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

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Louis_Dobson
Louis_Dobson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,324
Tele converters are a horrible kludge

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

 Louis_Dobson's gear list:Louis_Dobson's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 +7 more
Dr_Jon Senior Member • Posts: 3,083
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?

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
Sony RX100 Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Canon EOS 5DS R Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +25 more
oeoek Regular Member • Posts: 499
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?

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
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +4 more
Steen Bay Veteran Member • Posts: 6,974
Re: Tele converters are a horrible kludge

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

Art_P
Art_P Veteran Member • Posts: 9,870
Look to 4/3

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 E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +2 more
Treeshade
Treeshade Junior Member • Posts: 37
Re: Tele converters are a horrible kludge

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.

 Treeshade's gear list:Treeshade's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Olympus E-PL7 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +5 more
Robiro Veteran Member • Posts: 6,031
I am waiting for 100-300 II

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.

 Robiro's gear list:Robiro's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / Power O.I.S Panasonic Leica 100-400mm F4.0-6.3 ASPH
Skeeterbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 9,629
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?

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

DonSC Senior Member • Posts: 1,032
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?

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

Digital Dick Senior Member • Posts: 1,458
Re: Seriously?

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 Olympus E-M5 II
ScottyA Regular Member • Posts: 119
Re: Why no m4/3 tele converters like Nikon/Canon others?

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.

 ScottyA's gear list:ScottyA's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Nikon D7000
forpetessake
forpetessake Senior Member • Posts: 4,892
you get what you pay for

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.

forpetessake
forpetessake Senior Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: Seriously?

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).

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads