One difference not mentioned by C.H or Walt is that the 1.4x can only be
used with certain long teles, Zuiko or other, because the front of it
protrudes in front of the mount so there must be adequate length and
diameter inside the rear of the lens to accomodate the protruding portion.
The 2x is somewhat similar, in that it has less depth clearance behind
the mount than many 3rd party teleconverters and some lenses will not
mount on it. It is in fact possible to damage the front element when
trying to mount the wrong lenses on it.
Moose
C.H.Ling wrote:
The 1.4x was built for big glasses, like 180/2, 250/2 and 350/2.8, so to
match the price of them the 1.4x must be expensive :-)
The 2x was built for cheap slow lens (except 100 and 135 f2.8 which are not
too slow), such as 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/4, 200/5, 100-200/5... ect. To
match with such lenses the selling price cannot be too high.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot1@xxxxxxxxx>
On another topic, what is the difference between the 2x and the 1.4x
extender (apart from the .6 obvious, smarty-pants!!) I found a reasonably
priced 2x and have seen more of them for sale. The 1.4 seems rarer and
pricier. But is there a quality (glass) difference. Probably less stop
loss, but is the 2x "bad" for any reason?
Inquiring minds want to know.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|