2X converter for EOS 350D

[sai]

Hi you all, I bought a 2X converter, wich you screw onto your lens. I thought

I was gonna get a good result, I know about the lost of quality, but I�m

really disapointed =( , it�s crap, it doesn�t give the 2X factor they promise

and I can�t focus. I tried it on a 18-55mm and on a 90-300mm, with not so

worst result on the first one.

Does anyone knows some tips or anything to make it a bit better? I tried

screwing it directly to the lens and with a UV filter, but...

Anyone? I�m sad

Simon

[shambrick007]

"Does anyone knows some tips or anything to make it a bit better?" - Yeah, toss it and get a lens in the focal lenght that you need, or real converter that fits on the rear of the lens.

[yat_tang]

You will get better results with a 2x converter/extender that fits between the lens and the body. The ones that fits on the filter thread of the lens are very poor quality.

[alex j loveridge]

I assume its not a canon product, but what did you expect? The proper 1.4x and 2x converters are only made for use on the L series lenses, third party stuff is never as good, especially if you use it with cheap consumer lenses like the 18-55.

[mike_hodson]

Is it a teleconverter or a close-up filter. If it's a close-up filter, that would explain the inability to focus...at normal distances anyway.

[sai]

Well Alex excuse me if not all of us can spend fortunes on expensive lenses and have to do what we can with consumer ones.

Want to buy me a better one, go ahead

[alex j loveridge]

I don't own any expensive lenses and I have the 18-55 as well, as you would have noticed if you had clicked on my name, there is no need to be rude, I was just pointing out that the consumer grade lenses are not designed to be used with any form of teleconverter.

[NK Guy]

>Well Alex excuse me if not all of us can spend fortunes on expensive lenses and have to do

what we can with consumer ones.

 

Well, that's just how it is, I'm afraid. If you want great optical quality, especially with longer

focal lengths, then you have to spend money. Photography can be a very expensive

discipline. You can try to buy inexpensive screw-on converters if you like, but don't blame

other people for the low image quality that results.

[awindsor]

Simon,

 

Mike is onto something. Does this look like a magnifying glass in a thick filter mount or like a small telescope. If it is a thick filter type then it is a close up lens and will not allow you to focus at infinity. Try focusing on something really close using the 90-300.

 

As for the comment about third party lenses always being inferior I think that this is false. Sigma and Tamron both make some lenses that are superb.

[keith_lubow]

Those things are a total compromise. They will make a mid-line lens even worse. Look in any basic photography text and it will probably say something close to what we're all saying here.

 

You can probably get some use out of it, but not with action shots from long distances. This is more like a quick and cheap way into macro stuff, not extreme telephoto stuff.

 

Don't feel bad because you can only afford so much. It you, not the camera, that really matters. Equipment only serves to make things more convenient, and is only worth it it it seriously helps you turn your vision into a final product.

 

I love using other people's new digital cameras (and am about to purchase my own), and I have plenty of gizmos myself, but honestly, my most used cameras, and the ones which give be the best results for my own personal photography, are the two I started on: A 1971 Canon FTb with a 50mm 1.4 (this lens never comes off the camera even though I have some other lenses for it), and my Graphic View, a late 1940s 4X5 monorail camera. These two cameras are about as cheap and simple as most people will dare to get these days. Having bare bones tools really can improve you because you work harder and have to focus more on every aspect of the process.

 

What I am saying is that all the equipment in the world doesn't replace vision, knowledge, practice, and hard work. Those are what you need more than a 2X extension tube.

 

Keith

[sai]

Hi, first of all, Alex I�m sorry. I had just used the $%&$! converter for the first time and I was stressed. Sorry for talking you like that.

Mike and Alistair, I tried what you said, focusing something very close, but still nothing. It does look like a magnifying glass in a thick filter mount, I think. I�ll attached a pic for you to see it.

Keith, you are right, hard work and creativity and practice are more important than any lens.

I think I�ll just put this thing away and shoot with the lenses I have. Maybe I�ll use it as a magnifying glass.

well so it�s life, I learned the lesson, no screw on things.

cheers

Simon

[awindsor]

It is a teleconvertor possibly originally intended for a video camera. I think you might wish to chalk this one up to experience. You could try one of the cheap third party teleconverters behind your lens (Tamron/Kenko have a 1.4x for about $90). However the cheap teleconvertor + cheap lens will probably not get you a better image than simply cropping the photo. Actually a 300mm lens on a 1.6x crop factor body has the same FOV as a 480mm lens which definitely qualifies as long.

 

Bob Atkins did a comparison here

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form

 

If you need more focal length then you need more focal length. No amount of creativity is going to make the subject appear bigger in the frame. Unfortunately good long lenses are expensive. The cheapest long autofocus lenses are the third party ones. Of them my current pick would be the Tamron 200-500/5-6.3 which will set you back $849 after rebate. Truly a bargain. There are some cheap long lenses (mirror lenses, slow fixed aperture manual focus lenses) which I would avoid. Most of the creditable manual focus long lenses still hold their value.

 

There are close up lenses which screw on to the front of lenses that do a very creditable job (the Canon 500D and Nikon 6T are examples). The do not get you more focal length (actually the get you less) but allow you to focus closer and hence obtain more magnification. They are the cheapest way to do macro work (cheaper and more compact than tubes though with a slight quality penalty).

[awindsor]

I did use a similar converter lens (Tiffen Mega-Plus) on an old compact digital camera of mine with acceptable results. I have never tried one on 35mm. Sorry I cannot be more help. Hopefully you can get some images out of it or sell it to someone else.

[keith_lubow]

I wouldn't call it a waste. Experiment with it and see what it's good for. Just do a little more academic research next time to make sure you are getting what you think you're getting.

 

If you are a reader, there are two texts I recommend: "Photography" by London and Upton (or Upton and Upton depending on the edition) is a widely used basic photography text that holds invaluable information. Read and learn that book and you will know more than many people who make a living with photography.

 

"The Camera," "The Negative," and "The Print," by Ansel Adams. His writing is suberb: Detailed, complete, and well written. He contributed enough to photographic education just with this series of books that he should be viewed as a master, all photographic work aside! They are not light or easy reads like London and Upton, but they are a great compromise between basic texts and overly technical writings.

 

He also has one called "Polaroid Land Photography," which I think is very valuable reading for anyone doing digital, since both Polaroid and capture positive images, and a lot of the basic visualization applies to both.

 

Keith