Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Adrian Harris
Adrian Harris Veteran Member • Posts: 6,836
Re: Probably not worth trying...

M_digicapt wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I'm about to pick up one of these 1.7x front side teleconverters for my 75-300 lens for moon shots and maybe even some planetary imaging and close ups of birds. Also a 58-55 step down ring. Does anyone have any samples they can show me how this combo compares to using the 75-300 by itself at the long end with x2 DTC (and also with the combo AND x2 DTC on top of that?) I want to see how well crater detail and feather detail are preserved. It'd be amazing to have a lightweight 1020mm EFL combo on M43 on my EM10 Mk2 (and 2040mm EFL with x2 DTC!)

I have the T-Con 17 which some think it's the same TC as the B-300. And unless you are spending usd$10-15 I wouldn't bother... It introduced some CA and didn't produce good results with any of the tele lenses I tried it with. Most mention that don't remember trying stopping the lens down to F8, so there's a chance that at that aperture the results would be better. It works better with the shorter standard prime, probably because they are much sharper than the 75-300mm.

https://pages.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/FZ-30/Converters/Lenses/Telephoto.html

https://pages.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/FZ-30/Converters/Other-Lenses/Oly.html

I have a Nikon E17ED which is very high quality, but heavy and expensive. Haven't tried it with the 75-300mm yet because the reason for getting the 75-300mm was to have something small and compact. Having to use a lens bracket and the risk of damaging the lens has stopped me from giving a try. Also is not like the 75-300mm is tack sharp at the long end anyway. A TC just magnifies what's already there including imperfections...

I did use the 40-150mm with the E17ED and the TCON 17 and the it worked well with the E17ED and it produced slightly more detail than the lens by itself.

It works well with IF manual lenses like the Canon nFD 200mm F4.

One advantage of using the TC is that you get to use the RAW file and it helps with the highlights/shadows vs using the DTC.

Have you considered getting a 300mm-500mm manual lens?

I did but then I would have to give up AF I think?

About the TC I like the result, was that with the regular 40-150? How did it do with the TCON17 attached? Not as good as what the Nikon gave?

Do you have any images with the TCON17 attached to the 75-300? Would be interesting to see if it added any detail vs the 75-300 without it and also compare it to x2 DTC (both with and without the TC).

I have a lot of the TCs in that review. I have the Sony HG1758 which is awfully heavy and the DH1758 which is the lightest of the 1.7x group but also ranked last on those tests haha. Aside from a small area near the center, the results are kind of blurry. I was interested in the TCON17 because it is the second lightest but also ranked second best in those tests (behind the heavy Nikon). I also have the venerable Canon TC-DC58A which is very well regarded in the 1.5x group but not tested in that review. It's also a little too heavy for me, hence why I was considering the TCON17/B-300 (optically the same, but some of the TCON17 dont actually have the 55mm thread and on ebay I didn't see one that has it, so I opted for the B-300.)

Yes that photo was taken with the 40-150mm kit lens.

I use manual focus lenses for wildlife most of the time. There’s little chance the 75-300mm with an afocal TC will resolve as much detail as the Canon FD 300mm f4 L which sometimes I also use with the Olympus M43 1.4x TC.

You might one to try the Good Sony TC you have. If it doesn’t offer any additional resolution, then you’ll know the Tcon17/B300 is not worth getting.

It’s worth mentioning again that since the Olympus 75-300mm is mostly plastic, using an afocal TC without a bracket/rail can easily stress and damage the lens. Since I would need the bracket anyway I would pick the good TC, in my case the E17ED, to use instead of the Tcon 17... I sometimes used the Olympus C-180 with the 40-150mm, but I have several 40-150mm copies and it's a cheap lens so didn't mind the risk.

Also afocal TCs change the minimum focal distance so in some instances you get better results by getting closer than by using the TC. Is one of the reasons I bought the Olympus M43 1.4x TC. The E17Ed is very good, but heavy and with the some older teles the minimum focusing distance is so long that is not worth using…

Regards

Thats why I was wondering if the TCON17 or B-300 could resolve detail like the Nikon E17ED can or would the result be less than what the lens by itself can do. The lighter Sony and Olympus TC weigh 250-260g, do you think this could put stress on the 75-300? I dont think I should try the heavier Sony I have which weighs more than 500g! How is the C-180 compared to the TCON17 and what is the size of its rear thread?

Don't go near the front mounted Nikon 17, I have one and it doesn't work at all well with the 75-300 or the PL100-400. It worked great with small sensor Bridge cameras.

