[L&D]

At the local "mom'n'pops" camera store, i found box full of m42 teleconverters, containing pretty much everything from x1.4 to x3.
I know that most teleconverters eat lots of light, and affect the image quality in a bad way, especially those with 4 elements. but I also know there were couple of excellent 7 element teleconverters manufactured before. Does anyone know which one's should i look out for?

[Jean Poitiers]

Bonjour,

I can't give any recommedations so to speak, but if you buy and do not like the IQ, many pull the optical elements out to turn cheap TC's into cheap extension tubes for macro and/or close-focus applications.

Salut, John le Frog

[L&D]

Bonjour,

I can't give any recommedations so to speak, but if you buy and do not like the IQ, many pull the optical elements out to turn cheap TC's into cheap extension tubes for macro and/or close-focus applications.

Salut, John le Frog

Bonjour,

neah, that won't do, since i already have an extension tube set, and i cannot buy these many teleconverters simply to turn them into extension tubes. also it's a privately owned store, so all sales are final, and not eligible for store return or refund.

i actually could have tested them individually, but the glass in all of them were dust covered, so i didn't risk attaching a dusty glass to my camera.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have a Tamron M42 multicoated teleconverter that seems not too bad, but I dont use it much as I normally shoot no longer than with my 200/3.5. I have tested it out and it seems ok, but I have not done any critical work with it. If I need long, I am shooting k mounts

[jatrax]

I am not sure anyone can give you a good answer on that now. M42 converters were made by a lot of different companies and re-branded as many more. And each made different ones over the years. M42 was the standard mount for a long time so there is a lot of stuff floating around. And unlike more modern equipment it was built like a tank so it is mostly still usable.

I have 4 or 5 2x converters in my toy box, and rarely use them, though I did stack 3 of them together to take moon pictures once.

Without seeing a list of brands and specs that's all I can say. I have been thinking I should get a 3x and take the glass out to make a long extension tube though. And if it was me I would hang onto the 1.4x as it would likely be more useful (to me).

[RioRico]

M42 TCs are the most variable glass I know of. Some are known good and even command high prices. I am f*cking AMAZED at how bidding went on an old Sears 2x. Most Vivitars seem decent. I have one labeled Vivitar Matched Multiplier that may be premium -- but I don't know what it's supposedly matched to, and I haven't yet tested it vs other TCs. I have a Helios 2x (yeah, a Russian) that seems good, and a Sears 3x that serves its purpose. And I have other 2x TCs that I'd rather not mention. [/me ends up with all sorts of junk]

No, I haven't really tested my M42 TCs. I just use them at times when content trumps IQ. Maybe put 2x+2x+3x= 12x worth of TCs on my Rubinar Makpo 1000/10 mirror to turn it into a 12000mm f/120 optic, ooh ooh.

Would I buy a box of unknown M42 TCs? Well, if they came to be about US$4 each, maybe... And no, don't de-glass them, enough cheap M42 macro tubes are available. Only PK-A-type TCs are worth deglassing. Ultra-cheap TCs are good for... bundling with cheap M42 lenses for eBay sales. Hay, buy this Hanimex 28/2.8 with matching Hama 2x TC! Opening bid is just 99 cents!

[L&D]

I have a Tamron M42 multicoated teleconverter that seems not too bad, but I dont use it much as I normally shoot no longer than with my 200/3.5. I have tested it out and it seems ok, but I have not done any critical work with it. If I need long, I am shooting k mounts

not so long ago, i had vivitar 2x multi-coated 4 element TC, bought it at B&H for $16, and after a week's use with vivitar 200mm f3.5, had to return it back. it was an OK glass, but really took a toll on sharpness and colors of the image.

[L&D]

Without seeing a list of brands and specs that's all I can say. I have been thinking I should get a 3x and take the glass out to make a long extension tube though. And if it was me I would hang onto the 1.4x as it would likely be more useful (to me).

the only few that i memorized, were vivitar 2x (because i used to have one), and soligor 3x. i actually was intrigued by soligor, since it's large enough for 7 element, but couldn't find any confirmation on it. there were few others, i believe tamron and maybe yashica. but, i agree there were tones of glass made for m42, but the best glass for m42 is well known amongst its users.

[L&D]

I have a Helios 2x (yeah, a Russian) that seems good, and a Sears 3x that serves its purpose.

i actually heard before that "bigger the x number, the lesser the quality of the image". would you confirm this statement, coming from your experience with sears 3x?

[Lowell Goudge]

i actually heard before that "bigger the x number, the lesser the quality of the image". would you confirm this statement, coming from your experience with sears 3x?

I can't speak for sears but i have a couple of really cheap vivitar teleconverters, the MC-22 2X and MC-22 3X (both K mount) and can attest that with these two clearly the bigger the X the lower the IQ, but the question is always, where is the biggest gain, having a bigger image on the sensor or cropping in tight. in some cases having an image 3x the size is better than an image that has only a single pixel for some detail.

at the extremes of cropping I would suggest either a TC or moving to 1/3 the distance is the only way to go

[L&D]

but the question is always, where is the biggest gain, having a bigger image on the sensor or cropping in tight. in some cases having an image 3x the size is better than an image that has only a single pixel for some detail.

i see your point, and if i have to take the shoot, then i'd agree, having bigger image on the sensor is better than having few pixels for the detail, but my general approach is/was "if i can't reach it, i won't shoot it".

perhaps my best option is to go back to the store with cleaning kit and spend some time testing each one out,

[Lowell Goudge]

i see your point, and if i have to take the shoot, then i'd agree, having bigger image on the sensor is better than having few pixels for the detail, but my general approach is/was "if i can't reach it, i won't shoot it".

perhaps my best option is to go back to the store with cleaning kit and spend some time testing each one out,

It may be worth while. While I understand your approach, I'll give you another take on the if I cant reach I wont shoot it approach.

A hobby of mine, which integrates well into photography is bird watching. If you look at most of the images that I post, they are of birds. There are two classes of bird shots as far as I am concerned, what I would consider publication shots, and what I consider record shots.

Publication shots clearly fall into the if I cant reach it I wont shoot category, in fact, I really want to use the shortest lens possible and be as close as possible to the subject (not always easy).

Record shots, however, are a completely different beast. they may be grainy, out of focus, blurred due to slow shutter speed, or what ever, but they all have one specific thing in common, they contain sufficient information, regardless of actual quality, to be used, along with my own knowledge and visual record to prove I saw something. While I don't pretend to be in the same league as the characters (based upon a true story) in the movie "the big year" I take the approach for all new additions to my life list, that if I don't have a photo, i didn't see it. Clearly, what ever I do to get the biggest clearest image possible for identification is acceptable for a record shot.

[L&D]

It may be worth while. While I understand your approach, I'll give you another take on the if I cant reach I wont shoot it approach.

A hobby of mine, which integrates well into photography is bird watching. If you look at most of the images that I post, they are of birds. There are two classes of bird shots as far as I am concerned, what I would consider publication shots, and what I consider record shots.

Publication shots clearly fall into the if I cant reach it I wont shoot category, in fact, I really want to use the shortest lens possible and be as close as possible to the subject (not always easy).

Record shots, however, are a completely different beast. they may be grainy, out of focus, blurred due to slow shutter speed, or what ever, but they all have one specific thing in common, they contain sufficient information, regardless of actual quality, to be used, along with my own knowledge and visual record to prove I saw something. While I don't pretend to be in the same league as the characters (based upon a true story) in the movie "the big year" I take the approach for all new additions to my life list, that if I don't have a photo, i didn't see it. Clearly, what ever I do to get the biggest clearest image possible for identification is acceptable for a record shot.

i see. it makes sense. thanks

[Paleo Pete]

I do the same thing. For shots I want to post, or possibly publish, which might happen one year, I want as close as I can get, best possible image quality best possible shot. That's the main reason I normally shoot ISO 200, I want the least noise possible, and I shoot ISO 100 when I have enough light to get usable shutter speed.

Other instances, I just want to get a picture of some sort, decent enough to identify a bird or whatever that I'm not familiar with. I've managed to get a good ID on several birds by taking one shot, (then he's gone) and getting blurry, but decent enough to tell what it is. In that case, I don't care. If it's too far away, I still try for a shot. Moving, in the shadows, hidden in brush, I still try for a shot, I want an ID and I don't care what kind of shot I get to accomplish an ID on that bird or whatever. Just something I can compare to while digging through any of a dozen books on various birds, insects, animals and flowers. I got a positive ID on the first Hairy Woodpecker I ever saw by a picture that was out of focus enough I wouldn't dream of posting it online, but I could still see enough detail to get an ID.

As far as Tele converters go, I only have 2 in M42 mount. One is a Vemar, it seems to do a good job, although it does degrade image quality a bit. But if I don't have to crop much, it gets an acceptable shot sometimes. If I really nail the focus...The other is a Vivitar, I rarely use it because the Vemar does a better job. both are 2x.

[RioRico]

I just did a rough test shootout with my SuperTak 50/1.4 and three M42 TCs: Hama 2x, Vivitar Matched Extender 2x, and Sears 3x. I also included my front-mount Sony screw-on 1.5x tele adapter. Some showed clear differences (noticeable but not terrible) in IQ, a couple did not. The 50/1.4 alone was clearly best. IQ was only barely less with the Sony 1.5x. The Vivitar 2x was clearly better than the Hama 2x and the Sears 3x. IQ was only barely less with the Sears 3x than the Hama 2x. So, name brands beat no-names. I'd scale these as:

no TC >= Sony 1.5x >> Vivitar 2x >> Hama 2x >= Sears 3x

Where '>=' means slightly better and '>>' means clearly better.

As Lowell suggests, there are times when content trumps quality. I may jokingly (?) advise using TCs for surveillance, blackmail, crime-planning, etc. IQ will virtually always be better with a cropped image than a TC -- but we see differently with wider vs narrower views. Our attention is more focused. Other factors may enter. I shot the recent annular eclipse with an M42 Alpa (Chinon? Cosina?) 300/5.6 and the Sears 3x TC. Camera pointed at Sol for 1.5 hours with LiveView on most of the time. The progress of the eclipse would not have been visible without the TC.

In other words: IQ ain't everything.