Teleconverter for m43?

ckrueger

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
304
the 35-100/2 can handle either of the ec's just fine and probably still edges the 50-200 on IQ IMO (but not useability), but I agree in principle that it's only when you use these with the 90-250 and 300 that they make 'sense' - even the 150/2 which works really well with them can't get close to the 300 in anything except cost and handling!
I think Doc is talking about the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, not the Olympus 35-100/2. I know I was!
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
A 35-100/2.8 with a 2X TC would be a much better travel solution, and I'm sure could hold its own against say the 45-200.
 

ckrueger

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
304
I just wonder if it's worth it? Could a 35-100/2.8 at 400mm-e make a sharper picture than a 100-300/5.6 at 600mm-e? I doubt it. It's not like the 100-300 is the sharpest lens ever made, but a 2x can do some pretty awful things to a lens! :)
 

ckrueger

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
304
Yeah, back when the E-3 was launched I was a Canon shooter, and wanted a birding lens. I wanted the lightest weight kit I could get. My choices were:

1) My then-current 40D and 100-400, optionally with a 1.4x TC
2) A new E-3, with a 50-200 and 2x TC
3) Buy a Canon 300/2.8 IS and a 2x TC to use with my 1.4x TC

I bought the Olympus kit and took the Canon and Olympus kits out shooting. The E-3 without the 2x TC was a great kit; fast to AF and sharp. The 40D and 100-400 was a little better on AF but a little worse on sharpness.

Adding the TC's to get the reach I needed, the Canon's AF fell apart (the 40D's fault; my 5D's AF was fine at f/8, as was the 1DMk2's) and sharpness was marginal. The Olympus' AF was a little better... acceptable I suppose. Image quality dropped noticeably. It's hard to compare apples and oranges, but with the overall contrast drop and slight lack of acuity I'd place it close to the Panasonic 100-300.

Not that it matters, but I was also testing the E-3 with the 12-60 to see if Olympus' little miracle DSLR could also replace my 5D and 28-75/2.8. Its slight general hesitancy to AF relative to the 5D cost me some shots, so I returned the whole kit and bought a Canon 300/2.8 IS for my birding. With that lens the 1.4x was essentially "free", the 2x gave only a mild IQ (but noticeable AF) drop, and the two stacked together were still sharper than the two zooms without TCs, but poor for tracking AF.

Anyway, yeah, I used the EC-20. The 50-200 performed admirably with it; I never expected a 2x TC to perform well with a 4x zoom. But it definitely wasn't a freebie!

I've never shot with the 35-100/2, sadly. I only hope that someday we see lenses like it made for m43. After Christmas I'll know if my EM1+12-40 will replace my 5D2+24-70, and if I can finally make the jump and sell off my Canon FF kit, I'll be in the market for some very fast zooms. And Olympus are the kings of fast zooms.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom