XF100 and Canon TL-H58 teleconverter

[Larry Cohen]

Hi,
I have an XF100 and just got the Canon TL-H58 teleconverter. Of course it vignettes terribly at wide angle settings. Ahhaa! Changed the "menu settings" to the "1.5" lens, and it vignettes less - but nonetheless still does at wider settings. I thought I heard it shouldn't?

Oh, if I set the menu to 2 or 3x settings, it's just too telephoto with NO wideangle? Do they make a teleconverter without all the limitations?

Anyone else out there using this add on lens getting different results? Please tell me I'm WRONG!
Thanks,
Larry

[Gerald OConnor]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/751265-REG/Canon_4892B001_WD_H58W_0_8x_Wide_Converter.html
Had it worked great

[Larry Cohen]

Thanks, Gerald. That's good to know if I need a wide angle converter. No vignetting.
BUT . . . I was talking about the 1.5 teleconverter. But thank you for frplying with your experience. I'll surely make a note of that!
Larry

[Gerald OConnor]

Ahh got me misunderstood lol

[Lou Bruno]

Larry,

Anytime extra glass is added to a non-interchangeable lens, there is a loss in HD quality as well as a loss of f-stop(s). Personally, I find the 1.5X setting in the TELE menu works fine with no loss to the picture quality. I think the TELE-CONVERTER, unlike the wide angle attachment is unnecessary in my opinion. I actually ASSIGN the TELE MENU setting to the WFM (useless anyway) button on the rear of the XF-100.

[Larry Cohen]

Lou, I was just drawing that EXACT same conclusion this morning. The vignetting is, at least in my opinion, terrible! You see vignetting throughout 50% of the zoom (from wide angle to medium telephoto.)

I was thinking the same thing you just said . . . why am I buying the tele-converter - with such a minor degradation of quality by just going the 1.5X route! I agree! Funny, I seem to remember years ago, the vignetting wasn't such a problem . . . was it with the XL-2? Don't remember.

BUT . . . I've also read if you just shoot normally, and enlarge the image in Final Cut Pro . . . (that's what we use) some say the quality is the same as doing it in the camera. So just fix it in post!

Then I're read something about the noise level being less if done in the camera, but the pixelization itself is the same ???? Didn't quite get it -- but with all that vignetting, it sure is hard to rationalize keeping the tele-converter.

I love it when these camera manufacturers say 'there "MAY" be image degradation when . . .

MAY!!! I don't think so - there IS!
Thanks for confirming my beliefs!
Larry

[Jim Martin]

FYI ....all optical Teleconverters vignette.....From the days of the XL1 & PD-150 to now....you have to push in 50% to get past it.

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

[Nigel Barker]

Given the robust XF CODEC I would be more confident of good results with zooming in post rather than baking it in the camera.