Visit in zoo with 50-200mm & TC 2.0

[emsig]

I was curious how the 50-200mm lens with added TC 2.0 would behave. Here are some samples.

With most of the shots I hade no issues at all. But in some situations the autofocus struggled to get the distance.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

These look good.

Can I assume the raccoons broke into the zoo? There's no stopping them.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Quodz]

Hmm. My conclusion too - 50-200 + MC20, not a good idea.

My PL100-400 Mk 1 is way sharper.

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

Hmm. My conclusion too - 50-200 + MC20, not a good idea.

My PL100-400 Mk 1 is way sharper.

Not ideal to shoot at or below 200mm with the 50-200mm f/2.8 and 2xTC attached. Not fun to take the TC on and off constantly so I understand why.

I doubt, however, that the PL100-400mm is sharper than the 50-200mm with 2xTC. It looks similar IMO.

 

[TechRAW]

I'm not one for zoo photography but you captured some nice photos here. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Quodz]

Hmm. My conclusion too - 50-200 + MC20, not a good idea.

My PL100-400 Mk 1 is way sharper.

Not ideal to shoot at or below 200mm with the 50-200mm f/2.8 and 2xTC attached. Not fun to take the TC on and off constantly so I understand why.

I doubt, however, that the PL100-400mm is sharper than the 50-200mm with 2xTC. It looks similar IMO.

'tis so. At least with mine. Also with PL @ 280 vs 50-200 @ 200+MC14 it's a close call, although PL is a stop slower, so 'vantage 50-200. Also at 200mm but here it's nearly 2 stops (f/.5,1 vs f/2.8).

Bob

 

[boxerman]

Nice! Thanks.

I assume the vertical light striping in the first image is shooting through a window...or similar.

I VERY much want to consolidate my medium->long telephoto on the 50-200 + teleconverters. From many postings, people are comfortable with the 1.4x, but 2.0x seems judged regularly "below par." I have a PL 100-400 Mark I, which has served me very well on safaris, etc., but I would very much rather NOT take both, 50-200 and 100-400. Would you care to weigh in on this specific issue, from your perspective? I'm not sure I can get a good grip on this from (I assume) down-sampled images posted on DP Review. I know some others have weighed in on this thread, from their perspectives, but opinions differ and you look to me like a good source of "opinion."

--
The BoxerMan

 

[Phocal]

Nice! Thanks.

I assume the vertical light striping in the first image is shooting through a window...or similar.

I VERY much want to consolidate my medium->long telephoto on the 50-200 + teleconverters. From many postings, people are comfortable with the 1.4x, but 2.0x seems judged regularly "below par." I have a PL 100-400 Mark I, which has served me very well on safaris, etc., but I would very much rather NOT take both, 50-200 and 100-400. Would you care to weigh in on this specific issue, from your perspective? I'm not sure I can get a good grip on this from (I assume) down-sampled images posted on DP Review. I know some others have weighed in on this thread, from their perspectives, but opinions differ and you look to me like a good source of "opinion."

Here is my ongoing review of the 50-200; my posting with the MC-20 is on pages 3 and 4, with my thoughts on using the MC-20.

 

[emsig]

Hi

You mean the first picture with the racoon? No window there. The light stripes you see must be reflections of trees in the water.

Windows were there in the pictures of the apes down till the wildcat. Lightroom helped a lot in removing glares in all that cases.

As Jeff Wahaus metioned in this thread that shooting below 200mm isn't ideal. But my intention was to use the TC throughout the shooting for seeing how good (or bad) it would turn out. Conclusion, for me it is good enough.

I wanted to find out if it makes sense to travel lighter than with the Big White when I don't want to take too much gear around. For me it works.

I see others also think about traveling lighter. I would recommend to try it out themself. And there is still the option of the TC 1.4. I believe this combination should give no trouble at all.

 

[emsig]

Great contribution to the theme, thank you very much.

 

[Will Rose]

I was curious how the 50-200mm lens with added TC 2.0 would behave. Here are some samples.

With most of the shots I hade no issues at all. But in some situations the autofocus struggled to get the distance.

Nice shots! They came out looking pretty good.

There is some CA on the flamingos, which is a little surprising for this lens. Perhaps it was the TC.

What did you use for noise reduction? It looks like the NR processing on the last image of the wolves was different…

 

[emsig]

Noise reduction and sharpenig with Topaz Studio, the same was applied to the wildcat picture.

 

[boxerman]

You mean the first picture with the racoon? No window there. The light stripes you see must be reflections of trees in the water.

Yes.

The stripes seem very even, so I ruled out trees. But, it's a zoo, so maybe things are manicured.

As Jeff Wahaus metioned in this thread that shooting below 200mm isn't ideal. But my intention was to use the TC throughout the shooting for seeing how good (or bad) it would turn out. Conclusion, for me it is good enough.

I wanted to find out if it makes sense to travel lighter than with the Big White when I don't want to take too much gear around. For me it works.

That's precisely what I'd like to determine for myself. I my case, I'm not planning to buy the big white. I have the cash, but one needs a balance in life.

I see others also think about traveling lighter. I would recommend to try it out themself. And there is still the option of the TC 1.4. I believe this combination should give no trouble at all.

Right. Certainly if/when I get the 50-200, I'd experiment. But, it never hurts to know more before you actually purchase. I THINK I'd get both TCs.

 

[boxerman]

Here is my ongoing review of the 50-200; my posting with the MC-20 is on pages 3 and 4, with my thoughts on using the MC-20.

Thanks for this.

 

[Phocal]

Here is my ongoing review of the 50-200; my posting with the MC-20 is on pages 3 and 4, with my thoughts on using the MC-20.

Thanks for this.

You are welcome. You may not want to read this one

 

[Quodz]

I doubt, however, that the PL100-400mm is sharper than the 50-200mm with 2xTC. It looks similar IMO.

OOC JPGs, uncropped, best of several taken. Focus point between top of arches.

 

[drj3]

I doubt, however, that the PL100-400mm is sharper than the 50-200mm with 2xTC. It looks similar IMO.

OOC JPGs, uncropped, best of several taken. Focus point between top of arches.

The MC20+50-200 f2.8 is definitely not as sharp at f5.6 as when it is stopped down even to f6.3.

However, that is not why I responded to your post. The 50-200mm f2.8 image is much sharper in the lower right than anywhere else. The Panasonic lens does not show much difference.

It could suggest missed focus with the 50-200 f2.8 and the lower right is a different distance than the center or it could suggest decentering. Check you 50-200 f2.8 carefully for decentering without the MC20 and then with the MC20 while you can still return it if the lens (instead of the MC20) is decentered.

--
drj3

 

[Quodz]

I doubt, however, that the PL100-400mm is sharper than the 50-200mm with 2xTC. It looks similar IMO.

OOC JPGs, uncropped, best of several taken. Focus point between top of arches.

The MC20+50-200 f2.8 is definitely not as sharp at f5.6 as when it is stopped down even to f6.3.

However, that is not why I responded to your post. The 50-200mm f2.8 image is much sharper in the lower right than anywhere else. The Panasonic lens does not show much difference.

It could suggest missed focus with the 50-200 f2.8 and the lower right is a different distance than the center or it could suggest decentering. Check you 50-200 f2.8 carefully for decentering without the MC20 and then with the MC20 while you can still return it if the lens (instead of the MC20) is decentered.

you are correct, of course, at f/8 the result is much closer -

But then I did not get the lens to use with the MC20, there are better options. However I did expect to use it with my MC14.

With respect to the decentering issue; the church tower is some 80-90 yards from my bedroom window so the lateral offset is negligible. I used small spot S-AF focus and according to the marker in OM Workspace it was spot-on where I said it was. I may do a test for decentering tomorrow but as I am not happy with its centre performance I shall be returning the lens anyway.

Thank you for your comments,

Bob

 

[drj3]

I doubt, however, that the PL100-400mm is sharper than the 50-200mm with 2xTC. It looks similar IMO.

OOC JPGs, uncropped, best of several taken. Focus point between top of arches.

The MC20+50-200 f2.8 is definitely not as sharp at f5.6 as when it is stopped down even to f6.3.

However, that is not why I responded to your post. The 50-200mm f2.8 image is much sharper in the lower right than anywhere else. The Panasonic lens does not show much difference.

It could suggest missed focus with the 50-200 f2.8 and the lower right is a different distance than the center or it could suggest decentering. Check you 50-200 f2.8 carefully for decentering without the MC20 and then with the MC20 while you can still return it if the lens (instead of the MC20) is decentered.

you are correct, of course, at f/8 the result is much closer -

But then I did not get the lens to use with the MC20, there are better options. However I did expect to use it with my MC14.

With respect to the decentering issue; the church tower is some 80-90 yards from my bedroom window so the lateral offset is negligible. I used small spot S-AF focus and according to the marker in OM Workspace it was spot-on where I said it was. I may do a test for decentering tomorrow but as I am not happy with its centre performance I shall be returning the lens anyway.

Thank you for your comments,

Bob

If the limited sample of images are characteristic of your 50-200 f2.8, I would return it. Your f5.6 image is much better than the f4 bird image, I would expect a difference, but your difference is much greater than I see with my lens.

The images of the stone wall with the 50-200 f2.8 look sharper with more contrast on the right side of the image than the center/left side. I don't see the same difference with the Panasonic lens, so I don't see how it could be a difference in lighting of right vs left sides of the wall.

--
drj3

 

[Bobapingu]

I was curious how the 50-200mm lens with added TC 2.0 would behave. Here are some samples.

With most of the shots I hade no issues at all. But in some situations the autofocus struggled to get the distance.

Beautiful pics. Now I know where to get the best wildlife shots. No more struggling through dense scrub on the off chance of seeing some mangy critter before it sees me.