OM x2 teleconverter question

The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Although I won't post test photos as I don't even have a tripod to support, from handheld photographing indoors same multipatterned object jpeg monochrome on my Gh2

My Viv 100-300/5 pk mount + Unmatched Viv 2 x TC 😺 at 200/5 pretty much matches contrast sharpness as my Panny 45-200 at 200/5.6.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Although I won't post test photos as I don't even have a tripod to support, from handheld photographing indoors same multipatterned object jpeg monochrome on my Gh2

My Viv 100-300/5 pk mount + Unmatched Viv 2 x TC 😺 at 200/5 pretty much matches contrast sharpness as my Panny 45-200 at 200/5.6.
 
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Although I won't post test photos as I don't even have a tripod to support, from handheld photographing indoors same multipatterned object jpeg monochrome on my Gh2

My Viv 100-300/5 pk mount + Unmatched Viv 2 x TC 😺 at 200/5 pretty much matches contrast sharpness as my Panny 45-200 at 200/5.6.
But if you put a 200mm f/5 lens set at f/5 on a 2× tele-converter, the tele-converter converts that lens to 400mm f/10, so you're not comparing like for like.
True, exposure settings has to alter correspondingly.

For similar brightness of the object in my indoor test :

ISO200

My Panny 45-200 at 200/5.6 is 1/100th.

My Vivi 100-300 + Unmatched Vivi 2 x TC 😺 at 200mm (100mm x2) is 1/60th.

I wouldn't shoot my Vivi this slow outdoors, 1/500-1/1000th or higher I'd prefer in bright sunlight.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Here you go - taken this morning (without the x2 teleconverter) - and then cropped to match the same field of view as in yesterday's picture. There's not much in it - but maybe slightly better without the teleconverter. So - not much to be gained from using the teleconverter in this case.

c6f83b7d80f9460fab1f0cc6fba05836.jpg

--
AH
 
Last edited:
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Here you go - taken this morning (without the x2 teleconverter) - and then cropped to match the same field of view as in yesterday's picture. There's not much in it - but maybe slightly better without the teleconverter. So - not much to be gained from using the teleconverter in this case.

c6f83b7d80f9460fab1f0cc6fba05836.jpg
you finaly got my point and matched my results using a good but generic converter.

The result was that it was not worth using the converter because I had a sightly better image cropping and did not lose AF speed/accuracy nor half of the light.

I tried that with 3 different tele zooms. One was almost exatly te same as cropping, with the other two the with 1.4x converter image was softer.
 
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Here you go - taken this morning (without the x2 teleconverter) - and then cropped to match the same field of view as in yesterday's picture. There's not much in it - but maybe slightly better without the teleconverter. So - not much to be gained from using the teleconverter in this case.

c6f83b7d80f9460fab1f0cc6fba05836.jpg
Thing with cropping I've only got a 16MP m43. After cropping this much, wouldn't leave much MP at all. If I had a 42MP or 50MP, 60MP I would crop till I drop lol. Drawbacks of my Viv 100-300/5 + 2 x TC 😺 worth it for me as things stand. Shall realise for show springtime when out in parks.



--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Here you go - taken this morning (without the x2 teleconverter) - and then cropped to match the same field of view as in yesterday's picture. There's not much in it - but maybe slightly better without the teleconverter. So - not much to be gained from using the teleconverter in this case.

c6f83b7d80f9460fab1f0cc6fba05836.jpg
Thing with cropping I've only got a 16MP m43. After cropping this much, wouldn't leave much MP at all. If I had a 42MP or 50MP, 60MP I would crop till I drop lol. Drawbacks of my Viv 100-300/5 + 2 x TC 😺 worth it for me as things stand. Shall realise for show springtime when out in parks.
Yes, that is the downside of cropping, we lose a LOT of pixels that way.

Still one needs to do a direct comparison with what one has and then act from that. Again, in my case the 1.4x was a waste of time but that is just me....
 
