Review: Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II

August 19, 2013

Jordan Steele

Conclusion

Pros

Very sharp from 75-220mm and decently sharp to 300mm
Neutral bokeh with no hard edges to specular highlights
Outstanding range and reach in a compact body
Fast and silent autofocus
Well built and attractive body
Smooth zoom action
Resistant to flare
Price is reasonable at $549

Cons

Autofocus accuracy can be hit or miss on longer range targets
No image stabilization
Slow maximum aperture
Softer at 300mm than the rest of the zoom range
Exhibits a fair amount of lateral chromatic aberration
No lens hood included
Average contrast profile

The Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II is a good lens with incredible reach in a compact package. Optically, it’s relatively good, but falls short of excellent at the long end of the zoom range. The slow maximum aperture and long focal length means that this lens is going to really be a bright light lens only unless you are tripod mounted, but for having super-telephoto range in a small package, it’s a very useful lens. It’s a lens that really requires good technique to get the most out of the optics. The only real disappointment at this price range is the somewhat unreliable autofocus for more distant subjects, which would occasionally miss focus.

At the original’s $900 price tag, the 75-300mm was massively overpriced considering the maximum aperture and lack of built-in optical stabilization. With version II, Olympus has slashed the price to a much more reasonable $549, and at this price point, Olympus camera owners ought to take a good look at this lens if they need a good bit of reach, though Panasonic owners may want to look to the Panasonic 100-300mm due to its optical stabilization. The Olympus 75-300mm II offers a reasonable value and good, though not great, optical quality in a well-built and compact lens.

Sample Images

Click to enlarge an image

Bald Eagles - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.5-6.7 II @ 275mm, f/6.7 — Bald Eagles – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 275mm, f/6.7

Racquet-tailed Roller - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II — Racquet-tailed Roller – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 300mm f/6.7

Pittsburgh - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II — Pittsburgh – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 100mm f/6.3

At the Zoo - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II — At the Zoo – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 75mm f/4.8

Egret in the Morning - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II — Egret in the Morning – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 300mm f/6.7

Leopard - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II — Leopard – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 221mm, f/6.3

Sun Bear - Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II — Sun Bear – Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II @ 300mm, f/6.7

Tags:

75-300, lenses, m.zuiko, m4/3, micro 4/3, Olympus, review, telephoto, zoom, zuiko, zuiko 75-300

Comments

21 responses to “Review: Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II”

Bob

August 19, 2013

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.

Reply
1. Mike A
  
  August 20, 2013
  
  Bob,
  
  The difference is only a third of a stop and thus any increase in noise is going to be minimal.
  
  Reply
2. Jordan Steele
  
  August 20, 2013
  
  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…..
  
  Reply
  1. Boris
    
    July 9, 2015
    
    Awesome you should think of soeinhmtg like that
    
    Reply
A new review of Olympus 75-300mm II f/4.8-6.7 lens – Blog for mirrorless and premium compact cameras

August 20, 2013

[…] Source: https://admiringlight.com/blog/review-olympus-m-zuiko-75-300mm-f4-8-6-7-ii/ […]

Reply
Bob

August 20, 2013

Mike,

At 100mm the Panny is f4. The Oly is 5.1.

Reply
Casey

August 21, 2013

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.

Reply
Jon Falk

August 23, 2013

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.

Reply
1. Jordan Steele
  
  August 23, 2013
  
  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.
  
  Reply
2. Kabe
  
  August 31, 2013
  
  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.
  
  Reply
3. Ken
  
  January 22, 2014
  
  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
  
  Reply
Jon Falk

August 23, 2013

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.

Reply
a little bit of everything… | Michael John Burgess

August 31, 2013

[…] Zuiko Digital 17mm f/1.8 review at Zuikoholics. Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II review at Admiringlight. GX7 test […]

Reply
Matthias

August 31, 2013

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 😉

Reply
Joe

October 5, 2013

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.

Reply
Delores

September 21, 2014

If you desire to improve your know-how only keep visiting this web page and be updated
with the hottest news posted here.

Reply
k jillson

November 5, 2014

Thanks. I’m new to birding and am searching for a good rig. k

Reply
Eleanor H Sarren

April 20, 2015

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?

Reply
Victor

March 2, 2018

Thks for the reviews. Between Olympus 75-300 and 40-150mm for best sharp if I don’t need more than 150mm?
ths you

Reply
1. Jordan Steele
  
  March 4, 2018
  
  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.
  
  Reply
Alexandre Macedo Moscoso

November 28, 2018

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.

Reply