S2 IS + Raynox 2.2x Teleconverter (1 Viewer)

[eleusis]

Hi,

I'm getting great results with the Canon 1.5X teleconverter for the S2 IS, but it still isn't quite enough magnification for some pictures I want (is anything ever enough?

I've found this Raynox 2.2x converter which seems to get a few good reviews across the web - has anyone tried it out? I found a couple of links which might be relevant - one to the manufacturer's site and the other to a shop in Australia where the guy seems to have done a fairly decent review, pointing out some minor issues with green fringing and how to get around them, although this was with a completely different camera.

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/digital/S2is/index.htm

http://www.gky.com.au/c/gky?a=sp&did=19000000&pid=1095156946&sid=

Thanks for any advice,
Keith.

 

[IanF]

I haven't tried the Raynox converters myself but they used to be popular a few years ago.

You do have to be careful with converters though especially for CA fringing and also the magnification. A 2.2x converter may reduce light entering the lens requiring slower shutter speeds and secondly on a 10x zoom camera the magnification may be a bit too much leading to soft grainy images.

I have 10x and 12x cameras with which I use the Olympus Tcon-17 1.7x converter. It gives decent results - but even with that on max zoom shots you can see a slight softening of the image.

 

[Tyler Vargo]

The sample photos on the first page you gave look mighty soft... That is rare for sample photos, they usually use better equipment than what they are advertising and use a "sample" from that.

Remember that Canon Digital Rebel ad? The one with the football (american) player being tackled and flipping over the guy who's tackling him? That sequence was most definitely captured by an EOS1D or EOS1, you couldn't capture that at 2.5fps for 4 frames! It looks more like 3 frames of an 8fps burst.

 

[saddler]

Hi,

Ive got the raynox 2.2x converter with my Minolta Z3. Its probably the best 2x converter you can get and you can get good pictures with it.

It can be hand-held but is best with a tripod. There is fringing in high contrast images, but its not too bad. The extra reach is very useful and it will tide me over until I can afford a dslr.

I've included some sample pics(all hand-held), the yellowhammer is an example of the best use for this converter, ie shooting birds that are too far away to tell what they are!!

Regards

John

 

[screaming piha]

How do you use your images? If you view them on screen, rather than printing them out large size, then cropping and up-rezing the image in Photoshop may provide useable quality at zero cost.

 

[eleusis]

Hi,

Thanks for all the advice everyone. Having seen some of the sample images from Saddler I'm going to give this a try - I'm aware of the limitations introduced with extreme magnifications (you see the same kind of problems with a lot of digiscoped images in the gallery on this site) and I think even with the image stabilisation in the camera that some kind of support or a decent tripod (which I already have for my telescope) is going to make a difference with this, but it does seem to give half-decent images that wouldn't be possible to get otherwise, without going down the digiscoping route which isn't something that appeals to me at present.

Interestingly, I upgraded to the Canon S2 IS because I wasn't getting good quality from my Minolta Z3 (lots of fringing and noise). Those images from Saddler are far, far better than anything I ever got out of the Z3 (without any additional attachments) so clearly I also need to work on technique as well as equipment!

To John Jackson: I do print my images, and even on screen I haven't been able to get quite the images that I want in a few cases (I have in lots of cases, but there's always a few which are just out of reach..)

Jessops may take a while to get the teleconverter to me but I'll let you know how I get on once I've got it.. and in the meantime I'll concentrate on getting the best out of my camera. I'm already improving from my first shots with the S2 a couple of months ago (and those were light years ahead of anything I could get from the Z3) so hopefully I've a good way to go yet!

Thanks again,
Keith.

 

[stanacko]

Re-Raynox 2020PRO

Hi,

Thanks for all the advice everyone. Having seen some of the sample images from Saddler I'm going to give this a try - I'm aware of the limitations introduced with extreme magnifications (you see the same kind of problems with a lot of digiscoped images in the gallery on this site) and I think even with the image stabilisation in the camera that some kind of support or a decent tripod (which I already have for my telescope) is going to make a difference with this, but it does seem to give half-decent images that wouldn't be possible to get otherwise, without going down the digiscoping route which isn't something that appeals to me at present.

Interestingly, I upgraded to the Canon S2 IS because I wasn't getting good quality from my Minolta Z3 (lots of fringing and noise). Those images from Saddler are far, far better than anything I ever got out of the Z3 (without any additional attachments) so clearly I also need to work on technique as well as equipment!

To John Jackson: I do print my images, and even on screen I haven't been able to get quite the images that I want in a few cases (I have in lots of cases, but there's always a few which are just out of reach..)

Jessops may take a while to get the teleconverter to me but I'll let you know how I get on once I've got it.. and in the meantime I'll concentrate on getting the best out of my camera. I'm already improving from my first shots with the S2 a couple of months ago (and those were light years ahead of anything I could get from the Z3) so hopefully I've a good way to go yet!

Thanks again,
Keith.

Hi,
I have a Raynox 2020pro for sale it is in mint condition PM me if interested.
Stan.

 

[Avib]

I am using Raynox X2.2 convertor on Canon s1 is

and I'm very pleased with it. It sure to make great zoom with minimum lose of light. The IS mechanism loses some of its efficiency and you should have a very stable hand or better use a tripod.
here is a sample shot.

 

[eleusis]

So, I finally got some time to test the Raynox converter. Attached are a couple of tests. The wagtail (I think this is a young yellow wagtail? not certain though - photo was taken today on the coast between Whitstable and Faversham in Kent) compares the camera at full zoom without an adapter at all, and with the Raynox. Both clips are actual-pixel crops, with no additional treatment. The grey heron shots compare the Raynox converter with the stock Canon 1.5x TC-DC58B - again actual pixel crops with no additional processing and at full zoom.

In both cases the sun was moving in and out of clouds so the light changed a bit between shots, but otherwise I did my best to take the shots from exactly the same position with the same settings.

All 4 shots were taken with the Canon itself at full zoom.

The verdict? The Raynox converter is definitely good enough to produce good results in the centre of the picture (where the crops here were taken). However, the autofocus suffers slightly in some conditions which makes slightly softer images sometimes. Outside of the centre though the quality tails off rapidly and towards the edges of the picture you get a bit of fringing and blurring so its not going to be useful for prints that you want to blow up a lot. I'm not unhappy that I bought it, but the Canon one gives better results over the whole picture so I'm not sure how much I'll use the Raynox one, even though it does give that bit more magnification. I'll definitely keep it with me on birdwatching trips though.

It's very good for "identification shots" when you want a picture at home to check against a bird book..

Keith.

 

[sparrowbirder]

Eleusis, this is a species of wheatear,and to my eyes looks like it could possibly be a Desert Wheatear,which is a rarity in Uk,why dont you post this up on the ID area in the main forum and see what kind of feedback you get.andy

 

[eleusis]

Eleusis, this is a species of wheatear,and to my eyes looks like it could possibly be a Desert Wheatear,which is a rarity in Uk,why dont you post this up on the ID area in the main forum and see what kind of feedback you get.andy

Hi Sparrowbirder - I'm actually pretty certain it's a yellow wagtail - they're not uncommon along that bit of coast and it matches the picture in my bird book, but I've posted it on the bird ID forum just in case.

The posting is here.

Keith.

 

[robinho]

Its an Northern wheatear

 

[Arvinder]

I am interested to buy Rynox 2020Pro

Hi,
I have a Raynox 2020pro for sale it is in mint condition PM me if interested.
Stan.

Hello Stan
I am Arvinder, from india.
I am using Canon S2 IS (upgraded from S1 IS), I am interested in buying Rynox2020pro
for how much you are selling it.
Please reply back soon.

Regards
Arvinder

 

[kstennett]

So, I finally got some time to test the Raynox converter. Attached are a couple of tests. The wagtail (I think this is a young yellow wagtail? not certain though - photo was taken today on the coast between Whitstable and Faversham in Kent) compares the camera at full zoom without an adapter at all, and with the Raynox. Both clips are actual-pixel crops, with no additional treatment. The grey heron shots compare the Raynox converter with the stock Canon 1.5x TC-DC58B - again actual pixel crops with no additional processing and at full zoom.

In both cases the sun was moving in and out of clouds so the light changed a bit between shots, but otherwise I did my best to take the shots from exactly the same position with the same settings.

All 4 shots were taken with the Canon itself at full zoom.

The verdict? The Raynox converter is definitely good enough to produce good results in the centre of the picture (where the crops here were taken). However, the autofocus suffers slightly in some conditions which makes slightly softer images sometimes. Outside of the centre though the quality tails off rapidly and towards the edges of the picture you get a bit of fringing and blurring so its not going to be useful for prints that you want to blow up a lot. I'm not unhappy that I bought it, but the Canon one gives better results over the whole picture so I'm not sure how much I'll use the Raynox one, even though it does give that bit more magnification. I'll definitely keep it with me on birdwatching trips though.

It's very good for "identification shots" when you want a picture at home to check against a bird book..

Keith.

I am currently thinking of buying this camera and also looking into the possibility of this teleconverter so I found reading your comments extremely useful.

Do you need any additional adapter to add this tele converter to the camera? If so what will I need?

Kath

 

[eleusis]

I am currently thinking of buying this camera and also looking into the possibility of this teleconverter so I found reading your comments extremely useful.

Do you need any additional adapter to add this tele converter to the camera? If so what will I need?

Kath

Hi Kath,

Yes, you need to buy the Canon lens hood and adapter ring kit in order to attach it to your camera - LAH-DC20. This gives you a 58mm connector (and a lens hood as well, but the lens hood can't be fitted at the same time as the teleconverter!). This was about £20 when I bought it.

The Raynox adapter has a 62mm thread (from memory) but it comes with the correct adapter rings to connect to a 58mm converter so you only need the Canon kit. You would also need this kit if you wanted to buy any of the Canon converters (TC-DC58B or the equivalent wide-angle one), and it can also be used for 58mm filters.

lensmateonline also do a 58mm converter for the S2 which should do the same job.

Keith.