BTW, if you're interested in a shorter, more compact, economical zoom, I've had the Panasonic Lumix G 12-60 mm lens for about a year now. I picked it up used in Excellent condition for
This lens constantly surprises me, it’s far better than expected for the price. Of course it is limited in poorer light and it doesn’t stand up at big enlargements but for on screen viewing it’s great.
That’s a great lens for travel kit! I had that with me in Kenya, Tanzania etc. Light and small enough! Only con is that it’s not weather sealed. And perhaps sharpness.. but lightness again..! Trade off..
Got this lens recently and bit of a shock how light it is after 6 years using the 40-150 f2.8 Pro! Have to concentrate on holding properly because easy to get blurry shots at full zoom. Definitely needs good light to keep shutter speeds up but with E-M1 MkII IBIS I can get away with 1/100 at 300mm hand held.
I think that we all buy a telephoto lens for the maximum reach. If it doesn't perform to the maximum setting it's disappointing. I purchased this lens and found that I could not crop without serious degradation of image. I took it motor racing on a bright sunny day and experienced the same problem along with a high percentage of unusable photos due to bad autofocus. So, I sent it back. However I may have been unlucky, judge for yourselves.
It's definitely a lens that is hard to get good results at 300mm, especially when cropping. I have to fill the frame with the subject to at least 1/4 or 1/2 to get decent results. If the iso bumps or the subject moves too far way, the IQ is not really acceptable. I'd like to compare this lens with other comparable lenses from Panasonic.
Hi Rob, can you use a converter to magnify with this lens, so the subject to still much closer. Or would that bring to much grain into the picture. Thanks Roy
I was going to do that but he flew off before I could get a few rounds off. With the poor light and rain, I decided to come back on a nicer day to do that. Stay tuned!
I look forward to more information on that lens from your videos. I spent my next year camera gear budget on black Friday. I haven't decided if I'm going with the 75-300mm or Panasonic 100-300mm or save up the pennies for the Pro 40-150mm with the 2x converter. I heard there is a road map that will include a f/4 versions of the zoom lenses and it may help in deciding.
I have both the 40-150 pro and TC plus the Panasonic 100-300. When I want maximum reach I pick the Panasonic. Having said that I own both Oly and Panasonic bodies and only use the longer lenses with the same brand bodies as for me they focus better that way. This is for wildlife. For general scenery mixing bodies and lenses does not matter but I find if I am after detail it works better to use same branded lenses and bodies. By focusing better I mean AF single focus on the spot I want and not focus either just in front or back. But others have no problem mixing so it probably is my technique
@@marklaurendet1861 I'd say it's more on the lens/body combo because that has been my experience. Also, you lose the dual ibis capability on Olympus, so that may be a contributing factor. That said, skill trumps technology in my opinion.
I have this lens and the Leica 100-400. Of course the Leica is better than the Oly. But I have a lot more fun with the little Oly. It is not sharp, it is not sealed, there is no OIS, but I love it !!! The virtues of this lens are the small size and light weight! I use Oly with my GX80 and I use my Leica with GH5.
I've found my 75-300 works best on a tripod or shutter priority at 1/1600 or better. I find it a hard lens to get enough light with unless it's a sunny day...
Sorry, Isaac. I really can't give any good advice on wildlife shooting. Brooke Bartleson is know for wildlife. Look to ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=Brooke+Bartleson
Thanks for the comparisons! I've just bought this lens for my m10 mk2 and look forward to using it. Would using the internal teleconverter give the same results as the still where you cropped in to 50% ?
Wow I’m surprise how little reach 200 to 300 gives you. Makes me think if I would event get this lens or just get 55-200 or 40-150 3.5-5.6 and then just crop considering how sharp That lens is. 🤔
thanks for this side to side comparison. It looks like amplification is not linear, going from 75 to 150 seems larger amp than from 150 to 300, is that the case ?
It looks good. But, I think about buying the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45 - 200mm II. Have you ever tested this lens? I'm not sure if the Panasonic OIS is compatible with my E-M10 II and E-M5 mark I.
Thanks for this review, Rob - very helpful; just a tiny bit too soft for me. What would you recommend (or simply consider) as a SHARP lens with a LOT of reach that does not cost the Crown Jewels? I would love to have (who wouldn't) the Panasonic 100-400mm or the Olympus 300mm f4, but those are way out of reach dollar-wise. I have been on the fence forever about telephoto lenses and tried to adapt a few for still pictures. Are any super sharp long reach solutions at all in the sub-500 dollar range?
I've got a b700 bridge camera and in good light you'd see fine feather detail on that eagle. I'd imagine this lens is much the same, needs good light. The weather looked pretty bad,very dull and probably didn't do the lens justice. I'd imagine this lens is much better than mine and i'm pretty happy with mine. This one is definitely one i'll consider when i get my new camera.
The digital teleconverter creates a jpg that is cropped and upscaled. If you shoot raw+jpg, the raw will be uncropped. You can crop the raw and get a similar result and improve it with processing. Using the digital teleconverter is best for quick sharing and composing. It's fine for well exposed images, but you'll get better results in most cases cropping and processing the raw.
@@RobTrek ok. But again.. until Olympus releases a new one in that range (as per the new roadmap) this is the only non pro option.. I don't like Panasonic option for smaller bodies like m10 and m5...
@@RobTrek There's something about Olympus cameras that creates such a solid fan base. I've used and still use cameras from Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Leica in over 45 years of photography. The only camera brands that somehow instil a strong sense of enjoyment and satisfaction in me are Leica and Olympus. They are beautiful cameras to look at and a joy to use. Sad that I sold my M2 but I still have all my Olympus cameras! It's like driving a Mazda MX5. It's not the best sports car but boy, it is such fun to own and drive one!
@@RobTrek I forgot my Panasonic GX80! You mentioned a while ago that you will like a get hold of one. In my opinion, it is a great street camera but will never replace your Pen F. It is very functional and easy to use but I just do not get the buzz and enjoyment in using that compared my E-M10 Mk ii.
Well done Rob, so many photographers on UA-cam do this kind of think about lenses regardless of make but then only show the shot at I.e. 300mm. This is useless if there's no comparison but you offered comparison to all the lenses reach much more comprehensive. Very interesting spot on dear boy keep it up. P. S. Merry Christmas.
Thanks, Rob. The lens performed well even at 1/25 sec at ISO 200; the IS must be very good on the E-M5 III. FYI. Dpreview.com just posted their full review of it. The conclusion is here: www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-iii-review/7
Good job Rob! The side by side comparison at the end was very effective.
Thanks.
Thank you! Been searching the internet for this zoom comparison forever
Glad it was helpful!
Now that's what I call a concise good bit of information! Thanks.
Thanks.
Great video. Loved your subject, sitting still for you. Thank you Rob
Thanks. Just when I was going to get a few more shots at different focal lengths, he flew off!
BTW, if you're interested in a shorter, more compact, economical zoom, I've had the Panasonic Lumix G 12-60 mm lens for about a year now. I picked it up used in Excellent condition for
I'm pretty content with the 14-42mm kit, but actually want wider. Maybe the 9-18mm, just a bit pricey.
This lens constantly surprises me, it’s far better than expected for the price. Of course it is limited in poorer light and it doesn’t stand up at big enlargements but for on screen viewing it’s great.
It's not bad for the money.
Been on the fence looking for a super telephoto. You've helped me solidify the choice! Thinks Rob!
It's a great lens for the money. A little soft at the long end but can't complain too much.
That’s a great lens for travel kit! I had that with me in Kenya, Tanzania etc. Light and small enough! Only con is that it’s not weather sealed. And perhaps sharpness.. but lightness again..! Trade off..
Fair trade I think.
Rob Trek True!👍
@@heikkiwi were you able to get good clear shots from far?
@@issacjones4237 Good enough for me. If you compare size/pic quality the lens is good.
Great video Rob. The comparison is very helpful.
Thanks.
Got this lens recently and bit of a shock how light it is after 6 years using the 40-150 f2.8 Pro! Have to concentrate on holding properly because easy to get blurry shots at full zoom. Definitely needs good light to keep shutter speeds up but with E-M1 MkII IBIS I can get away with 1/100 at 300mm hand held.
It's a fun lens if you don't take it too seriously.
I think that we all buy a telephoto lens for the maximum reach. If it doesn't perform to the maximum setting it's disappointing. I purchased this lens and found that I could not crop without serious degradation of image. I took it motor racing on a bright sunny day and experienced the same problem along with a high percentage of unusable photos due to bad autofocus. So, I sent it back. However I may have been unlucky, judge for yourselves.
It's definitely a lens that is hard to get good results at 300mm, especially when cropping. I have to fill the frame with the subject to at least 1/4 or 1/2 to get decent results. If the iso bumps or the subject moves too far way, the IQ is not really acceptable. I'd like to compare this lens with other comparable lenses from Panasonic.
Hi Rob, can you use a converter to magnify with this lens, so the subject to still much closer. Or would that bring to much grain into the picture. Thanks Roy
There is no Olympus made teleconverter for this lens. Those 3rd party adapters that go on the front of the lens degrade image quality.
Still a good cheap alternative to the 300mm f4 pro. I bought a mint used one for my wife for £270 here in the uk.
Great deal!
How about a set cropped so they so the same area, Might make the sharpness at 250mm show
I was going to do that but he flew off before I could get a few rounds off. With the poor light and rain, I decided to come back on a nicer day to do that. Stay tuned!
I look forward to more information on that lens from your videos. I spent my next year camera gear budget on black Friday. I haven't decided if I'm going with the 75-300mm or Panasonic 100-300mm or save up the pennies for the Pro 40-150mm with the 2x converter. I heard there is a road map that will include a f/4 versions of the zoom lenses and it may help in deciding.
I'd save up for the 40-150 with a 1.4x teleconverter. The lens needs too much light to be used except in the best light.
I have both the 40-150 pro and TC plus the Panasonic 100-300. When I want maximum reach I pick the Panasonic.
Having said that I own both Oly and Panasonic bodies and only use the longer lenses with the same brand bodies as for me they focus better that way. This is for wildlife. For general scenery mixing bodies and lenses does not matter but I find if I am after detail it works better to use same branded lenses and bodies. By focusing better I mean AF single focus on the spot I want and not focus either just in front or back.
But others have no problem mixing so it probably is my technique
@@marklaurendet1861 thanks for your insight.
@@marklaurendet1861 I'd say it's more on the lens/body combo because that has been my experience. Also, you lose the dual ibis capability on Olympus, so that may be a contributing factor. That said, skill trumps technology in my opinion.
I have this lens and the Leica 100-400. Of course the Leica is better than the Oly. But I have a lot more fun with the little Oly. It is not sharp, it is not sealed, there is no OIS, but I love it !!! The virtues of this lens are the small size and light weight! I use Oly with my GX80 and I use my Leica with GH5.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I do like compactness a lot myself and it's not too expensive for what you get.
I've found my 75-300 works best on a tripod or shutter priority at 1/1600 or better. I find it a hard lens to get enough light with unless it's a sunny day...
Me too. Although if it's too dark to hand hold, I probably wouldn't bother with a tripod.
That's the downside of light, compact ultra telephoto - reduced aperture and so light it is hard to hold it steadily. First world problems!
Do you have any suggestions for long range lens with the Mark for like spotting polar bears from far?
Sorry, Isaac. I really can't give any good advice on wildlife shooting. Brooke Bartleson is know for wildlife. Look to ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=Brooke+Bartleson
Thanks for the comparisons! I've just bought this lens for my m10 mk2 and look forward to using it. Would using the internal teleconverter give the same results as the still where you cropped in to 50% ?
The internal teleconverter is digital, so it will crop 50% and generate a jpg. It looks fine but technically you're loosing 50% detail.
@@RobTrek thank you.
Wow I’m surprise how little reach 200 to 300 gives you. Makes me think if I would event get this lens or just get 55-200 or 40-150 3.5-5.6 and then just crop considering how sharp
That lens is. 🤔
It's more than it probably looks here but you raise an interesting question. I'll see if I can compare the 40-150 cropped verse the 75-300.
thanks for this side to side comparison. It looks like amplification is not linear, going from 75 to 150 seems larger amp than from 150 to 300, is that the case ?
Yeah the difference is so small
It looks good. But, I think about buying the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45 - 200mm II. Have you ever tested this lens? I'm not sure if the Panasonic OIS is compatible with my E-M10 II and E-M5 mark I.
The OIS does not sync with the camera's IBIS, so you have to pick one or the other.
Had that lens and was never very happy with it, needed a lot of light and sharpness seemed to be hit or miss.
Yeah, it's very slow and needs the light. Sharpness seems acceptable up to 250mm for the money.
Thanks for this review, Rob - very helpful; just a tiny bit too soft for me. What would you recommend (or simply consider) as a SHARP lens with a LOT of reach that does not cost the Crown Jewels? I would love to have (who wouldn't) the Panasonic 100-400mm or the Olympus 300mm f4, but those are way out of reach dollar-wise. I have been on the fence forever about telephoto lenses and tried to adapt a few for still pictures. Are any super sharp long reach solutions at all in the sub-500 dollar range?
Not that I know of. Look at it this way. Sharp, Reach, Cheap. Pick 2.
@@RobTrek Got it! We used to say that when writing custom programs for businesses -- Good, Fast, Cheap -- pick 2 for the results.
I've got a b700 bridge camera and in good light you'd see fine feather detail on that eagle. I'd imagine this lens is much the same, needs good light.
The weather looked pretty bad,very dull and probably didn't do the lens justice.
I'd imagine this lens is much better than mine and i'm pretty happy with mine. This one is definitely one i'll consider when i get my new camera.
has anyone used the built in teleconverter on the olympus with this lens ?
The digital teleconverter creates a jpg that is cropped and upscaled. If you shoot raw+jpg, the raw will be uncropped. You can crop the raw and get a similar result and improve it with processing. Using the digital teleconverter is best for quick sharing and composing. It's fine for well exposed images, but you'll get better results in most cases cropping and processing the raw.
nice video. the only image i found out of focus to my very untrained eye, was the 150mm even 300mm was clearer or sharper than the 150mm
Thanks for your feedback.
@Rob... How does the image quality compare with 14-150 and 40-150 f4-5.6 between 75 to 150mm??
It's about the same, but I think the 40-150mm is a bit sharper.
@@RobTrek ok. But again.. until Olympus releases a new one in that range (as per the new roadmap) this is the only non pro option.. I don't like Panasonic option for smaller bodies like m10 and m5...
Have you ever tried the continuons focus with this tele ?
Yes. It is pretty good with the em1-ii and em5-iii. I may have to wait until spring before I get enough light to really use this lens.
Looks like your new XT30 is still gathering dust :)
Yeah. I wish I returned it. I'll have to take it out if for no other reason than to compare it to my other cameras.
@@RobTrek There's something about Olympus cameras that creates such a solid fan base. I've used and still use cameras from Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Leica in over 45 years of photography. The only camera brands that somehow instil a strong sense of enjoyment and satisfaction in me are Leica and Olympus. They are beautiful cameras to look at and a joy to use. Sad that I sold my M2 but I still have all my Olympus cameras! It's like driving a Mazda MX5. It's not the best sports car but boy, it is such fun to own and drive one!
@@RobTrek I forgot my Panasonic GX80! You mentioned a while ago that you will like a get hold of one. In my opinion, it is a great street camera but will never replace your Pen F. It is very functional and easy to use but I just do not get the buzz and enjoyment in using that compared my E-M10 Mk ii.
@@TL-xw6fh I'm looking at a gx85 with 12-32 right now for $350. I really just want the lens but at this price, tempting to get the body too.
Well done Rob, so many photographers on UA-cam do this kind of think about lenses regardless of make but then only show the shot at I.e. 300mm. This is useless if there's no comparison but you offered comparison to all the lenses reach much more comprehensive. Very interesting spot on dear boy keep it up. P. S. Merry Christmas.
Thanks. I thought it might be helpful to see the differences in zoom relative to focal limits of other lenses.
Is it the mark ii lens?
Yes, the mark II.
Thanks, Rob. The lens performed well even at 1/25 sec at ISO 200; the IS must be very good on the E-M5 III. FYI. Dpreview.com just posted their full review of it. The conclusion is here: www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-iii-review/7
Thanks. Seems pretty spot on.
wow that's great footage of a majestic eagle. and must have lens.
Thanks.