2x Telextender for Hasselblad or Pentax67, any good?

[harlequin]

Dear APUG Members,

Just recently had chance to use Hasselblad 500cm with 80 planar, as well as Pentax 67 with 90mm
both were amazing cameras..... I shall be using them again later in the month and want to do portraits,
I see that the 2x teleconverters are about 40-50$....

a) Are they any good? How many stop loss?
b) Since it is in my budget, are some brands better than others...?
c) Do you mount the adaptor first, then the lens?
d) Do the edges fall off in sharpness?
e) Sometimes the Hasse lenses seem almost too sharp/clinical, maybe this would soften it a bit,
hate to use that word...
f) what if combined with 2x converter and #1 softer or SFX1 filter, would I have a portrait machine?

As they say, the proof is in the pudding, if any APUG/Photorio has a photo sample they can post
it would be invaluable.....maybe the 2x converters are overlooked? Or do you get what you pay for....

Will be using Trix at 320 and FP4 at asa 100, if that helps.....

Thanks for your input on this....and first hand experience

Will post my experimental photos in March....


Cheers.

Harlequin

 

[jim10219]

A 2x teleconverter will result in a one stop light loss. They are generally not highly thought of in photography. They make kinds that go in between the lens and the camera body, and kinds that go over the front of the lens. Neither are generally thought to produce good results. Generally, when people want a softer lens for portrait photography, they're looking for a lens with some spherical aberration. Teleconverters, at the very least, usually introduce a bunch of chromatic aberration, which is a lot less pleasing to look at. So I wouldn't use one for portraits if you could avoid it. I've used a few teleconverters in the past, and have never really been pleased by the results. But in some situations, they're going to be the best you can do. If you're spending Pentax 67/Hasselblad money and just want to do portraits, I'd suggest getting a lens in the focal length you want to begin with. Don't mess around with those shorter lenses and a teleconverter.

Edit: Sorry, I meant two stops of light, not one. If you double the focal length, you double the f stop number, which is two stops. And to be fair, I haven't used the Hasselblad teleconverter. But I have used some 20+ teleconverters throughout my life, and none have been as good as using a lens at that focal length to begin with. All have left me disappointed. About the only time I even consider using them is for solar photography where available light isn't an issue and chromatic aberration can be filtered out.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have the Hasselblad (brand) 2x and it is very sharp. I have used it with a 150, 250 and 350 always on a tripod. Remember that you need a two stop adjustment. i use it with Delta 400 @ 400.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[jeffreyg]

I have the Hasselblad (brand) 2x and it is very sharp. I have used it with a 150, 250 and 350 always on a tripod. Remember that you need a two stop adjustment. i use it with Delta 400 @ 400.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[mdarnton]

2X teleconverter loses two stops. 1.4X loses one stop.

Converters CAN be excellent--I have a Nikon 2x that is excellent, and I'm sure that if Hasselblad had made one it would have been good. But the reputation of the off-brand Hassy converters is terrible. That's why you can buy as many as you want on Ebay for $30.

As far as I understand it, the result of a teleconverter is never lens + in quality---a converter takes what the lens serves, that's all, and then, ideally, passes it through, magnfied, but in the real world there is always some loss from the converter's optics--how much loss depending on the quality of the converter as well as how well it is matched to the specific lens it is behind.. So in theory, an unmatched 2X converter could never deliver even half the quality of the lens in front of it. I remember that some makers designed converters for specific lenses, and those could possibly do better than theory, if they were designed to correct that specific lens' flaws.

I almost sprung for one of the Komura Hassy converters, but after reading reviews around the web I decided it would be a waste of even $30.

