You can compare it for very long, but overall, if we don’t touch the very high end, I think that systems are competitive. Why Olympus 75-300mm F/4.8-6.7 II? How does this matter to sharpness tests? I'm pretty sure neither lens had improvements over sharpness, because the design is almost the same. What you will get with the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 iI s an easy-to-handle telephoto zoom lens that is capable of producing image quality more than sufficient to meet the needs of many photographers. Olympus OM-D E-M1X + M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 @ 300 mm, efov 600 mm, f/6.7, -0.3 step, 1/3200, ISO-4000, Pro Capture H Photographers mention that lower weight and IBIS allows them to hand-hold the setup, and therefore, take more interesting angles, have more creative freedom. I partially agree with that. Let’s compare

Here I tell about Micro 4/3 in general. The purpose is to explain what niche of Olympus 75-300mm F/4.8-6.7 II occupies amongst other telephoto lenses. You may skip it and go to the next chapter. Both lenses are sharpest stopped down to F7.1-8, but the differences between them are negligible in the center of the frame and become noticeable away from the center, especially at 300mm, with Olympus being ever so slightly sharper in the center in some frames and Panasonic being sharper overall at the edges. The previous generation of the lens. There isn't a huge difference here: the new lens is a bit sharper at 150mm, CA is improved, and there's slightly less corner shading. Travel photography is a bit of everything, street, landscape, portraits, documentary. Basically anything, that can bring an atmosphere of a remote location. Apart from zooming in the same direction as your other lenses (which I find is actually quit important), the 75-300 has an advantage in that it is wider at the short end.

A soda can-sized 150-600mm lens? The Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II is a brilliant budget super telephoto

At 200mm and 300mm, the lens offers above-average performance for sharpness; the center is decently sharp, but the corners are significantly soft. Stopping down to ƒ/11 does help at the 200mm setting, but at 300mm setting, there's no significant improvement. It's true that it's half a stop slower than the Panasonic. It also doesn't have image stabilisation. I have had very good results with the 75-300mm 11, as well as the Panasonic 100-300mm but the one thing that I do not understand is that both the 75-300 as well as the Panasonic 100-300mm would not focus at the longer end even though the camera is beeping focus confirmation. Coming from a Nikon DSLR (which I still have) I find this strange. Never had a camera that confirms focus when you know it is not. Maybe someone could explain this to me (Olympus E-M1 is the camera I use) The bokeh of this lens is certainly not unpleasant, thanks to the long focal lengths that you can use. Only around highlights there can be a color difference, as you can see in this image. The Olympus is too small and light for me to hold still easily on an Olympus E-M5. That might sound weird, but for a lens with this range I like some more weight; the Panasonic is about perfect for me to hold still with slower shutter speeds, whereas I struggled somewhat with the Olympus.

I can say that there is significant sample variation of the Olympus mkI - the first one I had was poor at 300mm - not sharp at all beyond about 250mm - and I just assumed that was how the lens was. However when I acquired a second copy it was so much better - really biting sharp at 300mm wide open.

Latest Reviews

The shot is made over a river and here is the same idea. If I come was shooting next to a person – the house far away would be too small. In this chapter, I will explain where Olympus 75-300 can be used in travel photography. The next chapter tells about the very important lens’s limitations. Panasonic 100-300 was the chunkier of the two but was half a stop faster. Olympus 75-300 II on the other hand was slender than the Panasonic and felt bit more balanced on the small OM-D E-M5 body. olympus 75-300 panasoic 100-300 zoomed

Otherwise I think both of these lenses have enough sample variation, that it's hard to say which is sharper.

ADVERTISEMENT

There are a few too many M.Zuiko lenses to cram into a single guide, and they cater for a multitude of purposes and user types, so we've split our guide into four sections: The Olympus 75-300mm ƒ/4.8-6.7 M.Zuiko is very fast to autofocus, taking less than a second to go through its entire focusing range. The lens adopts the new MSC (Movie & Still Compatible) design, making it ideal for use in both still and video applications. The front element does not rotate when focusing, making life that much easier for polarizer users. In general, I think sharpness is overrated. Most of the modern lenses are sharp enough to produce outstanding results. But the case is a bit different with a super-telephoto.