75-300 ii, Is this what I should expect?

Hi All,

I was looking for a budget zoom lens that is longer than 150mm and has a good quality (at least the same as 14-150 ii)

and since all reviews I read are saying that 75-300 ii is on bar with 100-300 ii and there is no major difference in IQ, I chose to go with the budget and size advantage.

The IQ I'm getting from this lens is not what I was expecting (Maybe my expectation was high)

So I just want to confirm that this is what I should expect from this lens when you look 1:1.

here are examples of what I consider "bad" shots

Other mages are not bad and I consider them "good"

appreciate your input.

This lens is very good from 75 to 200, fair between 200-250, and soft from 254 onward.

Think of it as a 75 to 254 and anything longer is just a bonus.

This lens and the Panasonic 100-300 seem to vary greatly copy to copy.  The copy of this lens I had was much better than what you are showing here.

I'm also struggling to get clean, non-blurry shot. And thanks to tips from this forum, I've learned to shoot at higher shutter speed while keeping ISO below 1600.

Still not happy with my pics. Learning through more practice.

It's still quite awful, so you're not alone

It's actually pretty simple -- if these are hand held shots, then yes, this is what you can expect.

If not, why not put the camera on a decent tripod, use a cable release or remote release, shoot a static subject, and see if the results are sharp. If the shots are sharp, you lens is good and your technique is faulty, if your shots are soft, you've got a problem.

I have this lens, and get very good, sharp images with it -- I do use a tripod very often.

Not being funny, but looks like your hand holding technique sucks a bit.  Are you reminding yourself that this lens is pretty much a 600mm in terms of full frame? Try hand holding a 600mm on a Nikon D800 and 'casually' shooting .... it's a new ball game, you have to knuckle down, steady up, use a tripod when you can otherwise really pay attention to the fact you are shooting so long.

Joe Snow wrote:

scottyinfrisco wrote:

This lens and the Panasonic 100-300 seem to vary greatly copy to copy. The copy of this lens I had was much better than what you are showing here.

would you please post an example OOC?

All hand held SOOC

You have not stated anything about your camera or settings or technique. All of which can and will affect your results greatly.

With practice and fine tuning camera settings, the sharpness of images I got from my 75-300 mk2 improved dramatically. It is now even quite sharp at the 300 end!

Give us more info to allow us to advise.

PS. Turning on the electronic shutter is an important first step.

Higher shutter speeds certainly help, especially when shooting from a moving, bouncing boat, as was the case here. Still, when viewed original size, a crewmember is clearly visible through the windows of the bridge. The distant (10+ miles away) windmills are suffering from atmospheric distortion.

The lens does take some effort to get right and is , after all, like handholding a 600mm at the long end. I've had mine since May and I'm still trying to remind myself that I need to keep the crosshairs on target and squeeze the shutter release like I would a rifle shot If I want detail when zoomed in. I think the stabilization cuts both ways sometimes in that, sure, it helps stabilize the image, but it also tends to hide how sloppy I am holding the camera. Disable it and crack off a few hand held shots. You'll see how bad you'd be if you were shooting an old Nikkormat film camera with a 600mm lens hanging off the front. It's eye opening and an easy barometer from which to compare.

This is what I expect.

Can you post those so they could be viewed original size for comparison?

That is a pretty cool shot of the Wally McCarthy.  Love it.

Oly

Olyinaz wrote:

That is a pretty cool shot of the Wally McCarthy. Love it.

Oly

That was taken in October. It was outbound heading northeast in the Saginaw River Shipping Channel into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. It's an impressive ship at 1000 feet long.