Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    What is the conclusion about these 2 lenses. Is the 100-300 supposed to be optically better? (IS is not a concern since I plan to use it on the OMD with IBIS).
    If they were optically about the same I would prefer the 75-300 because of the smaller size and the 75mm at the short end.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Hi There Tom
    I hope you're well
    I bought my 100-300 cheap on ebay - but I'm with you, I'd prefer the smaller lens, and the 75 at the wide end means it would be great as a companion with the 12-50 for travel.
    . . . . I just can't quite bring myself to buy both to check!

    all the very best

    Just this guy you know

  3. #3
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    I will get the 75-300, simply because it is much smaller and optically it should be superior. Shooting it on the OMD also the slow aperture on the wide end will be ok.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northern Ca/Tx/Mexico
    Posts
    33
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    DIWA labs used to have tests for both lenses, but apparently they have become a 'subscriber' site. I don't remember all the details from their tests, except the Oly was sharper, especially at the long end, while the Panny had less CA. There were a few threads a year ago on dpreview from owners who had both lenses that seemed to confirm the DIWA results. So, in addition to the other factors of size, cost and IS, the choice seems to be between better sharpness or less CA.
    Roberto M.

  5. #5
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Will either of these be considerably sharper than the 40-150? I tested that out against a 5d2 with a 70-200 f/4 (sometimes with a 1.4 extender) and I was less than thrilled with the 40-150 sharpness. I understand the vast difference in price and I purchased the 40-150 even cheaper as an add-on to the OM-D. However, even though I don't use a long lens often it would be nice to know if the lens is the problem.

    Two examples:
    OM-d


    5D2


    Although you can't see much as this resolution the Canon is clearly resolving more detail.

    Jim

  6. #6
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Most telephoto zooms would seem less sharp than a Canon 70-200 f/4, but I believe any of the longer m4/3 zooms would be sharper at 150mm than your 40-150. At 300mm, we are talking 600mm equivalent. Although I think there is a 3rd party 3x TC available from some 3rd party supplier, I doubt that the Canon would stand much chance with that one mounted, and the max aperture would drop to around f/11 I believe.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Quote Originally Posted by JMaher View Post
    Will either of these be considerably sharper than the 40-150? I tested that out against a 5d2 with a 70-200 f/4 (sometimes with a 1.4 extender) and I was less than thrilled with the 40-150 sharpness. I understand the vast difference in price and I purchased the 40-150 even cheaper as an add-on to the OM-D. However, even though I don't use a long lens often it would be nice to know if the lens is the problem.

    Two examples:
    OM-d


    5D2


    Although you can't see much as this resolution the Canon is clearly resolving more detail.

    Jim
    Hi Jim,
    I think it is a good question.
    In the end I do not expect anything close to the performance of a Canon 70-200/4.0 (or in my case Nikon 70-200/2.8VRII) from such a long range Tele-Zoom.
    First - with all respect for the OMD Sensor - it doesnt give you the IQ of a ff-sensor.
    Second - The Oly lens is a totally different focal length range.
    Third-I dont know yet how stable one could hold the 75-300 (since one can not connect the lens t a tripod)

    BUT and the reason why I am still interested in such lens:
    -images posted on the web from the 75-300 and also from the 100-300 look fine to me. Maybe not exceptional, and maybe they would loose in a direct comparison, but they look good to me.
    I am not a weight fetichist - but other than in the Zoo I really seldomly do carry a 70-200 ff zoom with 2TC and a DSLR.
    I am also not that much a TELE-shooter, so I wouldnt want to invest 4-6k in a high quality Tele lens.

    The 75-300 or 100-300 could be just light enough that I bring them more oftn during a hike/vacation and they could be just good enough that I would be fine with the results.
    My biggest fear is if one gets vibration under control. Specially because the lenses are relativly light and 600mm fov is very loong.

  8. #8
    dcisive
    Guest

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    My own experience having owned the Panasonic and now the M. Zuiko I prefer the M. Zuiko. It is IMHO absurdly expensive but at least it DOES deliver the goods. It is lighter, smaller and provides a higher level of resolution at the long end where most want it. It is also fast to focus lock on a newer OMD Olympus body. Yes is is more $$ by a considerable margin, but if the purchase is LONG term I'd go for the Olympus. The zoom on the Panny was sticky and not the buttery smooth I'm used to now with the Oly.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    I have both lenses over the weekend and now shot several comparison images at 100/200 and 300mm, both lenses "wide open".

    What I have learned so far:

    - both seem to deliver overall fine results
    - I am confused about the question when to use OIS, when to use IBIS and when to switch IBIS off. So finally I decided to use IBIS and let it switched on
    -IQ: I would say both seem very close to me; maybe the Oly very very slightly richer color and smoother gradiations (I could be wrong since the Pana-images come out slightly more exposed (maybe 1/4 f-stop) when using auto exp.
    -I cant talk about c-AF f but in S-AF the Pana seems to hit it near 100%, the Oly was very slightly off focus a couple of times (maybe 5%)
    -you can see the difference in DOF when using both wide open - plus for the Pana
    -handling:
    - The Oly is considerably smaller, both handle fine on the OMD but IMO the Oly fits the overall idea of m4/3 being pretty small and light
    - The Oly zoom is smoother as others have mentioned; However it is so smooth that it might suffer from creeping out when carry the camera around the neck. My sample doesnt do it but it could happen after having used it for some time

    I am still undecided
    - I would say optically the differences are minor
    - The size/weight difference is obvious, however the 100-300 is still not a large/or heavy lens
    - The 100-300 seems to allways hit focus in SAF, offers slightly faster f-stop, costs less, and offers OIS (maybe we are all shooting gh3 in 6 months -haha).

    I dont post comparison images because I think there are too many factors like ibis/shake/focus which can lead to wrong conclusion when just looking at 2 or 4 comparison images.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    I have done some more testing...
    some more conclusions:
    -OIS seems at least as good at long focal length as ibis. For some reason my feeling is I would use ois on the pana and ibis on the Oly lens
    - even at 1/1000 - if you shoot at 300mm - either ois or ibis will lead to better results than no stabilization (handholding)
    - even when using stabilization - at such long focal length (300mm) 1/500 or shorter is recommended when wanting best sharpness. However 1/100 and shorter is allready pretty good
    -overall I am impressed that it is possible to shoot such long focal length handhold

    - I still have sometimes (not often) slightly frontfocused images with the Oly while the Pana seems allways 100% spot on.
    I can not really see the Oly being optically superior to the Pana so far. (except maybe a very veryslightly warmer/"rounder"/deeper color)

    So it comes down (between my 2 samples) of smaller size and bigger range and smoother zoom of the Oly vs more reliable S-AF, higher speed and lower price of the Pana.
    WHat concerns me a little that the Oly focus is sometimes (maybe 5% of the shots) very slightly off.(image is still ok but not as sharp in this cases)

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    I haven't tried the 75-300, but have had the 100-300 since it came out.

    On a trip last fall to Kenya, I tested the 100-300 on a GH2 against a Canon 7D with 100-400 to test for ultimate detail at the long end. I have the 70-200/4 and the 70-200/2.8 IS II as well, but didn't consider those for the trip as the f/4 isn't useable with the 2x converter and the f/2.8 with 2x just got too big and clumsy for me. It did, however, deliver the best image quality by a very small margin at max zoom with the 2x. Without the converter it was, of course, no contest.

    However, the main test showed that while in the centre the 7D with 100-400 delivered slightly more ultimate detail than the 100-300 on GH2, all copies of the 100-400 I've tried had serious enough decentering issues (and my present copy is the best of those 6) that the overall champ was the 100-300 with the GH2. So that's what I took on the trip. I would do it again, now with the OM-D. As for the 75-300 being better, the slrgear.com test doesn't lead me to expect very much at 300. At 75mm, yes. I would love to be proven wrong. Their tests generally reflect my experience quite closely, so I have some trust.

    At home, or at least not too far from the car, I have an APO-Telyt 280/4 with converters that is truly the champ whether on FF Canons or m43. But it's size and weight precludes it from the m43 way of life for the most part.

    Henning
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Hi Henning,
    interesting. I am leaning towards the 100-300 as well right now.
    I think there was close to none images missfokused or looking bad (I have however only shot still images).
    I might even get a 45-175 and a 100-300. One as a compact travel tele zoom and one for those times I need longer than 175mm.
    I like the Oly 75-300 size advantage but focus reliability is important to me as well. And the little faster speed of thePana lens doesnt hurt.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Plan ahead. If there is little difference between the two lenses, think longer term. Are there any circumstances where you could see owning a Panasonic body? If no, pick the lens you like better. If yes, the choice is easy - the 100-300 can be used on both bodies. I would not use the 75-300 on a Panny body unless I was using a tripod or knew I was always going to be in very bright light with very fast shutter speeds.
    terry
    www.terrybanet.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Hi Henning,
    interesting. I am leaning towards the 100-300 as well right now.
    I think there was close to none images missfokused or looking bad (I have however only shot still images).
    I might even get a 45-175 and a 100-300. One as a compact travel tele zoom and one for those times I need longer than 175mm.
    I like the Oly 75-300 size advantage but focus reliability is important to me as well. And the little faster speed of thePana lens doesnt hurt.
    So you are having a better feeling with the 100-300, right?

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Columbus,Ohio
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Is neither an option ??

    I find that for me, a legacy 300mm f4, paired with the Panny 45-175 ($300 these days) makes the most overall sense in terms of usability and IQ

    Two issues I had with the 100-300 is that 1) it wasn't a very useful general carry for me because starting at 200mm equiv just left such a huge hole in the 100-200mm range and thats a range I came to really use a lot after years of working with a 70-200 on my DSLRs.

    2) the times I did have a real use for the 100-300, was shooting at 300mm most of the time and it just isn't that great at 300mm. Not bad, but just not great mind you.

    So basically it came down to the lens either being too long for general use, and then when there was a need for, not really having the IQ I wanted.

    I tried the Oly as well, and really found the same thing, little better on the wide end, but also a little slower. That was on an EP3 so perhaps the EM-5 IBIS would make its slowness less of an issue on the longer end as its worlds better than the EP3 IS.

    All and all though, its just a bit more expensive than I think its worth, and didn't really solve the issues I had even at hundreds more.

    Solution for me was the optically very good 45-175 which is also such a nice compact IF walk around tele solution and at $300 very easy to justify. It even had a 46mm filter thread so pairs into a kit wonderfully with other m4/3 lenses. Just an all around great tele for travel and daily use.

    Then for the random times when I do want reach, I use a legacy 300mm f4. For me, 600mm equiv means shooting wildlife, or more accurately put, zoo life lol. For those needs I typically value speed, as I'm often not shooting in great light, and I also value IQ, both of which a good quality 300mm legacy prime offers over a slower m4/3 zoom. Also they are rather affordable, not too heavy and very well built.

    Might not be the best way to go for everyone but for me it made the most sense in terms of cost and IQ and overall usability.

    Hopefully Panny or Oly will come out with a dedicated 300mm f4 or maybe a 400mm f4.5 "supertele" prime for sub $1000 and while it wouldn't be that small, I'd be very interested in buying something like that.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Quote Originally Posted by Millsart View Post
    Is neither an option ??


