|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on September 16, 2021 Pros: Weight - Overall dimensions - Yield also at TA at all focal lengths - well built Cons: Not tropicalized, a little delicate the knurling of the rings Opinion: Used for years. Sometimes not understood. We must take our hand. I use it with the em1 mk1. Essential to use it with electronic shutter. with the stabilizer of the machine you shoot without micromosso paying attention to absurd times (1/30s-1/40s) on static subjects with a shrewdness that I discovered unfortunately after some time. At first I was not satisfied and I found that it kneaded the details at 300mm (the tests I do from home on the writings under the license plates of parked cars that are relentless to highlight micro-bump, contrast and definition) in comparison to zd50-200 + ec14 and panasonic 100-300. then one day I tried to remove the uv filter fil (a slim reporter) and boom. perfect details. Equivalent to the yield of pana 100-300. For me perhaps even slightly better as a microcontrasto. So those who do not find it sharp try with electronic shooting, obviously trying to be as firm and without filter as possible. |
| sent on September 16, 2021 Pros: Weight - Overall dimensions - Yield also at TA at all focal lengths - well built Cons: Not tropicalized, a little delicate the knurling of the rings Opinion: Used for years. Sometimes not understood. We must take our hand. I use it with the em1 mk1. Essential to use it with electronic shutter. with the shutter of the camera you shoot without micromosso paying attention to absurd times (1/30s-1/40s) on static subjects with a shrewdness that I discovered unfortunately after time. At first I was not satisfied and I found that it kneaded the details at 300mm (the tests I do from home on the writings under the license plates of parked cars that are relentless to highlight micro-bump, contrast and definition) in comparison to zd50-200 + ec14 and panasonic 100-300. then one day I tried to remove the uv filter fil (a slim reporter) and boom. perfect details. Equivalent to the yield of pana 100-300. For me perhaps even slightly better as a microcontrasto. So those who do not find it sharp try with electronic shooting, obviously trying to be as firm and without filter as possible. |
 | sent on September 03, 2021 Pros: Weight, compactness, optical yield, focal range, quality-price ratio Cons: Relatively dark, some difficulties for use on cameras with non-stabilized sensor Opinion: I bought it used, in excellent condition, with hood and UV filter, from another amateur photographer who, although satisfied, had purchased the 100-400 for his nature photography needs. After 3 months of use on Olympus OMD E-M10 MkII body I can only say that it turned out to be a pleasant surprise. I have not encountered the problems and defects that I read, published by other friends amateur photographers. Between f. 8 and f. 11 it returns very sharp images with a good microcontrasting, while over f. 16 appears, but not always, some diffraction problems. Combined with the OMD E-M10 MkII which has the sensor stabilized, I shot freehand at maximum focal length, with unthinkable times: 1/80 and even 1/60 without problems of move or microvy. In short, I am satisfied with it. There is probably something better, especially in terms of greater brightness, but the price to pay is the greater weight and the higher price |
 | sent on March 20, 2021 Pros: Lightness optical quality mannegevolezza practicality compactness... Cons: Nothing Opinion: Bought used at 300€ was a pleasant surprise. Is it right that nowadays, from an optical point of view, the maximum is demanded and sometimes exaggerated expectations are placed on it, not very bright? Brighter assumes larger lenses consequently greater weight higher cost optical correction different use of rare earths in glass.. It is more than evident how much the 300mm f4 costs... Quality weight results and price in proportion, same speech at 75... Lower quality at 300? Same as above, quality costs money. After all, those who want to perform at Ferrari cannot demand them from a panda. As far as it costs it gives so much species up to 150/200mm at 300mm is more than honest, and the quality exceeds some 300 analog fixeds I have, especially in the case of CA. (I also tried it in astronomical photography at 300, to photograph stellar fields and nebulae is more than fine, you have no idea perhaps how glass bottoms are highlighted in astronomical photography) For what it costs 10 full. |
 | sent on March 05, 2020 Pros: Very light, compact, mounts screw ND filters, cheap, made in general. Cons: Not tropicalized. Opinion: Paid 280 euros used, with lampshade, for me it is a godsend to be able to make long treks in the mountains without feeling the weight. In full light the results are excellent (compared to its segment) but as soon as the light goes down, it limps. In aid comes the excellent oly body stabilizer that allows you to stretch the times a lot even by freehand (I shot at 1/60 without motion). In birdlife the mm is never enough and I always find myself shooting at 300mm but I find that there is no drastic drop in sharpness... indeed, perhaps I have a well-made specimen. It can mount screw ND filters to get creative shots. Too bad it's not tropicalized but it would mean demanding the full barrel and the drunk wife. I don't regret it at all. |
user68000   | sent on October 21, 2019 Pros: Good hike, light, good price Cons: The long part for which you take it, that is over 200, is too soft Opinion: Taken in June, little feeling, sold the day before yesterday. The reviews were actually controversial, but I hoped they were exaggerated, instead they were truthful. At 200 mm you have to close to F/11 to recover a bit of sharpness, but beyond there is no hope, so at 300 mm I used it with satisfaction only for video. For me it's an OB with little sense, because there are probably better ones staying within 200 mm. |
 | sent on July 18, 2019 Pros: Weight, compactness, value for money Cons: A little dark in low light. Needs f 8 to sharpen over 270 mm Opinion: Overall positive opinion, very clear and precise in good light conditions. Fast focus with em1 mk2, great with the small dot. It is so light and unwieldy that you take it with you even in outings not properly dedicated to birdlife. Taken to approach the naturalistic photo on the stakeout, it did not disappoint me at all, indeed it ignited the desire to try this specialty. Used has a very attractive price. |
 | sent on October 01, 2018 Pros: Only the weight, for the rest is better the 70-300 and F. 4.0-5.6 which is brighter and more incisive, even if you need to mount an adapter ring for Micro 4/3. Cons: brightness, image quality acceptable only between F. 8 and F. 11 (but expires over 220/250 mm.!), focusing problems in low light conditions (obviable with manual focus, but is annoying), lens hood to buy apart. Opinion: Nothing exceptional except the compactness and lightness. It is a dark tele zoom and not very easy to handle in low light conditions; The focus becomes critical in these conditions and you have to opt for manual focus. The quality of the images is lower than that of the "brother" 70-300 and that is definitely brighter and better performing (although heavier and bulky) and that, moreover, does not cause the same problems of focusing with low light on micro 4/3 despite The adapter. Better take it used. |
 | sent on September 30, 2018 Pros: compactness, focal length, sharpness Cons: Brightness Opinion: Bought used at €350, it allows you with a content outlay to get to 600mm eq. I took it for shots of fauna in the mountains and on holiday, which otherwise I could not do. The quality is good (good up to about 250mm, then you need to close one stop). It is exceptionally light and compact to have such an excursion and very convenient to have always with you. A little dark at the maximum focal, but in line with the cost. In good light returns phenomenal shots, which also in sharpness are fine (the more the subject is far less will be sharp, as with all Supertele). It is not immediate to use, but with a bit of practice the results are really good. |
 | sent on May 07, 2018 Pros: Value for money. Light and Handy (Supertele!) Cons: A little dark; Not sealed Opinion: I use tele and supertele occasionally for distant or unreachable flora photos. Photographer only by day with light so I have no problems for opening 6.7 a300 mm. Its lightness and compactness compensates for any criticism in my opinion. If you do not expect super performance in difficult conditions (dark, animal photos) seems to me a good compromise to have in the backpack; The optimum stabilization of the Olympus om-D 1 MarkII then helps in freehand photos (pretty much all I do) |
 | sent on August 26, 2017 Pros: Sharpness up to about 250mm, manageability, image colors, ED lenses, AF speed, easily transportable, real 600mm that are comfortable in nature photography. Cons: F6.7 to 300mm a little shutter ... it was better a 5.6 fixed but you can not expect too much, hood not supplied, slightly hard zoom ring. Opinion: I bought this lens used seeing the photos and positive comments, and I must say that I was satisfied with the purchase.Certo is not comparable to optical standard A but it is not that it is so far from them ... I am convinced that the merit of sharpness is due to ED lenses and also by the exceptional stabilizer that Olympus cameras offer. In fact, when you shoot you see the still image and this counts for the final image quality. As I said there are some faults that go into the background considering the price that is around € 500, considering that you have a 600mm very light and compact.For the hood, mount the same that mounted the old 70-300 of the old series, pity that is not supplied but sold separately.rnThe advice for those who make photo hunting in open places where there is light.Inoltre is indicated for more static than dynamic, even if some shots you can do to animals in motion. For those who are tired of shooting with "CANNONI" as they areI do not have many pretensions, this is a valid alternative. Quality strands over long distances, but close up is excellent, at 300mm it becomes little contrasted. |
 | sent on August 26, 2017 Pros: Well built, although not tropicalized (with a strong impression), lightweight and handy - Excellent sharpness even at full opening, which is reduced by a little over 250 mm, but just shut down some stops and things get better. Cons: For the price it costs I would say no one. The Olympus slim lens, which is indispensable with these focal points, is almost as usual on the economic lenses, but the purchase of the original in after market is also about half the price, so nothing serious. Last but not least because of its lightness and compactness, on lightweight bodies such as the PEN and E-M10, at long focal lengths and freehand, it is more susceptible to microchips than to E-M1.rnrn Opinion: Certainly not very luminous for the lovers of these openings, but considering the focal length of 600mm equivalent, we are also compared to a 35mm focal point with extender. Of course, someone accustomed to the big openings will have the right to complain, but with this focus, which of them cost only 0.5k euros? It is certainly not the objective to be used in certain light conditions, but even in these, for fairly static animals and the tripod, it goes out anyway dignitously, because where there are AF problems there is always the convenience of "focus peacking "Fast and precise to draw. In conclusion, it is a goal more than honest and can give great satisfaction that I feel to advise many, especially those who do not care about the frills, but the concrete things and ... especially the wallet. |
 | sent on April 07, 2017 Pros: Size - Price - Quality - Sharpness Cons: Dark of the counterparty Panasonic, albeit one stop - always missing the hood as usual - not weather sealed Opinion: Excellent super telephoto lens, if he plays well despite not being a professional viewpoint. Definitely sharp at all focal lengths and with an excursion that starts from 75mm, has as against that, to preserve the compactness and lightness, it is sacrificed in terms of brightness. Also great for portraits from a distance, with a Mass at close very useful fire. Maybe add tropicalisation ... |
 | sent on November 30, 2016 Pros: Value for money; overall yield; well balanced with micro 4/3; crisp enough for non-professional use. Cons: A little dark, but not too much. Opinion: Taken on a whim, I could immediately appreciate the overall quality, optics, performance and construction. It is balanced perfectly with EM5 smooth. Well built. Missing the hood, as Olympus style. Thanks to medium ISO yield capacity - high OLY bodies do not suffer at all to be designed with the "defect" of not having appropriate brightness. But in hindsight to 600 mm FF working with opening of 6.7 ... not bad mainly due to the camera body stabilizer. It does not lose sharpness the alarming 300 mm; up to 275 or so it is great. Thanks to ED lens makes the Olympus typical colors, with details and depth of shades; thing that will surprise you for the money. Since I have this lens I leave to heavy optical house (Sigma 400 Macro Apo f 5.6 HSM for Canon) and I put just a backpack Extra Pounds (Oly EM5 and two / three fixed targets). It's better, taking home nearly identical results and the rest around for hours without oxygen. In the absence of these stress conditionsnot only fun is increased but the yield is optimal because you do not need breaks. Lacking the hood .... do not get to 10 (compared to what it costs). Also perfect for portraits from a distance and focus distance very close fire. Which always helps. Thank you. |
 | sent on July 21, 2015 Pros: Value unsurpassed Cons: Dark, very occasions is hard to keep up with the focus on distant subjects or low contrast, but can probably depend on the focus of the OMD EM 5 MK2, lack of tropicalization Opinion: Taken through the campaign Cashback Olympus, I wanted a perspective that allowed my wife to accompany me on trips of birdlife. Optical very compact, lightweight, very clear and free of the problems that the zoom of the same scope in sizes big +. I got to do different outputs and to compare the shots obtained, between Olympus and Canon with Sigma Sport 150-600. Clearly the difference is much, however, the 75-300 has certain advantages. Optics by weight and dimensions negligible, is now ready to shoot without many rituals mount / unmount / tripod / head rocker etc etc, the operating speed is still good, the ability to take pictures directly from the monitor in touch, you can overcome the problems of focus from the traditional viewfinder, to obtain images of a general quality + than satisfactory. Not hook good birds in flight and the bokeh is a bit nervous, clearly nothing to do with the Sigma, but for those approaching birdlife can guarantee immagini quality without breaking your back and emptying your wallet. |
 | sent on June 13, 2015 Pros: Lens well-built, small and easy to hold. Excellent performance at all focal lengths clear at 600 mm equivalent loses some sharpness but especially with the auutale cash back worth all the money spent. Cons: Front lens is not fixed. Opinion: Excellent lens for the cost really recommended especially for photography travel (it takes particular incredible), reason why I got it. Of course with the most renowned lens what is the canon 100/400 I, something lost species to full scale but you are bringing a large lens in a few grams. In conclusion I recommend buying especially in this period where there is also the cash back from Olympus 125 euro. |
 | sent on May 11, 2015 Pros: everything Cons: nothing Opinion: fantastic lens, which, for a nominal charge if the playing with all the lenses of equal and higher level. It 's true ... it's a bit dark, but at 600 mm !!! Up to 200 (then 400) a blade, then it softens a pochino.Leggerissima and well built, coupled with the Em-1 and its stabilizer 5-axis ... absolutely recommended !!!!!! rnCi you can do everything. |
 | sent on November 21, 2014 Pros: Sharp, precise, lightweight and compact Cons: None for what it costs Opinion: I break a lance in favor of this 600 mm equivalent that takes home less than 500 € whose quality is beyond my expectations. It's certainly not suitable for extreme subjects in fast motion but, for example. great for shots "stolen" where you can, keeping you at a distance and unobtrusively view the compact system camera / lens taking photos that have nothing to envy in terms of clarity and definition to "conjuring" well more noble. Even if it is dark a lens with the excellent stabilizer of the OM-D is able to avoid camera shake. |
 | sent on February 13, 2014 Pros: Clarity and compactness, fast autofocus Cons: dark Opinion: Crisp, chromatic aberrations are almost imperceptible due to the use of ED glass. Lightweight and compact, you can really forget you are with him and take him to a small shoulder bag; this is not a little for an equivalent 600mm. The autofocus is fast and accurate and in many cases it also works well with moving subjects. painful notes: the maximum reduced opening forces to operate at high ISO, if you want to maintain short and avoid blur at longer focal shutter speeds. Olympus would have had to design, in my opinion, an objective of maximum aperture at least equal to its competitor Panasonic, ie f5.6, which compared to f6,7 collects 43% more light in the same time interval. It is not stabilized and is therefore usable with profit without a tripod only on Olympus bodies, which have the stabilization on the sensor. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
