12-100 Pro with MC14 Question

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

And the MC-14 will work with adapted lenses as long as the forward protrusion on the MC-14 will fit into your lense adapter.

 

[drd1135]

Two words: duck tape.

 

[wolfie]

Hi

So why not get a 100-300 zoom? Quite a reasonable lens if you ask me. People often "poo hoo" zooms but depending on your expectations one can get excellent results from them This shot for instance is from a 100-300 USM f5.6 lens on my old 10D (taken out a 4WD when touring in India). Quite acceptable results IMO and the 100-300 isn't known in Canon circles as being a "ouhh, I wet my pants" lens...

View attachment 594558

Your 100-300 zoom lens obviously has an issue with twisting the image through 90 degrees ...

 

[pellicle]

Your 100-300 zoom lens obviously has an issue with twisting the image through 90 degrees ...

Yeah, probably it's an old deer and needs a lie down

 

[50orsohours]

If you shoot RAW you are better off cropping and then upsizing back to 16mp if you are wanting a 16mp file, the results will be better.

I always shoot raw but decided to try the 2x which is jpeg. Worked fine.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

It's a shame the TC from each company won't be compatible with the other because of the extra pins position.

 

[DynaSport]

It's a shame the TC from each company won't be compatible with the other because of the extra pins position.

I don’t think anyone has said that. It’s that they aren’t compatible with all lenses because of the pins. Olympus and Panasonic don’t want them to be used on lenses they weren’t designed to work on. I think it’s likely they will be cross compatible on lenses designed to be used with a TC.

 

[Phocal]

It's a shame the TC from each company won't be compatible with the other because of the extra pins position.

I don’t think anyone has said that. It’s that they aren’t compatible with all lenses because of the pins. Olympus and Panasonic don’t want them to be used on lenses they weren’t designed to work on. I think it’s likely they will be cross compatible on lenses designed to be used with a TC.

That pin has nothing to do with why it doesn't work with other lenses. Notice that the MC-14 has that part that needs to fit up into the lens it is attached to. None of the other lenses have the room to accommodate that part of the MC-14.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

That pin has nothing to do with why it doesn't work with other lenses. Notice that the MC-14 has that part that needs to fit up into the lens it is attached to. None of the other lenses have the room to accommodate that part of the MC-14.

Just to be clear what I meant by extra pins (contact points to the lens), the Olympus MC14 has it roughly in line with the red dot while the Panasonic 1.4 X TC has it 10 degrees closer to the main connection pins, so therefore, there isn't compatibility between Olympus & Pansonic lenses with these TCs. See this thread with images in it. Panasonic launch the G9 and 200mm f2.8 lens - Olympus UK E-System User Group

 

[ijm5012]

Just to be clear what I meant by extra pins (contact points to the lens), the Olympus MC14 has it roughly in line with the red dot while the Panasonic 1.4 X TC has it 10 degrees closer to the main connection pins, so therefore, there isn't compatibility between Olympus & Pansonic lenses with these TCs. See this thread with images in it. Panasonic launch the G9 and 200mm f2.8 lens - Olympus UK E-System User Group

That's interesting. I believe that extra pin is just there to signal that the TC is being used, so it updates the exif info automatically. You should still be able to use one TC on the other manufacturer's lenses, but the focal length and aperture will just be reported incorrectly.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

That's interesting. I believe that extra pin is just there to signal that the TC is being used, so it updates the exif info automatically. You should still be able to use one TC on the other manufacturer's lenses, but the focal length and aperture will just be reported incorrectly.

So long as there is no mechanical interference from either.

 

[Phocal]

Just to be clear what I meant by extra pins (contact points to the lens), the Olympus MC14 has it roughly in line with the red dot while the Panasonic 1.4 X TC has it 10 degrees closer to the main connection pins, so therefore, there isn't compatibility between Olympus & Pansonic lenses with these TCs. See this thread with images in it. Panasonic launch the G9 and 200mm f2.8 lens - Olympus UK E-System User Group

Ah ok.

 

[yelapa]

Hi

Now that irs been covered that the combination wont work, I wonder about this bit too



And I wonder why you are confusing an actual 300mm lens with an eventual actual 140mm lens (the result of 1.4x100) ... I mean it's not like you are saying "something like how a 300f4 performs on my 5D..."

