Nice lens for occasional use

I am not a tele lens user in general. If I do need, I use an old 4/3 50-200 SWD, which is fantastic. I bought an E-M1 just to use this lens. Since I don't often need long focal length, I don't mind taking it when I know I will use it.

I started riding my bike again recently and like to carry my photo gear. The 50-200 does not make the list. I was very much fixed on getting Pany 100-300 because my previous copy of Oly 75-300 (>2 years ago) was not very good and I sold it. The price difference convinced me to give the Oly a second chance. It arrived quickly last Friday. I tested on a number static subjects and compared that to my 50-200 and 1.4X TC.

The 50-200 is still visibly better across comparable FLs and apertures, but the differences are smaller than I care. The 75-300 is better than 50-200+1.4TC at 300 mm. Again, the differences are only obvious under side-by-side comparison. IOW, I am comfortable with either lens if max aperture is not a consideration. But for bike ride where size and weight matter, the 75-300 wins.

Here are two pictures taken earlier today. Both were handheld. I am quite happy with the results. I only gave 4 star because of the slow aperture and lack of WR even though I knew it when I bought it.

This family of deer (5 in total, I believe) lives in my backyard. I never understood why these two did not seek better shelter when it was pouring.

It's my favorite telephoto zoom and I think the best value available

I don't understand deleting a star because of features it does not offer.

Wouldn't that be like downgrading a review for a hamburger stand because it doesn't offer pizza?

HRC2016 wrote:

It's my favorite telephoto zoom and I think the best value available

I don't understand deleting a star because of features it does not offer.

Wouldn't that be like downgrading a review for a hamburger stand because it doesn't offer pizza?

Honestly, I struggled with the rating. If I had factored in the cost, it would have been 5-star. But I did that on "absolute" subjective scale. I don't want to give the impression that it is flawless.

HRC2016 wrote:

It's my favorite telephoto zoom and I think the best value available

I don't understand deleting a star because of features it does not offer.

Wouldn't that be like downgrading a review for a hamburger stand because it doesn't offer pizza?

I usually go to burger places to eat my pizza. If they don't serve it I rate them 1 star on trip advisor

That said I also praise the 75-300ii even if I know I have never learnt to use it well, above 200mm...

APart from its non attractive background blur quality, I find it is exceptionally sharp between 75 and say 135/150 mm.

Nice lightweight guy

F

APart from its non attractive background blur quality, I find it is exceptionally sharp between 75 and say 135/150 mm

Yeah but so is a good copy of the cheap and small 40-150 , I`m amazed at how sharp this lens can be at 150mm F5.6 , for shots like those Deer, it does have CA issues of course but its just the easy to correct Purple type.

I`ve not compared one to a 75-300 of course , the last time I tried one was in the 12Mp days , a Mk1 and it was dreadful - no way would it have pulled off those deer shots .. sample variation again

AdamT wrote:

F

APart from its non attractive background blur quality, I find it is exceptionally sharp between 75 and say 135/150 mm

Yeah but so is a good copy of the cheap and small 40-150 , I`m amazed at how sharp this lens can be at 150mm F5.6 , for shots like those Deer, it does have CA issues of course but its just the easy to correct Purple type.

I`ve not compared one to a 75-300 of course , the last time I tried one was in the 12Mp days , a Mk1 and it was dreadful - no way would it have pulled off those deer shots .. sample variation again

I have that fellow as well. The 40-150R is another wonder of the system...

I consider my copy a "good" lens. I can get quite sharp images handheld even at 300 when I am braced. But the hit rate is lower at long focal lengths apparently limited by my ability to handhold.

It is, though, not in the same league as the 300 for shooting birds. But, considering the weight for longer carries, and the price, is still a good choice.

Agreed.

I know I am unable to use the lens at its longest end. That is due to my technique, never sufficiently developed..

Just took a picture of a bird feeder at 300 mm wide open aperture. This time, I had the camera on a sturdy tripod. There was, however, a light breeze.

While I have the PL100-400, my 75-300II (pre-C19) got to take the trip to the SouthWest every year. When you learn how to use it at the long end, it really is a fantastic lens. On my G9 at 75mm it will cut your eyes, and it's very good at 300mm IMHO.

I recently got the Oly 75-300 II for my E-M10 II body and am quite happy with the resolution even at 300mm.  In various tests I found no improvement stopping down to f/7.1 or f/8 for improved "net resolution".  I shoot mainly small song birds and try to avoid excessive cropping, even though many times I'm "too far away".  I like to shoot at 1/500 sec. min. where possible.  These little birds are usually moving a lot and 1/500 also helps with my rather shaky hold.

Dave

Taken with my new toy 75-300 @ 300mm and wide open aperture. It was processed in LR and cropped to an equivalent FL of 600mm (or 1200mm FF).