Teleconverter Lens

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by kathy_miller|3, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. I purchased a 2X teleconverter lens to add to my Olympus E-510 40-150mm
    zoom. They said it would work with the E-510 but when I added it the images are
    cloudy. When I contacted the seller they said that my camera had to be on the
    right settings. Does anyone know what those are suppose to be?? or how the
    teleconverter works added to the 4/3rds lens?
  2. I can't comment on the E-510 scenario but I have used teleconverters on film cameras (Canon FD and Olympus OM) for about half my shots over more than 20 years and have never found such a problem.
  3. The Olympus 40-150mm is not a good lens to add 2XTC. First, it is a f4.5 lens. A
    2XTC will make it into a f9.0 lens. Auto focus at this speed will be difficult and not
    accurate or at all. Second, at 150, this lens has just OK resolution. Blow it up by
    2X focal length (4X the areas), it will be less then OK.

    IMHO, I would use the cost of a TC toward an Olympus 70-300mm (a dandy fine
    lens) instead.

    To get better result with your 2X TC, you can stop the lens down by at 1-2 stop
    (on a sunny day) at ISO 400. This is properly what your seller is refering to.
  4. Check with the manufacturer of the converter. It's possible that you'll need to focus manually with the converter in place.
  5. I own one teleconverter, Kathy. The EC 14 made by Olympus. It does really well on my 50mm F2) and on my 14-54 2.8 to 3.5

    Reasons must be that 1) it was designed by the company munchkins just for the Olympus lenses ; 2) it drops or loses-if you like- only one f stop and doesn't compromise the lens ability to acquire focus ( auto focus needs a certain amount of minimal light coming in); 3) because it has many well designed pieces of matched glass inside that marries well with the optics and THE ELECTRIC CONTACTS that communicate with camera. I see Kenko and some other lens companies make Oly adapted teleconverters, and maybe they are not bad,--- but it could be yours is not cutting it for quality or QC.

    Where did you get the converter and what did you pay, Kathy?. (Will help other shoppers,huh?) Good teleconverters cost up there in price like a good lens, almost anyway. gs.
  6. I assume that your are talking about the Olympus EC-20 converter; make sure that your E-510 firmware is updated to version 1.2. Olympus claims for this update: " Improved the focusing accuracy when using the EC-20 Teleconverter."
  7. Gerry Siegle says, re The EC 14, "2) it drops or loses-if you like- only one f stop "

    Of course it does, being only a x1.4 converter (1.4 is the square root of 2). If you need the x2 magnification you have to pay the price of two stops. These considerations have nothing to do with the make of converter but are universal, based on optical laws.
  8. No quarrel with optical law, Harold. (Except, as you know, the figure is 1.41414.... ) I wonder if Kathy is referring to the EC-20. A new product. Care to tell, Kathy-O?
  9. I have to say that we in the UK are suspicious of any number with an EC prefix, in that it is likely to cost us a great deal more than an f-stop or two!
  10. I think kathy got a screw-on telephoto adapter that mounts on the front of the lens.
    Bad idea.
    First, optically it is probably a piece of junk.
    Secondly, the weight of this piece of junk hanging on the end of the lens will eventually grind down the autofocus motor.
  11. Hi guys,
    New to the forum and i'm in the same boat as Kathy.
    I bought a Kelda brand 2 x telephoto lense for my Olympus E500 which is fitted with a 70-150 mm Olympus lense. Cloudy pics and not good at all.
    Tried it at all ISO settings up to 1600 and fitted the lense hood (just in case it was too sunny for it - i'm in Darwin, NT Australia).
    Any hints or go to option to and but a 70-300 mm lense instead?
  12. If you really want to test the combination, use a tripod or at least a bean bag, to eliminate vibration. In any case, you will need a shutter speed of 1/300 sec or faster to get a sharp picture at 300mm hand held, irrespective of the optics you are using, unless you have an image stabiliser.
  13. Thanks Harold,
    I tried fitting the teleconverter to the other lense I have an Olympus 14 - 45 mm and have had no worries with it. Good sharp pics at 1600 ISO.
    I'm new to all this what would 1/300 sec or faster be?
    I was looking at getting the teleconvertor or if need be the larger lense to take pics of aircraft (flying not static). I live close to an airport so as they land/take off.
    Would the 70 - 300 mm lense be too shaky?
  14. Colin,
    To minimise 'noise' i.e. coarse speckles in the picture, you should use the lowest ISO useable for the purpose. I rarely use higher than ISO 400 and never, so far, higher than 800. If I shot in low light I would either use a higher ISO or a tripod.
    There is general guidance in photography that, to be fairly sure of a sharp picture, you should use the reciprocal (1/fl) of the focal length (fl) in mm for your shutter speed, in fractions of a second. For the 300mm end of a 70--300mm zoom that means 1/300 sec for the 300mm setting and 1/60 (nearest to 1/70) for the wider end. Image stability mechanisms in lenses or camera bodies will counter some movement, permitting lower shutter speeds e.g. 1/125 0r even 1/60 for 300mm. However, stabbing at the release button, instead of squeezing it, can cause motion blur at all shutter speeds!
    I hope this helps.
  15. Ah I thought the higher the ISO the quicker the picture was taken and the better qaulity the picture.
    I see joining this forum i'm going to get an education.
  16. Oh, no! I just read a story in a photographic magazine about a shop selling a (compact type) camera to someone who wanted it spcifically to photograph a wedding and said so. The salesman said to just leave it on ISO 800. The results were very poor.
    The higher the specification of the camera*, the (relatively) less noise you will get with the higher ISO setting than with more basic cameras. With entry level/consumer cameras, it is best to think of the higher ISO (above 800) being equivalent to an artist using a pallette knife rather than a fine brush. That is the simplified, extreme situation. Of course, there will be cameras with intermediate performance. Due to the rules of physics, no camera will give as good results with high as with low ISO, unless you want special effects given by the equivalent of grainy film.
    *Some cameras will automatically deal with noise to some extent. The most effective method takes a second shot with the shutter closed and subtracts the noise from the image with the shutter open.

Share This Page