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

What would you do? 300mm question

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by rklepper, Jun 20, 2013.

  1. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    So I have the Panasonic 100-300 and am really not very happy with the image quality above 200, even is ing a mono or tripod. I have been researching it and the OM 300 f/4 gets really high marks. For the cost should I try one? Also if I do, would the olympus adapter offer any real benefits over one of the cheaper ones?

    I guess if I had the adapter it would open up the legacy OM glass possibilities to me.

    Thanks
     
  2. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    I would be extremely stunned, if ANY legacy 300mm, short of the extremely expensive pro-class 300mm f2.8 lenses, stopped down 1-2 stops, could match the IQ of either of the Native lenses that reach 300mm.

    Generally speaking, the rationale for using long legacy glass is that they are much cheaper, and can be ALMOST as good as the native 300mm lenses.

    Either you got a bad sample of this lens, or your technique for shooting an extremely long lens is lacking - and there's no way, other than if the first is true, that a legacy 300mm is going to improve on the IQ of what you have now.
     
  3. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    Well when I use my Canon at 300 I get tack sharp images. Up to 200 I am fairly happy with the images for the 100-300, but just after that the iq drops off significantly.

    Thanks.

    Doc

     
  4. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    919
    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    As far as adapters, a good one from China will work as well as the $150 Olympus MF-2. Here's a typical ebay adapter.

    The longest legacy prime I have is an OM200 f4. Paid $100 for it six years ago. Don't know if my ZD 70-300 is better. Don't use either that much.
     
  5. Robstar1963

    Robstar1963 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    899
    Jun 10, 2011
    Isle of Wight England UK
    Robert (Rob)
    You would miss the OIS in the Panasonic I would think if you used a legacy lens ?
     
  6. Danny_SWE

    Danny_SWE Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 30, 2013
    Sweden (Gothenburg)
  7. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sam
    If you are going to go with legacy, research research research! Look for samples here and other sites. I'm actually in the market myself. Some of the best i've come across are the the Canon FD 300 f4 L, Canon FD 400 4.5, Pentax-A 300 f4 ( this one is probably the sharpest but adaptors are expensive). A memeber introduced me to tair-33 300mm f4.5 just yeaterday, a russian lens that looks to be super sharp yet cheap. If you want to spend more cash abd dont mind carrying a tripod, Tokina 300mm f2.8. Sharp wide open, but has CA. Looks like a Canon FD 300 2.8L clone, not quite as good, but half the price

    Edit: wait, i missed your second post....you already have a canon 300 L?...why are you getting the zuiko 300mm, the Canon L 300 is one of the best, I'd doubt the zuiko is going to be better
     
  8. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    I had high hopes of using the m4/3 with every focal length. Unfortunately for me it looks like 7-100 is about what I am going to be satisfied with. Longer will be my canon stuff. But then I am wondering about the logic behind getting the m 4/3 if I still need to have a whole other system just to get out to 300. :(



     
  9. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sam
    Any chace you can post some of your 100-300mm pics. I know the 100-300mm is finicky, i shoot with itball the time and get frustrated at times. its does poorly in low light and very bright lights. But under good lighting conditions, its sharp IMO. It rrquires proper metering, shutter speed management and some stepping around to get good light.
     
  10. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    I have an OM 300 f4.5 that I haven't really had a chance to try out as another member from the forum has my OM 85 2.0 and adapter. I recently inherited a whole slew of OM glass and 2 OM2's. I'll let you know my impressions once I've tried it, although my opinion may not be as keen as many others.
     
  11. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    I have and use the Zuiko 300mm f4.5 all the time on a relatively inexpensive Fotodiox adapter that does the trick. I'm quite happy with the results. Below are a couple of examples of what I've been getting hand held. The problem with the lens is not resolution. You will get less contrast, and if you shoot into strong highlights, you will almost certainly get some purple fringing necessitating (at least for me) shooting raw and and getting rid of it (mostly) in Lightroom. My keeper rate is as high or higher than when I used a digital lens, because though I sometimes miss focus, the auto focus 70-300 did too if it were confused by a leaf blowing or another such thing. It's not for everyone, but I think it is perfectly usable if you go in with your eyes open. Microcontrast will be lower and CA will be evident. Both will have to be dealt with in post processing. If you shoot raw, though, and use an Olympus body with image stabilization, I'd say, go for it.





    [​IMG]
     
  12. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sam
    Out of curiosity, I just did a quick tripod test with the 100-300mm wide open. Don't let the test subject make you think any lesser of me :p I think this is the first time I've but this lens on a tripod! I left IBIS on. Take into account this is 1 second exposure done indoors in low light. Also the teddy had a very coarse and glossy fur; not much contrast, but the ribbon shows good detail. I'm not sure where my copy of the 100-300mm stands with other samples, but it looks sharp to me. Do a similar test with yours; forget the teddy, just use a vitamin bottle. If it looks the same or better than mine, then I'd say you have a good copy.

    I rarely get images this crisp, but this test suggest that problem is with me. There might be some shutter shock issues with the lens...I'll test that later
     

    Attached Files: