The Poor Man's 608mm APSC Superzoom

Larry Rexley wrote:

jackwelch wrote:

55mm (88mm equiv)

200mm (320mm equiv)

200mm (320 equiv) + 1.9x Olympux C210 TC

Very interesting results. Thanks for taking the time and effort to post your results and experiences. Results are very encouraging, and are better that I would have expected.

There are basically no teleconverter options for the EF-M native lenses. I've tried mounting small and short vintage MC4 (Vivitar 4-element) 2x TC optics to a native EF-M 10mm extension tube, and was successful in part, but with any EF-M lens it would not focus to infinity, the flange distance for EF-M seems to be too short to allow a TC. and infinity focus.

I have had no issue with focusing with the Olympus TC, it works very well, just only downside is you can see some noticeable dark vignetting throughout the whole picture.

I have a lot of experience using DxO Photolab 5 with vintage lenses, and with existing lenses with modified teleconverters. If DxO doesn't have the profile for a lens or for a lens + teleconverter combo, I've gotten good at adjusting sharpness, CA, vignetting etc to compensate for the lens characteristics, producing results very much like the lenses DxO does have profiles for.

DxO's unsharp masking has the ability to do a custom adjustment for edge and corner sharpness, independent of center sharpness. It's the 'Edge Offset' setting and it acts like a second unsharp mask intensity setting that does not affect center sharpness but progressively sharpens the image to the edges and corners, with maximum effect in the corners. Using that setting you can usually achieve uniform sharpness across the frame with most lenses. For vintage lenses or soft TC's I use radius of 0.91 - 1.8 depending on the lens, intensity between 100-250 (depends on the lens) and edge offset can be as much as 100-225 over the 'original' intensity if the lens is soft in the corners.

DxO's CA settings are also very effective for vintage lenses and TCs. Maxing out the CA settings and applying purple fringing would likely get rid of most or all of the CA in the above images.

Thank you for the detailed write up on this, for the time being I don't use any PP software, everything is straight out of camera, but it's good to know what is possible.

Your instructions will make anyone's life easier if they do need to edit their pictures.

I'm curious what kind of results you could get with DxO Photolab, or other PP software, with the TC combo in this post, shooting RAW.

Maybe as Maxmolly7 suggested I can post some RAW samples here for you or anyone to experiment on?

I'll take some shots later today.

Isn’t 200x1.9 380 how’d your get 608

Psxpetey wrote:

Isn’t 200x1.9 380 how’d your get 608

I use full frame equivalent here.

200mm ef-m lens = 320mm FF equivalent.

So 320mm x 1.9 = 608mm

That’s a eos m native lens mwaning it’s native 200 on apsc

that only true on full frame lenses adapted without a speed booster

uh ya bozo

ChrisPCrunch wrote:

That is because the focal plane is different between the two images. If you look at the non TC version, the traffic light in front of the excavator is noticeably sharper than the TC version. It looks like in the non-TC version the camera has focused closer than with the TC version.

Chris

You’re absolutely right, I forgot to consider area of focus here. Actually I am using box focus and the focus is in the middle center.

I think one of these days I’ll find a signboard with text and shoot it far distance. To really gauge whether a TC adds any real value or not.

today was cloudy and seemed like going to rain, so I couldn’t go out and take any shots.