Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Adrian Harris
Adrian Harris Veteran Member • Posts: 6,782
Re: Probably not worth trying...

M_digicapt wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I'm about to pick up one of these 1.7x front side teleconverters for my 75-300 lens for moon shots and maybe even some planetary imaging and close ups of birds. Also a 58-55 step down ring. Does anyone have any samples they can show me how this combo compares to using the 75-300 by itself at the long end with x2 DTC (and also with the combo AND x2 DTC on top of that?) I want to see how well crater detail and feather detail are preserved. It'd be amazing to have a lightweight 1020mm EFL combo on M43 on my EM10 Mk2 (and 2040mm EFL with x2 DTC!)

I have the T-Con 17 which some think it's the same TC as the B-300. And unless you are spending usd$10-15 I wouldn't bother... It introduced some CA and didn't produce good results with any of the tele lenses I tried it with. Most mention that don't remember trying stopping the lens down to F8, so there's a chance that at that aperture the results would be better. It works better with the shorter standard prime, probably because they are much sharper than the 75-300mm.

I have a Nikon E17ED which is very high quality, but heavy and expensive. Haven't tried it with the 75-300mm yet because the reason for getting the 75-300mm was to have something small and compact. Having to use a lens bracket and the risk of damaging the lens has stopped me from giving a try. Also is not like the 75-300mm is tack sharp at the long end anyway. A TC just magnifies what's already there including imperfections...

I did use the 40-150mm with the E17ED and the TCON 17 and the it worked well with the E17ED and it produced slightly more detail than the lens by itself.

It works well with IF manual lenses like the Canon nFD 200mm F4.

One advantage of using the TC is that you get to use the RAW file and it helps with the highlights/shadows vs using the DTC.

Have you considered getting a 300mm-500mm manual lens?

I did but then I would have to give up AF I think?

About the TC I like the result, was that with the regular 40-150? How did it do with the TCON17 attached? Not as good as what the Nikon gave?

Do you have any images with the TCON17 attached to the 75-300? Would be interesting to see if it added any detail vs the 75-300 without it and also compare it to x2 DTC (both with and without the TC).

I have a lot of the TCs in that review. I have the Sony HG1758 which is awfully heavy and the DH1758 which is the lightest of the 1.7x group but also ranked last on those tests haha. Aside from a small area near the center, the results are kind of blurry. I was interested in the TCON17 because it is the second lightest but also ranked second best in those tests (behind the heavy Nikon). I also have the venerable Canon TC-DC58A which is very well regarded in the 1.5x group but not tested in that review. It's also a little too heavy for me, hence why I was considering the TCON17/B-300 (optically the same, but some of the TCON17 dont actually have the 55mm thread and on ebay I didn't see one that has it, so I opted for the B-300.)

Yes that photo was taken with the 40-150mm kit lens.

I use manual focus lenses for wildlife most of the time. There’s little chance the 75-300mm with an afocal TC will resolve as much detail as the Canon FD 300mm f4 L which sometimes I also use with the Olympus M43 1.4x TC.

You might one to try the Good Sony TC you have. If it doesn’t offer any additional resolution, then you’ll know the Tcon17/B300 is not worth getting.

It’s worth mentioning again that since the Olympus 75-300mm is mostly plastic, using an afocal TC without a bracket/rail can easily stress and damage the lens. Since I would need the bracket anyway I would pick the good TC, in my case the E17ED, to use instead of the Tcon 17... I sometimes used the Olympus C-180 with the 40-150mm, but I have several 40-150mm copies and it's a cheap lens so didn't mind the risk.

Also afocal TCs change the minimum focal distance so in some instances you get better results by getting closer than by using the TC. Is one of the reasons I bought the Olympus M43 1.4x TC. The E17Ed is very good, but heavy and with the some older teles the minimum focusing distance is so long that is not worth using…


Thats why I was wondering if the TCON17 or B-300 could resolve detail like the Nikon E17ED can or would the result be less than what the lens by itself can do. The lighter Sony and Olympus TC weigh 250-260g, do you think this could put stress on the 75-300? I dont think I should try the heavier Sony I have which weighs more than 500g! How is the C-180 compared to the TCON17 and what is the size of its rear thread?

Don't go near the front mounted Nikon 17, I have one and it doesn't work at all well with the 75-300 or the PL100-400. It worked great with small sensor Bridge cameras.

On bigger cameras with long lenses the Raynox 2.2 works far better.

Your best bet is to save your money and get either a l100-400 or the Olympus equivalent.

I haven't tried the E17ED with the 75-300mm but it works well with the old Primes...

This one with the Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO + E17ED

That is interesting, I wonder if my Nikon 1.7 has 'something wrong' inside. On the two long zooms I have it is seriously poor. I haven't had a sharp image out of it. ... But haven't bothered trying it on any shorter lenses.

I still think the OP will be best served by saving and getting a Oly or Panny 100-400.

-- hide signature --
 Adrian Harris's gear list:Adrian Harris's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sony SLT-A77 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow