How Well Does a 1.4X Tele-Converter Work on the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD and Olympus E-M1 Work?

James River Bridge, Newport News, Virginia
Olympus E-M1 with the Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD lens and
the Olympus EC-14 Tele-Converter; 1/250th sec. @ f/8; 194mm focal length
The bridge is approximately 1.1 miles from where I was standing (click to enlarge)

After testing my copy of the native 4/3 format Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD lens with my M4/3 format Olympus E-M1 camera and being very, VERY satisfied with the results, I started wondering how well that camera/lens combination would work with the Olympus EC-14 1.4X tele-converter.  If it worked well, that would give me a maximum focal length around 560mm (35mm equivalent) for my M4/3 kit.  That extended focal length would cover more than I could ever anticipate needing.  Well, there is only one way to find out.  Read on.

First, I did a bit of research on the combination and didn't find much information on this particular combination or using any 4/3 lens/M4/3 camera and the converter.  I now don't remember exactly where I read it, but I did read where Olympus did not recommend using their 1.4X tele-converter with a M4/3 camera and 4/3 lens.  Hmmm.  I wonder why?  Overall, I found little in the way of others who have tried this combination and wrote about it.  There may be more information out there that I missed, but I was ready to move forward as the combination seemed plausible and would make an interesting experiment.

I found a used copy, in excellent condition, of the Olympus EC-14 1.4X tele-converter at KEH Camera Brokers.  I can always highly recommend doing business with them.  As a bonus, it came with front and rear lens caps.  The price was right so I purchased it and waited for it to be delivered. As usual, in a couple of days, the FedEx guy was at my door with the converter.  Great!  Now to put it to the test.

I started by testing the converter with the lens in the same fashion as I test a newly acquired lens. You can read how I do it here.  After looking at the preliminary images and checking for overall corner to corner sharpness, element decentering or any other functional issues, I was satisfied that this tele-converter was a good copy.  No need to test for apertures working correctly as the tele-converter doesn't have any and would use the correctly working aperture blades in the camera.  However, I did run some test images at three different focal lengths to ascertain if, per chance, I saw any difference in performance at different magnifications.  I did not.  That is a good thing.

Next, I drove to one of my locations where I test lenses in the real world, by making images of three dimensional objects instead of flat walls.  There is a public marina next to the James River Bridge which crossed the 4-mile wide James River here in town.  There are always fine details on boats as well as the bridge that will give me an idea of performance.

The sky was very overcast and the wind was blowing at about 10-15 mph as we are still in the middle of a storm system.  As I was testing, we were in between falling rain.  In fact, for Monday and Tuesday, my rain gauge shows that I have had 10.84" of rain fall at my home.  That is a lot of water!

I set the camera up on a tripod, turned off the in-body-image-stabilization, set the shutter to a 2-second delay and then made my images.  I made two sets of images, one with the tele-converter and one set without.  I wanted both sets of images to be similar, so I made images at the following focal lengths, as marked on the lens.

140mm with the tele-converter (equivalent focal length of about 200mm)
200mm without the tele-converter

The resulting images should be about the same magnification.  Now, I know there could be a difference in lens performance at the two different focal lengths, but I have already tested this lens thoroughly and there is not.  Most telephoto zoom lenses show a poorer performance at maximum focal length.  This one is as close to being the same as I have seen any lens.

Additionally, I made images with the lens and lens/converter combination wide open as well as stopped down to f/8.

Here is the test image I made.  I focused on the Honda outboard motor engine in the center.

No tele-converter; f/8 (click to enlarge)

Here are the test images.  The first two are without and with the tele-converter with the lens wide open.

No tele-converter; f/3.5; 200mm (click to enlarge)

With tele-converter, f/3.5 (as set on lens); 194mm (click to enlarge)

The next two images were made with the lens stopped down to f/8

No tele-converter, f/8; 200mm (click to enlarge)

With tele-converter, f/8; 194mm (click to enlarge)

Finally, two 100% crop images of the ones taken with the lens wide open.  The first without a tele-converter and second with the tele-converter.

No tele-converter; 200mm f/3.5 (click to enlarge)

With tele-converter; 194mm f/3.5 (as marked on lens) (click to enlarge)

As you can clearly see, the difference in optical performance between using the lens as is or adding the Olympus EC-14 1.4X tele-converter is negligible.  Is there a difference?  Yes, ever so slight but you really have to pixel peep to identify any differences in image quality.  I would say 99 out of 100 photographers would say there is no practical difference.

So, this is the first test.  I plan on making a few more images to continue to see how well this camera/lens/tele-converter combination works.  I'll post my final thoughts on them on Friday.

Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook

Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com.  Please pay it a visit.  I add new images regularly.  Thank you.


All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or image.