Really not bad

rsf3127 wrote:

After some frustration with out of focus birds in a busy environment, I realised that I was using the nine central focus points and this is apparently too much for my camera to calculate.

I switched to only the central AF point and S-AF and solved the problem. Since then, every missed shot is to blame on me or E-M10II, but not the lens.

I don’t dispute that your specific lens might work well, I just wanted to point out that sometimes, it really is the lens. In my case, I am pretty much certain that my copy of the 300mm is to blame, despite the occasional sharp shots. I will be able to confirm once I get it repaired or replaced.

spider-mario wrote:

rsf3127 wrote:

After some frustration with out of focus birds in a busy environment, I realised that I was using the nine central focus points and this is apparently too much for my camera to calculate.

I switched to only the central AF point and S-AF and solved the problem. Since then, every missed shot is to blame on me or E-M10II, but not the lens.

I don’t dispute that your specific lens might work well, I just wanted to point out that sometimes, it really is the lens.

Undoubtedly. But more rare than appears to be commonly believed, IMO.

However, with long telephoto lenses, very careful attention to technique is extremely important.

Check your lens on a rigid, damped tripod ...

In my case, I am pretty much certain that my copy of the 300mm is to blame, despite the occasional sharp shots. I will be able to confirm once I get it repaired or replaced.

My copy of the 75-300 MkII is very good at 300mm wide open (I don't expect it to compare with the 300 Pro ... ) - better than my FTs 50-200 MkI. However, only 1 or 2 out of 3 shots with it at 300mm are sharp. That's nothing to do with the lens or camera (E-M1 MkII), it's because I am over 70 y.o., have significant health problems, and my technique and stability are no longer what they were even 5 years ago.

All the best with solving your problem.

I carry this lens + 9-18 + 20 + 12-40 pro + charger + two batteries + E-M10II + three memory cards in a Manfrotto 15x10 cm bag.

This is why I bought it.

I can hike all day and arrive at the hotel with my lumbar spine still straight. And wake up the next day and repeat it. There are compromises but I really do not care.

Sharp enough

Sandhill crane at Sandy Ridge Reservation in North Ridgeville, OH taken in 2017

Noise reduced using Neat Image and processed in PS Elements.

I found that it took quite a bit of practice to get good images with the Oly 75-300 mm lens. I tend to shoot at f/8 unless the light is really good and will use up to ISO 1600 to help get a faster shutter speed. The lens can capture some very nice images but has it's limitations. However, for it's price, there aren't many options.

I find myself thinking about eventually springing for a Oly 40-150 Pro with one of the Oly teleconverters, but the going price, even used is still a bit pricey for my budget!

This and the Panny 100-300 are my favorite m43 telephotos, and I think both produce similar results.

I especially like having 75 mm, and this lens' weight.

If I could have only one m43 telephoto it would be the 75-300.

As with any lens, technique is more important than FL.

Some people vastly overstate how hard it is to get sharp images at 300mm.

The first time I used my Panny 100-400mm I could reliably get sharp images at  400mm with low shutter speeds.

On the other hand I gave up using the Oly 75-300mm beyond 250mm as my pictures were always soft, past that focal length, even on bright sunny days, shooting static subjects with high shutter speeds.

Based on past threads I am not the only person who instantaneously transformed into a competent long lens user 'after ditching the 75-300mm for the 100-400mm

I doubt those people will contribute to the thread as they know they will just be shouted down by the 75-300mm users who are unable to accept that duds exist.

I'm certain that duds exist.

I'm equally certain that technique becomes more and more important as FL increases.

People who think they might have scored a dud lens have to mount it on a rigid, damped tripod and carry out some basic testing at up to at least 15-20 metres to the target, using a shutter delay of 2-4 seconds. That rules out most errors of technique.

Every shot that's not sharp with my 75-300 MkII has been solely my fault. The lens is sharp, but I'm not as sharp as I used to be ... .

Henry Richardson wrote:

Donzac wrote:

Some people vastly overstate how hard it is to get sharp images at 300mm.

The first time I used my Panny 100-400mm I could reliably get sharp images at 400mm with low shutter speeds.

On the other

Doesn't the 100-400mm have OIS? That may explain one reason why you can do better with it. The 75-300mm has no OIS so it depends on IBIS. The IBIS works pretty well, but at 300mm it probably is not as good as the OIS in the 100-400mm.

You are effectively suggesting that for me shooting handheld the 100-400mm has a 6-7 stop advantage over the 75-300mm.

I shot a lot photos at around1/2000 with the 75-300mm at 300mm and never got a single sharp photo. On the other hand  just about every photo I have taken  with a shutter speed of about1/50 using the long end of the Panny lens has been sharp.

JaKing wrote:

I'm certain that duds exist.

I'm equally certain that technique becomes more and more important as FL increases.

People who think they might have scored a dud lens have to mount it on a rigid, damped tripod and carry out some basic testing at up to at least 15-20 metres to the target, using a shutter delay of 2-4 seconds. That rules out most errors of technique.

Every shot that's not sharp with my 75-300 MkII has been solely my fault. The lens is sharp, but I'm not as sharp as I used to be ... .

I agree people should test a lens's sharpness using a tripod to eliminate the possibility of user error. I used that method to test my 75-300mm and as I expected it failed miserably at 300mm.

,

Donzac wrote:

JaKing wrote:

I'm certain that duds exist.

I'm equally certain that technique becomes more and more important as FL increases.

People who think they might have scored a dud lens have to mount it on a rigid, damped tripod and carry out some basic testing at up to at least 15-20 metres to the target, using a shutter delay of 2-4 seconds. That rules out most errors of technique.

Every shot that's not sharp with my 75-300 MkII has been solely my fault. The lens is sharp, but I'm not as sharp as I used to be ... .

I agree people should test a lens's sharpness using a tripod to eliminate the possibility of user error. I used that method to test my 75-300mm and as I expected it failed miserably at 300mm.

,

Fair enough.

My continuing responses are meant to stress to the (many?) who state that their {insert brand here} lens is soft over 200mm.

Many cannot hold a 150-200mm lens well enough freehand, so it's no surprise that they cannot achieve acceptably sharp results from any lens with an extremely narrow angle of view/high magnification ...

Technique is important, and that cannot be stressed enough.

Full resolution

JaKing wrote:

Many cannot hold a 150-200mm lens well enough freehand, so it's no surprise that they cannot achieve acceptably sharp results from any lens with an extremely narrow angle of view/high magnification ...

Technique is important, and that cannot be stressed enough.

Very true, I've had lenses above 200mm on aps.c that only rarely did the job well. I'd like to spend more money on a great long lens, but I don't shoot big that often so don't want to put my money on a shelf.

I managed to get a 4thirds ZD70-300 for about $150 and it's plenty good, a pinch faster at the long end and can do 1:2 closeups via manual focus. An no phase-detect pixels needed, just an adapter! Mighty bulky though, support is very helpful.

500 meters away. Windy weather. AF-c + Tr. Heavily cropped.

Sold this one to the car owner, hand held probably standing 100 yards away. Printed 13X19 looks good under a magnifying glass.

Most people don't think of using a long FL for landscapes but vast vistas look alike. Sometimes you find a nice composition in a vista.

Hard to find clean air on any day in the Palouse. Sky could be cleaned up. Not the fault of the lens. If I go back this year I'll use a tripod and HRM. Probably you get the idea from these.  Lens is good for more uses than birding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSQkd4xKm4