This article provides a summary of a number of points made in earlier articles and provides an overall M.Zuiko 75-300 assessment. Since some folks seem to focus on what this lens isn’t, I might as well state that right up front. This lens isn’t weatherproof and it isn’t designated as a pro lens. What this lens is in spades… is small, lightweight, cost efficient, and a whole lotta fun to use!
NOTE: Click on images to enlarge.
I won’t bother going into all of the specs of the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II as these are readily available online. The build quality of this lens is quite good, especially given its price point.
The zoom action is smooth and I found the auto-focusing of this lens to be pretty fast and accurate. It isn’t a fancy lens by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a good, consistent performer.
Many photographers enjoy bird and nature photography but don’t want to break their bank account (or their backs) using a large, heavy and expensive long telephoto lens. The M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II will appeal to their sensibilities.
Having realistic expectations of this lens, I really didn’t find anything to complain about with the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II zoom. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised with how it performed.
Many non-pro full frame variable aperture long telephoto zoom lens will show some softness when shot wide open at the long end. This is very common.
Many lenses of this type need to be stopped down from f/6.3 to f/8 to be acceptably sharp. This is certainly what I found to be the case a number of years ago when I was shooting with a Nikon D800 and a full frame third party 150-600 f/5-6.3 telephoto zoom lens.
The M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II also shows some slight softness when shot wide open when fully extended. So… it is like many other lenses of this type. There is a key difference though.
After taking over a thousand images over the past number of days with this lens, I never once felt the need to stop the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II down to f/8 to have it be acceptably sharp. I found the RAW files totally usable when the lens was shot wide open at f/6.7 at the long end. I just did my usual bird image processing in post… nothing special was needed.
In my experience you can realistically shoot this lens wide open from f/4.8 to f/6.7 throughout its zoom range and expect good results when you process your RAW files. Remember that this is a variable aperture zoom lens so f/4.8 is at the widest angle of the lens.
So why do some owners of this lens say it lacks sharpness at the long end? I can’t say for sure. My guess is either they have unrealistic expectations, or perhaps they could benefit from some additional experience using a lens of this type, or working with their RAW files in post. It could even be the auto-focus performance of their camera body.
We need to remember that it is not easy to use a long telephoto lens with an equivalent field-of-view of 600 mm. It takes some practice and skill.
If a photographer wants the pro performance found in lenses like the M.Zuiko PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 ($2,000 in Canada) or the M.Zuiko PRO 300 mm f/4 IS ($3,700 in Canada)… they simply won’t find it in a lens that costs $750.
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.
If you do own the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II and you find that it isn’t as sharp as you would like when you use it, there’s a few things you can try…
- Make sure you use a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action of your subject bird. Small birds require fast shutter speeds.
- Use a shutter speed that is sufficiently fast enough to be aligned with your handheld capability.
- Use single point auto-focus and do your best to place it on the eye/head of the bird.
- Use silent shutter with your Olympus camera.
- Develop a light, steady touch to fully depress your shutter release. A fast or hard, downward jabbing motion can cause image blur when photographing perched birds. This is especially true when using a lightweight lens like the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II telephoto zoom.
- Practice good handheld camera technique.
- Work on your post processing skills, and try different approaches with how you adjust your RAW image files in post. Remember that there are a number of software adjustments in addition to ‘sharpening’ that can impact how we perceive visual acuity with photographs.
- If you are using a camera with contrast detect auto-focusing, see if you can borrow or rent an E-M5 Mark III, E-M1 Mark III, or an E-M1X. This will allow you to try out the latest Olympus Contrast and Phase Detection AF. The softness you are experiencing may be more related to the auto-focus performance of your current camera rather than with this lens.
Anyone looking for a small, lightweight long telephoto zoom lens for a M4/3 body, should check out the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-6.7 II. As stated at the start of this article, it is a small, lightweight, cost effective and fun to use telephoto zoom lens!
This is a lens that we own.
Technical Note
Photographs were captured hand-held using camera gear as noted in the EXIF data. Images were produced from RAW files using my standard process.
How you can help keep this site advertising free
My intent is to keep this photography blog advertising free. If you enjoyed this article and/or my website and would like to support my work, you can purchase an eBook, or make a modest $10 donation through PayPal. Both are most appreciated. You can use the Donate button below. Larger donations can be made to tom@tomstirr.com through PayPal.
Word of mouth is the best form of endorsement. If you like our website please let your friends and associates know about our work. Linking to this site or to specific articles is allowed with proper acknowledgement. Reproducing articles, or any of the images contained in them, on another website or in any social media posting is a Copyright infringement.
Article and images are Copyright 2020 Thomas Stirr. All rights reserved. No use, duplication or adaptation of any kind is allowed without written consent. If you see this article reproduced anywhere else it is an unauthorized and illegal use. Posting comments on offending websites and calling out individuals who steal intellectual property is always appreciated!
Interesting that you show high ISO values in most of your example photos, is that because the light was good or because of the high shutter speeds being used.
I was told to use ISO Auto but have started to play with manually adjusting ISO to much higher values and seem to be getting sharper images. Only just invested in this 75-300mm lens so looking forward to using it in anger this weekend.
Hi Graham,
When I capture images for this type of article I will often shoot a lens at higher ISO values to allow for faster shutter speeds. This can be helpful when trying to assess lens sharpness. If you look at other articles you’ll see that I am more concerned with shutter speed than ISO.
Tom
Thanks for your encouraging review. I recently purchased a used/on sale 75-300 for use with an EM10 mkII and find that I am delighted with my bird images some of the time, acceptably impressed some of the time, and completely disappointed some of the time. But I take heart that a) the camera may affect lQ; b) my technique/skill play a role; and c) my processing skills play a role. I haven’t committed to a paid editor since I am overwhelmed with choices, and am torn between my easy freebie and the overwhelming Darktable. Suggestions? (I don’t want an Adobe subscription.)
Hi Eric,
I don’t have first hand experience with a sufficiently broad range of software programs to provide a recommendation. If you have access to Olympus Workspace you may want to start there.
Tom
Hi Thomas,
What are your thoughts on how this lens image qaulity (75-300) compares to the 40-150 2.8 with the mc-20 teleconverter? (Aside from small f-stop advantage).
I currently have both the 40-150 2.8 pro, and the 75-300. And I am thinking of picking up the mc-20. Potentially I would even sell the 75-300 to finance it. If I preferred it.
I have always found the results from the 75-300 to be pretty good. Provided, I adhere to good long lens technique, and light is sufficient. I imagine the mc-20 combo is pretty similar?
Main benefits I see of the mc-20: improved close focusing /semi macro (big deal for me as my preffered subject is insect macro), reduced weight when substaituting the 75-300 for the mc-20.
Anyways would be interested to hear any thoughts you may have.
Hi Jeremy,
Without question the image quality using the M.Zuiko PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 with the MC-20 teleconverter is superior. Sharpness is noticeably better and colours are richer. The difference in sharpness is accentuated when compared fully extended. As you know the M.Zuiko 75-300 f/4.8-6.7 II is much smaller and lighter which can be important for many people. As your comment points out there is a significant difference with the minimum focusing distances between these two set ups with the M.Zuiko PRO 40-150/MC-20 set-up capable of focusing down to about 65 cm (~25-26 inches). This makes it a great set-up for flower photography and other close work. The M.Zuiko PRO 40-150 f/2.8 is my favourite lens for flower photography. Fully extended the minimum focusing distance of the M.Zuiko 75-300 is about double, so it is not nearly as capable as a flower photography lens.
I use my PRO 40-150 f/2.8 with an E-M1X as I have large hands and I don’t find it comfortable to use this lens with an E-M1 Mark III. So, comfort can be a factor for some folks. For people who want a small, light telephoto zoom the M.Zuiko 75-300 mm f/4.8-8.7 II certainly has its place. For many people this is a terrific travel telephoto lens. Given its size and cost it performs well… it just isn’t in the same league as the PRO 40-150/MC-20 combination in terms of image quality.
Hope this has helped.
Tom
A clarification please. In the article you write “In my experience you can realistically shoot this lens wide open at f/6.7 throughout its entire zoom range”. A little contradiction there since shooting f/6.7 on the wider end is stopped down a bit. So did you simply mean shooting wide open through the zoom range?
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for catching up slip-up! I have corrected the article. It now reads: “In my experience you can realistically shoot this lens wide open from f/4.8 to f/6.7 throughout its zoom range and expect good results when you process your RAW files. Remember that this is a variable aperture zoom lens so f/4.8 is at the widest angle of the lens.”
Tom
Hi, Thomas.
I love the pics you can take with such a small sensor camera. May I ask you if some of the pics were taken using a ”Fresnel lens + flash”. My experience with BIF is that my best images were taken with that combo, specially to have a catch light in the eye of the bird.
regards
Luke
Hi Luc,
All images were captured in available light without the use of flash.
Tom
I realize the v2 of this lens has been out for a while now. I’ve also been shooting Oly for a while now as I have the V1 copy. Is there any real-life distinction that would make me consider an upgrade?
Hi Ronald,
I’ve only been shooting with Olympus equipment since May 2019 so unfortunately I don’t have any previous experience from which I can draw.
If you are happy with the performance of the lens that you currently own it may not make sense to upgrade to version 2. For the money you would spend on an upgrade there may be other lenses/gear that you could consider that may broaden the capability of your overall system rather than replacing your current lens with the updated version.
I went on DxOMark and was able to do a comparison between the two lenses based on their test data. Here is a link to that comparison: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75-300mm-F48-67-II-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75-300mm-48-67-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II__1110_1136_416_1136
From what I can see the Version II is somewhat sharper, has a bit better light transmission and the chromatic aberrations are a bit better controlled. Whether these improvements are sufficient to warrant an upgrade is something I am not able to judge.
If you are open to using a larger and heavier telephoto zoom lens the new 100-400 f/5-6.3 would be a significant upgrade. It will also cost significantly more.
Tom
Thanks for your response. Seeing that the cost of the lens to what I would gain is not that great I’m going to stick with my plan to buy the 100-400….As soon as all the retailers restock!! Everyone is out of it right now, and I’m very happy to see that.
Hi Ronald,
Sounds like a good decision.
Tom