teleconverter as part of the lens - like the OM 150-400mm

Canon, for one, beat Oly to the punch.


They seem rare even a decade later.

Cheers,

Rick

daveomd said:

The 1.25x teleconverter that is part of the 150-400mm f4.5 seems to receive very positive reviews.

This lens was introduced more than 5 years ago, yet I am not aware of any other lens mfg. offering this feature on any other lens.

Is the cost to manufacture the rotating TC feature too expensive to manufacture, or some other reason?

Click to expand...

Nikon has a TC lens.

Both Nikon and Canon has them.

I wonder if the open teleconverter lever slot is a weak point in the weather sealing of the design? Some recent threads indicate moisture ingress by some means.

Cheers

I remember reading about Canon filing a patent for an external TC using the same principle. If you could add a 1.4x and/or a 2x TC, each with the flip of a switch, that would be a cool thing. It would also prevent the sealing issue since only the TC itself could be affected.

daveomd said:

......

Is the cost to manufacture the rotating TC feature too expensive to manufacture, or some other reason?

Click to expand...

Extra length, extra weight, extra cost, extra complexity are the disadvantages for those that not always need or want to have a TC option at hand.

External TC's also have the advantage, that they can be shared between several lenses one may own (provided they support TC's). Thereby saving both on cost and weight.

The advantage of a built-in TC is convenience and speed of use.

But in the case of that particular lens, there is another issue that recently came to light. The m43 mount was never designed for such heavy lenses. There is excessive wear, and a reinforced brass mount instead of the aluminum one had to be made. And that has now problems with the hard coating rapidly wearing off. An external TC would require more mounting cycles, increasing wear. And mounting this particular lens is time consuming, because if not done in a particular and cumbersome way with camera on the floor on it's back, wear of the mount is much greater. Also, an external TC with aluminum mounts does wear very fast with such a heavy lens, so external TC's might need to be upgraded with the reinforced brass mount flanges too. This reinforced brass lens flange is currently a huge problem for OM, the lens has to be sent to the maker and expenses are on the owner not the maker, and flanges with improved coating are currently not available due to a half year supplier backlog. It's a big mess.

daveomd said:

The 1.25x teleconverter that is part of the 150-400mm f4.5 seems to receive very positive reviews.

This lens was introduced more than 5 years ago, yet I am not aware of any other lens mfg. offering this feature on any other lens.

Is the cost to manufacture the rotating TC feature too expensive to manufacture, or some other reason?

Click to expand...

Among DSLRs, both Canon and Nikon offered such high-end zooms:

• Canon 200-400mm f1.4x TC
• Nikon 180-400mm f1.4x TC

Neither lens is as versatile as the Olympus. For one, both weigh too much to be used handheld (around 10 lb). Secondly, neither offers the tremendous 300-1000mm reach in FF terms. Arguably, 300-1000mm is more useful for wildlife than 180-560mm.

The Canon lens also, laughably, has the TC-engage switch on the left, which means that if you're strong enough to shoot it handheld, you cannot engage the TC with ease. The Olympus has it on the right, which means that you can continue holding the lens with your left hand and flick the TC into place. The only explanation for Canon overlooking something so obvious is that they never intended such lenses to be used without tripods.

Neither lens was as successful as the Olympus, because of the cost, weight and limited range that made them useful for sports but not so much for wildlife. Although I did one time see a guy shooting the Canon 200-400mm on a whale-watching tour, although he was shooting from the captain's cabin for safety and tripod use.

Nikon has also included 1.4x TCs in their Z-mount 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 primes, which makes them eminently more useful than big primes offered by Canon or Sony. I can imagine how valuable it is to have a TC available at the flick of a finger while on safari. Along with APS-C crop, it would be like shooting with the Olympus 300mm Pro but with both the 1.4x and 2x TCs built-in (in case of the Nikon S 600mm f4).

In all honesty, if budget weren't a concern, I would switch systems just to have one of these two primes as my primary lens.

cba_melbourne said:

The advantage of a built-in TC is convenience and speed of use.

Click to expand...

The main advantage is optimization of its optical properties for the use with only one specific telephoto lens. External ones are (usually) universal and as such their optical performances are not as good.

faunagraphy said:

Secondly, neither offers the tremendous 300-1000mm reach in FF terms. Arguably, 300-1000mm is more useful for wildlife than 180-560mm.

Click to expand...

I wonder why Zuiko is marketed as 150-400mm f4, as in fact it is 150-500mm f4-5.6

Stu CC said:

I wonder if the open teleconverter lever slot is a weak point in the weather sealing of the design? Some recent threads indicate moisture ingress by some means.

Click to expand...

The lenses are sealed against water, not moisture, so people treating them as if they are hermetically sealed, which they are not, can lead to problems.

One could argue, why bother with just a 1.25x TC? Why not build a 150-500mm? My guess is that might have required taking an IQ/price/weight hit which they weren't prepared to take. So, they have effectively offered a dual-range box, 150-400 or 190-500mm. Works for me, well that's if I could afford one.

Okapi001 said:

faunagraphy said:

Secondly, neither offers the tremendous 300-1000mm reach in FF terms. Arguably, 300-1000mm is more useful for wildlife than 180-560mm.

Click to expand...

I wonder why Zuiko is marketed as 150-400mm f4, as in fact it is 150-500mm f4-5.6

Click to expand...

Because it is indeed a constant aperture 150-400mm f4.5, not a variable aperture zoom. Engaging the 1.25x TC turns it into a 187.5-500mm f5.6 lens.

faunagraphy said:

Because it is indeed a constant aperture 150-400mm f4.5, not a variable aperture zoom. Engaging the 1.25x TC turns it into a 187.5-500mm f5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

But as a whole it performs just like a 150-500mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Okapi001 said:

faunagraphy said:

Because it is indeed a constant aperture 150-400mm f4.5, not a variable aperture zoom. Engaging the 1.25x TC turns it into a 187.5-500mm f5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

But as a whole it performs just like a 150-500mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

A 150-500 f4.5-5.6 will change aperture as it zooms.
The 150-400 f4.5 will not change aperture as it zooms. A necessary feature for movies.

Bobapingu said:

Okapi001 said:

faunagraphy said:

Because it is indeed a constant aperture 150-400mm f4.5, not a variable aperture zoom. Engaging the 1.25x TC turns it into a 187.5-500mm f5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

But as a whole it performs just like a 150-500mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

A 150-500 f4.5-5.6 will change aperture as it zooms.
The 150-400 f4.5 will not change aperture as it zooms. A necessary feature for movies.

Click to expand...

I thought that a stopless manual A-control ring is what we need for 'proper' movie making

jj

Okapi001 said:

cba_melbourne said:

The advantage of a built-in TC is convenience and speed of use.

Click to expand...

The main advantage is optimization of its optical properties for the use with only one specific telephoto lens. External ones are (usually) universal and as such their optical performances are not as good.

Click to expand...

That is a claim that is often made by marketing for TC's. There is however no proof that this is indeed still true today. Especially in m43, where to my knowledge no "univeral" rear mounted TC's exist (they all only fit onto lenses that were designed from scratch to accept a TC).

Convenience and speed of use are both tangible advantages. Optimization of optical properties is not - it is something you can only hope for, or believe in. Since there is no external 1.25X TC in m43 that you could attach to the lens to make a direct comparison.

jjbinx said:

Bobapingu said:

Okapi001 said:

faunagraphy said:

Because it is indeed a constant aperture 150-400mm f4.5, not a variable aperture zoom. Engaging the 1.25x TC turns it into a 187.5-500mm f5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

But as a whole it performs just like a 150-500mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

A 150-500 f4.5-5.6 will change aperture as it zooms.
The 150-400 f4.5 will not change aperture as it zooms. A necessary feature for movies.

Click to expand...

I thought that a stopless manual A-control ring is what we need for 'proper' movie making

jj

Click to expand...

Well yes, that's another thing. My point is, it can be awkward if the exposure changes while zooming, particularly for movies.

Bobapingu said:

jjbinx said:

Bobapingu said:

Okapi001 said:

faunagraphy said:

Because it is indeed a constant aperture 150-400mm f4.5, not a variable aperture zoom. Engaging the 1.25x TC turns it into a 187.5-500mm f5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

But as a whole it performs just like a 150-500mm f4.5-5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

A 150-500 f4.5-5.6 will change aperture as it zooms.
The 150-400 f4.5 will not change aperture as it zooms. A necessary feature for movies.

Click to expand...

I thought that a stopless manual A-control ring is what we need for 'proper' movie making

jj

Click to expand...

Well yes, that's another thing. My point is, it can be awkward if the exposure changes while zooming, particularly for movies.

Click to expand...

If a lens has a variable aperture, such as f/4-5.6, simply set it to f/5.6 at the wide end, and as long as it has a well-designed aperture mechanism, it will maintain the same exposure during zooming.

Madoro said:

Stu CC said:

I wonder if the open teleconverter lever slot is a weak point in the weather sealing of the design? Some recent threads indicate moisture ingress by some means.

Click to expand...

The lenses are sealed against water, not moisture, so people treating them as if they are hermetically sealed, which they are not, can lead to problems.

Click to expand...

So true. If there's air in the lens, there's moisture. Even desert air is about 10% saturated with moisture.