good teleconverter for panasonic lenses

can anyone recommend a good teleconverter to use with the panasonic 45-200mm? preferably 1.5x or over, with comparable optics for the lens

i have this great close up filter made by seatool, japan that can be 'flipped up' off the lens when you dont want to use it and flipped back onto the lens when needed. Are there any teleconverters made like this, designed for very quick lens length changes?

is there a longer faster lens on the market (four thirds maybe) that the GF1 can still use the Image Stabilization?

here are 2 shots from the 45-200mm.

Anthias said:

i have this great close up filter made by seatool, japan that can be 'flipped up' off the lens when you dont want to use it and flipped back onto the lens when needed. Are there any teleconverters made like this, designed for very quick lens length changes?

Click to expand...

Teleconverters fit between the body and lens so no. The type of front-end attachments made for digicams that increase the reach are not teleconverters.

Anthias said:

is there a longer faster lens on the market (four thirds maybe) that the GF1 can still use the Image Stabilization?

Click to expand...

Since "image stabilization" is in the lens and not the GF-1 body....no. There's supposedly a longer lens on the horizon in the 100-300 Panasonic, but it is not faster. Neither Panasonic or Olympus have addressed the need for a dedicated, fast telephoto options with the micro-four-thirds system other than uilizing an Olympus 4/3rd's to micro converter and using one of the faster, much bigger 4/3rd's telezooms, and no third-party company has jumped in yet with other options.

Not sure what you mean by this. Maybe there is another terminolgy used by different schools or it's simply a naming convention used by different groups. But, the Olympus A-200 1.5X teleconverter I have in my collection from my Olympus C3030 digicam days screws onto the front of my Lumix GH1 14-140 lens with a 62-49 step down ring and works for my uses. This link has a few other "Teleconverter" that are around. For quite awhile the Olympus B300 was in high demand could not be found anywhere, then Olympus seemed to remarket the B-300 as a TC-17 supposedly specifically for digicams.

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/FZ-30/Converters/Other-Lenses/Oly.html

Gregm61 said:

Anthias said:

i have this great close up filter made by seatool, japan that can be 'flipped up' off the lens when you dont want to use it and flipped back onto the lens when needed. Are there any teleconverters made like this, designed for very quick lens length changes?

Click to expand...

Teleconverters fit between the body and lens so no. The type of front-end attachments made for digicams that increase the reach are not teleconverters.

Gregm61 said:

is there a longer faster lens on the market (four thirds maybe) that the GF1 can still use the Image Stabilization?

Click to expand...

Since "image stabilization" is in the lens and not the GF-1 body....no. There's supposedly a longer lens on the horizon in the 100-300 Panasonic, but it is not faster. Neither Panasonic or Olympus have addressed the need for a dedicated, fast telephoto options with the micro-four-thirds system other than uilizing an Olympus 4/3rd's to micro converter and using one of the faster, much bigger 4/3rd's telezooms, and no third-party company has jumped in yet with other options.

Click to expand...

The front-end tele-extenders are all made for tiny chip (crop factor of 4-5x) P&S's, and can sometimes give great results, at least in the central frame area.

Olympus makes the finest of the extenders, IMHO - the EC-14 and EC-20 for 1.4X and 2X options, but they are muy expensive at $350-450. I've used the EC-20 with both my superb Oly 50-200mm and Panny-Leica 14-150 with very good results on my GH-1. The P-L 14-150 has both autofocus and IS, wheras on a Panny m4/3, the Oly 50-200 has neither. An E-PL1 is on the way as I write to serve as my birding body with it, giving IBIS and S-AF.

The problem with TE's is that thay will magnify any flaws in a lens, and I doubt the 45-200 would perform very well with it.

Here's a recent example of the 50-200/EC-20 combo with the GH-1 for an 800mm EFL. You'll notice that the EC-20 is not recognized by the GH-1, so the true EXIF should read 400mm @ f/14.2. It's 16x23 I print holds very good detail across the frame.





This shot is handheld with the P-L 14-150/EC-20, which starts at f/11 at 300mm. Corrected EXIF 300mm @ f/12.6, just 1/3 stop down from max.

Jim T said:

Not sure what you mean by this.

Click to expand...

It's not that hard. If you are using a conversion lens mounted in front of the lens, that is not a teleconverter, period, end of story. Teleconverters mount BETWEEN the body and lens, not in front of the lens. Just because digicam users and ebay sellers peddling cheap conversion lenses as teleconverters call them that, does not make it so.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585837/teleconverter-lens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter

thanks for the information guys, and the correct terminology lesson

Pete Berry said:

The problem with TE's is that thay will magnify any flaws in a lens, and I doubt the 45-200 would perform very well with it.

Click to expand...

in reference to this, photozone rates the olympus at 200mm centre 2303, edges 2045, and the panasonic at 200mm centre 2159, edges 1903

this really isnt that much of a difference, were you referring to CA or something else?

As indicated in your Wikipedia link, the type of teleconverter you are referring to that mounts between lens and camera is a Tele Extender type teleconverter, the type I have and manufactured by Olympus and Konica I believe long before ebay came around is referred in your link as a Teleside type Teleconverter. End of Story.

Gregm61 said:

Jim T said:

Not sure what you mean by this.

Click to expand...

It's not that hard. If you are using a conversion lens mounted in front of the lens, that is not a teleconverter, period, end of story. Teleconverters mount BETWEEN the body and lens, not in front of the lens. Just because digicam users and ebay sellers peddling cheap conversion lenses as teleconverters call them that, does not make it so.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585837/teleconverter-lens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter

Click to expand...

Anthias said:

Pete Berry said:

The problem with TE's is that thay will magnify any flaws in a lens, and I doubt the 45-200 would perform very well with it.

Click to expand...

in reference to this, photozone rates the olympus at 200mm centre 2303, edges 2045, and the panasonic at 200mm centre 2159, edges 1903

this really isnt that much of a difference, were you referring to CA or something else?

Click to expand...

Photozone is confusing in that their numbers must be related to sensor resolution. For the standard 4/3 lenses, including the 50-200, a 10MP Olympus body was used, and the "excellent" range begins at 1950 LPH. For the 12MP m4/3 bodies, that is 2150. Unfortunately they no longer include the quality scale in their tests.

So for the 50-200mm on a m4/3 body, add 200 LPH to the findings for comparison - and probably more, as the m4/3's all have lighter AA filters and higher sharpness per pixel than the Oly standard 4/3 bodies.

I think that the SLR Gear tests give a moe accurate picture for comparison, and the 45-200 Panny looks pretty ugly at 200mm f/5.6, improving by f/8. Iit seems a recurring theme of 45-200 users to stop down to f/8 at least at 200mm. The Oly 50-200 is significantly better wide open at 200mm f/3.5 than the 45-200 is at any aperture.

But who knows? You might get acceptable results with an extender, but with 400mm at 2X, f/8 turns into f/16.

Pete

do you know if the olympus extenders, the EC-14 and EC-20, absorb light at all, meaning that if the photo would be correctly exposed using 1/100 at 5.6 without the extender, it would be the same when the extender is added?

The extenders don't absorb light, the 2x EC-20 just spreads it out by magnifying the central 1/2 of the frame without increasing the diameter of the front element which controls the amount of light coming in. So halved in each dimension and expanded to fill the frame, 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 the total light falling on the expanded frame - which is exactly two stops down.

So a 200mm f/5.6 lens becomes a 400mm f/11 lens at a nominal f/5.6. Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 bodies recognize the extender and report the new FL and aperture in the camera settings and EXIF data. Panasonics don't, and this is confusing, esp. in reviewing older files when you may have forgotten to notate it.

Pete

How about the Raynox DC 1540 Pro? It will sit at the front of the lens and it has a 1.54x conversion.

--
Jan

'In Wildness is the Preservation of the World'

Panasonic G2, 14-42, 45-200 & Canon S95

The Raynox 1540 works reasonably well on the 45-200. AF is fast, continuous focussing is possible, and color fringing and distortion are low. It's the cheapest way to get 300mm on a G camera. Just keep the aperture at F8 or so. And don't expect IS to be completely effective, since the lens doesn't know it's a 300mm now. Just as with the parent lens the combination will be sharp when not fully extended and noticeably less so maxed out. The soon to come 100-300 should be a much better solution.

There is no comparing the 45-200 to the Oly 50-200 which is a truly wonderful lens. As Pete says the 50-200 + EC20 gives a decent and small 800mm zoom. Unfortunately it doesn't autofocus on a GH1 and therefore isn't useful for sports or animals in motion.
--
Steve Barnett