Recommedation for polarizer & teleconverter --EVOLT500

After reading up on some beginner photography books I've discovered I must acquire a good polarizer & teleconverter for my 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 & a 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Lenses. Now, being very wet behind the ears here, bear with me, do I have to purchase a separate polarizer for each lens or will one serve both lenses? As I look around on the web for one I see they are listed with different mm sizes which leaves me wondering what size I need and whether one would actually serve both lenses.

The teleconverter sounds like a great way to save $$ and achieve a higher focal length. Are there any drawbacks to a teleconverter?

If someone has a recommendation for either of these I'd sure like to here it!

Thanks!

Jerry

I generally only buy lenses that fit 77mm filters, making life simpler. There are step rings that convert one diameter to another. For example, a lens has 72mm diameter and your filter is 77mm, you can get a metal ring that is 72mm on the "male" end and 77mm on the "female" end. I don't like these because you generally can't use a lens hood with them, and I almost always use a lens hood.

I don't often recommend a teleconverter (TC). They generally degrade image quality. They also eat up a stop of light. You might get away with a 1.4x. converter on your longer lens, but really you'd be ahead to just get something like a 70-300mm zoom if one is available.


Kent in SD

Cokin has a sytem which allows you to use one filter for alll yur lenses If you buy the P system up to 82 mm It cost is not all that much Remenber you are using a 4/3 system which makes your 50 to 150 lense a 100 to 300mm lense. If you want more power go with the sigma 50 to 500mm lense on your camera it will equal 100 to 1000,mm Dont waste the 400 dollars on the teleconverter and don't waste money on the 50 to 200 mm lense form Oly It cost the same as the 50 to 500mm sigma lense and only gives you with telconverter a 560mm focal length. I own the EVolt 300 and Evolt 510 and just bought the Evolt 500. Gave wife the 300. I hope this helps .

Hi Kent, thanks for the reply. I went and look for the documentation on my lenses and found that each lens list a different size for the "Filter mount thread diameter". I am I correct in assuming that this value indicates the size of polarizer I need to purchase for each lens?

Concerning the teleconverter...I was worried that there would be a serious drawback. Do most photographers shun teleconverters? I'd love to get a 70-300mm lens but frankly I don't have 5K to spend on a new one. Any caveats to consider when purchasing a used lens?

Jerry

Hi Jerry,
Can you say a little more about what you want to shoot? I have an E-1 along with the 14-54 and 50-200. Although I have moved to the 5D for wide to mid-range landscapes, I am still using the E-1 and 50-200 for landscape details. If you use the 14-54 often, I would get a polarizer for it first. A polarizer for the 40-150 may depend more on what you are shooting. For info on teleconverters and other lens choices, the Olympus forum at DPReview is a good place to look if you haven't been there already.

The shorter lens I use for portraits and landscapes mainly. Frankly, I use my longer lens far more than the shorter --but that isn't to say I don't carry and use both out in the back country. So I'd like a polarizer for both. I really like the DOF the longer lens provides. As well, I'm often shooting in central Oregon where no shade exists and I can't control the time of day when I need to shoot. The subject matter is often vista shots as well as people pulled in tight from varying distances. But then the next week I'll be backpacking in high alpine to heavy forest. I like the shots the longer lens affords me in all these situations --even in vista shots. But if I want to pull in as much breath as possible I'll use the shorter lens. Also, like everyone I guess, I shoot more than wildlife in the forest and I'm always looking for inspiration in all facets of the journey. Flowers, tree bark (its amazing how cool it looks pull in tight with a long lens --or maybe its just me?), insects...I'm guessing here since I've never ever used a polarizer!,,,but I think I'd like to have more color saturation in all my shots.

Jerry

To make the best of a teleconverter, you should use the best teleconverter you can get with the best lens you can get. Teleconverters tend to degrade the image quality more noticeably on zoom lenses than on prime lenses. A 2x teleconverter will typically degrade image quality more than a 1.4x. You will lose one stop of light with a 1.4x and two stops with a 2x. If you don't have a fast enough lens, you may lose AF ability with a 2.x or even a 1.4x.

You'd probably be best served to buy a good 300mm or longer lens, and then if you still need more reach, add a 1.4x teleconverter or both teleconverters.

Under certain conditions, a polarizer can have a great effect on an image. A polarizer is definitely an asset. If you have different size lenses, a polarizer for each lens is the best solution, but a polarizer for the larger lens and a step-up ring for the smaller lens is more economical. You can always get start with a step up ring and get a second polarizer later.

Thanks Buck, that all strikes me as sound advice. It is clear from the responses I should focus on getting a longer lens versus the teleconverter --for now anyway. So that is what I will do for that task. I'm just dismayed at the prices. Ouch. So I'll try to go second hand as an alternative to that.

Thanks for your comments.

Jerry

The sigma lense 50 to 500 cpst 962 dollars on anazon and it is worth it

Jerry, I recommend a good quality circular polarizer to fit 67mm. You can buy stepdown rings for your 45-150 and you'll also be able to use it on a 50-200 Zuiko should you ever decide to buy one. ( I think you will buy a 50-200 sooner or later). I'm recommending a good quality like a Hoya or B&W because my experience with the 50-200 Zuiko is that it has trouble focusing with a cheap polarizer. It seems to focus and the focus indicater agrees but the image is still OOF using a cheap polarizer.

The only Teleconverter that you should use is Olympus as it is matched to Zuiko lenses and the results are superb! The horror stories you may hear about teleconverters being soft and crappy definitely do not apply to the Oly when it is used with Zuiko glass. Now, Olympus states that the 1.4x Teleconverter (and probably the new 2x when it becomes available) is not useable with the 45-150 in autofocus, but that is wrong. The reason they make that negative claim is because you loose one stop EV with the teleconverter making your maximum effective aperture f 6.3 on the 45-150. Auto focus at that aperture could be "iffy" in low light so Olumpus simply covers their butt and states that auto focus won't work with that combination. However, in practice, it works fine. I you eventually buy a 50-200 Zuiko you'll end up with close to 600mm (35mm equivilent) at F4 and It's REALLY GOOD!!!. Don't try to use any teleconverter Olympus or otherwise with a Sigma 55-200. That Sigma stinks and it's quantumly worse when teamed up with even the best teleconverter. (Voice of experience speaking hear.) You've got a really good value for your dollar in the E500 and the 4/3 system is worth keeping a eye on, especially if you plan to print a lot of 8x10 or 11x14 or 16x20 standard paper sizes.

Cheers
Bob

Bob, thanks for that feedback.

Rest assured I had no intention of switching from the Zuiko glass. The 50-200 lens is a reasonable $830 on Amazon. That's doable. I'm headed into the back country tomorrow so I may go looking for an Olympus brand teleconverter in PDX before I leave. I do seem to have trouble buying accessories for the Oly from my local Kit camera store and others I've tried. I have more luck online.

Your caution on the polarizer is well taken. I had read elsewhere this was a component you didn't want to skimp on in quality.

Jerry

I do seem to have trouble buying accessories for the Oly from my local Kit camera store and others I've tried. I have more luck online.

Yes, unfortunately there is a very undeserved anti- olympus bias among some retailers, but they have to sell what makes money and that is what the crowd will follow after. I'm fortunate that Oly better accepted in Canada and fully half of the staff at our local Henry's store are Oly converts. But the prices are pretty high. I can order from the US and pay the difference on the dollar, Canada customs and Ontario sales tax where applicable and still come out 25% ahead.

In Korea Oly is outselling Nikon and barking at Canon's heals. Also does well in Europe and the UK.

Good luck. Don't hesitate to email me if I can be of assistance to you. I may not have access to the amazing imagery to be had in the American west and North/west but I sure can bloom where I'm planted and take a back seat to no-one.


Bob

Jerry, from what I understand the Olympus 1.4x is a high quality teleconverter. The comments I've seen indicate that it has little or no negative effect on image quality. There is a Zuiko 70-300 that I think is still forthcoming and the price I have seen puts it among the more affordable options.

Brad, with all due respect, the new 70-300 may be a good lens. After all, if it's a Zuiko we know it won't be a dog but it is a consumer grade lens - not weather sealed, and the 50-200 in combination with the EC1.4 is not only weather sealed and pro quality but it's still faster with the teleconverter than the 70-300 is by itself. Jerry already has the 14-54 as his normal lens and so he is already spoiled by a superb, fast, weather sealed, pro grade lens. He should be made aware that he may find the 70-300 to be a step backwards. I looked at that lens and it doesn't make sense to downgrade to a consumer, slow lens in view of what I already have.

You might argue that Jerry has an E500 body and so what's the point of weather sealed lenses. And yes I agree that the E500 is not weather sealed and I would not want to drop it into a creek, but I'd have no hesitation in taking it out in the rain. Voice of experience speaking here. I would not do to the E500 what I can get away with doing to my E1 but we don't baby our E500 either and it has proven to be a tough and reliable camera.

Bob

Bob, Brad, thanks, you both have shared facts I was unaware of and that's great! The more information the better. Bob, I must say I'm happy to have a Oly/Zuiko advocate!! I also *very much* appreciate the alternative opinion --thank you to all.

I had hoped to get the Oly teleconverter before my trip this evening but, alas, to many tasks to complete before I head out. I'm just going to order it from Amazon and pay the tax.

Jerry