Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 12, 2005, 5:22 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 549
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
The tl55 is a small tele converter. The other four in that comparison are of somewhat higher quality and 2x-3x larger and heavier with centers of gravity that will wear outthe plasticfz3 adapter threads rather quickly. Like you might find it bouncing off your toes soon (Joe, where are you?). They are huge and it will hurt! The freindly, stubby (Joe, where are you?) tl55 does a very nice job with the fz1. Here's a comparison with the tcon17.




Sorry Fred, just found it. Yep, I'm here. Was searching out old motors for you today. And I found some.....Must have a pre-Photoshop cocktail first.
shotgunbride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2005, 5:32 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Stoney79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 314
Default

cricket wrote:
Quote:
Am I right in thinking that the 420mm max zoom would extend to 609mm?
No, the factor is 1.4, you'll get 588mm.
Stoney79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2005, 5:59 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

shotgunbride wrote:
Quote:
Yep, I'm here. Was searching out old motors for you today. And I found some.....Must have a pre-Photoshop cocktail first.
All right! Let's crank those babies up! I assume all ensuing cocktales will be imbibed during Photshop activity. I'm jonesen for Johnson.


fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2005, 6:01 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

cricket wrote:
Quote:
What do you recommend and who has the best prices for UK user?
I don't know about the UK best price. Before you buy, you might want to think carefully about your requirement because you are the person who will use the lens.

Buying a lens is always some kind of compromise among image quality, $$$, weight, size, personal preference (or bias), brand preference, etc. There is no best converter lens; but, there are lenses you are willing to buy even though they are not the best ones in the eyes of other people. Some people place price as the most important factor, while some others love to have light weight lenses to carry around. And some people aim for the highest optical quality. So, it is your call to make some criteria for your own purpose. Here is what I can offer (well, some one above has already quoted my test page). My experience comes from shooting with the FZ-10. With the FZ-3, due to less number of pixels (actually 3mp), many problems will not show up clearly, and, consequently, the lens performed not sowell on a FZ-10 can be good on a FZ-3. By the same reason, a lens performs good on a FZ-10 may not be very good on a higher pixel camera. So, whether you will keep the lens for the next cam would also be a factor worth to be considered seriously.

In terms of image quality: Excluding the Panasonic LTZ10, TCON-14B and Sony VCL HGD 1758 are certainlythe best, followed by the TCON-17, followed by the Minolta ACT-100 and Canon TL55. Note that the Canon TL55 is listed as a video lens supporting 512 x 512 resoution. However, the Minolta ACT-100 performs uniformly from center to corner and its corner quality beats every mentioned lens miles, except for the Panasonic LTZ10. The ACT-100 has less chromatic aberration. The TL55 is very soft in the corners; however, like the Minolta ACT-100, the Canon does not suffer chromatic aberration very much.

In terms of weight, the TL55 and TCON-17 are the lightest (158g and 260g, respectively). The Nikon TC-E15ED 1.5X is also light (275g); but, I have not been able to fully test its performence. It could have some light fall-off in the corner, more serious than that of the TCON-17; however, I expect the TC-E15ED to be sharper with higher contrast. The other lenses (TCON-14B, Sony 1758 and Minolta ACT-100) may be too heavy.

In terms of US price, the TCON-17 is perhaps the best buy because of its image quality and weight. On Adomara's site http://www.adorama.com the TCON-17 and TL55 have price tags of $92.95 and $89.85, respectively. Unless you are a diehard light weight guy, you probably would not sacrifice the image quality for just $3 and 110g differences.

CK

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 and Panasonic FZ-10 User Guides





shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2005, 8:37 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

CK - You're tests are somewhat inconclusive in that no 25-50 ft comparisons were made. It's in that range that the vast majority of shots are going to be taken. Your newspaper shots notwithstanding, it looks like the tl55 does ok at around 30-40 feet relative to the tcon17 as the bird bath photos indicate. I don't question for minute the validity of your tests showing the tl55 coming up short. She's just a wee bit of a thing as compared to the heavy hitters.

Here are the upper right hand corners at 100%.

fz1/tl55fz1/tcon17


fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2005, 1:41 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
CK - You're tests are somewhat inconclusive in that no 25-50 ft comparisons were made. It's in that range that the vast majority of shots are going to be taken. Your newspaper shots notwithstanding, it looks like the tl55 does ok at around 30-40 feet relative to the tcon17 as the bird bath photos indicate.
All lenses other than close-up lenses are calibrated at infinity. In other words, focal length, image quality, etc are measured when the lens is focused at infinity. Thus, except for macro/micro lenses whosemain aimis at the close range, the best optical performance is at infinity, and performance at close range, usually the minimum focusing distance, is not as good as that of the infinity setting. Moreover, converters do not have focal length (or equivalently focal length is infinity), and, consequently, have no performance difference when they are used at infinity or close range. This means the optical quality of a combo (converter plus camera) is best (resp., worst) when focusing at infinity (resp. minimum focusing distance). This is the main reason that I only do infinity, moderate distance and close range comparisons. There is no "inconclusive" here, because the quality at the distance you mentionedshould be betweenthose ofthe close range andat infinity, and is basically dictated by the camera lens mainly. Moreover, since not everyone is shooting at 25-50 ft distance, especially when the zoom is pushed to its maximum, the definite minimum focusing distance is a better measure.

Since I don't have a FZ1/3, I cannot comment on anything about your finding, and will accept it as is.

CK


shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2005, 8:08 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Interesting comments everyone.

To help me have a better idea of how big a converter I might need, do any of you have any pics you could post showing a human subject standing approx 150 feet away and stating how much zoom was used?


cricket is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:19 PM.