telephoto shots

[elkybum]

OK..here goes....I have a Olympus E 620 and with a Zuiko 70-300 tele lens.
My long range shots have been good but I would like to get better telephoto close up shots...should I pay the big bucks and get a 1500 mm tele lens or how do you guys feel about a doubler/converter to get added focal length?
Thx Bill

[Shadowman]

OK..here goes....I have a Olympus E 620 and with a Zuiko 70-300 tele lens.
My long range shots have been good but I would like to get better telephoto close up shots...should I pay the big bucks and get a 1500 mm tele lens or how do you guys feel about a doubler/converter to get added focal length?
Thx Bill

If you can get it you don't need our blessings, but what are you shooting that you can't capture with the 70-300mm? How well can you fill the viewfinder with the subject (percentage wise) and why isn't this enough? What are the specs for the 70-300mm (I see it is f/4.0-5.6) and 1500mm you plan to buy? Also, what conditions will you be using the lens in, such as lighting, foliage, etc.

[Black Pearl]

Remember the Olympus bodies have a 2x crop factor so you already have a 600mm f5.6 lens. A wildlife pro with an unlimited budget might buy a 600mm f4 Nikon/Canon lens but for their £7k + they are only gaining one stop of extra light (I'll ignore the optical performance for now and concentrate on the sort of shot it will be capable of) so you should be able to fill the frame with most subjects. I have never come across an Olympus 1500mm and I'm not sure why you would need 3000mm for anything other than looking at the craters on the moon. Olympus do list a 300mm f2.8 so that would give you the equivalent of a 600mm f2.8 - two stops brighter than you have now and with faster AF but they cost £6k which in most peoples books would be regarded as either 'a divorce' or more likely a Lotto win purchase.

Post some of the shots you've taken and see if the wildlife shooters here can give you some tips on improving them - at a guess it will be mostly down to your technique and improving that costs nothing.

[Shadowman]

Bill also mentioned using a 2X teleconverter which would get him to 600mm with a 300mm prime, but he would probably lose a few f/stops on a f/2.8 lens, putting him back to f/5.6 and limiting the usage in low light situations.

[elkybum]

Thanks for the comments...I am shooting wildlife, during the day light and it is hard to get real close on some of my subjects so I wondered if a 2x converter would help. I have noticed ones that thread into the end of the lens and I wondered is they are any good..they are cheap so I am apprehensive. Also I know that 1500mm is extreme..what I meant was to double my lens with a 2x converter to get a 280-1200mm tele lens..I just wanted some input as to what you thought about converters and are there good ones out there?
Thx, Bill

[Shadowman]

Thanks for the comments...I am shooting wildlife, during the day light and it is hard to get real close on some of my subjects so I wondered if a 2x converter would help. I have noticed ones that thread into the end of the lens and I wondered is they are any good..they are cheap so I am apprehensive. Also I know that 1500mm is extreme..what I meant was to double my lens with a 2x converter to get a 280-1200mm tele lens..I just wanted some input as to what you thought about converters and are there good ones out there?
Thx, Bill

See the previous comments on teleconverters, they work but limit the amount of light that can reach the sensor, plus check to see if your lens accepts the converter, some telephotos don't.

[Peter Ryan]

The 2 x times crop on the sensor gives you the same Field of View of a lens twice the focal lenght (i.e. 300 to 600) but it does not magnify the subject the same as a 600mm focal lenght lens does.

[Colin Southern]

The 2 x times crop on the sensor gives you the same Field of View of a lens twice the focal lenght (i.e. 300 to 600) but it does not magnify the subject the same as a 600mm focal lenght lens does.

At the risk of opening a can of worms ...

Ultimately, it comes down to resolving power (as a measure of how much information over a desired (or comparitive equivalent) field of view - and to "compute" that, one must also know not only the crop factor, but also the MP count.

Case in point; a Canon 1D3 has 10.3MP, and a 1.3x crop factor ... a Canon 1Ds3 has 20.7MP and a 1.0x "crop factor". An associate and I were shooting the same event - both with a 70-200mm lens at the 200mm end. He maintained he had the advantage because of the 1.3x "focal length multipler" of his Canon 1D3, but this isn't so; if he takes a shot at 200mm, he captures 10.7MP worth of information ... If I take a shot with my 1Ds3 and then crop it to the same field of view (and then enlarge what's left to be the same size), I'll have 13MP of information (or approx 30% more detail) (or put another way, if I cropped my image to 10.3MP - and enlarged it to the same size as his shot, mine would appear to have been shot with a longer lens than his, even though the crop-factor of my camera is less).

[vect0r]

I've been a DSLR fan but just got one for myself (yay!). I'm also interested in getting a doubler vs a telephoto lens. Does using a doubler restrict the aperture and shutter speeds I can use? It's definitely more cost effective for my budget right now.

[Manfred M]

Hi Shaun - welcome to CiC.


The "doubler" you refer to is more properly called a 2x teleconverter. It is a relatively inexpensive way to extend the range of a telephoto lens, but at a cost. With a 2x you will lose 1 stop of exposure, so if you start with say an f/5.6 maximum aperture, your lens will now be an f/8 lens as you have just halved the light capture ability of the lens. This of course means you have to shoot at a lower shutter speed or a higher ISO, both of which can impact your image.

This may or may not be an issue, but you could find yourself in a situation where your autofocus no longer works as a number of cameras require a minimum of f/5.6 to get reliable autofocus. You need to understand what your camera manufacturer suggests for the lens / camera combination you are thinking of using.

The second issue is image quality; you are putting an additional optical element into the light path and there will definitely be a reduction in image quality. I know some photographers that will shoot with a 1.4x teleconverter, but not a 2x because the image degradation is greater with the higher magnification.

It might be the right thing for you to do, but if you look at the cost of some of the lower end telephoto lenses, these may actually be a more cost effective solution for you. That is something that you need to figure out for yourself, but you need to understand the impact of heading down this road.

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Manfred's posting above except that there was a typo in that you lose two f/stops using a 2x teleconverter (you generally lose one stop with the 1.4x/1.5x teleconverters)

Here are some additional comments...

1. Generally a 2x converter (if one is available for your lens/camera combination) does not provide top image quality. Also, losing 2-stops will generally prevent most cameras from autofocusing (unless the lens is f/2.8 to start with)...

2. Mostly even the 1.4x Canon or 1.5x Nikon teleconverters do not provide very good image quality unless used with their top-line (read: expensive) lenses. In the Canon line, most of the prosumer telephoto lenses will not work well (or even fit) a Canon teleconverter. They will mesh with 3rd party converters like Kenko but, will not produce top-line IQ and will cause the loss of auto-focus at the longer focal lengths. I would suspect (but, do not know for sure) that the same is true for Olympus equipment).

3. Of course, the image quality being acceptable or not acceptable depends on the image quality requirements of the photographer. However, whether or not a converter will fit on a specific lens is cut and dried. It will either fit or not fit!

4. The auxiliary lenses which fit on the front of an existing lens to "turn them into a longer focal length" generally produce pretty trashy image quality and are generally not worth whatever they cost.

5. Finally, I would expect that the 1500mm lens you are mentioning is not actually a camera lens but rather some sort of a telescope type lens that is jury-rigged to fit on a camera. These also are usually pretty poor substitutes for many reasons including poor IQ, poor focusing and minuscule apertures....

[Sponge]

Here are some discussions from Olympus 70-300 users who have tried the combination with Olympus EC-20 2x teleconverter (and some with Olympus EC-14, 1.4x teleconverter)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/zuikodi...7605530632180/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/threa...-post-33941759

I'd suggest you read through them and draw your own conclusions on whether you think it's a good idea or not. To me it sounds like it will be hard to get even mediocre results (F11 at the long end). You might be better off getting one of the 50x Super Zoom/Bridge cameras unless you don't mind spending on a better lens or system. I've heard good things of the Olympus 50-200 2.8-3.5 with the 2x teleconverter so that could be an option and will get you out to 800mm equivalent.

[William W]

I've been a DSLR fan but just got one for myself (yay!). I'm also interested in getting a doubler vs a telephoto lens. Does using a doubler restrict the aperture and shutter speeds I can use? It's definitely more cost effective for my budget right now.

With what lens(es) and camera do you want to use a x2 Tele-extender?

WW

[jcuknz]

This is a very old post but I'm adding my tuppence worth becuase I have been using telephoto adaptors for some years now.

I have been using telephoto adaptors for some years now and they have the advantage that if they match the camera lens they only seem to 'use' i/3rd of a stop which is handy if used on a bridge camera with a x12 zoom f/2.8-f/3.3. all up giving me a 950mm lens at around f/4.5. On the other hand if they do not* then the 'light use' can be about 5/3rds of a stop which with my current MFT lens which is already f/5.8 that gives me something like f/10.

The difference between the two set-ups is that with MFT one can increase ISO to balance things out so I don't see any advantage either way.

The one thing I WOULD stress is that if you buy a cheap adaptor then you are buying RUBBISH ... the trouble is that some sellar seem to up the price to make it seem worthwhile. Ideally you get an adaptor made by the maker of your camera such as Nikon for their bridge/P&S cameras and Olympus. Another make is Raynox and I cannot tell any difference between my Raynox 2020 and my OLympus TCON x1.7 [ obviously one magnifies x2.2 and the other 1.7 ] I think the x1.7 maybe out of production these days but the Raynox 2020 was around $250 on Amazon last time I checked. There is also a 2025 which has provision for mounting a lenshood which makes a world of difference to the results. This is my 2020 with lenshood, a plastic drainpipe connector, with drawing of suggested support and pistolgrip. The camera is a Panasonic FZ20 I think, maybe an FZ30, I had both.

*Will the adaptor match the camera lens? It seems to depend on the relative size of the front pupil of the camera lens and that of the rear pupil of the adaptor. If the camera lens is bigger the adaptor acts like an f/stop reducing the amount of light getting to the camera lens. The other winkle on this is that unless the camera lens can see through the adaptor the adaptor also acts as a mask vignetting the corners or much more.
In this respect the Raynox starts to vignette at x11 zoom while my TCON can go back to about x7 before vignetting .... as I found out the first time I used the Raynox at a Rodeo and had to go to the back of the audience to get a reasonable view
The rear pupil of the 2020 is 32mm or 1.26 inches
You might be intereste in http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52448
This was taken from dry promanade and a quarter crop or so, about 2000mm reach ... FZ30 8Mp camera with Raynox.

[rpcrowe]

Here is a link to Romy Ocon's great Philippine Bird Website. Click on his portfolio "Equipment Tests and Other Photos" and you will see many combinations of various lenses and extenders, along with some sample photos.

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone

BTW: visit his other portfolios on this site for some great examples of bird photography of all types.