Adaptor or 1.6 Converter? at DVinfo.net

Peter Sheridan · June 28th, 2010, 06:49 AM

Hi All, Could someone give me an opinon which might be best on the following
to buy a 1.6 converter for the 20x stock lens that I have, or buy an adapter to allow me to use my Canon EOS fit Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS Does either or both the adaptor and the 1.6 converter give me auto exposure, would the 1.6 still give me auto everything including zoom.................Pete.

Tom Hardwick · June 28th, 2010, 07:40 AM

The 1.6x converter is the easiest, cheapest quickest, lightest way to go. Of course you won't find a zoom-through 1.6x converter, so your 20x zoom could well end up being a 5 or 6x, but you're adding the converter for extra telephoto reach, so I don't see that as a problem.

On top of that the 1.6x converter will maintain your f/3.4 maximum aperture though you will get a bit more flare, CA and slight loss of sharpness. You'll also need a pretty good tripod as the OIS isn't really designed for anything past the 20x point.

The lens adapter that will allow you to use your 150 - 500 Sigma is a bulky, heavy affair though you will of course get vastly improved telephoto reach. It'll be a lot slower combo, not only in terms of lens speed (3 stops lost) but in operating the rig, as you'll lose auto just-about-everything, and have no OIS either. Th3e lens adapter will allow you easy acess to the 'film look' though, as the differential focus you'll have on tap will give your films a whole new look.

tom.

Peter Sheridan · June 29th, 2010, 08:13 AM

Thanks Tom very much for your replies.It sounds to me that the converter will be the best option
how much of the 20x zoom is useable when the converter is on? and what would the zoom be then compared with 35mm. if that makes sense................Pete.

Tom Hardwick · June 29th, 2010, 08:38 AM

I'm sorry Peter, I may well have been giving you the wrong or incomplete answers here. Although you don't say what camera you have, you're in the XL2 thread and I was thinking (stupidly) that you were talking XH-A1, or some other fixed 20x zoom lens camcorder.

With the XL2 you have a third option (to the two I listed), and that's to use Canon's 35mm lens adapter to fit your Sigma directly to your XL2's body. As there's a 7x (approx) magnification factor increase, your Sigma will be a mighty powerful 1050mm - 3500mm lens. It will need a tripod made of reinforced concrete and of course the maximum apertures are pretty so-so. You wouldn't have much zoom - maybe from 250mm and up. The bigger, heavier, more expensive and less powerful the teleconverter, the more zoom you'll end up with. Not fair, is it?

I'd go the teleconverter route unless you're after shots of the moon's surface. A 1.6x converter would take your 650mm tele out to 1024mm, still with an f/3.4 max aperture. Raynox are very good at showing you what you can expect, so have a look here:

Raynox conversion lens accessories for Canon GL-1/2, MX-1/2 DVCAM

or here

Raynox High Definition Conversion Lens Accessories for Canon XL H1 20X Zoom HDV Camcorder

and here

Raynox HDP-9000EX High Definition Telephoto Conversion Lens for High Definition Camcorder

tom.

Jean-Philippe Archibald · June 29th, 2010, 10:50 AM

Tom, I think Peter is talking about this piece of equipement:
Canon - 1.6x Extender - 3163A002 - B&H Photo Video

It's not something you put in from of your lens like the raynox you mentionned, but between the mount and the lens. With this converter you retain all the functionnalities of the lens.

I think you will be best served with this adapter instead of your sigma lens.

Tom Hardwick · June 29th, 2010, 11:30 AM

I think so too, though with presumably a two stop light loss?

Dale Guthormsen · June 29th, 2010, 12:55 PM

Good afternoon,

I have the 1.6 canon which I purchased with my xl2 some years back. To be honest, I felt that there was to much softening (which is not a surprise as all duplex/diopters soften an image). I used it but went to an ef adapter as soon as I had the opportunity. I have not regretted that decision.

At first I bought an fd adapter for 39 dollars, took the lens out of it and used some economical Fd lenses purchased through EBay. I still use the fd tokina zooom macro lens that I spent all of 40 dollars upon. I use it on my xlh1 as well and get great images.

As I could afford it I purchased canon L series lenses.

depending on just what you want the reach for should make the decision.

I looked at the Raynox, and must say that looks like a huge improvement!!! But then look at the cost. I would like to try one out to compare!!!

June 28th, 2010, 06:49 AM	#1
Peter Sheridan Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Nottingham United Kingdom Posts: 33	Adaptor or 1.6 Converter? Hi All, Could someone give me an opinon which might be best on the following to buy a 1.6 converter for the 20x stock lens that I have, or buy an adapter to allow me to use my Canon EOS fit Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS Does either or both the adaptor and the 1.6 converter give me auto exposure, would the 1.6 still give me auto everything including zoom.................Pete.

June 29th, 2010, 10:50 AM	#5
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	Tom, I think Peter is talking about this piece of equipement: Canon - 1.6x Extender - 3163A002 - B&H Photo Video It's not something you put in from of your lens like the raynox you mentionned, but between the mount and the lens. With this converter you retain all the functionnalities of the lens. I think you will be best served with this adapter instead of your sigma lens. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

June 29th, 2010, 12:55 PM	#7
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Good afternoon, I have the 1.6 canon which I purchased with my xl2 some years back. To be honest, I felt that there was to much softening (which is not a surprise as all duplex/diopters soften an image). I used it but went to an ef adapter as soon as I had the opportunity. I have not regretted that decision. At first I bought an fd adapter for 39 dollars, took the lens out of it and used some economical Fd lenses purchased through EBay. I still use the fd tokina zooom macro lens that I spent all of 40 dollars upon. I use it on my xlh1 as well and get great images. As I could afford it I purchased canon L series lenses. depending on just what you want the reach for should make the decision. I looked at the Raynox, and must say that looks like a huge improvement!!! But then look at the cost. I would like to try one out to compare!!! __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

June 28th, 2010, 07:40 AM	#2
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The 1.6x converter is the easiest, cheapest quickest, lightest way to go. Of course you won't find a zoom-through 1.6x converter, so your 20x zoom could well end up being a 5 or 6x, but you're adding the converter for extra telephoto reach, so I don't see that as a problem. On top of that the 1.6x converter will maintain your f/3.4 maximum aperture though you will get a bit more flare, CA and slight loss of sharpness. You'll also need a pretty good tripod as the OIS isn't really designed for anything past the 20x point. The lens adapter that will allow you to use your 150 - 500 Sigma is a bulky, heavy affair though you will of course get vastly improved telephoto reach. It'll be a lot slower combo, not only in terms of lens speed (3 stops lost) but in operating the rig, as you'll lose auto just-about-everything, and have no OIS either. Th3e lens adapter will allow you easy acess to the 'film look' though, as the differential focus you'll have on tap will give your films a whole new look. tom.

June 29th, 2010, 08:13 AM	#3
Peter Sheridan Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Nottingham United Kingdom Posts: 33	Thanks Tom very much for your replies.It sounds to me that the converter will be the best option how much of the 20x zoom is useable when the converter is on? and what would the zoom be then compared with 35mm. if that makes sense................Pete.

June 29th, 2010, 08:38 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'm sorry Peter, I may well have been giving you the wrong or incomplete answers here. Although you don't say what camera you have, you're in the XL2 thread and I was thinking (stupidly) that you were talking XH-A1, or some other fixed 20x zoom lens camcorder. With the XL2 you have a third option (to the two I listed), and that's to use Canon's 35mm lens adapter to fit your Sigma directly to your XL2's body. As there's a 7x (approx) magnification factor increase, your Sigma will be a mighty powerful 1050mm - 3500mm lens. It will need a tripod made of reinforced concrete and of course the maximum apertures are pretty so-so. You wouldn't have much zoom - maybe from 250mm and up. The bigger, heavier, more expensive and less powerful the teleconverter, the more zoom you'll end up with. Not fair, is it? I'd go the teleconverter route unless you're after shots of the moon's surface. A 1.6x converter would take your 650mm tele out to 1024mm, still with an f/3.4 max aperture. Raynox are very good at showing you what you can expect, so have a look here: Raynox conversion lens accessories for Canon GL-1/2, MX-1/2 DVCAM or here Raynox High Definition Conversion Lens Accessories for Canon XL H1 20X Zoom HDV Camcorder and here Raynox HDP-9000EX High Definition Telephoto Conversion Lens for High Definition Camcorder tom.

June 29th, 2010, 11:30 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I think so too, though with presumably a two stop light loss?