So why not get a 100-300 zoom? Quite a reasonable lens if you ask me. People often "poo hoo" zooms but depending on your expectations one can get excellent results from them This shot for instance is from a 100-300 USM f5.6 lens on my old 10D (taken out a 4WD when touring in India). Quite acceptable results IMO and the 100-300 isn't known in Canon circles as being a "ouhh, I wet my pants" lens...

View attachment 594558

I don't understand "And I wonder why you are confusing an actual 300mm lens with an eventual actual 140mm lens (the result of 1.4x100) ... I mean it's not like you are saying "something like how a 300f4 performs on my 5D...""

Who, in your mind is "you." Because if in your mind "you" is me, I personally am not confused by the nomenclature; I merely overlooked a little tiny great big huge detail when I originally posted. Also, the word "actual" does not mean the same thing as the word, "equivalent." Perhaps I could have been clearer and said, "35mm equivalent" for those wanting the ultimate in precision in order to understand.

I own and use an Olympus 75-300ii lens. It is very nice indeed up to about 250 or maybe 270mm. Beyond that I am not terribly happy with the sharpness.

 

[pellicle]

I don't understand "And I wonder why you are confusing an actual 300mm lens with an eventual actual 140mm lens (the result of 1.4x100) ... I mean it's not like you are saying "something like how a 300f4 performs on my 5D...""

Who, in your mind is "you." Because if in your mind "you" is me, I personally am not confused by the nomenclature;

Yes it was you that was the "you" I meant. I guess its understandable that my nomenclature is confusing, as indeed I found you post.

You started wanting a 300f4 then began disussing a 100mm zoom with a 1.4x teleconverter ... which is pretty confusing to me because that combination won't be ideal nor reach past 140 (as I mentioned 1.4 times 100 = 140).

So when you say this:

I own and use an Olympus 75-300ii lens. It is very nice indeed up to about 250 or maybe 270mm. Beyond that I am not terribly happy with the sharpness.

I'm even more lost as the zoom + teleconverter will not be much sharper than that not have the reach you already have.

So I'm confess I'm confused why you appear to be wanting a 300f4 and attempting to satisfy it with a 140

I suggest that the 75-300 is not a "hot item" and you should strongly consider (if you can't afford the 300f4 {nor can I}) the Panasonic 100-300 (perhaps MkII) which can be had at meagre prices from the likes of KEH or (if you can afford it) push towards the 100-400.

 

[yelapa]

Yes, you are lost.

 

[SVQuant]

Yes, you are lost.

This is better than the post you deleted, but still in poor taste. The fact is that you posted a completely erroneous OP and people responded helpfully with politeness. It behooves you to do the same.

 

[ijm5012]

This is better than the post you deleted, but still in poor taste. The fact is that you posted a completely erroneous OP and people responded helpfully with politeness. It behooves you to do the same.

New member, so I’m not surprised. Been seeing more of things like that lately here for whatever reason.

I reported the original post for it being a personal attack. No place for that here, especially aimed towards someone attempting to offer help.

 

[yelapa]

This is better than the post you deleted, but still in poor taste. The fact is that you posted a completely erroneous OP and people responded helpfully with politeness. It behooves you to do the same.

I didn't delete it. The post was apparently deleted by a moderator. Yes, most were more polite than my original post deserved, as it was a pretty lame post. One wasn't--in my view anyway. I reviewed some other posts from the person in question and guess I stand by my comments in the deleted post.

 

[SVQuant]

I didn't delete it. The post was apparently deleted by a moderator. Yes, most were more polite than my original post deserved, as it was a pretty lame post. One wasn't--in my view anyway. I reviewed some other posts from the person in question and guess I stand by my comments in the deleted post.

That is pretty sad in my opinion. Not only did you not delete the attack post, you seem to think that it was justified.

Your initial post was muddled since you said you were interested in the 300, then wanted to know if the MC-14 would work with the 12-100 which only gets you to 140. Especially given that you did not bother to check to see if the MC-14 would actually work with the 12-100, people may be excused for thinking that you did not know what you were talking about. Nonetheless, people helped out, but you ended up focusing on one post and launching a personal attack on that person. With an attitude like that, why do you suppose people will be helpful to you in the future?

 

[Phocal]

I like threads that make me giggle and this thread does that