75-300 is horrible

Phocal wrote:

...

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

Thanks Phocal for the tutorial and examples. Hopefully they will help me to get better results next time I venture out with my 75-300.

Chris

ChrisWal wrote:

Phocal wrote:

...

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

Thanks Phocal for the tutorial and examples. Hopefully they will help me to get better results next time I venture out with my 75-300.

Chris

Glad you found it helpful.  If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

MannyV wrote:

tedolf wrote:

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

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

Dunno, you tell me!

tEolph

EZGritz wrote:

If I look at something through my binoculars 20 yards away the subject moves a lot less than the subject I look at 100 yards away.

I still think distance is part of the formula.

What are you looking at ?

If the  subject takes up only a small portion of the field of  view it will seem to be moving a lot more, eg a seagull on the water 50 yards away compared with an ocean liner 1/2 mile away.

How about a soccer ball 20 yards away compared with the moon - about the same angular size. Does the moon jump around wildly in the view through your binoculars compared to the ball ?

Peter

The lettering on a mailbox 25 yards away moves an inch or two. The lettering on a pole 100 yards away moves a foot.

Looks to me stabilization is more demanding for lettering on the poll so if camera stabilization is the same shutter speed has to be higher.

I posted examples of a hummingbird shot at 1/50 from a few yards away. I needed 1/250 to shoot a woodpecker 50 yards away.

Same camera, same lens. EM-1 MKII 75-300.

A real world example, not a theory. I think distance is part of the formula.

Thanks I'll read the article.

EZGritz wrote:

Thanks I'll read the article.

It's very well worth reading. I've just read it again.

I suspect, but don't know, that Olympus might have used the 12-100 as a test bed for these designs. It also has beautiful focus transitions.

Prunus blossom - f/4 12-100 at f/11 and 35mm

Another reason I suppose the 12-100 is so highly regarded. I find f/4 a sweet spot in the M43 system. Most of the time its fast and bright enough.

This lens is a little heavy for me to spend a day with on an OMD body, but the EM5.3 makes it possible.

Where was I? 3 yards from the bird, 5 yards form the branch? How does that translate for you?

EZGritz wrote:

Another reason I suppose the 12-100 is so highly regarded. I find f/4 a sweet spot in the M43 system. Most of the time its fast and bright enough.

Agree.

This lens is a little heavy for me to spend a day with on an OMD body, but the EM5.3 makes it possible.

Awe, come on now ...

I'm old, and just about completely f****d, but even I can carry my E-M1 MkII + 12-100 around all day ...

I'm 68 135lbs, yeah I can do it but I don't want to. If I go for an all day hike, no fun and don't need it.12-40PRO long enough. 12-60 Panny fast enough and way lighter.

A motorsports event in the desert, 4 days of hiking 5 miles a day up and down hills in 90 degree heat and full sun, nope. Not long enough. 12-40PRO, 40-150PRO + 1.4XTC, maybe 2XTC one day, 75-300, 45 and 75 optional.

I can shoot the entire event with the 40-150PRO and the TC. Backup camera has the 12-40PRO or the Panny 12-32 or 12-60, rarely used, just to lighten up for a while so I'm not shooting the 40-150PRO all day.

12-40 or 12-60 or a prime for street photography.

The 12-100 doesn't fit my needs. Longer than I need most of the time, too short for motorsports, not good for hiking.

For general vacation travel I like the 14-150. Not as good a lens, not as bright. I take the 17 f/1.8, or the 17 f/2.8, a more comfortable carry. Pretty light on a PL/7 or EM-5.2 with or without the grip.

The 12-100 doesn't fit my needs.

I see what you mean.

I might like a 12-45 f/4

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

1. When shooting at 300mm, always shoot at f7.1, not f6.7.

2. 1/100 is pushing it even with IBIS. I would try to stay 1/200 or above.

3. Edit your RAW files with DXO Photolab. The prime noise reduction combined with the lens sharpness profile will give you much more detail.

I have already showed you it is not.

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

Raucous Raven wrote:

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.

That was my experience with the lens as well. I've seen people get sharp photos from it but the one that I briefly had performed more like yours. It was very clearly optically inferior even to the inexpensive Olympus 40-150mm F4-5.6 R that I tested it against. I think, as others have speculated, that there's a lot of variability in this lens.

Complaints about this lens go back for years. Higher ISO to achieve faster shutter speed helps at the cost of a bit more noise, but . . .

Only 11 more messages to go after this one before this thread is full.  I am looking forward to that.