Oly 100-400mm + TC1.4 - observations and sharpness test

[MarkG]

I have an OM-1 and Oly 100-400, the combo that I like quite a bit. While photographing smaller birds, I sometimes feel that 20Mp is not quite enough. My other, Sony setup is, while heavier, give me more ability to crop.

I decided to purchase Oly TC1.4 and test whether it offers any benefit vs. simply cropping deeper.

Attached are two captures (best of several of each kind)

- shot at the same distance ~25-30 ft, one at 400mm another at 400+TC1.4 = 560mm

- good light (ISO 320 and 200)

- wide open in both cases, handheld, 1/1600

- center crop ~1400 x 1400 pixels

- Processed in LR, no NR of any kind, sharpness = 70



To my eyes the 400mm + TC1.4 is much better, offering extra sharpness in the text and better, crisper texture in the paper.

This result may be counterintuitive (usual advice is use TC with a sharp prime), but it seems when used with moderate MP-count camera the advantage of extra pixels outweighs the slight loss of sharpness in the lens + TC combo.

I confirmed these findings on birds as well.

Another observation that I'm sure most are familiar with is that TC does not offer any advantage at greater distances, where atmospheric effects dominate. You still need to get close, even with TC, and aim for filling the frame.

Wondering if others using 100-400 + TC have the same observations.

 

[Atho]

I have an OM-1 and Oly 100-400, the combo that I like quite a bit. While photographing smaller birds, I sometimes feel that 20Mp is not quite enough. My other, Sony setup is, while heavier, give me more ability to crop.

I decided to purchase Oly TC1.4 and test whether it offers any benefit vs. simply cropping deeper.

Attached are two captures (best of several of each kind)

- shot at the same distance ~25-30 ft, one at 400mm another at 400+TC1.4 = 560mm

- good light (ISO 320 and 200)

- wide open in both cases, handheld, 1/1600

- center crop ~1400 x 1400 pixels

- Processed in LR, no NR of any kind, sharpness = 70

To my eyes the 400mm + TC1.4 is much better, offering extra sharpness in the text and better, crisper texture in the paper.

This result may be counterintuitive (usual advice is use TC with a sharp prime), but it seems when used with moderate MP-count camera the advantage of extra pixels outweighs the slight loss of sharpness in the lens + TC combo.

I confirmed these findings on birds as well.

Let’s see those instead.

Another observation that I'm sure most are familiar with is that TC does not offer any advantage at greater distances, where atmospheric effects dominate. You still need to get close, even with TC, and aim for filling the frame.

Wondering if others using 100-400 + TC have the same observations.

--
the whole is something besides the parts

 

[drj3]

I

Another observation that I'm sure most are familiar with is that TC does not offer any advantage at greater distances, where atmospheric effects dominate. You still need to get close, even with TC, and aim for filling the frame.

Actually a TC does offer an advantage at greater distances, it may still be very poor, but it is a better bad image.

Of course you are correct, the big advantage of a TC is increased pixels on the target with the goal of filling the frame.

--
drj3

 

[Atho]

Happening frequently. Mod please excise if possible

 

[MarkG]

I

Another observation that I'm sure most are familiar with is that TC does not offer any advantage at greater distances, where atmospheric effects dominate. You still need to get close, even with TC, and aim for filling the frame.

Actually a TC does offer an advantage at greater distances, it may still be very poor, but it is a better bad image.

Of course you are correct, the big advantage of a TC is increased pixels on the target with the goal of filling the frame.

A "better bad image" is exactly right! And thanks for the correction, my point was that TC can't fix the issues that great distance imposes.

 

[CarlosU]

I

Another observation that I'm sure most are familiar with is that TC does not offer any advantage at greater distances, where atmospheric effects dominate. You still need to get close, even with TC, and aim for filling the frame.

Actually a TC does offer an advantage at greater distances, it may still be very poor, but it is a better bad image.

Of course you are correct, the big advantage of a TC is increased pixels on the target with the goal of filling the frame.

A "better bad image" is exactly right! And thanks for the correction, my point was that TC can't fix the issues that great distance imposes.

400mm +tc + close to the little bird = winner!

shooting at great distance for me is for identifying what's there only.

 

[Mait]

Taking pic-s of a paper vs. real world bird/animal may be a little different story. I tried same combo few times with animals and imo details were quite bad.

