Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2005, 10:59 AM   #1
Senior Member
msantos's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 561

I want to buy a telephoto lens. My choice is Raynox 2020Pro, however I found this CKC Power KrystalVue LX 8x. It is an 8x Tele lens and they say it is compatible with Lumix FZ-15/20.


Does someone have any comment about it??

Thanks in advance
msantos is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 6, 2005, 4:47 PM   #2
Senior Member
spiderman's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 107

Hi msantos,

Do be careful about tele lens. First the power is 8 X 420mm(of FZ20) = 3360mm. That is really quite seldom needed in daily use. But the most important is this, for tele lens(add-on) the number of magnification means the number of F stops, which means there will be a loss of light(halved the light for every F stops). And also due to the length of the lens you mention, the amount of light entered your FZ20 is naturally reduced in the beginning cos it is quite long.

At F8.0, we need a longer exposure. And at F2.8, shorter. But just imagine, at what F stops you will use for the tele lens, say at F8.0, the images will be quite dark and you need to increase maybe up to 8 seconds(max of FZ20), you definitely need a tripod. But I don't know if the pic will turn out bright enough though at 8 seconds. Chances are NO, but with very bright sunny days, you might get a decent pic. Let's say for F2.8 stop, shorter timing right? I don't think so cos again the length of the tele lens will reduce the light so again you need more time of exposure(lesser than F8.0 of course).

Finally, at such great zoom distance, the image quality is greatly reduced too. That lens you mentioned is more of a telescope but with a back thread to me. And so far, I did not heard of anyone using or used it before. If you do some research, you will learn that anything more than 3X tele lens are not recommendable. However, I am hard headed and gonna buy a 2nd hand Raynox 3.55x tele lens from a friend of mine.

spiderman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2005, 7:11 PM   #3
Senior Member
boyzo's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544

Good advice from spiderman ....
" My choice is Raynox 2020Pro"
2.2X Tele is more practical for day to day shooting.
this is a 946mm lens... Very!!!! powerfull!!! and if Raynox is optically sharp then it makes sense.

In days of 35mm slr film camera's 1000mm (mirror lens) was ultimate... still is.

I would go Raynox 2020Pro...


boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2005, 7:39 PM   #4
Junior Member
franckler's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 26

I had raynox 2.2 and I returned it. To be honest, you can definitely see a difference in resolution with and without. they claim 260l/mm, which is not very much at all, and only in the center. if you go towards the edges, then the resolution drops even more. As for light, I did not see much loss, maybe a half stop.

For focusing, be ready to stand a good 15 feet away, that's the minimum focusing distance.

You will get more CA in the purples and green.

Finally, the lens is not very practical, you can only use it at 12x zoom if you do not want vignetting, and even then, you see the corners are darker.

The CrystalVue does look good, but no one seems to have done any testing with the FZ. The previous CrystalVue had tremendous CA.

For longer zoom shots, I am now using my camcorder GL2, it does a terrific job in color and quality. And it is pretty well stabilized.
franckler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2005, 12:46 AM   #5
Senior Member
spiderman's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 107

Basically tele lens(add on)are used for taking pics under bright light. As for vignetting, you can crop it later. But 8X is really a lot! The FZ20 itself can take full Moon without add on and produces a very nice Moon pic. I have seen a few FZ20 users did that. If you bend on getting it, I'll advice to go for Raynox. If you wantto get the 8X go ahead too. Maybe it is really useful and works, and if works, you should tell us alltoo. But maybe it will sit at your home as another telescope. JMO.
spiderman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2005, 7:00 AM   #6
Senior Member
digcamfan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422

Hello msantos

Whichever lens you go with, I would suggest that you considerthe vendor'sreturn policy before your purchase.

Minimum of 7 days without restock fees would be nice.

That way, you can give it a good test and then return it, if you choose to do so.

In reviewing the web site in your post, you would also want to make sure you have the correct adapter ring.

Personally, I would consider the Krystal lens (with a tripod) for eagle-perched-in-trees photos.

Best of all worlds, see if you can find lenses locally and take your cam to the store!

Good luck!

digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2005, 7:11 AM   #7
Senior Member
Rookie's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 124

I was asking the same questions before i decided on the Panasonic Lens. I recieved it the other day and have only had a chance to take 4 hand held shots in auto on overcast day. I was very impressed with the quality. Pictures were sharp and bright. I am glad I went for the Panasonic lens. It appears to be worth the extra money. I also like the mounting bracket. It really redistributes the weight well whenmounted on atripod.
Rookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2005, 4:52 AM   #8
Junior Member
frogman's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1

Hi, what lences are you talking about Rookie? Or you have in mind the originalPanasonic lences?

Maybe somebody has an example of the photo with the Raynox 2.2X? I do not trust the examples presented in the internet shops
frogman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2005, 5:00 AM   #9
Senior Member
TimvdVelde's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 395

You dug out a really old topic. Please use the search function of the forum and search the whole forum for "2020"

You can find some examples (i have)
TimvdVelde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2005, 5:20 AM   #10
Senior Member
NickTrop's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249

I would stay far, far away from any vendor with sensational spec claims, particulary the brand X's. That's true of anything. If it was possible to produce a good image at 8X (:G!) at consumer pricing, don't you think Oly, Raynox, Nikon, etc would be all over that?

In fact, what you see is the more expensive, higher quality teleconversion lenses often don't buy you as much interms of their increase (tele) or decrease (wide) in capability but produce a higher quality image that is close to what you would get just with your camera's lens.

Stick with the known entities, and don't be lured by the specs. And don't expect your image to look quite as good as just using the n'ked lens. Many people - like some who've posted here, expect miracles from these things. Expect softer edges, perhaps some vignetting, more instances of CA. My take is, you're slapping a lens on top of a lens(!); it's amazing the damned things produce an acceptable image at all.

... do try to find sample images! For example, I bought a Raynox WA converter based on comparing sample images. By looking at all that I could find, I see that it's soft around the edges but has much less barrel distortion than others. Others WA converters have sharper edges but suffer from barrel distortion... It's a case of what distortion bugs you the least. Rule of thumb with these things seems to be you pay more for higher quality optics that minimize distortion than the level of capability, and the greater the degree of conversion (1.45, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2), the more distortion in the image. I tend to favor Ranox from the standpoint that they "push" the specs so they serve their intended purpose of providing real extended capability, and do a decent (though no way "perfect") job keeping the distortion minimized, and for a reasonable price. But what is minimized to me might be unacceptable to others in terms of distortion. It's great to have a 1.45X teleconverter that produces distortion-free images but 1.45 ain't buying me that much. Conversly, that 3X conversion give me great reach, but the images are worse that digital zooming out 3X past optical. There's the trade off.
NickTrop 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 5:22 PM.