75-300 is horrible

AgoP5 wrote:

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.

When it is feasible, I will sit on my rear end on the ground and brace the lens against my knee as I shoot at 300mm. The hit rate then is much higher.

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.

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 see lots of photos every day that are taken from to far away and heavily cropped with no detail.  They get great comments from friends/family so post them and get angry when you tell them it has no detail and they need to get closer.  They don't understand the concept of the more pixels on subject (bigger in frame) the more detail you can capture, which requires getting closer...……….

I'm considering getting the Pana 100-300 in the future ... Honestly I'm not too picky and birding / sports is not my main genre... I just want a tele to use occasionally when it's required , but not willing to spend thousands and having a bulky-heavy lens.

Has anyone of you used the Tamron 700-300 vc usd on Canon / Nikon bodies? If quality is on par, I'm totally sold

pannumon wrote:

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).

Ok...………………..

First off...…………………..

They are getting that initial number from the old (from film days) standard of 1/focal length?  There are a lot of people out there (with some data to support) that believe the old formula doesn't apply to the new pixel dense sensors we have now.  Which will require a higher shutter speed to handhold without IS/IBIS.  I admit to not really digging into this, but in theory it makes sense.  Which also brings up the sensor itself.  If this idea is in fact true, than a m4/3 sensor which has a higher pixel density than a full frame sensor would require an even faster shutter speed for "the formula"

Oh, the formula…………………...

The entire 1/focal length was just a rough starting point.  It has never been anything scientific.  It was probably started by long time photographers who had skill and good technique to begin with.  So it wouldn't apply to someone with no experience with cameras, especially with telephoto lenses.

Regardless, it is the formula they use in the standard.  So at least you can somewhat compare the standard across a brands, to an extant.

Also...……………….

The standard used is CIPA DC-011-2015 if you want to dig into it.

But...………………………….

You also have to take into account the weight of the equipment when in actual use.  The CIPA standard doesn't take this into account when testing.  Because it does make a difference and I did mention this in my post.  I guess you either missed it or need to work on your reading comprehension.

The 75-300 is extremely light, which makes it difficult to handhold.  Weight serves the function of helping to stabilize you by not letting those micro movements (muscle or just from breathing) when standing there in the shooting position (camera or rifle) move the camera/rifle.

I have been a life long rifle shooter, use to compete but it has been a number of years since I do that (but I still shoot every chance I get).  I have super steady hands and can handhold a lot slower shutter speeds than most.  So my numbers are meaningless to most people on this forum as a reference.

But...……………...

I can handhold my 150/2 w/ EC-20 at significantly lower shutter speeds than the 75-300.  Even the much heavier Sigma 50-500 is easier to handhold at 300mm than the 75-300.  He11, it is even easier to handhold the Sigma at 500mm than the 75-300 at 300mm.

You can test yourself by getting multiple lenses that will get you to 300mm and shoot them side by side.

Finally...…………………..

The numbers I recommended are for people like the OP who are not use to shooting telephoto and have poor technique.  With practice the number can go lower, but a person has to want to work on it and get better.

Oh...…………………………..

I didn't even get into how you press the shutter button, which makes a huge difference in the outcome.  Especially at slower shutter speeds.

FoPar wrote:

Phocal wrote:

my 2 copper pieces,

Phocal

One of the best posts I've seen on here. Most 'examples' people post on these forums (end on this thread) are a smeary mess with no fine detail but these photos, beautiful, show what m43 can do. in talented hands.

Thanks.  I always hate it when someone says "oh, I get great shots with x lens" and follow it up with a photo I would delete and never show the world.  I mean seriously.  If you are going to prove a point than prove the damn point...…………..through up a photograph that does just that.  Not one that proves the original point of x lens being garbage.

JaKing wrote:

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

Well said, and demonstrated.

thank you

I have a friend who just bought a Z6. He's coming from a D300S he had since new. I like the Z6, almost bought one for normal focal length photography.

His theory is to add the 70-200 f/2.8 just released to pair with the 24-70 f/2.8 he bought in the kit. He's going to have $5,000 in this system with two great lenses to shoot 24-200 f/2.8. The kit will weigh almost 6lbs. with accessories, more than 4lbs with the 70-200 mounted.

He goes on safari, sometimes shoots motorsports.

He can shoot in lower light than I can but my 12-40 and 40-150PRO on the EM-1 MKII works in the light I find myself. Bright enough to use the 1.4TC most of the time if needed. My kit weighs 3.5lbs., fits in a small bag. At MSRP my gear costs $3700.

His theory is cropping: 24MP sensor. I have 50% more reach and 80% of the resolution. His brightness advantage is sometimes lost because he has to stop the lens down more to increase the DOF. I don't know if Nikon makes a TC for the 70-200. I know few Nikon shooters use them. Historically the results they say have not been good enough vs. cropping.

For me, in addition to the lighter weight, I can fill the frame with the subject - to your point. I feel like I can focus better when I use MF, I have a better idea if I am focused in the right spot. I have a better feel for what I'm photographing because I can see it better before I take the photo.

The 12-40PRO on the EM-1.2 makes images good enough for me. I have the 17 f/1.8 and 75 f/1.8 that close half the DOF/brightness gap. I rarely need ISO6400.

These are the reasons I stay in the system.

To your point I feel I do better with 50% more reach than I would with 20% more resolution. I don't think cropping a 200mm image will work as a well as shooting 300mm or 420mm as I can now do.

I believe when I want fine detail, getting close and filling the frame as much as I can is the best way. I think I can make a better image with the 75-300 - if I really need that FL than my friend can with the 70-200mm Nikon.

NCV wrote:

llondru wrote:

I'm considering getting the Pana 100-300 in the future ... Honestly I'm not too picky and birding / sports is not my main genre... I just want a tele to use occasionally when it's required , but not willing to spend thousands and having a bulky-heavy lens.

Has anyone of you used the Tamron 700-300 vc usd on Canon / Nikon bodies? If quality is on par, I'm totally sold

These were shot with the Panasonic 100-300. It is a great lens for the price.

thanks!

MannyV wrote:

I now have the Panasonic 100-400. Before that my primary lens for telephoto was the 75-300. I did not sell that lens. It more than met my needs. Some lower res photos from my archives from 4 years ago. I am not sure whether the exif details are preserved. Later I will post some images captured at 300mm when I find them in my archives.

I have still kept this lens as a lightweight backup option. To be honest though - since the 100-400, I have almost never picked up the lens as the extra of the Panasonic lens makes it worth carrying. Having said that I will not sell my Olympus 75-300mm.

This one also shows sever sharpening artifacts.  I am wondering if there is some in camera processing that is done with this particular lens that causes this problem.

I am not seeing it as much in the other shots so I am baffled.

tEdolph

Phocal wrote:

pannumon wrote:

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).

Ok...………………..

First off...…………………..

They are getting that initial number from the old (from film days) standard of 1/focal length? There are a lot of people out there (with some data to support) that believe the old formula doesn't apply to the new pixel dense sensors we have now. Which will require a higher shutter speed to handhold without IS/IBIS. I admit to not really digging into this, but in theory it makes sense. Which also brings up the sensor itself. If this idea is in fact true, than a m4/3 sensor which has a higher pixel density than a full frame sensor would require an even faster shutter speed for "the formula"

Oh, the formula…………………...

The entire 1/focal length was just a rough starting point. It has never been anything scientific. It was probably started by long time photographers who had skill and good technique to begin with. So it wouldn't apply to someone with no experience with cameras, especially with telephoto lenses.

Regardless, it is the formula they use in the standard. So at least you can somewhat compare the standard across a brands, to an extant.

Also...……………….

The standard used is CIPA DC-011-2015 if you want to dig into it.

But...………………………….

You also have to take into account the weight of the equipment when in actual use. The CIPA standard doesn't take this into account when testing. Because it does make a difference and I did mention this in my post. I guess you either missed it or need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re comprehension . . . . the CIPA standard and the ‘stops of advantage’ provided by stabilisation refer to the difference between shutter speed with stabilisation OFF and with stabilisation ON for acceptably sharp images. The weight of the lens is not a variable - same weight with stabilisation ON and OFF.

Which, in a practical shooting scenario, means that the IBIS of my E-M1 II will give me the same ‘stops advantage’ whether I’m shooting with my  1Kg OM 300mm F4.5 or my 3.2 Kg ZD300mm F2.8.

The 75-300 is extremely light, which makes it difficult to handhold. Weight serves the function of helping to stabilize you by not letting those micro movements (muscle or just from breathing) when standing there in the shooting position (camera or rifle) move the camera/rifle.

that is very much dependent on how long you are holding the camera+lens in the ready position waiting to take the shot. Muscle fatigue can quickly overcome any advantage a heavier lens might have. Worst case might be shooting scenarios where you cannot rest/brace your left elbow against your body - eg aiming overhead at a bird in a tree waiting for it to make a move or show its head above the rim of a nest - in which case lighter can be much better after only 15 seconds or so depending on your personal physical attributes.

I have been a life long rifle shooter, use to compete but it has been a number of years since I do that (but I still shoot every chance I get). I have super steady hands and can handhold a lot slower shutter speeds than most. So my numbers are meaningless to most people on this forum as a reference.

in terms of IBIS your numbers - specifically the  ‘number of stops advantage’ it gives you - should indeed be the same as me or anybody else with a given lens and camera.

Peter

But...……………...

I can handhold my 150/2 w/ EC-20 at significantly lower shutter speeds than the 75-300. Even the much heavier Sigma 50-500 is easier to handhold at 300mm than the 75-300. He11, it is even easier to handhold the Sigma at 500mm than the 75-300 at 300mm.

