Shootout MZ 75-300 vs MZ 300mm in a Battle Over Gorgeous

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,555
Location
Anchorage
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
MZ I assume is what Olympus refers to their micro four thirds lenses by.... M. Zuiko Digital Lenses (Used to be Zuiko Digital Lenses for 4/3 cameras and just plain Zuiko for film).

Back on Topic. I am very impressed by what you can get out of that 75-300mm lens. Great technique and processing!
That lens surprises me at time. But honestly the biggest trick to the 75-300 is filling the frame with your subject and either having amazing long lens technique or keeping the shutter speed up.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
898
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I am curious about the 100-400 as well. I am sure it will be a bit better than the Panny but it will also be bigger and heavier which will get everyone complaining about it.
It would get me complaining, for certain. Why do you think it will be bigger and heavier? (I am talking about the 100-400 NON-pro lens here). I'm kind of hoping that Oly will show some sense. I mean, they will have the pro lens for those who want fast and enormous.
 

Sammyboy

m43 Pro
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,388
Location
Steeler Country
.... the new forth coming PRO lens is 150-400 zoom ... NOT a 100-400 zoom, this will be a premium zoom, not with a PRO designation ...
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,555
Location
Anchorage
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
It would get me complaining, for certain. Why do you think it will be bigger and heavier? (I am talking about the 100-400 NON-pro lens here). I'm kind of hoping that Oly will show some sense. I mean, they will have the pro lens for those who want fast and enormous.
I suspect they are trying to start a mid-line if lenses like the old HG lenses. Which means more optical correction then say the 75-300 and less software correction. One of my biggest complaints with Panny is their heavy reliance on software correction. Sure it makes for smaller/lighter lenses but you can’t push the files as far before they breakdown.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,555
Location
Anchorage
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
I think the quality of the 300/4 is evident in this comparison - but I'm surprised how well the lowly 75-300 has performed. Given its size and price, it's hard to criticise it.
When close, yes. Guess I’m going to try some farther distance shots to show how quickly the 75-300 drops off in IQ.
 

mfturner

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
138
@Phocal , I totally agree with your fill the frame with your subject advise. I think that is something I have learned, that small sensors do well so long as you don't crop. If you cannot fill the frame with the wildlife, then you need to find a way to include the wildlife in a scene so that the whole scene is your subject, if that makes sense. Your images and stories and advise are all fantastic, thank you for sharing your experience.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
898
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
.... the new forth coming PRO lens is 150-400 zoom ... NOT a 100-400 zoom, this will be a premium zoom, not with a PRO designation ...
Yes, I know that the upcoming PRO lens is a 150-400. But that is not the lens I meant when I said the new 100-400, which is also on their roadmap. The 100-400 will be standard grade, I think, and I hope not too large. I am more interested in lightweight than speed.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Shaka, when the shutter fell
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
487
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
@Phocal , I totally agree with your fill the frame with your subject advise. I think that is something I have learned, that small sensors do well so long as you don't crop. If you cannot fill the frame with the wildlife, then you need to find a way to include the wildlife in a scene so that the whole scene is your subject, if that makes sense. Your images and stories and advise are all fantastic, thank you for sharing your experience.
Yes, at least the 20MP sensors have given us a little more leeway. I noticed the difference right away when I went from 16 to 20, but the less cropping the better.
 

Dogbert62

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
55
Location
Austin, TX
Real Name
Patrick
Phocal...
Thank you for this review of the 75-300mm and comparison to the 300mm f/4. Your work in South Texas and new efforts in Alaska are amazing

I, like many, struggle with long lens technique.. My 75-300mm is not the problem, my fieldcraft is the problem... I read your reviews and posts with earnest to see if I can glean tidbits on fieldcraft.. If I find a few, I get the fuzzy teddy bear with the glass eye out and see if I can replicate the knowledge.. It almost always helps but I still have much learn..

Is there a source of information in either text of video that you would suggest?

regards
Dogbert62
 

RichDesmond

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
718
Location
United States
...The extra DoF is nice but not worth the worse background...
I do admit the deeper DoF does add a bit but me personally can't stand the background...
Let me take a contrarian view. :)

Who's the audience for these? If it's a member of the general public, I'll wager quite a bit that they're not seeing the background at all. And that's kind of the point, isn't it? We want the blurred background to focus attention on the subject. As long as the background isn't distracting at all, what matters is how good the image of the main subject is. In this case, the little bit of extra DOF in the 75-300 shot helps enough to make it the better photo.
IMHO, of course. :)

There're both amazing shots.
 

mfturner

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
138
As a middle viewpoint, i might say that my cheap mu43 zoom lenses have challenged me to include busy backgrounds in a pleasing way. I came from the Canon world, and my favorite setup was a 3 prime lens setup with 300f4, 100f2, and 40f2.8. The 100f2 and 300f4 lenses gave beautiful background blur, i could make images work with very busy backgrounds, i could ignore the background if i wanted. Now, my 100 at f5.6 or 300 at f6.3 makes it much more challenging to ignore the background, and it has taken time to learn to view the scene as a whole rather than just looking at the primary subject.

Being a hobbyist, i could afford the time to learn and maneuver over many days to get different framings. I think I take better images now because of it, i like the somewhat environmental portrait it gives me, and adds another tool. But i miss the tools of the 100f2 and 300f4, i cannot make those images with my current kit. I enjoy a challenge though, so I'm not ready to invest in more kit just yet. But if i tried to sell photos, i wouldn't hesitate to upgrade.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom