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

You are welcome. The 50-200 is really an amazing little lens that is often overlooked, I personally love the lens. The only thing you really give up using the 300/4 on a Panny body is the dual IS. While not needed I have come to really push that dual IS by getting into strange shooting positions to get some unique perspective. I think having the dual IS has enabled me to some shots that would have otherwise been more difficult due to lower in focus shots due to my movement.

 

You are welcome. The 75-300 is a good little lens, its just unfortunate that it is also the one that requires the best technique to get sharp shots from. That lens could really benefit from a redo with dual IS like the new Panny version. It also sharpens up noticeably if you stay under 280mm, I really should have tested that during this test but didn't think about it until I was culling images.

 

It's hard to say, maybe more than the 50-200. Could also be just the difference in how it renders images. In a lot of ways I prefer it over the 50-200, but the I really do love the images from the 300/4.

There is a difference but it would be hard to see on the forum, at 100% it is noticeable. I have uploaded full resolution images to my Amazon Prime so everyone can download them and take a look. I will put the link here, in a post all alone as well as in my conclusion post.

If you like I can still do a crop from each photo and include it in the post.

Full resolution images - Amazon Photos

 

For your viewing pleasure I provide full resolution images for download - Amazon Photos

 

Not at all and appreciate that you did it. My only concern was that all photos were from the same distance as well as the same state (wide-open or stopped down) and it seems that is the case.

To me the sharpness difference is obvious, but I also have access to the full resolution RAW files (but everyone now has access to the full resolution JPGs).

As for a closer subject...…………………….

First, I would have to argue that 90% of the people on this forum who would use any of these lenses would be shooting from a farther distance. While I have no data to back it up (just years of looking at photos on photography forum sites) I would argue that at least 90% of the people who use a telephoto lens in general (any system) would be shooting from a farther distance.

So, shooting from a closer distance would honestly show the same difference. I have photos with the head of a GBH (as well as smaller Herons/Egrets) filling the frame from the 300/4, 300/4 with MC-14, the 150/2, 150/2 w/ EC-14, and 150/2 w/ EC-20 as well as the 50-200 (in all TC combos) and I can easily tell the difference in the amount of detail captured. I have done a comparison of the bare 150/2 vs the bare 300/4 and those two lenses are almost identical and very hard to tell the which was used (I have to look at the bokeh to figure it out). But once I start adding TC's there is a noticeable difference and I think if I was able to do this test from a closer distance the difference would be similar. Yes the 75-300 would provide a better photograph than it does now, but so would the 300/4 and the SWD.

Shooting from a farther distance (which most are going to do) will only widen this difference in sharpness because the other lenses don't have nearly the resolution of the 300/4. I had briefly considered shooting from a farther distance but I always test/compare lenses how I shoot them and not how others shoot them, so I stayed true to my testing.

As for printing? Really depends on how big you are going to print. Based on my printing of images over the last 5 years while using m4/3 I would say if printing small to medium sized there wouldn't be much difference (especially if printing on a textured paper like canvas). I honestly don't think I would find the image of a Tri-Colored Heron I printed 40x30 to meet my requirements if I had taken it with the 75-300. The lens just doesn't have the resolution to capture enough detail when printing that large and wanting to really see the feather detail in a bird. Honestly I am not sure I would have been satisfied if it was taken with the SWD either. The 300/4 is really that amazing of a lens.

As for how a 10 year old lens compared to a new one I am really not that surprised. When Olympus was making the 4/3 lenses they sacrificed nothing for IQ with the SHG lenses, it's why I am so in love with the 150/2. For the HG lenses (which the SWD is) they made them as good as the current Pro lenses in my opinion. To keep size down they have started to use more software correction than they did with the SHG lenses (except maybe the new 1.2 primes, which are stellar in my opinion). I have said for a number of years now that the new Pro lenses are about the same as the old HG lenses and I still believe that. I may just have to shoot the bare SWD against the 300/4 by matching framing and see how it compares, just like I did with the 150/2.

 

I have multiple problems with this reply.

First, almost all zooms tend to get softer as you get closer to the ends. I could have backed off on the 75-300 and the 50-200 and the results between them would have most likely remained the same. Although I suspect the differences between focal lengths is less drastic with the SWD than the 75-300, really wish LensTip would test one of the xx-300 m4/3 lenses. Even with a bit more resolution the 75-300 still wouldn't have gotten much better compared to the other 2 lenses, it just doesn't have the resolving power of the better lenses.

Second, I don't crop...…...or I should say I crop very little and it's mostly just to tighten up composition. But even if I did shoot the 75-300 at 250mm and cropped I would have a photo with less resolution that I couldn't print as large as one that was at full resolution. The solution for the 75-300 isn't to shoot at 250mm and crop, it's shoot at 250mm and get closer so you don't have to crop.

 

as I mentioned above, all zooms are better away from the ends of the range.

I do agree about the feel of Pro lens/body, so nice to hold and use.