Cant wait for my (almost) new camera (EM10MK2) and lens (75-300)!

Both are supposed to be delivered on Monday! The guy I'm getting the camera from forgot to send me the camera strap so that was sent First Class Mail rather than the Priority Mail of the other two packages and it's in Miami FL for some reason (I'm in NY), but it's also supposed to be delivered on Monday so I'm hoping all three get here by then!

I was thinking of other accessories I might need. I dont think I need more batteries because I already have the two I got with my EPL6 and I'm getting one with the EM10Mk2 I have on the way. And LCD protector? I'm not sure, I dont really like the one I have on my EPL6. What about a 58mm UV protector filter for the 75-300 lens I have on the way? I have them for all my other lenses (14-42 and 40-150) and for my fixed lens cameras too, but I'm not sure I should get another one (I have 4 of them in the 58mm thread size) or just swap out the one for the 40-150 that I have when I'm not using that lens?

Another thing I was wondering:

I wanted something with more telephoto range for birding and for shooting close ups of the moon and perhaps (?) planets.... like Saturn's rings, Jupiter's bands, etc. So I also purchased the 75-300 lens.... the body was 270 and the lens was 280, both with shipping and tax included, so I thought I got myself a pretty good deal. But now I'm thinking if 300 (600 EFL) is going to be enough reach for me, because I also have a Fuji HS50, a superzoom with a 1000 EFL (185 actual focal length) and I ended up buying a Sony VCL-DH1758 front side teleconverter for it (rated 1.7x but measured EFL was 1500mm.) It works rather well with that camera and although it would also screw onto my new 75-300 lens since it has 58mm threads, I dont want to put too much weight on my new camera (the TC weighs 8.8 oz which is 2 ounces more than what the lens weighs). So I was looking about for the Oly TC made for M Zuiko lenses and I found the MC-20 and the MC-14, but I was reading that these wont work on my new lens? It states that these TC were made for PRO lenses?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1486001-REG/olympus_mc_20_m_zuiko_digital_2x.html/overview

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082049-REG/olympus_v321210bu000_mc_14_1_4x_teleconverter_for.html

So neither of these would work at all on my 75-300 lens? I already had misgivings because they make the f stop much slower (f/13.4 in the case of the MC-20) but didn't know that they weren't compatible with my lens. Is there any other way for me to get more reach with this lens? Thanks!

I've been using the Oly 75-300 lens for quite some time.  As to putting a filter on it, that's personal preference.  If you keep the lens hood on while using the lens, you're not likely to damage the lens.  But, I use a protective filter and it hasn't caused any problems.

I don't know of any way to increase the reach of the 75-300 and if you did, I think the performance of the lens would really suffer.  The lens can be very good at times, and terrible at other times.  You have to learn to balance ISO setting, f/ stop and shutter speed to get the best results.  It's difficult to get really good results with birds in flight and fast moving small birds.  After several years of using the lens frequently, I'm still experimenting with different settings.

At this point, I'm just hoping to move up to a better lens with a little more reach, and that's going to require spending around $900 or more for a used Panasonic 100-400 or Oly 40-150 Pro with a MC 20 teleconverter.

And, the M10 Mark II is a great camera.  I really like having the optional grip for it.  It really improves the ergonomics when using heavier or larger lenses such as the 75-300.

Robin Wong did a video review of this lens today

https://youtu.be/ibSQkd4xKm4

I removed the UV filter and just use a screw on cheap lens hood for protection.

I wanted something with more telephoto range for birding and for shooting close ups of the moon and perhaps (?) planets.... like Saturn's rings, Jupiter's bands, etc.

i can tell you even with the 300/4 pro, and a 1.4x converter, Saturn is a smudge just a few pixels wide. It definitely has “ears” though.

the Moon would be a better target for sure.

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Congrats on the forthcoming gear, but, long story short, don't use a filter, even a million dollar model, on a 300mm lens. You will thank me later 🤓🤓

https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/

I don't think the issue with filters is as black and white as stated.

Many people here use filters, and many don't. Some argue that some filters seem to affect AF, but others don't see this issue. Some worry about flair, but it's not often an issue and can be anticipated.

It could be argued that with its deep hood, the 75-300 might not need much protecting. On the other hand some use a filter to help keep the resale value up. Others just like the convenience of being able to vigorously clean the filter without concern for the value of the lens.

If you can afford the experiment, you could try a good quality filter and see if it changes your images or ability to AF. If not, there's not harm in having one (and you can always keep it in the bag for when you encounter more adverse conditions). I always used a good quality filter on my 75-300 and could never discern any issues.

Don't worry about extending the range of the 75-300 until your comfortable with it at 300. On the E-M10 II it's a very light combo, it's going to be critical to develop good hand holding technique.

I have yet to see any data that prove a lens filter affects the resale value of a lens.  Lens manufacturers go to great lengths to reduce the amount of lens elements, and filters just add one more.  The first element is designed specifically for its position and exposure to the elements.

The only time I ever bought a protective filter was when I was a newbie. After seeing how it degraded the images I left it off.

scbwr wrote:

I've been using the Oly 75-300 lens for quite some time. As to putting a filter on it, that's personal preference. If you keep the lens hood on while using the lens, you're not likely to damage the lens. But, I use a protective filter and it hasn't caused any problems.

I don't know of any way to increase the reach of the 75-300 and if you did, I think the performance of the lens would really suffer. The lens can be very good at times, and terrible at other times. You have to learn to balance ISO setting, f/ stop and shutter speed to get the best results. It's difficult to get really good results with birds in flight and fast moving small birds. After several years of using the lens frequently, I'm still experimenting with different settings.

At this point, I'm just hoping to move up to a better lens with a little more reach, and that's going to require spending around $900 or more for a used Panasonic 100-400 or Oly 40-150 Pro with a MC 20 teleconverter.

And, the M10 Mark II is a great camera. I really like having the optional grip for it. It really improves the ergonomics when using heavier or larger lenses such as the 75-300.

Thanks!  I was thinking about getting the grip.  Can you use an extra battery or some other kind of power adapter with it?  How much weight does it add?

I have a few 58mm protective filters (I think 3 or 4?) I'll try one of them and see if the image quality stays high (I use Hoya and B+W so that shouldn't be a problem.)

Dave in Wales wrote:

I'm assuming the 75-300 is the Mk ll, a much maligned lens this one, but I've always liked it.

Try sticking a cheap extension tube or two behind it and it makes for a very useful long range close-up lens.

Thanks, I was wondering what the best tele-macro lens is in my set, I have the 14-42, 40-150 and now the 75-300.

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Congrats on the forthcoming gear, but, long story short, don't use a filter, even a million dollar model, on a 300mm lens. You will thank me later 🤓🤓

https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/

I don't think the issue with filters is as black and white as stated.

Many people here use filters, and many don't. Some argue that some filters seem to affect AF, but others don't see this issue. Some worry about flair, but it's not often an issue and can be anticipated.

It could be argued that with its deep hood, the 75-300 might not need much protecting. On the other hand some use a filter to help keep the resale value up. Others just like the convenience of being able to vigorously clean the filter without concern for the value of the lens.

If you can afford the experiment, you could try a good quality filter and see if it changes your images or ability to AF. If not, there's not harm in having one (and you can always keep it in the bag for when you encounter more adverse conditions). I always used a good quality filter on my 75-300 and could never discern any issues.

Don't worry about extending the range of the 75-300 until your comfortable with it at 300. On the E-M10 II it's a very light combo, it's going to be critical to develop good hand holding technique.

Thanks, I'm thinking about getting the grip for it.... just worried about how much weight the grip adds to the set up?

glassoholic wrote:

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Congrats on the forthcoming gear, but, long story short, don't use a filter, even a million dollar model, on a 300mm lens. You will thank me later 🤓🤓

https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/

I don't think the issue with filters is as black and white as stated.

Many people here use filters, and many don't. Some argue that some filters seem to affect AF, but others don't see this issue. Some worry about flair, but it's not often an issue and can be anticipated.

It could be argued that with its deep hood, the 75-300 might not need much protecting. On the other hand some use a filter to help keep the resale value up. Others just like the convenience of being able to vigorously clean the filter without concern for the value of the lens.

If you can afford the experiment, you could try a good quality filter and see if it changes your images or ability to AF. If not, there's not harm in having one (and you can always keep it in the bag for when you encounter more adverse conditions). I always used a good quality filter on my 75-300 and could never discern any issues.

Don't worry about extending the range of the 75-300 until your comfortable with it at 300. On the E-M10 II it's a very light combo, it's going to be critical to develop good hand holding technique.

I have protective filters on all my lenses except super teles. For me, even if using B&W brand, AF is unpredictable.

I hear what you're saying, even on my superzoom cameras like the Fuji HS50 I find that using a filter (and I use either Hoya or B+W) can affect AF.  Some of my moon shots look slightly out of focus even when AF was supposedly locked in and crater detail is a little fuzzier than it should be.....

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Congrats on the forthcoming gear, but, long story short, don't use a filter, even a million dollar model, on a 300mm lens. You will thank me later 🤓🤓

https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/

I don't think the issue with filters is as black and white as stated.

Many people here use filters, and many don't. Some argue that some filters seem to affect AF, but others don't see this issue. Some worry about flair, but it's not often an issue and can be anticipated.

It could be argued that with its deep hood, the 75-300 might not need much protecting. On the other hand some use a filter to help keep the resale value up. Others just like the convenience of being able to vigorously clean the filter without concern for the value of the lens.

If you can afford the experiment, you could try a good quality filter and see if it changes your images or ability to AF. If not, there's not harm in having one (and you can always keep it in the bag for when you encounter more adverse conditions). I always used a good quality filter on my 75-300 and could never discern any issues.

Don't worry about extending the range of the 75-300 until your comfortable with it at 300. On the E-M10 II it's a very light combo, it's going to be critical to develop good hand holding technique.

I have protective filters on all my lenses except super teles. For me, even if using B&W brand, AF is unpredictable.

On my 40-150 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 I'm currently using Olympus PRO ZERO Protection Filters. On my 75-300 I'm using a Heliopan UV SH-PMC. I don't sense that AF is unpredictable, I might try an outing without filters and see if my perceptions change.

If you can, try shooting the moon both with and without and examine the crater detail in each image (the moon is in half phase right now which is a great time for getting crater detail.)

mchnz wrote:

HRC2016 wrote:

mchnz wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Congrats on the forthcoming gear, but, long story short, don't use a filter, even a million dollar model, on a 300mm lens. You will thank me later 🤓🤓

https://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/

I don't think the issue with filters is as black and white as stated.

Many people here use filters, and many don't. Some argue that some filters seem to affect AF, but others don't see this issue. Some worry about flair, but it's not often an issue and can be anticipated.

It could be argued that with its deep hood, the 75-300 might not need much protecting. On the other hand some use a filter to help keep the resale value up. Others just like the convenience of being able to vigorously clean the filter without concern for the value of the lens.

If you can afford the experiment, you could try a good quality filter and see if it changes your images or ability to AF. If not, there's not harm in having one (and you can always keep it in the bag for when you encounter more adverse conditions). I always used a good quality filter on my 75-300 and could never discern any issues.

Don't worry about extending the range of the 75-300 until your comfortable with it at 300. On the E-M10 II it's a very light combo, it's going to be critical to develop good hand holding technique.

I have yet to see any data that prove a lens filter affects the resale value of a lens. Lens manufacturers go to great lengths to reduce the amount of lens elements, and filters just add one more. The first element is designed specifically for its position and exposure to the elements.

The only time I ever bought a protective filter was when I was a newbie. After seeing how it degraded the images I left it off.

I can appreciate that some people may wish to prioritise potential optical performance over a scratched FE. Plus many people may shoot in relatively clean and safe environments.

On the other hand, when I've attempted to find a filter/no-filter difference, I've never been able to perceive one. At least not with any of the filters I've purchased. Plenty of people say the same. So it's arguable and up to individual choice. In some unfriendly environments a filter is a must (e.g. an abandoned scheelite mine). I think Henry Richardson's contribution earlier today links to a video that sums up my position:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63750509

Any marks on a lens will reduce the potential resale price. Even cosmetic marks on the barrel will reduce the resale price - as was the case with a 300 f/4 I bought second hand last year. My second hand 12-40 f/2.8 was a bit cheaper because the barrel had some marks and there was no box. I eventually hope to find a a really banged up boxless 150-400mm F4.5 because its the only way I'll ever afford one.

Filters have definitely saved the lens at least once:

Scratch one filter

I have always used filters because where I live (Long Island) it's very humid and I'm also near sand, so I'm worried about the elements damaging the lens.  I have a lot of lenses with 58mm threads so I sometimes swap a filter between lenses.  No sense keeping it on a lens when I'm not using that lens, that's what the lens cap is for