question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

stompyq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

I have a trip coming up in January which could "potentially" involve some wildlife opportunities. I need a long lens and space and money are at a premium (airfare is not cheap these days). How is the 75-300mm compared to the oly 100-400? both are slow at the long end so I'm talking strictly about image quality and IS ability to keep things steady (this is important). I will be using an em1 mk2. Also can the 75-300 use pro capture mode? Would like to stick with the Olympus options since I'm sure some functionality will be lost with the panasonic offerings. I can live with 300mm at the long end so the extra reach from the 100-400mm is not a deal breaker

Oct 19, 2022 at 10:58 AM

mskad2
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

I recently bought a used 75-300mm Mk II from a FM member . Overall I am pretty happy with this lens. The IQ is very good from 75mm to around 200mm and acceptable up to 250mm. At 300mm it is a bit soft but I found out that using ON1 Nonoise on these pictures can do miracles.

IBIS with Em1 Mk III works very well but I try to keep the shutter speed at or faster than 1/500s when possible.

The best feature of this lens is its weight. I still can't believe how light and compact it is. I don't hesitate taking it with me when I go hiking. It wasn't an option with my Tamron 150-500mm.

Oct 19, 2022 at 04:40 PM

galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

Maybe take a look at a few reviews?

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/75-300mm-f4.8-6.7-ii-ed-m.zuiko-digital/review/

Sharpness
The 75-300mm ƒ/4.8-6.7 II offers excellent results in the wider end of its focal length spectrum. Even used wide open at 75mm and ƒ/4.8, the lens produces tack-sharp images from corner to corner (this is also true at 100mm and ƒ/5.1). Stopping down at either of these focal lengths doesn't produce any tangible increase in sharpness.

At 150mm and above, resolution suffers a bit. Wide open at ƒ/5.6 and 150mm, the central area of the frame is nice and sharp and we note some corner softness in the extreme corners, but stopping down to ƒ/8 or greater doesn't actually improve the corners - rather, the center degrades a bit to match the corners.

At 200mm and 300mm, the lens offers above-average performance for sharpness; the center is decently sharp, but the corners are significantly soft. Stopping down to ƒ/11 does help at the 200mm setting, but at 300mm setting, there's no significant improvement.

Diffraction limiting sets in at ƒ/11, though the results at the shorter focal lengths aren't immediately obvious until ƒ/16 or ƒ/22, where we note very soft results across the frame (especially at 300mm).

Oct 19, 2022 at 06:36 PM

Woody Meristem
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

I have both lenses, the 75-300mm is a version ii. The Olympus 100-400 is definitely sharper, but also much larger and much heavier. The 75-300mm is not stabilized while the 100-400 is. I use the 75-300mm while hiking and the 100-400mm on a tripod when in a blind, on a monopod or in the car with a beanbag since it's heavy and large to carry when hiking unless it's in a backpack. If price is a consideration, the 75-300mm is roughly one-third the price of the 100-400mm; if I were you I'd get the 75-300 for price, size and weight, but I'm not you and don't know your needs and expectations as far as image quality versus cost and size of a lens. As a nature photographer who does a lot of wildlife work I'm glad I have both lenses; if I had it to do all over again I'd still get both lenses.

Nov 28, 2022 at 06:54 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

I don’t remember if I had a copy of the 75-300, but had a few copies of the 100-400. It is an excellent lens and can hardly be considered large and heavy compared to other zooms with that equivalent focal-length range.

Nov 28, 2022 at 08:24 PM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

The reasons to buy the 75-300 are price, portability and reach. You actually get quite a lot of lens for your money. The problems I have had with it mainly centre around the focusing. As a result I don’t use it very often. On the other hand, it’s so light and small that it’s a good backstop for travel and much easier to carry around than the alternatives (I’m talking exclusively Olympus here).

This is a lens that would definitely benefit from a focus limiter switch because, in my experience, it hunts like crazy. If you can find a subject with good contrast, it will probably work. But in compromised lighting or low contrast, it struggles. With good subject selection - maybe the result of walking further - it can produce as good as a result as any comparable lens.

AF mode is also important when using this lens. Careful selection of the focusing area can make or break the shot with this one. I have never found the IBIS in the E-M1 to be not up to the task so an in-built stabiliser isn’t necessary. For the reasons I have already made clear, you are unlikely to be using it in low light when 7 stops of stabilisation is needed anyway.

I recently returned from a trip with an E-M1, a 12mm f/2, 14-42 f/3.5-5.6, 40-150 f/4-5.6 and 75-300 f/4.8-6.7 and there was nothing I couldn’t do with that selection (though I needed a polariser…). I also had a small Joby Gorilla Pod in the bag for anything that required low shuttler speeds. This whole rig fitted perfectly into a small LowePro Stealth Reporter 300 bag and I hiked with it with no problems.

Dec 03, 2022 at 06:50 PM

faunagraphy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · question on Olympus 75-300mm vs 100-400mm

Do you own an E-M1 series camera? Consider the Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm. There are two versions: ED and SWD, both are good and the ED is cheaper (and slightly slower-focusing and noisier). For under $250 you get top-quality optics and functional autofocus (nothing spectacular but works well for a lot of wildlife excluding BIFs). There are many inexpensive adapters and the MMF-3 ($200-ish) will give you weather-sealing, which I guess you can compromise on for the time being.

I bought the SWD lens and started with the E-M1. I'm on to an OM-1 now and still use the lens. Owned a PanaLeica 50-200 and ultimately sold the PL and kept the Oly 50-200. Not what I was planning on when I purchased it.

I also own the EC-14 teleconverter but I never use it. IMO if you crop the image you'll still get better photos than with the 75-300.

Dec 12, 2022 at 07:42 PM


FM Forums \| Micro Four Thirds Forum \| Join Upload & Sell