There was a topic in this forum: "A good, small, cheap super-telephoto lens?" But I have only one camera - m4/3 (Oly PM-1) and want to add some nice long reach ability to it for very cheap. I have not seen much enthusiastic articles on the Internet about using old cheap 135mm f2.8 or 200 mm f3.5 lenses on tripod. Is it so bad/inconvenient to use these lenses on MTF? They should be faster(brighter) than Oly 40-150, but how do they compare to it in terms of sharpness and other image qualities? I don't ask about the size and weight there Some more details: I am a new m4/3, Olympus PM-1 user. At the moment I enjoy Hexanon 50 1.7 lens (newer, shorter version) and have some Russian lenses (Jupiter 11, Industar 69, 61 and 50). I want some longer reach. At first I will test on tripod Hexanon with x2 teleconverter VS TOKINA TELE-AUTO 135mm F2.8 (Konica AR). Could you guess which setup will be better/sharper? If I want to have the best could I play with cheap teleconverter or just have to stick with a single lens setup, just single older 2.8 - 3.5 tele lens? Lastly I wanted to ask about the IQ of long (no less than 200 mm) third party lenses. Is it worth to test some 200mm f/3.5 lenses? I have an opportunity to choose from 4: WEP AUTO TELON F3.5 (most compact, 13.5 cm), SUNAGOR MC AUTO F3.5 (larger, 13.5 cm), HEXAR AR F4 (large, 15 cm), SOLIGOR C/D MC ZOOM-MACRO F3,5 70-210mm (huge one - 16,5 cm). Are they any good or just not suitable for MTF? Maybe I just should buy Oly 40-150? Why there are so little info about using these lenses on the Internet?