Olympus 75-300 II or Panny 100-300

[JohnN]

Hi,

Investigating these two is a nightmare!

Opinions swing wildly to both camp - its like the Scottish referendum!

As best as I can tell -

Panasonic 100-300mm f4.0-5.6 Lumix G Vario
Pros

• Has IS (I have a E-M10 so have it in body)
• f4.0-5.6 vs f4.8-6.7

Cons

• More expensive (unless I get it second hand where they are more plentiful)

Olympus M.ZUIKO ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II
Pros

• Quicker AF
• Slightly sharper at the long end
• Smaller & lighter
• Cheaper (if new)
• Shorter MFD so could be better for dragonflies etc - which I do shoot

Cons

• f4.8-6.7 vs f4.0-5.6

I have seen discussions but they were over a year old when the Oly was more expensive.

Does anyone have any recent light to shed?
Did I get any info wrong?

Thanks in advance (and probably after :smile

 

[JohnN]

lol, just looking back on the pros and cons and I think I've convinced myself to get the 75-300.

I like pseudo macro, am slowly moving to m43 to reduce the weight of my kit, always want quicker AF (hell the Canon 400L isn't fast enough for me ), have IBIS and having used several variants on the Sigma BIGMA\OS etc know that 6.7 isn't the end of the world (even if its closer to f8 from what I'm used to on full frame)

Oh yes, and I'm from Yorkshire which automatically make me as tight as the duck proverbial

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I went through the same iterations.

I ended up getting the 75-300 because I had the IBIS in the EM5. What appealed to me as well was the smaller footprint of the Olympus optic.

Beyond that, IQ wise, regardless of where I looked, it always seemed to be 50/50 - which to me has always indicated sample variation and/or testing methodology. Given that - it was a wash.
I looked around used and found a used 75-300 used for less than a used Pany 100-300.

So far, I can say that the IQ is great for the range and I like getting an optical field of view equivalent to a 600mm - then using the 2x digital teleconverter, getting an effective reach of 1200mm.

 

[STR]

75-300 and 100-300 are roughly equal optically, which is to say, pretty darn good. It's a step down from the likes of the 12-35, 35-100 and 12-40, but by no means bad. If someone is getting bad shots out of either, I'll bet money it's bad technique and win 19/20 times. So I call that a wash.

At 300mm, some claim that the 100-300 ILIS works better than IBIS. I've never owned a recent Olympus, so I can't comment. To be honest, I don't trust either at long FL handheld, and neither will do anything on a tripod. Another wash.

100-300mm is 2/3 of stop brighter, which given that you're going to be shooting fast (I set my cam to S mode and set it at 1/600 or higher if it's bright), might be the differentiation between a keeper and a dud. Winner: Panasonic

Olympus wins on price, but that doesn't matter. It's a $50 difference. That's nothing in this game, and I'm far from rich. It'd rather have the faster lens for 10% more.

 

[JohnN]

I should have come back here - I went with the 75-300 - a big part of that was the MFD and the opportunity to use it as a semi macro too - I didn't know then that the MFD changes with focal length -something that I hadn't experienced on other lenses so that was a bit of a shock as was how unbalanced it is, the 100-300 I presume to be worse.

Focus speed is also not that great, but then I've found everything slow so far, but then I consider the 400L to be sluggish at times so in honesty it didn't stand a chance, thankfully I know I'll never be taking shots of my dog running at me without doing a spot of spray and prey (which worked BTW when I tested :smile: - but 30 some shots shooting blind due to the way the EVF works isn't exactly the way I play but worth testing all the same)

I'm still toying with the idea of returning it and getting something like a 45 1.8, but given I have the Sigma 60 2.8 I'm not sure how much of outing it would get - plus if I can get to grips with this it should be pretty damn good when\I it ever stops raining here

 

[rklepper]

I think they are both mediocre lenses. I settled for the 100-300, but am still hoping for a 300 or 400 mm f/4 or faster prime. I only use the 100-300 with the tripod collar on either a tripod or monopod and I have got some keepers.

 

[mattia]

I liked my 100-300 quite a bit. Not stellar, but surprisingly good and a cut above canons similar focal length and aperture zooms. Not far off the 100-400L in a lot of situations. Long lens technique helps, and all of these lenses are 'good light' glass for me; they shine in brighter than average sunlight. I never used a tripod with mine, got plenty of keepers.

 

[JohnN]

I must admit now I have the 75-300 I'm really not sure - thankfully we have distance seller laws here so can get my money back.

I did a few tests and its up there with the Sigma 150-500 easily but it really is a good light lens, sadly the weathers been rubbish here so haven't been able to give it a fair try but it is pretty heavy, sure a grip may help but I'm not sure - only one week left to decide - extra annoying is that I've a hood on route as with Olympus being so tight they don't supply one - amazing!

 

[Savas K]

See what others have been getting with your 75-300 here.

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=52788&page=10&p=691253#post691253

 

[DennisC]

I have the Lumix lens and and get reasonable results with action shots but after 6 years development the problem with m4/3 cameras/lenses is still focusing speed and burst rate.

Last week , I went to an airshow at Amiens with a newbie who had a Canon 600D and a Canon 75-300 lens. He consistently managed to get better framed and focused shots than me during jet formation flying.
For 2/3 of the cost of my kit he was easily achieving what I was aiming to achieve.
It's high time we were given a decent 300mm .. with good optical properties and a focus range lock to speed up focusing.
Having seen how the Canon performed I'd say anything over 150mm is too slow to use for action and am seriously considering returning to my Sony DSLR for long telephoto work.

View attachment 385890

Dassault Flament (E-M10 Lumix 100-300)​

 

[xdayv]

I'll lean on the 100-300, mainly because of the 5.6 at the long end... Good luck!

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I have the Lumix lens and and get reasonable results with action shots but after 6 years development the problem with m4/3 cameras/lenses is still focusing speed and burst rate.

Last week , I went to an airshow at Amiens with a newbie who had a Canon 600D and a Canon 75-300 lens. He consistently managed to get better framed and focused shots than me during jet formation flying.
For 2/3 of the cost of my kit he was easily achieving what I was aiming to achieve.
It's high time we were given a decent 300mm .. with good optical properties and a focus range lock to speed up focusing.
Having seen how the Canon performed I'd say anything over 150mm is too slow to use for action and am seriously considering returning to my Sony DSLR for long telephoto work.

View attachment 386451

Dassault Flament (E-M10 Lumix 100-300)​

That's because the EM10 is contest detect only. If the EM10 had phase detect, then we would be having a different conversation.

The EM1 focusing is way better for tracking moving subjects.

 

[994]

When I compared the two, I didn't like the bokeh of the 75-300, nor the aperture.