Can the M.Zuiko MC-14 Teleconverter be used with Legacy Lenses?

[JeanPierre Martel]

The answer is yes.

Since the front part of the MC-14 teleconverter has a protuberance that has to fit inside the back of a lens, that teleconverter is only compatible with a couple of native µ4/3 lenses; the M.Zuiko 300mm F/4,0 and the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8.

Beside cine lenses, all legacy lenses, must to be used with an adapter which is nothing but a spacer (an empty tube).

Consequently, the M.Zuiko MC-14 should be compatible will all those lenses.

It can be used with them but does it work fine?

In order to reply to that question, I’ve used the Helios 85mm F/1,5 lens (Canon Mount) with an EOM-µ4/3 adapter.

With the MC-14, the Helios 85mm F/1,5 becomes a 119mm F/2,1 lens.

The DoF seems deeper (because the change from F/1,5 to F/2,1) and the bokeh is smoother.

Hereunder are the results:


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/1600 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/1600 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/2500 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/4000 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/2000 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/400 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/2500 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/1250 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/4000 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/3200 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 200 — 119 mm


Helios 85mm F/1,5 + MC-14 — 1/4000 sec. — F/2,1 — ISO 100 — 119 mm

 

[The Grumpy Snapper]

I like your post. A lens bought maybe 35 years ago, can still provide fun and joy today. Isn't that noteworthy, in a world where a phone goes to landfill in just 3 years.

It's a silvernose so could be 45 years old and may be single coated. I purchased my 50mm silvernose in 1976.

--
It's the image that's important, not the tools used to make it.

 

[cba_melbourne]

It's hard to make any judgement about IQ, from pictures shot through a window. But I like them nonetheless.

 

[EZGritz]

Trust me when I tell you not enough light is the problem with these. I've done very well at that window in bright light. Its a gloomy day in the Pacific Northwest. Focus would be better if I could have stopped the lens down but I would have not been able to freeze the wings with a slower shutter speed.

Slower shutter or darker exposure for deeper DOF. I doubt if it would have helped. More sun, definitely. Through the TC too, not matched to an OM lens.

OP's question answered anyway. Yeah you can use the MC-14 and probably the MC-20 with OM lenses.

 

[EZGritz]

No kiddin? Wow. Think I paid $60-80 for this lens 10 years ago. I like it a lot. A lot of these OM lenses disappeared from the market over the last few years. I think they found new homes and are in use. I have no interest in selling this one. I need to use it more.

 

[R Liewenberger]

I like your post. A lens bought maybe 35 years ago, can still provide fun and joy today. Isn't that noteworthy, in a world where a phone goes to landfill in just 3 years.

It's a silvernose so could be 45 years old and may be single coated. I purchased my 50mm silvernose in 1976.

Overall there were obviously four versions of this 135/2.8 (in chronological order):

E.Zuiko Auto-T 1:2,8/135mm with silvernose

E.Zuiko Auto-T 1:2,8/135mm without silvernose

Zuiko MC Auto-T 1:2,8/135mm

Zuiko Auto-T 1:2,8/135mm

The MC-version was definitely multi-coated, different to the early single-coated E-Zuiko silvernoses, but there might have been first multi-coated (MC) versions, already with the E-Zuikos, without mentioning these new coatings on the lens, like they did with the third version, Zuiko MC Auto-T.

From here (German language): https://olypedia.de/index.php?title=Zuiko_Auto-T_1:2,8/135_mm



Liewenberger

 

[Ergellegre]

MC14 + 26mm ext. tubes + Zuiko 50mm f1.8 MIJ @ f8

It works! But does it look elegant?

 

[EZGritz]

The extension tubes allow you to focus closer?

 

[cba_melbourne]

I have two, a "Fotga" and a "Fotasy" 4/3 to m4/3 adapters but neither one fits the MC-14.

I have not figured out what exactly in there it is that is not letting it fit, but when I do it is getting cut, sawed, sanded off.

There two things.

The inner diameter of the adapter may be too small for the lens that protrudes from the MC-14. With some adapters, it is enough to remove the decorative/protective rubber sleeve that is around this protruding MC-14 lens. Other adapters need their inner diameter widened (on Chinese adapters its just plastic and easy to modify).

The other thing is the metal nose and additional contact on the MC14. Apparently some adapters have a recess for this. The ones I have (black Kenko and the red Fotga) need to have such a recess machined into (milled) to fit in front of the MC14 - I just keep postponing the job because I am too lazy to set up the rotary table to do a nice job of it.

Any hints on the part, bump, metal bit, etc, to remove on the two 4/3 to m4/3 adapters would be appreciated.

On the MC-14 it may have something to do with a little "island" at the 10:00 position if looking at the front of it.

There is what appears to be a gold Electrical contact poking out of one end of the island.

