in a real world environment and see how useful a lens is to ME. So far I think this lens is even better than what I thought it was.

I actually have a Mk1 and Mk2 copy (I'll be selling the Mk1 copy) -- they are both very sharp.

Here just one example:

It's definitely softer on the long end but still useful, and that's the thing. You can't really get trapped by crappy cheap super-telephoto lenses such as the Sigma 70-300 for APS-C. The extra zoom length is what got me this far. 300mm is not enough to begin with, 600mm is just barely enough to be useful for things you can't walk to.

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

At first glance? This lens looks like the cheaper Olympus 45-150, and at a distance you would be hard pressed to tell the two apart. That's were it digresses, the Olympus 75-300 is much more sturdy. The zoom mechanism doesn't rattle or wobble if anything it feels a bit stiff. Zoom creep is a non-issue with this lens as a result. What does one do when they buy a 600mm lens? Take a 6x4 shot of the moon of course.

This is a much improved lens in comparison to the plastic fantastic 40-150, it' still plastic but it feels more solid, and the zoom mechanism is far superior to the 40-150 in every possible way, it's only a passing similarity that would say they had anything in common. It weighs about 5 times as much and though only a couple of inches taller you can tell whel you pick it up the build quality feels excellent.

It's not perfect but for a cheap super-telephoto lens I can't complain much. It lacks contrast and punch on the 300mm lens where this was shot, turning up the clarity and contrast helps somewhat in fixing that, but for $300 I can't really complain too loudly.

It's small, and though for typical Olympus behavior it doesn't come with a lens hood or pouch you can get a 58mm lens hood off of most places online for just a matter of $2.50 of any description you like. I went for one of these plain metal lens hoods that are a bit shorter than the official one and more suited to a lens unlike the official one which is from the Four Thirds 70-300. It's ribbed to catch stray light and its the right shape for a telephoto lens as apposed to a petal lens hood which is better suited for wide angle lenses to minimise visible vignetting from your hood on wide angles. There you go... Free tip for the day if you see a petal hood on a telephoto lens slap them for me

I bough this lens new a few weeks ago. I agree that there is not much to complain about, it was better than I expected, especially for video (thanks to GX85's IBIS and Panasonic's ex tele conv function). I expect OS would be better at longer focal lengths though. I bought this instead of the Pana 100-300 because it's 100g lighter than the 100-300.

I suppose the one thing worthy of complaint is the new price, which is high in comparison to similar lenses such as Canon's 55-250 IS, which is sharper, cheaper, and has IS.

Moon shot (last night)

I bought this new, and it is my favorite whale shooting lens. Now have the Panny 100-400, t it a bit too much, and the 75-300 ii us still my go-to lens for this work.  I have used this is Alaska, Hawaii, Antarctica, Oregon Coast, San Juans, and Monterey, where I am now for the ACS conference.  Going out again tomorrow, before heading back home.  I have nothing but praise for this.  I also have the Panny 100-300, but this is the best of the lot.

I got mine refurbished from Olympus' Outlet Store for $399. This was a few years ago when they ere selling for $549 brand new.

For the price, it is a really great lens, and extremely nice to have when you need long telephoto. Of course, it is no match for a 300mm f/4.0 PRO lens or the outstanding PanaLeica 100-400mm lens, but those lenses cost between four and six times more.

I think you will love it, and you got it so cheaply that you could probably use it for a few years, and then sell it for exactly what you paid for it. Or maybe a little more!

That's precisely what I like to do, buy and turn over lenses. I'm quite impressed I think I will be selling my 45-175. I'm not expecting it to outperform the 100-400 but for its small size and portability its another lens you can put in your bag and forget about until you need it.

Given that I don't shoot telephoto often, it's more than plenty for someone such as myself and I can reinvest in some more wide angle lenses that I use more regularly. Or perhaps the weather sealed 12-60 Panasonic lens will do for now as I don't have one of those weather sealed things yet.

My honest opinion with the 75-300 is that it is as good as just about any other lens between 75-150, and I've owned both the 45-175 Panasonic lens and Olympus 40-150. It's better than both of those lenses up to 150. On the long end the Panasonic 100-400 is going to be better but not by enough for me to consider paying to use that lens.

rube39 wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

My honest opinion with the 75-300 is that it is as good as just about any other lens between 75-150, and I've owned both the 45-175 Panasonic lens and Olympus 40-150. It's better than both of those lenses up to 150. On the long end the Panasonic 100-400 is going to be better but not by enough for me to consider paying to use that lens.

Thank you very much for such a prompt and detailed response. For under 1/3 of the price, I might just go with the Oly.

If your decision is anything like mine that you just want a 75-300 lens to have the reach when you need it it's a good investment. As you can see by shot of that kangaroo this lens is more than sharp enough to produce high quality prints. The biggest downside is that you might not always be able to use it. At F/6.7 it is a lens you use in daylight or with a tripod, and nothing much else in between.

If you have to ask its best to try to it out. The 100-400 is not that much improved in terms of IQ that it bothers me to the cost of that lens. The Olympus 300mm F/4 is simply beyond what I consider reasonable to pay for a lens all together, but if you need the extra speed that's your only choice right now. The extra reach well?

800 is more than 600 but how much more, it's a bit like taking a shot at 400 or 600, and then going and giving yourself another 200. I find 600mm to be sufficient but I'm only really interested in it for mostly stationary wildlife which is easy to shoot. Most of that isn't within ear shot of being 800mm out of my reach so it doesn't bother me. It may bother you.

The bigger question comes down to whether you think that at F/6.7 and 1/300th of a second hand held, whether you think you can get enough light in your frame or not, if not there is the Panasonic 100-300, but F/5.6 is not much better than F/6.7 to be honest in terms of real world factors. I've attached another shot.

If you do need more speed its a two edged sword, is F/4 really enough depth of field? At 600mm that's pretty much paper thin depth of field focusing on one person, and not on the other side of a 100 yard field either. I can't imagine that's enough anyway and so you have to stop down. How much is your own guess.

Really your best off asking someone who shoots that stuff regularly if you want further opinion such as OzRay via PM or whatever. I'm not a sports photographer by any means.