75-300 is horrible

Shooting f/6.7 at 300mm not a problem with this lens. See the photo I posed in this threat in a gloomy sky at ISO2000.

I used to own this lens. Yes, beyond 220mm IQ drops a bit, but in good light, with high contrast, at low ISO, fast shutter speed, anti-shock mode, and a steady hand, it did perform rather well. That is the rub, good results are possible but everything must be right. Sometimes I do regret selling mine.

Personally, I am waiting to see how the Oly 100-400 OIS lens might perform. It should be out later this year, however, it will still be a slow lens so good light and perfect technique will still be a major factor. Like most zooms, I would expect it to be softer at the long end, but tangibly better at 300mm, especially with dual stabilization

Gary from Seattle wrote:

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.

The question really with the 75-300 is user ability/skill, the less than stellar ability poor birds in flight, and the need to use a higher ISO in many cases to achieve sufficient SS. This in combination with the limits of SS mean a lower hit rate.

But the IQ can be quite good. All of the below were shot as LSF jpegs with simple processing.

Song Sparrow in sunlight, ISO 200 11/30/19

Great Blue Heron in partial sun 1/4/20.

JimH123 wrote:

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.

The second shot clearly shows user error. Nothing is in focus - perhaps camera movement, a huge crop, or serious underexposure that the OP tried to correct.

The first, more subtely also shows user error. Only the lichen directly at the Eagle's foot is in focus. The feathers get sharper progressively nearer the head of the Eagle. The error, lack of DOF.

These are grossly over sharpened.  Sharpening artifacts and halos all over the place.

Tedolph

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

Before anything else I question your long lens technique/ability.  You post up two photos that show obvious motion blur due to the slow shutter speeds.  In the first you are trying to shoot an effective 600mm at 1/100, way to slow...…….especially for this lens (more on that later).  The second is around 1/320 (if I remember correctly) and that is really still to slow for this lens (again, more on that coming up).  You are not shooting your 75mm here, so I suggest lots of practice and long lens shooting.

This lens is way to light for it's focal length.  To many people try to use it like it's some more normal focal length because it is so small and light.  While lightness is a reason many come to m4/3, it is not always in your favor...…….especially when shooting long lenses.  I have been a long time target shooter as well as specialized training in the military.  There is a point where something is to light because the smallest of movements will cause the camera to move, a bit of weight is actually beneficial.  While looking through the camera the lighter the camera/lens combo the easier it is for it to move around with even small breaths.  I used the ZD 150mm f2.0 with/out the EC-14/20 and with the EC-20 it's 300mm.  The lens is significantly heavier than the 75-300 and I always have an easier time shooting the 150/2 w/ EC-20 than the 75-300.  The 75-300 just requires a lot more concentration on technique because of it's lightness compared to heavier lens.  Unless you have really good technique I wouldn't try to shoot this lens below 1/600, even that is pushing it for most people.  I would suggest trying to stay 1/800 or faster with this lens because of its light weight.  For those that don't believe how much a bit of weight can be beneficial I invite you visit me.  We can go out and shoot my 150/2 w/ EC-20 and 75-300 side by side on some wildlife and it will not take you long to realize what I am saying.  I invite anyone who can give this a try do it.  I would love to get a hold of the new Panny with dual IS to see how much that improves these light lenses.  I really wish Olympus would re-issue this lens in dual IS, I think that would solve a lot of the problems people have (but good technique will still help and be needed).

I also want to mention here since I have seen a few reference in this thread about IBIS not being effective at these long focal ranges.  Olympus IBIS is fine at 300mm and even longer.  Is it as good as dual IS?  No, not even close but that is a different animal.  I have no problem handholding my 150/2 w/ EC-20 or even my Sigma 50-500 aka Bigma.  While I find the 150/2 a good weight for handholding, the Bigma is a little on the heavy side but still doable.

Unless you pay attention to your technique with a long lens you will not see much improvement in your images with the 300/4.  While you can shoot a lot slower shutter speeds with the dual IS and the extra weight of the lens (actually wish the 300/4 was just a bit heavier for a little better handholding ability), it is not a cure all for poor technique.

Last year I did a 300mm shoot out between the 75-300, 300/4 and the old Olympus 50-200 SWD w/ EC-14 and the full post can be found here and recommend anyone interested in how these lenses compare to check it out. But I will post up the relevant images (75-300 and 300/4) here, but I do recommend reading the linked post for my conclusions.

Oh, I should also mention that I only do lens reviews in the field on the subjects I will use the lens to photograph.  I could care less how well a lens photographs a chart or brick wall.  I want to see how it performs in the field where I will actually use it.

First I will post up images of a Great Blue Heron photographed from approximately 41 feet away.

All photographs taken handheld because that is how I shoot and I want to know how a lens will perform in the actual conditions I will use it in.  It's also why I shoot the same subject from the same location within seconds so I can actually compare the images.

75-300 shot wide-open from 41 feet

300/4 shot wide-open from 41 feet

Now to show the difference when stopped down 1 full stop with each lens.  For most m4/3 lenses this is typically the sharpest point of the lens.  So I always do this in my test just to show the best a lens can do, even though I tend to shoot all my lenses wide-open (unless I need more DoF which happens a lot with my gator photographs).

75-300 stopped down 1 full stop from a distance of 41 feet

300/4 stopped down 1 full stop from a distance of 41 feet

You can see that the 300/4 is sharper with better bokeh than the 75-300, which it should be.  Both of the lenses also sharpen up a noticeable amount when stopped down, but to me the bokeh gets worse when stopped down.  So it is something to think about if you are wanting to stop down for better sharpness.

Now...………………….

I am a huge proponent of getting closer. To many people that post wildlife images on DPR shoot from to far away (crop way to much) and don't capture near enough detail because of the distance.  The closer you get the more detail you will capture, so  I am one of the few around here who seriously believes and practices fieldcraft to get closer vs buying longer and longer lenses.  I actually take more of my wildlife images with the bare 150/2 than I do the 300/4.  While I own the MC-14 I rarely use it, seldom need that much reach.  I mostly use the MC-14 for shooting small things like baby gators or frogs or lizards.

So...………………..

Here is another set of images of the same heron shot from a distance of  35 feet.  I wanted to get closer, more like 25 feet but it just wasn't to be on this day.  It is only a 6 foot change in distance, but the difference in detail capture is still noticeable.

75-300 shot wide-open at 35 feet

300/4 shot wide-open at 35 feet

Once again I also stopped down.

75-300 stopped down 1 full stop at a distance of 35 feet

300/4 stopped down 1 full stop at a distance of 35 feet

Once again things are the same as the farther distance.  The biggest difference is the increased detailed captured from the closer distance as well as the better bokeh from the closer distance.  Actually it's a good lesson in how the bokeh changes when you move closer to the subject and the distance to the background remains the same.

I will end this with a photograph that made me a believer in the dual IS, something I wasn't excited about when I got the 300/4.

Handheld at 1/50 is something not possible without dual IS, especially at an effective 600mm focal length.

my 2 copper pieces,

Phocal

Gary from Seattle wrote:

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.

Bought the 300/4 instead.

Terrible Photographer wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

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.

Bought the 300/4 instead.

Well then, you don't know anything about the 75-300. Certainly the 300 would be a superior lens.

Getting as close as possible is essential. Some people buy a long FL lens to shoot photos of subects too far away for the detail they expect.

Complicated by ability to hold the camera steady enough / shoot a fast enough shutter, issues with atmospheric and light conditions. They think long FL is only for distant objects.

Same people don't understand why they can't get the detail they want with a normal FL lens when they aren't far away. Just have lots of pixels and crop. Well, no.

Below some shots with that lens. But first, I should say that it one my favourite lens. Because, without having bought bought one used one (about 300euros investment), I would have never got into any kind of birding... The investment was to big to get 100-400 or the Oly 300... At the time, I was not even confident that I would get a decent shot from those lenses. The 75-300 was in "my" price range and it became my most used lense since it pulled me into more and more birding... I will not try to impress anyone on this forum with the results but I am happy to go out shot at birds at 200-300mm; Friends and family are truly impressed by some pics I am guessing (that said I am welcoming comments on techniques to improve)... Without such lens, this would have simply never happened...

Oly 75-300, EM1.2, 300mm, 1/320, f/7.1, ISO 2500

Oly 75-300, EM1.2, 300mm, 1/500, f/7.1, ISO 2500

Oly 75-300, EM1.2, 300mm, 1/400, f/7.1, ISO 640

Oly 75-300, EM1.2, 234mm, 1/125, f/6.4, ISO 2500

Oly 75-300, EM1.2, 258mm, 1/250, f/6.4, ISO 1600

It's not an easy lens to use, above 200mm I always use a monopod, otherwise if I don't have the monopod with me I never go above 200mm. Indeed, above 200mm the IBIS have some trouble, and you NEED to compensate for this in alterantive ways.

Phocal wrote:

I also want to mention here since I have seen a few reference in this thread about IBIS not being effective at these long focal ranges. Olympus IBIS is fine at 300mm and even longer. Is it as good as dual IS? No, not even close but that is a different animal.

So how good is Oly IBIS at 300mm? You recommend around 1/600s shutter speed with IBIS at 300mm handheld. If "fine IBIS" would be worth of 4 stops, then without IS the requires shutter speed should be 1/9600.I

I believe that IBIS can stabilize the image in the viewfinder, but not handle 1/600s shutter speeds. This would explain why we time to time see sharp handheld shots at 300mm at 1/50s in this forum. This is well on the specified about 5 stop stabilization (even when assuming a safe 1/1200s shutter speed requirement without stabilization).

Could not agree more with both your comments, and your examples of the practical significance of your comments.

Well said, and demonstrated.

EZGritz wrote:

Getting as close as possible is essential. Some people buy a long FL lens to shoot photos of subects too far away for the detail they expect.

Complicated by ability to hold the camera steady enough / shoot a fast enough shutter, issues with atmospheric and light conditions. They think long FL is only for distant objects.

My favourite saying " long lenses are to make close subjects closer not to bring distant subjects a bit nearer".

Same people don't understand why they can't get the detail they want with a normal FL lens when they aren't far away. Just have lots of pixels and crop. Well, no.

I've never been good at birds and feathered animals certainly require great skills and competent gear. That said the 75-300ii served me well for wildlife.

Although none of the below are going to attend any photo context the lens showed it is capable of resolving fine details also at FLs above 200mm.

Distance to the subject is another part of the formula. Faster shutter speed is needed at 300mm for subject 100 yards away than subject 10 yards away.