On bigger cameras with long lenses the Raynox 2.2 works far better.

Your best bet is to save your money and get either a l100-400 or the Olympus equivalent.

I haven't tried the E17ED with the 75-300mm but it works well with the old Primes...

This one with the Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO + E17ED

That is interesting, I wonder if my Nikon 1.7 has 'something wrong' inside. On the two long zooms I have it is seriously poor. I haven't had a sharp image out of it. ... But haven't bothered trying it on any shorter lenses.

I still think the OP will be best served by saving and getting a Oly or Panny 100-400.

I agree, one of the 100-400 is a better option, if money is not a problem.

Did you try manual focusing and using burst mode? The diminished contrast affects AF at times...

I'm not sure if it's sample variation or specific lens/TC combinations that work or have problems. I have read about people getting good results with the Tcon17 and the Nikon E15ED and both of them produced less than stellar results with all the lenses I tired them with...

Yes I think many people do not realise they are very fussy what lens they are attached to and their mounting distance from the main lens is also critical - even with the short focal length lenses they were designed for.

-- hide signature --
 Adrian Harris's gear list:Adrian Harris's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sony SLT-A77 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 +1 more
OutsideTheMatrix
OP OutsideTheMatrix Veteran Member • Posts: 7,986
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm.  F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine.  So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes?  They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration.  I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens.  Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras!  I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

-- hide signature --

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 OutsideTheMatrix's gear list:OutsideTheMatrix's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +9 more
netHead Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)
1

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

M_digicapt Senior Member • Posts: 3,143
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)
1

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

netHead Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

M_digicapt Senior Member • Posts: 3,143
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

netHead Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

The E-M5 3. I ended up going with a Panasonic 100-300 mk II. Still doesn't feel as fast as the Fuji, but is definitely better. One drawback is that on Oly bodies you don't get the support for sequential modes with autofocus (the slightly slower L models on Pro Capture and sequential shooting).

Hopefully OMD ends up doing a new 75-300 at some point. Given the current emphasis on birding, it would certainly make sense. Alternatively, Fuji has said that they're going to try and improve the X-T4 autofocus via firmware updates. Or maybe Sony will deliver an APSC or small full-frame camera with the EVF in the center (which I find essential for wildlife - hard to line up on moving things with a rangefinder type setup).

In the meantime, the E-M5 mkiii with the Panasonic 100-300 is, for me, the best lightweight wildlife camera at the moment. My Sony A7 with the Tamron 28-200 + the E-M5 + the 100-300 cover effective 28-600mm for about 2 kg of weight. Hard to beat that

M_digicapt Senior Member • Posts: 3,143
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

The E-M5 3. I ended up going with a Panasonic 100-300 mk II. Still doesn't feel as fast as the Fuji, but is definitely better. One drawback is that on Oly bodies you don't get the support for sequential modes with autofocus (the slightly slower L models on Pro Capture and sequential shooting).

Hopefully OMD ends up doing a new 75-300 at some point. Given the current emphasis on birding, it would certainly make sense. Alternatively, Fuji has said that they're going to try and improve the X-T4 autofocus via firmware updates. Or maybe Sony will deliver an APSC or small full-frame camera with the EVF in the center (which I find essential for wildlife - hard to line up on moving things with a rangefinder type setup).

In the meantime, the E-M5 mkiii with the Panasonic 100-300 is, for me, the best lightweight wildlife camera at the moment. My Sony A7 with the Tamron 28-200 + the E-M5 + the 100-300 cover effective 28-600mm for about 2 kg of weight. Hard to beat that

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

OutsideTheMatrix
OP OutsideTheMatrix Veteran Member • Posts: 7,986
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

The E-M5 3. I ended up going with a Panasonic 100-300 mk II. Still doesn't feel as fast as the Fuji, but is definitely better. One drawback is that on Oly bodies you don't get the support for sequential modes with autofocus (the slightly slower L models on Pro Capture and sequential shooting).

Hopefully OMD ends up doing a new 75-300 at some point. Given the current emphasis on birding, it would certainly make sense. Alternatively, Fuji has said that they're going to try and improve the X-T4 autofocus via firmware updates. Or maybe Sony will deliver an APSC or small full-frame camera with the EVF in the center (which I find essential for wildlife - hard to line up on moving things with a rangefinder type setup).

