New Member Registered: February, 2019 Posts: 15 | | Review Date: November 15, 2023 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Superb on sunny days | | Cons: | Read the review | | Camera Used: M42 film cameras and lenses
| |
People make the error of assuming a teleconverter is only supposed to replace a longer focal lens. It's not that simple.
TCVs allow people to travel light instead of lumping around heaps of gear on a walk. That is their main purpose. They are also cheaper to buy than another bigger and technically complex lens than a 50mm or 100mm lens. They also have a fundamental saving grace; because they stop the need for a massively long lens, you can get less lens shake in comparison to trying to steady a vintage 200mm or 300mm lens. And, as with much technology, what you gain in one regard, you lose in another.
A TCV is limited and often useless on dull days without a tripod. A TCV reduces light (eg. 1.5 or 2 stops more light required for 2x or two shutter speeds less) and enhances the best focal range performance of any lens via magnification. So, if a lens has a sweet spot of f4 or f5.6 or f8 - as most do - then those iris settings will give best results via magnification with a TCV. Likewise, if that lens starts to drop a little in image quality at f1.7 or f11 or f16 then a TCV will make those worse images look even worse by magnifying the lens weaknesses. So, use it on a CA inducing Takumar 135mm wide open and the CA will be enhanced, but use it at F8 with that lens and you'll get great images as the lens is better there. But you'll have to allow a 2 speed shutter drop to compensate for the loss of light.
With all this in mind, any user review that does not state clearly that the sweet spot apertures were deliberately chosen, and that weaknesses inherent in TCV application were deliberately minimised, will give the impression that a TCV is poor.
I say all of this as I have a light and small M42 Vivitar with good coatings and it gives superb results at f4 and f5.6 and f8 with many quality lenses at 50mm to 135mm. It's much better than what people have said about it here. But go outside of that focal length range or that f-stop range and all it does is make the weaker performance of any lens even weaker. In other words, it's not the TCV alone that makes a good or otherwise image, but the way in which a TCV and a lens interact with the deliberation and knowledge of the user.
| |
Otis Memorial Pentaxian Registered: March, 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Posts: 42,007 | | Review Date: April 23, 2020 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | auto aperture actuation, price, size | | Cons: | performance | | Camera Used: Pentax K-3
| |
These compact Vivitar TCs are quite common and usually go for under $10 USD. I have had mine for a number of years after having it thrown in as a freebie with lens purchase somewhere around 2009. Mine is the 2X-1 which is taken to mean auto-actuation M42 mount. There is also a 2X-8 model with couplings for SMC/S-M-C Takumar lenses. The TC appears to have four single-coated elements and is well-made and sturdy and easy to mate to both lens and body.
As noted, the TC is compact and that translates into good balance with smaller lenses and economy of space in the bag or pocket. Optically, its performance is on the low end of competent with both contrast and detail compromised such that the utility is limited.
I would have liked to have rated this TC higher than a "3", but could not justify a "4" given that someone might spend $10 and be disappointed. Likewise, I cannot recommend.
| |
Site Supporter Registered: May, 2015 Posts: 82 | | Review Date: June 9, 2015 | Not Recommended | Price: $3.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Cheap | | Cons: | You get what you pay for | | Camera Used: K-50
| |
Overall I can't say it's awful. For how cheap you can pick them up you can't expect too much. If you're going to use this on a zoom lens I'd suggest making sure you have a tripod to keep the camera still. It also eats up a lot of light, so I'd suggest making sure your lens is wide open.
I tried a few test shots with my Quantaray 70-300mm. Zoomed completely in. It was hard to work with, but I am also pretty new to teleconverters so it may just be my inexperience. So take this review with a grain of salt. I'll have to try it with other lenses and come back to this later, but for now I can't see it getting very much use. The lack of focus in my test shots had a lot more to do with me being unable to keep the camera still enough while fully zoomed for a clear shot.
 | |
Loyal Site Supportaxian Registered: September, 2013 Location: Texas Posts: 503 | | Review Date: December 14, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $5.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive | | Cons: | average performance. | |
It's really not bad. Especially at the price.
It's not great in any way, either. Strictly a budget lens with budget performance. Yes I would recommend this if you are on a budget.
| |
Veteran Member Registered: October, 2014 Location: Washington Posts: 2,176 | | Review Date: December 13, 2014 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
|
This extender came in a package I bought on eBay. Not expecting much, I hooked it up to a Vivitar 50mm f1.9 and took a few shots with it. To my surprise, it did quite well even wide open. I think it is a good little piece of glass. Good enough to keep.
| |
Pentaxian Registered: April, 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Posts: 18,076 | | Review Date: January 3, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $2.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Solid build | | Cons: | Lost light and IQ ... | |
Bonjour,
Just a quick entry of this M42 TC which is just "average" at best ... I will more likely de-glass it and use it later as a M42 extension tube ... J
| |