You can test yourself by getting multiple lenses that will get you to 300mm and shoot them side by side.

Finally...…………………..

The numbers I recommended are for people like the OP who are not use to shooting telephoto and have poor technique. With practice the number can go lower, but a person has to want to work on it and get better.

Oh...…………………………..

I didn't even get into how you press the shutter button, which makes a huge difference in the outcome. Especially at slower shutter speeds.

MannyV wrote:

Could it be you are pixel peeping a low res photo?

It's not so low res, it's almost 5 MP.  How are you going to judge sharpness unless you view it at 100%?

I wouldn't call it over sharpened though, there's something else going on.

I enjoyed the 70-300, loved the way it rendered. Made sharp images with it. Faster than the 75-300 too. Too bad it was heavy and didn't focus fast enough on the EM-5 I had at the time.

Phocal wrote:

pannumon wrote:

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).

Ok...………………..

First off...…………………..

They are getting that initial number from the old (from film days) standard of 1/focal length?

Who are getting initial numbers? Where?

There are a lot of people out there (with some data to support) that believe the old formula doesn't apply to the new pixel dense sensors we have now. Which will require a higher shutter speed to handhold without IS/IBIS. I admit to not really digging into this, but in theory it makes sense. Which also brings up the sensor itself. If this idea is in fact true, than a m4/3 sensor which has a higher pixel density than a full frame sensor would require an even faster shutter speed for "the formula"

300mm is "equivalent" to 600mm. The formula used for µ4/3 gives 1/600mm. The "safe" shutter speed of 1/1200 I mentioned is twice as fast as this. This was only to show that the 1/50s shutter speed should in theory be fine if IBIS worked well at 300mm (for static subjects).

But based on "IBIS works fine at 300mm" and "don't shoot lower than 1/600s" means that using this lens at 300mm without IBIS would require shutter speed of 1/10 000.

Oh, the formula…………………...

The entire 1/focal length was just a rough starting point. It has never been anything scientific. It was probably started by long time photographers who had skill and good technique to begin with. So it wouldn't apply to someone with no experience with cameras, especially with telephoto lenses.

Regardless, it is the formula they use in the standard. So at least you can somewhat compare the standard across a brands, to an extant.

Also...……………….

The standard used is CIPA DC-011-2015 if you want to dig into it.

It's easy to test for your hands, your camera and your lens. Shoot a static subject with any settings IS on so that some of the photos are sharp and some are not. Make criteria for sharp photos. Turn off image stabilization. increase shutter speed so much that the same fraction of photos are sharp as with IS. Calculate the difference between the shutter speeds in stops.

But...………………………….

You also have to take into account the weight of the equipment when in actual use. The CIPA standard doesn't take this into account when testing. Because it does make a difference and I did mention this in my post. I guess you either missed it or need to work on your reading comprehension.

This is a good point. My personal gut feeling is that lighter lenses suffer more for all kinds of micro-vibrations, including shutter shock, but also vibration from other sources. And yes, I said that IBIS is not very efficient at 300mm (or at 1/600s shutter speeds) in real world (not CIPA tests). It may also be that IBIS works, but micro-vibrations mess things up.

I can shoot this lens 1/80 at maximum range hand held. I'll shoot a faster shutter speed if I can, if I can still keep the ISO down.

Already posted this image in this thread. Here it is again so you don't have to hunt for it. This one at 1/125. I was not that far from the subject. Not so close either. Look at the resolution to see how much it is cropped. I think distance makes a difference. Not sure I could shoot this shutter speed if subject was 50 yards away. If I am standing and shooting across or up at a large bird I might need to shoot 1/250 - 1/500 at that distance and further, maybe faster. Can't remember.

I do think distance to the subject is part of the equation. Increasing the distance amplifies the amount of hand shaking. In theory more stabilization or faster shutter is needed when the subject is farther away.

I've seen claims that shooting wildlife hand held with the 300 f/4 is possible as low as 1/30. Don't have the lens so I can't speak from experience.

EZGritz wrote:

I can shoot this lens 1/80 at maximum range hand held. I'll shoot a faster shutter speed if I can, if I can still keep the ISO down.

Already posted this image in this thread. Here it is again so you don't have to hunt for it. This one at 1/125. I was not that far from the subject. Not so close either. Look at the resolution to see how much it is cropped. I think distance makes a difference. Not sure I could shoot this shutter speed if subject was 50 yards away. If I am standing and shooting across or up at a large bird I might need to shoot 1/250 - 1/500 at that distance and further, maybe faster. Can't remember.

Thanks! Sorry for neglecting your messages, there are so many and I somehow missed them. This is a very good example, well done!

I do not understand your argument about the distance, though. At pixel level, it should not matter at all. Maybe it's being discussed here, there are messages in this thread that I have not read yet.