75-300mm MKII my impression.

[pvasc]

I have heard a lot of things about this lens. Most saying that it might not be as well built as the MKI. I cannot compare, but I did get to handle one, (black version), at Focus Wenesday. From all I had read I was really expecting something like my 40-150 MKII as far as how it looked and felt, (kind of cheap and plasticky). WRONG, It's big, (remember I never saw the 1st one), but when I had a play, i was reminded of my 50-200, rather than the 4-150. The zoom was smooth as well as the focus ring. I would say both had the right amount of feedback/resistance when turning them. Just enough to let you know that you were turning them, not somuch as to cause camera shake as you moved them. No worries about this lens.

[mike_j]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

I'm pleased to hear that. I'm told my pre-ordered one will be coming at the end of next week. I'll post some images asap.

[oly_om]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

I have the mk I, so am interested to see if the new coatings appreciably improve things.

Andy

[Ian]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

The Four Thirds 70-300 was vulnerable to ghosting, which is caused by internal reflections and in my tests the MFT 75-300 didn't ghost under conditions in which the 70-300 did (and that was using the 70-300 with lens hood in very bright conditions and the 75-300 without a lens hood). So I don't think improved coatings would necessarily make a significant difference.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

I have heard a lot of things about this lens. Most saying that it might not be as well built as the MKI. I cannot compare, but I did get to handle one, (black version), at Focus Wenesday. From all I had read I was really expecting something like my 40-150 MKII as far as how it looked and felt, (kind of cheap and plasticky). WRONG, It's big, (remember I never saw the 1st one), but when I had a play, i was reminded of my 50-200, rather than the 4-150. The zoom was smooth as well as the focus ring. I would say both had the right amount of feedback/resistance when turning them. Just enough to let you know that you were turning them, not somuch as to cause camera shake as you moved them. No worries about this lens.

The 75-300 is certainly big compared to a 40-150 Of course that is only to be expected but the 75-300 is smaller than the Panasonic Lumix 100-300, partly because the 100-300 is brighter (f/4-5.6 compared to f/4.8-6.7). Considering the power of these lenses they are tiny.

Ian

[bassman]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

I have heard a lot of things about this lens. Most saying that it might not be as well built as the MKI. I cannot compare, but I did get to handle one, (black version), at Focus Wenesday. From all I had read I was really expecting something like my 40-150 MKII as far as how it looked and felt, (kind of cheap and plasticky). WRONG, It's big, (remember I never saw the 1st one), but when I had a play, i was reminded of my 50-200, rather than the 4-150. The zoom was smooth as well as the focus ring. I would say both had the right amount of feedback/resistance when turning them. Just enough to let you know that you were turning them, not somuch as to cause camera shake as you moved them. No worries about this lens.

Agree completely with this, not a big fan of how these zooms extend but I didn't think this was excessive and it still felt really solid, no rattles. Can't wait for mine to arrive.

Mark.

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

Agree completely with this, not a big fan of how these zooms extend but I didn't think this was excessive and it still felt really solid, no rattles. Can't wait for mine to arrive.

Mark.

It is very nice after using ZD70-300 lens (with MMF-3 adapter) as it was slow focussing (& a little noisy), longer, larger diameter & it's zoom extended a lot further & being external focussing, extended even further (as well as rotating), so the M.ZD75-300 Mk II lens is quite neat by comparison (except for the specified large hood being the same as the ZD70-300).

[The Technician]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

aahh but you need the lens hood to say look I have a big lens to all the canikon peeps out there

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

aahh but you need the lens hood to say look I have a big lens to all the canikon peeps out there

True, but I prefer it to be in better proportion though. I have an LH61B (for the early ZD40-150 f3.5-4.5) coming from ebay because someone said it would fit & although Ian have them both & said it wouldn't (I could have cancelled it), I am hoping it can be modified sufficiently to allow it to fit, assuming it is actually smaller than the LH61E (for the outside dia. & hopefully the length a little too). I guess I'm going to find out.

[David Morison]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

I've no info about the minimum focus distance of the MFT 75-300 mkII but at 300mm the mkI's MFL is around 1.5m which makes it much less suitable for macro work than the 4/3 70-300mm @ 0.92m. So if close-ups were an important factor when using that lens then peeps may be disappointed with the performance of the m4/3 lens, fast focus and new coatings notwithstanding.

David

[oly_om]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

I hope we can see some comparative images soon with shots against the light to see how the Mk 1 and 2 compare. Higher contrast with the new coatings may also deliver higher MTF and better perceived sharpness too. If any one with the mk 2 fancies a meet up to do a comparison, let me know (I have the mk 1).

Andy

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 75-300mm MKII my impression.

True, but I prefer it to be in better proportion though. I have an LH61B (for the early ZD40-150 f3.5-4.5) coming from ebay because someone said it would fit & although Ian have them both & said it wouldn't (I could have cancelled it), I am hoping it can be modified sufficiently to allow it to fit, assuming it is actually smaller than the LH61E (for the outside dia. & hopefully the length a little too). I guess I'm going to find out.

The LH61B was a bad idea & I should have cancelled the order when I could have. Definitely should not be attempted at all as it is just as large at the wide end (as the LH61E) & slightly larger mounting diameter as well as being different in design for mounting. Just get the JJC LH61E & put up with it.