HELP! 75 - 300 Mkll

[iso]

Can anyone give me feedback on this lens? Some of the reviews seem a bit luke warm, but I am interested in buying one - can't afford the f4!

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I too was sceptical, until Olympus let me borrow one (at the 40-150 launch)

I already had the 70-300 FT and was happy with the quality it produced, but having tested the 75-300 mkII, I sold it and bought the new mft lens.

Further use has confirmed that it is perfectly adequate for producing images of acceptable quality and represents very good value for money.

[Wee man]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I agree with the above it is a very good lens with good reach and in good light gives very good results.

[Dave in Wales]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

Fabulous lens for the price.
It's macro capability when used with a slim extension tube is pretty good to.
The working distance is huge, not inches but feet.
The flowers were about an inch accross total.

E-M1 on a monopod.
P6180919-Edit4 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

[DerekW]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

The downside of longish lenses is that it tempts one to use it on distant subjects which tend to have lots of dirty air between the lens and the subject so the image is degraded.

If you use it for relatively near subjects you get very acceptable results.

[benvendetta]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I am still me two minds about mine. It has great reach but as has been stated above, it really needs good light to overcome its slowness. Either that or up the ISO. I should persevere more with mine although I generally avoid the extreme 300mm end.
I agree about the temptation with long shots and the issues with haze, AQ, etc, which can sometimes be mistaken for softness.

[DerekW]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

Temptation for long distance shots - it was not so long ago that to have a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera was quite an extreme view point - now we get that viewpoint from the 40mm to 150mm 4/3rds lens.

The 300mm point on the 4/3rds lens is the 35mm equivalent of a 600mm lens. That would have required quite a bit of discipline to use it properly, it would have not been a "walk a round" lens as the 4/3rds lenses are.

[OM USer]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I believe the MK II is optically the same as the Mk1. My MK1 tends to be a bit soft at infinity focus & max focal length. Change one or the other and its pretty sharp.

[iso]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

Thank you all. On balance it looks like a 'no-brainer'. Given: Price: Reasonable Performance: M43 to 600mm:

Thanks again

[mstphoto]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I find that the LUMIX 100-300 is far superior to the Olympus
Also faster at f4-5.6

[mstphoto]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

TURNSTONE
E-M1 + LUMIX 100-300, f6.3

Turnstone by Mike Stephen, on Flickr

[katran]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

75-300mm will focus faster on Olympus body, while 100-300mm will probably focus faster on Panasonic body.

So the choice anybody needs to take is clear : the body decides the lens.

[Shaw]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I find that the LUMIX 100-300 is far superior to the Olympus
Also faster at f4-5.6

I have the Olympus 75-300 mk2 and my wife has the Lumix 100-300 and I can't see any image quality difference between them, but I prefer the Olympus, because the Lumix has a very stiff zoom action. Her Lumix 100-400 also has a very stiff zoom.

[Mrs T]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

I would agree with the previous comments. The 75-300 mm requires more patience but in good light will give good results. I sold the Panasonic 100-300mm as it kept zooming by itself when around my neck. The 100-400mm zoom is stiff on mine too.

[mstphoto]

Re: 75 - 300 Mkll

Each to their own but I found the 100-300 superior in every way.
No patience required