| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2005 02:07:06 PM · #1 |
| I'm looking for a telephoto for my G6 and a member suggested this lens. Looks pretty pricey, although looks pretty awesome as well! Does anyone have any experience w/ this brand of lens? I can get 2x telephoto lenses from B&H for @ $60. This one is $200!!! Is it really that much better? Thanks. Raynox lens |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:25:52 PM · #2 |
I have no direct experinece with the Raynox brand, but the fact that it is a four-element design at least indicates the quality may be decent. That's about what I'd expect to pay for a quality teleconverter, whatever you could get for $60 is bound to be junk.
Make sure you check out the merchant (use resellerratings.com) and make sure you can return it for full refund if it does not meet your expectations. Do expect some image degradation, it is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:37:05 PM · #3 |
if I recall from YEARS ago while looking into add on lenses for my sony 707 that the raynox lenses are pretty good. the $60 one may not give you the image quality the raynox will. some lower cost 2x converters have some distortion and purple fringing in areas of the photo.
James |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:38:59 PM · #4 |
| I never knew they made camera lenses, but I've used them for years on my slide projectors. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:58:54 PM · #5 |
| ive seen results from the raynox fisheye at least, and...well lets just say you could better spend your money at a casino. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:29:28 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
ive seen results from the raynox fisheye at least, and...well lets just say you could better spend your money at a casino. |
LOL!
Well, certainly the fisheye would be the worst case... the mor that the light rays are bent, the worse the optical effects will be. With a teleconverter used at the long end of the camera's optical zoom setting, the prognosis is much better. Still, I'd want a good return policy, and I'd test extensively before deciding to keep it.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:25:05 PM · #7 |
The blurb at Raynox states that there is no light loss with the lens. This is a 2.2x mag and if my understanding is correct you would normally expect to lose 2 stops (with a 2x). Maybe this is where the price difference is generated?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:46:53 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by io:
The blurb at Raynox states that there is no light loss with the lens. This is a 2.2x mag and if my understanding is correct you would normally expect to lose 2 stops (with a 2x). Maybe this is where the price difference is generated? |
The reason that they can claim no light loss is that this goes on the front of the main lens, not between the lens and camera. They can, therefore, just make the front element larger to collect more light, essentially increasing the size of the aperture.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 04:55:04 PM · #9 |
From what I saw from Raynox teleconverters before I bought an Oly Tcon17 (for the S602Z) was that they suffered massive chromatic abberation. And I am someone who thinks the Olympus lens is bad in that respect (used it twice, bad investment). The Olympus is triple as good....
Also a lot of optical distortions.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 05:41:28 PM · #10 |
I have some real examples if you're interested. These are all hand-held in good lighting conditions (from summer vacation). Optical zoom on camera maxed out at 12X or 420mm (35mm equiv). With 2.2x converter it puts it out around 920mm.
No adjustments made other than resizing to 640 and 150k (roughly).
 |  | 
I played around with this lens recently (some deer shots during outing for 'Landscape II' challenge)...can't share those yet. ;^)
This is what the lens looks like on the Z3 - high "cool" factor for me. He-he.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 07:39:04 PM · #11 |
I had a Raynox 1.7 teleconverter and optically it was decent - the camera was crap that it was on, so it's hard to say! But I'd say the converter was better than average.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:15:00 PM · #12 |
Hmmm, based on glad2badad's examples, looks like both reduced contrast and CA are noticeable problems.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:21:14 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Hmmm, based on glad2badad's examples, looks like both reduced contrast and CA are noticeable problems. |
So pretty much par for an OK quality 'on the front' converter...
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:24:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Hmmm, based on glad2badad's examples, looks like both reduced contrast and CA are noticeable problems. |
So pretty much par for an OK quality 'on the front' converter... |
I'd say that it's on par, but not acceptable. Those pictures looked like he put a gaussian blur on them.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 02:58:53 PM · #15 |
Well, I did mention they were hand-held shots. ;^)
I bought it thinking grand thoughts about filling the frame with some critter shots. Haven't really had the opportunity to get there with it yet. Most of the time the max 420mm I get with the Z3 is sufficient.
Originally posted by wavelength:
I'd say that it's on par, but not acceptable. Those pictures looked like he put a gaussian blur on them. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 03:59:45 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, I did mention they were hand-held shots. ;^)
I bought it thinking grand thoughts about filling the frame with some critter shots. Haven't really had the opportunity to get there with it yet. Most of the time the max 420mm I get with the Z3 is sufficient.
|
The blur on the pictures, especially one the picture of the 3 girls, seems more like chromatic abberation and flare than motion blur is why I say that.
I'd like to see some test shots at a detail object to get a better idea of what these lenses can do, and which ones are better. Haven't been able to find even test shots on the web.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2005 04:12:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I'd like to see some test shots at a detail object to get a better idea of what these lenses can do, and which ones are better. Haven't been able to find even test shots on the web. |
The Raynox website has some detailed images. Before/After kind of stuff... Not exactly an unbiased place to look however. ;^)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:15:48 PM EDT.
