Raynox 2020 2.2x tc lens test report.

Adrian Harris wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

TwoMetreBill wrote:

In my experience, it is always true. I've used some converters with large rear elements including those designed for lenses with small front elements and the result was always the same. While I'm only one person, I've used over a dozen auxiliary lenses over the years including some very expensive ones designed for specific cameras.

Panasonic 45-175mm + 1.7x Nikon TC-E17ED.

From my own experience with this combination, the full zoom range is usable with no issues, and little/no vignetting.

The Nikon is high optical quality, unlike the low quality Raynox... and gives roughly 150-600mm FF equivalent when attached to the 45-175mm.

Hi Hatstand, any chance of some examples. The 1.7x Nikon TC-E17ED is one teleconverter that I have not owned or been able to test. 'Back in the days' when TC's were the only way to get more reach, everyone on the Minolta forums said the best of the bunch was the Olympus 1.4x Tcon 14b. But last year when I tried it on a few M43 lenses it performed badly compared to the Raynox - which I admit has many faults, as stated in my article. But I am going to test 4 different TC's against each other in a few weeks for another report to double check them against each other once more.

Anyway, if you could post some example photos where you have used the Nikon TC-E17ED on an M43 lens, it would be much appreciated.

The "low quality Raynox". Well, I'll see. The Raynox c/u lenses are excellent quality.

I just looked it up.That Nikon goes on the rear of the lens, I think. And advantage of the Raynox is that it goes on the front and you don't lose any aperture.