Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 9, 2006, 12:00 AM   #11
Senior Member
bkrownd's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 106

nathantop wrote:
Thanks for the advise, really, but I am looking for something stronger for birding. Maybe the initial choice of camera was wrung, but being a newcomer, I was told the 10x of Canon S1 would be ample range. Can I try some of the larger telephoto or mirror lenses. I saw an 8x crystalvue lens that supposedly fits an S1 with adapter available for $ 169. should I try that.
Alternately give me a camera telephoto lens combination that I may buy, keeping in mind that I am a student. not much money to splurge.
For birds it never seems like you've got enough zoom. "Superzoom" cameras with built-in lenses go up to about "12x". Good teleconverters are 1.5x or 1.7x and take you up to about "20x". That's where I am, and I still get pixellated birds. The Raynox 2.2 would get you about 25x if you can live with its limitations. Stacking teleconverters might buy a little more with a serious trade-off in the image. Beyond that you have to look into "digiscoping" with a spotting scope, which can cost a lot more.

bkrownd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2006, 11:54 AM   #12
Senior Member
Rriley's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066

there are several instances were converters are quite ok
* for digicams, were u cant change lens anyway
* werever a tailored 'factory' lens is offered
* as an extension to existing lens, ie the very long Sigma's, considered 'factory'
* video camera suites, where its how things are done, and some lens converters are worth US$15,000

going way back, many cameras used converter optics specificly designed for them, to offer wide and long lens. The twin lens Rollieflex is one that comes to mind. Since then we have gotten used to 35mm SLRs and the idea that converters are wrong.

The one thing to keep in mind is, a converter wont make a bad prime better, indeed the results will be worse. But i think outside of the bad rap that cheap converters deserve, you should look at the image quality and decide if it solves your problems before buying one. If they dont offer one, you can probably figure out why.


Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2006, 9:20 AM   #13
Junior Member
artworksmetal's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3

I too am curious about these 3X lenses. The Raynox 1540 at 1.54X isa good fit for my S2, as far as I can tell from Lensmate and other places. I've yet to see a review or any images actually taken with these 3X lense. I seeone made byTokina: http://cgi.ebay.com/Tokina-3x-Telephoto-Lens-for-Canon-Powershot-S1-IS-NEW_W0QQitemZ260034877829QQihZ016QQcategoryZ116186 QQcmdZViewItem

They are at least a decent brand, are they not?

I realize that like a telescope, light gathering is a big issue at large magnification. There are always tradeoffs. So to me the real question is, has anybody actually used one of these, and can share their thoughts and images?

artworksmetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2006, 10:15 AM   #14
Senior Member
Rriley's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066

indeed brand doesnt count here
image quality does

teleconverters mounted 'in' lens, as a stack cost light = lower F stop (greater numerical)

teleconverters on the front end generally dont, but
because they introduce glass infront of the lens will/can introduce fringing etc
therefore the optical quality needs to be excellent, but is it?

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:50 AM.