MC-14 or MC-20 for the Olympus 300mm f4?

I have both tc's but since I got the mc20. It lives on the mkii with the 300. So I would recommend it.

Good luck

Dave

hansern said:

Hello. I have a question for those of you who have an Olympus 300mm f4.

If you were given the choice to buy one teleconverter, which one would you choose; the MC-14 or the MC-20?

Why I ask: I am an amateur who likes to photograph birds, mostly small birds such as sparrows, finches and tits. Today I use an EM1.2 and 75-300mm, and am quite happy with the result I get when it is very good light, like on a sunny day, or if I can get close enough. On the other hand, as soon as it is a little darker or there is some distance, the result I get is less good. Where I live, there is a promotion on the Olympus 300mm f4 this week, and I am very tempted to upgrade from the 75-300mm. And maybe at the same time get one of those teleconverters.

Click to expand...

Some previous threads and some reviews do say the MC-20 is best used in reasonable light and on subjects not too far away. You might need to figure out whether your definition of "a little darker or there is some distance" is within what others define as reasonable. But it's probably going to work better than the 75-300.

But the 300 f/4 on it's own is very cropable, so even without the MC-20, you may find it a worthwhile acquisition. In reasonable light, when you can fill a good portion of the frame, the MC-20 would be an excellent bonus.

I've only had the 300 f/4 for a short time. On it's own it seems impressively sharp and contrasty - like a new pair of glasses. The stabilisation is as good as it gets. The limiter switch is very handy. I've not yet tried it with the MC-14, 1200 mm equivalent with MC-20 is just too tempting. If the light gets too dim and the subject too dark I think it might help to switch to S-AF+MF (which is primarily CDAF) and/or use the manual focus clutch.

When faced with truely dim conditions I find the 40-150 f/2.8 (without any TC) to be a good choice. In such adverse circumstances it has the advantage of forcing me to get close enough to stand some chance of a decent result.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaltrails/

I don't own the 300mm F4 but I do use the old 4/3 ZD300mm F2.8 with both of the 1.4x and 2x 4/3 teleconverters.

I use these with my E-M1II for bird photography.

IF I was given the M.300mm F4 Pro as my only birding lens and I had the option of taking only one of the MC teleconverters I'd definitely choose the MC-14

In my opinion the M.300mm F4 is a tad slow as a Micro Fourthirds wildlife lens and with the MC-20 at 600mm F8 the reach is excellent however it loses too much light to cover the range of shooting I do . . .

In my opinion, 420mm on a 2x Crop Factor body (840mm FF equivalent field of view) is and should be more than enough for almost any wildlife scenario. After all, how many FF wildlife shooters are telling us that an 800mm lens isn't long enough for them.

And with a 20Mpx sensor there is quite a bit of room for cropping the 420mm image, and from the comparisons posted here, in good light, the IQ of a cropped 420mm isn't far behind the 600mm. In lower light when the shooter is Shutter Speed limited and higher ISOs are needed with the 600mm F8, I'd expect the cropped 420mm IQ to be at least as good if not better

Even with the (1-stop) faster 300mm F2.8, at 600mm F5.6 I find myself pushing the ISO up to maintain shutter speeds. At 600mm F8 with the M.300 F4 I'd be at twice the ISO setting and in lower light I don't particularly like the results much above ISO1600

I do find the 2X occasionally comes in handy with my ZD300mm F2.8, but I use the 1.4x much more often.

Peter

croc44 said:

I have both tc's but since I got the mc20. It lives on the mkii with the 300. So I would recommend it.

Good luck

Dave

Click to expand...

I'm like the OP. I have a 300 f4 Pro and an EM1mii and am trying to decide whether I need a teleconverter. My experience with Nikon TC's is that I didn't use them as cropping was better.

So does your MC-20 produce a better image than cropping and enlarging to the same size? I assume you live somewhere with good light if yours remains permanently on.

Do you find the TC works for distant birds like waterfowl and waders? or just for those within 30 yards?

Would you be willing to take two identical images. One with the TC and one without enlarged x2 for comparison?

hansern said:

Hello. I have a question for those of you who have an Olympus 300mm f4.

If you were given the choice to buy one teleconverter, which one would you choose; the MC-14 or the MC-20?

Why I ask: I am an amateur who likes to photograph birds, mostly small birds such as sparrows, finches and tits. Today I use an EM1.2 and 75-300mm, and am quite happy with the result I get when it is very good light, like on a sunny day, or if I can get close enough. On the other hand, as soon as it is a little darker or there is some distance, the result I get is less good. Where I live, there is a promotion on the Olympus 300mm f4 this week, and I am very tempted to upgrade from the 75-300mm. And maybe at the same time get one of those teleconverters.

Click to expand...

I have the 300mm and both teleconverters. If I was in your position, I would by the MC-20.

The MC-14 is good and I do use it but it really doesn't seem to add much magnification. The 2x by contrast, is noticeably different. I find the birds are nearly always too far away. i.e. would rather get closer if I could but often can't. If you can get closer, maybe you don't need the 2x.

Here's a couple fo examples.

This egret is a big bird and didn't seem that far away but the Exif says 63m. It was flying over a lake. This is uncropped apart from being 2:3 as[ect ratio.



This long-tailed tit is a small bird. It was just under 10m away and I still cropped a bit!





One word of caution. Images from the 300mm and MC-20 can be quite soft out of the camera and the fact you are using f/8 and need to keep the shutter speed up mean that noise can also be an issue. So, sensitive noise reduction and sharpening are essential. I use Neat Image for noise reduction and Topaz Sharpen AI for sharpening, both as Photoshop plug-ins. If you are shooting jpegs, you may find the MC-20 frustrating!

I have both.

MC-14 is more often used on 40-150/2.8

Messier Object said:

I don't own the 300mm F4 but I do use the old 4/3 ZD300mm F2.8 with both of the 1.4x and 2x 4/3 teleconverters.

I use these with my E-M1II for bird photography.

IF I was given the M.300mm F4 Pro as my only birding lens and I had the option of taking only one of the MC teleconverters I'd definitely choose the MC-14

In my opinion the M.300mm F4 is a tad slow as a Micro Fourthirds wildlife lens and with the MC-20 at 600mm F8 the reach is excellent however it loses too much light to cover the range of shooting I do . . .

In my opinion, 420mm on a 2x Crop Factor body (840mm FF equivalent field of view) is and should be more than enough for almost any wildlife scenario. After all, how many FF wildlife shooters are telling us that an 800mm lens isn't long enough for them.

Click to expand...

Many birders would use a 500mm or 600mm on an APS-C body and then add a 1.4x teleconverter giving somewhere in the range of 1000-1400mm FF equivelent angle of view!

Messier Object said:

And with a 20Mpx sensor there is quite a bit of room for cropping the 420mm image, and from the comparisons posted here, in good light, the IQ of a cropped 420mm isn't far behind the 600mm. In lower light when the shooter is Shutter Speed limited and higher ISOs are needed with the 600mm F8, I'd expect the cropped 420mm IQ to be at least as good if not better

Even with the (1-stop) faster 300mm F2.8, at 600mm F5.6 I find myself pushing the ISO up to maintain shutter speeds. At 600mm F8 with the M.300 F4 I'd be at twice the ISO setting and in lower light I don't particularly like the results much above ISO1600

I do find the 2X occasionally comes in handy with my ZD300mm F2.8, but I use the 1.4x much more often.

Peter

Click to expand...

I have both and the MC-14 is always on the 300mm. The 300mm with MC-14 works great for my needs, much better than the Panasonic 100-400mm: it is sharper, focuses MUCH faster (no more focus hunting) and more accurately. It works very well for BIF almost every time: I am amazed at the results I get compared to the 100-400mm but I honestly miss the zoom. I still have the 100-400mm and I never use it.

I use the MC-20 when I want more reach. It does a great job at less than about 50 meters most of the time: focus is not as accurate and noise can be a problem if there is not enough light. At longer distances, focusing is more difficult and less accurate. BIF is difficult and the laser sight helps a lot to find the bird. I was hoping it would be better for long distance work. I never use a tripod but I use a rest if possible for long range photos.

C-AF is much more reliable than S-AF when using the MC-20 on stationary birds while C-AF and S-AF both work great with the MC-14.

I can hand hold the camera under any light with both TCs and I have had good results at very low shutter speeds, down to about 1/50 s. Stabilisation is amazing !

Weight and size are OK and I can carry it all day without problems but it is probably my limit: the coming 150-400mm will probably be too big and heavy. After a bit of practice, I can change TCs quite quickly.

If I had to go on a birding trip with just one TC, it would definitely be the MC-14.

Here are 2 photos showing that both TCs can yield excellent results in good conditions. Hand held at 23 meters.


E-M1 MK II, 300mm, MC-14 - 1/1000 s. - f/8.0 - ISO 400


E-M1 MK II, 300mm, MC-20 - 1/800 s. - f/8.0 - ISO 400


E-M1 MK II, 300mm, MC-14 - 1/40 s., f/6.3, ISO 800 - hand held



--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer - Photographe de la nature
https://www.flickr.com/photos/julesgobeil/

Comparisons of the 300mm alone, with MC14 and MC20. The images extreme crops of photos of my 2550x1440 monitor and the pixels. As a general statement, both TCs are better than cropping. The difference in resolution is not very large for the 300mm crop vs the MC14, but the color difference is greater. The difference in both resolution and color is substantial when comparing the 300mm crop vs the MC20.








MC20 _ 300mm on left 300mm upscaled to 600mm equivalent on right









--
drj3

If you are happy with current lens then brace yourself for 300 f/4, it's sharpness is amazing. Sometimes you can look at its images with 100% magnification without realizing it.

But to answer question: I'd go for 14 as you seem to shoot birds in bushes or on trees and there is never much light. I have both and first test for 20 was in local park, results were OK, but I never used this converter in such conditions after that, it's strictly good light converter for me: I use it for seabirds and waders on coast and under bright sun. Anything less and it's replaced with 1.4.

In woods I mostly use 300 f/4 only or with 14 tc if there is more light. Or 40-150 f/2.8 with really low light. You can use 20 but it loses too much light and makes autofocus quite slow so shooting is not very pleasing experience unless it's bright and sunny.

My test shots in park: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4410988

Vahur Krouverk said:

If you are happy with current lens then brace yourself for 300 f/4, it's sharpness is amazing. Sometimes you can look at its images with 100% magnification without realizing it.

But to answer question: I'd go for 14 as you seem to shoot birds in bushes or on trees and there is never much light. I have both and first test for 20 was in local park, results were OK, but I never used this converter in such conditions after that, it's strictly good light converter for me: I use it for seabirds and waders on coast and under bright sun. Anything less and it's replaced with 1.4.

In woods I mostly use 300 f/4 only or with 14 tc if there is more light. Or 40-150 f/2.8 with really low light. You can use 20 but it loses too much light and makes autofocus quite slow so shooting is not very pleasing experience unless it's bright and sunny.

My test shots in park: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4410988

Click to expand...

From the same distance at the same shutter speed for low illumination, the MC20 will be at f8 instead of f4 and your ISO will be two stops more, however, there will be exactly the same amount of light on the bird for the 300mm f4 cropped image and MC20 image. The 300mm f4 image does have 4 times as much light, but you are cropping away 3/4 of that image.

I have not been able to actually compare the images with real birds, since the bird and the light never stays the same long enough to shoot multiple images with each combination to eliminate focus variability. However, I have compared the two indoors with low illumination comparing a variety of different targets shooting the MC20 (bird decoys - my wife's paintings and canvas detail) and the MC20 is always better than the 300mm at the same distance. However, if I shoot the 600mm at twice the distance as the 300mm, the 300mm image is always better.

I do however, often press the stabilization to its limits in order to shoot at ISO's as close to 200 as possible.











--
drj3

Hello again.

Thanks for all the replies. I have read through all comments and I really appreciate all the feedback I've gotten. However, it seems that there are good arguments for both options, so I'm still just as uncertain as before. Maybe I just need to get both of them

Hans M

drj3 said:

Vahur Krouverk said:

If you are happy with current lens then brace yourself for 300 f/4, it's sharpness is amazing. Sometimes you can look at its images with 100% magnification without realizing it.

But to answer question: I'd go for 14 as you seem to shoot birds in bushes or on trees and there is never much light. I have both and first test for 20 was in local park, results were OK, but I never used this converter in such conditions after that, it's strictly good light converter for me: I use it for seabirds and waders on coast and under bright sun. Anything less and it's replaced with 1.4.

In woods I mostly use 300 f/4 only or with 14 tc if there is more light. Or 40-150 f/2.8 with really low light. You can use 20 but it loses too much light and makes autofocus quite slow so shooting is not very pleasing experience unless it's bright and sunny.

