WELCOME This site is for anyone interested in Olympus and OM System system cameras. First time visit? Check out our FAQ. You need to REGISTER before you can post. After registration and two posts, forum ads will disappear.
* Registered members don't see ads on the forum after two posts - sign up for free *
TR is hilarious - if you have no inkling to get a shot, use it. If not and you actually want to shoot something turn it off as its utter pants. I find c-af much better for moving subjects
I think is sharper and faster.
Never found the AF to be a problem but I was shooting static subjects.
I've never tried the E-M1 in tracking mode - I leave that to my Canons (for the moment )
Mike
Thanks for the reply. TBH I was hoping that I could use the EM5-II with 300mm lens as a second body when I go out to safari parks etc. My favoured combo is my D750 with 70-200mm f2.8 but there are times when I need the extra reach as not all animals play ball I was hoping I could use the Olly with 300mm rather than buying another heavy lens for the Nikon (150-600mm) and having to swap lenses whilst out.
I think is sharper and faster.
Never found the AF to be a problem but I was shooting static subjects.
I've never tried the E-M1 in tracking mode - I leave that to my Canons (for the moment )
Mike
I never, ever, used tracking on my Canons.......I don't think the 20D, 40D and 50 D had tracking... But I did find it good on the M5. Provided it could find the target in the first place!
I use the Tamron 150-600 on my Canons
Wish I could attach this to the E-M1
I hope it's better than the 150-500 that I had! That was pants when near wide open - soft as an overripe plum - I'm sorry to say. If it had been better, I wouldn't have bought the 100-400 L Canon.
BUT 600 (x2 with sensor crop) would be too powerful for BIF. You won't keep 'em in the frame, unless you have lightning reactions.
I hope it's better than the 150-500 that I had! That was pants when near wide open - soft as an overripe plum - I'm sorry to say. If it had been better, I wouldn't have bought the 100-400 L Canon.
BUT 600 (x2 with sensor crop) would be too powerful for BIF. You won't keep 'em in the frame, unless you have lightning reactions.
The new Tammy 150-600mm and Sigma 150-600mm's (sport and contemporary) are significantly better than the 150-500mm
I use the Tamron 150-600 on my Canons
Wish I could attach this to the E-M1
Lol. I keep toying with getting a 150-600mm as well as having the 300mm on the olly. Almost pull the trigger every day but then I keep telling myself I don't really need it and it will be easier for me to have the 2 cameras than swapping 2 big lenses all the time
Thanks, any tips on getting sharper shots? Really struggled with AF-C, I'm kind of spoilt with my D750 in that regard. Wondering if it's actually better to use AF-S and be quick? AF-C with tracking didn't appear use nor ornament.
Any idea whether the Olly 75-300 has better AF-C?
I've set up a my set on my E-M1 to use back button focusing with AF-C, I use this mostly with the 40-150 Pro and MC-14.
Even with faster lens, AF-C is quite slow however, I'm finding that the more I practice with it the more keepers I get.
My wife uses an Oly 75-300 with her E-M10 and doesn't use AF-C as she says the lens hunts and takes to long to lock focus.
When I'm struggling with AF-C, I change to S-AF and feather the shutter button to continue to lock focus, I've had some success doing this.
I'll try my 75-300 with AF-C on my E-M1 and see how fast it focuses.
Like you, I've had no success trying to use AF-C with tracking.
Well I've just had another go with the Panny today and AF seems to be a lot more reliable in terms of less hunting and less misses when using AF-S on static subjects. I have swapped lenses around since the other day and so wondering if it could have been a bad contact for some reason. Another factor could be a fully charged battery as opposed to a nearly flat one.
Picked up the 75-300mm today so will see how that compares over the weekend. I have to say I prefer the size of the Olly, so if IQ and AF is the same (now that the Panny appears to behaving better) it'll be a choice between size/weight vs 1/2 stop aperture.
Tested the Olly 75-300mm against the Panny 100-300mm. Both are pretty equal on AF (Panny seems much better now as already mentioned) although in continuous shooting the olly rate is noticeably faster. However, I would say it has a slightly higher miss rate too.
I don't know if I have a bad copy of the Olly but I would say the Panny is noticeably sharper at 300mm (600mm eq). Wide open the panny just shades it, but at f8 the Panny is noticeably sharper. In fact the Panny stopped down to only f6.3 is sharper than the Olly at f8. I didn't test the short end as I bought this lens for the reach. Although both 300mm the panny has a very slightly longer reach too, although not really noticeable unless viewing 1:1.
FYI, all tested on a tripod using a remote shutter release, IBIS and lens OS off.
Tested the Olly 75-300mm against the Panny 100-300mm. Both are pretty equal on AF (Panny seems much better now as already mentioned) although in continuous shooting the olly rate is noticeably faster. However, I would say it has a slightly higher miss rate too.
I don't know if I have a bad copy of the Olly but I would say the Panny is noticeably sharper at 300mm (600mm eq). Wide open the panny just shades it, but at f8 the Panny is noticeably sharper. In fact the Panny stopped down to only f6.3 is sharper than the Olly at f8. I didn't test the short end as I bought this lens for the reach. Although both 300mm the panny has a very slightly longer reach too, although not really noticeable unless viewing 1:1.
FYI, all tested on a tripod using a remote shutter release, IBIS and lens OS off.
That's interesting! I've had good results with the Oly 75-300 at the short end, but I'm not really impressed at the long end, especially after having had the Canon 100-400 L for several years. I suspect Oly is trying to push the length just a little too much. That could be indicated by the Panny having a half stop more at the long end. Have you tried the Oly at say 275 and 250?
That's interesting! I've had good results with the Oly 75-300 at the short end, but I'm not really impressed at the long end, especially after having had the Canon 100-400 L for several years. I suspect Oly is trying to push the length just a little too much. That could be indicated by the Panny having a half stop more at the long end. Have you tried the Oly at say 275 and 250?
No, as the whole point of this lens was for the reach, but I guess I'll not see a huge difference in reach between 275mm and 300mm
Few more test pics from the Panny. I think it really is a lens for static subjects tbh, really struggled with the pigeon/dove's head bobbing all over the place. The pigeon/dove was very compliant though, got within about 8ft of it.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of web browser cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, and to analyse site activity. No banner advertising is shown to members logged in to the site. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
)
Comment