Relative merits of EC-20 and EC-14 teleconverters?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Jun 18, 2012.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Olympus makes a pair of teleconverters that are supposed to "play nice"
    with several of their four-thirds lenses, and some other people's four-
    thirds lenses as well. The EC-14 with its 1.4x magnification is labeled
    "high grade" while the EC-20 with its 2x magnification is labeled
    "standard". So, the EC-20 magnifies more but also blurs more. Some
    people claim that the EC-20 only magnifies more than it blurs if you
    stop it down several times. Anyway, I have posted some side-by-side
    pictures here:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41812110

    Does anyone here have any experience with these teleconverters? Does
    the EC-20 allow you to image distant objects with more resolution than
    the EC-14 or not?





    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jun 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 18, 9:45 am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > Olympus makes a pair of teleconverters that are supposed to "play nice"
    > with several of their four-thirds lenses, and some other people's four-
    > thirds lenses as well.  The EC-14 with its 1.4x magnification is labeled
    > "high grade" while the EC-20 with its 2x magnification is labeled
    > "standard".  So, the EC-20 magnifies more but also blurs more.  Some
    > people claim that the EC-20 only magnifies more than it blurs if you
    > stop it down several times.  Anyway, I have posted some side-by-side
    > pictures here:
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41812110
    >
    > Does anyone here have any experience with these teleconverters?  Does
    > the EC-20 allow you to image distant objects with more resolution than
    > the EC-14 or not?
    >


    It probably does, if the parent lens is stopped down. I was never
    hugely impressed with the 50-200mm, I thought the lesser 40-150 kit
    lens was sharper wide open. In any case, resolution does not =
    sharpness. You can have a less sharp image at a larger scale that
    resolves better than a sharper image at a smaller scale. But there
    are other factors to consider, like how 800mm equivalent focal length
    responds on the camera, does it need a tripod or monopod to keep from
    blurring shots, etc. Try if it all possible to shoot at a shutter
    speed 1/ 2x the equivalent lens focal length. So at least 1/1600th
    sec for an 800mm equivalent. Remember the old rule of 1/shutter speed
    was only really "ok" for 35mm film cameras that at best resolved like
    an 8 megapixel sensor. At the same time, you need to make sure
    whatever ISO you are using isn't degrading the detail through noise
    reduction. Experiment.
     
    RichA, Jun 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >On 2012-06-18 09:45 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >> "standard". So, the EC-20 magnifies more but also blurs more. Some
    >> people claim that the EC-20 only magnifies more than it blurs if you
    >> stop it down several times. Anyway, I have posted some side-by-side
    >> pictures here:
    >>
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41812110

    >
    >The last shot at the bottom is sharper than the rest. I'm not sure what
    >the pairs represent.


    Sigh, I thought I explained that in the post. In each pair, the top
    picture was taken without the TC and enlarged digitally, while the
    bottom one was taken with the TC and is being shown 1:1. F number and
    shutter speed are the same for both, but that doesn't seem to have
    resulted in quite the same exposure. So far as I am concerned, there
    is no point in using the teleconverter unless it is capable of imaging
    some additional detail. Otherwise, one might as well just blow things
    up in photoshop instead.

    >I also note you're shooting these with a zoom which is not the best for
    >TC's...


    If long fixed focal length lenses existed for the four thirds or micro
    four thirds, I would gladly use them. The Olympus super high grade 300mm
    is outside of my price range, alas. The next best lens, that everyone
    seemed to think highly of, was the 50-200nm.

    >Yes, stopping down helps. But then the effective aperture is already
    >cut by 1 (1.4x) or 2 (2x) stops so you run out of "sharp" range of your
    >lens pretty quick when there is less light. With a long lens (I used a
    >300 f/2.8) and fading light, I had to resort to faster films with the TC's.
    >
    >Don't expect miracles. Do expect that today's digital sensors will show
    >the softness of the TC's quite well.


    Can you elaborate--do you mean "soft" as in "shallow depth of field",
    "distored by spherical aberration", or "just plain blurry"? The first
    shouldn't affect landscape much or astrophotography at all; the second
    is something that I have no use for and would probably do in photoshop
    if I wanted it, which I don't, and the third is an argument against
    using the teleconverters at all.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jun 20, 2012
    #3
  4. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    > Alan Browne <> wrote:


    >>Don't expect miracles. Do expect that today's digital sensors will show
    >>the softness of the TC's quite well.


    > Can you elaborate--do you mean "soft" as in "shallow depth of field",


    Nope. Not more than a lens of that parameters without a TC
    in the equation.

    > "distored by spherical aberration",


    Depends on the lens-TC combinations. Some may even have less
    abberations than the lens alone.

    > or "just plain blurry"?


    Yep.
    The TC enlarges. Especially all the imperfections of the
    lens itself. Never mind the imperfections of the TC ...

    So you need a good lens to begin with.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 20, 2012
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >
    >Yep.
    >The TC enlarges. Especially all the imperfections of the
    >lens itself. Never mind the imperfections of the TC ...
    >
    >So you need a good lens to begin with.


    ....which I thought the Zuiko 5-200mm F2.8-3.5 was. Every review of it
    that I saw was glowing.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jun 21, 2012
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 21, 9:33 am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg  <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >Yep.
    > >The TC enlarges.  Especially all the imperfections of the
    > >lens itself.  Never mind the imperfections of the TC ...

    >
    > >So you need a good lens to begin with.

    >
    > ...which I thought the Zuiko 5-200mm F2.8-3.5 was.  Every review of it
    > that I saw was glowing.


    As always, test, test, test.
     
    RichA, Jun 23, 2012
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


    S>>Yep.
    >>The TC enlarges. Especially all the imperfections of the
    >>lens itself. Never mind the imperfections of the TC ...


    >>So you need a good lens to begin with.


    > ...which I thought the Zuiko 5-200mm F2.8-3.5 was.


    A 40x lens?
    Did you miss a zero, like 5-2000mm? :)

    > Every review of it that I saw was glowing.


    I would be careful with radioactive reviews that even glow in
    daylight.

    Not knowing the lens I cannot comment on it's quality, nor on
    the veracity of your reviews.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 24, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vin

    Digital Camera Crops and 0.7x Teleconverters

    Vin, Oct 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    686
  2. BG250

    The merits of a large sensor

    BG250, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
    BG250
    Nov 24, 2003
  3. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    The Moon with a telephoto lens and teleconverters

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,071
  4. Graham Archer

    Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED and Sigma teleconverters

    Graham Archer, Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    375
    JimmyG
    Apr 27, 2006
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Teleconverters and Telescopes

    Dudley Hanks, Mar 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    743
    Dudley Hanks
    Mar 25, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page