Zoooooom! - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/11/2005 08:41:04 AM · #1

I have a Panasonic FZ20 and it has a 12X optical zoom [432mm] but I like to take moon pictures and long range photographs. I found .this on ebay, a 3X Converter. My question is:
1. Does converters work well without degrading the image?
2. Does this look like a good one and is the price good?
3. Would it really give me 432mm X 3 = 1296mm equivalent?

Anyone will to offer advice or answers to these question please do so before I get the urge to purchase it without finding out it's potential.
Thanks in advance

scottwilson

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8

02/11/2005 08:50:18 AM · #2

I don't know if the converter is any good but looking at the ebay ad at the before and after shots they look pretty much like BS to me, the after shot looks very much like a photo that has been resize so you can't really tell the sharpness and the before shot looks like it was Photoshoped to look bad.

A conveter can work well but it can also work like crap, it all depends on how good the optics are in it.

scottwilson

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8

02/11/2005 08:56:52 AM · #3

Looking at the ad with more care I would avoid this one, there is no brand or model given so you can't do any research on the particular converter. In fact all the photos seem to hid any brand name that might be on it.

If you are thinking of getting a tele-converter it might be best to go to a camera store with your camera in hand so your can try them out and see how they work for your camera. I did this when looking for a wide angle converter for my Coolpix 995, the converters the store had were so bad as to be a joke, I was very glad I had my camrea with me so that I could see how well they worked.

02/11/2005 08:57:28 AM · #4

If you can hold off when I get home I will take a shot zoomed in all the way with my camera and take a shot with my 2X converter then you can judge from that. I will give to two true comparisions.

jab119

02/11/2005 08:57:49 AM · #5

Scott, your camera should be able to get a good shot of the moon @ the 432mm you say it has, just use a good tripod and you should be ok.

THe teleconverter may degrade the image somewhat I would stick with a name brand telecoverter made for your camera, sure its gonna cost more, but optically it will be better. Or you might be able to find a good used one that has the same thread size to fit your camera. Olympus made a good one many people used on different cameras called the B300 or something like that. They dont make them any more, but there are a lot out there for sale.

James

02/11/2005 08:58:35 AM · #6

Originally posted by scottwilson:

Excellent Advice.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/11/2005 08:59:01 AM · #7

Originally posted by scottwilson:

I don't know if the converter is any good but looking at the ebay ad at the before and after shots they look pretty much like BS to me, the after shot looks very much like a photo that has been resize so you can't really tell the sharpness and the before shot looks like it was Photoshoped to look bad.

A converter can work well but it can also work like crap, it all depends on how good the optics are in it.

Yea I noticed that. It looked like the 3x picture was a standard photograph and the original, made to look bad. Also it does not look like a 3x difference.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/11/2005 09:00:36 AM · #8

Originally posted by rex07734:

If you can hold off when I get home I will take a shot zoomed in all the way with my camera and take a shot with my 2X converter then you can judge from that. I will give to two true comparisions.

Thank you

colda

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/11/2005 09:03:26 AM · #9

I have a Oly TCON17 that I've been using with my FZ2, by all reports the TCON17 is something exceptional for the price, if I get chance I'll take a few pics with it connected to my 50mm 1.8 and see how good it really is.

As regards the 3x that you have found on ebay, I'd personally leave it well alone.

dpdave

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/11/2005 09:08:07 AM · #10

The demo photo's look like the same shot, (notice the realtion between the two cars), cropped differently. Also, after a few years of dealing on ebay, the general rule of thumb is to be very careful what region something is coming from. No offence meant to DPC'ers from Hong Kong. I have seen a number of highend watch counterfeits that were shipping from Asia.

As the old saying goes; Caveat Emptor

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/11/2005 09:11:08 AM · #11

Thanks to everyone that has commented. I will hold off and put my money into other useful things. Thanks for all the advice, it has been well received. And I think all of you are correct. To good to be true...well you know the rest.
Thanks

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/11/2005 09:45:37 AM · #12

As an FZ10 owner who reads the Panasonic forums a lot, it seems that most people are really happy with the Oly TCON17. The own brand converter is exceptionally good, but poor value for money, costing more than the camera itself! The EBay converter looks like rubbish.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

02/11/2005 10:32:14 AM · #13

I bought a 3x teleconverter to use with my Pro 90 a couple of years ago. It turned out to be a lens designed for a video camera and didn't work very well for me. Vignetteing, and very soft around the edges. After that I did a lot of research and determined that the Oly TCON 17 is the best.

I'd love to try the house brand tele for my FZ20. For the price they ask you'd expect to get great image quality. Think I'll pick one up next time I hit the lottery.

Message edited by author 2005-02-11 10:33:16.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

02/11/2005 11:41:14 AM · #14

As someone that uses a 3x converter often, I can say that degrading the image is one thing that they are good for. The TCON-300 I have for my Olympus E-10 can do a decent job for screen size resolutions like we have here, but if trying to print something, it does have some limitations. The optical qualities are actually pretty good as far as converters go, and it only loses 1 f-stop (420mm F2.8 equiv).

Here are a few sample images taken with the TCON-300:

(Keep in mind these required a little finesse in PS)

Prof_Fate

02/11/2005 12:25:16 PM · #15

AS a foremer Fuji 602 user, the Oly or the Fuji TC's both get high marks, but most other do not. I thinkk it is Raynox makes them as well and those are almost as good.

I have not heard of using them on SLR lenses though...colda - have you tried it and does it work as expected? I thought you had to use the TC's for SLRS that go between the body and lens?

colda

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/11/2005 01:34:26 PM · #16

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

I've messed around and it seems ok - I'll do a few test shots over the weekend and add them to this thread. For what it's worth I'll be attaching a TCON17 to a 50mm 1.8 using a 52-55mm step-up ring.

02/11/2005 04:37:23 PM · #17

As promised

Without Teleconverter

With 2X Teleconverter

I have done nothing to these but to resize the pixel on both to 640X480 then save for web on both. No cropping

Prof_Fate

02/11/2005 04:53:07 PM · #18

You couldn;t hold the camera straight? Crop out the tree on the left of the no-TC shot and it looks a bit like the house is sliding into a hole in the ground.

02/11/2005 06:41:20 PM · #19

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

You couldn;t hold the camera straight? Crop out the tree on the left of the no-TC shot and it looks a bit like the house is sliding into a hole in the ground.

I am lost. Not trying to take good shots. I am trying to help this guy out. Why a critque????? Read the WHOLE thread before you post.

Message edited by author 2005-02-11 18:42:15.

02/11/2005 06:52:59 PM · #20

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

You couldn;t hold the camera straight? Crop out the tree on the left of the no-TC shot and it looks a bit like the house is sliding into a hole in the ground.

I get critqued when I don't want it for photos I took because I had 5 minutes to spare before I rushed off to take my kid to gymnastics. I can't get comments when I want them.