Raynox 2020 2.2x tc lens test report.

Raynox 2020 2.2x tc lens test report.          Link to Adrian's Raynox 2020 Pro review.

At last, I have finally finished my evaluation test report of the Raynox 2020 Pro 2.2x teleconverter when attached to a variety of M43 telephoto lenses:

Panasonic 100-400 + Raynox 2020 TC.

The lenses used for evaluation purposes were:
* Olympus 40-150 F2.8 Pro (and plus the 1.4x tc).
* Olympus 75-300 Mk2.
* Panasonic 100-400.

Olympus 75-300 Mk2 + Raynox 2020 TC.

Cameras used: Panasonic GX7 and GX8.

Many of the results were quite surprising and I have included plenty of example photos showing the pros and cons of each in use and I hope that some of you may find it useful.

Olympus 40-150 Pro + Raynox 2020 TC.

Link to Adrian's Raynox 2020 Pro review.

PS. I hope I have not made to many typos in the report, but I am sure you will kindly point them out

Looks as though there really is a challenger for the Panny 100-400 for reach -- the Oly 75-300 with the Raynox 2020.

Now you have me wondering how the Panny 100-300 would go. Hmmm!

A used Raynox 2020 was offered for AU$165 buy it now, so I buyed it now!

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get my hands on the (used) lens for a couple of months. it is being mailed to my daughter in Melbourne and I will get it when I visit (from New Guinea) in April. Interesting! Then we will see if it works with the 100-300.

Hope so -- it would be fun having that ridiculous focal length to play with, particularly to help me fail even more miserably photographing the local birds (I can't get them framed before they fly away)!

I have been looking and trying out several teleconverters myself recently. I hope to post my own findings by the end of the month. I did have a quick look at the 2020 Pro but ended up rejecting it for M43 use.
The two problems with the 2020Pro are that the rear lens diameter is smaller than any of my medium and long range lenses. This caused vignetting over the largest part of the lens zoom range. The other issue is the weight, which puts a strain on the thread of the lens that is used with the 2020Pro.

Tip for the use of auxiliary lenses, wide or tele, on a zoom lens. The tele ones are designed to be used only at the long end and vice versa for the wide converters.

Good rule of thumb, stay within 1.5X. So for the tele on a 75-300, only use it with the lens in the 225-300 range. For the wide, the 75-110 range.

A friend didn't believe me and left his wide converter on all the time and came back with over 90% discards from a vacation.

Hen3ry wrote:

A used Raynox 2020 was offered for AU$165 buy it now, so I buyed it now!

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get my hands on the (used) lens for a couple of months. it is being mailed to my daughter in Melbourne and I will get it when I visit (from New Guinea) in April. Interesting! Then we will see if it works with the 100-300.

Hope so -- it would be fun having that ridiculous focal length to play with, particularly to help me fail even more miserably photographing the local birds (I can't get them framed before they fly away)!

Yes you are right about framing, I missed an egret in flight today as I had so much zoom that I couldn't find it in the viewfinder!!!

Sranang Boi wrote:

I have been looking and trying out several teleconverters myself recently. I hope to post my own findings by the end of the month. I did have a quick look at the 2020 Pro but ended up rejecting it for M43 use.
The two problems with the 2020Pro are that the rear lens diameter is smaller than any of my medium and long range lenses. This caused vignetting over the largest part of the lens zoom range. The other issue is the weight, which puts a strain on the thread of the lens that is used with the 2020Pro.

Hi Sranang, although the rear lens diameter is small it doesn't suffer noticeable vignetting at longer focal lengths. The front element of the 40-150 f2.8 pro is very large, yet at 150 there really isn't an issue.

TwoMetreBill wrote:

Tip for the use of auxiliary lenses, wide or tele, on a zoom lens. The tele ones are designed to be used only at the long end and vice versa for the wide converters.

That's generally true when the rear lens diameter of the converter is smaller than the front element of the lens it is fixed to. In order to reduce vignetting the rear element from the converter has to be bigger in size. Another factor that comes into play is the size of the front element of the converter. Unfortunately, a larger size also produces added weight.

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.

Thanks. Very useful. Might give it a go in the spring

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.

Thanks.

glassoholic wrote:

I once had a Sony R1 with front mounted converters that were really nice and even had a frame to support them. Huge and crazy expensive but really nice results.

Wow that is some setup.

TC's are not magical, but they are great fun to play with. Now those elements look seriously heavy!!!

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.