User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  5
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Telephoto conversion lens usefulness, or not

  1. #1
    Former Username : Wetpixels Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Telephoto conversion lens usefulness, or not

    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

    80D, 600D, Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens - Contemporary, Sigma 18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM lens, EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM lens, EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II lens, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II lens, Yongnuo YN500EX flash, Velbon Sherpa 5370D tripod, PH-157Q head, Klika W1003 monopod, AF Macro Extension tubes, LED Ringflash Software: DPP4, Gimp, UFRaw, Rawtherapee, DigiKam, Hugin

  2. #2
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by I @ M; 25-07-2014 at 4:09pm.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  3. #3
    Loves The Wildlife. Mary Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Southside.
    Posts
    36,065
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh Well

    I shoot with Canon And Olympus Cameras



  4. #4
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Anne View Post
    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

  5. #5
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,786
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  6. #6
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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 .....
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  7. #7
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    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.)
    Last edited by Dazz1; 25-07-2014 at 4:46pm.

  8. #8
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,786
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, send them some of your pics. Some wild claims there!

    PS. Have you tried it on a P&S?
    Last edited by ameerat42; 25-07-2014 at 5:19pm.

  9. #9
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    316
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Paperweight or desk accessory?

  11. #11
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wetpixels View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by CarlR View Post
    Paperweight or desk accessory?
    62 to 58mm filter adapter?

  12. #12
    Member richardb's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 May 2010
    Location
    Nordrhein Westfalen
    Posts
    462
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ahahaha...

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular bitsnpieces's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 May 2014
    Location
    St Albans
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    David Tran

  14. #14
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2014
    Location
    Lesmurdie
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!

  15. #15
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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>
    Tony

    People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

  16. #16
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,786
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  17. #17
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    21 Jul 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by Arg; 01-12-2014 at 8:39am.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •