The Olympus OM 300mm f/4.5 Zuiko Auto-T lens was my first major telephoto prime lens back in the (agh! early-80s). 40 years ago, so it was manual focus only: these were the days before autofocus, and the lens had no electronics at all. It was the lens I started photographing aircraft with on my OM-2n. I did try photographing birds with it on film as well, but with a success rate that approximates very closely to zero.
I can’t resist putting in one picture from film days. Grumman TBM RB/319 taking off at Duxford, 1999.
It is not an especially large lens, but it is very solidly built with a metal body and overall construction that still inspires a lot of confidence. Although there are clear markings for zone focus, the depth of field of a 300mm lens is so limited that, in practice, specific focus using the viewfinder and focus ring is essential. Fortunately, on modern mirrorless cameras, focus peaking makes this easier and more precise than the ground glass finder of an original SLR. There is a built-in lens hood that slides out and a lens foot with a rotatable collar for tripod work. Mounted on an A7III, I found it light enough and convenient enough to take out with me on walks.
The OM 300mm f/4.5 lens/K&F adaptor/A7III combination mounted on a tripod ball head. The lens hood is pushed back in the picture, but can be pulled out to make a deep hood.
In use, it is pretty sharp. Like all my OM lenses, it benefits from stopping down a stop or two. There is very little geometrical distortion across the field of view and it tolerates shooting into the light better than some of my other OM lenses. Working on a tripod, I found it was possible to use focus-stacking to control and increase the depth of field when focussing on a subject fairly close in. The bokeh is quite pleasant. I didn’t notice much in the way of chromatic aberration.
So, yes, it is still a good lens. But I found myself asking why I would ever want to use it? 300mm is quite demanding on precise focus and it really benefits from being used on a tripod. Perhaps for long-distance cityscapes or landscapes, it might be OK, particularly now that they are quite inexpensive on the used market. But speaking purely personally, I can’t see any particular reason to use it. I have a Nikon D500 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. This gives me a field of view equivalent to that of the 300mm lens. The big difference between the 300mm OM lens and all my other OM lenses is that this is not particularly small or light. The 35mm lens, for instance, is very small and light, and especially using zone/hyperfocal focussing is convenient and practical. That is the exact opposite of the 300. In general terms, it is as easy to carry a 70-200 f/2.8 as this 300 with all the benefits of autofocus and modern optics.
I’m sorry, 300mm lens, but you are going back in the cupboard.
Brick wall shot at f/8. The image is plenty sharp with very little geometrical distortion or vignetting.
Even though this dunnock sat on a post for quite a while, I still don’t think I managed truly critical focus on the eye. But you can still see the way that the background transitions from in-focus to out-of focus quite pleasantly.
A distant view of the Wye crown on the North Downs on a dull winter’s day. This illustrates that the lens is quite good for photography of/from viewpoints.
Scarcely visible oasts.
Fungi in rotting wood.
Empty soccer pitches in the age of Covid.