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!

Shootout Olympus 75-300 vs 50-200 SWD w/ EC-14 vs 300/4 Shoot Out

Discussion in 'Reviews, Tests, & Shootouts' started by Phocal, Sep 20, 2018.

  1. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    I arrived at Brazos Bend State Park in a good mood despite my pack weighing in at just over 41 pounds. That weight is without the 3 liters of water which comes in at an additional 6.6lbs, I had 1 liter left so that makes my pack weight a minimum of 44lbs (actually just shy of that) up to 48lbs. I will have to say that the F-stop Ajna pack handled the weight extremely well and I only noticed the weight when removing or putting on the pack, I really do love this pack.

    I had the following gear in the pack.
    • EM1 /w grip
    • EM1
    • MZ 300mm f4.0 IS Pro
    • MZ 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II
    • ZD 50-200 f2.8-3.5 SWD
    • ZD 150mm f2.0
    • MC-14
    • EC-14
    • EC-20
    • Godox V860iiO
    • Godox X1T-O
    • 3D printed skimmer pod w/ ballhead
    There have been a lot of post about full frame and other systems lately and as always some post with people complaining about the size of new m4/3 gear. Some even claiming that it’s gotten to where m4/3 camera/lens are approaching full frame size. Those threads always make me laugh because it is so easy to prove them wrong. I could go through and prove it right here by looking up weights and comparing a similar load out of full frame gear, but I have more important things to do. But I will say as a previous full frame / APSC shooter that there is no way I could fit a similar load out into a 40L bag, let alone carry it while covering just over 4 miles. This and the amazing weather sealing of Olympus is why I switched.


    It was really foggy driving in, which meant it was super humid and everything was wet. I had fully intended to include the 150/2 in this comparison but while switching from the SWD to the Little Tuna I dropped the Tuna, it ended up getting wet on both ends and never un-fogged while I had my subject in front of me. I actually had problems with all the lenses fogging up because I was having to lay them in the extremely wet grass. There were a few times I had to remove the lens hood and wait for the lens to un-fog before I could shoot because I couldn’t get them to un-fog with the hood on but needed the hood on the lens to keep the front element from getting wet when laying in the grass. I had actually tried getting into position on several other birds while dragging my pack behind me so I would have a dry place to put the lenses/camera not in use. After a number of failed attempts I changed my method and crawled into position on the Great Blue Heron I used for the comparison while carrying only two cameras with lenses attached. Once in position at the 41 foot distance I crawled back for the other two lenses, this tactic also worked when I moved to the 35 foot distance as well. But it also meant that I had to lay everything not in use on the wet grass. Because I was concerned with the weight of my pack I left out a lot of the little things I like to bring with me for those just in case situations when out shooting. One of those items is a small tarp I like to use when laying in really damp swamp mud to try and keep somewhat dry/clean. Was kicking myself the entire morning for leaving it behind because it would have been so very useful.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Because this is a lens comparison pieces I will include my camera settings for the testing. I also used two different cameras and feel I should mention that the 300/4 and 75-300 were on the same EM1 while my 50-200 SWD was on the other.

    Camera Settings
    • ISO - Auto
    • White Balance - Auto
    • SAF w/ Single Small Auto Focus Point which I moved to a location for a decent composition.
    • Drive - Continuous Low w/ Anti-Shock (set to 6.5fps)
    • IBIS - SIS1
    • Metering - ESP
    • EV - -3/4 Stop
    • Mode - Aperture Priority
    • Photos all taken in RAW and processed via my custom preset in LightRoom (no crop)
    • Handheld w/ Elbows braced on knees while sitting on the slope of the bank
    I shot all lenses wide-open since that is how most people will be shooting, at least that is how I mostly shoot my lenses unless I need extra DoF. But I also shot all three lenses stopped down one full stop because that is typically the peak sharpness for m4/3 lenses.

