Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

which tele-converter with om zuiko 300/4.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:51 pm    Post subject: which tele-converter with om zuiko 300/4.5 Reply with quote

Any ideas for good converter, because om zuiko1.4x is very hard to find and expensive. 300/4.5 Zuiko is very sharp, but there is some ca and purple fringing. Is there any sharp converter with apo-lenses?


PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any teleconverter will exaggerate the CAs already produced by the lens. So, I would not recommend using a TC with the OM 300mm. I've tried using the Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x TC with the OM 300 mm f4.5 and did not find the results satisfactory, and this TC is probably as good as they come being designed for DSLRs. It does work quite well with the TAIR-3PhS Photosniper lens but then the TAIR has very low CA in the first place (better than the OM 300mm).

Mark


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Mark,

Have to continue tracking some good old 400 mm. I was just interested to get some more length, because my om zuiko 300 is producing pretty nice and sharp pictures with OM-D, in spite of purple fringing.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too agree that TCs deteriorate IQ quite a lot.

Have you ever thought of mirror lenses? Most of them aren't that great but they produce no CAs and there are some good ones.

For instance, MTO 500mm is very good (I have one).


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SXR_Mark wrote:
Any teleconverter will exaggerate the CAs already produced by the lens. So, I would not recommend using a TC with the OM 300mm. I've tried using the Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x TC with the OM 300 mm f4.5 and did not find the results satisfactory, and this TC is probably as good as they come being designed for DSLRs. It does work quite well with the TAIR-3PhS Photosniper lens but then the TAIR has very low CA in the first place (better than the OM 300mm).

Mark


+1


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

donald dump wrote:
..............Have to continue tracking some good old 400 mm.............. .


I found more use for 400 than for 200/300 mm lenses.

IMHO after the 85/135mm lens for portrait and general use, the one to have is the 400 (Apo, please).

Animals and narrow landscape are more inside the 400 than the 200/300.

Good luck.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sonyrokkor wrote:
donald dump wrote:
..............Have to continue tracking some good old 400 mm.............. .


I found more use for 400 than for 200/300 mm lenses.

IMHO after the 85/135mm lens for portrait and general use, the one to have is the 400 (Apo, please).

Animals and narrow landscape are more inside the 400 than the 200/300.

Good luck.


Of course, the format affects the choice here. I guess from your moniker that you are not using 4/3 size sensor. The OP is using Oly OM-D E-M5. 400mm on APS-C is equivalent to 320mm on 4/3. 400mm on 4/3 is serious tele-territory.

The following is a bit of a ramble, but the OP may find it useful.

As a 4/3 user myself (two Oly E3 and now E-M5) my main use for tele lenses is motorsports (with the E3s as I still find the EVF less than ideal for fast action work). Most of the time the ZD 50-200mm on the E3 is more than enough reach. I do use the TAIR-3 300mm a lot as well (I used to use the OM 300mm f4.5 but find the TAIR is a good in practical sharpness and has almost no colour fringing. I also don't mind using it in the wet.) And yet, I too want a good 400mm lens, even though it will get used only small amount of the time.

I have the OM Zuiko 400mm f6.3 (my most expensive MF lens) and it's sharp wide open. But the colour fringing is just that bit worse than the 300mm. I don't need a fast aperture for motorpsorts because I want a slowish shutter speed to give a sense of motion and so use mainly f8 to f11 unless the light is very bad. Shiny cars in sunshine do tend to bring out the colour fringing if it's there, so with residual fringing sometimes visible even at f11 I don't really use the Zuiko. The size and cost of the thing doesn't encourage casual use either.

I also have the Sigma APO 400mm f5.6. I have had three copies actually - all with the ubiquitous internal element degradation. Yes, this lens has very low fringing and is decently sharp at f5.6 and very sharp at f8. It is also nice and compact. But that fogging issue prevents me from trying again with this lens.

I have just got a Tokina SL 400mm f5.6 SD version (with the red ring on the sliding hood). This lens was rubbished in another recent thread. I haven't had chance to take real pictures with it, but my standard test chart shots done yesterday shows it is poor at f5.6 but improves dramatically at f8 and smaller apertures. I think it is as sharp as the Sigma. There is still a hint of fringing at f8 and f11, but my guess is it won't be a problem except under very taxing conditions. It is also small and light. One thing I did note is that accurate focus is very critical. The focus ring is highly geared so even a small movement results in a rapid increase in colour fringing. Perhaps this is why people do not rate this lens.

I have also just bought a Tamron SP 31A 200-500mm f5.6 lens. This is the very antithesis of "small and light". It's a bl**dy monster! Wouldn't it be wonderful if this lens covered the FL range 200-400mm to match onto the ZD 50-200mm? Then I could have one E3 body with the ZD and the other with the Tammy. A fast switch to a massive range of FLs would be at my fingertips. These were my thought when I decided to get this lens. Of course, old zoom lenses are notorious for colour fringing, so expecting performance at the level of the TAIR would be naively optimistic.

Again, I have only had the chance to do lens chart tests. I only got the lens on Friday and it's not a winter weather lens! There was however enough sunshine on the chart yesterday morning to bring out any colour fringing. I tested it with the E-M5 even though I may not use it with that camera. I tested it every 50mm from 200 to 500mm and at all half stops from f5.6 to f11. For sure, when used wide open, there is colour fringing to be seen when looking at the pictures 100%. The fringing gets worse at the longer focal lengths. In fact, at 300mm and below, the fringing is very slight indeed even at f5,6 and basically non-existent by f11. So far so good, but I'm not lugging this behemoth around just to work in the 200 to 300mm range.

Wide open, things get progressively worse as the FL increases. From 350mm to 500mm the fringing is significant at f5.6. That's not to say that it is very bad though. Even at it's worst, and when viewing the full image on a 27" display, the fringing does not leap out and scream its presence. But enlarge to 100% and there is no missing it. The fringing does always drop significantly at f8, but it takes f11 to make it small enough to be classed as non-existent.

In terms of sharpness, the lens is very consistent and very good. I would say only at 500mm does the sharpness fall off, but it never gets bad.

My summary of this lens based on these limited tests is:

• Lens is excellent 200-450mm at f11. Should good excellent results even in bright sunlight.
• Sharpness is consistently high 200-450mm. Even at 500mm it is good at f11
• From 200-300mm, should give excellent results even in bright sunlight at f8 (and probably at f5.6).
• From 350-400mm at f8, bright sunlight could result in visible colour fringing; f11 would be safer aperture.

If you can tolerate some colour fringing, this is definitely a lens to consider. I am optimistic that it will do want I want it do if I can cope with the weight an bulk of the thing.

Mark


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, what a great post!

I agree that colour fringing is an issue with old telephoto lenses on MFT and FT cameras and their high pixel density.

I have both the OM Zuikos 135/2.8 and 200/4 and found that you need to stop down the 135 1 stop to stop colour fringing and the 200/4 rather 1 1/2 stops to get rid of it. The amount of colour fringing at open aperture can be really troublesome for some shots. On other occasions, you hardly see it at all. It depends on the subject, obviously. Anyway, my impression is that the number of f stops you have to close down a lens to get rid of colour fringing seems to increase with focal length.

However, it's no problem to stop down a 200/4 by 1 1/2 stops, you'll end up with something like f/6.3 or f/7.1 then. But when you have to stop down a 300/4.5 by 1 1/2 stops (probably even 2 full stops) or a 400/6.3 by probably even more than two full stops, you'll get very long exposure times, and depending on the body (think E-M5 or G3 etc.) also a lot of diffraction due to the small lens opening.

I am also very attracted by the OM Zuiko 300/4.5 as it surely would fit so nicely in a small lineup of OM Zuiko lenses. But I guess I'll rather look for a lens with less colour fringing, and that means it MUST be an apochromatic lens of some kind. Sadly, Olympus never made "affordable" apochromatic lenses and left that field entirely to Nikon, Sigma, etc. Thomas


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting points, thanks.

There are not so many old APO-lenses and if there is some, it´s quite expensive.

I just feel it quite fascinating to play with these old manuals, although I have modern Canon equipments nowadays nearly useless in a closet. All those oldies are personal and produces different quality, some good, some bad and some between, but I like those pics with their faults. These lenses are made well and durable and they are fine to focus manually - they are not plastic.

I have seen somewhere Rolleinar 400/5.6 - it´s not very common lens and no info anywhere. I think, it is also sold by some other brands, but who knows?

And how about Canon Fd 400/4.5? Is it worth considering?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dsmlogger wrote:
I too agree that TCs deteriorate IQ quite a lot.

Have you ever thought of mirror lenses? Most of them aren't that great but they produce no CAs and there are some good ones.

For instance, MTO 500mm is very good (I have one).


Not so seriously, but in every case mirrors come more and more interesting - I think that until next summer I´ll consider some mirror tele.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know what you mean, about the old lenses and their faults. I also find the ideal behind the new MS Optical Sonnetar lenses very interesting, which are designs (mainly for Leica M) very clearly based on classic ideas and often made with an absolute minimum of lens elements, no aspherics, etc.

Although I have already rejected the idea to get an Olympus OM Zuiko 300/4.5 for my own OM-D because I worry so much about the color fringes, I see them pop up at ebay from time to time and they look just soo nice Smile ..... do you probably have any results from your 300/4.5 (without converter) that you could show?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

memento wrote:
I know what you mean, about the old lenses and their faults. I also find the ideal behind the new MS Optical Sonnetar lenses very interesting, which are designs (mainly for Leica M) very clearly based on classic ideas and often made with an absolute minimum of lens elements, no aspherics, etc.

Although I have already rejected the idea to get an Olympus OM Zuiko 300/4.5 for my own OM-D because I worry so much about the color fringes, I see them pop up at ebay from time to time and they look just soo nice Smile ..... do you probably have any results from your 300/4.5 (without converter) that you could show?


I got 300/4.5 last summer, which was too busy, so I have some pictures left - I didn`t delete all. At the moment it´s not easy for me to show those pics, because, first I have to learn how to do it to this site - This forum work is quite new for me and I´m not a genius with computers. Secondly I´ll be very busy until the end of january - first work, then travel, Christmas, work and travel. But I promise, that I´ll show some pics in the future.

However I can recommend zuiko 300/4.5 - you can process images if there is fringing - it is not in every situation and depends on aperture. I got some quite sharp photos handheld.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SXR_Mark wrote:
.............Of course, the format affects the choice here. I guess from your moniker that you are not using 4/3 size sensor. The OP is using Oly OM-D E-M5. 400mm on APS-C is equivalent to 320mm on 4/3. 400mm on 4/3 is serious tele-territory............
Mark



Yes, but not only the format, the subject do it too.

If you want to take a nice bird's photo, where the subject should be appreciated in his own beatifull, and you can't be near enought, you do not forget that the bird will have the same size in different format, using the same focal lengh and the same distance.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Minolta Rokkor 400/5.6 APO could be worth a try. You could get lucky and find one relatively cheap.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both the 300mm F4.5 and the OM Zuiko 1.4x-A tele converter.

I will try to post some test shots.


Last edited by dnas on Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've just remembered that the following site has a comparison of (amongst other things) the OM 300mm with the OM 1.4 and 2x TC's

http://www.bytesmiths.com/OM_Tele/index3.html

The increase in fringing with the TCs is quite obvious when you look at the crops.


Mark


PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the link!

The most surprising part of that comparison to me is the Tamron 300/2.8 – how seriously bad it is when used alone, but how much better it gets when used with a tele converter.

Did anyone ever show results with an ED Nikkor 300 or 400 on a FT or MFT camera? Do they really show no fringing thanks to their special glass elements?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:16 pm    Post subject: zuiko 1.4 converter Reply with quote

Hello, I'm Pieter, from Utrecht, the Netherlands. I stumbled upon this forum. I happen to have the Zuiko 300/4.5, the 400/6.3 and the 1.4 x converter (plus extra zuiko lenses like the 21/3.5, 50/1.4). I really like the 1.4 converter actually, though I'm planning to sell my Zuiko/OM cameras and lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:21 pm    Post subject: 2x Reply with quote

I have a long unused Olympus 2x converter somewhere. If anyone has a use for it, PM me.

p.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:16 pm    Post subject: Re: which tele-converter with om zuiko 300/4.5 Reply with quote

donald dump wrote:
Any ideas for good converter, because om zuiko1.4x is very hard to find and expensive. 300/4.5 Zuiko is very sharp, but there is some ca and purple fringing. Is there any sharp converter with apo-lenses?


And why not using the zuiko 500mm .. Very good quality / Handy / Not color fringing and not very expensive ?