25.08.2020 More reach v too much?

~~

On some walks I have taken the Leica 12-60mm. This combination, with the G9, feels almost weightless on the PD "Lite" strap but 60mm MFT or 120mm [35mm] seriously lacks reach for the great outdoors. Even the 280mm reach of the 1.4x TC14 with the 200mm maximum zoom lacks enough reach for small birds and animals. I find it a good lens for small buildings and pets.

I have now added some images to give a sense of scale [or magnification] for different focal lengths. The first pair of images show a 7 mile distant tower. [Distance measured on Google Earth.] The second pair of images show a few chickens at the far end of a 600 yard field. Totally ignore the sharpness for these image scale exercises.

These were all captured with the G9 using the Leica 50-200 on the Lumix 1.4x TC14. The images have been digitally resized but NOT cropped. Cropping alters the scale and reduces resolution. Resizing reduces the resolution but not the scale by reducing the pixel count. The original images were 5184 x 3888 pixels. [4x3 format] I have reduced all of them to 1000 x 750 pixels in PhotoFiltre7.

In the original images I can clearly see the colours of the tiny chickens if the first image taken at 600 yards with 70mm zoomed 100%. In the 280mm images it is very easy to see the hen's combs, legs and plumage and detailed colouration of all these details. Digital zooming in Picasa3 reduces the resolution. As would cropping to achieve the same degree of enlargement.

280mm MFT = 560mm equivalent in FF 35mm terms. You'd have to be quite close to any small birds to have any real impact! 280mm [560mm] is more of a landscape focal length in open countryside.

Removing the 1.4x teleconverter immediately embarrasses you with its maximum 200mm reach. You could photograph nearby cows or sheep in a field with that. If there were any there and you really felt the need.

Which leaves me in another quandary. There is the Leica 100-400mm in Micro 4/3. [MFT] That's 200-800mm equivalent in 35mm Full Frame speak. This would provide much more serious reach than my present 280mm. Enough for smaller birds at greater distances. Say 50 yards maximum? Or birds of prey at even greater distances.

The weight would not be too much of a burden being so close to the 50-200 + TC14. The teleconverter doesn't fit the Leica 100-400 because it has no recess on the rear lens.Which may be just as well given the huge focal lengths tat would give. 140-560 MFT  = 280-1120 in 35mm terms!

Another, slightly cheaper alternative, would be fitting the Lumix TC20 x2 teleconverter to my existing Leica 25-200mm. The TC20 is even more expensive than the TC14!  Though less than half the price of the Leica 100-400. Which it damn well ought to be! A TC is a very small, child's toy compared to a large, full zoom, telephoto lens full of rare and expensive glass! Not the the TCs lack sophistication. They have multiple elements in spaced groups. It is just the tiny scale of the TCs compared with the 2lb/1kg 100-400 which makes one seriously question the retail price! Perhaps Panasonic merely wants to sell more 100-400 lenses than teleconverters?

Sadly the 2x TC has a much poorer [online] reputation compared to the 1.4x. It is said to be "soft" according to reviews and forum discussions. Though the quality of the lens, to which it is attached, inevitably has an affect. How much variation is there in reality with optical mass production? Is it all subjective? Or just user error? Perhaps through lack of skill and knowledge.

My real fear is that purchase of the TC20 will fulfil the hunger for more reach. Then leave me totally underwhelmed with image quality and lack of light despite the considerable expense.

With two stops lost this is strictly a bright sunshine combo. Which could well mean buying the Leica 100-400 anyway. Which is not a particularly fast lens in itself. F4-6.3 is rather slow at the long end.

Another factor is the minimum focal length of the lens [or TC combination] being carried. I have already discovered that I sometimes cannot get far enough away from some subjects with the 70-280mm. [50-200 x1.4 TC] Buildings are the main problem. The road may simply not be wide enough to get all of the building into the frame. Just remove the TC you say?

Removing the TC for a specific shot is a real nuisance compared with just zooming in and out. Even swapping primes or zooms is arguably easier. Due to the double bayonets involved with removing or refitting the TC. The teleconverter has to be safely pocketed in mid lens swap. Not ideal given the protruding front lens of the Lumix TCs.

If a bird of prey flies towards you then the field of view at such long focal lengths is very small indeed. Losing the bird is very likely as the Single Autofocus pumps in and out trying to lock onto the empty sky around the bird. As happened to me only recently with Red kites. Manual focus is a proven option but needs considerable practice. The focus ring also keeps moving further away when adding teleconverters.

Pro bird photographers probably use Burst exposure and Continuous Focus [or Manual focus.] Which is fine if you have birds crossing repeatedly in front of you on a parallel path. What if the bird arrives from behind a tall tree and is suddenly overhead without warning? The bird is very likely to take fright at your presence and sudden movement. It will usually vanish into thin air ASAP.

This is the usual occurrence on my rural walks. Where there are trees and tall hedges almost everywhere I go. Birds of prey are remarkably nervous and will rely on their excellent sight to spot you. Now with your optical cannon suddenly pointing straight up at them! After millions of years of being hunted they know not to trust humans in any shape or form.

~~