Telephoto conversion lens usefulness, or not

[Dazz1]

OK, this is probably going to be one of those embarrassing, told you so, type of conversations

I got a Vivitar 2.2x Telephoto Converter lens (the type that screws onto the front of the main lens like a filter). Luckily it was cheap, and I didn't expect too much, because I think I got even less. The accessories it was bundled with are probably more valuable.

Or, maybe I don't know how to use it???

I put in on the front of the canon EFS 55-250mm kit lens, and there is a ring of out of focus area all around the centre, getting worse as you zoom, until, at 250mm, it is ALL blurry. It improves slightly if I stop it down, but even at f/32 it is still terrible.

Here's an example at 55mm



and at 100mm

[I @ M]

I reckon it is money well spent.

If you were to recreate the defect effect in photoshop you would spend quite a bit of time doing it on the pc. Converter wins.

If you were to smear vaseline around the outer edges of your lens the way it used to be done a million years ago you would spend a lot of time cleaning it off afterwards. Converter wins.

[Mary Anne]

Oh Well

[Dazz1]

I reckon it is money well spent.

If you were to recreate the defect effect in photoshop you would spend quite a bit of time doing it on the pc. Converter wins.

If you were to smear vaseline around the outer edges of your lens the way it used to be done a million years ago you would spend a lot of time cleaning it off afterwards. Converter wins.

I knew someone would find the bright side of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh Well

Oh well is right.

Still, I am counting up the "free" accessories
1. Big rubber air dust blower
2. Spray/spritz bottle for cleaning fluid
3. Nice big dust brush
4. MagicFibre cleaning cloth
5. Spare 58mm lens cap
6. Stick on lens cap lanyard

and of course the other free thing - experience

[ameerat42]

Er, but... What is that lens made for? You can't just expect it to behave optically on any lens. It might have been made for some smaller sensor camera, like a video cam.
I had (where "had" means still have but no longer use) a few of them and they all worked OK on such cams. Hopeless on any 35mm lens in use at the time.
Am.

[arthurking83]

Just think of the money you saved .. as opposed to wasted in getting this.

it gives the same basic look to images as the new(old design) Lomo Petzval lens and the Petzval lens costs about $600ish now(without taking into consideration shipping and currency conversions).
Plus the Petzval lens is manual focus only, with an antiquated rack and pinion system(like they did it 150years ago), and has a system of aperture variation called the 'Waterhouse Stops'.
Which you slot into the back of the lens as needed.
The Waterhouse Stop system can be directly translated into modern English as: A quick and easy system of losing small paraphernalia that will be significantly important to you after you have lost it!

So you could have easily dropped $700ish on a really cool but eventually useless lens with some strange properties .. or you could have spent about $20 on an item that gives the same look to an image, but has multiple other uses(one I can immediately think of is as a regular magnifying glass .. which I always seem to need nowadays).


Moral of the story is to enter into the arrangement with a Monty Pythonesque point of view; always look on the bright side of .....

[Dazz1]

Er, but... What is that lens made for? You can't just expect it to behave optically on any lens. It might have been made for some smaller sensor camera, like a video cam.
I had (where "had" means still have but no longer use) a few of them and they all worked OK on such cams. Hopeless on any 35mm lens in use at the time.
Am.

You may be on the track of something, although their website claims it's for everything ("Especially designed for high quality digital cameras and camcorders"). http://www.vivitar.com/products/105/...s/1152/37t-72t


- - - Updated - - -


Oh, and the guy I bought it from advertised "Canon T5i T4i T3i T2i XSi SL1"

- - - Updated - - -

Just think of the money you saved .. as opposed to wasted in getting this.

it gives the same basic look to images as the new(old design) Lomo Petzval lens and the Petzval lens costs about $600ish now(without taking into consideration shipping and currency conversions).
Plus the Petzval lens is manual focus only, with an antiquated rack and pinion system(like they did it 150years ago), and has a system of aperture variation called the 'Waterhouse Stops'.
Which you slot into the back of the lens as needed.
The Waterhouse Stop system can be directly translated into modern English as: A quick and easy system of losing small paraphernalia that will be significantly important to you after you have lost it!

