Olympus 75-300mm ii comparison

[patileac]

I started with a 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 ii Olympus lens because it was cheap and yeah, light too. I then upgraded to a 40-150mm and a 300mm and the 75-300mm went to the bottom of the drawer, unused and... well, unloved because everyone knows that much more expensive lenses are sharper and better, aren't they? Until today, when scrummaging through the bottom of said drawer I ran into this lens and thought I'd take some photos - not only that, but also share them with the group.

I'm posting below a comparison of the Olympus 75-300mm ii at 300mm vs. the 300mm f4 pro lens and then of the 75-300mm ii vs. 40-150mm 2.8 pro at 150mm and 75mm. All photos are taken at 6.7 aperture or thereabouts (my E-M1 mk ii stops at 6.3 and 7.1).

The reason you will struggle to see any difference in the comparisons below is that... there isn't any noticeable one. I would have thought sharpness would be better for the pro lenses but at the same aperture, it's not. Also, they say that a zoom lens has worse sharpness at the tele end but that's not really the case here. Yes, as you stop down to f4 for the 300mm prime or to f2.8 for the 40-150 lens you will get better bokeh but not a lot so whether the extra money and weight is worth it... well, that's down to you.

Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 ii - what a light, undervalued jewel!

Taken with the 300mm lens x x Taken with the 75-300mm extended to the full 300mm





And then the comparison against 40-150mm:

40-150mm at 75mm x x 75-300mm at 75mm



40-150mm at 150mm x x 75-300mm at 150mm

[blu-by-u]

Take a handheld shot of a 1/4 moon. if you zoom in and can see the details, then it's worth keeping.

[Ian]

The Pro lenses are very sharp throughout the zoom range. While the 75-300 is a very good lens you can just see that the Pros are better, especially at 300mm. There isn't much diffraction headroom at 300mm because the aperture is already f/6.7. Obviously the Pro lenses have a big advantage in low light or for creative limiting if depth of field. All that said, the best lens in the world is the one on your camera. I confess to having the 75-300 on the camera more than 40-150Pro, mainly because I'm lazy!😅

[RobEW]

Slightly tangentially (if I may), have there been comparisons between the 75-300 and the new 100-400?

[RobEW]

I'm pretty pleased with my 75-300 ii, and occasionally use the superb Four thirds 50-200 (f/2.8-3.5) with or without 1,4 teleconverter, which is wonderful but big and heavy. (And for some wildlife contexts I get out the old Four Thirds Bigma!) But the 75-300 is small and light enough to take about with me everywhere, not just for wildlife day excursions, and so gets far more use. I do wonder whether the 100-400 would give me anything I haven't got, or might replace all three! Not as compact as the 75-300 though. and not much wider in aperture.

[griffljg]

I loved my old Four Thirds BIGMA. It was great for taking photos at airshows. Then the aperture stopped working and it couldn't be repaired as spare parts were no longer available. It has now been "retired".

[moggi1964]

Only £359 after cashback.

Is the newer version weather- sealed?

[RobEW]

75-300 ii? Not weather sealed sadly.

[moggi1964]

Then I'll have to keep aiming for the 100-400 then or figure out if the 40-150 Pro+ 1.4TC will meet my needs. I think I'll hold off till I've been back to Oulton Park in September and taken some shots with my manual lenses with similar reach to both to see what reach I can live with.

[Jax]

Only £359 after cashback.

Is the newer version weather- sealed?

It's not weather sealed but probably the best new zoom lens you can buy for the price. The only difference between this and other alternatives is the depth of your pockets. Mine are very shallow

Jax

[OM USer]

How far away were your subjects? I find the 75-300 is soft at the long end when the focus distance is significant but under 40 feet or so it sharpens up considerably. Because of its faults it is undervalued but it is reasonably light, reasonably small, reasonably cheap, and has a great and useful zoom range. Sometimes "reasonable" is worth it !

[patileac]

How far away were your subjects? I find the 75-300 is soft at the long end when the focus distance is significant but under 40 feet or so it sharpens up considerably. Because of its faults it is undervalued but it is reasonably light, reasonably small, reasonably cheap, and has a great and useful zoom range. Sometimes "reasonable" is worth it !

Oh, the distance to all the subjects in these test photos was definitely below 40 feet.

[OM USer]

Thanks .