My test shots in park: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4410988

Click to expand...

From the same distance at the same shutter speed for low illumination, the MC20 will be at f8 instead of f4 and your ISO will be two stops more, however, there will be exactly the same amount of light on the bird for the 300mm f4 cropped image and MC20 image. The 300mm f4 image does have 4 times as much light, but you are cropping away 3/4 of that image.

I have not been able to actually compare the images with real birds, since the bird and the light never stays the same long enough to shoot multiple images with each combination to eliminate focus variability. However, I have compared the two indoors with low illumination comparing a variety of different targets shooting the MC20 (bird decoys - my wife's paintings and canvas detail) and the MC20 is always better than the 300mm at the same distance. However, if I shoot the 600mm at twice the distance as the 300mm, the 300mm image is always better.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see a controlled comparison of an MC-14 cropped shot at ISO1600 and a shot with the MC-20 at ISO3200.

drj3 said:

I do however, often press the stabilization to its limits in order to shoot at ISO's as close to 200 as possible.

Click to expand...

But IMO that invariably leads to softer images due to subject movement, or you need to fire off lots of bursts and then go searching later for a sharp enough image.
Looking at your examples here, both are nice shots (keepers) but to my eye the bird looks a tad soft, and the nose and throat of the dear do as well - I assume the nose was twitching. So while you might get keepers with the MC-20 the IQ may not be any better than you'd get with the MC-14 and a higher shutter speed.

Peter

Messier Object said:

drj3 said:

Vahur Krouverk said:

If you are happy with current lens then brace yourself for 300 f/4, it's sharpness is amazing. Sometimes you can look at its images with 100% magnification without realizing it.

But to answer question: I'd go for 14 as you seem to shoot birds in bushes or on trees and there is never much light. I have both and first test for 20 was in local park, results were OK, but I never used this converter in such conditions after that, it's strictly good light converter for me: I use it for seabirds and waders on coast and under bright sun. Anything less and it's replaced with 1.4.

In woods I mostly use 300 f/4 only or with 14 tc if there is more light. Or 40-150 f/2.8 with really low light. You can use 20 but it loses too much light and makes autofocus quite slow so shooting is not very pleasing experience unless it's bright and sunny.

My test shots in park: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4410988

Click to expand...

From the same distance at the same shutter speed for low illumination, the MC20 will be at f8 instead of f4 and your ISO will be two stops more, however, there will be exactly the same amount of light on the bird for the 300mm f4 cropped image and MC20 image. The 300mm f4 image does have 4 times as much light, but you are cropping away 3/4 of that image.

I have not been able to actually compare the images with real birds, since the bird and the light never stays the same long enough to shoot multiple images with each combination to eliminate focus variability. However, I have compared the two indoors with low illumination comparing a variety of different targets shooting the MC20 (bird decoys - my wife's paintings and canvas detail) and the MC20 is always better than the 300mm at the same distance. However, if I shoot the 600mm at twice the distance as the 300mm, the 300mm image is always better.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see a controlled comparison of an MC-14 cropped shot at ISO1600 and a shot with the MC-20 at ISO3200.

Messier Object said:

I do however, often press the stabilization to its limits in order to shoot at ISO's as close to 200 as possible.

Click to expand...

But IMO that invariably leads to softer images due to subject movement, or you need to fire off lots of bursts and then go searching later for a sharp enough image.
Looking at your examples here, both are nice shots (keepers) but to my eye the bird looks a tad soft, and the nose and throat of the dear do as well - I assume the nose was twitching. So while you might get keepers with the MC-20 the IQ may not be any better than you'd get with the MC-14 and a higher shutter speed.

Peter

Click to expand...

You are correct about the eye and nose and they should not look tack sharp, the images are uncropped. The total DOF of the bird image is 2.1 inches for the non-enlarged image (far less than that if you zoom) and the total DOF of the deer image is only 5.79 inches or about 1/2 those distances from the focus point. Since the bird is 6.5 inches long and I am below it, I have to choose what is in focus. The total deer's head in more than 12 inches, so I have to choose a focus where about =/- 3 inches will be in focus. For portraits of deer, I generally put the focus point a little below the eyes, trying to keep as much of the ears and nose in focus as possible. These are uncropped images.