 

[Ken Croft]

This is a repeat of a post from another forum. It is about using the 1.4 convertor on the Oly 300mm f4pro, and it supports the OP's findings about using a convertor and it surprised me.

A couple of days ago at an RSPB reserve I came across an OM1 user with a 2x convertor on his 300pro lens. He made all kind of claims about how good the results are, but he balanced this by his slagging-off the Canon R7, which I know to be an excellent camera for the job. I therefore was sceptical about his claims but it set me thinking about my own birding gear. I have an OM1, a PL100-400 first version, a 300f4 pro and a 1.4x convertor and so I decided to make a few tests representing how I use my stuff. I emphasize, not scientific controlled tests, just representing my own real world. It was a miserable day so I stayed inside.
I am frequently in poor light, I always hand hold and I always shoot raw. I wanted my rough and ready tests to reflect my situation. Inside my house I set up a small electronic circuit board sized 11cmx7.5cm, so roughly the size of a small bird. I braced myself against a wall some 10m from the target. For the 300mm the IS was set to lens and body, for the PL at 400mm it was lens only. ISO was 6400 in all cases, lens wide open and shutter varied from 1/60 to 1/125. I took about a dozen raw shots on sequential low silent shutter with each lens and put them all through DXO PL7 cropping to the edges of the target and processing only through DeepPRIME XD. All images were then put through PhotoShop CS6 and sharpened 100/0.5/10. No resizing was done. The best image was selected from each set viewing full size ie pixel peeping..
Observations.
Image sharpness varied throughout each burst with each lens. The biggest variation was with the PL100-400 at 400mm. I am guessing the variation is due to hand holding at very slow shutter speeds with lens IS only.
The best image from the combination of the Pro300 + 1.4x was slightly sharper than that from the Pro300 on its own. I find this very surprizing so I ran the tests again with the same result.
Results were best 300+1.4x, then the 300 bare, then lastly the PL at 400.
Maybe the Olympus enthusiast really does get good results with his OM1 + 300Pro +2x convertor.
As a secondary result I measured the pixel width of the target for each lens setup. The ratio of target width to stated focal length for the 300 and the 300+1.4x was 4.54 so by calculation the PL at 400mm was actually delivering 378mm. I think that is fairly well known already.

I repeat, this is not a lens test, it is a test of the results that I am likely to get from the way I use my equipment. It kind-of supports the OP's findings.





The target of the tests.




300/f4 bare




300 + 1.4x




PL at 400mm


Ken C

 

[Atho]

This is a repeat of a post from another forum. It is about using the 1.4 convertor on the Oly 300mm f4pro, and it supports the OP's findings about using a convertor and it surprised me.

A couple of days ago at an RSPB reserve I came across an OM1 user with a 2x convertor on his 300pro lens. He made all kind of claims about how good the results are, but he balanced this by his slagging-off the Canon R7, which I know to be an excellent camera for the job. I therefore was sceptical about his claims but it set me thinking about my own birding gear. I have an OM1, a PL100-400 first version, a 300f4 pro and a 1.4x convertor and so I decided to make a few tests representing how I use my stuff. I emphasize, not scientific controlled tests, just representing my own real world. It was a miserable day so I stayed inside.
I am frequently in poor light, I always hand hold and I always shoot raw. I wanted my rough and ready tests to reflect my situation. Inside my house I set up a small electronic circuit board sized 11cmx7.5cm, so roughly the size of a small bird. I braced myself against a wall some 10m from the target. For the 300mm the IS was set to lens and body, for the PL at 400mm it was lens only. ISO was 6400 in all cases, lens wide open and shutter varied from 1/60 to 1/125. I took about a dozen raw shots on sequential low silent shutter with each lens and put them all through DXO PL7 cropping to the edges of the target and processing only through DeepPRIME XD. All images were then put through PhotoShop CS6 and sharpened 100/0.5/10. No resizing was done. The best image was selected from each set viewing full size ie pixel peeping..
Observations.
Image sharpness varied throughout each burst with each lens. The biggest variation was with the PL100-400 at 400mm. I am guessing the variation is due to hand holding at very slow shutter speeds with lens IS only.
The best image from the combination of the Pro300 + 1.4x was slightly sharper than that from the Pro300 on its own. I find this very surprizing so I ran the tests again with the same result.
Results were best 300+1.4x, then the 300 bare, then lastly the PL at 400.
Maybe the Olympus enthusiast really does get good results with his OM1 + 300Pro +2x convertor.
As a secondary result I measured the pixel width of the target for each lens setup. The ratio of target width to stated focal length for the 300 and the 300+1.4x was 4.54 so by calculation the PL at 400mm was actually delivering 378mm. I think that is fairly well known already.

