Teleconverters any good ?

[BADGER.BRAD]

Hello all,

I've posted this in the film section although I intend to use it on a digital camera ( sorry for swearing) I'm thinking of an M42 3X teleconverter to use with my existing manual M42 lenses from my film cameras. But my question is do I stand to lose a lot of quality doing this and will it cause any other difficulties ?

Thanks all.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Teleconverters, like any other lens, range from OK to OMG! The greater the magnification the more the image suffers, so 1.4X is better than 2X is better than 3X. You lose light transmission because you're reducing the real aperture of the lens, hence your maximum aperture is reduced by 1 f-stop, 2 f-stops and 3 f-stops with the magnifications listed.

In my experience, the very best teleconverters (those made by the lens manufacturer and designed for a specific lens) are useful. The very best of the general purpose 2X converters, such as Tamron's AD2 converter, are acceptable, depending on how important detail is to you. The rest are, in my opinion, just not worth the trouble.

 

[Autonerd]

I always read that teleconverters were bad news, but recently I used one on a film camera (a generic one combined with a Nikon 50mm lens). I don't have any of those pics online but with 35mm film I thought they looked fine. With a digicam (btw "Sorry for swearing" made me chuckle -- I'm stealing that joke!) the higher resolution might show the deficiencies.

Not sure what lenses you'll use it with, but unless you're going super-long (turning your 70-210 into a 210-630!! Say, I ought to try that!), wouldn't M42 lenses be inexpensive enough to give you the reach you need natively?

Aaron

 

[soupdragon]

I can only quote my opinion as I've never looked at test results.
I hate them with a vengeance, the y make most great lenses look like coke bottle bottoms.

This is my opinion only.

 

[Nod]

IME, 1.4x are acceptable, 2x can be but need a fair bit of extra light/higher ISO and I've never used a 3x. These comments are based on Fuji XF telecons behind a 100-400 (which are designed to be used together). I sold the 2x and don't miss it! SOME 2x converters might be acceptable behind decent primes but I'd guess that cropping in to a 1.4x image would give just as good results unless you need the extra pixels for printing.

 

[moggi1964]

Teleconverters, like any other lens, range from OK to OMG! The greater the magnification the more the image suffers, so 1.4X is better than 2X is better than 3X. You lose light transmission because you're reducing the real aperture of the lens, hence your maximum aperture is reduced by 1 f-stop, 2 f-stops and 3 f-stops with the magnifications listed.

In my experience, the very best teleconverters (those made by the lens manufacturer and designed for a specific lens) are useful. The very best of the general purpose 2X converters, such as Tamron's AD2 converter, are acceptable, depending on how important detail is to you. The rest are, in my opinion, just not worth the trouble.

I have the Tamron SP 2x converter (01F) and found it gave decent results on my Tamron 90mm and Tamron 200mm when attached to my EM1 MkII. Smaller sensor size may have helped with the off-centre performance. Haven't used it in a while.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I have the Tamron SP 2x converter (01F) and found it gave decent results on my Tamron 90mm and Tamron 200mam

I have the same converter and it is above average, in my opinion.

On the whole, though, I'd rather use my Panasonic/Leica 100~400mm, which has AF and stabilisation, two things that even the best AD2 lenses lack!

 

[StephenM]

When I got my OM1 and had literally no other lenses beyond the standard 50mm f/1.4, I got a 2x teleconverter. It has remained unused (if I even still have it) ever since a second lens was bought.

All lenses are imperfect; a teleconverter will merely imperfectly magnify the imperfections of the lens it's used with. At what point the loss in quality is too great is subjective.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Thanks everyone, I'm not really sure what sort of equivalent focal length I'm after ( bird photography from a hide I've just discovered close to me, small song birds) My plan is to use my Kodak point and shoot with a 40x zoom to give me some idea what sort of range I need then get something to suit. M42 lenses are a pretty low priced for anything up to 400mm (£20 quid upwards) but I wasn't sure whether to go for the longer lens or a teleconverter ,The longest I have is a 135mm lens with a crop factor of 1.5 making it 200mm(ish) but after a few tests in the garden I don't think this will be enough.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's sad but most of the cheap long focus lenses from the M42 era don't need a 2x converter to make them perform poorly.

There are some exceptions but they weren't cheap when new, so not that many were sold, making them rare now. The exceptions I've used in the past are...

• Pentax Takumar 400mm f5.6: Solid reliable lens with good sharpness Typically around £200 these days.
• Enna Enalyt 400mm f4.5: Good performer but really needs a tripod, I've seen them as low as £150 recently.
• Novaflex 400mm f5.6: the default pressman's lens from the 1950s to the 1980s. Has a unique squeeze grip focusing system and can be found with one of several shoulder mounts, if you're patient.
• Soligor 400mm f6.3: cheap (around £75) but some specimens are surprisingly good - definitely try before you buy, though.

There are others but these are the ones I know about. Many of these lenses will be half a century old so apply common sense in checking them out.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I guess it's a case of give the Kodak super zoom a go and if that's no good give up as it looks like the world of m42 lenses and teleconverters maybe too much of a quagmire. The Kodak has a 40x zoom giving it a 960mm equivalent at the far end but I'm guessing it will be super naff at 960mm, I'll have to see how it does on a tripod but I'm guessing it will be too much to expect of it.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Sony a9 + Sony 200-600mm + Sony 1.4x teleconverter, hand held - Full frame sensor 61mp ( The defence rests )

Les

 

[andrewc]

IME, a teleconverter is no substitute for a good quality lens covering that FL natively.

However, they're not expensive, take up little space and can get you out of trouble, hence they have their place. I have a x1.4 and a x2 which I got for a good price.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

IME, a teleconverter is no substitute for a good quality lens covering that FL natively.

However, they're not expensive, take up little space and can get you out of trouble, hence they have their place. I have a x1.4 and a x2 which I got for a good price.

Sony 1.4 Teleconverter cost me £550 last year- hardly falls into the not expensive category

a little cheaper now @ £479 - but still not what I would deem "Not expensive"

Sony 1.4x Teleconverter - E mount | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

Les

 

[Retune]

The longest I have is a 135mm lens with a crop factor of 1.5 making it 200mm(ish) but after a few tests in the garden I don't think this will be enough.

I might be tempted by this Tamron, which zooms to 210:

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (19AH) 70-210mm F3.5 Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (19AH) 70-210mm F3.5 reviews and specifications. [i]"Tthis is the best 70-210 zoom lens ever designed and manufactured. Overall somewhat above average performance within its class, plus several notab. This is a Tamron Adaptall Zoom lens.

www.pentaxforums.com

Tamron lenses of this era had interchangeable Adaptall-2 mounts - the M42 version should be easy to find. Of course, you might decide you need something longer than this.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

but I'm guessing it will be super naff at 960mm, I'll have to see how it does on a tripod but I'm guessing it will be too much to expect of it.

That depends a great deal on your expectations. I find that the travel zoom compacts are good enough for my needs, when I don't want to or cannot carry a larger camera.

Sony HX90 (about 1/4th of the original image)...


Panasonic TZ40 (about 1/10th of the original image)...

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Experiments with the Kodak hand held ( lost the lock wheel of my £2 charity shop tripod ! Gutted now I'm going to have to spend another £2 !) My thoughts are o.k for Id purposes but not a lot else ! It seems to report an odd focal length ?. All from about 30-40 foot away the auto focus was a pain in two ways incorrect focus and it bleeps when finds focus lock !
I would be better off with manual focus as it seems to focus on anything it fancies.







Fat bird with no wings ??

 

[moggi1964]

I might be tempted by this Tamron, which zooms to 210:

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (19AH) 70-210mm F3.5 Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (19AH) 70-210mm F3.5 reviews and specifications. [i]"Tthis is the best 70-210 zoom lens ever designed and manufactured. Overall somewhat above average performance within its class, plus several notab. This is a Tamron Adaptall Zoom lens.

www.pentaxforums.com

Tamron lenses of this era had interchangeable Adaptall-2 mounts - the M42 version should be easy to find. Of course, you might decide you need something longer than this.

I used that lens with my Pentax ME Super but never attached the TC as I had a Tamron 200 prime that I would use it with. Lovely lens but then the SP range were very good across the board.

I do happen to be selling that lens in the classifieds currently and the TC could certainly accompany it

 

[Asha]

Tried a few both with film and ahem (i shall not swear as I have no spare monies to fund the swear box lol).

I found that all rendered poor resulting exposures.

Their basic idea is simple and in effect , very practical , but the way in which some can stuff IQ makes them no longer a part of any kit bag of mine.

 

[Asha]

Tried a few both with both film and ahem (?i shall not swear as I have no spare monies to fund the swear box lol).

I found that all rendered poor resulting exposures.

Their basic idea is simple and in effect , very practical , but the way in which some can stuff IQ makes them no longer a part of any kit bag of mine

 

[PeterSpencer]

I guess the latest convertors like the Canon Extender EF 1.4x III, with its £450 price tag, are different kettle of fish. Of course if you own a film EOS camera you cuold actually use one.