MFT Community Forum

Share your images and your experience with your MicroFourThirds gear.
Join this independent Community and register now!

Olympus MC-14 1.4 and MC-20 2.0 Telekonverter


Founder MFT Community
I just bought the Olympus 40-150/2.8 Pro for my Lumix G9 and really like that combination for field hockey. Images in another thread.

But sometimes I need more reach for field hockey. Both Olympus telekonverters could be a solution, if I do not want to buy the Panasonic Leica Lumix 50-200/2.8-4.0. The price of that Leica zoom is too high in my opinion. Olympus offers two different telekonverters. One with 1.4 and one with 2.0 magnification/multiplier. Bear in mind that not only the reach gets longer by this amount, but also the F-stop gets smaller by the same multiplier too. There is no free lunch ;)

My Olympus 40-150/2.8 pro would become with the MC14 a 56-210/4.0 and with the MC20 a 80-300/5.6 telezoom. Still not bad to the alternatives, especially considering the price of the Lumix 50-200/2.8-4.0 at around 1.500€. :eek:

The Olympus telekonverters cost each around 330-360€. This is a substantial price difference. But will the optical qiulity bee good enough with telekonverter vs. without or vs. the Lumix-Leica zoom?

I found these reviews of both Olympus telekonverters on YouTube:

If you have experience with one of these telekonverters or both, please post here.
Last edited:
My experience over the years is that 1.4x teleconverters are generally very good, but 2.0x is a bridge too far.

I have the Lumix Leica 50-200mm f/2.28-4.0. I had one and sold it to a friend, and then ultimately bought another one. I use it with a 1.4x teleconverter (these are almost impossible to find anymore). But I later got the cheaper G Vario 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6. My expectation was it would not perform up to the Leica. But I did extensive testing and comparison, and the 100-300 is at least equal to, but generally outperforms the 50-200 with the 1.4x.

At the same time I was testing the Sony 70-350mm APS-C telephoto. Both of the Lumix lenses blew the APS-C lens away. This is one of the reasons I gave up on APS-C.

Anyway, I recommend you take a look at the Lumix 100-300 for field hockey. It is a low cost lens, and at least my copy is very good.
Keep in mind that a teleconverter is a magnifier. This means it magnifies lens defects, too!

I find the MC-14 is invisible on the 40-150/2.8.

But the MC-20 is not far behind! I can tell it's on there, but most of the time, the relatively minor quality hit is acceptable.