Review Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II

  • Thread starter Deleted member 20897
  • Start date

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,539
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
In using the 75-300 at 300mm I thought that the setup was too light. I found myself relying on the IBIS to stabilize the lens rather than technique. This was because the lens+camera did not have enough mass for my standard technique to work. It looks like I have to work on a new technique for holding this lens.
 

CO_yeti

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
80
Location
Denver, CO
I find it very acceptable when I use correct technique and in good light. Bought mine second hand for a trip to the Grand Tetons. Test shots before the trip were sharp enough, shots on the trip were soft. I found it hard to concentrate on the settings needed for that sharp image with the excitement of a bear walking through the campsite.

Haven't been using it much, but recently got an amazing deal on the Canon 500d Macro filter. 58mm sized and the same across my 75-300, 40-150, and a 135mm vintage prime. We will see if it was worth it with Spring macro season coming up...
 

dougpayne

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
69
Real Name
C.D. Payne
I like the range of this lens in such a compact and lightweight size. On my EM1ii.

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

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,539
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Completely. I decided when I got this lens to use no other lens but this one for several months. I think the light weight makes it more difficult to handle and it takes a lot of getting used to and time to build muscle memory. I still wouldn't say I'm proficient with it. Before each shot I have to consciously think about what I'm doing with my arms, hands and breathing to ensure the camera and lens are as still as possible.
YES, agree.
I found that despite my use of a target rifle stance, which works great on a heavier kit (Nikon D7200 + 70-200/4), the EM1 + 75-300 is so much lighter, that my target rifle stance that I use for long lenses does not work well. I have more wobble that I want.
For me, it isn't muscle memory, but the lack of dampening weight, to dampen out the natural human wobble.
So yes, as you said, hand holding technique is more important with this lens.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
911
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I am confused about Olympus teleconverters. From what I have seen, the MC-14 and MC-20 are only compatible with the 40-150 and 300mm Pro lenses (speciafically, they physically won't attach to anything else). So exactly which tcs are being discussed in this thread? Can someone give me a link to a 1.4 converter that works with this lens?
 

mike3996

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
299
Location
Finland
I could get a preowned one for 270 € with a return option. On a Panasonic body without Dual IS I don't know how useful the lens will be ... on a GX80 dare I even hope for 2 stops of stabilization?

Anyway looks like a great lens even if a bit trick to shoot.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
911
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
@RAH they talk about the in camera digital (crop) “teleconverter” mostly useful when shooting SOOC jpegs or for live framing of the intended cropped RAW file
Ah, digital zoom. Hmm, I've always considered that kind of an abomination, but different strokes for different folks. Too bad, I was hoping that I really could use a real TC (1.4) with the 75-300 (although that's probably kind of poor, IQ-wise too). :)
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,368
Take a look at the three images in this post for using the 75-300 II mm on a Gx85.
And at 75mm it's a great landscape lens :

I could get a preowned one for 270 € with a return option. On a Panasonic body without Dual IS I don't know how useful the lens will be ... on a GX80 dare I even hope for 2 stops of stabilization?

Anyway looks like a great lens even if a bit trick to shoot.

And at 75mm it's a great landscape lens :
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

mike3996

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
299
Location
Finland
Take a look at the three images in this post for using the 75-300 II mm on a Gx85.
And at 75mm it's a great landscape lens :

View attachment 807394
Gorgeous stuff! I actually read that post of yours yesterday when I was researching the GX80/85. Didn't pay attention to the lenses used heh.

Speaking of not paying attention, I've been all 😍 with Phocal's fox pictures and they've been partly captured using this lens. Subliminal messages or something?
 
Last edited:

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,570
Location
Anchorage
Gorgeous stuff! I actually read that post of yours yesterday when I was researching the GX80/85. Didn't pay attention to the lenses used heh.

Speaking of not paying attention, I've been all 😍 with Phocal's fox pictures and they've been partly captured using this lens. Subliminal messages or something?
Standby, in a few hours my review of the lens will be posted.
 

Mercurio

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
256
Even though I don't use it often, some examples of the images I have gotten with this lens, in this case during a 2014 trip to Chiapas State, Mexico.

15785350036_4af5a96c0a_k.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Crocodrile at "Cañon del Sumidero", Chiapas, Mexico
OM-D EM5, Iso 200, f 6.2, 1/1000, 208 mm, hand held on a running boat.

