• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Olympus ed 70-300 (1 Viewer)

Hey Ron - glad to read you're keeping the EC14, it's a great piece of glass. However, if you do decide not to keep it please do let me know as I am aware of someone who is looking to purchase this glass and I am sure would take it off your hands at the right price.
 
Hi John. Thanks for the offer but so far I am extremely impressed with the EC-14 and am not contemplating getting rid of it. If I did want to sell it later I think it would be quite easy as they are rarer than hen's teeth secondhand.

So far it is all good news. The converter doesn't seem to affect focusing speed much, if at all, and I haven't noticed any adverse effects on image quality. It is so much easier having a larger image of the subject which needs less cropping. Best of all it makes very little difference to the physical size of the camera and lens, which is very important to me. I now effectively have a 420mm lens, which works more or less like a 500mm lens on a Canon or Nikon or an 840mm on a 35mm camera but which can be hand held and easily carried all day. All this at a cost which doesn't break the bank.

As I am posting, here is another shot taken with the E-510 + ED 70-300 + EC-14 combination.

Ron
 

Attachments

  • Reflectology-small.jpg
    Reflectology-small.jpg
    108.9 KB · Views: 258
nice photo Ron,,

the EC14 on the 70-300 is a very able combination,, seen many good photos taken with it,, one of the best compact sizes for that amount of reach,,

Derry
 
I don't want to be a "fly in the ointment" but I'm not seeing much feather detail with the teleconverter. It you look closely at the detail it looks a little "muddy" . I have been thinking of getting this lens myself which appears to be sharp. Neil.
 
Neil, when are you going to have a garage sale of all your used equipment,,:-O

there are many watching to see when it happens to be first in line,,

sometimes I wounder if you camera bag would fit in the back of my truck,, soooooo many goodies to work with,, yeaaa,,

Derry
 
Re 70-300 vs. 50-200+EC 1.4:

I'm off to Africa soon, and really wanted the 70-300 (without tele-converter) to match or exceed the image quality of the 50-200 combined with EC 1.4 attached, as the former is much more travel friendly. I've run several tests, and the frustrating thing is that the 50-200 w/EC1.4 is marginally sharper, and supports better contrast, than the 70-300 w/out EC 1.4. That's the problem - it's marginal, and most of the improved image quality offered by the larger combination is generally confined to a tripod-mounted comparison.

I won't be able to bring a tripod on this very back-country, bush flight weight-limited, trip (monopod OK, though), and so the choice is becoming most vexing.

Thoughts from the gallery?

Edit PS -- The "kit" lens for most of the trip will be a Panasonic 14-150mm mounted on a Leica Digilux 3.
 
Last edited:
Derry ,
Thanks for sending me the DNG file. You can see more detail in the original. The exposure was good to hold the whites. I've found with the Olympus RAW files that if you have to adjust them it seems to add noise ( or greatly enhance noise that's already there ). Here are a some crops of your file. I adjusted for noise in the background but not on the bird so as not to affect detail.
It's not bad for a tele on a zoom lens.
Neil.
 

Attachments

  • Derry adj P8031305.jpg
    Derry adj P8031305.jpg
    173.1 KB · Views: 146
  • Derry.crop.adj P8031305.jpg
    Derry.crop.adj P8031305.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 147
  • Derry.crop2 P8031305.jpg
    Derry.crop2 P8031305.jpg
    141.9 KB · Views: 156
Neil, just to avoid any confusion it was I and not Derry who sent you the DNG file. Thanks for taking the time to reprocess and post the images above. They are definitely crisper than my versions. I am still getting to grips with Adobe Camera Raw and it seems a bit hit or miss at the moment. I will have to find a decent tutorial and spend a bit of time finding out exactly what does what.

I also use the free Neat Image noise reduction software which is limited in the file size it will process so I apply this after the image has been reduced in size for the web. This is probably not the best way, especially since I apply it to the entire image and not just the background as you have done.

The sharpness of my images will always be compromised by the fact that I am reluctant to use a tripod, so all my shots are handheld. It was the main reason for choosing this equipment in the first place, as I want gear which is light and easy to transport. Within those limitations I am very happy with it. Perhaps one day I will take it a bit more seriously and see if I can get a little bit closer to those beautiful images which you continually post on this forum.

Ron
 
Robert, I think you should opt for the 70-300 instead of the 50-200 + 1.4 for your trip. If the overall image quality difference is only marginal, and portability is important, and you'll only be using a monopod, the 70-300 is a better choice, I think.

I've always felt that when talking about a comparison between any two objects (lenses, cameras, televisions, etc), often both are perfectly fine judged on their own, but it is only the direct comparison that shows subtle differences. I'm not saying it isn't a valid idea to compare things (it is), but now that you have established that the 70-300 is a fine lens, you should forget about the marginal differences and use whichever lens is appropriate for a given situation. In the case of your trip, all the other factors point to the 70-300 over the 50-200 + 1.4.

Plus, of course, you might even want to pack the converter, just in case you need it...
 
Last edited:
NoSpringChicken said:
Neil, just to avoid any confusion it was I and not Derry who sent you the DNG file. Thanks for taking the time to reprocess and post the images above. They are definitely crisper than my versions. I am still getting to grips with Adobe Camera Raw and it seems a bit hit or miss at the moment. I will have to find a decent tutorial and spend a bit of time finding out exactly what does what.

I also use the free Neat Image noise reduction software which is limited in the file size it will process so I apply this after the image has been reduced in size for the web. This is probably not the best way, especially since I apply it to the entire image and not just the background as you have done.

The sharpness of my images will always be compromised by the fact that I am reluctant to use a tripod, so all my shots are handheld. It was the main reason for choosing this equipment in the first place, as I want gear which is light and easy to transport. Within those limitations I am very happy with it. Perhaps one day I will take it a bit more seriously and see if I can get a little bit closer to those beautiful images which you continually post on this forum.

Ron
Click to expand...

Sorry Ron for the confusion.
I would leave the teleconverter off then or boost your iso. I use the 300/4 plus 1.4x tele on my D3 which gives me less reach than you ( 430 mm ) but I set my default at 1/2000th sec at f8 . This me sharper images to start with so allows a bigger crop.
I would love to have the 300/2.8.
Neil.
 
I took the plunge and just ordered the E520 with the 70-300mm zoom which should arrive in a couple of days.
I'd probably want a teleconverter too soon, (though I'm a bit taken back by the price)

Most of the references in this thread are for the EC-14.
Can people please say whether the autofocus works with this. Also do they still hand-hold or must it be tripod? I am thinking of just resting the lens on top of my scope (which is on the tripod)

Also did anyone consider the EC-20 and are there autofocus issues with this?
 
Zenzero said:
I took the plunge and just ordered the E520 with the 70-300mm zoom which should arrive in a couple of days.
I'd probably want a teleconverter too soon, (though I'm a bit taken back by the price)

Most of the references in this thread are for the EC-14.
Can people please say whether the autofocus works with this. Also do they still hand-hold or must it be tripod? I am thinking of just resting the lens on top of my scope (which is on the tripod)

Also did anyone consider the EC-20 and are there autofocus issues with this?
Click to expand...
Hi - the EC14 will auto focus with all Oly lenses without fail, including the 70-300mm.

All the Puffin shots shown here were taken with the Oly 70-30mm plus EC14.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
G
Zeiss Binoculars
Replies
0
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
G
G
  • Article
Perfection Of The Simple Things
Replies
0
Views
628
Green Sandpiper
G
C
New Maven B.6 10x50: A brief comparative review
2 3
Replies
56
Views
20K
adhoc
A
D
Review: Orion Otter 10x42 ED roof prism binoculars
Replies
3
Views
2K
yarrellii
yarrellii

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top