Investing in a teleconverter: a bad idea?

[zehner21]

For only €100, I could have a teleconverter 2x for my Hasselblad 500C/M.
This would allow me to shoot portraits using my only lens which is the 80mm T*.
Considering that I'm going to lose two stops, is this a good idea?
Because for €230 I could pick up a Sonnar 150mm f/4 but chances are that I will use the 80mm more often than the 150mm.

 

[summicron1]

If cost is sixes, or you can afford either, go for the actual lens as opposed to a doubler -- any time you add optics to a system you increase the chance for error, and having the better tool for the job, even if you use that tool not so often, is better than adapting. All a doubler does is magnify the image from the lens, so any errors/distortions/etc in the lens are magnified.

 

[zehner21]

If cost is sixes, or you can afford either, go for the actual lens as opposed to a doubler -- any time you add optics to a system you increase the chance for error, and having the better tool for the job, even if you use that tool not so often, is better than adapting. All a doubler does is magnify the image from the lens, so any errors/distortions/etc in the lens are magnified.

This is definitively a bad idea. I think I made up my mind. Thanks

 

[daleeman]

I agree. Introducing more glass beyond the original Hassy lens is going to give worst results (INMO) than shooting the portrait with the 80 and cropping. Best make certain if you do get a 2X that you get yourself a shutter cocking tool. Lots of chance there to get your lens, body or the 2X out of sync and using a screwdriver or needle nose pliers to recock one of the three items is well worth the $ 15 or so off eBay so you do not damage your equipment.
The 80mm gets far more use on my 500 C/M than anything else.

 

[railwayman3]

Teleconverters were quite a fashion some years ago....I have two Vivitar ones for 35mm and they give quite usable results when needed. But the speed loss, and the fact that you probably want to stop-down the main lens to reduce distortions, etc., tends to make a tripod necessary.

If you're going to get the use from a prime lens to justify the extra cost, that would certainly be my choice.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are some good modern doublers being made today for 35mm/DSLR, but they never were really so great when they were being made for medium format. There used to be a Komura doubler that was sold in various mounts and different brand names for medium format, which I had for a while, but after a few tests, ended up never really using it.

At those prices, you're definitely better off with the 150mm lens.

 

[AgX]

Advantages of adding a converter typically are lesser costs and lesser weight/volume compared to adding a second lens.

 

[jeffreyg]

Since the purpose of the 2x would take your 80mm to 160mm with the loss of two stops I would go with the 150mm. That said, I have a Mutar 2x that I have used with my 150, 250 and 350 with excellent results (always on a tripod). When I travel I usually take a 50, 150 and the 2x to conserve space and weight. That way I have a 50, 150 and effectively a 300. i suppose my 2x is exceptionally sharp because I can't tell any difference in prints up to 16x20. Not long ago I used it with the 350 to photograph a subject 3/4 to 1 mile away and was very please wit the results, The good thing about the 2x is that you can still maintain the close distance of the lens you are doubling.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[MattKing]

One advantage of the 2x doubler over the 150mm lens is that I think it will permit a closer crop than the 150mm lens.

The Hasselblad users on the forum can correct me if I am wrong.

If so, and if you like to shoot close face-only portraits, it may permit shots that the 150mm lens cannot provide, unless supplemented by close-up accessories.

The price seems high if it isn't a Hasselblad converter. I know that KEH isn't necessarily a good option for those in Europe, but the non-Hasselblad listings here are a lot lower than that price: Dead Link Removed

I have a Vivitar 2x converter for my Mamiya RB67. I rarely use it, but it does give functional results. The quality is such that I would be happy using it for portraits.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a 2X extender and the SWC [CF38mm lens] , CF 50mm lens,CF 80mm lens, CF 150mm lens, and CF 250mm lens. I have used the 2X extender once or twice and it does soften the off center focus. My advice is to buy the CF 150mm lens or even better the CF 250mm lens which will be better than the 2X extender. I do not shoot portraits so I use the 250mm much more than the 150mm lens. With the Hasselblad quality, you can use the 80mm lens, crop and enlarge twice the size without a noticeable loss.

 

[piu58]

There are differences in the converters in front of the lens and behind the lens.

An in front of converter may be so constructed that the optical quality of the negative remains the same (counted in lien pairs per millimeter). The problems arise if one want to have s small not to heavy piece of glass. But in principle it is possible.

A behind the lens converter doubles the errors of the main lens. If the main lens has 80 lp/mm, then the doubled lens will have 40 lp/mm. Not counting the additional errors of the converter.

For short: If you want to double the focal length "behind" you should start with an excellent lens for getting at least a fair combination.

 

[AgX]

Cropping will double those errors too.

 

[Xmas]

I'd not think about a doubler on a 80mm, even on the 100mm, but on a 150mm it is a big saving on weight and volume, if you are carrying it all day, the aberrations don't improve it is a compromise.

 

[mdarnton]

I had read all of the usual anti-converter stuff and of course had never tried one, as is probably the case with most of the people who say they don't like them but like to talk about theory. Then I found a 2x Nikon converter in the junk bin of a camera store for $20, and bought it. Boy, was I surprised! Maybe there are theoretical issues, but with Tri-X I never see them. If you want to try one for Hasselblad, you should give it a go and see if it works for you. There are undeniable advantages, including the above-mentioned enhanced close focusing. I would expect Hasselblad's own version to be the best.

 

[Slixtiesix]

100 $ sounds high for one of the none-Zeiss/Hasselblad converters. If it´s a Mutar, sounds like a deal. I have never used any of these converters anyhow. Would rather save for the 150mm lens...

 

[zehner21]

Thanks for you suggestions. I will save for a 150mm lens besides it should hold its value better than a teleconverter.


The TC is a Kenko HBF Teleplus MC6

 

[jeffreyg]

Love that Sardinian piano sheet bread. You made the best choice.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have the Kenko one and it's terrific. I'll dig up a sample or two. Used it with my 500CM and 250 Sonnar only a couple of days ago.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Correction, mine is the Rokunar. Here's some samples using it with the 150 and 250 Sonnar lenses. It's awesome. That said I'd pick up the 150 Sonnar before I'd use the 80 with a 2x...

 

[fotch]

Unless you are shooting slides, just enlarge the negative in the darkroom.

 

[Pioneer]

I have a few. A lot of them work fine if you understand their limitations. You will lose lens speed, you will enhance any lens aberrations and you will increase the chance of flare. Since you just effectively doubled the focal length of your lens you also increased the chance of camera shake and/or subject motion. This last one is probably the single biggest misunderstood factor when using tele-converters. Your reduced aperture requires longer shutter speeds at the same time that you doubled the focal length. You now have a totally different lens to work with.

If you have an excellent lens to start with, you will have a very good lens with the doubler. As mentioned, stop down the lens, mount the camera to a tripod, use a lens hood and go for it.

Always understand your limitations. Remember, an excellent composition using a doubler trumps line pairs per millimeter every time.

EDIT - Just like everything else, practice, practice, practice. People buy a doubler, carry it around in their bag for weeks, finally see a chance to use it one day. So they open the box for only the 2nd time since it arrived via post, unwrap it, slap it on their 70-200/f3.5-5.6, lean it against a tree and take a few shots. They crank the zoom to 200mm where it is now f5.6. They leave it there because they have heard that the lens aperture is now f/11. With the Velvia 50 film they are using their shutter speed is now about 1/30 seconds, if they are lucky. Their zoom wasn't terribly great at 200mm until stopped down to about f/8 or f/11 in the first place and now they think they can use it wide open.

They get home and find soft and/or blurred photographs. If they had taken those pictures with just the zoom, came how and doubled the magnification on their monitor those photos would have looked about the same. Instead they immediately conclude that all doublers are terrible and throw it in a drawer. Six years later they take it out of the drawer and sell it on Ebay, still like new, still in the box.

Of course none of us have ever bought that doubler or repeated that poor guy's mistakes...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the Kenko one and it's terrific. I'll dig up a sample or two. Used it with my 500CM and 250 Sonnar only a couple of days ago.

Correction, mine is the Rokunar. Here's some samples using it with the 150 and 250 Sonnar lenses. It's awesome. That said I'd pick up the 150 Sonnar before I'd use the 80 with a 2x...

Mine is a Kenko, it is ok but not wonderful. Go with the 250mm first.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I've tried numerous teleconverters on 135 and 6x4.5. They all sucked. But that's just my limited experience.

 

[Pioneer]

Well my Canon EF 1.4L TC wasn't bad at all. I sold it along with most of my Canon equipment a couple years ago.

Likewise my Pentax 1.7x AF is pretty decent and allows for limited autofocus with some of my manual lenses. I kept that one.

I have a decent Vivitar M42 2x that turns my Takumar 300/4 into a pretty credible 600mm lens.

My Pentax 645 2x is good enough for some good mountain work.

None of them are good enough to replace a high quality, fast, 600mm prime, but they are a lot cheaper and lighter to pack. Like I said, work within their limitations and you can do some pretty decent work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I tried on once for my P67. Never again. Waste of money.