Tele-converter (1.7x) math

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eNo, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. eNo

    eNo Guest

    So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent zoom
    range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set me
    straight on my math?

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo
    "If you can't go fast, go long."
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
     
    eNo, Jun 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. It multiplies, so you are getting 65mm to 323mm. It should be obvious from
    your shots taken with it in place.

    Bye.

    "eNo" <> wrote in message
    news:uXtxc.1597$...
    > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    zoom
    > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set

    me
    > straight on my math?
    >
    > --
    > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > eNo
    > "If you can't go fast, go long."
    > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    >
    >
     
    David Sommers, Jun 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sounds correct!

    dave

    eNo wrote:

    > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent zoom
    > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set me
    > straight on my math?
    >
     
    Bay Area Dave, Jun 9, 2004
    #3
  4. eNo

    eas Guest

    it's still a "5x" zoom..... the range has just changed- i.e.the maximum
    focal length is 5 times the minimum... right?

    eNo wrote:
    > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent zoom
    > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set me
    > straight on my math?
    >
     
    eas, Jun 9, 2004
    #4
  5. No......its not done like that. The 5x means that your short wide angle
    times 5 equals your long or telephoto. Now forget that for the next step
    because its not related. Your wide is 38x1.7 and your tele is 190x1.7....and
    still 5x your wide.


    "eNo" <> wrote in message
    news:uXtxc.1597$...
    > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    zoom
    > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set

    me
    > straight on my math?
    >
    > --
    > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > eNo
    > "If you can't go fast, go long."
    > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    >
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Jun 9, 2004
    #5
  6. eNo

    DiVenZ Guest

    "Gene Palmiter" <> schreef in bericht
    news:Owuxc.19897$...
    > No......its not done like that. The 5x means that your short wide angle
    > times 5 equals your long or telephoto. Now forget that for the next step
    > because its not related. Your wide is 38x1.7 and your tele is

    190x1.7....and
    > still 5x your wide.


    But he cannot use the wide side anymore because of the "big black circle"
    arround his picture.
    I think it starts at 100x1.7 til 190x1.7 (so thats about 2x)
    Regards
    Div

    >
    >
    > "eNo" <> wrote in message
    > news:uXtxc.1597$...
    > > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add

    a
    > > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    > zoom
    > > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone

    set
    > me
    > > straight on my math?
    > >
    > > --
    > > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > > eNo
    > > "If you can't go fast, go long."
    > > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    DiVenZ, Jun 9, 2004
    #6
  7. eNo

    DiVenZ Guest

    "DiVenZ" <> schreef in bericht
    news:40c6c9bf$0$92963$...
    >
    > "Gene Palmiter" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:Owuxc.19897$...
    > > No......its not done like that. The 5x means that your short wide angle
    > > times 5 equals your long or telephoto. Now forget that for the next step
    > > because its not related. Your wide is 38x1.7 and your tele is

    > 190x1.7....and
    > > still 5x your wide.

    >
    > But he cannot use the wide side anymore because of the "big black circle"
    > arround his picture.
    > I think it starts at 100x1.7 til 190x1.7 (so thats about 2x)
    > Regards
    > Div


    PS to eNo
    If this about the 717 and the Sony Converter I can show you some samples.

    >
    > >
    > >
    > > "eNo" <> wrote in message
    > > news:uXtxc.1597$...
    > > > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I

    add
    > a
    > > > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > > > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    > > zoom
    > > > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone

    > set
    > > me
    > > > straight on my math?
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > > > eNo
    > > > "If you can't go fast, go long."
    > > > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    DiVenZ, Jun 9, 2004
    #7
  8. eNo

    Don Stauffer Guest

    There are two ways of looking at it.

    If you are talking about the range with the teleconverter attached, it
    goes to a 5X zoom from 65-323. However, if you consider the whole range
    you have available (removing or adding the converter when needed), then
    you do have a range of 38 - 323.

    eNo wrote:
    >
    > So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    > 1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > (multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent zoom
    > range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set me
    > straight on my math?
    >
    > --
    > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    > eNo
    > "If you can't go fast, go long."
    > ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Jun 9, 2004
    #8
  9. eNo

    TheNewsGuy Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:

    >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent zoom
    >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set me
    >straight on my math?


    I think you have to read the manufacturer's recommendations - from
    what I understand the manufacturer matches the optics of the
    teleconverter to LONG focal lengths of the camera's lens. So shots
    taken at the wide angle setting of 38mm would not be of good quality,
    even if the camera could mechanically zoom back far enough with the
    teleconverter attached anyway.

    The logic of the optics design is that you already have a 65mm setting
    in your original lens - it is the 191mm to 323mm that you want to add.


    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    + The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
    + (two mirrored sites)
    + http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
    + http://waveprohosting.com/tnguym
    + All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
    TheNewsGuy, Jun 9, 2004
    #9
  10. On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:

    >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent zoom
    >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set me
    >straight on my math?


    Neither.

    You still have a 5X zoom. The difference is with the 1.7X in place
    you have a 64.6 to 323 equivelant. The focal length is multiplied by
    1.7.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Jun 11, 2004
    #10
  11. "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:
    >
    > >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    > >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    zoom
    > >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set

    me
    > >straight on my math?

    >
    > Neither.
    >
    > You still have a 5X zoom. The difference is with the 1.7X in place
    > you have a 64.6 to 323 equivelant. The focal length is multiplied by
    > 1.7.

    This is not totally true. You will find that the converter more than likely
    not work well at the 38mm equiv. end of the lens. And will also provide
    vignetting until you are almost to the tele end of the lens. They do not
    give a true zoom as many think. This causes much consternation to buyers who
    think the range is 65mm - 323mm which you will find is not all useable.

    Ed
     
    Jack-of-the-Dust, Jun 11, 2004
    #11
  12. eNo

    Ron Guest

    "Jack-of-the-Dust" <> wrote in message
    news:Dqcyc.44018$...
    >
    > "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add

    a
    > > >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > > >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    > zoom
    > > >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone

    set
    > me
    > > >straight on my math?

    > >
    > > Neither.
    > >
    > > You still have a 5X zoom. The difference is with the 1.7X in place
    > > you have a 64.6 to 323 equivelant. The focal length is multiplied by
    > > 1.7.

    > This is not totally true. You will find that the converter more than

    likely
    > not work well at the 38mm equiv. end of the lens. And will also provide
    > vignetting until you are almost to the tele end of the lens. They do not
    > give a true zoom as many think. This causes much consternation to buyers

    who
    > think the range is 65mm - 323mm which you will find is not all useable.
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >


    Ed, would you say that is also true about wide-angle lenses? I'm thinking of
    getting one or the other and if what you say is true about the teleys, then
    I'm thinking the wide angle lens may be more useful. You ARE saying that
    tele is NOT useful unless at the extreme end of the zoom, aren't you? And
    I'm not talking about artsy effects either. For basic close-up shooting,
    you're saying a tele is not useful unless fully zoomed. Is that correct?

    Ron
     
    Ron, Jun 11, 2004
    #12
  13. "Ron" <> wrote in message
    news:40c98691$0$2986$...
    >
    > "Jack-of-the-Dust" <> wrote in message
    > news:Dqcyc.44018$...
    > >
    > > "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I

    add
    > a
    > > > >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    > > > >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an

    equivalent
    > > zoom
    > > > >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone

    > set
    > > me
    > > > >straight on my math?
    > > >
    > > > Neither.
    > > >
    > > > You still have a 5X zoom. The difference is with the 1.7X in place
    > > > you have a 64.6 to 323 equivelant. The focal length is multiplied by
    > > > 1.7.

    > > This is not totally true. You will find that the converter more than

    > likely
    > > not work well at the 38mm equiv. end of the lens. And will also provide
    > > vignetting until you are almost to the tele end of the lens. They do not
    > > give a true zoom as many think. This causes much consternation to buyers

    > who
    > > think the range is 65mm - 323mm which you will find is not all useable.
    > >
    > > Ed
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Ed, would you say that is also true about wide-angle lenses? I'm thinking

    of
    > getting one or the other and if what you say is true about the teleys,

    then
    > I'm thinking the wide angle lens may be more useful. You ARE saying that
    > tele is NOT useful unless at the extreme end of the zoom, aren't you? And
    > I'm not talking about artsy effects either. For basic close-up shooting,
    > you're saying a tele is not useful unless fully zoomed. Is that correct?
    >
    > Ron
    >
    >

    HI Ron,

    Yes this is correct. Many people believe that they end up with a true zoom
    which is just not true. Kodak for many years with their Retina line of 35mm
    cameras utilized Schneider lenses with front elements that would
    interchange. Giving quite a respectable line of focal lengths, and today
    some of the most collectable cameras.
    You will also get the same tunnel effect with the wide angle converter if
    you zoom out towards tele.
    However I like having the extreme wide end of my Canon, and while there is a
    lot of distortion when used with building shots this can be corrected using
    software.

    Ed
     
    Jack-of-the-Dust, Jun 11, 2004
    #13
  14. On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:37:23 GMT, "Jack-of-the-Dust"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I add a
    >> >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    >> >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an equivalent

    >zoom
    >> >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone set

    >me
    >> >straight on my math?

    >>
    >> Neither.
    >>
    >> You still have a 5X zoom. The difference is with the 1.7X in place
    >> you have a 64.6 to 323 equivelant. The focal length is multiplied by
    >> 1.7.

    >This is not totally true. You will find that the converter more than likely
    >not work well at the 38mm equiv. end of the lens. And will also provide
    >vignetting until you are almost to the tele end of the lens. They do not
    >give a true zoom as many think. This causes much consternation to buyers who
    >think the range is 65mm - 323mm which you will find is not all useable.


    You are correct. Normally the teleconverter that fits on the end of a
    zoom lens pretty much only works at the longer focal length. Well...
    the multiplication factor does work over the entire range, but as you
    stay, the corners get chopped off through probably more than half the
    bottom range of the zoom.

    OTOH, I have used negative teleconverters. I have a 0.5 for my E20N
    and it works well across the entire range.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    >
    >Ed
    >
     
    Roger Halstead, Jun 11, 2004
    #14
  15. On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:15:00 GMT, "Jack-of-the-Dust"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Ron" <> wrote in message
    >news:40c98691$0$2986$...
    >>
    >> "Jack-of-the-Dust" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Dqcyc.44018$...
    >> >
    >> > "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> > > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:54 GMT, "eNo" <> wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > >So... I have a camera with a 5x, 38mm-190mm equivalent lens. Now, I

    >add
    >> a
    >> > > >1.7x. Do I have an effective 6.7x (additive) or 5*1.7x=8.5x
    >> > > >(multiplicative)? I'm thinking "x" means the latter, for an

    >equivalent
    >> > zoom
    >> > > >range of 65mm-323mm, but that sounds too good to be true. Can someone

    >> set
    >> > me
    >> > > >straight on my math?
    >> > >
    >> > > Neither.
    >> > >
    >> > > You still have a 5X zoom. The difference is with the 1.7X in place
    >> > > you have a 64.6 to 323 equivelant. The focal length is multiplied by
    >> > > 1.7.
    >> > This is not totally true. You will find that the converter more than

    >> likely
    >> > not work well at the 38mm equiv. end of the lens. And will also provide
    >> > vignetting until you are almost to the tele end of the lens. They do not
    >> > give a true zoom as many think. This causes much consternation to buyers

    >> who
    >> > think the range is 65mm - 323mm which you will find is not all useable.
    >> >
    >> > Ed
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >> Ed, would you say that is also true about wide-angle lenses? I'm thinking

    >of
    >> getting one or the other and if what you say is true about the teleys,

    >then
    >> I'm thinking the wide angle lens may be more useful. You ARE saying that
    >> tele is NOT useful unless at the extreme end of the zoom, aren't you? And
    >> I'm not talking about artsy effects either. For basic close-up shooting,
    >> you're saying a tele is not useful unless fully zoomed. Is that correct?
    >>
    >> Ron
    >>
    >>

    >HI Ron,
    >
    >Yes this is correct. Many people believe that they end up with a true zoom
    >which is just not true. Kodak for many years with their Retina line of 35mm
    >cameras utilized Schneider lenses with front elements that would
    >interchange. Giving quite a respectable line of focal lengths, and today
    >some of the most collectable cameras.
    >You will also get the same tunnel effect with the wide angle converter if
    >you zoom out towards tele.


    I have a 0.5 X on my E20 N and it works well across the entire range.
    No such tunneling effect is visible. However I can speak only for that
    particular lens and converter combination.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >However I like having the extreme wide end of my Canon, and while there is a
    >lot of distortion when used with building shots this can be corrected using
    >software.
    >
    >Ed
    >
     
    Roger Halstead, Jun 11, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Anyone

    digital optics tele converter for sony 707/717

    Anyone, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    420
    Anyone
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. Zol.

    Re: Canon A70 Tele-converter lens

    Zol., Sep 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    486
  3. Zol.

    Q: Canon G5 & tele-converter Lenses

    Zol., Sep 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    567
  4. Peter  Billinghurst

    Canon tele converter for Powershot G3

    Peter Billinghurst, Dec 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    Peter Billinghurst
    Dec 4, 2003
  5. Richard Davies

    Canon G3 and TC-DC58N Tele-converter

    Richard Davies, Feb 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    744
Loading...

Share This Page