100-300 vs. 50-200+1.4TC: surprised!

[luisflorit]

BTW, it could well be that RawTherapee is not yet fine tuned for the EM1.

I realized that processing the EM1 pictures in LAB gives much better noise than in RGB with RT. But you have to really push it, the flat colors are quite dull and the exposure way off.

Do you know where I can find EM1+lenses profiles for RT?

Thanks,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

 

[luisflorit]

I looked at these first four images (I am assuming 100% crops) and concluded one of the following.

1. The OP let the camera focus and the first four are completely out of focus.

2. The OP turned off IS for all the first four images and the images are blurred due to camera movement.

3. Both lenses are defective.

I took a photo of my grey roof focusing on the bottom of a 2,5 inch vent from approximately 20 meters and raised the shutter speed to give f5.6. The full resolution image is attached. Then I took the OP image a selected the same number of pixels around the only detail in the first image and took the same number of pixels from the focus point from my image. Note the difference in clarity (Olympus Viewer 3 conversion to tiff, LR - sharpening 35 with radius .7 and saved as jpg from CS6 - no noise reduction) compared to the image OP image. You can easily read the small print on the vent cover that says you should tear out the center ring for a 3 inch vent.

Funny conclusions you arrived to. I don't need to conclude anything, but just read what you wrote: you processed the images completely differently (sharpening! proprietary software that who knows what other presets apply, totally different RAW processors...), you took a shot of a different image, you were a few thousand miles away (different days, humidity, heat from the roofs, etc).

Anyway, I've a sharpening slider too. I swear!

Something I also did was to shoot hand held, since this is the only thing that matters to me (if it is the IBIS that doesn't work well with the 50-200, it is irrelevant for me). Certainly that added small amounts of blur. Yet, the crop you choose was at 1/400s, while the toucan was at 1/30s. And, as I wrote, I took 10 pics of everything, with virtually identical results.

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

I at least indicated specifically how I processed my files and attached a full resolution file with EXIF. You provided cropped files with no information about the crops or processing.

I wrote that in the very original post: "processed without any treatment with RawTherapee except for curves, everything hand held". About the EXIF, yes, you're right, it was my fault, I forgot to copy the exif from the orf (GIMP messes up the EXIF of RT output). But I wrote each relevant exif data in my original post, too, below each image.

I save RAW files and use a single focus point and choose targets with at least moderate contrast for testing. You supplied none of the information about your image or processing and the first target had little contrast except for the roofing screw.

Read above, please. Nothing except curves.

However, if you would supply your original EXIF file, I can easily process my file in exactly the same way using Olympus Viewer and export them to jpg, since Viewer can replicate any camera settings. You lighting conditions were not that different (one stop). If you used some other processor rather than the Olympus image processor to convert Olympus RAW files, then that my explain why your files look so blurry.

We just processed them differently, you with the on camera processor, I completely flat with RT (except for curves).

Your files 3&4 were extremely blurry with both lenses, however, without any other information and no original file, there is no way to know why this is true. Both are really bad even for 100% crops given that this was a stationary target. It really just looks like they were not in focus. Was the target really that blurry? If so, then why not choose a very detailed target for comparisons.

They are flat, without any treatment, not bad.

I did not say anything about your Toucan. That image was what I would expect in clarity and resolution, based on my experience with the Olympus 75-300 and the E-M1.

Actually, I don't think it is good in that respect, not even close. The toucan was far away, the light was terrible. I posted it to show the IBIS, not the resolution.

I also hand hold everything and can hand hold the EC14-50-200 down to 1/30 and the EC14+70-300 down to 1/50 (about 50% success rate at those shutter speeds - depends on the time of day, how tired I am and how much coffee I have had) and so I am not surprised at the 1/30 second image. My gallery contains a fairly large number of hand held images at low shutter speeds.

Yes, I understand now. But I was used to my E3 and E5, both of which have much worse IBIS. I cannot shoot with them at full zoom below 1/160 or 1/125 (throwing away most pictures). That's why I was surprised by the EM1 IBIS.

Best,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

 

[Dave Lively]

Hi,

Another surprise with the EM1 was the stabilization. I took several keepers at 300mm and 1/30s! Amazing.

Do you use the OIS in the lens or IBIS in your camera? With my 100-300 on my GX7 I find 1/60 is about as low as I can go handheld and only if I take a burst and pick the sharp shots out of the group.

 

[bigley Ling]

The 100-300 has been a fine performer from the start. I suspect that those who find issue with the long end of this lens forget to set the aperture to 7.1 or 7.2 to get better sharpness. For the size and weight, it returns big time.

there is no need to stop down to 7.1 to get sharp focus at 300mm. All that is required is good focusing technique. Sometimes if the subject is too far, the AF can be slightly out. This can be mis read as softness. I have had amazing success with the panny 100-300 wide open, as long as focus is spot on.

 

[drj3]

I wrote that in the very original post: "processed without any treatment with RawTherapee except for curves, everything hand held". About the EXIF, yes, you're right, it was my fault, I forgot to copy the exif from the orf (GIMP messes up the EXIF of RT output). But I wrote each relevant exif data in my original post, too, below each image.

Some RAW processors take whatever your camera setting are as the starting point for the RAW file. I have no idea about RawTherapee since I only use either the Olympus converter or Adobe. What are your default camera settings for contrast, sharpness, saturation and noise?

I save RAW files and use a single focus point and choose targets with at least moderate contrast for testing. You supplied none of the information about your image or processing and the first target had little contrast except for the roofing screw.

Your files 3&4 were extremely blurry with both lenses, however, without any other information and no original file, there is no way to know why this is true. Both are really bad even for 100% crops given that this was a stationary target. It really just looks like they were not in focus. Was the target really that blurry? If so, then why not choose a very detailed target for comparisons.

They are flat, without any treatment, not bad.

To me 3&4 look out of focus, even if all your camera settings are at -2. When I have a RAW image the looks like that at 100% - with no processing of any kind, I would not bother converting it. I have some images that look like your #1 at ISO 200 and 1/400 second, but in such cases I simply missed the focus point (something else in the image was in good focus).

I did not say anything about your Toucan. That image was what I would expect in clarity and resolution, based on my experience with the Olympus 75-300 and the E-M1.

Actually, I don't think it is good in that respect, not even close. The toucan was far away, the light was terrible. I posted it to show the IBIS, not the resolution.

I did not say that it was good, just that it looks like similar images I have taken at that shutter speed and ISO with the Olympus mFT 75-300 or FTs 70-300. It's not bad and it is good for 1/30 second with a light weight lens at that ISO.

I also hand hold everything and can hand hold the EC14-50-200 down to 1/30 and the EC14+70-300 down to 1/50 (about 50% success rate at those shutter speeds - depends on the time of day, how tired I am and how much coffee I have had) and so I am not surprised at the 1/30 second image. My gallery contains a fairly large number of hand held images at low shutter speeds.

Yes, I understand now. But I was used to my E3 and E5, both of which have much worse IBIS. I cannot shoot with them at full zoom below 1/160 or 1/125 (throwing away most pictures). That's why I was surprised by the EM1 IBIS.

I actually tried to keep my E5 at 1/250 seconds or slower if I wanted a high success rate at anything above 250mm (500mm equivalent).

If the two images you posted are typical for your EC14+50-200, then I would suggest you check the focus accuracy and adjust if necessary.

Best,

L.

 

[Dave Lively]

So I was waiting for the M.Zuiko 300mm F4. Now I'm not sure anymore if this would make a big difference... Of course, I would have to see a comparative output. Now, the only negative point about the 100-300 is the lack of weather seals.

Since you need to shoot handheld it might not make much of a difference. But I am really hoping the Olympus 300mm will be sharp enough to be used with a 1.4 TC even if that does require a tripod.

I am very happy with my 100-300 but I know better results are possible. I recently got a Canon FD 300mm f2.8 that is going to replace the Canon FD 300mm f4 L I bought a year ago. These are both 25 year old manual focus lenses but very good ones. While the 100-300 is good if you compare it to a higher grade lens there is a difference. It show up most when you photograph something with a lot of contrast. The 100% crops below were both taken with IBIS and OIS off with the lens on a good tripod and head. The Canon lens is just as good at f4 but the thin DOF makes it harder to compare. We will not know until it comes out but I am hoping the Olympus 300mm will be as good as the Canon.


Panasonic 100-300 at f8


Canon FD 300mm L at f5.6

I am also hoping to use the Olympus 300mm with a 1.4 TC. If it is like the FD lens the Olympus 300mm will have plenty of resolution to be used with a 1.4TC. I have both a 1.4 and 2.0 TC for the Canon lens. The 1.4TC works great but the 2.0 TC shows little extra detail. With the high pixel density of m43 a 2.0TC is just asking too much. The high pixel density acts much like a TC without any sort of optical TC, magnifying any defects in the lens.

