B&H shipped the lens today. It is expected to arrive Wednesday. I will be able to take it to Laguna Seca Ranch in the Texas Rio Grande valley for 4 days of photography.
I have both the MC-14 and MC-20 TC and am shooting with OM-1's Mk2.
What would you like me to test? If you advise me, I will do my best to provide answers.
Congrats! My only request is that you enjoy your trip and bring home frames you love. But it might be interesting to know if MC-20 results make you happy, or leave you feeling the MC-14 is as far as you want to push it.
Exciting and thanks for the offer! I would like to see the 50-200 at f2.8 and f4 200mm against the 150-400 at f4.5 200mm. Also with the 1.4mc on at 280mm f4 against the 150-400 at f4.5 at 280mm. Not curious about the conditions being exactly constant, just curious to see comparative sharpness(not pixel peeping) and background. Especially curious about the background vs the 40-150 and 150-400.
I went to go look at it over the weekend expecting to feel like it was too big for me to even consider, but I was really impressed with how it felt and the weight. Price is more than I'd spend right now on it though so I'll be holding off, but really like the feel of it in hand and very responsive and fast AF on the OM1.2 I tested it on in the store.
What I am hoping to get:
1-The 50-200 with a MC-20 TC is the same reach and approximate weight as my 100-400 and has equivalent sharpness. If I get this, I can shoot @ 50 f/s as opposed to 25f/s in ProCapture and have better stabilization than my version 1 100-400's. I have found that 50 f/s a BIG deal in ProCapture so just this feature makes the lens worth it. The lens with the TC-20 is also a 1:1 macro with a 2 1/2 foot working distance. I like this for walk-around adventure in typical wildlife areas, (I will not repurchase the 90f3.5 I lost in the fire nor upgrade my 100-400's.)
2-Gene, at Laguna Seca Ranch, thinks the 50-200 with a MC-14 is a nearly perfect lens for his blinds.
3-When I am reasonably close to the subject so that 200mm is long enough, typically the background is also close. I am hoping for more subject separation when the subject is on the ground or in a tree.
Kurt Seelig at Cardinal Camera got one to me quickly. First Impression: The clack of the lens hood when it snaps into place (in either direction) might alone justify the price. Okay, it IS expensive, but it’s beautifully engineered; a sturdy little brother to the 150-400. It balances sweetly on an OM-1 MII, focuses fast, and feels solid in hand. The Sync IS system is a godsend. I can carry it all day and shoot handheld. Looking forward to hearing what Tom discovers testing it with TCs.
PB's review is a good read. Thanks, Bill. When PB says, "The real strength of the 50–200 lies in its native performance. Use it to its fullest there, and reserve TCs—ideally the 1.4×—for occasional needs," it makes sense to me. I'd be less likely to slap a 2x on it than just reach for Gandalf. If I read Tom Reynolds correctly, he's thinking a 2x might be good for macro. I don't shoot macro (so far), but it'll be interesting to hear how he comes down after testing.
In testing the sharpness of the native 100-400 vs the 50-200 with a 2.0TC each combo will take three short bursts @ the maximum frame rate available. This is based on Steve's advice to take more shots and pick the best and Jan's advice to use short bursts.
Yes I'm interested in seeing more reviews. Espen Hellend on his YT Channel says the 1.4x results are usually pretty good; 2x results not so much but does produce useable images.
Pretty much the same story as converter use on most lenses.
I am on the plane Monday and return Saturday. I will have 4 days testing the new lens versus my 150-400 and 100-400 version 1 and a friend's Z-8/180-600.
I shoot hand-held, no lens foot but with the lens hood installed, battery and two cards.
On my digital scale the OM-1ii/50-200 and MC-20 weighed in at 4#4.3oz, about 4oz heavier than the same configuration with the OM-1/100-400. However, the key test was my wife picking it up and declaring it "not bad"
My definition of "usable" is that they look good on my 32" high-resolution screen after post processing.
birderbill1 wrote:
Yes I'm interested in seeing more reviews. Espen Hellend on his YT Channel says the 1.4x results are usually pretty good; 2x results not so much but does produce useable images.
Pretty much the same story as converter use on most lenses.
Right, and one should do their own comparison testing. Does the 2x TC on your lens give better, the same, or worse results than cropping a bare lens shot to equal the same size image?
And of course the cropping method allowed you to get four times the amount of light to capture your image.
Imagemaster wrote:
Right, and one should do their own comparison testing. Does the 2x TC on your lens give better, the same, or worse results than cropping a bare lens shot to equal the same size image?
And of course the cropping method allowed you to get four times the amount of light to capture your image.
Not sure how cropping would increase light gathering vs. a TC. The TC is essentially magnifying that crop area to provide some increase in resolution. Cropping is like shooting on a smaller sensor, so if you shoot at 2.8 at a given sensor size then crop you are reducing the amount of light in the final image. The amount of noise and depth of field when you crop is greater vs. having moved closer to capture the same field of view.
Cropping or using a TC to get the best image is not a black or white answer. Losing two full f-stops of light in many cases means less efficient auto-focusing and having to use a faster shutter speed and/or higher ISO.
Imagemaster wrote:
Cropping or using a TC to get the best image is not a black or white answer. Losing two full f-stops of light in many cases means less efficient auto-focusing and having to use a faster shutter speed and/or higher ISO.
?si=RXPLUSfD0TkKGubd
?si=OiayKsCZBtJ0m7FO
?si=Z88vQSFCK8RAVo6v
?si=bjTXbSWh-Gc6khfj
?si=u5layR4WoJW-W1K9
I agree it’s not black and white. However, my message was about the amount of light captured when you crop vs. use a TC. I didn’t understand what you mean saying that cropping gathers four times the light vs. using a TC.
ketang wrote:
However, my message was about the amount of light captured when you crop vs. use a TC. I didn’t understand what you mean saying that cropping gathers four times the light vs. using a TC.
I got four times the amount of light on my subject when I took the photo. That light on the subject did not disappear when I cropped that image.
ketang wrote:
I agree it’s not black and white. However, my message was about the amount of light captured when you crop vs. use a TC. I didn’t understand what you mean saying that cropping gathers four times the light vs. using a TC.
I think the easier way to look at it is; cropping doesn't GATHER more light, you're just not LOSING any light at time of exposure. By adding a TC you are certainly LOSING light at time of exposure. So as Tony says, you would need to either raise your ISO or lower your shutter speed to get the same exposure if adding a tc as opposed to not using a tc and cropping In post.
Imagemaster wrote:
I got four times the amount of light on my subject when I took the photo. That light on the subject did not disappear when I cropped that image.
So that’s the thing: you have less light in the final image because you have effectively used less of whatever sensor size you started with. We have to differentiate what light is there in the world and what two sensor sizes can record with other variables held firm. That’s why smaller sensors gather less light than larger ones if shot side by side. If that were not true then larger sensors wouldn’t have the advantages they do in light gathering.
Two ways to think about it: imagine a camera and lens combination and you take the image at a given exposure, then crop afterwards. Then imagine being able to go inside the camera and shrink the sensor size so the image matches the crop, fix all the other variables, and take the same shot. The first isn't gathering 4x the light. Another way to think about it is how much noise is visible as you progressively crop an image vs. using the original image. It increases in visibility. If the light you captured didn’t decrease as you crop the image then you could crop down to a single pixel and not see an increase in noise, which isn’t the case. When you use a TC you are magnifying that cropped portion of the image and that’s why your camera is reporting a smaller aperture and, if you lock the shutter speed, a higher ISO. There is less light gathered on that smaller part of the image.
I’m sure there is someone with a better knowledge of the physics who could better explain this or point out where I’m not explaining this right, but absolutely there is less light on a crop of an image vs. the full one. Whether or not to use a TC does involve more factors like the ones you brought up, but cropping is not a free lunch.
Okay, it IS expensive, but it’s beautifully engineered; a sturdy little brother to the 150-400. It balances sweetly on an OM-1 MII, focuses fast, and feels solid in hand. The Sync IS system is a godsend. I can carry it all day and shoot handheld. Looking forward to hearing what Tom discovers testing it with TCs.