Schneider Optics 2.0 Tele-Converter Pics

bbalser

bbalser

Veteran
Ok, updated photos, since the last ones got lost.
Both with and without matte cover.
IndieDV rails.

HVXmaster.jpg


front1.jpg


front2.jpg


side1.jpg


side2.jpg


And here's a link to a QT side by side:
http://www.bbalser.com/public/hvxuser/20xsmallH264.mov
 
Last edited:
Something doesn't seem right.

The "With the 2.0 on the HVX at Z04.2" and "Without lens at 04.2" images have the exact same FOV. That couldn't possibly be.
 
THoff said:
Something doesn't seem right.

The "With the 2.0 on the HVX at Z04.2" and "Without lens at 04.2" images have the exact same FOV. That couldn't possibly be.
Click to expand...

Are we looking at the same pics? I see a big difference between those 2 shots.
 
Good heavens, that thing's huge!

Lots of magnification though. There's still vignetting on the left at 24.0 mm, you probably have to go to 25 to get rid of it, or maybe even 27.5. Even if it's 27.5 then we can round it off and say that that's half your zoom range, so the teleconverter is basically useful in the long half of the zoom range, not useful for the short half.

The DVX100 version of the 1.6 performed similarly, IIRC. Vignetted at anything below Z55 or so. I found that too limiting, for the small amount of magnification it provided, so I never bothered to get it.

On the HVX it's a bit different. I have the 1.6 and it's great. It vignettes below about 17mm, so you get about 2/3 of the full zoom range (17.1mm to 55mm.) But you still only get 1.6x magnification.

With that 2x lens, you're getting more magnification, but less zoom range. About half the zoom range, but 2x magnification (at more cost, too). If you need the reach, the 2x looks like it does a great job.

Are you happy with it?
 
Yeah, I goofed, I just updated the photos, sorry. And yes, at 24.0, that's the absolute very LAST you see vignetting, one step beyond that and it's gone.

I'm pretty happy with it. I wish it had more range, but for what I'm doing, it's going to help out a lot. Not "thrilled" with the range, but it's workable for me, and I do really need it THAT badly. To bad no one makes a reallly useable 2.0x for the HVX. But, that's what I need for the next 8-12 months. I don't think the 1.6 would cut it. It may, but it's a choice, marginally get where we need, or get great where we need with very limited range. So, I flipped a coin, so to speak, and took my chances.
 
Ben,
Thanks for going to the trouble to post your test. I have the 1.6... used it to shoot humpback whales over the weekend. Did a nice job... but that 2.0 sure would have been an improvement.
Jim
 
I remember way back when, I got a GL-1, it was a hot camera at the time for videographers. You only got the XL-1 if you were rich. And I got a 2x zoom lens that screwed on the camera and was no bigger than a screw on ND Grad filter. And "vignetting" was only something to did to photos in a montage in post.

To quote Frank Zappa, "What ever happen to all the fun in the world."

Ah, the good old... um, well, the old days, when I was young enough to have no idea how stupid I really was.
 
I got the Schneider 2.0 a month ago. The next day I took it to an air show, figuring the extra reach would come in handy. I ended up taking it off and shooting the whole show without it, as I needed more of the zoom range. Things were happening too fast and I did need some of the wide range, especially with the Harrier because I needed to show the ground while it hovered, otherwise it just looked fake.

The image quality of the Schneider is excellent. If you need the maximum tele and don't need to go wide (or even medium) at a moment's notice, the 2.0 is great. If you need more of the zoom range, go with the 1.6.

The tele goes on and off quickly, but I always have a UV or something in front of the lens while I shoot, so taking that on and off along with the converter slows things way down, especially if you remove dust for the wide shots. It's also (nicely) heavy, so I needed to reposition the tripod plate on the camera; the range of fore-aft adjustment on the tripod isn't enough to get back to balance (Cartoni Focus). All of this adds up timewise, so going back and forth between the converter and without it slows things down.

If I had to do it over, I would probably go with the 1.6. The 2.0 will still come in handy, I'm just less likely to put it on unless I really need to. But when it is needed, it's great. And it would be perfect for a two camera shoot.

Verko
 
Looks good. But of course there is an answer if you want a longer zoom for your HVX200.

Purchase a Redrock M2 with Nikon mount, and then buy an 80-200mm 2.8 from Ebay.
 
From the moment I first saw it, I knew it wasn't something to use for quick stuff like airshows. I do need to mount and unmount the lens quickly during my shoots, but not THAT quickly. I have time between, but not 20 minutes.

The Redrock solution looks cool, but still not perfect for my specific needs. I may look into it. I'll drop you a PM Steve, with some questions.

Yeah, the Schnieder is for sure not something you could use if you need full range, like an airshow or sports or anything fast paced.
 
Steve Shovlar said:
Purchase a Redrock M2 with Nikon mount, and then buy an 80-200mm 2.8 from Ebay.
Click to expand...
That won't get you anywhere near as telephoto as the Schneider 2.0.

The stock lens by itself equates to about 220mm on a 35mm movie camera; adding the 2.0 gets you to the equiv of about 440mm. You'd need to get an M2 with a 500mm lens before you start bringing distant objects closer than you can get with the Schneider 2.0.
 
Ben,

Yeah, I was dubious about using the converter at the air show once I saw it's limited zoom range, but it was worth a shot! But let me say that its image is really good, and for really getting in tight, it is unmatched so far. I do think the 1.6 would be a better compromise for many kinds of work, and it's cheaper, but it is nice to have the 2.0 waiting in the bag for when it's needed.

Verko
 
If you were to compare a 35mm adapter and a zoom vs the Schnieder 1.6 or 2.0 would your light loss be the same or would the Schnieder tele be far superior?
Thanks, Chuck
 
There is very little light loss with the Schneider 2.0. No comparison. But if you are using the tele converter to get a more shallow depth of field, remember that your camera will have to be much further from the subject than using a Redrock or other 35mm adapter for a given framing and depth of field. I see them as being for very different uses.

Verko
 
BenB said:
So, the whole thread started with the need to ZOOM, not adjust depth of field. I'm doing, well, the closest thing I can compare it to is wildlife shots. I have to shoot subject matter that I can not get close enough to.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was responding to the question about comparison with 35mm adapters. Some people also look to the tele converters as a way to get a shallow depth of field, and I was pointing out one problem with that idea. And I think it's also a mistake to think of using a 35mm adapter as a way to zoom in closer. The Schneider gets us much closer as Barry pointed out, without the bulk and light loss of the 35mm adapters. And the image really loses nothing with the Schneider.
 
Didn't mean to stray, I too am looking for options for Zoom and DOF, probably should get both a 35mm adapter and 1.6, just interested in your opinions as my unlimited cash reserve is quite limited, thanks for the comments and the pics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top