Olympus MC-14 and MC-20 - [Image Quality?]

How much do MC-14 and MC-20 affect the image quality? What about the AF speed?

My Channel membership is now open!

Get a Hoodie!

⏱Timestamps
00:00 Intro
00:08 Teleconverters MC-14 and MC-20
00:43 What tests were used?
01:15 Comparing
01:35 Lab-test results
01:40 Lab-test results with Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro
02:36 Lab-test results with Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
03:26 AF Performance Test
03:34 Test images
04:48 Real Life test results with Olympus 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS + MC-20
06:36 Real Life test results: Which one was which?
06:55 My Thoughts
09:20 Watch Next

🎼Music and SFX from
Not Crazy (instrumental version by Roni Bar Hadas

► Affiliate programs I am in:

► Cameras and Lenses:

► Filters:

► Software:

► Other:
You do not pay anything extra. Win-win.

► Want to learn more about photography or use your Olympus or OM SYSTEM camera. I have coaching sessions available in my Webstore:

Disclaimer: I am an OM SYSTEM Ambassador. I make all my content with mirrorless OM SYSTEM and Olympus micro four-thirds gear.

Links to my Olympus gear (disclaimer: using these links when making purchases, you support this channel. You pay the same price, and I get a few bucks to finance this channel.)

Links to my accounts all around the web:


#Olympus #OMSystem #PeterForsgard

(disclaimer: Some of the links above are affiliate links. Using these links when making purchases, you support this channel. You pay the same price, and I get a few bucks to finance this channel.)

[chrisbrown]

Thanks Peter, this is a great post about using the teleconverter with the 40-150mm f2.8 lens

[WhoIsSerafin]

Perfect timing getting into photography surfing and trying to decide between the two

[bmiller]

I have the 300 f4 and the mc-14, for birding. I only very rarely use the 300 without it.

[kittyclerico]

Interesting information. I have wondered how these extenders affect image quality. Thanks for this.

[sounderdavis]

Potential MFT buyers of MC-14 and MC-20 should know that at this time these 2 teleconverters **only** work with the three lenses Peter mentioned as well as the 300mm f/4 from Oly--not with other Oly lenses or Panasonic gear. I did rent the Oly 150-400mm f/4.5 for a week for bird photography. That lens comes with a built-in and easily-toggled 1.25x teleconverter. You can also add an MC-20 to the built-in tele to take that lens up to 35-mm-equivalent 2000mm handheld! But after trying it for an hour with both teles at 2000mm in good light with all IS on and fast-enough shutter speeds, I took the MC-20 off. That combo wasn't sharp enough for me handheld with distant subjects--maybe due to my technique or to heat wave distortion. Also it's very hard to locate moving small wildlife at 2000mm because the field-of-view is so narrow. Think of it like trying to handhold very powerful binoculars or a telescope without image stabilization; what you see through the glass is wobbling badly. On a tripod with the MC-20 on a cooler day, or using the MC-14 instead, and a near-stationary subject, you may do better with the 150-400mm plus built-in tele and an additional teleconverter; I didn't test that. But the built-in 1.25x tele on the 150-400mm will get you up to 35-mm-equivalent 1000mm without MC-14 or MC-20 and is all you need for sharp images handheld with good technique on reasonably close subjects, some cropping allowed.

DxO PhotoLab Elite DeepPrime and Topaz Sharpen AI do allow shooting at high ISO and getting sharp images with the 300mm f/4 and 40-150mm f/2.8 mounted with the MC-20, so you can hit 35-mm-equivalent 1200mm or 600mm handheld with those two lenses at ISO 6400 or more and still crop into the image a bit. The 40-150mm f/2.8 and MC-20 IMO is not a great combo for sharpness with small songbirds that are, say, 100+ feet away. With frame-filling wildlife including birds, that combo does quite well; but with distant wildlife that doesn't come close to filling the frame, the 300mm f/4 with MC-20 does notably better than the 40-150 with MC-20, although at more than 2x the price. For many wildlife photographers who like me are not able to afford to buy the 150-400mm lens, either of these two options represent a very good value.

I haven't tried the newer 100-400 f/5-6.3 lens Peter tests here, but I am not surprised that it is not as sharp with the MC-20 or as easy to use in low light as the three bigger-aperture lenses above. In Oly glass, the PRO designation those three lenses have does mean better optical quality and performance in my experience.

[Hugo-TX]

I've been tempted to get the MC-20, but giving up 2 EV steps was a deal breaker. Yes I know you can't get something for nothing, but I'm not always shooting in bright light conditions. Thanks for the tests.

[AlpacoFilms]

Thanks for the test!!! I’ve been wanting to do this with the 40-150 specifically for sports! I’d love to see a test to show the auto focus speed difference.

[artistjoh]

I would have loved to see some testing with macro subjects, for while most people seem to think teleconverters are all about extending the reach of lenses, the most useful thing to use them for, (for us macro shooters) is to get tele-macro shots. The longer tele lengths mean being able to shoot critters from enough distance that they are not alarmed by the camera, and behave more naturally. The 100-400mm lens is particularly good for macro, and combining teleconverters and extension rings can give greater than 1:1 magnification.

MFT is an excellent format for macro because it gives greater depth of field at any given aperture and focal length, and my G9 is really good with focus stacking, and I am sure your Olympus cameras probably do the same.

In many ways cropping in post can do as well as using a teleconverter when it comes to reach, but tele-macro work cannot be replicated by anything other than a tele lens plus teleconverters.

[truewarrior]

very good content. was looking exactly for this 2x2 comparison. thanks a lot!

[TITAOSTEIN]

I use the 300f4 + TC2 frequently and I am very happy with the results! I cannot say the same about the use of the TC2 with the 40-150f2.8. Im getting very poor results with this set!

[RobShootPhotos]

My curiosity is putting the 2x teleconverter on the 40-150mm and how it compares to the 75-300mm. However I think I will get the 1.4x for the 40-150mm because I could see this would be good for the 300mm f/4 if I would ever get that lens.

[Centauri]

Thanks for the comparisons, Peter. The results are pretty much in line with expectations. I have the 40-150 f/2.8 and both MC 14 & 20. I shoot still life. My results with the MC14 is very good: virtually indistinguishable from the base zoom lens. With the MC20, I notice a distinct drop-off in sharpness, though Topaz Sharpen AI restores a lot of the details. For fun, I picked up a Tokina 400mm f/8 mirror lens. You want low contrast images? Look no further than a mirror lens! But the Tokina also has its own look that is markedly different from the Olympus PRO zooms.

[wadelapan]

Thanks Peter. I've been shooting thousands of photos of the horse races at Saratoga with the 40-150, E-M1 II and 1.4x, shooting .jpg only. I wanted a smidge more contrast, so upped that on the camera. Now, based on what you said, I'll also try bumping up the sharpness and color, just by one. Results are very very good for me, and, at about 3.5 pounds, it is easy to carry in the heat we've been having.

[ridealongwithrandy]

My standard setup is using the MC-14 on the 40-150, never on the 300 pro because it does not need it. However, when shooting the moon or the sun, I use the MC-20 on the 300 pro for max mags. Cheers!

[robynaldridge]

Peter, I'm definitely not adding anything onto the 100-400mm lens. I've had the MC-20 on the 300mm lens since I bought it and the MC-14 on the 40-150mm lens so I'll stick with that. Of course if I had one of the monsters then I wouldn't have to carry everything else! Still, that's life and we have to be thankful for what we have and make the most of it.

[Rdavis]

Thanks for the video. For birds in flight, if I don't care about shooting beyond a 300mm range, would the images from the 40-150 with 2x converter be equal to or better than the 100-400 at 300mm?

[stephenelderphoto]

Really good info Peter. It should be helpful for anyone thinking about buying the TCs.

I have both MC-14 and MC-20 and they also work well on the Olympus 300mm, which I don’t think you mentioned. I found that I was getting a lot of blurry images using the MC-20 on the 40-150mm until I tried it with a monopod. That made a big difference for me.

The light loss is definitely a pain though. I’m in Scotland and bright sunny days are not something we can count on for most of the year but I decided to keep the MC-20 as it will be good as a tool to employ in the right situations.

Thanks again Peter!

[florianschfr]

The MC-20 was the only MFT buy I really regretted. Baught it to extend the 40-150. But it ruined the image quality. To a point where I even found a digital crop on par if nor better. Not sure if this was the lenses or converters fault. The lens itself performs stellar though. So from my own not representitive experience I cannot recommend it.

[tonvanbruchem]

Dear Peter
Can you advice to set the contrast and saturation in the camera on +1 with the mc 14 and/or mc 20 with the 100-400 mm

Ton

[tdunster]

I shot Ice Hockey games with the old 50mm F2 Macro lens on an E410 using manual focus. The pics were good enough to get picked up. Anything is possible - never think the gear you own is holding you back. You just need to be innovative and accept the challenge. Far more rewarding than using a camera or lens so high tech that you almost don't even need to be there. The fixation people have with shooting wide open I find hilarious as well - especially considering that ISO increases these days come at a very small cost given noise reduction software. Besides - even f8 gets you a nice bokeh at the long end with the background far way - or you can simply manual adjust the focus limiter to suit.