Olympus 100-400mm F5-6.3 vs Olympus PRO 40-150mm F2.8 + teleconverter

My comparisons between my 40-150 f/2.8 Pro with the 1.4 and 2X converters vs my PL 100-400 are quite different. In all overlapping focal ranges (100-300) the Panny was significantly sharper than the 40-150 with converters. Without the converters the 40-150 was the winner. I tried with my PL100-400 and my wife’s 40-150 Pro and her PL 100-400 and 2 copies each of the 1.4 and 2x converters. We both kept our 40-150 Pro but sent the converters packing

Sadly no lab tested the MC-20 + Oly 40-150 f2.8, the MC-14 combo is tested by digitalkamera.de.
I also was not satisfied and ordered the Oly 100-400mm F5-6.3. Crucial for me is the performance at 400mm f6.3 and behind to get better DOF. I hope the MC-14 and the 40-150f2.8 + 100-400mm (that can also use the MC-14) offer much better quality.

I have the MC-14 and the Oly 40-150 on a G9, at 210mm and f4.5 the center image is much sharper as an up cropped (DXO Bicubic) normal 150mm f4.0 image. So with the TC-14 the lens is still very usable (>= 1/1300s, <= ISO 800) for good sport pictures during the day and i really seem to get maybe 75% more distinguishable pixel (not 100). This is great as 150mm even at crop-factor 2 are bit short for some sports.

Recently I fought the same: Why not add the MC-20? Its cheaper and lighter as second lens. Most people claim the combo is sharper as the Oly 75-300 II (yet this lens is not really sharp at 300mm). Center and edge sharpness is very good at 300mm with the MC-20 when shooting long distance (several 100m) stationary objects at f5.6 - f9. Its better when an up-cropped MC-14 image. So assume my MC-20 copy is ok.

yet where are issues

a) Focus drift: at 250-300 mm and >= f7.1 to f9.0 its clearly visible at distances below 25m (smaller animals, birds etc.). The focus moves with the aperture i.e. when the G9 focuses at f_min in the >= f7.1 image the focus plane is behind with the effect getting worse towards f11. When focusing in really bright light from the front (sun) the G9 will focus below f_min in this case the issue does not exist. I can even see the problem in the view finder when using aperture preview for objects < 5m. Below 8m f6.3 is sharp, f7.1 is maybe 2-3 cm behind ... if an Olympus body compensates that the only option would be to focus not with f_min what basically heavily impacts focus speed.

b) The lens lacks stabilization: the G9 good body IBIS does not help much at 300mm, so I did not really manage to achieve a low hand-held error rate with aperture times > 1/800s. That's sad, quite some stationary animals can be shoot well at 1/250s.

c) Finally Color Errors and Contrast Loss in bright spots.: When-ever you shoot something maybe 20 - 50m that has bright spots (e.g. due to the sun) even at -2/3 EV the MC-20 image quality greatly suffers when compared to the Oly 40-150 + MC-14 or without TC. I noticed this with white sport T-shirts. This problem is also confirmed by professional lab measurements. If the lens is sufficiently sharp what the Oly40-150 is because you gain a lot when shooting in HighRes Mode what mainly suffers from a TC are all that chromatic erros, they are multiplied because here the full lens light dominates whereas the sharpness is mainly defined by the center of the lens what the TC enlarges similar to a crop.

Public see:
https://www.lenstip.com/479.5-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_40-150_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html

I cannot confirm the excessive sharpness loss of lenstip because in his measurement an 150 to 210 mm upcropped Oly 40-150 f4.0 image would be better as the MC-14.

Yet also digitalkamera.de (you have t buy the measurment) confirm the high increase in cromatic aberation. The MC-14 is acceptable the MC-20 not. The Oly 100-400 F5-6.3 received very good measurement results.

Interesting how many opinions from folks who don't actually own the lenses in question.  I own and use the 40-150 2.8, MC-20, Oly 100-400 and 75-300 II.  The reason I buy a long lens is for the reach. Ranked in order of IQ at full zoom - 1. Oly 100-400 2. 40-150 w/MC-20 and 3. 75-300 II.  Among these lenses you can't beat the reach and IQ at 400mm, plus the ability to use TC's.  All of these are very good, but the 100-400 at full zoom is excellent in good light and with good technique.

Geoff Cole Images wrote:

Interesting how many opinions from folks who don't actually own the lenses in question. I own and use the 40-150 2.8, MC-20, Oly 100-400 and 75-300 II. The reason I buy a long lens is for the reach. Ranked in order of IQ at full zoom - 1. Oly 100-400 2. 40-150 w/MC-20 and 3. 75-300 II. Among these lenses you can't beat the reach and IQ at 400mm, plus the ability to use TC's. All of these are very good, but the 100-400 at full zoom is excellent in good light and with good technique.

The problem is when you don't get a good light... I had 100-400 previously, when I owned Em1x. I was not satisfied, but I didn't get good light situations very often, so my use case was against best practices. I can't get around this, I don't have the chance to chase the best light very often.

My main problem though was AF, I think, so when I heard the news of the OM-1 coming, I sold E-M1x and 100-400, chasing a 300 pro (I had 40-150 pro at the time, but I checked it against a friend's one, and I found I had a big lemon, so I sold it too). I got OM-1 and 300 pro, the two TCs I had already. I miss a little the zooming capability of 100-400, I will never know if with OM-1 I could get around AF performance, now I have even less time to go out photographing (it's since August that I don't touch my OM-1 but for a few garden shots dustbin is fierce of holding )