In the meantime, the E-M5 mkiii with the Panasonic 100-300 is, for me, the best lightweight wildlife camera at the moment. My Sony A7 with the Tamron 28-200 + the E-M5 + the 100-300 cover effective 28-600mm for about 2 kg of weight. Hard to beat that

is the Panny better with resolved detail at 300mm than the Oly is?

It weighs more I think?

Also are there any camera functions supported by the Oly lens that aren't supported on the Panny lens on Oly bodies?

-- hide signature --

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 OutsideTheMatrix's gear list:OutsideTheMatrix's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +9 more
Digital Dick Senior Member • Posts: 2,199
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)
2

In my hands both the 75-300 and the 100-300 gave virtually the same resolution at the 300 end. I bought the 75-300 (for the longer range and its lighter).

Dick

 Digital Dick's gear list:Digital Dick's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M5 II
Ishatix Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens
3

I have a TCON-17X that goes with my Stylus 1, as well as the M.Zuiko 75-300 with E-M5 III. So I got a 58 to 55 mm step down to take some comparison shots for you. It isn't a particularly practical combination in terms of handling given the extending zoom on the 75-300 which you have to hang the TCON off the end off. I wasn't too worried about damaging the 75-300 as long as I always had a second hand supporting at the join point. I pointed the lens vertically upwards while zooming it to change the focal length to avoid excessive strain on the mechanism.
Note that all these shots are taken hand held at f/8 and always taking the best sample from multiple shots (hit rate was only around 1 in 3 at best). I have tried to take centre crops from each giving about the same field of view in each case to make it easier to compare the change in detail without the distraction of the change in magnification. In each case there is the unadorned 300mm shot, followed by shots with the TCON-17X at 171, 234 and 300mm settings on the 75-300 respectively (note that 171mm x 1.7 = 291mm, so about the same FOV as the 300mm unadorned). They are all SOOC JPG without any post-processing (since we only care about the relative differences between them).

First a closer subject ~ 5 or 6 metres away:

Second a more distant subject:

You can see from this quick test that it does not look very promising in general. At least for the closer subject, there is some hint of potential when combined with lower focal lengths. But not enough to be worth taking out into the field IMO, or buying the TCON if you don't have one already (though if you do, then it's only a few quid to get the adaptor ring and have a go at. There may be some sample variation across different copies of the 75-300 which might change the results.) For the further away subject, the results with the TCON are all significantly worse than without.

Ishatix Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens
2

As an addendum to the above, I was also curious how the TCON-17X might do with a smaller, simpler lens. In this case the M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8. So I also got another adaptor to work with that. All the same comments apply as above, except in this test I tried both f/4 and f/8...

So in this case there clearly is some gain in detail from adding the TCON-17X when shooting from the same position.

I also took a quick comparison at f/2 with changing my shooting position so the total FOV remained about the same in each case. The results weren't so clear due to the narrower DOF you get by adding the TCON-17X, but not encouraging as you might expect. I.e. in conclusion, could be useful with this lens for subjects you can't get closer to, but not otherwise.

Ishatix Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens
2

P.S. Here's another comparison showing the B300 working well with a smaller lens:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040312221947/http://www.okimoto.ne.jp/muray/Lab/Work11/s602tcon.html

OutsideTheMatrix
OP OutsideTheMatrix Veteran Member • Posts: 7,986
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

Digital Dick wrote:

In my hands both the 75-300 and the 100-300 gave virtually the same resolution at the 300 end. I bought the 75-300 (for the longer range and its lighter).

Dick

Thanks did you have the II version of both?

I take it you haven't had a chance to test out your B-300 on the 75-300 yet.

-- hide signature --

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 OutsideTheMatrix's gear list:OutsideTheMatrix's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +9 more
OutsideTheMatrix
OP OutsideTheMatrix Veteran Member • Posts: 7,986
Re: Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens

wow thanks for this comparison! Looks like 300mm + 2x DTC might be better than 300mm + 1.7x TCON17? Did you have a chance to do that comparison? Also what 300mm + 2x DTC + 1.7x TCON17 looks like?

Do you have the II version of the 75-300 lens?

Also, what did you think of the comparison at 300mm without the TC compared to 171mm + 1.7x TCON17? That first one I thought was the one where the TC does the best but only at close range.  Does it actually look to you like in that comparison the picture is sharper with the TCON17 attached at 171mm at close range vs 300mm without the TC?  How is this possible- there seems to be a clear difference!  At more distant targets it looks like the results are uniformly bad?  Were all these taken on a tripod so no danger of handshake influencing the results?

Looks like in all comparisons, using this TC for lunar or even planetary photography or for bringing in feather detail of distant birds would not be recommended?

-- hide signature --

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 OutsideTheMatrix's gear list:OutsideTheMatrix's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +9 more
OutsideTheMatrix
OP OutsideTheMatrix Veteran Member • Posts: 7,986
Re: Adding Olympus B-300 to m. Zuiko 75-300 lens

Ishatix wrote:

As an addendum to the above, I was also curious how the TCON-17X might do with a smaller, simpler lens. In this case the M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8. So I also got another adaptor to work with that. All the same comments apply as above, except in this test I tried both f/4 and f/8...

So in this case there clearly is some gain in detail from adding the TCON-17X when shooting from the same position.

I also took a quick comparison at f/2 with changing my shooting position so the total FOV remained about the same in each case. The results weren't so clear due to the narrower DOF you get by adding the TCON-17X, but not encouraging as you might expect. I.e. in conclusion, could be useful with this lens for subjects you can't get closer to, but not otherwise.

this almost sounds like a good macro TC but not one to use for distant subjects at long focal lengths like the moon, the planets or birds?

-- hide signature --

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 OutsideTheMatrix's gear list:OutsideTheMatrix's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +9 more
Brandon birder Veteran Member • Posts: 4,929
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

The E-M5 3. I ended up going with a Panasonic 100-300 mk II. Still doesn't feel as fast as the Fuji, but is definitely better. One drawback is that on Oly bodies you don't get the support for sequential modes with autofocus (the slightly slower L models on Pro Capture and sequential shooting).

Hopefully OMD ends up doing a new 75-300 at some point. Given the current emphasis on birding, it would certainly make sense. Alternatively, Fuji has said that they're going to try and improve the X-T4 autofocus via firmware updates. Or maybe Sony will deliver an APSC or small full-frame camera with the EVF in the center (which I find essential for wildlife - hard to line up on moving things with a rangefinder type setup).

In the meantime, the E-M5 mkiii with the Panasonic 100-300 is, for me, the best lightweight wildlife camera at the moment. My Sony A7 with the Tamron 28-200 + the E-M5 + the 100-300 cover effective 28-600mm for about 2 kg of weight. Hard to beat that

The Sony RX10 M4 is hard to beat for that range (24-600mm fov). Just about the best mirrorless autofocus for the price. A mini A9 and 200-600 lens for a third of the price.

I use Olympus Nikon and Sony kits.. Nikon too heavy. Olympus about right, but the RX10m4 for everything else and especially birds in flight.

I also years ago started with a Celestron 600mm refractor. Much lighter than a proper 600mm lens but very bulky and manual focus just wasn’t easy or accurate.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Brandon.
Olympus EM1mIII, EM10 mII, Sony RX10 M4, RX100 M7
Nikon V1,V3, D500, D810
FlickR Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

 Brandon birder's gear list:Brandon birder's gear list
Olympus E-M1 III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 +1 more
OutsideTheMatrix
OP OutsideTheMatrix Veteran Member • Posts: 7,986
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

Brandon birder wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

The E-M5 3. I ended up going with a Panasonic 100-300 mk II. Still doesn't feel as fast as the Fuji, but is definitely better. One drawback is that on Oly bodies you don't get the support for sequential modes with autofocus (the slightly slower L models on Pro Capture and sequential shooting).

Hopefully OMD ends up doing a new 75-300 at some point. Given the current emphasis on birding, it would certainly make sense. Alternatively, Fuji has said that they're going to try and improve the X-T4 autofocus via firmware updates. Or maybe Sony will deliver an APSC or small full-frame camera with the EVF in the center (which I find essential for wildlife - hard to line up on moving things with a rangefinder type setup).

In the meantime, the E-M5 mkiii with the Panasonic 100-300 is, for me, the best lightweight wildlife camera at the moment. My Sony A7 with the Tamron 28-200 + the E-M5 + the 100-300 cover effective 28-600mm for about 2 kg of weight. Hard to beat that

The Sony RX10 M4 is hard to beat for that range (24-600mm fov). Just about the best mirrorless autofocus for the price. A mini A9 and 200-600 lens for a third of the price.

I use Olympus Nikon and Sony kits.. Nikon too heavy. Olympus about right, but the RX10m4 for everything else and especially birds in flight.

I also years ago started with a Celestron 600mm refractor. Much lighter than a proper 600mm lens but very bulky and manual focus just wasn’t easy or accurate.

Yeah I have a bunch of scopes, none are easy to use with manual focus.

I like refractors too but for high magnification you really want a SCT or MAK.  The ETX 90 is extremely portable but again manual focus is difficult.

Does the Sony RX focus better than the Oly does?

-- hide signature --

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 OutsideTheMatrix's gear list:OutsideTheMatrix's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +9 more
Digital Dick Senior Member • Posts: 2,199
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)
1

I have the Mark 1 version of the 75-300 and had borrowed the Mark II version of the 100-300.

It's been too windy and rainy in my area for the past week so I haven't been able to do a good test.

Dick

 Digital Dick's gear list:Digital Dick's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M5 II
Brandon birder Veteran Member • Posts: 4,929
Re: a new concept lens (light weight long focal length primes)

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

Brandon birder wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

M_digicapt wrote:

netHead wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

I have an idea for a portable light weight hand held lens, I wonder why Olympus doesn't make these?

The telescopes I use most often, the ones with the least chromatic aberration are in the f/8-f/13 realm. F/13 is probably diffraction limited on M43, but f/11 seems to be just fine. So, why can't we make high focal length long focal ratio lenses similar to these telescopes? They wouldn't even need ED elements because scopes in the f/8-f/11 realm (especially f/11) have little to no chromatic aberration. I have an f/11 90mm refractor that has zero chromatic aberration, and it's achromatic not ED!

So my suggestion is for a light weight 400mm f/8 lens or even better a 500mm f/10 lens. Heck even f/11 would be really good, so a 600mm f/11 achromat lens should also be light weight and work well on our cameras! I even think 700mm f/11 would be portable too.

Canon apparently agrees:

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

One of the DPR crew takes it out for a spin:

Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'd also be interested in seeing a similar lens on other mounts, but then again I'd be interested in seeing something like Fuji's modern 75-300mm on m4/3rds, first.

What's different about Fuji's lens?

Faster autofocus (I rented an Oly 75-300 and found it very slow), better close focus and better sharpness at 300mm. Really the only negative I found with the Fuji was the sometimes harsh bokeh.

If Fuji's autofocus was better (I found it about equivalent to my E-M5 3), I would have seriously considered switching. (And the X-T4 has a nice EVF, but at 600g is kind of heavy.)

Thanks. Which camera did you try the Olympus 75-300mm with?

The E-M5 3. I ended up going with a Panasonic 100-300 mk II. Still doesn't feel as fast as the Fuji, but is definitely better. One drawback is that on Oly bodies you don't get the support for sequential modes with autofocus (the slightly slower L models on Pro Capture and sequential shooting).

Hopefully OMD ends up doing a new 75-300 at some point. Given the current emphasis on birding, it would certainly make sense. Alternatively, Fuji has said that they're going to try and improve the X-T4 autofocus via firmware updates. Or maybe Sony will deliver an APSC or small full-frame camera with the EVF in the center (which I find essential for wildlife - hard to line up on moving things with a rangefinder type setup).

In the meantime, the E-M5 mkiii with the Panasonic 100-300 is, for me, the best lightweight wildlife camera at the moment. My Sony A7 with the Tamron 28-200 + the E-M5 + the 100-300 cover effective 28-600mm for about 2 kg of weight. Hard to beat that

The Sony RX10 M4 is hard to beat for that range (24-600mm fov). Just about the best mirrorless autofocus for the price. A mini A9 and 200-600 lens for a third of the price.

I use Olympus Nikon and Sony kits.. Nikon too heavy. Olympus about right, but the RX10m4 for everything else and especially birds in flight.

I also years ago started with a Celestron 600mm refractor. Much lighter than a proper 600mm lens but very bulky and manual focus just wasn’t easy or accurate.

Yeah I have a bunch of scopes, none are easy to use with manual focus.

I like refractors too but for high magnification you really want a SCT or MAK. The ETX 90 is extremely portable but again manual focus is difficult.

Does the Sony RX focus better than the Oly does?

Yes it does  faster accurate acquisition and tracking than my EM1 mlll does. It heavily favours nearest object which is fine for birds even against backgrounds.. I wish Olympus wrote algorithms like Sony.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Brandon.
Olympus EM1mIII, EM10 mII, Sony RX10 M4, RX100 M7
Nikon V1,V3, D500, D810
FlickR Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

 Brandon birder's gear list:Brandon birder's gear list
Olympus E-M1 III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads