Top critical review
1.0 out of 5 starsIt was too good to be true
Reviewed in the United States on October 16, 2019
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.