I shot over 1600 images of stationary Blue birds last summer and various shutter speeds as low as 1/8 and up to 1/640. There was no difference in percent of sharp images at any shutter speed above 1/20. For the shutter speeds below 1/20, the percent of blurred images increased because of camera/lens induced blur.

I generally find for birds, if it is not truly stationary, I need a shutter speed above 1/1000 for a sharp image. If it is stationary (I shoot just after movements) then shutter speed is of little importance. Attached is an image of what was a stationary Northern Mocking bird at 1/800. It made a little hop as I released the shutter. The feather detail on the breast is rather badly blurred. I probably would have needed a shutter speed of at least 1/1600 to freeze the motion.

For deer, it is much easier. When they orient toward anything, they are almost completely motionless and then the either relax and move or they are gone quickly. I just wait until they look around to check for predators and then shoot.



--
drj3

I have the 300mm with the 1.4tc, however I never use it on the 300mm...instead I use it on the 60mm Macro lens (with a bit of magic!) and get amazing macro shots, for times when the weather isn't so great.

I'd favour leaving just the 300mm on and using fieldcraft to get closer and the images you want.

At the end of the day its your choice, as the thread said.." a little bit darker, a little bit closer" or £££ in your pocket?

Good luck with your choice.

DarrenChef said:

I have the 300mm with the 1.4tc, however I never use it on the 300mm...instead I use it on the 60mm Macro lens (with a bit of magic!) and get amazing macro shots, for times when the weather isn't so great.

I'd favour leaving just the 300mm on and using fieldcraft to get closer and the images you want.

At the end of the day its your choice, as the thread said.." a little bit darker, a little bit closer" or £££ in your pocket?

Good luck with your choice.

Click to expand...

Getting closer to the bird is the way to go... in theory ! In practice, it is not so easy. In public places, it is often mandatory to stay in the path. Also, many birds are very wary and will fly away as they see you approach.

With experience, a bird photographer learns to understand the limits of the bird's tolerance and will know when to stop... most of the time ! This is why I always use the MC-14. I will remove it sometimes, but it does not happen often.

I have the older 300mm F2.8 with both tc's.

Most of the time I use the lens alone - 300mm is a very good lenght for birds. But of course there are situations when you ( or I) need something longer.

The 1.4x is more versatile, and with the FT lenses slows the af less than the 2x converter. I suppose that goes mostly with the amount of light getting through, so it counts with the new version too.

But then, sometimes the 2x is just what you'll need to get the shot done...

Seems that the lens IS + body IS combo does some magic, so all these combinations are handheldable with great results. If the bird stays still, I mean...

Cheers!


Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras

Jouko said:

I have the older 300mm F2.8 with both tc's.

Most of the time I use the lens alone - 300mm is a very good lenght for birds. But of course there are situations when you ( or I) need something longer.

The 1.4x is more versatile, and with the FT lenses slows the af less than the 2x converter. I suppose that goes mostly with the amount of light getting through, so it counts with the new version too.

But then, sometimes the 2x is just what you'll need to get the shot done...

Seems that the lens IS + body IS combo does some magic, so all these combinations are handheldable with great results. If the bird stays still, I mean...

Cheers!

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://www.instagram.com/jouko.k.lehto/
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/2015/12/what-to-dowith-camera-during-winter.html

Click to expand...

since owning the mc-20 I do not use my mc-14







--

paul cool said:

Jouko said:

I have the older 300mm F2.8 with both tc's.

Most of the time I use the lens alone - 300mm is a very good lenght for birds. But of course there are situations when you ( or I) need something longer.

The 1.4x is more versatile, and with the FT lenses slows the af less than the 2x converter. I suppose that goes mostly with the amount of light getting through, so it counts with the new version too.

But then, sometimes the 2x is just what you'll need to get the shot done...

Seems that the lens IS + body IS combo does some magic, so all these combinations are handheldable with great results. If the bird stays still, I mean...

Cheers!

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://www.instagram.com/jouko.k.lehto/
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/2015/12/what-to-dowith-camera-during-winter.html

Click to expand...

since owning the mc-20 I do not use my mc-14

Click to expand...

I will probably still use the MC14 next year for flying swallows. They often fly too close for the MC20 and even when they would fit in the frame is more difficult to keep them in the frame without clipping wings/tails/heads when they barely fit.

However, I should say that I haven't used the MC14 since getting the MC20. Maybe next spring when some of the flying birds are closer, I will use the MC14 more often.

--
drj3