    I also tried to maintain a parallel perspective to minimize any perceived increase in sharpness due to increased DoF. In testing lenses I have noticed that an increase in DoF can give the impression of greater sharpness because of more being in focus and I wanted to limit that when looking at the lenses. So in some ways shooting the neck and head of the GBH had an advantage over a smaller bird where I would have shot full body.

    As many know I only do real world in the field testing and this was no exception. I rarely shoot anything from over 50 feet and was hoping to find one of the smaller Herons/Egrets so I could shoot full body but had to settle on the Great Blue Heron that allowed me to photograph him. The vegetation is currently very high and thick, so even if I wanted to shoot from farther away and do full body it would have not been possible unless shooting across the water and that opportunity never presented itself.

    I initially moved into position (which ended up being 41ish feet according to EXIF) and took photos with the first 3 lenses. While switching to the 150/2 I dropped it and the elements at both ends (had caps off when I dropped it) ended up getting wet from the grass it rolled in. I spent a few minutes trying to get it dry and un-fogged but couldn’t. I knew I was close to 50 feet and wanted to get closer so I moved forward to what turns out to be 35ish feet (per EXIF) and had hoped to get the 150/2 un-fogged for the next round of photos. At the closer distance I took more photos but the 150/2 never got clear enough to shoot with before the GBH took off because another photographer came down the trail. On my next trips out I plan to bring the EC-20 so I can at least do a comparison against the 300/4. I will not be taking all 4 lenses out again, just to much work and I think these shots will provide a good idea on how well it would have compared when I do test it against the 300/4.

    For those hoping to see the 300/4 compared to the 150/2 w/ EC-20 I am sorry, but I do promise to get that comparison done as soon as I can.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Shooting distance of 41ish feet with all three lenses wide-open.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    75-300 Wide-Open at 41 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    50-200 SWD Wide-Open at 41 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    300/4 Wide-Open at 41 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Shooting distance of 41ish feet with all three lenses stopped down one full stop.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    75-300 Stopped Down at 41 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    50-200 SWD Stopped Down at 41 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    300/4 Stopped Down at 41 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Shooting distance of 35ish feet with all three lenses wide-open.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    75-300 Wide-Open at 35 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    50-200 SWD Wide-Open at 35 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    300/4 Wide-Open at 35 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Shooting distance of 35ish feet with all three lenses stopped down one full stop.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    75-300 Stopped Down at 35 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    50-200 SWD Stopped Down at 35 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    300/4 Stopped Down at 35 Feet by Phocal Art, on Flickr
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Wow Wow x 1
  7. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    My thoughts on the outcome…………………

    Color - I was really surprised by how different the colors are between the photographs. When I compared the 150/2 and 300/4 I noticed very similar color in the photos (which I was happy to see). These three lenses have very different colors and I processed them all using my normal custom preset that I use for all my wildlife photographs. Personally I prefer the color from the 300/4 followed by the 75-300 and finally the 50-200 SWD. I was really surprised to discovery that I preferred the 75-300 over the SWD since I have always liked the images from my 50-200. I should note that I did also notice the color difference when I did my comparison of the 50-200 SWD against the 150/2 and in that comparison I preferred the 150/2 over the SWD.

    Resolution - It is pretty clear that the 300/4 has significantly more resolution than the other two lenses. The images just appear sharper and with a lot greater detail compared to the other two (I can tell without knowing lens used). All three lenses sharpen up a noticeable amount when you stop down one full stop, which is what I expected after looking at LensTip’s testing of the 300/4 and 50-200 (they don’t have any of the m4/3 xx-300 lens tested, really wish they would). I find the wide-open shots from the 300/4 and SWD to be usable but the 75-300 really needs stopped down a full stop to become usable. When looking at the images I encourage you to also look down the GBH’s neck and compare some of the fine feather details between the images.

    Distance - I have always talked about shooting distance and how you want to be as close as possible to capture as much detail as possible. The first set of photos are from close to my personal maximum shooting distance for birds, while the second set is from a distance I find much more comfortable and what I typically shoot from (if not closer depending on size of bird. Even with only an approximate 6 foot difference in shooting distance I can see a noticeable difference in detail capture in all the lenses. The 75-300 with it’s lesser resolution seemed to benefit the most from getting closer. Unlike the farther shooting distance I find the wide-open shot from the 75-300 right on the cusp of being usable, the stopped down shot is significantly sharper as I would expect. I think from around the 25 foot distance the 75-300 would easily start to become usable wide-open. The other two lenses as before are usable wide-open (do sharpen up stopped down) and do capture more detail when closer as expected.

    Bokeh - I know that this aspect of an image comes down to personal preferences, but here goes. The 75-300 easily has the worse bokeh of the three lenses, especially when stopped down to f9.0. There is really nothing you can do about it other than get closer, the bokeh in the closer images is not as bad as the farther images in my opinion. It’s slower aperture just can’t compete with the faster lenses when it comes to bokeh. The SWD and 300/4 have a similar wide-open aperture (f4 vs f4.9), so the amount of blur is pretty similar. But to me the transitions between color is no contest and the 300/4 creates much more pleasing out of focus areas. This difference is really noticeable if you look at the vertical weed that crosses right behind the beak in the images with those two lenses. That change in color is just not as harsh or sudden from the 300/4 as it is with the SWD and that 1/2 stop difference is just enough in my opinion to also create a little more blur to be noticeable.

    Shutter Speed / Freezing Action / ISO - I was shooting a static bird so shutter speed was not really my concern. My shutter speed requirements for this comparison were fast enough to handhold, fast enough to freeze any movement from the bird or from the wind blowing it’s feathers while being at base ISO. I bring this up because of the slower shutter speeds when using the 75-300. Keep in mind that I am currently concerned with shutter speed from a freezing the action standpoint, I will address the ability to handhold in the next section. Sunrise was 7:07 and I took these photos between 8:15 and 8:24, so I was shooting in good morning light. The 300/4 had no problem with keeping shutter speed high enough to freeze the action. I like to photograph birds catching food because you never know what they will pull out of the water and I am still waiting for that bird catching a baby gator photograph. To freeze the strike from a bird I have found that 1/800 is the absolute minimum and even at that speed you can get some motion blur, for that reason I prefer to be at 1/1000 or faster. The 300/4 stopped down to f5.6 was at 1/1000 but I almost always shoot the lens at f4.0 because it’s more than good enough, at f4.0 my shutter speed was 1/2000. The SWD is also a lens I always shoot wide-open so it’s 1/1250 was more than adequate, even stopped down it was at my bare minimum of 1/800. The 75-300 is another matter, wide-open it was at my bare minimum of 1/800. This leaves no room for any error or change in lighting and also means that shooting in a little less light I would have to raise my ISO to keep shutter speed high enough. The lens already isn’t the sharpest, so every increase in ISO is going to decrease detail captured and make the image just that much softer. Since the lens is distance sensitive that means for farther away shots (like my 41 feet images) it needs stopped down to f9, which lowers the shutter speed to 1/500. Now we have to increase ISO even more to get shutter speed back up to freeze action and the images fall even farther behind the other lenses. If shooting static subjects there is no need to worry about shutter speed beyond ability to hold steady, but if needing to freeze action the 75-300 image quality drops farther behind the other lenses because of the higher ISO required. This is why I say the 75-300 requires good light and in anything less it’s image quality compared to other lenses like the 300/4 drops significantly due to higher ISO required to maintain fast shutter speeds.

    Shutter Speed / Handholding / ISO - The 300/4 is without a doubt the King of the three lenses. I find the weight just about perfect (really wish it was a bit heavier, especially with the MC-14 attached) for handholding and combined with the amazing dual IS this lens is so easy to handhold (I can even shoot pretty smooth handheld video with this lens). For this test the shutter never dropped low enough for me to even be concerned. I don’t even think about my shooting technique with this lens until I drop much lower in shutter speed, for this I just raised, framed, focused and shot. Every single image taken with the 300/4 was perfectly sharp, it really is that easy to shoot. The SWD is a little light in my opinion to handhold (with the EC-14, perfect weight bare lens) and I do need to pay a bit more attention to technique when using it, but the Olympus IBIS really is amazing and during this test there was no concern about getting sharp images. I did have a number of out of focus shots with this lens (maybe 15%), but some of it could also be due to PDAF focus errors. With this lens I don’t start to really be concentrate on technique until I get down to the 1/400 mark (for the record with the 300/4 I start to pay attention around 1/250). The 75-300 was as I have always said, way to light for the focal range. When shooting it wide-open I had to really pay attention to technique and had at least 25% of the images blurry. It is just so light that the smallest of movements can cause the camera/lens to move and I always shoot this lens at the top of a breath like when shooting a rifle. Now when I stopped down and the shutter speed dropped to 1/500 I had at least 50% blurry and had to really pay attention to my technique. I also shot a lot more images to make sure I got sharp ones for the comparison. Unfortunately the 75-300 is just a much harder lens to shoot, a remake with dual IS would make such a huge difference in this lens.

    Honestly this test turned out exactly as I predicted it would. The only real surprise for me was the color differences between the lenses and the fact that I preferred the color from the 75-300 over the SWD. Really wish I could have included the 150/2 and do feel somewhat let down by not being able to test it. I briefly considered waiting and trying again but my favorite time of shooting is here and it was a lot of work to drag all this gear out and concentrate on getting those shots over other photo opportunities. One of my failed attempts when dragging my pack was a Green Heron who would have been in the most beautiful light as the sun came over the trees. If I was out to just shoot I would have gotten in place with nothing but the 300/4 and waited for the sun. I don’t regret taking all the gear out and doing the test, I really did want to see how they compared. But it is not something I am willing to do again, unless I do it from the kayak where weight is really not a concern. I may actually do that because I have a good test of the lenses now to compare against, because shooting from the kayak brings a lot of other variables that I have to account for. One in particular is increased shutter speed due to kayak movement, which could cause an increase in ISO for the 75-300. So you never know, I may get a chance to repeat this and if I do I will probably throw in the Sigma 50-500.

    Oh, one more thing. I also was able to photograph a Bullfrog with the 300/4 w/ MC-14 and the 50-200 SWD w/ EC-20 to do a comparison, so look for that thread in a few days.

    Ok, let the comments and arguments and disagreements begin as I know they surely will…………….,


    Edit - Here is link to my Amazon Prime folder with full resolution JPG's for your viewing pleasure - Amazon Photos
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
    • Informative x 19
    • Winner x 3
    • Appreciate x 3
    • Like x 2
    • Agree x 1
  8. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Thanks Ronnie. Bummer about the 150/2, but such is life.

    The results are about what I expected. The 300/4 PRO was incredible. The 50-200 SWD is an unbelievable bargain. The 70-300 II is a very good, lightweight option when compared to variable aperture xx-400 lenses on APS-C or XX-600 lenses on FF.

    I will say that the 300/4 PRO did a noticeably better job regarding bokeh. Looking at the tall grass in the background, the two zoom lenses have definitive edges on the grass, creating "nervous" bokeh. The 300/4 PRO meanwhile did a very nice job of softening the edges of the grass, making for a softer background.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  9. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    I agree with your assessment. The OOF areas from the consumer zoom are not as nice, especially compared to the 300. But that is understandable when you consider the aperture. To my eyes the color between the cheap zoom and the 300 seem very close, and much more pleasing than the 50-200. Although, I bet the 50-200 was a little more true to life, I prefer the warmer rendering of the newer lenses.

