p.1 #1 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
Although, any professional OM System users reported that the new 50-200 lens was not as sharp as the 100-400 lens if one attached a 2.0TC to it making the reach equivalent, I hoped that the difference in IQ was small and could be cleaned up in post because the new lens has many advantages over the older lens.
Both my wife and I shot the 50-200 with a 2.0TC at a local lake. Even with the 2.0TC adding length and weight to the rig the newer lens is simply better in the hand. We both found that finding and tracking BIF was easier and the higher frames-per-second (40f/s versus maybe 25) allowed better action photographs. However, the 2.0TC degrades the ultra fast focusing lens enough that it was no better than the 100-400 any maybe worse. Worse the images were not as sharp.
Undaunted, I wonder if I could fix the images in post. Would they be good enough?
I ran the images through Topaz Photo, in Photoshop Attached are a few shots. What do you think?
Have to agree. And I'm very surprised at how poor they are. The 40-150/2.8 and 300/4 both perform spectacularly with both TC14 and TC20 (see Ronny Olsen's macro posts for example - the dragon/damsel fly shots are insanely good and detailed).
Are you sure there's not something else going on here Tom? Distance to subject or atmospheric disturbance from the conditions?
p.1 #5 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Although, any professional OM System users reported that the new 50-200 lens was not as sharp as the 100-400 lens if one attached a 2.0TC to it making the reach equivalent, I hoped that the difference in IQ was small and could be cleaned up in post because the new lens has many advantages over the older lens.
Both my wife and I shot the 50-200 with a 2.0TC at a local lake. Even with the 2.0TC adding length and weight to the rig the newer lens is simply better in the hand. We both found that finding and tracking BIF was easier and the higher frames-per-second (40f/s versus maybe 25) allowed better action photographs. However, the 2.0TC degrades the ultra fast focusing lens enough that it was no better than the 100-400 any maybe worse. Worse the images were not as sharp.
Undaunted, I wonder if I could fix the images in post. Would they be good enough?
I ran the images through Topaz Photo, in Photoshop Attached are a few shots. What do you think?
Tom...Show more →
I'd like to see the ones before Topaz. The new Topaz doesn't do as good a job as the older version (Photo AI). I have stopped using it and gone to DxO PR for noise and Nik 8 Output sharpener for sharpness.
p.1 #7 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
I do think a more controlled test on a tripod would make more sense, if you have both lenses. This way we can eliminate focus, exposure, movement and cropping issues from the equation and just compare identical images side by side.
p.1 #8 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
Just my two cents since I own neither lens. I’ve always thought of a 2X TC as a last resort, not expecting the best optical results on adding one to any lens. If I had a 50-250 I’d be using it with a 1.4x as I do with the 300/4, That gives a FF FOV of around 700mm with the zoom. Not bad.
Doing a tripod test could be informative but would give no info on real world usage, like whether the 50-250 or 100/400 might yield more usable shots. Focus acquisition, IS settling, frame rate, flare yada yada are all important in the field. You can get good photos with a mediocre lens if it behaves well.
p.1 #9 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
Bob Kane wrote:
Just my two cents since I own neither lens. I’ve always thought of a 2X TC as a last resort, not expecting the best optical results on adding one to any lens. If I had a 50-250 I’d be using it with a 1.4x as I do with the 300/4, That gives a FF FOV of around 700mm with the zoom. Not bad.
Doing a tripod test could be informative but would give no info on real world usage, like whether the 50-250 or 100/400 might yield more usable shots. Focus acquisition, IS settling, frame rate, flare yada yada are all important in the field. You can get good photos with a mediocre lens if it behaves well....Show more →
If you can't get any closer to your subject and can't put on a longer lens, using a TC, even a 2x, will give you sharper results than cropping:
p.1 #11 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
Lots of experts have compared the 100-400 vs the 50-20+2.0TC in controlled conditions. My goal was to see what the 50-200+2.0TC could do in non-optimum, real-world situations. Most everything was a long way away and the pictures were cropped substantially. I did not expect anything except what I could post in facebook.
For me the combo failed. The 100-400 will be my go-to lens when I need the reach and don't want to carry the 150-400.
However, with the 1.4TC the lens was awesome.
I think the problem was autofocus because subject ID:birds had a tough time.
p.1 #12 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
Imagemaster wrote:
If you can't get any closer to your subject and can't put on a longer lens, using a TC, even a 2x, will give you sharper results than cropping:
p.1 #13 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
if the photos are just for personal consumption, that is just fine. but I would not include these in any public profile like flickr, instagram or so.
I returned my 50-200 2.8 as I could not tell the difference between this and my PL 200mm 2.8 at @200, and the 50-200 is just too bulky compared to my 40-150 2.8 for every day use.
if OM had given us a 50-250 2.8 or a built-in TC, maybe. otherwise, just too expensive given how great other cheaper lenses are.
p.1 #14 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
I've been wanting this lens to supplement my 300 F4, which is a great lens but at times I miss shots being unable to zoom out. I decided finally to go with the 40-150 2.8 instead, for weight savings - and $$ savings! I couldn't justify spending an extra $1600 for 50 mm.
I have a Sony A7RV I use for landscape work, and rumor has it Sony will come out with an updated 100-400 G lens this month. If so, it will be interesting to see how that compares (though I find the OM-1 bird focus is better than the Sony).
p.1 #15 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
I have done a subsequent test with two OM-1ii cameras. One had the NEW 100-400 IS 2 and the other a 50-200 with a 2.0 TC. I have not yet evaluated the shots but will post.
I will say that the 50-200 zoom is significantly more useable. Finding a flying bird at one zoom level then adjusting the zoom as it flys towards you is relatively easy versus hard with the 100-400 zoom. Additionally, 50 f/s versus 25 f/s is a big help. Interestingly, although the 50-200+TC is heavier by 6 oz. it seems more maneuverable in the hand.
p.1 #16 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
I tried BIF with the 50-200 for the first time last week. Added the 1.4 TC. I agree that it's pretty easy to acquire and zoom. And I loved handholding it. But I did find myself wishing for more reach. Not owning a 2.0 TC, I'm gonna try again handholding the 150-400. I always use it on a monopod because of tremor, but handholding the 50-200 was so freeing and so much easier that I've gotta take another stab at handholding the brute. Anyway, interested to see your evals when you post. Thanks for staying on it and sharing feedback.
p.1 #19 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
I'm curious how 50-200 2.8 with 2.0 TC would compare with 300 F4 with 1.4 TC.
I assume 300 + 1.4 TC will be better than either 50-200+ 2.0 TC or 100-400 II. Question is how much better?
I currently have 300 F4, 40-150 2.8, and a 1.4 TC. I'm very happy with the 40-150, reluctant to exchange its light weight for the slightly longer reach, slightly greater sharpness/focus speed(?) of the 50-200. But if the 50-200 + 2.0 could give me 400 mm (800 FF) FOC, maybe it could effectively replace both the 40-150 and 300 F4? (50-200+1.4 TC could give me close to 300 FOV with good quality, substitute for the 300 F4 without the TC....but I definitely want to sometimes have the extra 100 mm the 300 + TC gives me)
Would be nice to have a 1-lens setup for birding.....
p.1 #20 · Report on the 50-200 with a 2.0TC attached
To my eye, on a 4K monitor the 100-400 IS 2 is marginally better than the 50-200+2.0TC. Neither is asgood as the 150-400 or the 300F4+1.4TC
BUT.........
In the hand the 50-200 excels even though it is heavier than the 100-400 with the 2.O TC attached. Simply stated, the easy zoom capabilities of the 50-200 makes acquiring a BIF then zooming to a proper fame is quite obvious. The100-400 zoom ring is relatively stiff and not shaped as well, The 300F4, of course, doesn't zoom at all.
When you don't need the reach a 1/4TC really yields fast focusing and excellent IQ.
