With and without the MC-14 1.4x and the 40-150 2.8

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by PetrovNf6, Mar 13, 2015.

  1. PetrovNf6

    PetrovNf6 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 13, 2015
    I bought and returned the 1.4x because I saw no advantage to it.

    Using the 1.4x gave me more pixels on a small bird in the middle of the picture, for example, but reduced the quality so much that when I compared such a picture to one without the teleconverters, I saw the same amount of detail.

    And of course I lost one stop, and some flexibility on the wide side.

    What has been your experiences? Can someone run a test and upload 2 samples?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  2. ark

    ark New to Mu-43

    9
    Mar 13, 2015
    ark
    similar to me happened, MC-1.4 goes for sale, 40-150 stays ofcourse
     
  3. PetrovNf6

    PetrovNf6 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 13, 2015
    I wonder how long it will be before this is generally recognized to be true.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. PetrovNf6

    PetrovNf6 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 13, 2015
    I also did another test, comparing the output of the Olympus 75-300 at 275mm to the 40-150 at 150.

    Same kind of analysis. I found that the amount of detail was about the same when I magnified those tiny little squeezed pixels of the 40-150. This means that except for weight there is no reason to use the 75-300 anymore. The gain on the wide end is very useful.

    And being able to shoot at 200 ISO instead of 1600 or 800 is like a new lease on life.
     
  5. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Were you using a tripod?

    Did you consider the shutter speed would be lower at f/4 vs f/2.8?

    I've got some samples with both but they're handheld in poor light and therefore not as sharp as they could be.

    Barry
     
  6. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    That is quite surprising, as when using the 4/3s EC-14 with any of my 4/3 lenses, there's no discernible drop in quality whatsoever. And I merrily use it with my Nikon 300mm f4 lens as well. Maybe there is a valid reason why the old 4/3 lenses etc cost so much more than the newer m4/3 ones?
     
  7. faithblinded

    faithblinded Mu-43 Top Veteran

    929
    Nov 25, 2014
    Cleveland, OH
    Ken
    My results seem to be quite the opposite. I see aliasing in fine feather detail with the teleconverter in some shots, so it's outresolving my E-M1, even with the mc14.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. johnvanatta

    johnvanatta Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Aug 5, 2014
    Oakland, CA
    My testing, see here: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/73927/
    indicated that with the TC stopped down a bit, results are excellent. Specklings of moire make me suspect it is near sensor limits at the center.

    Results were good enough I didn't even bother making comparisons to upsized images.
     
  9. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    You shouldn't have to stop down to produce high quality. It defeats the purpose.
     
  10. johnvanatta

    johnvanatta Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Aug 5, 2014
    Oakland, CA
    I have yet to see a lens that doesn't improve stopping down though.
     
  11. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    There's a difference between being able to achieve high quality wide open and getting it when stopped down. That's what I find amusing about many lenses, where some receive great adulation in reviews et al when stopped down, but with caveats when wide open. Why bother making an expensive, fast, lens if it can't be used wide open to achieve results that are as good, if not better, than a slower, cheaper, lens? Why buy an f1.2 lens, only to have to stop it down to f1.8 to get best performance?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    http://dealbert.net/cameras/pics/40-150mm/

    These were taken handheld, about 12 minutes apart. I took several shots with each lens, these were the best of each.

    AutoFocus (S-AF) was used, on my E-M1, with the sign as the focus point.

    Both were taken at 1/400sec, but the ISO is higher (640 vs 200) in the 210mm shot due to the reduced f/stop and the diminishing light.

    It looks like I moved a foot or two to the right on the second shot, but I didn't move forward or back any further than that.

    Viewing the 210mm f/4 version at 100%, and the 150mm f/2.8 at 142%, I can definitely see a clear difference.

    Note even though the TC version is f/4 effective, the aperture in the lens is still the same as at f/2.8, so I see no point in shooting both at f/4.

    Barry
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2015
  14. chargedmr2

    chargedmr2 Mu-43 Regular

    30
    Mar 26, 2014
    I read a similar report over on another forum where the user was not pleased with the TC for reasons mentioned by the OP here. None of the lens reviews that I have seen have drawn similar conclusions, but I haven't really seen a good controlled test with images. I'd love to see the following done in a more controlled setting on a tripod:

    To test for advantages of the TC:

    40-150 without TC cropped to 210mm FOV
    40-150 with TC at 210mm

    To test for overall reach advantages compared to the 75-300mm:

    40-150 without TC cropped to 300mm FOV
    40-150 with TC cropped to 300mm FOV
    75-300 at 300mm

    I may purchase this lens soon, and if so I will try to make these comparisons.
     
  15. johnvanatta

    johnvanatta Mu-43 Regular

    181
    Aug 5, 2014
    Oakland, CA
    Well, quality is a tough standard. I'd wager many people would consider my results on the 150+TC to be sharp at f/4. But I'd rather take the ISO hit to 4.5 most of the time.

    Very few lenses are near the sensor limits wide open. So I can't really fault the TC for failing that (unrealistic) standard.
     
  16. Robb

    Robb Mu-43 Regular

    27
    Jun 2, 2014
    Sydney
    Rob
    Any TC is going to impact on image quality to some degree. The majority of reviews so far suggest that the reduction in IQ is no different (qualitatively) to say the canon 1.4 mk III TC which I used with great success with both my canon 70-200 and 500mm lenses. IMO you can not expect there to be no difference to a naked lens.
     
  17. PetrovNf6

    PetrovNf6 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 13, 2015
    I didn't use a tripod, but I was shooting in full sunlight, so I was well into 1/2000 of a second or even less for a non-moving subject.
     
  18. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I think this is not a good test case. First there is the ISO difference, one stop and a half.
    There is not much fine detail in the sign, just the lines. In the flat RAW files I can not see much difference, other then the noise. Both shots, if anything, look slightly blurred, bad focus or movement. At 200% I can see a slightly brighter line on the upper borders of the text in both pictures, a little more with the TC. You say that this are the best shots, why are the other worst? Focus or blur?
    In the jpeg there is a good amount of sharpening (strong black and white borders around the text al 400%) so I'm not considering those. I'd be careful with a 100% vs 142% comparison too.
     
  19. PetrovNf6

    PetrovNf6 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 13, 2015
    The 40-150 is clearly out-resolving the EM-1 sensor by a good margin. No special reason why it would not do so even with the MC-14. The real question, and for me the only question, is not that, but whether I end up with more information, detail, on a distant object when using it than just using the lens itself.

    I found that it did not do so, despite a strong bias on my part for finding it. I kept shooting picture after picture trying to find even one set where it did so. And I couldn't. For me, magnifying to the same image size after the fact gave me as much detail as with the 1.4x.

    Can you post pictures showing that it does?