|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 106
|
![]()
nathantop wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
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. Riley |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Junior Member
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? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Senior Member
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? Riley |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|