Anyone tried ED50 with teleconverter? (1 Viewer)

Just curious if anyone has something like an Olympus TCON-17 or B300 and thought to try it out. Presumably the light loss wouldn't be too bad but wondered how significant the loss of quality would be. If performance is a near miss I understand there are better quality converters around (though possibly no longer in production) from Panasonic and Nikon.

normjackson said:

Just curious if anyone has something like an Olympus TCON-17 or B300 and thought to try it out. Presumably the light loss wouldn't be too bad but wondered how significant the loss of quality would be. If performance is a near miss I understand there are better quality converters around (though possibly no longer in production) from Panasonic and Nikon.

Click to expand...

In fact, I asked a question about these a while ago, and I was thinking about my ED50A. Henry had some good answer (as usual!) but I can't seem to find the thread.
But the alignment of the optical axises is a lot more critical than if a doubler is used, so a qualified estimation indicates there will be some problems.

What finally discouraged me from thinking about these teleconverters is their bulk and weight, and that the screwing/unscrewing is even more awkward than changing eyepieces. Thus, they lead away from the idea of having a very compact and lightweight scope.

///L

Thanks looksharp65. Think this may be the thread you refer to :
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=209101

Given the popularity of the ED50 on this forum and of the TCON-17/B300 among owners of bridge cameras am really surprised there is no apparent overlap (that converter would simply screw into thread of ED50 without an adaptor).
It's true some converters are pretty big, but not all :
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/FZ-30/Converters/Lenses/Telephoto.html
If a chopped down Nikon TC-E15ED worked OK surely that would be temptingly compact? Is pretty good optically it seems.

How about this as a motto for Nikon scope owners with a choice of eyepieces :
At dawn of day, commitment sealed,
By noon no need to screw in field.
o

:-O

If you make this idea a reality, be sure to inform us about the result!

//L

Oh, and sorry Ron, I just assumed it was Henry who told about them.

looksharp65 said:

If you make this idea a reality, be sure to inform us about the result!

Click to expand...

Well, I've made a start. I'm waiting for a 55-60mm stepping up ring to arrive (slow boat from China) so that I can properly evaluate the impact optically. I've chosen the teleconverter I thought would give the combo the best chance optically not worrying about whether the combo is really practical. From holding the teleconverter in front of the scope, initial results gave no obvious vignetting with 27x wide, infinity focus OK, minimum focus increased to maybe forty feet.

These pages from above mentioned site were the ones that indicated the Nikon TC-E17ED would least compromise the results optically :
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCa...ers/Tele-Test/Scene-1/Tele-Test-Infinity.html
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCa...verters/Tele-Test/Scene-2/Tele-Test-Long.html

Impressively the 27x wide with the 1.7x converter gives no vignetting and shows no obvious degradation of the image towards the outer field. Not surprisingly the overall 46x magnified image is a step down in brightness, contrast and perceived "sharpness" (lack of obvious snap into focus) from the 27x.

Comparing the zoom set at 13x with converter with just the zoom at ca 20x, the converter has reduced contrast a bit but the image quality is still good.

So it seems use of the big converter has not avoided the loss of brightness at increased magnification as had hoped. It doesn't seem to add faults to the system beyond a slight loss of contrast except where magnification levels start to approach the limitations of the scope.

normjackson,

thanks a lot for sharing your findings. They seem to confirm that a good quality front converter can be a possible way to increase magnification.

But the most important question is how it compares to using a higher-mag eyepiece like the 40x in terms of sharpness, contrast and brightness - not to mention expense, weight and bulk.
A good spotting scope with interchangeable eyepieces shouldn't need a front converter.
Things become different when you're dealing with non-interchangeble eyepieces, like the Minox 50W or the Yukon Firefall 12-36x50.

I'd also still be very tempted to try a lower-mag binocular with two smallish front converters.
That might provide the much-desired 7+10x with great FOV and minimum bulk needed for travels.