Lens adaptors

[chestersgallery]

I have recently purchased a second hand Canon 17-55 F2.8 lens for my canon 30D. Its the most I have ever spent on a lens and I am well pleased with the results. Its apparently called the hidden L lens and I can see why. My question is. Is it worth purchasing a lens adaptor ( I think thats the term) to increase the magnification of my lens. I have seen Canon 2X adaptors which would push me upto 110mm (plus my cmos sensor ratio). Im thinking that this will get more out of a very good lens. But are there any draw backs?. Jessops also make cheaper adaptors , but will the quality of the glass in the adaptor degrade the quality of the image. In short has anyone done it and what was the results. Thanks in adavance , you PBasers have never failed me before.

[djwixx]

I think you mean a teleconverters and I think you mean focal range rather than magnification?

They will 'soften' the results you can get but may add to the scope of a lens. The normal range is 1.4TC (1.4 times), 1.7TC (1.7 times) and 2TC (2 times) and most people would suggest a 1.7TC should be a limit before you start getting excessive degradation in the image quality. Unless you're using Canon's own teleconverters most others will more than likely result in the lens becoming a manual lens. You also lose a stop or two depending on what you use. Your lens plus a 1.4TC will likely become an F4 lens, with a 1.7TC getting you nearer F5.6.

Here's a discussion on the option for more information.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JjAB

[dang]

I wouldn't suggest using any converter on this lens. Converters are recommended for use with lenses of 100mm and more. The Canon 2X actually has a protrusion which (If I recall correctly) hits the back of some lenses, preventing it from mounting. For more information on converters, I have a gallery with some example shots showing the difference in the Canon and Kenko: http://www.dangphoto.net/?page_id=238

[prinothcat]

As Dang implied I believe there are issues with tele-converters and wide angle lenses. I don't know what they are exactly, but I'm fairly sure I've seen it somewhere. For that matter a 34-110 f/4 ( the result of this with a 2x converter) seems like a waste of time when a solid 135mm lens is probably more affordable than a good quality converter. I bet you might be happier saving the cash and picking up a real telephoto or long zoom.

[chestersgallery]

Thanks for the advice everybody. I think Canon are charging about £200 in england for the teleconvertor and after reading your replies I might spend the money on a second hand fixed focal length lens to get up to the 110mm that i may / may not acheive with the teleconvertor. Or perhaps a decent macro lens to keep me ammused ( thanks again for the advice reguarding this on my last posting Dang). Like most Amatures on a shoe string budget Im still trying to build up a good range of lenses to cover as wide a range as possible. And of course keep some reasonable quality. Advice and reviews on this site are a massive help to me. Maybe I just need sound financial advice so I can go out and buy Canons entire L series line up . I guess time is a virtue in building up a good collection of gear.

[djwixx]

Thanks for the advice everybody. I think Canon are charging about £200 in england for the teleconvertor and after reading your replies I might spend the money on a second hand fixed focal length lens to get up to the 110mm that i may / may not acheive with the teleconvertor. Or perhaps a decent macro lens to keep me ammused ( thanks again for the advice reguarding this on my last posting Dang). Like most Amatures on a shoe string budget Im still trying to build up a good range of lenses to cover as wide a range as possible. And of course keep some reasonable quality. Advice and reviews on this site are a massive help to me. Maybe I just need sound financial advice so I can go out and buy Canons entire L series line up . I guess time is a virtue in building up a good collection of gear.

You could do what bulbmogul does and buy every Canon lens there is and not be able to take a shot worth a piss in a pond, or you could concentrate on making the most of what you have! One lens I always recommend because of the quality of the lens and because it's superb for the money is the 50mm F1.8. I use Nikon, but the price is just as reasonable on the Canon side. You can also use close up lens ( I think Canon 250D) on it to get you close to macro. The lens and the closeup filters should be covered by th 200 sqid you have

[dang]

I heatedly agree... The ef 50 1.8II is a fast, sharp lens for the price ($89.00 US). But instead of the 250D diopter, I'd suggest a set of tubes. Promaster makes a set which sells for $85.00 US, and you'd have over 1:1 reproduction for macro. More info on tube magnification with a 50mm, and link to Promaster here: http://www.dangphoto.net/?page_id=227

Like most Amatures on a shoe string budget Im still trying to build up a good range of lenses to cover as wide a range as possible. And of course keep some reasonable quality.

If you really want a long lens... one the most versatile, reasonable priced lenses is the Tamron 70-300mm Di LD macro. It offers half life size (1:2) magnification without additional accessories, and is pretty sharp for the price. Selling in the US for $159 at B&H here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... Di_LD.html. Great lens for shooting butterflies, since you'll reach 1:2 (half life size) from nearly 1 meter distance. Be careful though, there's been several versions of this size lens made over the years, so make sure of it's magnification. This lens did me well until I could upgrade to an L. It's only drawback is some flair problems when shooting toward the sun. But, that's typical of lenses in it's price, and avoided by paying attention.

[djwixx]

If you really want a long lens... one the most versatile, reasonable priced lenses is the Tamron 70-300mm Di LD macro.

I have one I no longer want (for Nikon) , although personally, for the price I'd get the newer model which has supposedly improved coating to meet the demands of digital. Tom (dang) put me onto one a long time ago and I have to agree, for the money you won't beat it.

[dang]

Dave wrote:

for the price I'd get the newer model which has supposedly improved coating to meet the demands of digital.

Actually, this is a newer "Di" (digital) designated lens, with updated coatings from the earlier LD version: http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70300_di_a017.asp
While not specific for digital use, since it works on full frame bodies too (but I don't see that as bad)... otherwise, it's the same element configuration of the older LD from diagrams I've seen. And coincidentally, the same design/configuration as the lower priced Nikon Branded zoom of it's size, which retails for more.

This brings up a good point for discussing ...
I think most everyone agrees, upgrading lenses is more expensive in the long run. Plus, as Dave points out, it may be best to learn using whats available first. But sometimes it's too restricting.

If you're subject of interest are birds, or insects it's extremely difficult to make do with standard focal lengths. Primary reason I like recommending the Tamron is to keep price to a minimum while getting usable results for varied subjects. There may be better lenses of the same length (though I personally haven't used one, which wasn't triple the price), but why spend extra which could go toward your final lens? If you're buying a "get me by", go for the least expensive, usable lens possible. And only purchase a couple of additional focal lengths at most.

This brings to mind the EF 50mm 1.8II. Excellent for the money as said, but it's limited in angle of view, even with full frame bodies. So saving for a wider angle is worth the wait if needed for inside. Maybe someone else can recommend one.. but fast, inexpensive, wide angle primes are lenses I've yet to find. Unfortunately, theres times when "good, and good enough" just won't apply.

Enjoyable thread... thanks for jumping in Dave, this is one of my favorite subjects of discussion.
Btw, seems you should be able to sell your Tamron pretty easily. They still go for around $100. in good used condition.

[djwixx]

Thanks Tom,

There's various reasons I recommend the 50mm F1.8. One - the price, can't be beaten, two - the depth of field control for close up portraits, three - the forgiving depth of field for landscapes (albeit with a limited field of view), four the option for using it as a close up lens, five - a light weight carry around, six - low light shots. The reason I mention closeup filters rather than extension tubes is that it maintains all the automatic options. Depending on what level you're at I think that's important if you consider yourself a learner. If you're presented with too many option too soon you'll get fed up very quickly. It also gives you full manual control, so as you progress you can switch to that option. For the price it also gives you a great lens to understand the options available to you before taking the plunge for something far more expensive without knowing the benefits. Many would argue that the 50mm is probably one of the better options as a carry around candid shooter. Note that you'll only see the real benefits of the lens using it manually or at least in aperture priority and trying the various apertures in various situations.


This gallery was taken exclusively with the 50mm, albeit with a circular polarizer,
http://www.pbase.com/djwixx/fortunion

This gallery was taken exclusively with the 50mm and a closeup filter,
http://www.pbase.com/djwixx/butterfly

This is a portrait taken with the 50mm,
http://www.pbase.com/djwixx/image/65789040

Again I don't think the 50mm F1.8 will ever be beaten on price or options if you're starting out and want to consider where you're going and what you need.

Bear in mind I consider myself a beginner, so I offer advice based on what I have found useful. Tom is a highly technical expert so you need to consider where you are, what you enjoy taking pictures of, and decide on which pieces of advice meet the level you're at.

[chestersgallery]

THANKS AGAIN everyone. By a massive co-incidence I happen to have borrowed the above mentioned 50mm from a friend. My results are not as impresive as some of the links you lot have posted but I do love the lense and was very interested to see the tube stuff Dang wrote about. Let me know what you think. Be blunt please. And Dang don't laugh too much at my macro efforts.

http://www.pbase.com/chestersgallery/50___18