1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Anyone into Teleconverters?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by Bhupinder2002, Oct 27, 2012.

  1. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Hi Guys
    I have just ordered Oly 40-150 zoom and was wondering of if a teleconverter will be of some help to get some extra reach? Has any one used any ?Please share your experience .
  2. Ranger Rick

    Ranger Rick Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Apr 11, 2009
    Tempe, AZ
    Used a Nikon 1.4x with my Nikon system, but not with m43. You'll lose 1-2 stops, depending on magnification. When you're starting with a 5.6 lens, that may affect ability to AF. And image quality will deteriorate, depending on quality of the teleconverter.
  3. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    I'm not aware of any m43 TCs.
  4. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Which 40-150mm did you get, the Zuiko or m.Zuiko? If you got the Zuiko (Four-Thirds) lens, then get the Olympus TC-14 teleconverter, and you will not be disappointed! This is one of the finest teleconverters I've ever used. Very high quality optics that won't degrade any but the most superb lenses. It is 1.4x, and will lose one stop of light. The 2x teleconverters will lose 2 stops of light. Olympus makes a TC-20 (2x converter), but it would make the 40-150mm way too slow. In fact, even with the 1.4x I would try to stick with the Zuiko 70-300mm f/4-5.6 or the older 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 if you can, as both are a little faster than the newer Zuiko 40-150mm f/4-5.6... but not by much. Don't bother with a 2x teleconverter like the TC-20 unless you're using good fast glass which can handle the light loss and degradation.

    The use of the Four-Thirds teleconverters still remains the main reason why I continue to adapt all my SLR lenses to Four-Thirds before adapting to Micro Four-Thirds (which is made possible by the fact that Four-Thirds has the shortest register of all SLR lenses besides the Olympus Pen FT - which is barely an SLR, lol). This allows me to use the same high-grade teleconverter on every single SLR lens I own from all different systems. When you're dealing with old film lenses, many of the teleconverters available to those systems are nowhere near as good as the Zuiko Digital teleconverters.

    Also, having a common weather sealed teleconverter and now a sealed mount adapter (MMF-3) also helps with swapping lenses in sandy conditions. You can always keep your body sealed by leaving the teleconverter mounted and just swapping lenses on top of it.

    Now, if you're talking about the m.Zuiko 40-150mm on the other hand... I don't know what kind of teleconverters you could mount on it.

    Also... both Four-Thirds teleconverters are in the price range of a high grade lens - because that's what they are. Kinda silly to get something like that for a cheap lens like the 40-150mm, but at the same time it is a long-term investment which can be used for a huge multitude of lenses. Its versatility is endless if you use Four-Thirds or legacy SLR glass.

    *EDIT: I just realized that you may be talking about the filter mounted kind of teleconverter... I would not suggest those, personally. If you do get them, the Nikon and Canon ones are supposedly decent, but they still do not compare to a proper teleconverter lens which is mounted between the body and lens. Stay away from those Rayanox and similar no-name ones.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    (Disregard) Ned, the raynox close up filters seem really good. A VERY talented member of the forum, sorry forgot his name, uses them for macros and they are quiet honestly the most detailed and beautiful macros i've seen.

    I just got a kiron mc7 tc for my vivitar 100 2.8 today. My initial reaction is that it doesnt degrade the lens except spherical abb. wide open. Ill post some pictures soon. I know you have the same lens too :D 

    Edit: i assumed front mount TCs are essenrially closeup filters. I was worng.
  6. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    I use a teleconverter with legacy glass, including a macro teleconverter. Pretty good results overall, not outstanding, but pretty good.
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I want m43 teleconverters to go with the new f/2.8 zooms!

    2x for me please!
  8. robertro

    robertro Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 22, 2010
    Some options....

    I have used front-mounted tele-converters extensively for two purposes.

    First, to extend lens reach and secondly to achieve a faster lens at longer lengths. One of my favorites is the Olympus A200 1.5x adapter. This one is compact and lightweight and has 49mm threads. Although I have the 100-300, I'll sometimes take my 45-200 with the 1.5x adapter as a more flexible combination; especially valuable because the 45-200 stays near its wide aperture for a large part of its zoom range.