The 100-300 is does not have any resolution to spare. It is too slow to be used with a TC but if someone tried it I doubt they would see any increase in resolution. If Panasonic or Olympus ever come out with a 24MP body the difference between a good 300mm prime and the 100-300 will be even more apparent.

The Olympus 300mm is going to have to prove itself and work well with a TC before I buy it. If not I will keep using my 100-300 as my preferred long lens and the Canon FD 300mm with a 1.4TC when I can use a tripod, have time for manual focus and do not mind lugging a 5 pound lens around. Basically birds at a feeder. If the Olympus 300 lives up to my hopes it will definitely replace the Canon and possible also the Panasonic lens.

 

[micksh6]

E-M1 (and actually all Olympus m4/3 cameras since 2008) has blinkies to help you in choosing proper exposure. E-5 couldn't have them with optical viewfinder. The blinkies have been the way to set proper exposure for a while now. So, you probably have a room for improvement in mastering exposure with micro 4/3.

The E5 (like virtually all decent cameras) also have what you called "blinkies", only in the LCD, of course. The only difference is that you have to take you eye from the viewfinder to check for exposure after shooting (something that is actually quite important to me, a big plus for m43rds).

Unfortunately, the tests are deleted. But, as I said, I shoot 10 pictures with each setting, and kept the sharpest (it was difficult to choose, since all pictures were very similar). It's only a weird feeling.

Too bad that you couldn't keep the files for a few days. Now we won't know the truth.

We? You don't, I do.

I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.

How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test??

Because your images are way softer than what I saw before, full-res pictures with the same 50-200mm SWD lens and 1.4x converter. Now I can't find that thread althought I commented in it. It probably was deleted for some reasons.

Not sure why you keep arguing since you were presented with an example of how sharp your photos should be. This image in this post.

If you can't get such sharp photos it means there is something wrong either with your gear or with your technics, and you need to address that. It's that simple.

I have extremely sharp images from the 50-200 with both TC's, you just have to process them correctly instead of flat for testing. This shot was taken with the same 50-200 copy, but with the "quite soft" 2.0TC:

Best,

Images shot at F11 aperture can't prove anything since sharpness is already compromised by diffraction

PS. If you do more noise tests as you promised to Anders W, please be kind and share raw files so interested people could look at them in RawDigger. There are many free sites that can store and share large files - Dropbox, Rapidshare, Onedrive, Google drive, etc. You don't have to delete your test images like you did, even if you are limited in disk space.

 

[X_Holger]

When I crop an image with Photoshop (vers. CS6) and save those cropped images all Exifs are removed by Photoshop...

The shutterspeeds were 1/30 sec at F6.3 / F6.7, 1/20 at F8 with the EC-20.

I stopped down the 50.200 + EC-14 for comparable F-stops, the 75-300 is not faster than F6.7 at 300mm

In my opinion AS0 does not make sense on a heavy tripod.

I made several pictures at each F-Stop with different F-Stops, F4.9, F5.6, F6.3 (F6.7), F7.1, F8 and F9.

The results are consistent and there are no visible ShutterShock issues.

All camera adjustments have been the same and I see no disadvatage to use jpegs straight out of the camera in comparison to processed RAW-files, in contrary.

All I am saying is that the 50-200 SWD plus EC-14 is sharper than the Olympus 75-300 /4.8-6.7 at roughly the same aperture value at a distance of 3 meters to the subject and that I doubt that the Panasonic 100-300 will behave much differently.

I owned the Panasonic 100-300 for one year before I sold it and at a distance of three meters at 300mm there was no visible advantage compared to the Olympus 75-300.

The pictures of luisforit taken with the 50-200 + EC-14 look unusually soft and I have the impression that something is wrong with his shots.

 

[luisflorit]

Hi,

Another surprise with the EM1 was the stabilization. I took several keepers at 300mm and 1/30s! Amazing.

Do you use the OIS in the lens or IBIS in your camera? With my 100-300 on my GX7 I find 1/60 is about as low as I can go handheld and only if I take a burst and pick the sharp shots out of the group.

I used IBIS. I tested it today against OIS, and it seems a bit better in my hands.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that you can shoot consistently at 1/30s and 300mm. I'm just saying I got several good pictures at that speed, but my purpose was to try to push the limits of the gear to the max, to know its limitations. But I think 1/125 or 1/160 should be fine to get a good amount of keepers.

Best,

L.

 

[luisflorit]

I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.

How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test??

Because your images are way softer than what I saw before, full-res pictures with the same 50-200mm SWD lens and 1.4x converter. Now I can't find that thread althought I commented in it. It probably was deleted for some reasons.

Not sure why you keep arguing since you were presented with an example of how sharp your photos should be. This image in this post.

Did you read the follow ups?? The user pic is an OOC JPG, heavily processed by Oly, so completely different processing.

If you can't get such sharp photos it means there is something wrong either with your gear or with your technics, and you need to address that. It's that simple.

I have extremely sharp images from the 50-200 with both TC's, you just have to process them correctly instead of flat for testing. This shot was taken with the same 50-200 copy, but with the "quite soft" 2.0TC:

Best,

Images shot at F11 aperture can't prove anything since sharpness is already compromised by diffraction

Gosh! It was just an example. These are wide open of a recent trip, very same 50-200 + TC1.4 combo:

Nothing wrong with my lens, my original post showed FLAT, UNPROCESSED PICTURES. Just that.

PS. If you do more noise tests as you promised to Anders W, please be kind and share raw files so interested people could look at them in RawDigger. There are many free sites that can store and share large files - Dropbox, Rapidshare, Onedrive, Google drive, etc. You don't have to delete your test images like you did, even if you are limited in disk space.

I deleted the ORFs because I considered them irrelevant, not because of space.

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

 

[luisflorit]

I wrote that in the very original post: "processed without any treatment with RawTherapee except for curves, everything hand held". About the EXIF, yes, you're right, it was my fault, I forgot to copy the exif from the orf (GIMP messes up the EXIF of RT output). But I wrote each relevant exif data in my original post, too, below each image.

Some RAW processors take whatever your camera setting are as the starting point for the RAW file. I have no idea about RawTherapee since I only use either the Olympus converter or Adobe. What are your default camera settings for contrast, sharpness, saturation and noise?

I don't use any camera preset, everything neutral (0). From that, I process to my liking. I usually find Oly OOC jpg slightly overcooked, specially for contrast (and I do like contrasty images). In fact, I have no idea if RT can read the camera parameters.

I save RAW files and use a single focus point and choose targets with at least moderate contrast for testing. You supplied none of the information about your image or processing and the first target had little contrast except for the roofing screw.

Your files 3&4 were extremely blurry with both lenses, however, without any other information and no original file, there is no way to know why this is true. Both are really bad even for 100% crops given that this was a stationary target. It really just looks like they were not in focus. Was the target really that blurry? If so, then why not choose a very detailed target for comparisons.

They are flat, without any treatment, not bad.

To me 3&4 look out of focus, even if all your camera settings are at -2. When I have a RAW image the looks like that at 100% - with no processing of any kind, I would not bother converting it. I have some images that look like your #1 at ISO 200 and 1/400 second, but in such cases I simply missed the focus point (something else in the image was in good focus).

Maybe you look at the camera preset, as you wrote above?

I also hand hold everything and can hand hold the EC14-50-200 down to 1/30 and the EC14+70-300 down to 1/50 (about 50% success rate at those shutter speeds - depends on the time of day, how tired I am and how much coffee I have had) and so I am not surprised at the 1/30 second image. My gallery contains a fairly large number of hand held images at low shutter speeds.

Yes, I understand now. But I was used to my E3 and E5, both of which have much worse IBIS. I cannot shoot with them at full zoom below 1/160 or 1/125 (throwing away most pictures). That's why I was surprised by the EM1 IBIS.

I actually tried to keep my E5 at 1/250 seconds or slower if I wanted a high success rate at anything above 250mm (500mm equivalent).

Exactly. To get consistent results, my E5 is at 1/250. I wish I could set it even higher, but flash sync ends at 1/250 in the E5.

If the two images you posted are typical for your EC14+50-200, then I would suggest you check the focus accuracy and adjust if necessary.

Yes, they are typical when unprocessed. When I properly process them, I get good results, even with very tricky subject like black birds (exact same 50-200+1.4TC combo):

Cheers,

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

 

[luisflorit]

So I was waiting for the M.Zuiko 300mm F4. Now I'm not sure anymore if this would make a big difference... Of course, I would have to see a comparative output. Now, the only negative point about the 100-300 is the lack of weather seals.

Since you need to shoot handheld it might not make much of a difference. But I am really hoping the Olympus 300mm will be sharp enough to be used with a 1.4 TC even if that does require a tripod.

Now that would make lots of difference, indeed.