 

[jeffreyg]

The one I mentioned above is the Hasselblad Mutar 2x with Zeiss glass and cost much more than $40-50. It maintains the close focusing distance of the lens it is coupled with. The answer to your question (c) is that you mount the 2x first and then the lens to it and you remove the lens from the 2x first then the 2x from the body with the Hasselblad also be sure the shutter is cocked before mounting and unmounting anything from the body with Hasselblads. I think it is better to soften the image when printing since you can control the effect and modify it if desired.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[MattKing]

One advantage of the teleconverters is that they magnify without affecting close focus capabilities. As a result, if a lens won't permit you to get a tight enough head and shoulders crop at its closest focussing distance, the teleconverter may permit that or even a tighter crop when working at that same minimum distance. And of course, a 2X teleconverter permits you to work at what may be more comfortable working distances, while still filling the frame.
They do add to the bulk of the lens plus camera, and the 2X versions do cut the light intensity by two stops.
In essence, you can get the same result by shooting a larger scene and then cropping at the printing stage - it would be interesting to see if anyone has ever made a careful comparison of those two options.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two for my Hasselblad. The Kenko 2X is good with maybe a little softness on the corners when used with the 250mm lens. The Hasselblad 2XE is better with sharp corners on the 500mm lens.

 

[jeffreyg]

Harlequin,
You wanted an example image. This was with the Hasselblad 350 and the Hasselblad Mutar 2X. I was as close as the 350 would permit.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One advantage of the teleconverters is that they magnify without affecting close focus capabilities. As a result, if a lens won't permit you to get a tight enough head and shoulders crop at its closest focussing distance, the teleconverter may permit that or even a tighter crop when working at that same minimum distance. And of course, a 2X teleconverter permits you to work at what may be more comfortable working distances, while still filling the frame.
They do add to the bulk of the lens plus camera, and the 2X versions do cut the light intensity by two stops.
In essence, you can get the same result by shooting a larger scene and then cropping at the printing stage - it would be interesting to see if anyone has ever made a careful comparison of those two options.

I've made a comparison, it wasn't carried out with scientific rigor, but with a 2x Vivitar 5 element (late 70s, early 80s vintage) converter in m42 mount and 55mm Takumar lens, the results with the converter were pretty good, an 8x12 inch enlargement would show the difference, but both were acceptable - the uncropped/converted print was more to my liking due to less grain and the sharpness of the cropped print was about the same. Both prints were acceptable at any normal viewing distance. Test target was pages from a telephone book, center and edge of frame, same working distance (15 feet give or take) for converted and cropped. Some lenses the converter works well with, others less so. If I needed the last degree of resolution the lens was capable of, I wouldn't use it. To turn the 55 into a 110 portrait lens, I'd be fine with it.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I had the Vivitar 2X converter for Hasselblad. I used it with the 150mm CF Sonnar. It was ok, but very low in contrast and sharpness was definitely less than with the 150mm lens alone. Here's some examples:

The full image

100% crop from the full-resolution scan

Another 100% crop from the full-res scan.

These were shot on Fuji Acros, developed in Rodinal, and scanned with a Nikon LS-8000 scanner with glass negative carrier for maximum sharpness.

The color photos were also done with the Vivitar 2X and CF Sonnar 150mm lens on Hasselblad. The film was Fuji Provia 100F, scanned the same way as the BW images.

 

[Soeren]

The P67 165mm f/2,8 is a great performer. Id buy a P67 just to have that lens.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Dear APUG Members,

Just recently had chance to use Hasselblad 500cm with 80 planar, as well as Pentax 67 with 90mm
both were amazing cameras..... I shall be using them again later in the month and want to do portraits,
I see that the 2x teleconverters are about 40-50$....

a) Are they any good? How many stop loss?
b) Since it is in my budget, are some brands better than others...?
c) Do you mount the adaptor first, then the lens?
d) Do the edges fall off in sharpness?
e) Sometimes the Hasse lenses seem almost too sharp/clinical, maybe this would soften it a bit,
hate to use that word...
f) what if combined with 2x converter and #1 softer or SFX1 filter, would I have a portrait machine?

As they say, the proof is in the pudding, if any APUG/Photorio has a photo sample they can post
it would be invaluable.....maybe the 2x converters are overlooked? Or do you get what you pay for....

Will be using Trix at 320 and FP4 at asa 100, if that helps.....

Thanks for your input on this....and first hand experience

Will post my experimental photos in March....


Cheers.

Harlequin

FWIW, I think you get what soupy for.Thee is a clear optical quality loss with extenders. You can't beat the Carl Zeis Sonnar f/4 150 for portraits. as always there is a 2stoplight loss with 2x extenders but you have the benefit of close focus.

 

[johnha]

I'm not familiar with Hasselblad lenses, but for the P67 the lenses get very bulky very quickly. The 165/2.8 is relatively 'small' & 'lightweight', but the 300/4 is much bigger & heavier. Above 400mm, the lenses use the outer bayonet (you lose open aperture metering) and become huge, heavy and rare/expensive (especially the 600mm, 800mm or the 1000mm mirror...). A 2x teleconverter on a 165/2.8 is arguably more manageable than a 300/4 - there will be a slight loss in sharpness but the format makes up for that. Manufacturers own teleconverters are the best bet, but Vivitar, Kenko/Teleplus won't be far behind.

I used a Vivitar 2x TC on my Mamiya 645 Pro with the 210/4 lens for airshows and didn't notice any significant drop in quality.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Ditch the extender idea buy a 150mm, a C if necessary on the budget. Very many classic portraits were taken on the Silver none T* 150mm your skill, and principally the lighting, will be the limiting factor not the lens.

 

[etn]

Hassy 150's are the most frequently available of all Hassy lenses, for this reason they are quite affordable. I have seen 150 CF's in good condition for as low as $250, although a more frequent asking price is perhaps around $350. A Hasselblad branded 2x teleconverter goes for around the same. Out of the two options, there's no question which one is the best. Besides, I don't think a $50 teleconverter can compete with the Hassy one in terms of quality. As Ralph said, you get what you pay for.

You will need a 16mm close-up tube if you wish to do tight portraits with the 150. This will require half a stop of exposure compensation, see:
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTCuc.aspx

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One advantage of the teleconverters is that they magnify without affecting close focus capabilities. As a result, if a lens won't permit you to get a tight enough head and shoulders crop at its closest focussing distance, the teleconverter may permit that or even a tighter crop when working at that same minimum distance. And of course, a 2X teleconverter permits you to work at what may be more comfortable working distances, while still filling the frame.
They do add to the bulk of the lens plus camera, and the 2X versions do cut the light intensity by two stops.
In essence, you can get the same result by shooting a larger scene and then cropping at the printing stage - it would be interesting to see if anyone has ever made a careful comparison of those two options.

that, indeed, would be interesting to see.please post if you have done the comparison.

 

[trendland]

You can say what you want but notice :
A lens ever is an obtical construction from design made as compromise of different optical / physical imperfections.
The higher price the better quality isn't allways
corect. .......but mostly......
(NO very cheap lens with best optical characteristics)
Teleconverters are destroying the optical calculation of EVERY lens. Also if they have a special design like "Hasselblad converter for Hasselblad lenses".
There is one exeption : Leica Teles in "module" design.
There the optical calculation have been destroyed totaly from conception of design. (Modular design).
I am quite shure you all don't like to hear this. And you are right because of :
Leica Tele lenses (the module type) are of the best characteristics ever seen.
(But theroreticaly they could have very smal better characteristics if the design would renounce from module conception with converter)
And just here we are back to the question :How about the quality of tele converter for Pentax and Hasselblad...
In 35mm the difference is visible with cheap converters - but in 120 there are no cheap lences and no cheap converters.
But notice : There is allways a quality lost.
I can't speak for Hasselblad - but there is a light version of a good (nice) priced 2x converter from Kenko wich should be in the very near of the offical Pentax converters. But you mentioned the very smal price today (Pentax 6x7 teleconverters were priced before discontionuation with nearly 1000 bucks
.)
So you should buy the original stuff.
I have a Pentax 2x teleconverter with my
300mm lenses but I can't state about quality (allways unsharp)......
Because of 3mainly restrictions
1) fastest shutter speed is 1/1000
2) most speed of films I use is ISO100
3) my tripod can't handle the heavy weight of lens and tele converter.
A better tripod would manage this but then I might destroy my Pentax bajonet from enormous leverage.
I use it "handheld" with a little sharpness
every 4th frame .
But it becomes better since at the beginning there I got. a single sharp frame / per film.

