PDA

View Full Version : 50-200 + EC-2.0 or 70-300 + EC-1.4


R MacE
13th December 2007, 10:49 PM
I currently have the 50-200mm and the EC-1.4. I'd like more reach any opinion on what would be the best option.

50-200mm + EC-2.0

70-300mm + EC-1.4

I considered the Sigma 135-400 but from what I've read it tends to be soft at 400mm unless stopped down which may make it slower than the other 2 options. I've also read that the focusing is slow.

The 50-200 + EC-1.4 I find very good and I've tried the 70-300 and liked it to, I found it to be sharp wide open.

Could anyone post test shots for one or both lens/teleconvertor combinations.

Thanks in advance, Richard

Who's_E
31st December 2007, 05:26 PM
I can't talk about image quality but you could consider the following points in your decision:

The focal length you are talking about definitely requires a tripod and the 50-200 has a tripod mount on the lens, thus reducing stress on the lens mount.

You can use a polariser more easily with the 50-200 if you are interested in that sort of thing

The teleconverter takes up less space in your bag and will work on other lenses, too.

If you have two cameras then you could go down the two lens route but if I was faced with the decision I would be looking for the EC-20. In America, where I bought my EC-14 for about $360...

shenstone
31st December 2007, 10:16 PM
I posted one shot in a thread on this topic which had the EC-14 and the 70-300 on front of an E510 which was being manually handheld on a dard day in a covered arcade.

I was not unhappy with the result given those severe limitations, but did not have time to spend on comparative tests. There are quite a few pictures in various threads on this lens. I was happy enough with the various shots I took that day to order one !

Regards
Andy

I dropped in today to take a look at the 70-300 which I'm fancying and they definitely were welcoming.

I had my play and have uploaded one of the pictures I took in the arcade (they were happy for me to be in the doorway, but obviously not too keen that I went for a long wander)

The picture is at the full 300 at ISO 800 F7.3 IS on.

I have to day I'm impressed with the general feel of the lens and so was my better half who liked the lightness of the E510 with the lens on as she's quite small (and will probably clobber me for saying so on the web!)

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/bow.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1242)

I also added my EC-14 as they didn't have one available (good job I dropped it in my bag) and took a further close up at ISO 1600 F7.9 rest as above.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/bow2.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1244)

Overall the only thing that concerned me at all was the amount of hunting at the full 425. I'd like to hear what anyone has to say before I look for one in the January sales (there being no discounts on offer and I know that the prices are tumbling elsewhere).

I have to say that the Olympus Rep (Ian Tolley) was very knowledgeable re the system - it was a pity that the sales force didn't seem to be using the event to get their knowledge up a bit more and just left us to discuss the details in what was not a very busy shop.

Regards
Andy

Haisbro
1st January 2008, 11:17 AM
I currently have the 50-200mm and the EC-1.4. I'd like more reach any opinion on what would be the best option.

50-200mm + EC-2.0

70-300mm + EC-1.4

I considered the Sigma 135-400 but from what I've read it tends to be soft at 400mm unless stopped down which may make it slower than the other 2 options. I've also read that the focusing is slow.

The 50-200 + EC-1.4 I find very good and I've tried the 70-300 and liked it to, I found it to be sharp wide open.

Could anyone post test shots for one or both lens/teleconvertor combinations.

Thanks in advance, Richard

Hi Richard

I do have that combo of 50-200 EC2.0 and i will try some test shots for the info of yourself and others.

The following is a link to an image using IS set to 1 the E3 with 20-500 and EC 1.4 attached. I found focusing on the cliff face to lens right and out of shot a bit 'hunty' though on the distant pylons it snapped on. There was a fair wind blowing and of course the unit was being hand held. Er impressive i think is the word to describe IS.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56583857@N00/2094593041/

H

R MacE
1st January 2008, 11:26 AM
Hi Guys,

thanks for that, I haven't decided yet and any shots posted will be useful.

I should add that my intended use is Surfing shots, I would be using a monopod at least but the AF needs to be reasonably accurate and reliable whatever combo I eventually go for.

Cheers, and a Happy New Year :)

Haisbro
1st January 2008, 10:40 PM
Hi Guys,

thanks for that, I haven't decided yet and any shots posted will be useful.

I should add that my intended use is Surfing shots, I would be using a monopod at least but the AF needs to be reasonably accurate and reliable whatever combo I eventually go for.

Cheers, and a Happy New Year :)

Images taken from the comfort of my armchair using IS and on camera flash.E3 50-200 +2.0 ext + on camera flash

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56583857@N00/?saved=1

I think the rotating collar on the 50-200 with 2.0 extender would make the camera easier to use on a mono pod than the 70-300.

I'll try some outside stuff later in the week.

H

R MacE
2nd January 2008, 07:31 PM
Thanks for posting the shot, looks fine to me. I'll be interested in your outdoor shots.

Good point about the tripod collar, I had completely overlooked that. The EC-2.0 is looking increasingly like the best option for me.

Cheers, Richard

Haisbro
6th January 2008, 03:58 PM
Hi All,

Nice to get some sun today so able to do some more testing, here are some more images using E3 50-200 and EC 2.0 converter. All hand held

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56583857@N00/?saved=1

I have found single point focus to be the most accurate.

H

R MacE
6th January 2008, 10:29 PM
Thanks again, They look fine, did you need to do much PP?

Haisbro
7th January 2008, 08:45 AM
Thanks again, They look fine, did you need to do much PP?

Not really, i used jpeg at high quality setting, the image of the reeds i did a bit of shadow / highlight. The weather vane i under exposed in camera.When i took some images which involved a lot of sky i thought the exposures were good. It was good to experiment as nearly all my images used to be AP f11 on a tripod iso 100 single point AF and single frame shooting.

David