    As for being "usable" - Any of those shots would be winners for me. That has more to do with your skill than any gear. I think a slight bit more processing (highlight adjustment, micro contrast adjustment, etc) on the cheap zoom would result in excellent photos.

    As always, your skill is the best asset. You are also proof that awesome nature photography does not need a large sensor.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  10. StephenB

    StephenB Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Aug 29, 2018
    Somerset UK
    What a tremendous post @Phocal@Phocal

    I bought a 75-300 II for just a couple of hundred pounds, it was a good buy for that, but trying to handhold it steady is very difficult for an oldie like me, I had no trouble holding my ex Canon 70-200 2.8 and 7D which weighed a ton. It's no surprise the Pro lens came out on top, at 6x the price of the budget lens it had to; a great detailed read, thanks for that.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  11. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Great comparison, Ron. Mahalo!
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  12. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2013
    Thank you for taking the time and effort to do this. I really love my 50-200 and use it almost exclusively with the EC-14. But as much as I like the lens I am under no illusions that it is as good as the 300. Your test just puts proof to what I thought, although my copy is the non-SWD, I have heard their IQ is similar between SWD and non-SWD.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  13. szczpeanl

    szczpeanl Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Nov 17, 2017
    To me this test proves most of all that its the photographer not the gear, all the images are great in their own right. Having said that, I could tell which photos were taken with the 300 without looking at the description, definitely a great lens - as it should be considering the price.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Thanks and I agree about the 300 Pro. I think the 75-300 is at least as good as the Sigma 150-600mm C and the 50-200 is probably about the same as the S model (probably pretty close to the 100-400 up to 283mm). The Pro is in the same league as the 600/4 in my opinion, maybe even a bit above honestly.

    Olympus really needs to release a 75-300mk3 similar to the Panny 100-300mk2. Dual IS would solve a lot of my issues with the 75-300 and would make it a great lens for Olympus shooters. I have a good friend from the Navy looking to upgrade from an all in one super zoom and right now I am going to steer him to a Panny with DFD and the 100-300. He is on a budget but will suggest moving up to the 100-400. Then again I may just swing him to a used EM1 with the 50-200 SWD and both TC’s and tell him to just wait for the mk3 version of the 75-300. He shoots from a kayak a lot, so the 75-300 is out both from weather sealing and it’s tough shooting due to weight.
  15. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    I agree about the color between the 300 and 75-300.

    Thanks. I could probably improve the images some but I wanted to keep everything similar, so only used my preset. Typically I will use the preset and about 1/2 the time do nothing else, sometimes I will tweak it a bit if something is off and I probably could improve the 75-300 shots some.

    Thank you and I left that largess sensor world and couldn’t be happier. So much easier to carry around my current setup and for the first time can easily hold my gear over the side of the kayak for water level framing.
  16. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Thank you.

    The lens really is on the light side to make steady shots easy, a little wieght can really be helpful. The 70-200 2.8 is really the perfect size and weight for it’s focal range. But the 75-300 is easily as good as the Sigma C and so much cheaper.
  17. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Thank you, appreciate the comment
  18. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    You are welcome. Honestly, the 50-200 is beyond the good enough point and is an amazing value. I love mine and never plan on getting rid of it. The SWD and non-SWD are suppose to have identical IQ, so you are good to go. I will be posting a comparison of the 300/4 w/ MC-14 to the 50-200 w/ EC-20 in a macro situation (photographed a Bullfrog). Not to give anything away but I was very impressed with the 50-200.
  19. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Thank you, appreciate the comment. The 300 is definetly noticable between the lenses, it really is in a class all it’s own.
  20. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Feb 2, 2012
    Thanks for efforts. I have SWD and have always loved the sharpness,though it is a bit clunky. I have the 300mm f4 and have almost always used it on the Panny G-9 lately. I don't see that I give up anything. I did use it on the EM-10 iii and had some disappointments,though the Jpegs were good. I don't think the AF is good on this camera. I did update the firmware today.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  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.