75-300 is horrible

HowdC wrote:

I found the 75-300mm F/4.8-6.7 II soft at 300mm & used AF focus adjust that’s provided on the Olympus E-M1 MKII.

When I first got the lens I checked the focus in manual mode using a tripod targeting at different distances. Close too it was ok but above 280mm it became unsharp.

Fortunately with the E-M1 Mark II its possible to adjust for this deficiency.

AF Focus Adjust found at menu * A3 - 4

I had to adjust mine to +2 for it to be very sharp at 300mm.

You do know that the adjustment is only applied to CAF.  In SAF it has zero effect.

Also I use the largest jpeg image possible which is LSF mode (5184 x 3888) pixels when not using RAW.

This critter refused to move round the tree into the sunshine but nevertheless the feather detail is ok even in the shade.

Mark Ransom wrote:

When I see results like yours, I wonder what's wrong with my 75-300? My experience is more similar to the OP's.

Does this lens have more sample-to-sample variance than most others?

I think that it does.  Threads like this one are much more common for the 75-300mm than, say, for the Panasonic 100-300mm.

I certainly had a bad copy of a 75-300mm which, after a lot of grief, I finally put on a tripod and tested very thorough at a bird reserve.  It was excellent up to 200mm but very poor indeed between 250-300mm.  Many other owners have posted very sharp images from the longer end, so I think that this lens does have a lot of sample variation.

BWfoto wrote:

I really have come to despise this lens. Especially zoomed out where I always shoot it. Took these today and the lens is so soft. I will fix that in a couple weeks when I drive to Seattle I will pick the 300 f4 up while there .

I don't think you will see much improvement in your images.

These two shots where from today and I have cropped in post. Also adjusted the shadows and color saturation. Raw file edited in IPad Pro Lightroom

You need enough light.

I had the Pana 45-200mm, the Pana 45-150mm, and I still have the Oly 40-150mm f/4-5.6. I just bought the Oly 75-300mm. Wide open (f/6.7) at 300mm it is much sharper than my 45-200mm Panasonic was, and it is at least as good or better than the other f/4-5.6 telezooms I have tried.

I bought the lens because I wanted a long one (much longer than the small 35-100mm I was using for non-nature photography in the last two years), and a small one, and this is currently the only long tele that is "small" by some standards. (My next biggest lenses that I regularly use are the tiny 35-100mm and the 9-18mm, both of which are much much smaller. In comparison to those lenses this lens is huge.)

I was trying to be very "realistic" about the potential of the lens (I paid 370 euros for it new), and managed to be positively surprised. Of course, it is not as sharp as a sharp (short) prime or an expensive tele, but it is quite good (given enough light.)

This is a spotted dove I photographed in Jakarta one week a ago. I like the result. This is very close to the OOC JPEG from GX85. The corrections with SilkyPix is mostly just white balance (and crop: I shot it first at 16:9 aspect ratio, missing the tail of the bird.)

Chris R-UK wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

When I see results like yours, I wonder what's wrong with my 75-300? My experience is more similar to the OP's.

Does this lens have more sample-to-sample variance than most others?

I think that it does. Threads like this one are much more common for the 75-300mm than, say, for the Panasonic 100-300mm.

I think that most 75-300mm users use Olympus, which means IBIS-only. IBIS loses it's efficiency at such very long focal lengths. At very long focal lengths, there are all kinds of unpredictable micro-vibrations. These can be related to specific camera bodies as well (not to mention the effect of camera grips).

Panasonic 100-300mm was also complained to be soft at 200-300mm. Then a tripod mount came out (out: http://www.roesch-feinmechanik.de/29701.html) and people started getting better results, even if they were using a tripod before! I think the 100-400mm lens fits so tight to the bayonette, because this way the lens and the camera won't have separate vibrations (this would be tricky to fix with IS).

When I got my G7, I started shooting with electronic shutter with my 100-300mm and was became pretty happy with the lens (unfortunately I don't have that lens anymore).

In conclusion, at 300mm focal length (equivalent of 600mm), many other factors than lens optics can make the photos soft.

Good point, thank you Phocal for making that clear.

I had the same experience, and I sold it(very cheaply, as I didn't want to rip anyone off).

A bit after, I checked it out at DX0mark, and I found all the criticism is valid. Buy another lense, either heavier, or shorter focals to achieve more sharpness.

(anyone discussing this lens, should check out this sharpness diagram. 'Sharpness: 5' (out of20)

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75-300mm-48-67-mounted-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---Measurements__1136

I tested my 75-300mm very thoroughly both on a tripod and hand held, electronic shutter and mechanical shutter and different focal lengths.  The image quality was excellent up to 200mm but deteriorated rapidly over 250mm.  At 300mm it was simply unacceptable.

I shot for three years with a Panasonic 100-300mm Mk1 on a GH2 and that was capable of producing extremely sharp images at 300mm.  The only problem was that it wasn't usable for BIF once because it didn't support AF-C at shooting rates above about 2.5 fps.  I now wish that I had kept it for single shot photography only

As I already showed in my earlier reply I too have wonderfully sharp pics and blurry ones, and the blurry ones are due to user error: shutter speed too low, no anti-shock used, panning not in sync with subject (in case it is moving), motion blur, etc.

Note that the lens only needs to give you one razor-sharp image to know it's not likely the lens that is at fault for the blurry images.

BWfoto wrote:

I really have come to despise this lens. Especially zoomed out where I always shoot it. Took these today and the lens is so soft. I will fix that in a couple weeks when I drive to Seattle I will pick the 300 f4 up while there . These two shots where from today and I have cropped in post. Also adjusted the shadows and color saturation. Raw file edited in IPad Pro Lightroom

I took a look at your two images and found that there was a lot of noise.  Also, the golden eagle did have some CA also.  I have taken both images and downloaded them and treated them with Topaz Denoise AI, and the look is entirely different.  If I had access to the originals, I suppose the fix could even be better, especially if they were taken in RAW.  And if RAW, I would have tried DxO Prime Noise Removal.

I also happen to have the Olympus EM1ii and the 75-300mm lens, and I also lust after the 300mm f4 lens.  But the 75-300mm images can be improved.  But in this case, there was considerable noise to contend with.

I also have a Sony A7iii, and if I were to use equivalent settings, there would have been less noise.  But with a m4/3 camera, noise is something we have to deal with.  A 300mm f4 with the same settings would also had the noise too.