15810578572_ae9628e22a_k.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


ibid, OM-D EM5, Iso 200, f 6.3, 1/640, 221 mm​
 
Last edited:

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
911
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I've been testing my new E-M5III with the 75-300 lately. I bought the lens used a few years ago for a trip to Yellowstone and haven't used it much, but prompted by this thread and several others, decided it was time to try it out (and also test the buffering on the E-M5).

My copy seems to be just as sharp at 300 as it is at say 270, so there's not much point in zooming out a little for sharpness. Here are 2 shots right out of the camera of a female mallard, the first at 300, and the 2nd at 270 (the duck had moved closer, so appears similar in size). Both at 1600 ISO and f6.7. The duck was very close - like shooting a sitting duck! (sorry, couldn't resist!).

I am surprised at how sharp the lens is, even at this close a distance. This gives me some hope for the IQ of the upcoming 100-400, which I'm surmising is kind of a replacement for this lens, although probably a good deal more expensive and larger.
P3120443.JPG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

P3120456.JPG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Darmok N Jalad

Shaka, when the shutter fell
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
506
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
I could get a preowned one for 270 € with a return option. On a Panasonic body without Dual IS I don't know how useful the lens will be ... on a GX80 dare I even hope for 2 stops of stabilization?

Anyway looks like a great lens even if a bit trick to shoot.
It's still quite serviceable on a Lumix body. You may just need a little more ISO, but it still brings home some solid results. Here are some shots with it paired with a G9:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,570
Location
Anchorage
I am surprised at how sharp the lens is, even at this close a distance.
this statement confuses me because the closer you are the more detail a lens will capture. Plus this lens is not one you cant shoot from a distance and crop half the image away and still have detail in your subject.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
911
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
What I meant is that I expected a fairly inexpensive lens like the 75-300 to be kind of soft even very close. In other words, I didn't think it would be capable of such detail at any distance, including really close. So, I'm pleasantly surprise.

Farther away, yes you can still get pretty good results, but I find for wildlife there are so many variables that it is very difficult to get sharp results. I mean, for example, I find it pretty difficult to focus on a particular part of a bird at a distance. Obviously the problem is that you can barely see its eye, let alone hold focus on it, so you focus on its chest and then his eye isn't focused. So you have to take a lot of shots to get good results. At least I do. I use a tripod mostly because of this aspect (aiming accurately and holding the spot), more than holding steady. Plus atmosphere, etc.

Edit: should have mentioned - my shots above were handheld.
 
Last edited:

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
911
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I continue to be impressed by the Oly 75-300. Here is a shot I took recently of a rabbit (they sure have gotten tame with people mostly staying home!). I used Raw Therapee to bring back some of the blown-out areas in his sun-lit ear (and it helped a lot over the jpg), so I did some sharpening and noise reduction to suit my own tastes, so I guess it is hard to judge the sharpness, but I'm really liking the results.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
121
Location
Phoenix, Arizona USA
Real Name
Jeffrey Behr
This review is turning into a love in!

by chipbutty, on Flickr

....

View attachment 712396
Up On The Roof by chipbutty, on Flickr

...
This one is spectacularly well resolved...and shot! Way to go.

After determining to keep my PRO 40-150/2.8 and not the new-to-me FT 50-200/2.8-4*, I'm thinking about a next-longer lens, and it will NOT be anyone's heavy, large-aperture lens.. This 75-300 looks like a good candidate.

* Overall excellent but too heavy for my shooting style, 76-year-old arthritic body, and weight-limited, replaced right shoulder.. I think this'n will be 'good enough'. 🙂
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
352
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Jeffrey, I've done a pretty rough comparison between my FTs 50-200 MkI and my 75-300 MkII.

At worst, the 75-300 is no worse, and it appears to me to be slightly better!

Add the EC14 to the 50-200, and there is no contest.

The 75-300 needs excellent technique to excel, but is a lot smaller and half the weight.

My shoulders, elbows, wrists and lumbar spine are also cactus ...
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,570
Location
Anchorage
Jeffrey, I've done a pretty rough comparison between my FTs 50-200 MkI and my 75-300 MkII.

At worst, the 75-300 is no worse, and it appears to me to be slightly better!

Add the EC14 to the 50-200, and there is no contest.

The 75-300 needs excellent technique to excel, but is a lot smaller and half the weight.

My shoulders, elbows, wrists and lumbar spine are also cactus ...
Actually, the 75-300 is a little behind the 50-200 w/ EC-14 - https://www.mu-43.com/threads/olympus-75-300-vs-50-200-swd-w-ec-14-vs-300-4-shoot-out.100452/

But when used within it's limits the 75-300 can produce some great images.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom