Lens and Tele Converter, am I right?

Messages
2,529
Edit My Images
No
A friend of my bought a used manual lens today and he got a x2 and x3 tele converter on and it says the lens look big, long and is like a beast.

So i ask him what lens is it and what aperture, and he said is a 200mm prime with f4.5

I told him and offer him the advice that the x2 will make his lens 400mm f9 and the x3 will make his lens 600 f13.5 (14) which means it make his lens very slow so tripod is definate needed if he want to shoot stuff.

He told me he will use the 2 converter today for super long zoom, so i said this would make his lens 1200mm focal which is impressive but the aperture would be very silly like f22.6 (23)

Am i right?
 
Yes hope he has a good tripod for the 2 hour exposure !

Oh and set the asa to 20,000, and expect any results to be sheer *^%*
 
Last edited:
I know i was right, but just need some confirm lol. He mounted on a NEX-5 so it look pretty stupid. Don't think he have got a good tripod but he did tell me photo was blur when he tested indoor at home ..... which make me think, wonder why? hahahaha
 
This is getting to be repetitious.
Unless you're using SERIOUSLY good glass such as a prime, or a zoom that is damn near prime quality, then a 2x TC is a waste of time.
The 3x TC is a waste of time whatever you stick on the front of it.
The most useful TC you'll likely use is a 1.4x, but it'll still need good glass to make it worthwhile.
 
I keep thinking of going to primes and a TC was one of the ways I though I could get some more length for my money but not sure how the IQ will be, might as well bung a wee query in here instead of starting a new thread.
I'm Canon and was thinking of getting something like a 100mm f2 100 f2.8 macro or the 85mm f1.8, these lenses aren't L quality obv but they aren't too bad I wouldn't have thought. Am I really going to see much difference between those lenses plus a 1.4x TC and say the 70-200 f4 that I currently own set to the equivalent focal length?
And a 1.4x TC will steal one stop of light right? So an f1.8 lens would become f2.8 and an f2.8 would become f3.5?
 
Depends

You can get some pretty awesome moon shots at 1200 f22

Not very practical for anything else granted but depends what your into I guess
 
Depends

You can get some pretty awesome moon shots at 1200 f22

Not very practical for anything else granted but depends what your into I guess

Would they still be good though after going through that much glass? Would have thought that would have quite a detrimental affect on IQ.
 
1200mm? Peanuts.

Real professionals use up to FIVE teleconverters. You can read about the practicalities of a lens which is 12800mm f/91 here.
 
Pah. 12800mm with a DSLR - easy! Try using an f30 lens with effective focal length of 7+metres and a 1/4" CCD chip and tracking the object whilst you do it.

5116673229_380a3b6256.jpg
 
especially if you can suspend planetary rotation

...and preferably, gravity.

Pah. 12800mm with a DSLR - easy! Try using an f30 lens with effective focal length of 7+metres and a 1/4" CCD chip and tracking the object whilst you do it.

Would that be more generally known as a telescope?
 
...and preferably, gravity.



Would that be more generally known as a telescope?

Looks like it to me, and the planet is Mars, though how it got the bulge on the left is a puzzle to me. :thinking:
 
Yes, a telescope ;) The "bulge" is due to the fact that it isn't full. The left is correct, the right isn't round.. It's like a 3/4rs moon... Here's one of Jupiter:

5117275702_0dc08ec834.jpg


Bloomin difficult to photo (actually, these are from videos rather than stills...)
 
Pah. 12800mm with a DSLR - easy! Try using an f30 lens with effective focal length of 7+metres ...
But this thread is about teleconverters, Andy. How many do you use with that setup? None, I bet. :D
 
But this thread is about teleconverters, Andy. How many do you use with that setup? None, I bet. :D
Ha. I used one :p Except they're called Barlow lenses on telescopes ;)
 
Back
Top