It appears to line up with one of two silver contacts on the end of the 40-150.

It is raised off the bed a little higher than the full set of contacts on the MC-14, as the two silver contacts are recessed in lower on the 40-150.

Maybe taping over it temporarily would reveal the function (or non function in that case) of the contact.

I have not investigated this. But I suspect the contact row in the MC-14 are just straight feed through. The camera however does know when an MC-14 is attached, it displays the correct new FL/aperture of the lens. I suspect with the extra contact, The MC-14 tells the 40-150pro LENS that he is installed, the lens then tells the camera via the normal contact row that it is now a 1.4 times longer FL with smaller aperture.

 

[EZGritz]

Besides being inexpensive this is why I like the OM 135 f/2/8 on the left.

I found and bought the 200 f/4 this morning for $59. Same reason. 560mm f/5.6 with the 1.4XTC in a reasonably small, light package. Have to stop it down to f/8 to sharpen it but will use it outdoors in good light anyway. Sometimes I'll carry it when I don't want to haul the 40-150PRO and the TC around. Discovering it works with the 1.4XTC in this thread makes it more useful.

I'd love an M43 version of the 150 f/2 Four Thirds lens that is so big and expensive used. I ask the OLY reps every time I see them. So far no interest at corporate. A big version of the 75 f/1.8 pictured here. Very useful FL and good subject separation in a 150 version.



A photo taken with the 135 f/2.8 at 1/5 ISO800. A lot of glare from natural light on the left. No filter on it but if you view the original size image, the print on the white bottle looks pretty good. That's where I focused it. Silver nose OM 135. Maybe a newer multi-coated one would have worked better. Measured it 11 feet away. A lot less weight to haul around compared with doing this with the 40-150PRO as long as I have time to focus and the PRO lens isn't already mounted. The non-pro 40-150 would be easier. Don't have one. Those are cheap too, weigh nothing and AF.

 

[Ergellegre]

The extension tubes allow you to focus closer?

Yep. The Olympus logo was 26mm across, the sensor ~22mm diagonal, so not quite a 1:1 combo.

 

[EZGritz]

Interesting. Use it much?

 

[The Grumpy Snapper]

MC14 + 26mm ext. tubes + Zuiko 50mm f1.8 MIJ @ f8

It works! But does it look elegant?

Swap the position of the extension tubes and check how the magnification and working distant change.

--
It's the image that's important, not the tools used to make it.

 

[R Liewenberger]

Besides being inexpensive this is why I like the OM 135 f/2/8 on the left.

Yes, this 135mm Oly seems to be a very nice lens.

The first 135mm I bought was a Komine made Vivitar 135/2.8. A nice good average one, but I always thought the Oly might be a better lens. But I never bought that 135mm Oly. What I bought was another Komine made Vivitar, the 135/2.8 CF, the 'Close Focus' version, actually a very good and sharp lens that can also do 1:2 macro: https://olypedia.de/index.php?title=Vivitar_Auto_Telephoto_Close_Focusing_1:2,8/135_mm

My next 135 was the Vivitar 135/2.3, the little brother of the Series 1 200/3.0. Outstanding build quality, both of them. http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/vivitar-series-1-135mm-f23.html

I found and bought the 200 f/4 this morning for $59. Same reason. 560mm f/5.6 with the 1.4XTC in a reasonably small, light package. Have to stop it down to f/8 to sharpen it but will use it outdoors in good light anyway. Sometimes I'll carry it when I don't want to haul the 40-150PRO and the TC around. Discovering it works with the 1.4XTC in this thread makes it more useful.

In that 200mm range I started with the Series 1 Vivitar, also a Komine lens, the 200/3.0. Very much comparable to that nice 135/2.3, mentioned above. For quite some time, both these lenses were my favorite ones on the E-520.

Next one in that plus/minus 200mm range was the Oly 180/2.8. Very sharp, build quality also very good.

The main problem with all these lenses: Now and then they could show rather bad CA or PF, whatever it's called; the 180 Oly probably being the worst in this regard.

The solution re CA/PF was the Nikkor, the MF ED 180/2.8 AiS. Like the little Nikkor MF 105/2.5 AiS pretty good wide open and already perfectly sharp at f/4. These two are definitely my best old manual lenses! I should have started this old manual lens game with these two Nikkors, could have saved a lot of money that way!

I'd love an M43 version of the 150 f/2 Four Thirds lens that is so big and expensive used.

Yes, big and expensive, but worth every Penny! Just like the 35-100/2.0. To make it feel less expensive: I simply kept (and keep) shooting the old E-5, no m4/3 body so far, but both these lenses! The 150 used, the 35-100 brand-new. About €2.800 for both. Probably less than what others payed for 2 or 3 new bodies over the last couple years.

