Lens Doublers

[Roosta]

I was wondering if anybody has used one, i'm using a Olympus E-330 and was looking to buy the 2 x doubler to use on either of my lenses 14-45 and 40-150, i've read they can cause focusing issues, any advice would be great. I use the 40-150 to take alot of Rugby shots, my son plays and i thought this would be a cheaper alt than a new tele lens? Thanks

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day Roosta

The lens doubler you refer to goes under many names, but 'teleconverter' is most popular
I and I guess many others have owned a tc at some time or another - mine was a "top-brand, 7-element 3-rd party model" and I used it (like you refer) to stretching out longer etc etc
I found mine to be "okay but with mixed results"

The main lens needed to be used at mid-aperture range, 'coz once the tc went on (& I lost 2-stops of light) I often ended up shooting at fully open where the sharpness was dramatically reduced to say the least. Also I found that on many occasions when shooting outdoors, going from 300mm to 600mm introduced lots of heat haze in the image, totally destroying the benefit of a larger image ... so it means 'use it carefully'. After that I got the 1000mm lens for wildlife stuff and used that - but that's another can of worms

I would say that a tc does have its place in some 'togs camera bags, also I would wait to see what other responses you get to your request for info ...

Regards, Phil

[Riverlander]

There is a lot to learn before you can make an informed decision on whether a 2x teleconverter will work with your gear.
With a Canon system you need a lens of f/2.8, or faster, in order for the camera to even try to autofocus.

If you could give more details of your lenses etc then maybe we could give you more idea of whether it would work at all.

[Roosta]

Thanks for the replys, think i will invest in a F2.8 Tele lens first.

[Bluesun]

The teleconverter is a cheaper way of extending your focal length but come with some trade offs. Drop off in avail light is the main one but if your using it out doors shouldn't have a problem. KENKO make nice X2 teleconverters that carry the electric connections through from the camera to the lens..most don't. The glass is multi coated and made by HOYA that have been doing optics since Adam was a boy. they cost a bit more but it allows you to use the AF lens.

[Riverlander]

Bluesun said

teleconverters that carry the electric connections through from the camera to the lens..most don't.

but it allows you to use the AF lens.

Kenko, Sigma, Canon, etc, all have electrical contacts. As far as I am aware most do -- extension tubes may not.
AF is dependent on the maximum f stop of your lens and the AF capabilities of your camera. For mosr mid-range cameras you will need an f/2.8 lens to get AF with a 2x teleconverter.

[olympuse620]

Roosta your money would be better spent picking up a Zuiko 70-300mm. Have a look at "kimberley finches" it was posted by me on 16/7/10. They were taken with this lens, granted they are not super sharp but it is not a high grade lens. The lenses you have are not high grade lenses and may not cope very well losing two stops with the TCX2

[Roosta]

Thanks mate, haven't looked into that brand before, will look it up, still waying up the options.

[Roosta]

Roosta your money would be better spent picking up a Zuiko 70-300mm. Have a look at "kimberley finches" it was posted by me on 16/7/10. They were taken with this lens, granted they are not super sharp but it is not a high grade lens. The lenses you have are not high grade lenses and may not cope very well losing two stops with the TCX2
Cheers, waying up the options with the telecon or either the 50-200 or 70-300, later lens gives me the zoox I would like but not the clarity, decisions decisions..

[olympuse620]

Personally I would go with the 50-200 and get the clarity then later on maybe add the TCx1.4 to get the reach that you want. I wish this was the option that I had taken instead of the 70-300 but I was only very new to the game and the 300mm reach seemed like a good idea. I was not fully aware of the differences in the quality of the glass. This is not to say that I am not unhappy with the 70-300.

[Roosta]

Personally I would go with the 50-200 and get the clarity then later on maybe add the TCx1.4 to get the reach that you want. I wish this was the option that I had taken instead of the 70-300 but I was only very new to the game and the 300mm reach seemed like a good idea. I was not fully aware of the differences in the quality of the glass. This is not to say that I am not unhappy with the 70-300.
Thanks for the feedback on the lenses, you are aout the third person to say the SWD, so its making it all the more easier.

[Roosta]

Roosta your money would be better spent picking up a Zuiko 70-300mm. Have a look at "kimberley finches" it was posted by me on 16/7/10. They were taken with this lens, granted they are not super sharp but it is not a high grade lens. The lenses you have are not high grade lenses and may not cope very well losing two stops with the TCX2
Not sure how to find the finches shot, still finding my way around the site. Help please..

[jibbonpoint]

I've been carrying around a Tamron 2x Tele since about 1989. The only time I've ever used it was to take a picture of an object on private property & just needed the extra length. That's 21 years & I've used it once on a 80-210 zoom to get 420 & I won't be getting any prizes for the shot either.
It might be useful, it might not.

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day jibbonpoint

Your reply is a useful pointer to our [photographers in general] differing photo styles
For myself - I would say that over the past few years, 25% of my shots would have been shot with lens set in the 300 - 560mm range ... and occasionally to 880mm

I'm not having a go at you personally - but "to each his own" ... we all have our styles
I love seeing others on this list with their super-wide images - love 'em, however it's not my style ~ I like long lens stuff, the compression of distance, the image cutting thru the haze, etc etc

Equally, the use of a long lens for 'relative closeups' - where I seek a flower in an overhead tree - ie: distance to subject is not great, but I want to isolate the subject via the selective focus one gets using a long lens

Hope this helps ...
Regards, Phil

[jibbonpoint]

Ah!... You've pointed out a misconception, Ozzie Traveller, that I've had about, not just my shooting, but others as well. I do have some long lenses; a 400mm Soligur & a 500mm Tamron mirror. I rarely use them as well.
So it is really about what you want to photograph. My interest is industrial archeology sites, work related, holiday landscapes, social occasions.... I have previously though that the answer to a question "What lens should I get" commonly gets the answer "what do you want to shoot?" was a bit silly. It's not so silly after all. It does pay to examine that question. I don't know if this helps the original poster, but i'ts caused me to think a bit.

[Roosta]

Ah!... You've pointed out a misconception, Ozzie Traveller, that I've had about, not just my shooting, but others as well. I do have some long lenses; a 400mm Soligur & a 500mm Tamron mirror. I rarely use them as well.
So it is really about what you want to photograph. My interest is industrial archeology sites, work related, holiday landscapes, social occasions.... I have previously though that the answer to a question "What lens should I get" commonly gets the answer "what do you want to shoot?" was a bit silly. It's not so silly after all. It does pay to examine that question. I don't know if this helps the original poster, but i'ts caused me to think a bit.
Jibbonpoint, I was looking origanally to get a longer reach with my 40 - 150 lens to take shots of my son playing Rugby. It seems that fitting a teleconvertor to that lens would be pointless, due to increase in F-Stop. I will be investing in a new lens instead. Now the hard decession is which one, both the 200 swd and the 300 F4 will do the job, but the quality of shot ??? dont know yet. ???

[Roosta]

Personally I would go with the 50-200 and get the clarity then later on maybe add the TCx1.4 to get the reach that you want. I wish this was the option that I had taken instead of the 70-300 but I was only very new to the game and the 300mm reach seemed like a good idea. I was not fully aware of the differences in the quality of the glass. This is not to say that I am not unhappy with the 70-300.
Do you still use the 300mm lens, or is it a weight in the bag ??? If its a weight in the bag, are you intrested in selling it ???

[jibbonpoint]

The Soligur 400mm I have doesn't take a bad shot with a tripod. You can get them for $50 in a T-Mount. Bargain really, but it's f6.3. My Tammy mirror is f8 fixed.

I'm going to use them this Spring/Summer for surf shots & see what I get from them. I might then spring a grand or so for a second hand Tamron 300 f2.8. That's probably the best value sporting lens available.

[olympuse620]

Do you still use the 300mm lens, or is it a weight in the bag ??? If its a weight in the bag, are you intrested in selling it ???
No still use it as it is the only long lens I own. I would upgrade to the 50-200 but at the moment I am trying to save money for the 7-14mm for my landscape shots. If you get onto the american 4/3 forums you may find a second hand one cheap especially as the dollar is so good at the moment.

[Roosta]

Will look it up, do you have a link I could use ?
Still looking for an older non swd 50 - 200mm, hard to find a lens like that.

[Roosta]

The Soligur 400mm I have doesn't take a bad shot with a tripod. You can get them for $50 in a T-Mount. Bargain really, but it's f6.3. My Tammy mirror is f8 fixed.

I'm going to use them this Spring/Summer for surf shots & see what I get from them. I might then spring a grand or so for a second hand Tamron 300 f2.8. That's probably the best value sporting lens available.
I didn't know Tamron made a 4/3rds mount lens, looked on the Tamron site and was lead to believe that.???