1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Affordable Telephoto zoom Oly 75-300ii vs. Panny 100-300ii with EM1ii

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by Joseph_C, Mar 13, 2018.

  1. Joseph_C

    Joseph_C Mu-43 Rookie

    Mar 13, 2018
    Hi to all,

    I am considering buying a new "affordable" super Telephoto zoom either the Oly 75-300ii or Panny 100-300ii to be used with my new EM1ii. I'd like the extra reach from time to time.

    Has anyone compared them and could kindly recommend one or the other?

    What I know so far :

    - Oly's Pros: extra 25mm (50mm equivalent), ProCap L (with EM1ii), cheaper.
    - Panny Pros: Weather sealed, extra 1/2 stop, OIS (if to use with another camera - I also have a G6 I have been using until lately before buying the Em1ii).

    The Leica 100-400 and Oly 300 f/4 are too bulky for me as I want something portable and expensive for me (just want to use this from time to time).

    The other lenses I use are: Oly Pro 12-100 f/4, Summilux 25 1.4, Panny 42.5 1.7, Oly 60 2.8 Macro, panny 14-140ii, Samyang Fisheye 7.5 3.5)

    Thank you for your time

  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Optically they are more or less identical.

    The only advantage the Panny has is the weather sealing, but there is a lot of speculation about cross brand compatibility because of the sealing ring on the lens mount. There are two threads on this forum that go into great depths about it but I can’t find them. Hopefully someone comes along and links them so I can this time bookmark them.

    The advantage to the Olympus is it will be usable for features that Olympus limits to it’s lenses only. I personally only buy Olympus lenses because I don’t want some new cool feature coming out that I can’t use with some Panny lens I bought.
  3. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    The Panasonic is slightly faster. It also has OIS, which can be beneficial at long FL.

    This comparison comes up regularly in the forum. Usually the consensus is that both lenses are more than capable within their expectations. It usually comes down to price, availability, and in case of the 100-300ii weather sealing. Although @Phocal@Phocal is correct in that it is not definitively known if weather sealing is cross-brand compatible.
  4. panamike

    panamike Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jul 5, 2016
    Lincolnshire UK
  5. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
  6. Lu1Wang

    Lu1Wang Mu-43 Regular

    Pany 100-300 isn't that much smaller than the 100-400, due to weather sealing and OIS. Like mentioned above, the weather sealing might not even work on Oly bodies. If you want a truly compact super tele, 75-300 is the way to go.
  7. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    After shooting the 150/2 w/ EC-20 for 2 years and close to a year of using the Sigma 50-500 I still don’t believe this statement. Honestly believe it was started by either Panasonic or Panasonic users to justify going with OIS over IBIS.

    I will say I have seen a difference with the Dual IS of the 300/4, but even that is only situational useful. Mostly for shooting from awkward positions that are not very stable. In normal use you can really only go so low before subject movement is the problem and not operator movement.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Egregius V

    Egregius V Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jun 14, 2015
    Massachusetts, USA
    Rev. Gregory Vozzo
    For whatever reason, I had trouble getting dead-on accurate autofocus with the 75-300 II on Olympus bodies. I tried 3 cameras and 3 lenses. The lenses worked a bit better on my GX85. I'm happier now with the 100-300 II. My copy happens to be much sharper at 300mm and a little bit sharper through the rest of the range. I prefer the OIS at the long end of the zoom range (and Dual IS with a Panasonic body) - though Olympus 5-axis IBIS by itself is perfectly fine. I've no problem shooting at max. aperture with either brand's lens. My Panasonic is slightly decentered at 300mm (one corner - seems to be common with this lens) - but this really isn't a concern.
  9. archaeopteryx

    archaeopteryx Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Feb 25, 2017
    Only if Hipparchus was working for Panasonic when developing tables of chords in 140BC, I think. Consider a fixed angular deviation of a lens for a moment and should be easy to see from trigonometry that the required sensor displacement to correct pitch and yaw is proportional to focal length. Olympus introduced IBIS in 2007 but to the best of my memory Canon began making this point in regards to their OIS implementation (introduced in 1995 for film, which is trickier to do sensor shift on) in response to Minolta's 2004 IBIS introduction.

    Since then, the movement range of IBIS systems has increased and they've progressed to three and five axis. Certainly, it hasn't until recently been in Panasonic's interest to point this out. Or to note that, in a focal length equivalent sense, m43 requires half the sensor displacement of the full frame systems OIS was initially developed for. While I'm not seeing that it's still online my memory is a Canon exec in an interview mentioned IS on the 300 f/4 L was equivalent to 6mm of sensor shift. It's been 10-15 years so this is quite possibly incorrect. But it is generally consistent with m43 focal length availability and m43 findings between OIS and IBIS with current IBIS displacement ranges.

    It's also my impression Panasonic OIS tends to lag other systems in angular range of correction offered. One testable hypothesis therefore offered is m43 comparisons would tend to find less of an OIS-IBIS difference than APS-C or full frame ones, particularly if the lenses under consideration are not long telephotos. I don't follow other systems closely enough to have developed a sense if this is the case. One could have look if one's curious, though.
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    I just don't think I could consider an f6.7 lens. That's painfully slow.

    Uhh, what?

    Compact Camera Meter

    126mm long and 520g vs 172mm long and 985g (and quite a bit fatter)

    The 75-300 is only 10mm shorter than the 100-300, anyway, but it is a little bit lighter and narrower.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    In order to get the best/most consistency out of the O75-300II, I do the following:
    1) Make sure to shoot at 1/500 shutter speed or faster
    2) Shoot with anti-shock mode on
    3) Shoot between 75 and 280mm for pixel peepers
    4) Shoot this lens mainly when you have a lot of light. 300 f/6.7 is pretty light hungry
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. retiredfromlife

    retiredfromlife Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2016
    Sydney, Australia
  13. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    I only have the 100-300. For the longest time I assumed I had the mark II version of the lens. I’m not sure why I thought that. I guess it was that I bought the lens new from B&H after the mk II was out. Regardless, mine is the mark I and I use it on an original E-M1. As far as IBIS and OIS goes, I did a test for myself. I was able to get sharper images with slower shutter speeds using OIS than I could work the IBIS in my E-M1. When I shared that here, I don’t think some folks liked it. But that was my result. YMMV.

    As far as the lens itself, it is capable of producing decent shots. With good light and careful attention to all the basics. It is not great. I still dream of a 300/4. But that lens is about 3 times more expensive as well. One day.
  14. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    Same as the 75-300 but as you say no comparison with the 300/4. Good example is those eagle shots I just posted in the Share Birds thread using my 75-300. Compare those with the 300/4 shots from
  15. What are you going to be using the supertelephoto for? If it's for birds and animals, any difference in basic sharpness etc between the two lenses is nothing in comparison to having to deal with f/5.6 versus f/6.7 at the long end. You will find it challenging to keep ISO down and shutter speeds fast enough in all but very good light.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
  17. Joseph_C

    Joseph_C Mu-43 Rookie

    Mar 13, 2018
  18. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Joseph_C

    Joseph_C Mu-43 Rookie

    Mar 13, 2018
    Thanks to all - I will go over all this and will try to make an intelligent decision.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.