Getting to 1200mm ?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by GreinerStudio, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. GreinerStudio

    GreinerStudio Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 15, 2017
    While considering multiple options for pushing my reach beyond that of even the very impressive Panasonic Leica 100-400, adapting a Tamron 150-600 is something that has caught my interest. Can anyone who has done so speak to the performance?

    I know all he pitfalls of shooting any lens at 1200mm equivalent, but in particular:

    • What adapter did you use?
    • Which mount did you adapt from (Cannon, Nikon, etc)
    • How was auto focus performance?
    I would also consider similar feedback on the Sigma C 150-600 but I tend to prefer the Tamron unless the Sigma simply performs much better adapted to micro four thirds.

    The other option I have considered is the 300mm f/2.8 (Big Tuna) + EC20 + MMC3 + E-M1ii
  2. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler Subscribing Member

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California

    Will you be shooting in good light?

    iirc @Phocal@Phocal has a 500mm Sigma zoom.
  3. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    The Sigma C and the Tamron (original) are really not worth adapting, they have a really low resolution. The only one I would even consider is the Sigma S, but even it doesn't have the best resolution (personally I wouldn't bother with it either).

    Now the ZD 300mm f2.8 aka big tuna with EC-20 is about the only thing I would trust going to that distance, well......other than maybe a Canon 600mm f4.0.......but the big tuna would be weather sealed.

    I do have the Sigma 50-500 aka Bigma in the 4/3's mount. Resolution wise it sits between the two Sigma's and I find it acceptable if you get close and fill the frame, other wise it just can't hold up to printing large or really any cropping. If you put the EC-14 on it, you have a very slow lens but it's a bit better than cropping a shot without the TC. With the EC-20 it is super slow and the IQ is poor. I will probably be selling the 50-500 soon, just don't use it because I don't need that kind of range either.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror! Subscribing Member

    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Get the big tuna!!
  5. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    Plain tube or a 1.4xTC+Speedbooster + 150-600s is another option if you want to play those games.

    A less sane game I am personally considering in the future is a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS with a 2x TC + 1.4x TC and a Speedbooster. Gives you a crazy 240-600 f/5.6 that's probably going to be soft wide open.
    • Wow Wow x 1
  6. archaeopteryx

    archaeopteryx Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 25, 2017
    Yeah, my experience is cropping is often competitive with zooms on TCs, sometimes better. Results from cropping prime + 1.4x versus prime + 2x haven't been much different. though the 2x can be preferable if aperture isn't a tight constraint and the 2x is well matched. With a very few exceptions, that means expensive designed for DSLR kit. 500 4.0 + 1.4x should be OK here. 400 4.0 + 1.4x is close, though short of 1200.

    My solution for 1200 for some time has been to to fake it with 300mm. Cropping the center 4-5MP from 16-20 is adequate for online and small printing. I hardly ever run high quality big prints so, if anything, not using equipment capable of 1000+ is a gain.
  7. masayoshi

    masayoshi Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 5, 2016
    Salt Lake City
    Just curious, what are you trying to shoot?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 29, 2012
    I have the Panasonic 100-400 and the following in Canon mount, Tamron 150-600 (g1) and Bigma 50-500 and Sigma 120-300/2.8 (older version).

    I’ve used all three lens via Roxsen and Metabones (glassless) on my GH2, GH3 and G7 for video. I’ve shot some stills for record shots of birds, but at those distances, atmospheric factors reduce the quality significantly. The Panny 100-400 is far sharper, AF is many times faster and so light and portable. Given a choice btwn the Panny and the other 3, I’ll take the Panny most days.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    I have Tamron 300mm f/2.8 + 2x-A + adapter + (body)

    It works, it's cheap and is acceptable but not great. The 1.4x-A is better. I've also tried it with the 4:3'rds 2x and 1.4x with similar or maybe better results. Unfortunately the old manual focus lenses sharpened up as you stopped down a bit but with digital you are quickly up against diffraction limits.
  10. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 29, 2012
    Just to follow on my post. I tested my Tamron 150-600 g1 with the Metabones AF only adapter on my GH3. It was very slow, a good 2 seconds at the worst to about 1/2 second if it was close to begin with.
  11. Keeth101

    Keeth101 Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 5, 2018
    Such a shame that Olympus hasn't/won't make a long zoom.
  12. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Metabones doesn’t offical support the Tamron 150-600’s. My understanding is they take more power than is available from the batteries in m4/3 cameras. But the adapter does allow for external power if you wanted to try that since you already have the lens.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Why? They are going a more proffesional route with their lenses. By that I mean they are making their lens lineup for someone shooting 2 bodies, which is what most sports shooters do (if not 3 or 4 bodies). There is not anything I couldn’t shoot with the current lens lineup running two bodies. Actually if I was still shooting a lot of sports I could easily run 3 bodies because of the smaller size and it’s what I probably would do.

    Long zooms are more a consumer oriented lenses and they have that with the 75-300.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Mountain

    Mountain Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 2, 2013
    Have you used this with a focal reducer? I've been thinking about an old 300 2.8 (either Canon FD or Tokina) as a long low light option @210mm f/2 or so with the reducer.

    Back to the original topic, I've been keeping my eye out for a Canon FD 800mm to use with a focal reducer for the same purpose (mostly my own curiosity). I passed on the opportunity last year in favor of an ultrawide, but still have an itch for getting really long lens for a few specific subjects that keep eluding me with my P100-400. Modern 600mm primes are not even close to my budget. I don't expect spectacular results at long distances, but it should far exceed my spotting scope for recording memories. Maybe something to consider (if you're willing to give up autofocus). Tokina made an 800 f8 BITD, apparently, but the results I have seen so far aren't up to the Canon or Nikon glass of the time. It might work for what I'm doing with it, so if one comes up for the right price I may give it a shot. There's a 300-800mm f/5.6 "Sigmonster" at MPB in Nikon mount for what seems like a steal (relative) and I've been watching it, but deep down know that it's not in the cards. Would be neat if someone on here picked it up, though.
  15. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    I've used a 600mm mirror lens on MFT. Finding your subject with that sort of FOV is a pain, but well braced with a monopod it was just about possible.
    Fitting the lens to a focal reducer (900mm EFL) made it so much more workable that I've even managed a few handheld shots.

    I rather suspect the Tamron would give better IQ but it will be a much heavier solution. At least with the mirror lens I can carry it for miles & if I don't use it so what - there's no harm to my back.

    As far as adapting lenses go AFAIK the EF mount is the only one which has adapters that make use of the lenses AF. Even if Techart style adapters are made for MFT (I've not seen any yet) they wouldn't be any good for AF of such long lenses, so other mounts are unlikely to be as good to adapt.

    Digiscoping is another possible route, but I think this is mainly used by those who already have the scope. My experience is that it tends to be much more unwieldy than a proper lens, but getting beyond 1200mm is not difficult. :)
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 29, 2012
    Digiscoping is only worthwhile if you have a Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica or other similar high end APO scope. Otherwise, the chromatic aberrations and fringing are really bad.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    That MAY be the case with refractive scopes, but certainly isn't for reflectors which are almost completely free from chromatic aberration.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1