Oly still sells the 150/2.0 brand-new, € 2.799 in Germany, € 1.819 in Spain and Portugal:

https://shop.olympus.eu/de_DE/objektive/d-slr-objektive/

https://shop.olympus.eu/es_ES/objetivos/objetivos-reflex-digitales

https://shop.olympus.eu/pt_PT/objetivas/objetivas-slr-digital

I ask the OLY reps every time I see them. So far no interest at corporate. A big version of the 75 f/1.8 pictured here. Very useful FL and good subject separation in a 150 version.



A photo taken with the 135 f/2.8 at 1/5 ISO800. A lot of glare from natural light on the left. No filter on it but if you view the original size image, the print on the white bottle looks pretty good. That's where I focused it. Silver nose OM 135. Maybe a newer multi-coated one would have worked better.

Not sure, but I think multi-coated usually means better contrast.

Measured it 11 feet away. A lot less weight to haul around compared with doing this with the 40-150PRO as long as I have time to focus and the PRO lens isn't already mounted.

Funny about the weight: After a day with the 150/2.0, the 50-200 SWD feels like some lightweight plastic lens! :-D

The non-pro 40-150 would be easier. Don't have one. Those are cheap too, weigh nothing and AF.

Your Vitamin D pills expired Nov. 2018! :-D

Liewenberger

 

[EZGritz]

"Next one in that plus/minus 200mm range was the Oly 180/2.8. Very sharp, build quality also very good."

Seems to have a good reputation. Still ~ $300. Pretty large and heavy. I can live without this one.

"The main problem with all these lenses: Now and then they could show rather bad CA or PF, whatever it's called; the 180 Oly probably being the worst in this regard.
The solution re CA/PF was the Nikkor, the MF ED 180/2.8 AiS. Like the little Nikkor MF 105/2.5 AiS pretty good wide open and already perfectly sharp at f/4. These two are definitely my best old manual lenses! I should have started this old manual lens game with these two Nikkors, could have saved a lot of money that way!"

I've seen this. Careful where you use them or clean the images up in post. I think I see a little of it in the vitamin bottle photo, glare from natural light coming in from a window on the left. There are multiple versions of these old OLYs where they changed coatings. Maybe the newer ones don't suffer as much from this.

I had some FT lenses. Liked them a lot. Kept the 50 f/2. Sold the others because they didn't focus fast enough for me on the CDAF M43 bodies. They could work on the EM-1.2. The 50 f/2 foceses pretty fast on it. Not as fast as M43 lenses. I love the FT 50mm f/2.

I didn't know they had new old stock of the 150 f/2. Too heavy for me. Like an M43 version if they can make it the weight of the 40-150PRO.

"Funny about the weight: After a day with the 150/2.0, the 50-200 SWD feels like some lightweight plastic lens!"

The 40-150PRO is lighter and handles easier than the 50-200 and the focus is very fast. The 1.4XTC is a lot better and the PRO has less CA. But its clinical. Sometimes the bokeh is ugly. The 50-200 made more appealing images IMO.


Your Vitamin D pills expired Nov. 2018!

Not as old as my OM lenses! , Dr. Liewenberger

EZ

 

[Ergellegre]

The MC14 doesn't fit into the extension tubes I have here. If I can find my OM tubes, I'll give it a try.

 

[cba_melbourne]

The MC14 doesn't fit into the extension tubes I have here. If I can find my OM tubes, I'll give it a try.

That is correct. Very few adaptors fit without some modifications.

See why here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63575834

 

[EZGritz]

They fit into the adaptor I'm using to mount them to the EM-1.2. You can mount extension tubes in front of the adaptor.

 

[PeterCee]

Just tried this combo EM5iii, MC20, dumb m43 -FD adapter, Canon FD 135 / 2.0. This lens is one of the sharpest legacy lenses I have (rivalled by OM 100 / 2.0 perhaps - must try that) and it looks very promising IQ wise given all the constraints. Not sure what use it could be put to but I have logged it in the 5iii's neat 'Lens Info Settings' function. The MC14 hopefully will give even better results.

Despite an earlier post cautioning against it I will try these two TCs on the Tamron 500 mirror, hang the high ISO! Might be a sunny day combo.

 

[PeterCee]

Addendum: Not sure how this will go longer term - when next switched on the camera became a bit uncooperative- needed a battery pop to settle it. No time to fiddle further, so . . . . try at your own risk.

 

[EZGritz]

For me when I want the legacy lens look and to carry something smaller and lighter. I think shooting manual is fun. I get to do something besides change settings, point and shoot. MC20 is highly regarded. I'll probably buy one. With the 200mm OM/4, longer than anything I have but has to be stopped down 2 stops. Pretty slow with a TC, especially the MC20 but I'm in the desert in summer sometimes. More like than I need. Sometimes you need ND filters for beaches, moving water. That would be enough light. Have to look into a 100 f/2.