I'm in the same boat as you - 16MP on my m4/3 camera - so can only get away with light cropping. Just going to have to get by - or work around the problem :-|
 
The test I suggested to see if it is worth using the converter or not is to take exactly the same photo , then crop the one without and see if the one with the converter is better or not.
Here you go - taken this morning (without the x2 teleconverter) - and then cropped to match the same field of view as in yesterday's picture. There's not much in it - but maybe slightly better without the teleconverter. So - not much to be gained from using the teleconverter in this case.

c6f83b7d80f9460fab1f0cc6fba05836.jpg
Thing with cropping I've only got a 16MP m43. After cropping this much, wouldn't leave much MP at all. If I had a 42MP or 50MP, 60MP I would crop till I drop lol. Drawbacks of my Viv 100-300/5 + 2 x TC 😺 worth it for me as things stand. Shall realise for show springtime when out in parks.
Yes, that is the downside of cropping, we lose a LOT of pixels that way.

Still one needs to do a direct comparison with what one has and then act from that. Again, in my case the 1.4x was a waste of time but that is just me....
You know the solution a 100MP Gfx just to put on it a $£10 100-300 + £5 TC 😺 to then crop the hell out of it 🤣 🤦‍♂️

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
I'm in the same boat as you - 16MP on my m4/3 camera - so can only get away with light cropping. Just going to have to get by - or work around the problem :-|
I don't even have a m4/3 that does Hand-Held High Res 50MP files. 🤷‍♂️ Their detail isn't 50MP, just the file size, still it would be more than my 16MP Gh2.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have now had the opportunity to photograph the moon with the x2 teleconverter. And I can tell you that by far the biggest problem is: Manual focus. Whether you use the viewfinder, or the screen, getting the subject in focus is a hit and miss affair. I also noticed that the camera (Olympus OMD-EM1.1) does not register the spot metering function - or rather you can't preview anything you dial in. You just make the settings, take the picture - and then review. Adjust as needed. Of about 200 photos I took over a 7 day period - I have only TWO I can actually show here. I might improve with time - but to be honest, there are no miracles to be had here:

Just to summarise, the 300mm telephoto lens with the x2 teleconverter = 600mm in Micro4/3 - or 1200mm in 35mm equivalence.

Interesting experiment if nothing else.

Moon at 8 or 9 days old. I actually quite like the detail in the lower portion of the moon.
Moon at 8 or 9 days old. I actually quite like the detail in the lower portion of the moon.



The Full Moon. Lot of guesswork here in the settings - but that's how it goes with legacy lenses.
The Full Moon. Lot of guesswork here in the settings - but that's how it goes with legacy lenses.



--
AH
 
The converter will reduce your fstop and slow down the camera's ability to focus on the subject.
I got the impression he was talking about film-era OM, so there will be no autofocus at all.

In general 35mm film 2x telextenders were of poor optical quality. I never found one that produced results I enjoyed showing to people, though if one needed magnification of something for a particular reason they could sometimes do the job - e.g. bird ID, documenting something on a broadcast tower, figuring out whether a distant object was a sasquatch or a bear, etc. :)
Yes quite right - I will use it on a digital camera (Olympus OMD-EM-1) - through an adapter. So for both of the legacy lenses that I have (film day OM fit) - it will have to be manual focus. Tamron/Vivitar x2 teleconverters (used) retail for about 10-15 UK pounds - so I figured it might be worth getting one as one of my legacy lenses is 75-300mm f4.5 with which I get acceptable (for me) pictures of garden birds, planes etc. A x2 teleconverter will give me more reach - but, as you say, it will depend on the optical quality - and how well I am able to stablise the camera+adapter+teleconverter+lens combo!
I'm using the same combo. Olympus E-M1.1, with Various Takumars, and Olympus lenses. I too looked for the best solution to this issue, and whilst some put their stead in the older Vivitars, I found that the solution for me was a slightly newer variant, the Olympus C-210, which is a frontal TC designed for the very early Olympus DSLR's.
...
The C210, has a compatriot the C-180, both these TC's are front mounted TC's and extremely light. 125grams. The C-210 is a 1.9x TC, with 4 lenses in 2 groups. It comes with its own lens hood built in, and I have step down rings for the Takumars and a step up ring for the Olympus Plastic Fantastic 40-150mm. It has a filter size of 52mm, so the step up and down rings cause no issues at all. I can imagine the 58mm thread for the 70-300mm, which is the same as the plastic fantastic will offer no issue, and you will gain a 2000mm lens, for the addition of an infinitesimal weight, cost, and optical compromise. These TC's were designed for Olympus Lenses and electronics in mind.
...
It was an elegant and perfect solution for me... and cost me the princely sum of $12.50 on Ebay!

