Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,390
Like?
Tele converters are a horrible kludge
In reply to SteveNunez, Nov 11, 2013

made necessary by the huge mass and expense of a long FF lens.
I used a 70-200 f2.8 for my Nikon FF, it weighed a ton, and a 2X converter was needed to get a not very god 140-400. f5.6
You can pick up a 200-600 equivalent for MFT that is tiny - the panny 75-300
You have to be utterly desperate to want to go beyond 600mm, it's a specialised field, either the pictures will be abysmal or else the kit will cost an absolute fortune and be used with extreme care, and I don't think the demand is there yet....
Once you get the new f2.8 Oly tele, then maybe a 1-4TC makes some sense, but I will stick with the 100-300 myself.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow