 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2005Telephoto lens
First time to your NG. I have a............... Olympus C5050. I have an extension ring for master lens protection with 41 to 52 threads. It has only 3X optical magnification. Of course the digital magnification is there but I never use that as I can do that here on the computer just as well. Can anyone tell me what lens I can use (like the variable lens I used to have on my Nikon FE) to up me to a minimum of 10X total or I would take 10X the 3X built in. (As I lick my chops [g]). Glenn  SignatureI am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 0 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! First time to your NG. I have a............... Olympus C5050. I have an extension ring for master lens protection with 41 to 52 threads. It has only 3X optical magnification. Of course the digital magnification is there but I never use that as I can do that here on the computer just as well. Can anyone tell me what lens I can use (like the variable lens I used to have on my Nikon FE) to up me to a minimum of 10X total or I would take 10X the 3X built in. (As I lick my chops [g]). Glenn Signature<snip> Lens Adapter 52 mm filter threads for Olympus C-5050. http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_main/ray-rt5241.html Lens (two pages): http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_index/index001-camera_acc-more_lenses.html -- CSM1 http://www.carlmcmillan.com -- Thank you for the response. I mentioned that I already have the Lens Adapter 52 mm filter threads for Olympus C-5050. I'd like some input from you experts on what really works. For instance, if I get a lens that is say, 8X, will that work as 8X up to 24X with the built-in 3X engaged? I notice using the digital zoom doesn't show zoomed in the eye view finder although it does in the screen viewer. Can I assume that with any optical magnification the view in the eye viewer will reflect that magnification? Any info will be appreciated no matter how insignificant it may seem to you. I am in a learning stage on the digital works. Glenn > First time to your NG. I have a............... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Glenn >I'd like some input from you experts on what really works. For instance, if >I get a lens that is say, 8X, will that work as 8X up to 24X with the >built-in 3X engaged? I notice using the digital zoom doesn't show zoomed in >the eye view finder although it does in the screen viewer. Can I assume >that with any optical magnification the view in the eye viewer will reflect >that magnification? 8x can be both 10-80mm and 100-800mm; it's just largest value divided by the smallest value. >Any info will be appreciated no matter how insignificant it may seem to you. >I am in a learning stage on the digital works. For a fixed (i.e. non-interchangeable) 3x zoom lens, the only thing you can too is to "move" the interval where the 3x optical zoom is: Example: 30-90mm (35mm eq.) zoom will be 60-180mm with a 2x telephoto converter So: Still 3X optical, but "farther out" Wide-angle converters behave similar: With 0,7x 30-90mm becomes 21-67mm. >>I'd like some input from you experts on what really works. For instance, >>if [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Wide-angle converters behave similar: With 0,7x 30-90mm becomes > 21-67mm. I may be looking at this differently than it really is. If I put a CKCPower CrystalVue LX 8x Telephoto Lens (188.95) on it, I would have a factor of 8X, I assume. Wouldn't the optical 3X built into the camera multiply that anywhere from the 8X to (3 x 8 = 24)?? Or doesn't it work that way? I know I didn't have 8X on my 35, it had a 70-200mm if memory serves me right. It's been a long time but I would like to capture as much distance as I see in my 10X field glasses. The main difference in that and what I am thinking is that was the lens on the 35. This is leaving the original lens alone and adding one in front of the built in lens (that has the 3x built in already). Glenn >"Rolf Egil Sølvik" <rolfegil@c2i.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >I assume. Wouldn't the optical 3X built into the camera multiply that >anywhere from the 8X to (3 x 8 = 24)?? Or doesn't it work that way? The 3x zoom is still 3x when you put a 8x telephoto /convertor/ lens on it. the 3x zoom is still variable (from 1x to 3x) if x equals 35mm in "35mm (film) eqvivalent" it would be 35-105mm Adding the 8x into the picture will make 1x (i.e. 35mm as that is the "starting point" in most digital cameras) eight times the focal lenght: 280 So, the effective focal length of the lens will be 280-840 (8 times the 35-105 from before) - which is /still/ a 3x zoom, but 8x-24x based on the original lens specifications. So the 8x telephoto lens effectively moves the zoom farther out. >I know I didn't have 8X on my 35, it had a 70-200mm if memory serves me >right. It's been a long time but I would like to capture as much distance >as I see in my 10X field glasses. If it was a 70-210 it whould be a (210 divided by 70 equals 3) 3x zoom lens as well. A 100-300mm or 200-600mm is 3x as well - so i qould not pay too much attention to the X'es without knowing the 35mm (equivivalent) values. I'm not sure what 10x field glasses are... or more precicely, what 1x equals in that repect. >The main difference in that and what I am thinking is that was the lens on >the 35. This is leaving the original lens alone and adding one in front of >the built in lens (that has the 3x built in already). Yes, if you want to exchange lenses get a dSLR > The 3x zoom is still 3x when you put a 8x telephoto /convertor/ lens > on it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So the 8x telephoto lens effectively moves the zoom farther out. OK, I think we are together but maybe different terms. I understand that whatever optical magnification I add is the starting point. That has to be a give-me. Say it is 3x (or 5x or 10x or whatever) for a starter and would be where the camera sees things. Use the 3. The camera sees at 30 feet what it would see at 10 without the add-on lens. Do we agree there? Now I slide the internal lens up to full 3x optical magnification. Isn't the camera seeing 90 feet or sucking the subject in 9 times. (3 X 3 = 9) This is what I am not clear on. I went to Olympus's site but didn't see the lens mentioned. I believe we are clear on what I want. Now I'm seeking guidance. I definitely want to stay away from fish-eye or cut corners as in one of your illustration pictures. Glenn >>I know I didn't have 8X on my 35, it had a 70-200mm if memory serves me >>right. It's been a long time but I would like to capture as much distance [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yes, if you want to exchange lenses get a dSLR >OK, I think we are together but maybe different terms. I understand that >whatever optical magnification I add is the starting point. That has to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >camera seeing 90 feet or sucking the subject in 9 times. (3 X 3 = 9) This >is what I am not clear on. I am not sure about this, but if you add a 2x converter don't you see [1 didivded by squareroot(2)]=70% of the frame from before? For 1,7x that would be more like 77% of the previous frame, wouldn't it? >I went to Olympus's site but didn't see the lens mentioned. I believe we >are clear on what I want. Now I'm seeking guidance. I definitely want to >stay away from fish-eye or cut corners as in one of your illustration >pictures. Both http://www.adorama.com/IOMTCON17.html and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=2 78672&is=REG have what is available from Olympus for your c-5050. That offer is the optically best one, but as you see over at http://www.pbase.com/pazman/ckc_crystalview_lx__8x_lens the effect is much larger with the CrystalVue 8x - you notice it best looking at the "kids" photos! But beware as is seems like the lens can only be zoomed back 10% before you get serious vignetting (darkening of corners - "5050 pulled back about 10%.jpg"). You have been VERY helpful. Thank you. I need to go to a good photo shop and actually see the effects various lenses create. I need to see what you mean by the 10% vignetting for example. Thanks again. Glenn >>OK, I think we are together but maybe different terms. I understand that >>whatever optical magnification I add is the starting point. That has to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > only be zoomed back 10% before you get serious vignetting (darkening > of corners - "5050 pulled back about 10%.jpg"). SignatureI am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 0 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! >I need to go to a good photo shop and actually see the effects various >lenses create. I need to see what you mean by the 10% vignetting for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> only be zoomed back 10% before you get serious vignetting (darkening >> of corners - "5050 pulled back about 10%.jpg"). Some vignetting (a.k.a "darkening of image corners") will occur with most such add-on lenses - i.e. the square picture will get a round image in the center, and where the light doesn't reach the imager it will stay black. But not at the 3.0x point of the zoom, maybe you can "pull it back" as far as 2-3 zoom positions or maybe as far back as 2.5x zoom. At full zoom most will work like they're supposed to do. And you should check the lens before you buy one, to see if it's usable not only at the long end og the zoom. >I am not sure about this, but if you add a 2x converter don't you >see [1 didivded by squareroot(2)]=70% of the frame from before? For >1,7x that would be more like 77% of the previous frame, wouldn't it? While I don't doubt that some companies would advertize their products this way (the 8x teleconverter certainly sounds like it is really 2.8x), the standard way of referring to teleconverter power is by linear gain in each dimension, not by area. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I am not sure about this, but if you add a 2x converter don't you >>see [1 didivded by squareroot(2)]=70% of the frame from before? For [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the standard way of referring to teleconverter power is by linear gain > in each dimension, not by area. My thinking is if I have an 8x lens on my camera, I expect to see and be able to take a picture 8x as far away. To dispel any doubt of what I am thinking. Say there is a box in front of me and where I'm standing, 5 feet back, it fills the view finder. I take the picture. If I move back to 40 foot (5 x 8 = 40) and screw on the 8x lens, I expect the view finder to show the same thing it did when I was close without the extra lens. And incidentally, I expect the 2 pictures to be identical. (Discounting heat waves, of course.) [g] To me, that seems easy but I get the impression we are talking about 2 different things? I believe my needs/wants are clear. Now where do I go? Glenn >>>I am not sure about this, but if you add a 2x converter don't you >>>see [1 didivded by squareroot(2)]=70% of the frame from before? For [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Glenn PS. With the 3x built in optical lens, I expect to see the same picture back (5 X 8 X 3 = 120). Right? Not quite. The pictures will have different depths of field. The views are slightly different. Some objects will not show certain details and some will show more. > >>I am not sure about this, but if you add a 2x converter don't you > >>see [1 didivded by squareroot(2)]=70% of the frame from before? For [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Glenn > Not quite. The pictures will have different depths of field. The views are > slightly different. > Some objects will not show certain details and some will show more. Ok, I grant depth of field in some cases. My illustration is a flat box that fills the finder. With the lens I am referring to, will the box look as big in the picture taken 120' away? I'm only talking size now, ie reach out and grab it. To repeat my PS......... PS. With the 3x built in optical lens, I expect to see the same (size) picture back (5 X 8 X 3 = 120). Right? (Within reason.) Glenn Then you understand it completely. > > Not quite. The pictures will have different depths of field. The views are > > slightly different. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Glenn But do I? My thinking is in conflict with JPS above. His numbers and mine seem to clash but we may be talking about the same thing using different ratios. You both sound like you have forgotten more than I'll ever know but I'm looking for a mutual agreement here. Glenn > Then you understand it completely. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Glenn I think I understand what you are asking and yes the magnifications multiply times each other for the product. Your light passage will be terrible though. The f-stops also do the reverse. > But do I? My thinking is in conflict with JPS above. His numbers and mine > seem to clash but we may be talking about the same thing using different [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >> > >> Glenn >>>I am not sure about this, but if you add a 2x converter don't you >>>see [1 didivded by squareroot(2)]=70% of the frame from before? For [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >I believe my needs/wants are clear. Now where do I go? Ok. I thought you were talking about an actual product. I've never heard of a TC more than 3x. If you want an adapter that fits between the main lens and the camera body (DSLR), this will never happen, because there are no lenses that are sharp enough to worth magnifying that much, plus, you will lose so much light you will be forced to do a long exposure with a tripod. If you are talking about an adapter that goes in front of the main lens, it can be done optically, but the lens would need to be extremely wide in the front to capture enough light, and would be very heavy. I don't believe that 8x exists in either form. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Ok. I thought you were talking about an actual product. I've never > heard of a TC more than 3x. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't believe that 8x exists in either form. http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_index/index001-camera_acc-more_lenses.html seems to list one that is 8x. I haven't seen it to see how large it actually is. It looks like it does come with a support tripod to at least keep the thing from breaking the main lens off. Their on line lit doesn't give you much to hang your hat on. [g] My lens will go to F1.8 but I would have to see/try the 8x to see just how much limitation it would place on the camera. Glenn >http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_index/index001-camera_acc-more_lenses.html >seems to list one that is 8x. I haven't seen it to see how large it >actually is. It looks like it does come with a support tripod to at least >keep the thing from breaking the main lens off. Their on line lit doesn't >give you much to hang your hat on. [g] My guess is the you'll need the tripod to get sharp shots - small lens movements will be a big deal with such a lens! >>http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_index/index001-camera_acc-more_lenses.html >>seems to list one that is 8x. I haven't seen it to see how large it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >My guess is the you'll need the tripod to get sharp shots - small >lens movements will be a big deal with such a lens! That's not the only reason you'd need a tripod, unless the adapter had a huge entrance pupil; if it were the same size as the main lens, you'd lose 8 stops of light. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >First time to your NG. I have a Olympus C5050. >I have an extension ring for master lens protection with 41 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >have on my Nikon FE) to up me to a minimum of 10X total or I would take 10X >the 3X built in. To get anywhere near 10x total you need a 0,7x wideangle-converter and a 2,4x telephoto-converter: 3x(1/0,7)x2,4 equals 10x Olympus offers the TCON17 1.7x and TCON14 1.4x telephoto lens converters along with the WCON 07 .7x (19mm equivilant) Wide angle lens adapter. I would not recommend use of other brands converters as the picture quality will suffer. For my Canon PowerShot A60 I did get the 0,7x and the 2,4x to get that extra reach (24-240mm eqvivalent). Both were really only useful for outdoor use as the adapters caused a flash shadow indoors and I foun it generally better to use the adapter-tube for 52mm filters (PL-CIR and such). You will STILL only have 3x optical zoom - only thing changed is the focal length - and probably the converters (even the ones from Olympus) will have some limitations such as vignetting and LCD-only for framing. http://www.pbase.com/jamiewillmott/tcdc52_test show some of the possible limitations: vignetting and non-overlapping zoom area because of that. Notice that "zoom step" 0 and 1 is left out of the pictures - they will be like macro shots of a coin (not covering the whole picture) where the area outside the coin is black! A lens made for (d)SLR will not work - except for macro work, and then used "the wrong way" - but that's another story... >>First time to your NG. I have a Olympus C5050. >>I have an extension ring for master lens protection with 41 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > possible limitations: vignetting and non-overlapping zoom area > because of that. I have to admit that I am too dumb to fully understand the pictures. I looks like each were taken with a different lens. Won't the variable 3x built into the camera give me some of those pictures with just one add-on? As you mentioned, I would want a good lens. If I want fuzzy, I could just use the digital zoom built into the camera. Glenn |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.