957554170e0b4bef9f350e2b49396776.jpg

This is an image taken last year with it on the plastic fantastic during the autumnal full moon.

...
It works superbly on the Takumars 55mm f1.8 and 105mm f2.8, no vignetting on either, and gives me superb lightweight carry for my needs, with all the extra reach that M43 affords.
...
I just realized I already replied to this thread LOL... getting lazy and not reading through the entire thread :P... hope it all worked out!
...
P.S. by the way you are factoring in the onboard E-M1.1 ETC? because if you use that, the 300mm becomes a 2400mm lens, not a 1200mm! just a thought.The 70-300, like the 75-300II is a bit soft on the long end, so dial it back a bit to 250mm, then use the onboard ETC and adapted TC and you should still hit the magical 2000mm zoom factor. :)

...

P.S.S. The E-M1.1 has onboard manual focus assistance, I use it continually with the Takumars, and it makes life so easy... just assign Magnify and Peeking to the front two buttons and toggle on/off as required.

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!
 
Last edited:
I'm using the same combo. Olympus E-M1.1, with Various Takumars, and Olympus lenses. I too looked for the best solution to this issue, and whilst some put their stead in the older Vivitars, I found that the solution for me was a slightly newer variant, the Olympus C-210, which is a frontal TC designed for the very early Olympus DSLR's.
...
The C210, has a compatriot the C-180, both these TC's are front mounted TC's and extremely light. 125grams. The C-210 is a 1.9x TC, with 4 lenses in 2 groups. It comes with its own lens hood built in, and I have step down rings for the Takumars and a step up ring for the Olympus Plastic Fantastic 40-150mm. It has a filter size of 52mm, so the step up and down rings cause no issues at all. I can imagine the 58mm thread for the 70-300mm, which is the same as the plastic fantastic will offer no issue, and you will gain a 2000mm lens, for the addition of an infinitesimal weight, cost, and optical compromise. These TC's were designed for Olympus Lenses and electronics in mind.
...
It was an elegant and perfect solution for me... and cost me the princely sum of $12.50 on Ebay!
I'm shocked!! I thought I knew all the WCON & TCONs that Olympus had made - but clearly I missed the C210. I think if I had known about this, I would have bypassed the x2 teleconverter route.
...
P.S. by the way you are factoring in the onboard E-M1.1 ETC? because if you use that, the 300mm becomes a 2400mm lens, not a 1200mm! just a thought.The 70-300, like the 75-300II is a bit soft on the long end, so dial it back a bit to 250mm, then use the onboard ETC and adapted TC and you should still hit the magical 2000mm zoom factor. :)
...
I'll have to thank you for reminding about this feature - because I had sort of forgotten about it!
P.S.S. The E-M1.1 has onboard manual focus assistance, I use it continually with the Takumars, and it makes life so easy... just assign Magnify and Peeking to the front two buttons and toggle on/off as required.
That's a great tip - because I'm finding manual focussing to be tricky. But with spring and summer its way, there's going to be a lot of opportunities for trying all of this.

Now I am going straight to eBay to look for C210's. Thanks!!

--
AH
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top