Extending my range

[wellinghall]

<p>I would like to get a bit more reach than my Zuiko 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 gives me, in a budget of £1,000 maximum. I have identified three options:</p>

<ol>

<li>Keeping my existing lens and adding a Zuiko EC-14 convertor, to give an equivalent 98-420mm f/5.6-7.8</li>

<li>Sigma 135-400mm APO DG f/4.5-5.6</li>

<li>Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 and Zuiko EC-20 convertor, to give an equivalent 140-400mm f/5.6.</li>

</ol>

<p>1 is the cheapest and simplest option, but the result would surely be too slow. Does anyone have any thoughts between 2 and 3, or any other suggestions?</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Whether a lens is "too slow" depends on the aperture at which you are likely to use it. I rarely use a lens at maximum aperture.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>400mm isn't all that much longer than 300mm. An option you might consider is adapting a lens made for a film SLR.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Numbers two and three would depend on your finding a good second-hand copy as I do not think Sigma has made either of those new for a while now, and from what I have seen written there are both excellent and not-so-excellent copies of the 135-400. Combine that with you just do not see many of them available second hand could mean that will be the toughest route to go in terms of just finding a good example.</p>

<p>The EC14 definitely works with the 70-300 as I have seen the combination used by four-thirds users who have posted images in the forum at DPReview. I used an EC20 with my 50-200 Zuiko. It worked "OK", but not spectacular well. That (#3) to me would be the least desirable combination.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote><ol>

<li>Keeping my existing lens and adding a Zuiko EC-14 convertor, to give an equivalent 98-420mm f/5.6-7.8</li>

</ol></blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am thinking that the real equivalency would be double that. And though arguably a little dim, but not in bright light dim, would be a first way I would go. The EC 14 is a nice piece of gear, to high specs you know will work. I have the same lens and the EC 14. Let me know what you wish me to shoot as subject and I will get back to you and post sample of same here. I s<br>

gs</p>

</blockquote>

[wellinghall]

<p>Thanks for the advice, everyone. Gary, if you could shoot some birds with the 70-300 and EC-14, that would be great.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The biggest drawback with the 70-300 and EC 14 combo is lack of a tripod collar. I will have to try some license plates, I think, a before and after image and we will just call them "birds." Can one ever get close enough to wild birds. I can try with our local indian mynahs. Wee finches flitter around and move too fast and are too bleeding small...But steadying has been my weakness with that lens from day one, since I do no bird stuff regularly. I later bought the 50-200 which has a nice tripod collar. <br>

And as the f stop gets down with the converter, the shutter gets longer and steadiness is an issue for long reach shooting. I will use the IS on the E-3 and hold breath or lean against something. Takes practice I expect.</p>

[wellinghall]

<p>Thanks!</p>

[melmann]

<p>If you have a Four-Thirds mount get an adapter for the Zuiko 300mm f/4.5 lens from the OM days. Equivalent to 600mm on Four-Thirds, has a tripod collar mount and built in hood. I've compared it to the digital 300mm f/2.8 and in the f/5.6-11 range on a steady camera the sharpness is equivalent on my E-3 at ISO 100. Granted it'll be manual focus and aperture so not great for sports photography but works for me on wildlife.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Ok, Andrew, so I rigged the 70-300 mm with the EC-14 today this late afternoon and set the lens at its longest FL. Looking for birds. Birdies where art thou? As usual, the cardinals aim for my neighbor's roof top at this hour, 1700. I get a decent reach to the distance, here estimated at 30-40 feet. No processing. Not that hard to handhold with IS on the E-3. Leaned against a wall, which is cheating. As usual I would expect that this combination would be tiring for long without a monopod which I would have used. You can judge the result for yourself. I am not used to the subject. I like living things that don' t move so fast and swing their heads from side to side. I pose my subjects and they better do as I ask :-) Better combination than I would have expected as to weight and handholdability. And it focused surprisingly fast at that very slow F stop. Way to go, Olympus!</p>

<div></div>

[wellinghall]

<p>Belatedly (thanks to my old laptop dying rather horribly), thanks, Gary!</p>