1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Olympus 75-300 vs Panasonic 100-300

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by rklepper, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    I have the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 and am loving both. Very high quality and fantastic IQ.

    I would love a longer lens for vacations and am looking at the above two lenses. Does anyone have any comparisons, or know of any real world comparisons, between these lenses? I know there is quite a price difference. The Panasonic can be had for $399 used or $499 new, while the Olympus can be had for $600-$650 used and almost $900 new.

    Thanks ahead of time for any help.
     
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    There are quite a few threads on this already.

    For what it's worth, I have the 100-300, and it's a pretty good lens for the focal range. Not quite as sharp as my Canon 100-400 L (which is 'shorter' in terms of field of view), but it's pretty darn good. The consensus seems to be that the Oly is slightly better, but it is slower and significantly more expensive, and the build quality difference is minimal. I picked up the 100-300 in as-new condition for 300 euros and change, with warrantee, so that price differential sealed the deal for me.
     
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    There are a few indications that the 75-300 is discontinued (e.g. gone from B&H). Might be worth it to wait a bit and see what shakes out.

    Another option, if AF speed isn't critical, is the Olympus 70-300 (4/3 version) which can be had for $300 refurbished (+ $60 adapter). It's slow to focus and needs to be stopped down to f/8.0, but when it is, it's quite sharp.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    That could be a great option. Thanks

     
  5. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    A search brings up threads on both, not not comparing the two.

    Thanks though.

     
  6. Rockinggoose

    Rockinggoose Mu-43 Regular

    There are a number of qualified reports that the Panasonic 100-300mm used on an E-M5 does not allow the maximum 9fps from that camera as the diaphragm cannot close and open again at that speed - an important factor for bird and sport photography.

    David
     
  7. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    If I have an Olympus body,
    My preference would be the 75-300......(And if cost isn't a factor)
     
  8. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    When I close down the aperture on my 12-50 & 60mm macro lenses (& other 4/3's adapted lenses) the frame rate drops because of that, so I wouldn't feel that to be too much of an issue since it seems to be the case for all lenses anyhow. Maybe the Panasonic won't achieve full frame rate when wide open & perhaps that might be a bit limiting.
     
  9. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    If you are using a Pansonic body then get the Panasonic! The olympus lens does not have IS and with such a long lens it is very useful. If you use an Olympus body either lens will work, IS wise.

    There is a very strong rumor that Olympus is going to release an updated 75-100mm real soon. It is has the same optical specs but might be a bit smaller and lighter. Several other updated lenses were exactly the same optically but had smaller and lighter barrel designs. There is also a rumor that it will be slightly less expensive.
     
  10. Rockinggoose

    Rockinggoose Mu-43 Regular

    The Canon at the long end on APS-C is 400 x 1.6 = 640mm, the Panasonic 300 x 2 = 600mm so it is the Canon that has the longer EFL.

    David
     
  11. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I never had the 75-300, but I have had 3 copies of the 100-300. All 3 have been great, and I love the lens. I also like the physical IS switch option. It comes with a hood, and can be had used for less than $400. It's a slightly brighter lens, and I thought the bokeh was better than the 75-300 (more specifically, from the test shots I reviewed, the 100-300 bokeh was OK and the 75-300 was bad).
     
  12. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    That assumes that the intent was to use it on a cropper. It's a 35mm format lens and wouldn't have the same reach if mounted on a 135 format camera.

    So you're both correct.

    Gordon
     
  13. Leif

    Leif Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Sep 28, 2012
    Germany
    Leif
    If you consider the Olympus I would wait for the new one. It will be cheaper if the rumors are true and "hopefully" at least as good as the current one. I still hope that they will release one with a tripod/monopod mount, but I doubt it. Although it would make so much sens for a lens with 600mm (35mm).

    The Panasonic 100-300 has the huge advantage that there is a company who builds a mount for it (link) which wasn't possible for the current 75-300 because its zoom ring is so large and there isn't enough space between the ring and the mount.

    Heard about both lenses that some people got one where they had problems to focus close to infinity, especially at the long end. So better buy somewhere where you can easily get a replace unit.
     
  14. Mercurio

    Mercurio Mu-43 Veteran

    253
    Jul 17, 2012
    Bogotá, Colombia
    Mauricio
    I will appreciate if somebody could post a side by side image of the Olympus 75-300 II and the Panasonic 100-300 just to compare their sizes. I understand that the later is larger than the Suiko, but I will like to see the real differences.

    I have searched but I haven´t found any photo of both lenses together.
     
  15. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Four Thirds | Special Contents | Matching Simulation

    The link above will let you look at different m4/3 lenses mounted on differenet m4/3 bodies but not side by side. I took each of the lenses and then combined them into a single image. here they are side by side on an E-M5.

    tele-zoom-sizes.
     
  16. Eubios

    Eubios Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    Nov 24, 2012
    Toronto
    Carlo
  17. Rockinggoose

    Rockinggoose Mu-43 Regular

    It's quite simple really. The difference in IQ, if there is one, won't be noticed by 99% of us, the difference in brightness won't be noticed by 99% of us, the difference in size/weight/price may be noticed by a few, but the main difference is the availability of in-lens IS. So if you have a Panasonic then the 100-300 is the only sensible choice, if you have an Olympus then it's probably down to size/weight and price. So simple but so many try to make it more complicated than necessary, it's the photographer that counts!

    David
     
  18. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That would be about right. I like the Oly 75-300 lens & have modified the LH61D (the JJC affordable copy) lens hood intended for the 40-150 lens to fit this one. Now it's in the right proportion to the lens where the LH61E is somewhat oversized. The lens (75-300) is a nice suitable size for the E-M5 (& grip).

    P5143289-s.
     
  19. betamax

    betamax Mu-43 Regular

    195
    May 7, 2011
    NSW, Australia
    Alan
    True of the OM-D and E-P5, but how does 2 axis ibis compare to OIS for the non 5 axis olys?
     
  20. tradesmith45

    tradesmith45 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 13, 2012
    Oregon
    Lots of good info here for the OP. Couple things not mentioned. One minor is the Oly uses 58mm filters which only matters if you already have that size. I did so that's one reason I got it. Size was the other reason & the smaller size has turned out to be a bigger help than I expected. It just fits some existing bags I have & love.

    One IQ difference not mentioned is something many would be able to see. The Oly 75-300 has striking IQ below about 175-200mm. In the rare times when I've shot it in that range, it blew me away. Several posts have noted this difference.