Why are 2x converter lens so expensive

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    I went to get a price for a 2x converter lens for my Canon 300D
    digital camera and found that they were about three times the price of
    camera lens.
    When buying a 2x converter for my 35mm film camera a few years back it
    was cheaper than buying camera lens.

    Why are the 2x converter lens more expensive?

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Dec 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brian

    dj_nme Guest

    eBay is your friend.

    <http://search.ebay.com/eos-2x_Camer...prcloZQQsaslcZ2QQsbrexpZWD2SQQssPageNameZWD2S>

    Unless you have an ultra-ultra-cheap lens, a 2x adapter will cost a
    fraction of what a new lens does.
     
    dj_nme, Dec 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Brian

    Pete D Guest

    You get what you pay for, if thats all you are paying for your lenses then
    you need to rethink what you are doing.
     
    Pete D, Dec 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Brian

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    Be aware that the Canon extenders won't fit many of their lenses. They
    fit a limited range of lenses, mostly 'L' telephotos.

    The non-Canon extenders do seem to fit most if not all lenses. The
    trouble is that a 2x converter loses 2 stops of light, so even an f4
    lens becomes f8. f5.6 is the smallest aperture at which autofocus
    will work on a 300D.

    The loss of image quality may also be a problem, especially if you are
    starting with a low-end Canon kit lens.
     
    Tim Hobbs, Dec 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Brian

    Jim Guest

    You are incorrect. Looking at the for B&H, I see that a Canon 2x converter
    is about $290. The only EOS lenses which are cheaper than that are the 35mm
    f2, the 50 mm f1.8, the 28mm f2.8, and the 28-80 zoom. You would never use
    a converter with those lenses anyway. The 2x converter is an L lens which
    means it really should cost more than those above.
    Moreover, the lenses that you should consider using a converter all cost far
    more than the 2x does.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Dec 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Brian

    U-Know-Who Guest

    U-Know-Who, Dec 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Brian

    JohnR66 Guest

    What camera lens? If your talking about the white Canon converter, it has
    quality optics and the design requires it to extend into the back of the
    lens that attaches to it. It will not fit on the lower cost zooms. It will
    fit on a few higher end tele zooms and fixed tele and zoom L glass.

    I recommend using it on lenses with an aperture of f/4 or wider. It takes a
    couple stops of light and most cameras won't focus at f/8. The 2x converter
    requires quality glass on it or it shows.

    I got mine used from KEH.com for $175. I looked it over carefully. It could
    pass as new.

    John
     
    JohnR66, Dec 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Brian

    Rich Guest

    If you are talking about the crummy 18-55 Canon kit zoom, you'd be
    better off not adding anything to it, it's bad enough. A converter
    will likely gain zero image information so "zooming in" won't produce
    a better picture. IF you have a decent lens, there is no way you'd
    want to hobble it's performance with a cheap converter so, you pay
    the price.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Brian

    Pete D Guest

    Well Rich that is just about the stupidist thing you have ever said.

    It would be unlikely you would be wanting to use a teleconverter with a 55mm
    lens, every time you use a teleconverter it will be a compromise of course.
    Mostly those that use a teleconverter use it because they cannot afford or
    justify a lens in the larger size and find that cropping gives a poorer
    result than using a teleconverter. I personally have a 1.4 and a 2.0
    converter, I use them both sparingly and will mostly use them when it is the
    only way I can get the shot, sometimes it is better to have a poorer quality
    shot than no shot at all.
     
    Pete D, Dec 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Brian

    Rich Guest

    Teleconverters do reduce contrast, it's inevitable with the increased
    number of air to glass surfaces. But, if properly designed, they need
    not degrade image sharpness. Probably what most people experience
    with them is degradation due to image blur caused by the increased
    shutter speed time due to the two extra f-stops (for an 2x converter)
    coupled with the longer focal length. If on a sunny day you are
    shooting 1/1000th at f4 with a 200mm lens, all of a sudden you are
    at 1/250 at f8 with a 400mm lens. No wonder the image suffers.
    There is no reason why a teleconverter couldn't be made that would
    have almost no impact on image quality. But it would cost a great
    deal.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Brian

    Stacey Guest

    Who's teleconverter are you using? I've used the old OM 1.4X and the latest
    ZD one and can't see any quality being lost using them. Even the soviet
    made ones don't see a noticable loss at 1.4X. With the cheap aftermarket 2X
    converters there is an obvious quality loss but no cheap lens is going to
    perform well.
     
    Stacey, Dec 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Brian

    Stacey Guest

    And if they are MC'd that isn't going to be much.
    That's been my experience with GOOD converters.
    Bingo, they assume it's the converter and blame the loss in quality on it.
    Probably why the ZD converter is so expencive, I don't see any quality loss
    using it.
     
    Stacey, Dec 4, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.