Telephoto Zoom comparison

[RichardC]

A 2x converter will magnify all properties of a lens by 2, the good bits AND the bad bits. That's all you need to know really.

 

[ralf-11]

@Machi I think he wanted to compare lenses at 700mm-e. Although how he did this with a 400mm Nikon with no TC is beyond me.

as noted upthread, I used a DX (APS-C) body on the 80-400

 

[ralf-11]

Hmm "do-or-die" seems a bit over the top Hasnt there been a lot of people using the old 50-200 oly 4/3 lens with the 1.4 TC? and as I recollect with people be ok happy with the results? but maybe those were do or die situations

if so, it is possible that the 1.4 is carefully designed for the 50-200 while the 2x is not

however, I just don't see that based on stmts. form panasonic, their dealers (whom they rely on for customer interaction & support), and the magnitude of the blur

this last may explain why the thread is now 2 pages long

ultimately, it is now a moot point (for me) as I've sent the gear back - it may however be useful for others who are thinking of a similar purchase, or to any Panasonic employees monitoring here

 

[Holoholo55]

Hmm "do-or-die" seems a bit over the top Hasnt there been a lot of people using the old 50-200 oly 4/3 lens with the 1.4 TC? and as I recollect with people be ok happy with the results? but maybe those were do or die situations

I've used the 1.4x TC with the ZD 50-200 SWD and been very satisfied with it. Definitely not do or die situations. I don't have the EC-20, but almost everything I've seen and read about it including a friend's experiences, tells me that there is significant image degradation with the 50-200 SWD. @Phocal says the EC-20 works well with the ZD 150 f2, and I'll have to take his word for it since I have neither. I am using the MC-14 with the 40-150 Pro and it seems to work well. Even though Olympus is coming out with the MC-20 which will be compatible with their upcoming 150-400 Pro, 40-150 Pro, and 300 Pro, I'd like to see the results of that before making a judgement.

 

[Phocal]

I've used the 1.4x TC with the ZD 50-200 SWD and been very satisfied with it. Definitely not do or die situations. I don't have the EC-20, but almost everything I've seen and read about it including a friend's experiences, tells me that there is significant image degradation with the 50-200 SWD. @Phocal says the EC-20 works well with the ZD 150 f2, and I'll have to take his word for it since I have neither. I am using the MC-14 with the 40-150 Pro and it seems to work well. Even though Olympus is coming out with the MC-20 which will be compatible with their upcoming 150-400 Pro, 40-150 Pro, and 300 Pro, I'd like to see the results of that before making a judgement.

Actually I’ve had good results with the ec-20 on my 150/2 and 50-200.

150/2 - Olympus ZD 150mm ƒ2.0 + EC-20

50-200 - Olympus ZD 50-200mm SWD ƒ2.8-3.5 + EC-20

 

[Danny.]

Actually I’ve had good results with the ec-20 on my 150/2 and 50-200.

150/2 - Olympus ZD 150mm ƒ2.0 + EC-20

50-200 - Olympus ZD 50-200mm SWD ƒ2.8-3.5 + EC-20

Yeah but you are a big cheat Ron ....... you know what you are doing

Danny.

 

[T N Args]

@Machi I think he wanted to compare lenses at 700mm-e. Although how he did this with a 400mm Nikon with no TC is beyond me.

as noted upthread, I used a DX (APS-C) body on the 80-400

Which cannot achieve 700mm-e. My point. You really needed a 1.4x TC on the Nikon to reach 700mm-e and compare both lenses at that reach.

With the 80-400mm Nikon on DX you max out at 600mm-e, which is why, as noted upthread, I suggested you compare a Panasonic 100-300mm lens, which also maxes out at 600mm-e without a TC.

I think this thread has established by now, which some of us could have predicted before you started it, is that using a TC when there is an option is a second-rate idea, that using a 2xTC is a third-rate idea, and that using a 2xTC on a zoom lens is a fourth-rate idea.

You can hardly argue with that, given the result you posted. Your disappointment is noted, but it is basically just a lesson for you. And not a lesson about the Panasonic lens, but a lesson about bad ideas.

A good idea would be to look at direct lens options in m43 that will yield you the reach you need without a TC.

 

[Awmaster10]

This has been mentioned, but why not take two pictures, with and without TC. Just do it inside your house. Really just a 1 minute process to confirm the obvious conclusion that something is wrong with your setup.

If you can’t do that it seems like you aren’t looking for the truth, just a justification for a conclusion you already made.

My two cents, if you can’t set up an objective test to figure out what is wrong, you are just trying to get a rise out of members and thus not “testing” anything.

By the way it worked. I became very frustrated reading that you somehow think teleconverters do not compromise IQ. If any magnification TC Could be made and with zero compromise on IQ, every single pro would shoot a nice zoom with a bunch of teleconverters for literally infinite focal lengths. There is a reason this is not the case and it is physics.

If there were no optical limitations I would buy a 25mm f0.95 and put various teleconverters on it, a nice 24x TC for my 600eq for birding.

 

[ralf-11]

teleconverters need not compromise IQ; they necessarily compromise min. aperture

560mm NOT 700

 

[Reflector]

TCs magnify the image circle, if the lens itself is an insane performer and resolves to resolution records, putting a TC on can potentially lead to a situation where it just barely resolves a little worse off than what the pixel density of the sensor is, leading to the lens looking like it doesn't get hit by the TC. The best of TCs (matched or not) magnify with minimum aberrations induced or correct for some while making other tradeoffs in the lens. Best case scenario, not the average one.

I have a crazy lens (by any format standard): A Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. It actually works great with the latest Sigma TCs (and atrociously with old ones that it was released with) but if I were to try to use it as a 600mm f/5.6 lens straight up without a focal reducer? It doesn't hold up too well, not on the pixel density of Micro Four Third lenses. With the 1.4x TC neutralizing out the focal reducer or the 2x making it a 424mm? It isn't bad at all. It just won't push a straight 2x to 600mm. Also it gets to be diffraction limited by f/5.6, since on 20mp sensors you practically run into a wall at that point by f/8 and up.

And yes: I have been crazy enough to stack the 2x on a non protrusive 1.4x Kenko to see what happens to it with and without the focal reducers. 840mm f/7.8 is possible but only if I want images to turn into soft mush. I've tried with the moon before to know what happens...

There are people who have gone further than I have in regards to TC stacking and they do it with some crazy primes like the 400mm f/4 DO from Canon. That's a monster lens that holds up on the high resolution sensors so it has that headspace to work with.

 

[Orionwest]

teleconverters need not compromise IQ; they necessarily compromise min. aperture

560mm NOT 700

Your Nikon is at 600mm with no teleconverter which is a very big advantage and the Panasonic with a 2xT is at a very large disadvantage and is further disadvantaged by being at 700mm! A 2xT introduces significant degradation especially when it is not designed for a particular lens. The test is totally invalid and is useless.

 

[ralf-11]

No, your comments are totally invalid and useless. For one thing you don't even have the FLs correct. Feel free to read over the thread again.

 

[Orionwest]

No, your comments are totally invalid and useless. For one thing you don't even have the FLs correct. Feel free to read over the thread again.

Your Nikon lens is an 80-400 is it not? On your APS sensor it is a 1.5 x crop factor so what is 1.5 times 400? 600 last time I checked. You have a 2x tc on the Panasonic 50-200 yes? Which makes it 100-400 with 2x crop factor 200-800. So what have I missed?

 

[ralf-11]

you missed the degree of zoom and 'breathing'

take a look thru the entire thread...

 

[Orionwest]

you missed the degree of zoom and 'breathing'

take a look thru the entire thread...

My conclusion after rereading the thread remains the same 'nothing to learn here'!

 

[ralf-11]

so, go somewhere else

 

[Daniel J. Cox]

Hm that's interesting. How did the native 50-200 PL do without the TC? Did you try a 1.4x TC as well? I have never seen a 2x converter add quality to anything, only reach.

Greg.

Not that realistic to think/expect that a zoom lens with 2x tele converter would performe as good or even close to a lens without any tele converter, a tele converter alway means a loss in image quality and with 2x tele converter that loss in image quality usually is big...especially when used on a zoom lens.

The 50-200 is a good lens, but not so good with a 2x tele converter.

Panasonic Leica 100-400 would probably be a better match for the Nikon 80-400

Mirrorless Super Telephoto Comparison Leica, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus

But at the same time Richard wong´s test shows that the 50-200 should perform good with 2x converter, seams to do as good or better than Panasonics 100-400 and far better than the results that are shown here

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0 ASPH lens Review – Review By Richard

Exactly! Anybody that thinks you can get great results from a Zoom with a 2X teleconverter is fooling themselves. The 1.4X is not too bad but the 2X? forget it! I've shot them all on the Leica 50-200mm and the 2X destroys an otherwise stellar lens.