Olympus 100-400 VS 40-150 Pro with 2X telconverter

My disclaimer - I do not have either lens.

However, I do have the MC14 and MC20 and 300mm f4 and have one of the TCs on the lens much of the time.  While I find both TCs to be very good (the MC20 a little better), I would be very surprised if any zoom lens at its maximum zoom with a 2X TC (300mm) was better than a zoom with an actual 300mm focal length.  It would be even more surprising if the 150mm+MC20 was better than a 400mm zoom.

TCs are only better than crops, because they have more pixels for the image (they just magnify the center of the lens), but they have the same number of pixels as the 100-400mm lens without TCs, so the lens with the TC would need to be far sharper to give the same or better resolution.

I would use CAF and check the front/back focusing of the 100-400mm lens.  If it is really not as good as the 40-150+MC20, then I would suspect a focus error or a bad copy of the lens.

Lawrence M wrote:

The 40-150 is so sharp that even with the 2x Tc it performs exceptionally. Again the 40-150 is so sharp, I have found it exceptional even while using the 2X DIGITAL TELECONVERTER.

2x DTC, 12-40 Pro @ 35MM (70MM)

E-M1 II and 12-40 Pro

Strange days.

Svein Eriksen wrote:

offtheback wrote:

Yes re the Panny.Have moved back and forth all kindsa ways!

OK, I found that mine was easier to zoom when I tweaked the position of the lock ring. Also, it got much easier to zoom after a while. Now it's (almost) not an issue anymore.

I think it's the weather seal gripping the barrel. I polish the barrel and it makes a big difference, but others say I shouldn't.

offtheback wrote:

What do you polish it with?

I personally use silicone and have found it to work very well for over 4.5 years.

But someone on this forum has said it's not a good idea to use silicone as it will eventually get inside.

However It makes such a big difference that I will continue, otherwise I have a very difficult lens to zoom

Lawrence M wrote:

dgrogers wrote:

Lawrence M wrote:

The 40-150 is so sharp that even with the 2x Tc it performs exceptionally. Again the 40-150 is so sharp, I have found it exceptional even while using the 2X DIGITAL TELECONVERTER.

2x DTC, 12-40 Pro @ 35MM (70MM)

E-M1 II and 12-40 Pro

Strange days.

Nothing strange - if I want the shot or if I want to use certain equipment because that's all I have or because of the qualities of desired equipment, I find a way to get the job done. Once I figure it out, new possibilities present themselves.

40-150 Pro @ 150mm with 2x DTC (300MM)

What's strange is you were going on about how sharp the 40-150 f/2.8 was, then posted a not so sharp image taken with the 12-40.

offtheback wrote:

Thanks.Just spray silicone from a can?On a wipe I assume.

The issue i believe is that the dust seal is dry and that it needs lubricating to allow the barrel to slide nicely. I do not know what lubricant would be most ideal (possibly 'O' ring grease?) But I use a small amount of spray silicone on the extended barrel, and rub it in evenly all around. Then leave the lens extended overnight to ensure any propellants have evaporated.

It seems to last well for a couple of weeks.

Silicone is fairly innert, but the propellant may be harmful to the seal?  ... So leave it overnight.

offtheback wrote:

I recently got the Oly 100-400 and wasn't satisfied with the sharpness.I compared it to the 40-150 2.8 with 2x telecon and was happier with the 40-150 result even when I cropped the 600mm effective to 800mm effective.Anyone have the combo and what do you see?Did I get a poor copy?I have the Panny 100-400 and like it except for the stiff zoom which is my second copy(better than the first but still unacceptable for action zooming).Your thoughts please.

After purchasing and playing with the Olympus 300mm f4 PRO, I had this question recently as well. Mainly I wanted to see if I could rationalize just having the 40-150 PRO with 2x TC at a constant f5.6, and pair that with the 300 f4 PRO w/ TC’s...rather than the 100-400 @ f6.3 when fully extended. I didn’t do anything too scientific with my personal tests, but felt I had good enough results to determine for myself the pros/cons. Here were my findings/thoughts if it can be any help:

1). The Oly 100-400 drops down to f5.4’ish (if I remember correctly) around 138mm. When extended to 300mm the Oly 100-400 lens is at f6.3 and can’t open up any wider.

2). In both indoor ambient light and outdoor natural lighting, the Oly 100-400 was noticeably sharper than the 40-150mm PRO w/ 2x TC WHEN  the Oly 40-150 was at f5.6 (all other exposure settings similar).

3). I found that I had to stop down the 40-150 with the 2x TC one stop (to f6.3) to get similar sharpness I was seeing with the Oly 100-400 in both outdoors and indoors. (This seems to hold true to what others have said regarding the TC’s, in that, it is helpful to stop down one or two stops to get sharper results).

4). Therefore, in order to have similar sharpness between the two lenses, you are not really gaining any light advantage, (Again, IF you want the sharpest possibilities...which is what I was wanting).

5). With that said, from what I was seeing with my personal tests, it did look like the 40-150 PRO w/ 2x TC did have slightly better color rendition and contrast. (Honestly, if you weren’t looking at the two different images side by side, I doubt one would notice. The Oly 100-400 was still pretty good. Also, if you wanted to edit in post,  it didn’t seem like it would be hard to get the Oly 100-400 image to match the 40-150 PRO w/ 2x TC out of camera image...I didn’t try).

6). For fun, I wanted to see how much better the 300 f4 PRO was than the Oly 100-400 at 300mm. The 300mm f4 PRO @ f6.3 had noticeably better sharpness, color rendition, and contrast out of camera. The Oly 100-400 was good...but the 300 PRO was better. (This didn’t surprise me really).

Here was my general personal takeaway: I was hoping to sacrifice 100mm for slightly better low-light capabilities in staying with the 40-150mm PRO w/ TC’s over the Oly 100-400. I was also hoping the sharpness, colors, and contrast straight out of camera would out-perform the Oly 100-400mm. However, with my personal tests, in order to get the sharpest results with the 40-150 PRO w/ 2x TC, I had to stop down to f6.3. This defeated the whole purpose of what I wanted from the 40-150 PRO w/ 2x TC, and the possibility of slightly lower light abilities, as I want as sharp of images I can get with said exposure.

I personally decided the Oly 100-400 was a better choice for me and my use of it over the 40-150 PRO w/ 2x TC. If I wasn’t able to get any light advantage with the 40-150 PRO w/ 2x TC, I didn’t want to sacrifice the 100mm extra reach (I mainly bought this lens for wildlife). I decided that I have to just be very mindful when using the Oly 100-400 lens and will probably be spending slightly more time in post getting the image closer to where I want it (e.g. noise reduction due to high ISO’s needed in low-light, increasing contrast, slight color edits, etc.).

I will probably be selling the 40-150 PRO in the near future. It’s a great lens, but with what I have and my photography, it is redundant. I am finding that I’m not using it as much. I am now pondering on whether I should return the 300mm as well (probably will). Maybe I can put the funds of both the 300mm and the sale of the 40-150 towards the Oly 150-400 PRO. (if that ever becomes available in my lifetime). If I ever do have the ability to get the Oly 150-400, I will sell the 100-400 as well (and put those funds towards that purchase).

Until then, I think I will practice with the Oly 100-400 at longer focal lengths and have fun!

Hope that helps. 

Thanks for the write up. It agrees in detail with what I found too. — j