I repeat, this is not a lens test, it is a test of the results that I am likely to get from the way I use my equipment. It kind-of supports the OP's findings.



The target of the tests.


300/f4 bare


300 + 1.4x


PL at 400mm

Ken C

Why no 300mm shot from the pany?

--
the whole is something besides the parts

 

[drj3]

This is a repeat of a post from another forum. It is about using the 1.4 convertor on the Oly 300mm f4pro, and it supports the OP's findings about using a convertor and it surprised me.

A good TC should almost always be better than the lens alone when shot from the same distance even at the higher ISO required by the TC. They both have the same amount of light on the target. A TC will have some degradation of the image, but it has the advantage of far more pixels on the target. With a 2X TC you have 20MP on the target vs 5MP.

Also they are also very useful in bird identification. For example I know these two birds photographed at sunset (center and lower left) more that 1075 feet away are Northern Harriers (the focus step was 1975, beyond the lens infinity step of 2000).







--
drj3

 

[Ken Croft]

No 300mm from the PL because I only ever use it at 400mm. In fact since I bought the 300f4 I rarely use it at all. As I said, this was not a lens test, but a test of the likely results from the way that I use my gear.


Ken C

 

[EZGritz]

I found the M43 TCs produce great images. There are times when I need them because I have to crop too much if I don't. They are much better than the TCs I had with the Four Thirds system in which I found I made better images by cropping more than by using them.

 

[EZGritz]

It can improve the image.

 

[EZGritz]

When they are useful for identification it means the image will be better and also to help know when to push the shutter.

 

[EZGritz]

Probably would have been bad images with no TC. They don't make good images into bad ones. The IQ degradation is not that great. Something else was wrong. Maybe the shutter speed was too slow for the FL with the TC or the system didn't have enough light from putting a TC to a slow lens. I've had excellent results with them. I only use them when I need them and when I can crank up the shutter speed and I have enough light to keep the ISO down.

 

[EZGritz]

The 100-400 is too slow for me except on a very bright day. I borrowed one on the test and wow OLY program for a weekend and returned it. I made very good images with it but only when subjects were close enough to use smaller, lighter lenses so I decided I would not use it much. I'm happier with the two 40-150s and the 300 f/4 and a TC when I need it.

 

[Woody Meristem]

I have the Olympus 100-400mm and often use it with the 1.4X TC -- I'm very pleased with the results. Sometimes I use the lens with the camera's 2X digital TC and find the digital TC much better than I expected it to be, not as good as the 1.4 but much better than expected. Once or twice I've even used the 1.4 plus the digital TC for an astounding 2240 mm field of view, the images aren't great but if taken from a steady tripod and a reasonably close subject they're OK

 

[Atho]

No 300mm from the PL because I only ever use it at 400mm. In fact since I bought the 300f4 I rarely use it at all. As I said, this was not a lens test, but a test of the likely results from the way that I use my gear.

Ken C

Seems you shortchanged yourself by not using it at any other focal length. Who knows you might have even saved yourself the expense of the f4 300, as my version is sharper at both 300 and 364mm though I am happy to use it at 400mm.

Apologies to OP for continuing off topic

--
the whole is something besides the parts

 

[pabulum]

This is really helpful, thanks for posting. I was unsatisfied with the results from my 100-400+1.4TC using it in a similar way you describe, & I'm planning to get the 300 PRO as a consequence. This helps me understand what I can expect/look forward to - cheers.

 

[Ken Croft]

No 300mm from the PL because I only ever use it at 400mm. In fact since I bought the 300f4 I rarely use it at all. As I said, this was not a lens test, but a test of the likely results from the way that I use my gear.

Ken C

Seems you shortchanged yourself by not using it at any other focal length. Who knows you might have even saved yourself the expense of the f4 300, as my version is sharper at both 300 and 364mm though I am happy to use it at 400mm.

Apologies to OP for continuing off topic