with regards

 

[trendland]

.....sharpness is a relative term....
What I would need is an outer bajonet (it is more stabile). But it isn't comparable with my converter.
And it would not help.
Brause I have to build a construction like his here :

Because I will not risc to damage my Pentax body. From that reason "handheld" until I have time for selfconstruction.

with regards

 

[jeffreyg]

Although I have a hefty Bogen 3035 that can hold a Hasselblad with a 350 I was concerned that with a 2x it might be a problem. My 350 is probably at least 30 + years old and does not have a connection for a tripod. I designed a bracket and had a machine shop make it. The part that holds the lens is tapered to match the lens. I haven't used it too often so if anyone is interested I can photograph it with my phone and post the pictures. It didn't cost too much somewhere around $60.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You can say what you want but notice :
A lens ever is an obtical construction from design made as compromise of different optical / physical imperfections.
The higher price the better quality isn't allways
corect. .......but mostly......
(NO very cheap lens with best optical characteristics)
Teleconverters are destroying the optical calculation of EVERY lens. Also if they have a special design like "Hasselblad converter for Hasselblad lenses".
There is one exeption : Leica Teles in "module" design.
There the optical calculation have been destroyed totaly from conception of design. (Modular design).
I am quite shure you all don't like to hear this. And you are right because of :
Leica Tele lenses (the module type) are of the best characteristics ever seen.
(But theroreticaly they could have very smal better characteristics if the design would renounce from module conception with converter)
And just here we are back to the question :How about the quality of tele converter for Pentax and Hasselblad...
In 35mm the difference is visible with cheap converters - but in 120 there are no cheap lences and no cheap converters.
But notice : There is allways a quality lost.
I can't speak for Hasselblad - but there is a light version of a good (nice) priced 2x converter from Kenko wich should be in the very near of the offical Pentax converters. But you mentioned the very smal price today (Pentax 6x7 teleconverters were priced before discontionuation with nearly 1000 bucks
.)
So you should buy the original stuff.
I have a Pentax 2x teleconverter with my
300mm lenses but I can't state about quality (allways unsharp)......
Because of 3mainly restrictions
1) fastest shutter speed is 1/1000
2) most speed of films I use is ISO100
3) my tripod can't handle the heavy weight of lens and tele converter.
A better tripod would manage this but then I might destroy my Pentax bajonet from enormous leverage.
I use it "handheld" with a little sharpness
every 4th frame .
But it becomes better since at the beginning there I got. a single sharp frame / per film.

with regards

that's why photographers don't take any drugs; they have no money left for it.

 

[trendland]

.......yeah - that's THE holy true........
with regards

PS : With drugs it seams to be absolute impossible to get only a single frame nearly sharp conditioned with 600mm/500sec. handhold. ....

 

[philipus]

This is interesting. I also have the 2XE (and the 2x Mutar actually). Which 500mm do you use with sharp corners?
philip

I have two for my Hasselblad. The Kenko 2X is good with maybe a little softness on the corners when used with the 250mm lens. The Hasselblad 2XE is better with sharp corners on the 500mm lens.

 

[johnielvis]

I got the kenko and use it with the 150 and the 500 (old 500) with the sharp corner mask--I belive the mask in the back of the 500 teletessar makes a good deal of the excess flare go away and makes the tele extender perform well.

the tele extenders are negative lenses that expand the image circle...but you're getting the image circle expanded from the center best part--so long as the teleextender is coated, you're good to go--I bet you can't tell the difference from a mutar. I can't, and I got high standards.

shooting with tele extender removes the job of cropping and enlarger large extensions which cause blur anyways.

I shoot slides, so I need that extender anyways--want the negative full area not wasted.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is interesting. I also have the 2XE (and the 2x Mutar actually). Which 500mm do you use with sharp corners?
philip

C 500mm