40-140 f2.8 + MC-20 vs 75-300mm f5.6-6.7 ii

First my disclaimer.  I do not have either lens and I would not be surprised if a lens with a 2X TC was not as sharp as a lens without a TC.

I am sure you have other images from which to judge, but I think the MC20+40-150 may not be in focus in this image.  The snow sure looks sharp on the MC20+40-150, but very blurred on the 75-300 which would seem to indicate a difference in focus distance.  Since the 75-300 has a greater DOF, it is not a DOF difference.  To me, the 100% view of the branches look like they are not focused, instead of not sharp.

Your post was a good reminder to retry my MC20 on the Oly 40-150/2.8. This lens is among the sharpest and snappiest and most accurate lens I've seen in about 25 years of photography (including many Canon L and Sigma EX pro lenses).

Add the MC20 and the drop in sharpness is considerable...

Due to lack of of the 70-300 lens, and out of curiosity, I grabbed the PL 100-400 @300mm for comparison. All images were processed identically in DxO. No unsharp mask, per-lens-optimized "lens sharpness" at 0. Subject is about 14m across the backyeard. All lenses (and MC20) freshly cleaned, all protection UV filters removed, 4 sec shutter delay, electronic shutter used.

Image order:

• 40-150 + MC20 @300 fully open at f5.6
• 40-150 + MC20 @300 stopped down to f8
• PL 100-400 @300 fully open at f5.7
• PL 100-400 @300 stopped down to f8

The Oly 40-150 + MC20 @300mm fully open is not as bad as it seems your copy is. Still I see no reason to use it compared to the PL 100-400 @300 fully open.

Bassaidai wrote:

Your post was a good reminder to retry my MC20 on the Oly 40-150/2.8. This lens is among the sharpest and snappiest and most accurate lens I've seen in about 25 years of photography (including many Canon L and Sigma EX pro lenses).

Add the MC20 and the drop in sharpness is considerable...

Due to lack of of the 70-300 lens, and out of curiosity, I grabbed the PL 100-400 @300mm for comparison. All images were processed identically in DxO. No unsharp mask, per-lens-optimized "lens sharpness" at 0. Subject is about 14m across the backyeard. All lenses (and MC20) freshly cleaned, all protection UV filters removed, 4 sec shutter delay, electronic shutter used.

Image order:

• 40-150 + MC20 @300 fully open at f5.6
• 40-150 + MC20 @300 stopped down to f8
• PL 100-400 @300 fully open at f5.7
• PL 100-400 @300 stopped down to f8

The Oly 40-150 + MC20 @300mm fully open is not as bad as it seems your copy is. Still I see no reason to use it compared to the PL 100-400 @300 fully open.

Agree

Last year (I think) I did some comparative shots with my 40-150 Pro with converters and my PL100-400

What I found was that I  got sharper shots with the MC20 than I got with the MC14 on the 40-150. However, comparing the PL100-400 in the overlapping focal lengths (100-300), the Panny was always sharper.

I kept the 40-150 for use on some sporting events, but sold off the converters and use the PL100-400 for everything else that requires long focal lengths for fast action.

ristar wrote:

Since you didn't mention it in your post, did you use a tripod? Did you use a shutter delay or a shutter release? Did you take the best one out of multiple shots? The 40-150mm + 2x teleconverter doesn't look quite right. It should be capable of much more.

Yes, both on tripod. No shutter release, but multiple shots taken of each. I agree, usually the 40-150/mc20 provides better results, but this was more of a stress test with poor conditions. Even slowly adjusting manual focus did bring the branch into focus as well as the 75-300.

I have been following a couple of peoples' results and it may be that there is variance in the MC20's. Hard to say without a standard test.

drj3 wrote:

First my disclaimer. I do not have either lens and I would not be surprised if a lens with a 2X TC was not as sharp as a lens without a TC.

I am sure you have other images from which to judge, but I think the MC20+40-150 may not be in focus in this image. The snow sure looks sharp on the MC20+40-150, but very blurred on the 75-300 which would seem to indicate a difference in focus distance. Since the 75-300 has a greater DOF, it is not a DOF difference. To me, the 100% view of the branches look like they are not focused, instead of not sharp.

I had thought so too. I had the camera on a tripod so I could take multiples of the same branch. Be it AF or MF, the branch would not come completely into focus. This was the closest I could get it. Keep in mind I also cropped the photos, so that may account for the overall blurriness.

A much more thorough test then mine!

Yes, I've come to the conclusion that the glass in the lens, solo, is optimized for just that. Would love to have the convenient reach that a teleconverter brings, but not at the price of image quality.

Boto88 wrote:

drj3 wrote:

First my disclaimer. I do not have either lens and I would not be surprised if a lens with a 2X TC was not as sharp as a lens without a TC.

I am sure you have other images from which to judge, but I think the MC20+40-150 may not be in focus in this image. The snow sure looks sharp on the MC20+40-150, but very blurred on the 75-300 which would seem to indicate a difference in focus distance. Since the 75-300 has a greater DOF, it is not a DOF difference. To me, the 100% view of the branches look like they are not focused, instead of not sharp.

I had thought so too. I had the camera on a tripod so I could take multiples of the same branch. Be it AF or MF, the branch would not come completely into focus. This was the closest I could get it. Keep in mind I also cropped the photos, so that may account for the overall blurriness.

Keep in mind that branches can move also.