75-300 is horrible

Terrible Photographer wrote:

Totally, the 75-300 Oly is a disaster. Honestly I can’t believe they even approved its release based on its slow 6.3 aperture in combination with its unacceptable image quality.

worst part is when it was released, it was something like $900......

Show images you have taken with this lens at a high file size. Back up your words.

I have been reading the other posts with speculation that there was a problem with technique or some other reason that the images were not as good as expected.  From what I see, there was no deficiency in technique.  There was not a problem with camera shake nor a problem with focus.  The main issue I see is noise, plus a little CA in the bald eagle image which was correctable.

If this had been taken with the 300mm f4, the f4 aperture would have allowed more light for the image and likely would have solved the noise problem.  The 75-300mm lens had noise because the light situation was not optimal and it is a slower lens.  Probably overcast that day.

I really don't think the OP was doing anything wrong.

BWfoto wrote:

When I pick up the 300mm f4 I will go back out and shoot the eagles again. It will be interesting to see the difference. I absolutely love what my 75mm f1.8 gives me IQ wise and the reviews I see of the 300mm f4 are saying it is even sharper.

Could you possibly post the otiginal RAW images.  One easy way to do this is to use www.wetransfer.com and have it email the link back to yourself,  Then paste the returned link into a reply.  Wetransfer keeps the files for 7 days and then purges them.  Allows up to 2GB to be sent free,

I would like to see what DxO Prime can do with these images.

NCV wrote:

The fact that some people manage to get lovely sharp pictures with this lens tells me that most of the poor results are a user error problem.

Exactly. I originally owned the 100-300 V1 and thought there was no way I could shoot birds in flight, so I switched to the 75-300 and it was about the same. I got pretty poor results….but sometimes got a very sharp one. The lens is as good as the best image from that lens; the rest is user error. You have to be astute in handholding, and at selection of ISO, aperture, and SS, as well as of exposure. I am still not. But I am much better than when I first tried birds. The other way user error shows up is that if I shoot several shots, they vary in IQ. That is not the lens.

My Panasonic 100-300 gives me superb results when I am careful with my technique.

The 100-300 v2 as I understand it used with a Panasonic body would have better stabilization. But, my new EM-1 II is much better at focusing and IBIS than my old EM-1 I.

It needs a lot of light. In bright light it can produce an image surprisingly close to my 40-150PRO. For motorsports on sunny days, its a good lens.

For low contrast, mediocre light outdoors in the Pacific Northwest on gloomy/rainy days in winter - no. Not good for that.

You will be pleasantly surprised when you can shoot f/4 vs. f/6.7 at the same FL on a gloomy day. It will enable you to shoot a faster shutter speed/lower ISO in our poor PNW light. Makes a huge difference for what you are doing.

The speed of the lens makes all the difference.

F/4 is pretty sweet on MFT I find when I use the 1.4X on the 40-150PRO, but I have to say for gloomy/rainy days f/2.8 is noticeably better.

In the example - see how wet the leaf is and how much this is cropped. Very gloomy/rainy day. With this much detail after so much crop I wonder if 40-150PRO at f/2.8 cropped to match field of view will produce as good an image as the 300f/4? It will not produce as good a big print would be a guess. I'd rather frame it bigger anyway so I can see what I'm photographing. Lower ISO = more detail every time I tried it as long as shutter speed is high enough.

Faster glass and lower ISO is usually better in my experience. That is the benefit of PRO lenses I see.

This photo shot in the rain/gloom as you can see, 1/80 to keep the ISO to 200. Dual IS will be even better with the 300 f/4 PRO and an EM-1.2 or 1MX. If you can stay at ISO500 or better.

Not always horrible. Gloomy day. 75-300 at 300/6.7 ISO2000, wide open.

A good photo from the 75-300 on a gloomy/rainy PNW day. Not too terrible.

I've had good luck with this lens at f/6.7, 1/80 and max extension with light low enough to require ISO2000. Images are sharp. Posted one in this thread. IBIS on EM-1.2 good enough for that at 300mm with 75-300.

With 40-150PRO, same light = 1/125 and ISO200. Crop 100% = similar IQ to 75-300 but lower resolution with 40-150PRO.

For monitors and prints up to 13X19 = results very similar at photo/monitor viewing distance.

75-300 can be surprisingly good on an EM-1 MKII with firmware 3.0 because higher ISO can compensate for slower aperture. In bright light even closer when both lenses are shot at the same aperture.

I think its a matter of settings to make this lens perform.

Me too. That's why I hesitate to replace the 75-300 with the 2XTC.

Yes for wildlife better when you can get close, but for motorsports in good light, 75-300 is very good at long distance. 50-100yds it works very well for me.

NCV wrote:

The fact that some people manage to get lovely sharp pictures with this lens tells me that most of the poor results are a user error problem.

My Panasonic 100-300 gives me superb results when I am careful with my technique.

This is false. Bad copies are an issue in lenses, including this one presumably (given it's price point).

I have this lens and it's very good in the right circumstances and conditions. Well worth its price to me.

Trying to diagnose a problem online is very challenging. I think to attribute problems with a non-Pro lens solely to fieldcraft is an insult to the photographer.

In my experience the lens is a pretty decent lens. I do however back it off to about 270 mm when shooting. I hade to do the same with my old Nikon 80-400. I always shot it at about 350mm. One can be stubborn and insist on shooting it at 300mm because by golly that's what the bought or they can do the wise thing and back it off a hair and get some darn good images. Some here have their minds made up about this lens being horrible so it's pointless to argue with them. I just know that I get some pretty good results with this lens.

Most of the problems I have are because it is f/6.7 - and I saw diffraction after f/5.6 with my 16 MP sensors.  Probably slightly worse on the E-M1 II and E-M5 III at 20 MP.  Now that I have a 4/3 70-300, I'll have to compare the two - although I still got adequate sharpness with the 70-300 and a 1.4x TC at f/7.9.