Contents
Image Quality: Sharpness
The Olympus 75-300mm II is limited in maximum aperture, being about a half-stop slower than the typical telephoto zoom lens at f/4.8-6.7. As such, I think that image sharpness at the widest apertures is rather important, as you won’t want to stop down all that often with this lens, except in the case of some telephoto landscapes. The 75-300mm II does rather well for the most part in sharpness. Wide open, the lens is very sharp from 75mm to about 220mm, where sharpness drops off a bit as you get longer. At 300mm, sharpness is acceptable, and in some cases even quite good, though there is some softening of fine details. However, use of this lens in the 75-200mm range is really exceptional.
You can get a little extra sharpness at the long end by stopping down a bit, though beyond f/8, diffraction starts to set in and there’s little benefit to stopping down beyond any needed extra depth of field.
The image to the right was taken at 300mm and f/6.7 at 1/500s handheld with in-body IS on with the OM-D E-M5. A 100% crop is below. Here you can see that the lens is capable of fairly sharp results when you do your job correctly. A super-telephoto view like this requires good technique when shooting handheld, and your results with this lens, even when using a body with built-in IS, will depend quite a lot on your own long-lens shooting skill.
Image Quality: Bokeh
Bokeh from the 75-300mm is generally neutral, with even specular highlights and a nice smooth character, though it falls short of being truly ‘creamy.’ Overall, I was quite pleased by the out of focus rendering from a relatively slow lens, though at 300mm and f/6.7 you are still quite capable of blurring out the background nicely.
Bokeh looks consistent throughout the zoom range as well, with the only real difference being the ability to provide more blur at the longer end of the zoom. Good performance here.
Image Quality: Color, Contrast, Chromatic Aberration, and Flare
The Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II produces images with medium contrast throughout most of the zoom range, and relatively low microcontrast. As a result, there isn’t that biting crispness that some other lenses can produce. Color is nice, though not anything particularly special. There’s a little less saturation out of the 75-300mm shots compared to some other Olympus Micro 4/3 lenses, though a lot of this can be corrected in post. While the 75-300mm is quite resistant to flare, it does show a some lateral chromatic aberration, seen as a cyan and magenta highlight along object edges. I have found that Adobe Lightroom’s Chromatic Aberration removal tool is able to quickly eliminate almost all of the lateral CA with a single click, but it’s a step you will want to perform to get the most out of this lens.
what would be really useful is a comparison between this and the Panny 100-300.
I’ve recently rented both lenses to shoot baseball games in challenging light (for both lenses.) Even after using both, I’m still torn which to buy.
DxOMark is saying this Ver. 2 is appreciably sharper than Ver. 1 and, now, slightly sharper than the Panny.
But the Panasonic is f/4-5.6, vs. Oly’s f/4.8-6.7. So my thought here is the advantage of the extra sharpness more than offset by the slower speed. To get the same results, you need to either jack up the ISO (and thus the noise) or slow the shutter, introducing possible blur/shake. (I’m using an Olympus E-P5.)
Panasonic can also be had now for $450 and includes the hood.
Looking for informed opinions.
Bob,
The difference is only a third of a stop and thus any increase in noise is going to be minimal.
I plan on getting a review sample of the Panasonic 100-300 and I will do a comparison when that comes in. No guarantees on when…..I’ve got the GX7 and some other lenses yet to review in the queue…..
Awesome you should think of soeinhmtg like that
Mike,
At 100mm the Panny is f4. The Oly is 5.1.
You’re shot of the Egret is excellent. I’m surprised at the bird’s sharpness even at 300mm. I always enjoy your reviews and am glad I’ve found your site. Keep up the excellent work.
I’ve tested both lens versions. The “ugly” overpriced original lens is sharper all around. That should count for something. The new version looks nice but the older version is a little sharper. 150-600mm equiv range in a compact lens intended for daylight shooting while actually not requiring an assistant “mule” is a good thing (with either version). Should users of the old version jump to get the less expensive new version? Not until a detailed comparison between the Panasonic 100-300mm and the latest Olympus 75-300mm is offered up. That lens could top both Oly models.
I don’t think you can say either version is sharper than the other without exhaustive testing of many copies of each. Simple sample variation is enough to sway on some of these. I’ve seen reports saying the new version is a little worse (yours…which is the first one that I’ve heard said that), I’ve heard reports that they’re identical, and I’ve read tests that say the new one is sharper….which to me says they’re identical optically in design, and any differences are down to sample variation.
Well, both old and new versions might have some variance, but for me the new one was significantly better, especially in high contrast scenarios. Consequently I sold my old 75-300, of course at a huge loss.
The only significant change too the new lens are the new coatings, so I would expect the new ones to be generally better than the old ones. However, variance in lenses can cause a different experience.
You own one lens, not a whole version. Sample variation seems the likely explanation of your test results, given that most testers have reached the opposite conclusion but without finding any very large difference. As between your two samples, you clearly made the right decision, but your results don’t provide useful evidence for anyone choosing between random samples of the two versions, and your original post talked about “the” original lens being superior to “the” new lens, not “your” original lens being superior to “your” new sample. I don’t mean this to sound too personal. Sample variation in consumer grade products is such that most reviews of single samples have to be taken with a shovel load of salt. See here
Yeah, I can say that about sharpness. I tested a new version and found it lacked the performance of my old version. I can own one version. I choose the sharpest one. Individuals have to make those decisions, which will differ from testing labs possibly handling several lenses probably none of which they end up owning.
Nice review, I have this lens since a week, and in almost every point I think the same about it. After I’ve read other reviews before, I’ve expected more worse results in image quality from 250 to 300 mm then I have now with my new lens. I think for the price this lens is ok. But it’s really not so easy to make sharp pics at longer focal ranges, a monopod seems to be a good investment for me 😉
maybe i bought a very good exemplar. my lens is sharp even at 300mm. but you need good light and have to stop down to f/7.1 or better f/8. but image quality is very good at 300mm for me. i used a tamron 70-200 2,8 before with also good IQ, but it was very slow an noisy. for me the oly is the better lens overall although you cant compare them.
If you desire to improve your know-how only keep visiting this web page and be updated
with the hottest news posted here.
Thanks. I’m new to birding and am searching for a good rig. k
I recently bought 75-300 mm lens to use with my OMD-EM1 system in Jan 2015. (Note: I used to own the OMD-EM5 and this same lens but all was stolen in April 2014). I never had a problem when using the zoom all the way out on this lens even in low light on a tripod.
With this lens extended all the way out, I hear a very loud shifting noise like an element is loose? I am unable to focus on SF or manual. The warranty technician has said all is ok. I am asking they review the lens more.
I am new to the 3/4 system so I have no idea of the internal working parts on this lens. What parts could come loose in manufacturing. Do i have a lemon?
Is there problems with the newer version of this lens and the OMD-EM1?
Thks for the reviews. Between Olympus 75-300 and 40-150mm for best sharp if I don’t need more than 150mm?
ths you
The 40-150 f/4-5.6 or the f/2.8? If the former, they’re similar in image quality, so I’d save the money and size. If the f/2.8, it’s the better optic, though much larger.
For what I have read, the 40-150mm probably has similar quality as this one, but, just like the 75-300mm, it loses quite a bit at maximum focal length. So if you pretend to use mostly the 150mm range, the 75-300mm should be much better as it will be in its peak.