Raynax DCR-2025Pro vs. MC-20

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Hello all!

I realize this is slightly off-topic, but my buddy with a different camera system is looking at this teleconverter - a front-mounted one on a 62mm filter thread. It got me wondering how well these work vs. the rear-mounted ones (like the MC-20).

In particular, I'm intrigued that it claims no loss of light. That's a killer with my MC-20 / and the 40-150mm/2.8 at 150. Especially true since it is soft at f/5.6.

Does anyone have any experience with these kinds of teleconverters? I know this specific one won't work the 40-150mm Pro since it has a 62mm thread vs. 72mm, but it would work with other lenses I have.

Thanks!

 

[RichardC]

I can only speak in general terms.

These kind of converters have been around forever and historically have been aimed at video shooters. Video, historically, required lower resolution than stills.

No light loss? Absolutely no chance of that. Unless Raynox have reinvented lens coatings and glass, there will be light loss. If Nikon, Canon, Leica, Bronica, Hasselblad, Olympus and everyone else suffers light loss with their converters, Raynox will be no different. I guess they really mean that because the lens is supplemental, the largest f number remains selectable. That does not mean that you will not need a higher ISO or longer shutter speed. I will eat my shed if there is no measurable light loss through that converter.

It won't be weathersealed. It will benefit greatly from a lens hood. The glass is unlikely to be superior to Olympus.

The Olympus converters are designed to match your Olympus lenses and give the best possible performance. All converters are a compromise because in addition to multiplying focal length, they multiply all of the bad things too, such as aberrations, motion blur etc.

On a positive note though - Raynox's achromatic close up lenses are really good.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

OK, awesome. As a good gen-X'er I am highly skeptical with anything in an advertisement, so I'm easily prepared to agree with you on light loss.

I suppose since ISO/Shutter Speed/Aperture is a pyramid, you could simply (e.g. on the 12-40) put the lens with the converter on 12/2.8 see what the calculated ISO is, then take it off, put the lens at 26mm with that ISO and see what the calculated aperture is right?

In any case, what I get is the company is reputable, so it's likely to be high quality, just not as good as an MC-20. I'm actually thinking of getting the MC-14 too... Less reach, but more light. Maybe sharper on the open end too?

 

[retiredfromlife]

I am guessing you are refering to front mounted magnifing lenses(filters) if not ignore this.

For say macro work i think these front mounted lenses (filters) are great. I tried my 1.4 TC with the 40-150 pro and found it too hard for my macro work. Others get good results with it. I found that auto focus was too slow at night.

I have a few of these front magnifing filters (lenses) and like the lower power ones best and the auto focus works very fast.

Edit
I also have a 62mm tele conveter lens / filter
This one is two piece. And much thicker than the rest. It does not seem to be as good as the others i have.
Not sure if these two piece ones are what you are refering too, or the video ones described above, anyway possibly would not buy it again, but then i did not pay much for it so no loss

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Good question! I see I didn't link the product which would probably be helpful. It is this one:

DCR-2025PRO, DCR-2020PRO High Definition Super Telephoto conversion lens for Digital cameras, 4K and High Definition Camcorders (raynox.co.jp)

I think you're right - though. Aren't all teleconverters basically magnifying glasses?

 

[RichardC]

There is an independent evaluation of the DCR 2020. I've read elsewhere it's essentially the same quality of lens.

http://www.t1000.co.uk/art-fotografia/articles/article3_iframe_raynox2020_m43_tests.html He hasn't got a security certificate for his website but it's loaded without issue on my mac.

The writer's conclusion is that it works okay with the 40-150 Pro but shots benefit from post processing. I think he is a glass half full person.

Viewing his pictures at full size, I agree that the converter is better than nothing - at least it would be in the days prior to the new high resolution feature in Photoshop/Lightroom and programs such as Gigapixel AI.

There are plenty of test reports and examples online of the two Olympus converters.

There is a potential cost saving with the Raynox, but I'd be buying from a company with a robust return policy.

 

[RichardC]

I think you're right - though. Aren't all teleconverters basically magnifying glasses?

The achromat close up lenses such as the DCR-250 (or Marumi's version which I have) shorten the lens to subject distance.

Supplemental telephoto lenses are basically magnifying glasses

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Hmmm, that review is interesting... Thanks for sending!

I'll be honest, it doesn't seem like a bad deal. I would like more reach. I'll have to think about it, though:

- The size of it with an already large lens makes me wonder how practical it would be carrying it.
- Since it's 62mm, there would be vignetting on a 72, right?
- Since the MC-14 drops just one stop, how well does it work with the MC-20?

It's got some interesting possibilities - though. My telephoto for my light kit is a 45/1.8. If this is light enough, it would give me 100mm which isn't bad at all. My 12-40 already is 62mm, so ~90 in a fairly light configuration.

Intriguing - $300 intriguing? Hmmm....

 

[archaeopteryx]

I will eat my shed if there is no measurable light loss through that converter.

Since teleside converters aren't subject to the pupil size restrictions placed on teleconverters, analyzing them as if they were gives incorrect results. There are some complexities in regards to how the DCR-2025's sizing interacts with the forward groups within the 40-150 which I think are best understood by raytracing telephoto zooms, but most introductions to afocal optics or beam expanders found in optics course lectures or optics texts provide the essential concepts needed here.

And, yes, there'll be whatever amount of transmission loss which occurs from coatings not being perfect. For a converter with a 4/2 formula it won't, however, be functionally significant.

Aren't all teleconverters basically magnifying glasses?

Whilst both increase magnification at the image plane you'll get poor results from approximating an afocal optic as if it were a positive group. Familiarity with Galilean telescopes versus Hasting triplets should be helpful here.

 

[Stringer]

Using teleconverters I have not experienced loss of light. Using tele extenders I do see a loss of light.
I do have the Olympus B300 (1.7X) teleconverter and have used it on my 40-150R lens with a 58-55 ring and do not experience an loss of light. It is used when I need a small kit ( Pen-f)to carry around. You get slow focus on this set-up so not good for moving objects. Use my 40-150 Pro for a my heavy kit with the MC-14 and my M1 MK ll.
I do have the Olympus TCON-14B (1.4X) but haven't tried it on my 40-150 Pro or 100-400 as going up to 72 MM from 62 just seems to much of a jump without a lot vignetting.
Do have a PL100-300 may try it for fun on that lens sometime going from 67 to 62 just to see the results.

 

[Brownie]

Never used one of their TC's, but Raynox in general makes good quality stuff for reasonable prices. Their clip-on macros are very good, and their wide-angles adapters are decent too.