New day, New Forum! I was watching the teleconvertor Amazon Coupon and decided to throw in my two cents. I tried a 3X great zoom but a LOT of vignetting. Went and tried a 2X and still a fair bit. Finally decided on this Optex 55mm 1.5X Video telephoto VA-0320 $250.00 CDN. As you can see in my composite the image taken at each zoom setting. First no zoom, then 1/2, next 3/4 approx and finally full @ 315mm of 35mm equivalent telephoto.

Attachments:.

Final.jpg..

I have been pondering a longer focal length as well. I am very close to ordering an Olympus TCON-300 3x teleconvertor. IT is superb, considering the price($500-600 USD), light loss(F2.4) and sharpness combination. As well, it is designed to work in conjunction with the tcon-14b added to the end of it with no vignetting, for 4.5x. With just the tcon-300 multiplying the 602's 210mm, your looking at 630mm(35mm equivalent) focal length! Check out some sample shots at: http://www.davidweikel.com/E10_samples/tcon300/tcon2.shtml -Chris..

Chris: You have tried this adapter assembly on the S602? I see the information on the sites you are steering us to are for the Olympus E10. Does the TCON-300 have some sort of optics to channel the light down to the on board lens. Fill me in please I'm curious as well. Matt..

Hello Chris, Thanks for the prompt reply. Before I go any further I have one nagging concern. Can you take a moment and go to my photo page and see how much more noise are in my S602 photos than what you consider normal? That tree shot and lawnmower shot are almost noise free. There is NEVER a time that I get less than what I consider excess noise.

Ok. Concerning the tube issue I am going to play devils advocate. Have you done any basic testing to show that there is actually light dropoff using a 55-52. I am going to get a 55-55 only because I trust you, but I still am curious about the facts involved.

Now I'll move to the flash accessory issue. I will give the other forum members here one big advantage of using the 80-20 instead of the Omni bounce and that is Pet red eye! Direct flash, even diffused by the omni bounce lights the iris of a pets eye to get that dreaded dialated look. What's good about the 80-20 too is the accessories that can be added to it. Gold foil, silver foil and clear diffusers attached with velcro make it a very versitile device.

Http://www.lumiquest.com/lq932.htm.

I usually use just the 80-20 alone. I need to experiment more with the accessories. The 80-20 and accessory package only cost 50 dollars.

I should mention too that I always use the Wein voltage regulator to bring the trigger voltage down. At first when I heard about this device I thought it was hype, but I am now taking it seriously.

Chris, I asked you about the TCON-17 to make my decision making easier, and now you place a fly in the ointment by introducing the TCON-14b.

Now I have to decide between the TCON-17 and the TCON-14b!.

Now I'll be on the internet all night comparing the two of them.

I wouldn't mind mailing prints for comparison as I am getting a little disappointed with the results of my i850. I am thinking perhaps a dye sub might be the only way to get the results I am seeking. Perhaps it's all the noise in my Fuji shots?.

The only way I like my prints these days is when I use the Photo Paper Pro, the quality set to 1, the brightness set to 'light' and the intesity set to 5.

Other than that I am no longer pleased. I used to be happy with it, and it has printed well over a thousand prints for my photo album collection, but I am ready for less dots. Looking forward to your reply,.

Michael..

Matt K. - No, I have not tried the assembly on the s602. The tcon 300 is a teleconvertor, and as such is designed to work in conjunction with a fixed lens assembly. The E10's lens is larger has less tolerance for vignetting considering the add on lenses attached to it than the s602, therefor the s602 should work just fine. If in doubt, you can always try to purchase the unit from a place that offers money back trial period. However be aware that the lens does not attach via thread, but via a brace that attached to the bottom of the camera via the tripod mount h ole.

I do not know of any comparable add on teleconvertors for quality and magnification to the TCON-300. But I am gong by the many sharp demonstration images shown at various places for the lens. Hoewver this does make sense, as the E series cameras were originally meant to be sold in the professional class by Olympus, and it would not seem unusual that they would try to make the add on lenses sold specifically for these cameras to perform to at least entry level professional expectation standards. -Chris..

Wait just a second. First it was just the Tcon-14 and the Tcon-17. Now we have the Optex to consider AND the Tcon 300!.

I personally am ruling out the Tcon 300 for now as I am way to lazy to drag a tripod everywhere. It is something on the wish list though as I loved that zooming power. I also dug the E10.

Thanks Chris for the link.

Oh, lest I forget, Chris what's the light loss on the TCON-17 (I am hoping only half the Tcon300's 2 whole stops)? I am kinda leaning towards the TCON 17 or the 14b.

As you know I do a lot of dogs in action photography (kinda boring to most people) and I meter my shots so it's important I know this.

One last thing if I may. Excellent Professional style presentation on the Optex Matt. They need to hire you to do their marketing brochures!.

Michael..

"Can you take a moment and go to my photo page and see how much more noise are in my S602 photos than what you consider normal" I can only speculate. Without a standardized way for us to test both cameras, I can not say with any degree of certainty. But on pure speculation, it appears in many photos you do seem to suffer from excess noise compared to what 'I' have experienced. "Concerning the tube issue I am going to play devils advocate. Have you done any basic testing to show that there is actually light dropoff using a 55-52." THe 55-55 tube even introduces some additional light falloff. But realize that even with no adapter tube, the 602 has light falloff at full wideangle.

But I have made a sample for you of the 55-55 tube with 1 uv filter and 2 uv filters and no adapter tube(just 602 bare lens) attached. With a 55-52 adapter tube the light falloff can only be worse. The images are in clearly marked layers in this photoshop document: http://www.linaeum.com/productinfo/digitalcams/fuji_s602/falloff/s602_55tube_falloff.zip "I will give the other forum members here one big advantage of using the 80-20 instead of the Omni bounce and that is Pet red eye! Direct flash, even diffused by the omni bounce lights the iris of a pets eye to get that dreaded dialated look. " NOt when you put aluminum foil in the front of the omnibounce to prevent direct radiation! But the diffuser you use does still look more efficent concering wasted light. "Chris, I asked you about the TCON-17 to make my decision making easier, and now you place a fly in the ointment by introducing the TCON-14b.

Now I have to decide between the TCON-17 and the TCON-14b!: Well they are completely different really. If you get the tcon 14b can you live with it's heavy alloy metal body and large size that will basicly double the weight of your 602? If not, the plastic bodied tcon-17 is the better choice. THe tcon-14b also has a bit more zoom, and is as sharp of an add on teleconvertor you can probably get. Light loss is insubstantial. Look at the refernce link I provided from my testing. Same manual setting were used for the tree shot for lens on and lens off.

So auto focus lock may be a bit slower with teleconvertors installed. "I wouldn't mind mailing prints for comparison as I am getting a little disappointed with the results of my i850. I am thinking perhaps a dye sub might be the only way to get the results I am seeking. Perhaps it's all the noise in my Fuji shots?" Contact via if you want to trade comparison prints. As far as a dyesub, this is probably the best choice for you.

Expect print cost including paper and ribbon to be 1.70-1.80 per 8x10 print. As far as noise from image being the problem? Well, go to this site or dpreview and look up the Canon 1DS dslr and print out some of the low ISO sample shots from that camera. No substantial noise will be present in these images for certain. "The only way I like my prints these days is when I use the Photo Paper Pro, the quality set to 1, the brightness set to 'light' and the intesity set to 5" On the i950 I do not use driver options; they are disbled. I have it set to quality 1 and I vary on the print size speification and paper type specification only.

BUt I purchased the printer mainly for printing proof photos before having them printed at lab and for printng photographic quality brochures, etc. -Chris..