    Two issues I had with the 100-300 is that 1) it wasn't a very useful general carry for me because starting at 200mm equiv just left such a huge hole in the 100-200mm range and thats a range I came to really use a lot after years of working with a 70-200 on my DSLRs.
    I felt that gap over the weekend. I had the 12-50 and 100-300 and really could have used something in that gap. I'm actually going to wait for the 35-100 to fill the gap and also hope that Panny comes out with a teleconverter at the same time.

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Quote Originally Posted by Millsart View Post
    Is neither an option ??

    I find that for me, a legacy 300mm f4, paired with the Panny 45-175 ($300 these days) makes the most overall sense in terms of usability and IQ

    Two issues I had with the 100-300 is that 1) it wasn't a very useful general carry for me because starting at 200mm equiv just left such a huge hole in the 100-200mm range and thats a range I came to really use a lot after years of working with a 70-200 on my DSLRs.

    2) the times I did have a real use for the 100-300, was shooting at 300mm most of the time and it just isn't that great at 300mm. Not bad, but just not great mind you.

    So basically it came down to the lens either being too long for general use, and then when there was a need for, not really having the IQ I wanted.

    I tried the Oly as well, and really found the same thing, little better on the wide end, but also a little slower. That was on an EP3 so perhaps the EM-5 IBIS would make its slowness less of an issue on the longer end as its worlds better than the EP3 IS.

    All and all though, its just a bit more expensive than I think its worth, and didn't really solve the issues I had even at hundreds more.

    Solution for me was the optically very good 45-175 which is also such a nice compact IF walk around tele solution and at $300 very easy to justify. It even had a 46mm filter thread so pairs into a kit wonderfully with other m4/3 lenses. Just an all around great tele for travel and daily use.

    Then for the random times when I do want reach, I use a legacy 300mm f4. For me, 600mm equiv means shooting wildlife, or more accurately put, zoo life lol. For those needs I typically value speed, as I'm often not shooting in great light, and I also value IQ, both of which a good quality 300mm legacy prime offers over a slower m4/3 zoom. Also they are rather affordable, not too heavy and very well built.

    Might not be the best way to go for everyone but for me it made the most sense in terms of cost and IQ and overall usability.

    Hopefully Panny or Oly will come out with a dedicated 300mm f4 or maybe a 400mm f4.5 "supertele" prime for sub $1000 and while it wouldn't be that small, I'd be very interested in buying something like that.
    Do you know how the 45-175 compares to the Panny 14-140 in terms of IQ?

    When I picked up the 100-300 and 75-300 I played with the 45-175 and found its size and focal length range pretty usefull. Is it optically up to the 100-300?

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Do you know how the 45-175 compares to the Panny 14-140 in terms of IQ?

    When I picked up the 100-300 and 75-300 I played with the 45-175 and found its size and focal length range pretty usefull. Is it optically up to the 100-300?
    I've been playing with a Leica (kyocera) 80-200 f4 zoom on the OMD - excellent - easy focusing, fine image quality . . . AF not so fab though

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    This doesn't really address the issue of 'which lens', but I was out yesterday shooting some long distance stuff (fairly low contrast) and had both the GH2 and OM-D with me. The GH2 locked focus on everything very quickly and accurately, but the OM-D had trouble. Note that this was at the long end of the 100-300 with a low contrast subject. I hadn't expected this.

    Henning

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Oly 75-300 vs 100-300

    I wanted to thank you all for the info.
    My decision goes for the 100-300.
    While the 75-300 has the more usefull focal length range and is a little smaller, the 100-300 had the edge in focus accurancy and sharpness over the 75-300 (I can only talk bout the 2 samples I had). The 75-300 seemed fine and good in most images, but the 100-300 allways seemed at least as good and better in some images.
    Additionally the 100-300 is a little faster which doesnt hurt regarding exp time and can also bee seen in a little shallower DOF, it costs less, and it also fits my wifes Panasonic camera.
    If I had unlimited funds I would even buy both - the 100-300 when you know you shoot long tele, and the 75-300 for the range and because its nicer size for travel etc.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •