How good (or bad) is the OM 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 mkII
I bought this lens (£259 used from MPB) last year. We were going on holiday, knew we'd be doing some bird hides in nature reserves near Ryde in Kent, and my longest lens was the 210mm of the OM 40-150mm f2,8 with the 1.4x teleconverter. This was added to the bag as stop gap until I could afford the 100-400mm MKII I now use as my main telephoto. So, how good is it?
 |
| 75-100mm attached to my EM1 Mk2. Lens hood cost extra. |
Actually quite good. It's well built, not up to the standards of Olympus / OM systems PRO lenses, but solid enough for what is a fairly lightweight lens. Zoom and focus rings turn smoothly and the autofocus is decently snappy to acquire and lock on to subjects. The minimum focus distance is also quite good. If you want to stick with Olympus/OM system lenses there's really no cheaper way to get to a 600mm equivalent reach - but it does bring compromises in it's wake.
Firstly, it's light in weight, has no lens stabilisation, and relies purely on the body IBIS for stability when hand holding. Frankly, it's pushing the limits in my 76 year old, at times shaky, hands. You either need a fast shutter speed or, better, if you can, to use a tripod or monopod for support to stop your subject jiggling in the viewfinder.
Secondly, it's slow. With a wide open aperture of f6.7 at the 300mm end low light work is problematic. Good light, no problems, poor light and ISO needs to increase significantly to get an acceptable shutter speed for anything but static subjects.
Thirdly, although the lens is decently sharp across it's range it doesn't have the absolute sharpness of my PRO lenses. I can certainly see the difference.
But is it good enough? Well, judge for yourselves with a few images. All taken wide open at f6.7 unless indicated otherwise. I've done a 1200 x 900px lifesize crop to show the detail in the subject for three of the images. Click to embiggen.
 |
| Black headed gull ISO 1600, 300mm, 1/3200 sec, uncropped |
 |
| 100% crop showing head and feather detail |
 |
| Oystercatchers with chick ISO 1600, 286mm, 1/2500 sec - slight crop |
 |
| Skylark with grubs. ISO 1600, 286mm, 1/5000 - slight crop |
 |
| bird and feather detail at 100% |
 |
| Four spot chaser dragonfly. ISO 1600, 300mm, 1/4000, f8 - cropped to about 2/3 of frame |
 |
| Common darter dragonfly. ISO 800, 300mm, 1/1600 sec, cropped to 3000px long edge |
 |
| Common darter 100% crop |
It is possible to work handheld at low shutter speeds - but it's more by luck than good judgement that I got this shot. 1/40 sec is rather too low for working at 300mm.
 |
| Photinia villosa berries. ISO 400, 300mm, 1/40 sec, uncropped |
So, is it a good or bad lens? For the price - remember I only paid £259 for the lens - good. In good light and with careful handholding / support technique it can certainly yield sharp results without the weight of larger, more expensive lenses. There is a lot of comment on line about perceived softness in the 250- 300mm and wide open at f6.7. I have to wonder how much of that is down to poor technique and not the limitations of the lens. It's not perfect but, for budget limited photographers who want the range without the expense, it's good enough.
Will I personally continue using it? No.
I have both the 100-400mm MkII and my 40-150mmf2.8 and 1.4X teleconverter and these two cover the 75-300mm range with full weather sealing and better image quality. But Maria uses it on her EM5 MkII so I'll always have it around if I do want to travel light.
