Where are all the 2x teleconverters for MFT?

I have heard conjecture that it's made much more challenging with the short flange distance of mirrorless systems, though I don't know if that's true or not. It's perhaps telling that the reason for TC incompatibility is not just some sort of electronic lockout that prevents their use, but physical interference due to the teleconverter lens elements protruding far forward, which prevents their use with most normal lenses.

I don't think Leica has ever made a TC for their rangefinder systems, just the Leica R SLRs, so that might back that theory up a little bit. Leica has never been shy about making (expensive) accessories whenever they have an opportunity to.

I suspect it is a quality standard that prevents TCs with more general applicability from appearing, and likewise also the reason why 2x TCs don't exist. There are very, very few lenses that can legitimately stand up to a 2x TC and maintain reasonable quality, and probably none that have an MSRP under $2000 at a bare minimum. Not to mention, we don't really have any really fast telephotos. Would you put a 75mm 1.8 on a 2x TC just to end up with a 150mm f3.6?

 

There are very few lenses that outresolve modern high resolution sensors. So if your sensor already gets "all there is" from a lens then there is no advantage in using a teleconverter as the result would not be any better than cropping.
The opposite is true for a good speedboosters. They reduce the image size and with it the aberrations of the mounted lens. By doing so they increase the optical resolution of the image projected onto the sensor.
Rudy

 

Traditionally, 2.0x TCs have produced pretty poor image quality. Usually no better than cropping the image. With SLR cameras they were handy to have because it meant you could accurately frame, however, with EVFs you can simply zoom in on the EVF and get the same effect.

Not only do 2.0x TCs degrade image quality, but you lose two full stops of light when using them. Typically, they perform best when stopped down a stop as well. So you might lose 3 stops of light if you want a sharp image, which means if you're light limited, you're bumping the ISO from say, 800 to 6400, which will degrade image quality even further. So really, there isn't much point to a 2.0x on modern mirrorless cameras.

 

I have only found 1 lens that I have been happy with the results of using a 2.0x and that is the ZD 150mm ƒ2.0. But it only ends up at ƒ4.0 and is acceptable wide open but much better stopped down to ƒ5.6.

 

Yeah, typically the only lenses worth using with 2.0x TCs are lenses that are extremely sharp and capable of out-resolving the sensor. The 150/2 and a few other lenses would fall into that category.

Kurt Munger reviewed the Sony 1.4x and 2.0x TCs and compared them to cropping on his page: Sony teleconverters, 1.4X and 2.0X review - to be fair these TCs are older designs that date back to the Minolta Maxxum system, but even still the results are interesting.

 

Interesting read, thanks. I am really looking forward to replacing my EC-20 with the 300mm Pro, that is basically what I am doing as I will have no use for the EC-20 after I get the 300 Pro. I will be keeping the 150 and EC-14 for the times when I need less focal length.

 

If I don't install this, what won't my OM D M10 do?

 

uh?