It works!!! Olympus 2.0x TC on PL 200 2.8 - Comparison to 100-400s

I own a PL 200 2.8 and have really wanted more reach, but been unwilling to spend $950 Canadian dollars on the Lumix 2.0x TC. On a whim, I was at a camera store and we tried an Olympus TC on it. I had read here and elsewhere that the TCs are not compatible between brands, but that doesn't seem to be correct, at least mechanically. The Oly TC fit the lens just fine, and it was optically excellent. The only issue appears to be that the Oly TC does not talk to the camera properly, and so does not correct the aperture (still shows up as 2.8 wide open) or focal length.

I can't say whether or not the Lumix TCs work on Olympus lenses, but certainly the Olympus 2.0x TC works on my PL 200mm.

I have some example photos below. F 5.6 and F8 with the 200 prime, and then F7.1 and 6.3, respectively, for the Panasonic and Olympus 100-400s. The photos were RAWs processed through DXO PureRaw2 using DeepPrime and output as JPEGs.

PL 200mm w Olympus 2.0x TC - 400mm 5.6

Same setup at F8 (camera shows F4)

PL 100-400 @ 400mm F7.1.

Olympus 100-400 @ 400 F6.3

From my review, it seems like the Olympus 100-400 was actually the sharpest across the in-focus part of the image. This is more impressive because it was wide-open and the PL 200 was stopped down. However, both these are really sharp. Similarly, the PL 100-400 wasn't quite as sharp centrally, but appeared a tiny bit better on the pipe the "walk" sign was affixed to.

I'm really impressed with the Olympus, in particular. I've heard on this forum that some copies are "Pro" lens sharp at 400, and the one I tested at the store appears to have that characteristic. That said, the PL 100-400mm is (in Canada) $400 cheaper, 200 grams lighter, and 95-98% as sharp at 400mm. It also feels like it's built a little better than the Oly.

Now, to convince myself that I need both the 200mm and the 100-400mm as a hobbyist...

Longdolphin01 wrote:.........

I had read here and elsewhere that the TCs are not compatible between brands, but that doesn't seem to be correct, at least mechanically.

..........

I use my Olympus 1.4x TC on the PL100-400 and it works fine. And this despite that lens not being designed for TC's regardless of brand (you have to screw off the rear plastic shield to attach a TC).

.....Now, to convince myself that I need both the 200mm and the 100-400mm as a hobbyist...

I do not have a 2x TC to try, but I suspect 2x could be pushing it too far for the PL100-400, it would be an empty magnification and not worth the hassle. The 1.4TC is worth it and gives you usable 560mm FL in good light. You loose the short half of the zoom range though, because otherwise the rearmost lens element would collide with the TC.

When I first took hold of my PL200 I did a series of tests against the MZ100-400 and PL100-400, using the Pana 1.4 TC and also the Oly 2.0 TC as I did not want to purchase the Pana 2.0 TC if it didn't at least perform as well as the two 100-400's at 400mm.

I shot a few hundred images with each combination at each of the common focal lengths and with varying aperture, shutter speeds and ISO, mimicking how I might shoot in more real world conditions. Targets were from 10-35 metres away and at various times of the day. I also used two bodies for these tests, the EM1III and G9.

At the end of the testing the PL100-400 at 400 was consistently the sharpest of the all in the centre with more contrast and "pop". The MZ100-400 at 400 was less consistent with getting a critically sharp shot, though could match the PL100-400 when it did. The PL200 with Oly 2.0 TC was just as sharp as either, though somewhere between the two 100-400s in regards to consistency. One thing it had over both was it was much sharper at the edges of the frame where both the 100-400's had noticeable softening.

The PL200 with 1.4 TC was considerably sharper at 280mm compared to the 100-400's at 300mm andmore consistent as well.

At 200mm the bare lens of the PL200 was in another league compared to both of the 100-400's. Far sharper and almost never missing focus.

I had already sold the MZ100-400 and my Oly TC's before the Pana 2.0 TC reached me. So could not do a side by side test of the Oly and Pana TC.

So I am surprised by how soft the PL200 with Oly 2.0 TC is compared to the 100-400's here. Not at all like when I tested them out.

Be More wrote:

When I first took hold of my PL200 I did a series of tests against the MZ100-400 and PL100-400, using the Pana 1.4 TC and also the Oly 2.0 TC as I did not want to purchase the Pana 2.0 TC if it didn't at least perform as well as the two 100-400's at 400mm.

I shot a few hundred images with each combination at each of the common focal lengths and with varying aperture, shutter speeds and ISO, mimicking how I might shoot in more real world conditions. Targets were from 10-35 metres away and at various times of the day. I also used two bodies for these tests, the EM1III and G9.

At the end of the testing the PL100-400 at 400 was consistently the sharpest of the all in the centre with more contrast and "pop". The MZ100-400 at 400 was less consistent with getting a critically sharp shot, though could match the PL100-400 when it did. The PL200 with Oly 2.0 TC was just as sharp as either, though somewhere between the two 100-400s in regards to consistency. One thing it had over both was it was much sharper at the edges of the frame where both the 100-400's had noticeable softening.

The PL200 with 1.4 TC was considerably sharper at 280mm compared to the 100-400's at 300mm andmore consistent as well.

At 200mm the bare lens of the PL200 was in another league compared to both of the 100-400's. Far sharper and almost never missing focus.

I had already sold the MZ100-400 and my Oly TC's before the Pana 2.0 TC reached me. So could not do a side by side test of the Oly and Pana TC.

So I am surprised by how soft the PL200 with Oly 2.0 TC is compared to the 100-400's here. Not at all like when I tested them out.

Very interesting, thanks! I was a little disappointed at the performance of the PL 200 with the TC, I guess. It's still quite good, but it's an astounding lens without a TC. I was hoping it would remain at that level, but it's unsurprising that it doesn't. I wonder if it would be better with the Lumix TC. Some others above have suggested it's a little bit better than the Oly one. May also be that the Oly one doesn't work quite as well with a Pana lens. I wish I had tried out the PL 200 with an Oly 1.4x TC. It would be interesting to compare to a Pana 1.4x and see if there's an appreciable difference.

If my math is correct, cropping from 560 to 800mm would be a roughly 50% reduction in the total megapixels of the image. But if the 200 with 1.4 TC is superior to the 2.0x, it may be that the reduction in resolved pixels is less.

Unfortunately, while I took a couple of photos with a Pana 1.4 TC, the one that is easily compared looks a little smeared. I think I either missed focus or there was some blur from a too slow shutter speed. Either that or the 1.4 TC I was using was garbage. That seems unlikely.

I did all my testing using shutter speeds upwards of 800 as I rarely ever go below that with birds and wildlife. So perhaps shooting at lower speeds with the PL lenses without any co-ordinated sync that the MZ100-400 uses might have effected the outcome here?

The PL200 lens has very strong stabilisation that needs matching with a Panasonic TC

In addition DxO would not support the combination with Oly so your tests are not really comparable

I have the 200 1.4 and 2 TC and the PL100-400. At 400 mm the image quality in the centre is practically the same at 400mm. However at the edges the 200mm with 2x does not have the same performance wide open

Generally you would not use the 200mm with the 2x TC however as the stabilisation of this lens is really strong compared to the 100-400mm on panasonic bodies it may make sense for video

The 200mm lens is in another category altogether compared to the 100-400mm the only other lens from PL range that come close is the 50-200mm

Interceptor121 wrote:

The PL200 lens has very strong stabilisation that needs matching with a Panasonic TC

In addition DxO would not support the combination with Oly so your tests are not really comparable

I have the 200 1.4 and 2 TC and the PL100-400. At 400 mm the image quality in the centre is practically the same at 400mm. However at the edges the 200mm with 2x does not have the same performance wide open

Generally you would not use the 200mm with the 2x TC however as the stabilisation of this lens is really strong compared to the 100-400mm on panasonic bodies it may make sense for video

The 200mm lens is in another category altogether compared to the 100-400mm the only other lens from PL range that come close is the 50-200mm

Interesting points. You're definitely right about the DXO lens corrections, but the DeepPrime stuff isn't lens specific. So you'd lose out on lens corrections, but the PL 200 is so good that I've never really noticed not having them. It is still an advantage to the Lumix teleconverter, though.

I noticed that the stabilization was better on the 200mm, even with the TC. That said, it was only the in-lens stabilization, not the IBIS that was better. I think the IBIS doesn't work properly since it thinks the lens is 200mm, not 400mm. The in-lens is correcting the shake before it gets to the TC, so the TC doesn't affect VR.

The other interesting VR thing is that despite the Olympus body matching the Oly 100-400, the stabilization of the Pana 100-400 is superior to the Oly lens on Oly body, at least in the example I tested.

Definitely a hard decision on whether or not to keep the 200mm. It's definitely the nicest lens I've ever owned, and incomparable at 200mm. But the subjects I shoot are usually small enough that being able to get to 400mm is likely more useful. It's good to hear you and others reiterate how good the 100-400 is, though. I know I'll be losing a little bit of IQ in the 200mm range, but shaving almost a pound from my pack and still having really great IQ with the 100-400 is probably the way to go. I can also likely sell the 200mm for more than a used 100-400, which makes it a lot cheaper than keeping the 200mm and buying a TC on top of it.

Never use deep prime without lens profile it destroys all the detail

It is strange, I tested the Oly 2x TC on the PL 200 f2.8 but it was impossible to mount the Oly TC on the PL lens.

It was mechanically impossible: some plastic part was blocking the rotation in the body/lens mounting.

Did you force the Oly TC in?

Regarding sharpness at 400mm, I totally agree: from my tests, the Oly 100-400 is way sharper than the 200 f2.8 with the PL 2x TC.

I too wonder if I should keep the 200 or not, it is a truly excellent lens. The IQ at 200mm or even 280mm with the 1.4 Tc is insane, the stabilization is far superior to my 100-400 (which I find shaky after using the 200 for a long time). The colour rendering of the lens is very pleasing as well.

But the 200mm focal length is a bit inconvenient to me, I think I'm too used to the 100-400, shooting mostly at 400mm.

Jibzz wrote:

But the 200mm focal length is a bit inconvenient to me, I think I'm too used to the 100-400, shooting mostly at 400mm.

Get closer your pictures will get better. If you can't then correct no point working with primes and just accept the IQ for what it is

Jibzz wrote:

It is strange, I tested the Oly 2x TC on the PL 200 f2.8 but it was impossible to mount the Oly TC on the PL lens.

It was mechanically impossible: some plastic part was blocking the rotation in the body/lens mounting.

Did you force the Oly TC in?

Regarding sharpness at 400mm, I totally agree: from my tests, the Oly 100-400 is way sharper than the 200 f2.8 with the PL 2x TC.

I too wonder if I should keep the 200 or not, it is a truly excellent lens. The IQ at 200mm or even 280mm with the 1.4 Tc is insane, the stabilization is far superior to my 100-400 (which I find shaky after using the 200 for a long time). The colour rendering of the lens is very pleasing as well.

But the 200mm focal length is a bit inconvenient to me, I think I'm too used to the 100-400, shooting mostly at 400mm.

Interesting. There wasn't any plastic part or anything blocking the mount on my lens. It clicked in with the same ease as the PL 1.4 TC.

As for keeping it or moving to the 100-400mm, it's totally a "horses for courses" thing. While it sounds nice to "just get closer", one of my favorite birding spots is a lake and I don't have a boat. Getting closer is great in theory, but sometimes it just isn't possible.

I think if I bought the PL 100-400 I'd be shooting at 400mm about 75% of the time. Part of that is that it would enable me to shoot different things, and part of it is that I could be a little lazier and wouldn't have to get as close. The PL 200 absolutely rewards my patience in setting up closer and then waiting for a while for the birds to come nearer. I should test out the Oly 1.4x TC and see how that works. I think that if I sell the 200 then I will likely never own another lens that good. Makes me sad.

I think I'm still intrigued by the idea of cropping from the 1.4x TC. 10 MP is still enough resolution for 4K screens or 16" diagonal prints at 300 DPI. I've also had decent luck with resolution enhancement through Pixelmator Pro, which could push that up a bit.

Of course, since there's always a flip side, the 100-400 at 400mm is definitely better than the 200 w TC cropped to 400, and it is almost a pound lighter which makes it easier to take into the backcountry. I carted around my 200 on a 4-day trip in the mountains recently and used it twice, which was annoying. Perhaps the answer is that there's not really a wrong answer. If you can use the 200mm at 200 then there's no better option. If you need longer, the 100-400 is likely the way to go.

Also consider when you will be using the lens and what kind of conditions. The reason I began looking at the primes was not just for the bump in IQ but for the increase in light gathering and AF speed and stabilization. I was using the MZ100-400 and while I found I was getting good results in good light, soon as the lighting faded the images took a hit as ISO quickly climbed and autofocus also began to struggle.

The PL200 has been far more accurate for me, and using only the 1.4TC or the bare lens allows me to keep the ISO down while shooting in lower light conditions. Shooting under similar conditions early in the morning and late in the afternoon into evening or heavely shaded areas like forests and woodlands the PL200 gives me significantly more keepers and I have been able to crop in deeper due to being able to manage ISO better. If shooting only in good lighting then one of the 100-400s might be the better choice.

I personally have found the PL200 far more flexible due to the brighter aperture than the rather slow 100-400s. The IQ at 200 and 280 was significantly better and at least with my copy at 400 matches the 100-400s I had access to.

This is a very good point, thanks! The much brighter aperture does make a difference, for sure. I was out yesterday and noticed how much higher I could push my shutter speeds at 2.8. Sometimes you’re fighting for depth of field, but you can always stop down, which is not necessarily an option on a slower lens.

I don’t think I can bring myself to move on from the 200. At least for now. The images are just so nice and the flexibility of 2.8 definitely can’t be taken for granted.