I am very happy with my 100-300 but I know better results are possible. I recently got a Canon FD 300mm f2.8 that is going to replace the Canon FD 300mm f4 L I bought a year ago. These are both 25 year old manual focus lenses but very good ones. While the 100-300 is good if you compare it to a higher grade lens there is a difference.

Absolutely! Now you're comparing with a top L prime, that is much better than the 50-200, even worse with the TC. Not fair.

It show up most when you photograph something with a lot of contrast. The 100% crops below were both taken with IBIS and OIS off with the lens on a good tripod and head. The Canon lens is just as good at f4 but the thin DOF makes it harder to compare. We will not know until it comes out but I am hoping the Olympus 300mm will be as good as the Canon.


Panasonic 100-300 at f8


Canon FD 300mm L at f5.6

Huge difference, indeed, what a lovely lens, very contrasty. I expected this difference for the 50-200!

I am also hoping to use the Olympus 300mm with a 1.4 TC. If it is like the FD lens the Olympus 300mm will have plenty of resolution to be used with a 1.4TC. I have both a 1.4 and 2.0 TC for the Canon lens. The 1.4TC works great but the 2.0 TC shows little extra detail. With the high pixel density of m43 a 2.0TC is just asking too much. The high pixel density acts much like a TC without any sort of optical TC, magnifying any defects in the lens.

I've read that is a problem with the top Nikon FF. Such huge resolution takes its toll on the lenses: you have to use the very best lenses to really make good use of the sensor.

The 100-300 is does not have any resolution to spare. It is too slow to be used with a TC but if someone tried it I doubt they would see any increase in resolution. If Panasonic or Olympus ever come out with a 24MP body the difference between a good 300mm prime and the 100-300 will be even more apparent.

No doubt.

The Olympus 300mm is going to have to prove itself and work well with a TC before I buy it. If not I will keep using my 100-300 as my preferred long lens and the Canon FD 300mm with a 1.4TC when I can use a tripod, have time for manual focus and do not mind lugging a 5 pound lens around.

Once a year for me...

Basically birds at a feeder. If the Olympus 300 lives up to my hopes it will definitely replace the Canon and possible also the Panasonic lens.

That was my thought. I bought the Pany just to fill the blank until I get the Oly. But now I would look closely at comparisons, to see if it is worth it, because I expect it to be really expensive.

Thanks for the post!

L.

--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo

 

[drj3]

I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.

How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test??

Because your images are way softer than what I saw before, full-res pictures with the same 50-200mm SWD lens and 1.4x converter. Now I can't find that thread althought I commented in it. It probably was deleted for some reasons.

Not sure why you keep arguing since you were presented with an example of how sharp your photos should be. This image in this post.

Did you read the follow ups?? The user pic is an OOC JPG, heavily processed by Oly, so completely different processing.

 

[CrisPhoto]

Hi,

I don't want to disturb the party. But last year I compared my 75-300 with my 50-200SWD and the SWD lens won by far. Even upscaled from 200mm to 300mm FOV via PhotoShop the 50-200 was better. Using a tele converter gives even better results.

I sold my 75-300mm without hesitation ...

Two weeks ago, I was curios if the AntiShock=0s makes a difference and while I no longer have the 75-300mm, I got a 100-300mm from a frined.

Compared to my 50-200SW+TC14 the 100-300 was much softer. Just like your pictures in the first posting but the other way round: The 50-200 has more contrast and a clearly visible sharp area while the 100-300 has some blue glow and is not 100% sharp.

I believe your findings are correct with your copies of 50-200 and 100-300, but you can not generalize it on all these lenses.

At least my copy of the 50-200mm is clearly better than my 75-300Mk1, my 75-300Mk2 and better than the 100-300mm I had for a weekend.

By the way: I had to do the focus-fine-tune thing with my 50-200. When using the EC14 some front focus was visible, I get best sharpness with +2/+3 steps correction.

Christof

 

[Anders W]

No, definitely the grain I see in your shot is better than the one I see in mine. However, as you know, this is a processed shot, so it is in fact very hard to tell just from this. I can of course process mine to look even better than yours, and so you can (read below).

OK. But there was no selection of anything here, or in the shot below.

Yeah, I suspected that.

And no NR beyond LR defaults.

Maybe is that. I never used LR (Linux user here). I hate noise, but hate NR even more. The finest detail is very important to me.

LR doesn't use any luminance NR by default, which is what matters with regard to what we usually have in mind when we say detail (which is luminance rather than chroma detail). It does use a small amount of chroma NR. With a perfectly exposed shot at ISO 200, you don't really need that either. But it hardly does any damage either so I usually leave it as it is.

I would have to look back to tell for sure when it comes to sharpening. But my guess is that the first is with LR deffaults and the second a bit more than that (but in way that does not provoke too much noise).

I see.

I'll take a shot, and post the ORF file for you to play with. That's the only way for you to understand what I mean.

OK. Please do that.

Anyway, I will apply exposure shift of +2/3 EV to all my pictures, as I do with my E5, since Oly RAW files are exposed to the left for ISO 200 and above (since the E620). That will take care of good amount of noise.

L.

PS: some of the arguments here in my thread remembered me why I left the forum, that you asked me the other day...

Well, you still have to wear a pretty thick skin at times. But I think the reason for some of the reactions is that your claims are simply a bit provocative in view of what at least some people consider established facts. Exactly how provocative something is can be a bit difficult to judge if you haven't been around here for a while.

 

[Anders W]

BTW, it could well be that RawTherapee is not yet fine tuned for the EM1.

I realized that processing the EM1 pictures in LAB gives much better noise than in RGB with RT. But you have to really push it, the flat colors are quite dull and the exposure way off.

Do you know where I can find EM1+lenses profiles for RT?

Sorry. No idea. I haven't even tried RT.

 

[luisflorit]

I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.

How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test??

Because your images are way softer than what I saw before, full-res pictures with the same 50-200mm SWD lens and 1.4x converter. Now I can't find that thread althought I commented in it. It probably was deleted for some reasons.

Not sure why you keep arguing since you were presented with an example of how sharp your photos should be. This image in this post.

Did you read the follow ups?? The user pic is an OOC JPG, heavily processed by Oly, so completely different processing.

 

[luisflorit]

CEven upscaled from 200mm to 300mm FOV via PhotoShop the 50-200 was better. Using a tele converter gives even better results.

Yes, zuikos TC's degrade very little. So they are expensive....

I sold my 75-300mm without hesitation ...

Two weeks ago, I was curios if the AntiShock=0s makes a difference and while I no longer have the 75-300mm, I got a 100-300mm from a frined.

Compared to my 50-200SW+TC14 the 100-300 was much softer. Just like your pictures in the first posting but the other way round: The 50-200 has more contrast and a clearly visible sharp area while the 100-300 has some blue glow and is not 100% sharp.

I believe your findings are correct *with your copies of 50-200 and 100-300*, but you can not generalize it on all these lenses.

Absolutely. I never intended to make general claims like that, sorry if it seemed so. (It seemed so?)

At least my copy of the 50-200mm is clearly better than my 75-300Mk1, my 75-300Mk2 and better than the 100-300mm I had for a weekend.

Did you do your tests hand held? Mine were, that could make a difference (but I doubt it, since I shoot at 1/400).

By the way: I had to do the focus-fine-tune thing with my 50-200. When using the EC14 some front focus was visible, I get best sharpness with +2/+3 steps correction.

I have my E5 focus finely tuned for all my lenses. I didn't check my EM1, though, but that's why I didn't shoot a flat surface perpendicular to the lens axis (that's how you fine tune focus, btw). The crops are among the sharpest part of the images. Maybe it is easy to check this in the doll pic.

Cheers,

L.

 

[luisflorit]

PS: some of the arguments here in my thread remembered me why I left the forum, that you asked me the other day...

Well, you still have to wear a pretty thick skin at times. But I think the reason for some of the reactions is that your claims are simply a bit provocative in view of what at least some people consider established facts.

You are probably right, but how can a claim about *MY* lenses be an "established fact" for some folks here?

Anyway, I didn't expect anyone to compare an uncooked RAW with an Oly processed JPG of a completely different subject taken miles away. I really don't have time to argue in those terms. I'm glad I didn't write the word "equivalence"!!

Exactly how provocative something is can be a bit difficult to judge if you haven't been around here for a while.

I expected the opposite reaction, since I was praising m43rds, like some folks had.

L.

 

[Brian Wadie]

thanks for this thread Luis, I've been prompted to check the focus adjustment of my "new to me" 50-200 + EC-14 and found that the reason I was losing detail with this combination at distance (compared to the bare lens) was that it need +12 focus adjustment dialled in.

Its is now very similar in sharpness and detail to the bare lens at both long (around 800m) and short range at all focal lengths up to 283mm

(its something I checked and adjusted almost automatically in my canon days but forgot that with the 4/3rds lenses using PDAF, it may also be necessary with the EM-1)

--
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!