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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Tele converters are a horrible kludge
In reply to SteveNunez, 5 months ago

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
Dr_Jon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,112Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?
In reply to SteveNunez, 5 months ago

Really the only current lens that would benefit from one is the 35-100 f2.8, however it isn't that sharp wide-open (it's okay, just not stellar, and you need a good starting point). Hence with the loss of sharpness of an extender really all you could have is a 1.4x shot at f4/f5.6 giving f5.6/f8. Should be okay in good light I guess. I'd rather have a 250mm f3.2 though...

 Dr_Jon's gear list:Dr_Jon's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Sony RX100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
oeoek
Regular MemberPosts: 382Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?
In reply to SteveNunez, 5 months ago

Once Pany or Oly come up with reasonable fast long primes, like a 2.8 15mm and a 4 300mm, they might think about optical teleconverters.

I expect most people would be screaming about the prices of those primes, and scream even louder once the realise that a good converter will not be cheap as well.

As someone already did in this thread; look at Canikon prices and forget about long primes being cheaper for M43. The long primes can be a little (not much!) smaller and lighter, but will be pretty much the same price if we are lucky. Or we might pay more because of the smaller numbers sold...

 oeoek's gear list:oeoek's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Like?
Re: Tele converters are a horrible kludge
In reply to Louis_Dobson, 5 months ago

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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....

If shooting for example small birds, then you'll need all the 'reach' you can get. Most often 600mm equivalent won't be enough (and 1200mm equiv. doesn't necessarily cost a fortune).

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50760288

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Art_P
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,019Gear list
Like?
Look to 4/3
In reply to SteveNunez, 5 months ago

Those Zuiko SHG lenses were up to adding a 1.4x or 2x, both in speed and IQ

So pick up a 300mm f2.8, EC14, EC20 and an MMF3 and you'd be all set

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Treeshade
New MemberPosts: 20
Like?
Re: Tele converters are a horrible kludge
In reply to Steen Bay, 5 months ago

Steen Bay wrote:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

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....

If shooting for example small birds, then you'll need all the 'reach' you can get. Most often 600mm equivalent won't be enough (and 1200mm equiv. doesn't necessarily cost a fortune).

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50760288

When I use the Panny 100-300 for small birds, I often have to crop the photo, sometime up to 50% crop. Longer range would be very useful.

At 300mm (600mm) the lens is f/5.6 wide open. If the rumored 300mm/f4 prime is paired with a 1.4 converter, the combo would be 420mm (840mm) at f/5.6. I would happily pay triple price for that extra 240mm range.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robiro
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,272
Like?
I am waiting for 100-300 II
In reply to SteveNunez, 5 months ago

Panasonic is revisiting all the lens in their line. The current 100-300 was among the first lenses unveiled and it is really a hot candidate for Mark II.

Once we have a better 100-300, we may start contemplating adding TC to it. As it sits right now, the glass is not capable of any performance boosting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skeeterbytes
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,562
Like?
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?
In reply to SteveNunez, 5 months ago

Well Steve, it would seem you've raised a ruckus. Teleconverters are either too shabby to consider or nobody really needs that much optical reach. Somehow reminiscent of the many "image stabilization is the devil's spawn, we got along without it just fine back in the day" threads.

Who knew?

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonSC
Contributing MemberPosts: 824
Like?
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?
In reply to Skeeterbytes, 5 months ago

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Well Steve, it would seem you've raised a ruckus. Teleconverters are either too shabby to consider or nobody really needs that much optical reach. Somehow reminiscent of the many "image stabilization is the devil's spawn, we got along without it just fine back in the day" threads.

Yeah, who would have ever thunk that AF was a good thing? LOL

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Digital Dick
Contributing MemberPosts: 630Gear list
Like?
Re: Seriously?
In reply to Digital Dick, 5 months ago

If you want to go big and heavy just use any of the OM legacy telephoto lenses on your m43 body. I occasionally use my old Olympus 350 mm f 2.8 on my E-M5 with both its matched 1.4X and 2X teleconverters attached. That's 350 x 2 x 1.4 x 2 = 1960 effective mm. Is that enough for you?

Dick

 Digital Dick's gear list:Digital Dick's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ScottyA
Junior MemberPosts: 48
Like?
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?
In reply to Roxy1945, 5 months ago

For not too much money, buy a Nikon 1 V1 or V2, the FT adaptor, and the Nikon 70-300 lens. 810mm effective reach at f5.6. Full auto-everything and VR (although center spot focusing only). And the camera itself doesn't weigh much.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 2,790
Like?
you get what you pay for
In reply to ScottyA, 5 months ago

ScottyA wrote:

For not too much money, buy a Nikon 1 V1 or V2, the FT adaptor, and the Nikon 70-300 lens. 810mm effective reach at f5.6. Full auto-everything and VR (although center spot focusing only). And the camera itself doesn't weigh much.

You can crop the m43 image instead with the same results. You are forgetting that your equivalent 810mm lens will also have an equivalent f/15 wide aperture, hardly usable anywhere but in a bright sunny day.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 2,790
Like?
Re: Seriously?
In reply to Digital Dick, 5 months ago

Digital Dick wrote:

If you want to go big and heavy just use any of the OM legacy telephoto lenses on your m43 body. I occasionally use my old Olympus 350 mm f 2.8 on my E-M5 with both its matched 1.4X and 2X teleconverters attached. That's 350 x 2 x 1.4 x 2 = 1960 effective mm. Is that enough for you?

Dick

Don't also forget the effective aperture of 2.8*2*1.4*2, i.e f/15. And the effective resolution also reduced proportionally.

As it was mentioned many times, when the lens resolution is much lower than the sensor resolution, the cropping works as an ideal (no aberrations) teleconverter with exactly the same properties (resolution, DOF, f-stop).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads