1600mm lens

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

The reviewer took all shots handheld, which is quite impressive (although he
admits that only about 50% of the images were good).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

that is not a 1600mm lens. it's not even close to a 1600mm lens.

The reviewer took all shots handheld, which is quite impressive (although he
admits that only about 50% of the images were good).

a lens where half the images aren't any good. sounds great.

On 2020-08-11 17:29, nospam wrote:
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

that is not a 1600mm lens. it's not even close to a 1600mm lens.

If it's a 100-400 + 2x TC, then yes, it's plausible that it gives the
same FOV as a 1600 on FF if the cropped sensor gives half that FOV..
Yeah. Contorted, but there it is. It's Alfred.

Must be razor sharp too. Ahem.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x
teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

that is not a 1600mm lens. it's not even close to a 1600mm lens.

If it's a 100-400 + 2x TC, then yes, it's plausible that it gives the
same FOV as a 1600 on FF if the cropped sensor gives half that FOV..
Yeah. Contorted, but there it is. It's Alfred.

same field of view does not make it a 1600mm lens.

it's a 400mm lens, but only when zoomed all the way out, which is then
doubled by a 2x converter to 800mm, and on a m43 camera, gives an
equivalent view of a 1600mm lens on a full frame camera.

Must be razor sharp too. Ahem.

absolutely. 2x converters doubles everything, including sharpness,
saturation and other parameters. why is this even in doubt?

On 11/08/2020 22:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

The reviewer took all shots handheld, which is quite impressive (although he
admits that only about 50% of the images were good).

Here? Where, Alfred?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 12/08/2020 07:36, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 August 2020 17:29:31 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

that is not a 1600mm lens. it's not even close to a 1600mm lens.

The reviewer took all shots handheld, which is quite impressive (although he
admits that only about 50% of the images were good).

a lens where half the images aren't any good. sounds great.

You rapid-fire images with any camera, inevitably a few stand-out for sharpness, especially if the subject is in motion.

Agreed. Hand held, full stretch with my similar Fuji and 1.4 TC I
certainly would not expect half my shots to be "good".

In article ,
RichA wrote:


Must be razor sharp too. Ahem.

absolutely. 2x converters doubles everything, including sharpness,
saturation and other parameters. why is this even in doubt?

In fact, it also doubles any aberrations present in the lens its on, and may
either add its own or if you are lucky, it'll null-out some of the lens's if the
aberrations in the converter are opposite.

whoosh.

In article , rander3128
@gmail.com says...

On Tuesday, 11 August 2020 21:06:36 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x
teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF).

that is not a 1600mm lens. it's not even close to a 1600mm lens.

If it's a 100-400 + 2x TC, then yes, it's plausible that it gives the
same FOV as a 1600 on FF if the cropped sensor gives half that FOV..
Yeah. Contorted, but there it is. It's Alfred.

same field of view does not make it a 1600mm lens.

it's a 400mm lens, but only when zoomed all the way out, which is then
doubled by a 2x converter to 800mm, and on a m43 camera, gives an
equivalent view of a 1600mm lens on a full frame camera.

Must be razor sharp too. Ahem.

absolutely. 2x converters doubles everything, including sharpness,
saturation and other parameters. why is this even in doubt?

In fact, it also doubles any aberrations present in the lens its on, and may either add its own or if you are lucky, it'll null-out some of the lens's if the aberrations in the converter are opposite.

The images he posts actually look quite good. So I guess that 100-400 + 2x
teleconverter combo is quite viable.

The only thing I'm wondering about is the diffraction limit, because
effectively at 800mm the aperture is F13 which is a lot for a m4/3 camera.

For m4/3 the best results are F2.8-F4 and generally speaking you shouldn't go
beyond F8.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:


The only thing I'm wondering about is the diffraction limit, because
effectively at 800mm the aperture is F13 which is a lot for a m4/3 camera.

that's too slow to be useful in nearly every situation.

For m4/3 the best results are F2.8-F4 and generally speaking you shouldn't go
beyond F8.

then it fails before it's even on the camera.

On 2020-08-11 21:06, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Here is a review of the new Olympus 100-400mm lens with the 2x
teleconverter
(gives the same field of view as a 1600mm lens on FF). -------- [1]

that is not a 1600mm lens. it's not even close to a 1600mm lens.

If it's a 100-400 + 2x TC, then yes, it's plausible that it gives the
same FOV as a 1600 on FF if the cropped sensor gives half that FOV..
Yeah. Contorted, but there it is. It's Alfred.

same field of view does not make it a 1600mm lens.

Again: He didn't say that. He said: "same field of view". [1] above.