Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Tokina 3x Tele-extender

  1. #1
    HB Forum Moderator Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 29th, 2000
    Posts
    11,383
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Lightbulb

    My 3x Tele-extender just arrived.

    The largest size I found on eBay was 52mm and it seems to work fine on my Eumig, which has a 55mm thread size. I just used a step-down ring to go from 55-52mm and looking through the viewfinder it looks pretty awesome.

    The result is a 56mm maximum zoom lens in now increased by a factor of 3, or 168mm! I'm really curious how the moon will look as compared to the previous tele-extender I used that was only a 1.4, or 78mm.

    I noticed that because the tele-extender is a slightly smaller thread size than my camera that I am getting "vignetting" if I try and go wider than 38mm on my camera.

    So the zoom lens, with the 3x tele-extender on it, will apparently have an effective zooming range of 38mm-56mm x 3, which equals 114-168mm.

    One final variable that can impact the effectiveness of the 3x extender lens is if the selected f-stop affects when vignetting occurs. Vignetting at particular f-stop selections cannot be determined when looking through the viewfinder of a Super-8 camera. On a video camera, vignetting can instantly be spotted if it exists.

    What a great accessory to have, the ability to 3x extend a Super-8 camera lens.

  2. #2
    HB Forum Moderator Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 29th, 2000
    Posts
    11,383
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Arrow

    Tried the teleconvertor on the moon, well I didn't go to the moon, but the teleconvertor helped me get partway there.

    168mm IS NOT ENOUGH!

    It's OK, don't get me wrong, but it appears at least 300mm is what is needed.

    And the 168mm is signficantly better than 56mm or 78mm, but for some reason it didn't feel dramatically better.

    168mm in super-8mm definitely does not fill the frame. The moon probably filled the entire middle section of the viewfinder but there was still room at the top and bottom and on both sides of the frame.

    When the moon was in the middle of the frame, I would guess that there was 2/3 moon space at the bottom of the frame, and 2/3 moon space at the top of the frame,

    Um, if we call the moon x, would the formula be 168mm zoom of the moon = 2/3x x 2/3x x x = 4/9 x, so the moon filled 4/9 of the frame???

    I was hoping the Moon would fill about 6/9 of the frame instead of 4/9.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •