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
    Houston
    Honestly, I think the difference in a 40x30 print would be noticeable. Viewing distance has really changed in this day and age and most people still think you should be able to walk right up to a print of any size and see great detail just like zooming in on the computer (I am talking non-photographers here since most photographers should understand that). Hang a 40x30 in your house and watch how many people walk right up to it to view it. This is why I limit the size of prints I sell to 40x30, the good lenses can pull it off for up close viewing.
     
  2. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Houston
    You are welcome. I hope to get one done with at least the 150/2 w/ EC-20 and the 300/4 soon. I have actually avoided carrying the EC-20 when out so I wouldn't get side tracked with trying to do a comparison. But I have now had the 300/4 for enough time to really get to know the lens and I am ready to do that comparison. Look for a post comparing the 300/4 w/ MC-14 and the 50-200 SWD w/ EC-20. I will say that I was rather surprised by the result.

    I so agree. I mentioned this in my reply to Barry above when talking about distance. I did this test the way I photograph, which is honestly a lot closer than most people. Most people tend to shoot from distances at least 2x farther than I do and crop. Shooting from a farther distance would have seriously disadvantaged the 75-300 and really made it not even close to the other two lenses. I think the difference between the SWD and 300/4 would have been a lot more also. In my comparison of the bare 150/2 and 300/4 I bring up that the resolution of the 300/4 is past the line of being noticeable. What all the extra resolution does do is allow for much greater cropping and still hold good detail. Based on LensTip testing the 300/4 is a good bit more than the 150/2 and while on the computer that difference is really not noticeable, it is when you start cropping or printing large (by large I mean 30x20 and up). I didn't shoot from a farther distance but as I mentioned in the begging and in my thread when I mentioned I was going to do this test is I do comparisons and testing live, in the field, and how I would use the lens. I thought about shooting from farther away but I wanted to remain true to myself and how I do testing, so I did just that. I actually would have tried getting closer for more shots but my subject departed before I could and after that the light was way to harsh.
     
  3. adammaniam

    adammaniam Mu-43 Veteran

    327
    Dec 7, 2015
    Thanks. It was not meant as a criticism of your very well done test, which I appreciate, as stated in an earlier reply from me on this thread.

    I also agree with you that getting closer with the 75-300 so one can shoot below 250mm is preferable and will yield better results than just shooting from further away and cropping. Though sometimes, even from the same distance away, I prefer my shot below 250mm (cropped) compared to the shot at 300mm. Of course, as you say, this affects the size you can print.

    I also agree that the 75-300 does not have the resolving power of the better lenses. I have the 40-150 F2.8 and even with the teleconverter, to me, it resolves a lot more than the 75-300.

    Ultimately, I was not trying to say that the 75-300 is somehow the equal of the other 2 lenses. For one, the aperture and light weight certainly makes it more difficult to use conpared to the other 2, putting aside their greater resolving power. My point was simply that the 75-300, to me, performs well above its price point. For a consumer zoom that is accessible (price wise) to most people, it can get very decent results.

    If my earlier post caused any misunderstanding, apologies to anyone who misunderstood. But as explained above, in my own experience, a cropped shot below 250mm sometimes yields a better result than a shot at 300mm, from the same distance (albeit with a photo that cannot be printed as large). Hence my earlier post. YMMV.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  4. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Houston
    No problems at all. I just have this thing about cropping, especially with m4/3 that has such little room for doing so. There are way to many wildlife photographs on this forum that are shot from way to far away and then cropped to give a decent subject size but lack any detail because they were taken with a lens that doesn't have the greatest resolution to begin with. Then when that person post the photo and ask for a critique and I mention the total lack of detail they get all defensive and call me an asshole because I didn't rave about the photograph. So when someone says you can just do this and then crop I get a bit worked up because that is not the solution. Another member on this forum @macro@macro said it better than I can I quote him all the time.

    "Contrary to what a lot of people think we do with long tele lenses, we use them at close range. The closer to the subject the better and that applies to any tele lenses really. That's where the details are, in being close to the subject. The idea is to let the subject get as close as possible before you push the button. You are better off not taking the shot and wasting time if its too far out to start with. You need to learn what you can get away with using PP and cropping after the shot. Learning that saves a lot of wasted shots."
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. It's not just wildlife - I learned this really dramatically with aircraft too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Joseph_B

    Joseph_B Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Sep 23, 2018
    Joseph
    You Sir are so right.
    I don't shoot birds with my M43, simply because my Nikons APS-C and FF are better tools for that (and I have a lens that fits well my nikons for birds). But when I shoot birds (600mm on FF / 900mm equivalent on APS-C) they are on average between 7 to 25 feet at max. The closer the better. And it's still never close enough.
     
  7. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Houston
    I don't shoot much aircraft but I can see where that is the same. It's also pretty prevalent in the sport photos as well.
     
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Houston
    Wish I could take credit for that saying but I can't. I do love using the quote whenever this subject comes up because he said it so well.
     
  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.