OM SYSTEMOLYMPUS M.Zuiko Digital MC-20, 2X Teleconverter

I added this to my OLYMPUS OM-D E-M1X and OLYMPUS 150-400MM F/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO LENS, which gives me the equivalent of 2000mm, handheld. The clarity of my photos is amazing, especially on the feather detail in bird photos taken at about 30 ft. It is terrific for photographing birds 100-200 ft. distant.I even use it to identify distant birds that are beyond the range of my 10X binoculars. Although there may be a slight speed reduction, it is not significant. I thought at first that I would have to take it off if I wanted to shoot photos at 150 mm, but I found the only ones I couldn't focus on were birds less than about 10 ft. from me, so it is simpler just to leave it connected always. I do find that I need to use my zoom much more than previously, in order to find the bird at lower magnification and then zoom into it at highest magnification.

It works brilliantly with both the 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 Pro lenses, providing clarity and contrast at near native-lens levels. Obviously there is a loss of light (putting the lenses maximum aperture to f5.6 and f8 respectively) and an accompanying slight loss in autofocus speed and accuracy, but this is an impressive little piece of glass. Anyone familiar with the MC14 1.4x teleconverter will be right at home with this.A word of caution: the 300/4 lens becomes a 600mm lens with this, or 1200mm in full-frame camera terms. If you have not used a lens in this range before, it takes a lot of adjustment to being able to find your subject. The field of view is so narrow that significant practice is necessary to be able to sight your target.But I did get a picture of Jupiter this evening with bands of cloud and the great red spot visible... handheld.

I have paired this with the 300 f/4 pro and the OM-D E-M1 iii exclusively this far but also have the 40-150 f/2.8 to use with it. The build quality is Olympus pro quality and the image quality is incredible.It does limit you to f/8 with the 300, but the bokeh and background separation are still excellent. The images are crisp and I have not noticed any image quality degradation, which is stunning, but hear it can occur with images very far off in the distance (mostly atmospheric influences I suspect).Comparatively, in my opinion better quality than cropping. I have no problems hand holding and even shoot at shutter speeds as low as 1/200 with this combo. It even works well with HHHR.All in all, definitely worth the cost and even more so when compared to the 1.4x which I also own.If you want more samples check GreinerStudio on facebook.

I have the 1.4 and got the 2.0 for big reach with 40-150, 300mm, and 150-600. Of course it is not as sharp as the 1.4, but sometimes you just need big reach. Videos look pretty good which is what I mostly shoot, photos a little soft, but we're talking about monster reach.

The questions that must be entered to get to this point may not be applicable since this is Teleconverter.I use it on a Olympus Pen 8 MT (100-400mm) Lens . It is a precision fit. The images of a hawks nest with youngsters was very sharp. The 100-400mm lens was adequate but using the Teleconverter made the original better for enlarging the image to an 8x10. The image was very sharp.. I would buy again. It is expensive but worth the money. I am an experienced photographer but I just judge a product by "did it do what I wanted". The answer is yes.

1. Background info: I currently use the Olympus EM1 II along with a myriad of lens; primarily 12-40mm 2.8, 12-100mm 2.8, 40-150mm 2.8 (I also have the 1.5x Teleconverter), various panasonic lens including the 100-400mm Leica. Although I have various telephoto lens, I don't consider myself an expert at shooting at the long end and thus take everything I say with a grain of salt. Furthermore, the following are obviously just my observations/ impressions after having used the 2X teleconverter at a recent airshow (with my 40-150mm 2.8)re: Build Quality: As always with the Olympus Pro Line: excellent. A bit bigger than the 1.5 teleconverter.re: Focusing: Yes, this focuses "fast" but definitely not as fast as the native lens. Furthermore, it's not as fast compared to the 1.5 teleconverter. Now, most folks would think this is to be expected, but I'm mentioning it because there are folks and perhaps advertisement that leads one to believe that the focusing speed is on par with the native lens; no it is not. If you're doing sports / action photography, I would say that this is a "no go" from the beginning. Furthermore, if you're doing sports photography in artificial (ie dim) lighting, forget this teleconverter. Furthermore, when compared to the Panasonic / Leica 100-400mm, the Panasonic is definitely faster in re: focusing compared to the Olympus 2x Teleconverter. And note that the Panasonic 100-400mm isn't that fast in focusing in the first place (at least that's my impression, compared to the 40-150mm 2.8).re: Focusing: In addition to the speed issue (ie slow), the problem with this teleconverter is that the accuracy of locking on to a subject, even when the view finder shows that it's in focus, is... hit or miss. Again, take this with a huge grain of salt, I was using this shooting fasting moving jets, but some images were ok, some images were pretty good, some were ok, but definitely not sharp (not completely out of focus, but off a little). Obviously, there can be a ton of factors accounting for this, but in that I'm the same guy shooting, same camera body, same / similar subject, when shooting the same type of subject several weeks prior with the 100-400mm, the opposite was true; most of the subjects were overtly in focus / normal good sharpness etc...re: Quality of image: In addition to the above issues, when shooting completely static subjects, one can of course get decent looking images, but esp towards the max focal length (ie 150mm), there just seems to be a sense / feeling that the image just isn't that sharp. It makes one want to really look at the cpu screen to see if something is going on. On the other hand, this doesn't happen when using the Panasonic 100-400mm.2. Summary: In that I really like the Olympus 40-150mm (perhaps the best telephone I've used, along with the old 50-200mm) and in that the 1.5 teleconverter is excellent in my opinion and in that I vastly prefer the feel / ergonomics of the Olympus 40-150mm over the Panasonic 100-400, I really wanted to the 2X teleconverter to "work", but the results just don't justify keeping this lens. One can get / coax good images out of this teleconverter, but it has to be at the expense of inconsistency and having to shoot in perfect conditions; I think most photographers want to use gear that will give them consistent results in varied conditions and if the image doesn't work out, the photographer will readily know that it was their own fault etc... I would strongly suggest, pass on this teleconverter; the hype doesn't live up to the reality.

The part sticking out of the front is quite fat and does not fit any of my telephoto lenses. Specifically the Panasonic 45 - 200 mm which I purchased it for.The listing mentions the M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO and M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4.0 IS PRO so if you don't have one of those you will probably be disappointed and have to return it like I did.