Teleconverters - Light loss and vignetting comparison

Member said:

I noticed the c-210, TL-46 and B-300 combo -- where will it all end??
That's one I'd also like to see a picture of. Does that take 2 to
handle
the camera and the lens?

Click to expand...

I haven't glued up the C-210 yet. I'm debating if I should cut the front
oc the housing back a bit to bring the lenses closer together - there's
a pretty bug gap there.
The TL is just a tiny thing, and really doesn't make the setup much
bigger.
This may never end..

Dave

Arved said:

On the bare E100RS photo (nice of you to provide a benchmark!), do
I see vignetting with nothing in front of the lens?

Click to expand...

There might be a bit. I'll got to the full file and hit the levels to see.
There's been complaints about the 2100 vignetting at full WA.
I think they design the lens to zoom as far as it can - just to the point
of where vignetting starts to show at either end. Manufacturing tolerances
might make it show up more or less in different cameras.

Dave

Smoke24 wrote:
I'll post a picture of the A-200/Tl-46 stack if you want.
That might come close to what you're looking for.

Dave

Hey Dave,

What power is the A-200 and what size mount? I can only find the price of $85 and a picture at B&H and no other info and the Oly site is down for some reason. Maybe they know I want some warranty work on the RS. I may just order it and get the TL46 later. Does it have threads for a front mount too? I wonder about stacking two of them, A-200's? They look small which suites me fine.

Yea if you could post something, that would be great.--www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Smoke24

I think the A200 is 1.7x

I think I lifted the following from a Maxven post, What teleconverters work with the 2100? B-300 - hard to come by, expensive, heavy but excellent quality Still available at http://www.dpreview.com/ ... ...ItemId=810&seekBack=true&SectionID=485 go to bottom of page

A-200 - same as above but light weight
C-210 - a good alternative with only slight vignetting and 1.9x
C-180 - go for the C-210
C-160 - go for the C-210
All but A-200 available at
http://www.adorama.com
Canon TL-46 - good price+quality, light weight, 1.4x
Also available at Adorama ($80 incl step up ring)

Hi Jim.

The search function is down again. I seem to remember that Jens (Sweden) wrote that the A200 is 1.7x. Dave (Dvt43) however recently posted it as 1.5x which was written on the box. So I guess it's gotta be 1.5x. The A-200 has 49mm rear threads but no front threads.

Jim Kelly said:

Smoke24

I think the A200 is 1.7x

I think I lifted the following from a Maxven post, What
teleconverters work with the 2100? B-300 - hard to come by,
expensive, heavy but excellent quality Still available at
http://www.dpreview.com/ ...
...ItemId=810&seekBack=true&SectionID=485 go to bottom of page

A-200 - same as above but light weight
C-210 - a good alternative with only slight vignetting and 1.9x
C-180 - go for the C-210
C-160 - go for the C-210
All but A-200 available at
http://www.adorama.com
Canon TL-46 - good price+quality, light weight, 1.4x
Also available at Adorama ($80 incl step up ring)

Click to expand...

Hi Dave.

The title says it all. Thanks for doing so much testing and comparing and presenting it so well.

Maxven

dvt43 said:

Had a chance today to do a light loss and vignetting test of a bunch
of teleconverters. Just some shots of a well lit white posterboard.
All were shot from the same spot with a tripod.
Apreture Priority f3.5
Spot Metering
I don't have the time right now to post the shutter speeds. This tells
a lot also. I'll post them sometime later.

This just gives a good qiuck look at how they all look under the same
circumstances.
http://www.fototime.com/ {EFDFE7F2-5031-4800-8F09-D969EE281C86} picture.JPG

Click to expand...

What a great series of test pictures. Thanks. A fine public service.

I picked up a C-180, used from B&H, shortly after purchasing my E-100. The C-180 produces a good sharp image, and it's nice and light and easy to handle. But it does vignette. If it didn't vignette, I'd be really happy with it.

Looking for more magnification with no vignetting, I purchased the Kenko KUW-200 Hi, a 2x converter, just this week. It is big and heavy. So far, I have not seen any vignetting at full magnification.

But the results have been iffy. Not consistent. I'll try some more. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've found that the Kenko can produce a nice crisp close-up. So the lens is capable. But for me, the C-180 has been much easier getting the shot. Too bad it vignettes.

I'd been considering the TL-46 for a crisp add-on lens that doesn't vignette. Even though it is only 1.4x, everyone speaks very highly of this light, hi-quality lens. Sounds like a painless addition to the UZI or E-100's range with no loss in quality.

Now the A-200 intrigues me as a possible alternative. It's light, it evidently doesn't vignette, and it's a bit higher magnification than the TL-46. And it's 49mm.

Can anyone attest to the quality of the A-200, or compare it with the TL-46?

thanks
fsw

Member said:

A-200 - same as above but light weight
C-210 - a good alternative with only slight vignetting and 1.9x
C-180 - go for the C-210
C-160 - go for the C-210
All but A-200 available at
http://www.adorama.com
Canon TL-46 - good price+quality, light weight, 1.4x
Also available at Adorama ($80 incl step up ring)

Click to expand...

Hi fsw.

I know Jens (Sweden)'s had his for almost half a year. He's really happy with it. Try a search for jens and 200 and see what you get.

Maxven

fsw said:

I picked up a C-180, used from B&H, shortly after purchasing my
E-100. The C-180 produces a good sharp image, and it's nice and
light and easy to handle. But it does vignette. If it didn't
vignette, I'd be really happy with it.

Looking for more magnification with no vignetting, I purchased the
Kenko KUW-200 Hi, a 2x converter, just this week. It is big and
heavy. So far, I have not seen any vignetting at full magnification.

But the results have been iffy. Not consistent. I'll try some more.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've found that the Kenko can
produce a nice crisp close-up. So the lens is capable. But for me,
the C-180 has been much easier getting the shot. Too bad it
vignettes.

I'd been considering the TL-46 for a crisp add-on lens that doesn't
vignette. Even though it is only 1.4x, everyone speaks very highly
of this light, hi-quality lens. Sounds like a painless addition to
the UZI or E-100's range with no loss in quality.

Now the A-200 intrigues me as a possible alternative. It's light,
it evidently doesn't vignette, and it's a bit higher magnification
than the TL-46. And it's 49mm.

Can anyone attest to the quality of the A-200, or compare it with
the TL-46?

thanks
fsw

fsw said:

A-200 - same as above but light weight
C-210 - a good alternative with only slight vignetting and 1.9x
C-180 - go for the C-210
C-160 - go for the C-210
All but A-200 available at
http://www.adorama.com
Canon TL-46 - good price+quality, light weight, 1.4x
Also available at Adorama ($80 incl step up ring)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks, Maxven

The search function is down, but I'll try it later. Incidentally, there's a duck pond not too far from my town, so I'll try to catch one with the Kenko 2X the next time I get a chance to go over there. The one time I went, they were shy. They'd paddle away anytime anyone would approach the shore.

Happy holidays.
fsw

Maxven said:

I know Jens (Sweden)'s had his for almost half a year. He's really
happy with it. Try a search for jens and 200 and see what you get.

Maxven

fsw said:

I picked up a C-180, used from B&H, shortly after purchasing my
E-100. The C-180 produces a good sharp image, and it's nice and
light and easy to handle. But it does vignette. If it didn't
vignette, I'd be really happy with it.

Looking for more magnification with no vignetting, I purchased the
Kenko KUW-200 Hi, a 2x converter, just this week. It is big and
heavy. So far, I have not seen any vignetting at full magnification.

But the results have been iffy. Not consistent. I'll try some more.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I've found that the Kenko can
produce a nice crisp close-up. So the lens is capable. But for me,
the C-180 has been much easier getting the shot. Too bad it
vignettes.

I'd been considering the TL-46 for a crisp add-on lens that doesn't
vignette. Even though it is only 1.4x, everyone speaks very highly
of this light, hi-quality lens. Sounds like a painless addition to
the UZI or E-100's range with no loss in quality.

Now the A-200 intrigues me as a possible alternative. It's light,
it evidently doesn't vignette, and it's a bit higher magnification
than the TL-46. And it's 49mm.

Can anyone attest to the quality of the A-200, or compare it with
the TL-46?

thanks
fsw

Maxven said:

A-200 - same as above but light weight
C-210 - a good alternative with only slight vignetting and 1.9x
C-180 - go for the C-210
C-160 - go for the C-210
All but A-200 available at
http://www.adorama.com
Canon TL-46 - good price+quality, light weight, 1.4x
Also available at Adorama ($80 incl step up ring)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

true, cool work!!
congratulations..

Maxven said:

The title says it all. Thanks for doing so much testing and
comparing and presenting it so well.

Maxven

dvt43 said:

Had a chance today to do a light loss and vignetting test of a bunch
of teleconverters. Just some shots of a well lit white posterboard.
All were shot from the same spot with a tripod.
Apreture Priority f3.5
Spot Metering
I don't have the time right now to post the shutter speeds. This tells
a lot also. I'll post them sometime later.

This just gives a good qiuck look at how they all look under the same
circumstances.
http://www.fototime.com/ {EFDFE7F2-5031-4800-8F09-D969EE281C86} picture.JPG

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--Holy_O

I just placed an order at B&H for the A-200, a Sony VCL-R2052 and a 49-52 SUR. Will let everyone know if the $60 for the Sony is wasted or worth it as soon as I get it. My E-100 has to go for repair soon to. It has a couple of hot pixels that show in darker photos and I want them to see if they can figure out why I lost some pics from the memory. Also gonna ask that they upgrade the firmware while they have it.
--www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Will there be a reduction in vignetting if, say for example, the c210 is stacked in front of the b300 instead of the other way round ?

I don't think that will work at all because the B-300 is big at the front and you would likely get just a tunnel look.

If the Sony works at all I may try to stack it and the A-200 although I don't think either are threaded on front. I'll just epoxy a threaded rind to the front of one. That is why my wife calls me the Epoxy King, I can fix almost anything with the stuff.--www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Great job on the comparissons. This info you guys post really helps us newbie users on what to and what not to get for our precious cameras.

Time to do some searches on the A-200 or TL-46

dvt43 said:

Had a chance today to do a light loss and vignetting test of a bunch
of teleconverters. Just some shots of a well lit white posterboard.
All were shot from the same spot with a tripod.
Apreture Priority f3.5
Spot Metering
I don't have the time right now to post the shutter speeds. This tells
a lot also. I'll post them sometime later.

This just gives a good qiuck look at how they all look under the same
circumstances.

Click to expand...

I assumed that vignetting can be reduced by increasing the telephoto length. Say if i have 2 teleconverters. One causes slight vignetting, the other doesn't at all. If i placed the one that doesn't cause vignetting first on the dc, the telephoto length will be increased.

Will this effective length reduce the vignetting caused by the second teleconverter when it is stacked in front of the first teleconverter or am i totally wrong on this concept? Any advice will be appreciated! Thanks.

dvt43 said:

Member said:

On the bare E100RS photo (nice of you to provide a benchmark!), do
I see vignetting with nothing in front of the lens?

Click to expand...

There might be a bit. I'll got to the full file and hit the levels
to see.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Just wondering if you had the chance to look into this a bit more.

Thanks again,--- ArvedKF4UCQOly UZi Newbie

B&H has the A-200 in stock, I just ordered one yesterday for $85. They also carry the TL46 which I think was out of stock but you might try Adorama for it. I am also going to try a 2X Sony VCL-R2052 to see if it will work.
--www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

What I was talking about is that the B-300 has a fairly large lense on front and the smaller lense would need to be centered on it somehow and you will lose the light gathering ability of the B-300 and cause a more pronounced tunnel effect. That may not be the way it would actually be, someone would need to try it to see. Making a way to mount something to the front of the B-300 might be a trick in it's self.
--www.pbase.com/smoke24/galleries

Hi!

Could you please tell me what I need to connect my C-210 to my B-300.

I like to be prepeared to build when the C-210 arrives to me hopefully in next week.

What rings?
What glue?
Etc..Etc?

Thanks
M.Loren

dvt43 said:

Member said:

I noticed the c-210, TL-46 and B-300 combo -- where will it all end??
That's one I'd also like to see a picture of. Does that take 2 to
handle
the camera and the lens?

Click to expand...

I haven't glued up the C-210 yet. I'm debating if I should cut the
front
oc the housing back a bit to bring the lenses closer together -
there's
a pretty bug gap there.
The TL is just a tiny thing, and really doesn't make the setup much
bigger.
This may never end..

Dave

Click to expand...

--M.Loren