So you could have easily dropped $700ish on a really cool but eventually useless lens with some strange properties .. or you could have spent about $20 on an item that gives the same look to an image, but has multiple other uses(one I can immediately think of is as a regular magnifying glass .. which I always seem to need nowadays).


Moral of the story is to enter into the arrangement with a Monty Pythonesque point of view; always look on the bright side of .....

Hey, yeah, I could remove all the glass, then I'd have a nice metal lens hood ! (doesn't work as a magnifying glass btw.)

[ameerat42]

Well, send them some of your pics. Some wild claims there!

PS. Have you tried it on a P&S?

[Dazz1]

Well, send them some of your pics. Some wild claims there!

PS. Have you tried it on a P&S?

Don't have one, or maybe, I could hold it over the phone's camera.

[CarlR]

Paperweight or desk accessory?

[Dazz1]

Don't have one, or maybe, I could hold it over the phone's camera.

na, on the phone it gives slight magnification and severe pincushion.

- - - Updated - - -

Paperweight or desk accessory?

62 to 58mm filter adapter?

[richardb]

Ahahaha...

[bitsnpieces]

This to me looks more like a close up filter than you can attach to try and get closer to a macro look (it's basically a magnifying glass in front of the lens) - using that to make it as a telephoto lens to attach at the end, I don't know if it's just me, but that's just a bad idea if you're looking for more reach.

I know there are some specially made telephoto adapters to extend the range - from what I understand, they don't have this blur affect, or at least not as much if there was to be any
I just don't know if there are generic ones that will go to a camera and then work on any lens.

But as Andrew says, if there are certain effects you want in your photos, this is one way.

[wasnapper]

I bought one of them on eBay and had the same issue. I sent the seller some pics and got a refund. They didn't want the surge thing back so it's now I'm a drawer somewhere. Might dig it out and try it as a soft focus lens!

[Tannin]

An absolute bargain! You've done well.

Some people spend $1000 on a type of lens that can't be made properly for less than $2000. It costs them $1000 to learn that, with lenses (and with quite a lot of other photo gear), spending less than you have to spend to get what you need is just a way of throwing away good money. If one is lucky - you have been here, and I was too very early on in my DSLR days when I bought some cheap filters which delivered the same sort of image quality you have got in the shot above (i.e., unusable rubbish) - one might only spend $50 or $100 to get some useless carp that isn't worth $5 and teaches the lesson just as effectively.

And, of course, some people never learn: they go on buying cheap rubbish and never being happy with it over and over again, always believing that the next $50 bargain-bin pickup will magically deliver $3000 quality. I've seen people waste thousands doing that, little by little.

So what sort of filter do you need to convert a 55-250 into a capable telephoto lens? Ans: you can't. The 55-250 is already beyond its own capabilities at 250mm, never mind doing other stuff to it. If you want something longer, save yourself a lot of money by doing it once, and doing it right. Get (for example) a 100-400L - there will be lots of good second-hand ones going cheap(ish) soon as keen 'togs with deep pockets upgrade to the new Mark II version. With long lenses, you absolutely must have quality 'coz any flaws really show, and that means paying what it costs. In general, add-on converters don't work. The very few that work pretty well cost around $500 and only work properly with a very high quality main lens (say, a 70-200L) and the total cost isn't any less (and may even be more) than buying the right tool in the first place.

</rant>

[ameerat42]

Caption: Wetpixels' attempt at wit elicited a range of responses, from merriment to utter concern (and yet others).
However, a few realised that he was illustrating the adage: Inventiveness (and experimentation) is the brother of convention.

[Arg]

This type of tele converter can work very well. Your results are due to the quality of your purchase and possibly also whether it suits your lens.