[Cailean]

Any of you non-SLR types had any experience with Raynox conversion lenses? I just found out about them on aussieblue's forum. The product page is here and is very exciting! I have found a reliable-looking dealer in the US but their listed CDN dealer's e-mail bounced - not a good sign!

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

(BTW, that top lens on the Raynox product page would bring my cam up to about 26x optical which translates to about 900mm!!!!)

[shuttertalk]

I've heard of them from a Fuji forum where S5000 users are using them, as well as the TCON 17 and also a Fuji teleconverter. Not sure how well each one does... with teleconverters, you do lose a few stops of light and there may be also problems with vignetting...

[Cailean]

I think I would probably not buy a tele lens since I already get great zoom - a macro lens, however, is very tempting! (and cheaper!)

[Cailean]

with teleconverters, you do lose a few stops of light and there may be also problems with vignetting...

Any way to know how many stops you lose? Would the lens have a fixed f/stop or would it be relative to to camera. In other words, would a lens have a max. aperture of 4.0 or would it have a max. aperture of 2 stops down from the camera's max? (in my case, also works out to 4.0)

Or maybe I still haven't got the terminology right... :x

[Cailean]

There more I think about it, the more tempted I am to spring for the 2.2x telephoto lens - just because! I was looking at the comparison shots for my camera and wondered why they had three max zoom shots at different aperatures. (The brick-looking shots)

Is this to show that you don't lose any stops of light with this lens?

[peter]

generally with a 2x Teleconverter .. you'll lose about 2 stops of light...
so if your f-stop is 4 ... it will effectively be about 6 when the teleconverter is on...

too bad my old teleconverter cant go on my new lenses...
or else id effectively have a 960mm lens .. i dont think i could stabalise it tho .. esp with a f-stop of about 7.6 after the teleconverter is put on...

[peter]

There more I think about it, the more tempted I am to spring for the 2.2x telephoto lens - just because! I was looking at the comparison shots for my camera and wondered why they had three max zoom shots at different aperatures. (The brick-looking shots)

Is this to show that you don't lose any stops of light with this lens?

no ..those shots were just to show the quality difference at f/5.6 and f/8 ...
both of those photos are shot with the teleconverter on ...

[Cailean]

So the disadvantage of losing a couple stops is that your shutter speed has to drop to compensate - making it harder to get a crisp shot... right?

[peter]

yeah ..pretty much ...

[shuttertalk]

So the disadvantage of losing a couple stops is that your shutter speed has to drop to compensate - making it harder to get a crisp shot... right?

yes, correct.
if you think about it, with the teleconverter on your focal length would be about 900 mm. Jthat means for a sharp handheld shot you should shoot at least 1/1000. If you lose a couple f stops, that goes to 1/4000 (is that correct)?

You would have to shoot in blinding sunlight or use a tripod all the time.

Not 'trying to discourage you from getting one (it is tempting for me too) but just SoMe things to consider that they might not readily pUt on their product page

[Cailean]

if you think about it, with the teleconverter on your focal length would be about 900 mm. Jthat means for a sharp handheld shot you should shoot at least 1/1000. If you lose a couple f stops, that goes to 1/4000 (is that correct)?

Ok, so that's based on the that shutter=1/focal length rule, right? I'd forgotten 'bout that... Hmmm. The super tele is not high on my wishlist, anyway. First a macro lens, then maybe a WA.

[shuttertalk]

By the way, that's the rule for getting sharp shots handheld...

I'm sure you can get good exposures, just make sure you use a tripod