    Other tele-converters worth considering include: Olympus TCON-17 and Raynox DCR-1850Pro (note that Raynox offers several lines, some basic quality only suitable for video work, others high quality for digital cameras - they specify lines/inch resolution on their web site for each lens). These are bigger and heavier, but provide more reach.

    Unfortunately, I no longer have a 40-150, so I can't speak for that lens, but all of the above work well on my 45mm and 45-200 lenses.
  9. apicius9

    apicius9 Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 1, 2010
    Philadelphia, PA
    I have an older 2x Leica tc that I thought would be nice to use with my 250/4 Leica Telyt to shoot pics of surfers etc, but on the GH2 without stabilisation that gets really tricky to use... I also played around with a 2x Zeiss tc on my Planar but not enough for a final conclusion. First impression was that the quality is still very nice. I need to get out more and play with lenses...

  10. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    I'm not sure I'm willing to give up 2 full stops to mount a 2x TC, even on the f/2.8 zooms. For the 35-100, I'm thinking a 1.5x TC, which would give a 150mm (300 equivalent) at about f4.

    On the 75mm 1.8, a 2x would give a 150mm f3.6, which would be a nice combination for a lot of sports shooting. Then we just need an m43 camera with C-AF good enough to shoot fast action.
  11. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I can live with 200/5.6 no problem, so long as the lens is pixel sharp natively (witch it sounds like the 35-100 is)
  12. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Not me... not when there are so many great and inexpensive 200mm f/4 lenses out, or you can put a good 135mm f/2.8 onto a 1.4x teleconverter and get a 200mm f/4. :)  Either option I find to be very compact.
  13. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    In a travel kit, the space required for one of those primes is absolutely obscene. I will use ETC before carrying a lens like that.
  14. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Absolutely obscene for a travel kit? Are you sure you're not exaggerating, even just a little bit? lol.

    That's the beauty of the tiny bodies of the Non-Reflex system, is that they open up significantly more space in your bag for more lenses or bigger and better lenses. Our need for quality lenses has not changed.

    Carrying an unobtrusive satchel or man purse, I can hold one of my Minis along with an FL-36R flash, flash bracket, diffuser, a 25mm lens, a 50mm lens, and one of those obscene 200mm f/4's... lol. You could get way smaller than that and still carry that obscene lens.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  15. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Compact I can believe in, but I've yet to come across a legacy 200/4 that was better than the Panasonic 45-200 at f/5.6, and it's not as if the Panasonic is exceptionally good at 200/5.6!
  16. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Yes, such a large lens for a unitasker is obscene. Yes, I carry the Panny fisheye with me in my travel kit - but it's tiny. The 35-100/2.8 will be a great multitasker, and add the teleconverter and I can replace my 45-200 with a lens about the same size a lot faster and about the same size.
  17. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    A 200mm f/4 is obscene, but a 35-100mm f/2.8 plus 2x teleconverter is not? You do realize that all 2x teleconverters are fair sized lenses by themselves, right? You're losing a full EV stop with that combination, and it's not going to be small.

    That's not to say you or somebody else couldn't get more use out of the f/2.8 zoom, as you certainly have a much braoder focal range. But somebody else might prefer a dedicated telephoto which is faster, because that suits their purposes better. That's why we have choices, and one choice is not right for everyone. There is nothing obscene about carrying primes in a travel kit.

    And just so you know, I was not intending to spark any controversy with my question. It was actually meant to be rhetorical, and I did not expect you to answer in the positive. xP

    For what it's worth, I'm a big lover of teleconverters and like you would also love to see some for :43:. I would prefer the 1.4x though, as that is what I've found to be more useful to me... less magnification, but less light loss and a smaller lens. I don't actually use 200mm f/4 lenses anymore because in the same size I can carry a 135mm f/2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter, and get the same thing. As long as the 135mm and the 1.4x converter are of the best quality (which thankfully mine are). Teleconverters are very versatile and useful lenses.
  18. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I am hoping for a switchable one, like Canon has included on their lenses

    So long as the IQ is as good or better than the 45-200, it's OK with me.
  19. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    Actually, you lose 2 stops with that combination. A 35-200 f/2.8 becomes a 70-200 f/5.6.

    A switchable TC? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you provide a link?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.