Olympus 75-300

[ssgreenley]

All I found was the couple of birds - not really enough to make a good judgment about the lens.

Isabel

Yeah, the Panasonic is definitely the favorite of the two, so there aren't too many samples from the 75-300 at all. Anyway, you said you you couldn't find any, so I provided at least a couple!

 

[quatchi]

Today my Oly 75-300 arrived and I was able to pick it up from the store. It took me quite a while to decide whether to get the Oly or the Pana 100-300. In the end I decided in favor of the Oly due to these points:

- majority of tests say: Oly has the better IQ wide open (not all, though!)
- 75mm at the near end
- (smaller size)

What would have drawn me to the Pana:
- >200€ cheaper
- OIS (since I also own a G1)

Anyhow, since it is already getting dark I haven't had the chance to test the lens on an interesting object. I, however, took some test shots in comparison to my Pana 45-200. This is the outcome:

- 200mm on the Pana seem to be wider
- lenses on the Oly seem to let in more light
- IQ on the Oly at 200mm is far better

Attached are four images. First two are 100% views from the image center including EXIF infos (first Oly 75-300, second Pana 45-200). It shows the way better IQ of the Oly. Further, though exposure and ISO settings were the same, the Oly aperture was 6.1 compared to 5.6 on the Pana lens. Thus, the conclusion that the Pana lens design must absorb more light.

The other two pictures are scaled down pictures of the images. Both taken at 200mm (again Oly first, Pana second). It shows the difference in angle of view. Both shots were taken with the E-M5 on a tripod with remote (OIS off on the Pana).

CONCLUSION: I think it is not necessary to state that it's not fair to compare the Pana 45-200 (priced around 300€) against a lens which costs around 700€. Even more since the comparison was at a focal length which is known to not be the strength of the Pana lens. I, however, didn't expect such a huge difference. Much more interesting, though, the difference in angle of view and "light transmissibility".

SIDE NOTE: The diameter of both lenses is approximately the same. The Oly is one centimeter longer (both not zoomed out).

 

[quatchi]

Today I had the chance for a first "test drive" of the Oly Lens. So far, I am satisfied with the results (again not being able to compare it to the Pana 100-300 due to the lack of it).

What I have learned so far, however, for hand held shots you need a lot of ambient light. Otherwise the ISO needs to go up quite steep in order to ensure sufficient short exposure times.

The following image was shot with the following settings:
Cam: E-M5
Lens: Oly M.Zuiko 75-300
Exposure: 1/320
Aperture: 6.7
Focal Length: 264
ISO: 640
IBIS: On

The RAW file was processed within Lightroom 4.1 RC2. A sharpening of 25 was applied to it. The second image is a 100% crop from the first one.

 

[Ray Sachs]

Day at the ballgame. I took the camera because it was fan photo day where the players come out on the field and mingle with the fans for a while before the game. It was too much of a scrum down there, so I retreated to the safety of the stands and the long lens. I think all of these are at the full 300mm:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/7622556936/" title="Phillies-Giants-184 by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 219234 "800" height="800" alt="Phillies-Giants-184"></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/7622557776/" title="Phillies-Giants-117 by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 219235 "800" height="800" alt="Phillies-Giants-117"></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/7622558114/" title="Phillies-Giants-56 by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 219236 "800" height="800" alt="Phillies-Giants-56"></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/7622558592/" title="Phillies-Giants-74 by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 219237 "800" height="800" alt="Phillies-Giants-74"></a>

And one action shot from the cheap seats. This was a bomb of a home run, just after impact - this is what 9 fps helps you get...

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/7622557352/" title="Phillies-Giants-246-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 219238 "1024" height="768" alt="Phillies-Giants-246-Edit"></a>

 

[quatchi]

Finally had a chance to put this nice lens to a use. It is capable to produce very sharp and nice images. This is, however, only under bright sunlight or with ISO high up. Especially at the long end, the F6.7 becomes an issue when the sun is going to set.

Anyhow, very nice pictures can be taken with this lens.

<a href="http://500px.com/photo/15417499">

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

"The White Stripes by Olli H. (olli_muc) on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;"></a><br/><font style="font-size: 80%;"><a href="http://500px.com/photo/15417499">The White Stripes</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/olli_muc">quatchi</a></font>

 

[RT_Panther]

Did you go to ISO 6400 to counter the setting sun?

 

[hydro]

I have the Oly 75-300. You asked specifically about birds. See the link below. I'm still learning the lens, and this is a straight-out-of-the-camera JPEG with no PP. If I were doing something with a picture like this, I'd probably crop a bit and work on the saturation. I'm enjoying the lens and chose it because I have the OMD E-M5 and didn't need the stabilization feature of the Panny. I bought used, so saved a couple hundred bucks over retail. Still, I hesitated. But the offer was good and this pretty much, along with my 17mm and 12-50 macro, gives me the lens range I need.

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

Chickadee 1 by reverrandy, on Flickr

 

[quatchi]

Did you go to ISO 6400 to counter the setting sun?

The zebra picture was taken in bright daylight (ISO 200). I was shooting in time priority mode with AUTO ISO enabled. I can't say to which ISO it climbed (as I do not have the pictures at hand at the moment), but 6400 is the default maximum AUTO ISO on the E-M5, I guess. So probably, yes.